"how many talking points can you fit in one post? jesus."

Enough to where I see, you don't have any good arguments against my post.


"so the real point is to lure terrorists to iraq so that we can fight them?

don't you see that this war is a perfect rallying cry to recruit more and more terrorists? haven't we seen how this plays out again and again in our past?"

No, I didn't say anything about that being the "real point". It is a very good thing that has come from the war, is it not?

The whole "the war has created more terrorists" is a baseless argument that has no backing. Even if this were true, there were obviously enough terrorists in the world before the war to empliment huge attacks against us. So I would rather create some more terrorists to kill than to sit back and wait for the rest of them to attack us.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM. Reason : a]

10/23/2007 11:21:18 AM

Hey "HUR", I challenge you to actually contribute something to the thread, instead of saying "ohhh bush is a Nazi, war monger, Foxnews blah blah blah". You are giving yourselves a bad name.

10/23/2007 11:24:54 AM

You can not just go around conquering the terrorists like you can take over a legitimate government running a country. If you chop the head off another one is going to grow back. Terrorism evolved as a way for a weaker disgruntled group of people to attempt to force demands or political change out of the superior legitimate governments

Maybe if we use our big guns and air planes we can force those towel heads to submit and end terrorism

Quote :

"The stronger you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers"

-Leia Organa Star Wars Episode IV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:27 AM. Reason : a]

10/23/2007 11:26:45 AM

aA star wars quote huh? Nice contribution buddy.

You just proved my point. You think terrorists are "a weaker disgruntled group of people to attempt to force demands or political change out of the superior legitimate governments". Terrorists KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN because they are taught that they will become martyred. They aren't trying to "seek social change for the better of their people". You are trying to make the terrorists out to be the victims.


"Hate to say it but i'd vote for hillary before one of those Nazi war mongers i.e. gulliani, mccain, or romney"

Because she voted FOR THE WAR? Congress was given all of the same intelligence that the President was given, and they backed the war just the same. She also recently said that she would NOT pull out of Iraq anytime soon, if elected president. So you tell me the difference? The only difference I see if that when something is unpopular in the polls, Hillary runs the other way.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM. Reason : a]

10/23/2007 11:32:24 AM

and you think that dropping a bunch of bombs and running through the middle east in tanks Rambo style will magically make the world a better safer place.

10/23/2007 11:38:16 AM

Wow, so far your arguments have mentioned Star Wars, and Rambo. Shows what kind of world you live in. Dropping bombs on terrorist bunkers and killing terrorists......umm....yes actually that does "magically" make the world a better safer place.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 12:07 PM. Reason : sp]

10/23/2007 11:45:46 AM

Oh, good. Another ill-informed right wing moron who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

10/23/2007 11:57:45 AM

Oh good, another left-wing dipshit who has nothing constructive to say because he has no argument against me.

10/23/2007 12:02:05 PM

what exactly is your argument besides trolling; and regurgitating all the crap you consumed from fox news.

let's go kill dem turrists. USA! USA! USA!



btw

i like how you edited your posts above in an attempt to sneak around my counter to your trolling after i respond instead of replying with a new post.

Quote :

"Oh good, another left-wing dipshit who has nothing constructive to say because he has no argument against me."

please create a logical thought that can be cited before wasting anymore electrons in TSB bitching about other people posts. go back to chit-chat until then.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2007 1:51:46 PM

Quote :

"The only difference I see if that when something is unpopular in the polls, Hillary runs the other way."

She learns from her husband.

10/23/2007 1:54:28 PM

I edited my post because of a typo actually. Good try though.

"what exactly is your argument besides trolling"

If by trolling you mean actually making my case intelligently, then I guess I am trolling. Go back and read your posts, you still have yet to say ANYTHING besides "you watch fox-news" and "Bush is a Nazi". You have no argument, which is typical. Go back to your MTV-news.

10/23/2007 4:21:25 PM

^quit muckin' up the thread.

and put quotes in the quote box....

10/23/2007 4:27:25 PM

what a n00b

10/23/2007 4:29:47 PM

Quote :

"The biggest mistake we made in going into Iraq was the whole WMD thing. We should have said, we are going into Iraq to kill a ruthless dictator and as many "jihadists" as we can."

I actually agree with this to a point, getting rid of Saddam will be overall a good thing. The problem I have is this administration was so damn awful at selling this war outside the US.

10/23/2007 6:26:58 PM

"and put quotes in the quote box...."

Will do.

Wolfman Tim, I agree with you. Like I said before, I think that there were some major mistakes made. For some reason, several people jumped on me as if I was a Bush nut-swinger who agrees with everything that he does. I definitely don't. The way we went into the war was wrong. We went in too quickly, we didn't have enough troops on the ground, we didn't have an exit strategy. Those are several things that I believe would have made things go much differently.

Hey HUR, see how Wolfman Tim actually contributed with an opinion? Try doing that for once instead of just saying "nOOb" and quoting Star Wars movies.

10/23/2007 6:40:06 PM

in plenty of other threads i made logical concise points with posts i put in threads. Considering that this a thread on Ron Paul I did not feel it necessary to take time to put a lot of effort into countering your kindergarten politics.

10/23/2007 9:27:48 PM

Quote :

"I actually agree with this to a point, getting rid of Saddam will be overall a good thing. The problem I have is this administration was so damn awful at selling this war outside the US. "

1. you cant just invade countries with leaders you dont like. are we the world police? NO
2. after seeing how crazy iraqies are, saddam did not do a bad job. yes he killed people but he kept most of them alive and lived in more peace than they have today.

10/23/2007 9:49:36 PM

Quote :

"1. you cant just invade countries with leaders you dont like. are we the world police? NO"

Someone has to do it, the UN sure as hell doesn't do anything about ruthless dictators and genocide (Darfur?). Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

Quote :

"2. after seeing how crazy iraqies are, saddam did not do a bad job. yes he killed people but he kept most of them alive and lived in more peace than they have today."

Iraq certainly hasn't been a great place the last few years, but what about the difference in the next 100 years. Whether people like it or not, the troop surge is working and the situation is getting better.

10/23/2007 10:41:25 PM

Look, I'm not trying to piss on this thread--I swear. But some of you act as if what Ron Paul says actually matters.

Isn't it time to put the hook on Paul, Gravel, Tancredo, Kucinich, and others already? We've had plenty of debates and everybody running has had a better chance than in past years to get their message out. Now I would like to see a meaningful debate among the top two or three candidates from each party--you know, the ones that have a real chance of winning the two nominations and the general election?

It's past time to get real.

10/23/2007 10:56:36 PM

let the primaries decide, the internet polls show that paul has strong support, so give him a chance

10/23/2007 11:21:22 PM

^

Quote :

"internet polls"

10/23/2007 11:24:49 PM

Hey old man, you should remember that nobody knew who the hell Jimmy Carter was back in 1975 during primary season before he built up momentum and won in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not that that was a good thing, but he was a prime example of a candidate polling at less than 2% around this time going on to win the presidency.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:29 PM. Reason : 2]

10/23/2007 11:28:52 PM

^ Yeah, and look how well that worked out.

10/23/2007 11:49:27 PM

Quote :

"1. you cant just invade countries with leaders you dont like. are we the world police? NO 2. after seeing how crazy iraqies are, saddam did not do a bad job. yes he killed people but he kept most of them alive and lived in more peace than they have today."

FTW

10/24/2007 12:28:19 AM

Quote :

"And RON PAUL IS NOT ISOLATIONIST. To say that is both ignorant and misinformative. The best way to ensure stability in the world is by open trade. China is not going to invade taiwan. The world has come to a point of mutually assured destruction. No major power is going to attack another. The ideal of the US as world police has long passed its usefulness."

RIGHT NOW there's no real chance of China invading Taiwan. But if the US promises China that we won't get involved if they do invade... that's almost like telling them to do it.

10/24/2007 12:46:28 AM

Who cares if China invaders Taiwan; I don't.

The majority of Europeons, South Koreans, Taiwanese hate the USA. Let Iran, North Korea, and China bomb them. They deserve it.

10/24/2007 12:11:15 PM

Redstains441 cares b.c it would be an excuse to wave our flag around if we can go "git er dun" and fight more wars

10/24/2007 12:20:47 PM

Quote :

"The majority of Europeons, South Koreans, Taiwanese hate the USA. Let Iran, North Korea, and China bomb them. They deserve it."

By your own reasoning, Europe, South Korea, and Taiwan could all bomb you, and you would deserve it.

10/24/2007 2:28:04 PM

Let them defend themselves if they don't like the US is my reasoning. I don't want to pay for bases in Italy, Germany, Poland, or South Korea.

10/24/2007 3:35:23 PM

Quote :

"Who cares if China invaders Taiwan; I don't."

You will when you try to buy something from China/Taiwan

10/24/2007 4:16:58 PM

^
yup

kinda like "YEA who cares if we go to war in iraq"

*cough* gas prices

10/24/2007 4:36:41 PM

Quote :

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price. At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. "

Ron Paul on War and Foreign Policy

10/24/2007 5:15:15 PM

Quote :

"Pauls web polls are skewed .... Its like when tww goes and votes online somewhere to make ncsu the #1 school for all sports combined or some bs like that."

So, what do you think of the phone polls, then, that don't even MENTION the names of anyone other than Guliani, McCain, Romney, or Thomson? Are those polls skewed?

Quote :

"We've had plenty of debates and everybody running has had a better chance than in past years to get their message out. Now I would like to see a meaningful debate among the top two or three candidates from each party--you know, the ones that have a real chance of winning the two nominations and the general election?"

You do realize that the debates have been practically rigged against the "second tier candidates," right? Hell, in which debate was it where Rudy totally attacked Ron Paul and did so without being given the floor to do so? Did the "moderator" even try to stop Rudy? Nope. Wonder why?

You also realize that the only reason there is a "second tier" is because the media said so from "day one" of campaigning, designating their favorite candidates as the "top tier" and everyone else as "second tier," right? Pulling the plug on any of the "second tier" right now would be asinine and would prove to the media, once and for all, that they can successfully influence presidential elections with absolute impunity.

Quote :

"No, I didn't say anything about that being the "real point". It is a very good thing that has come from the war, is it not?"

Really? It's good that we now have more targets to shoot at? It's good that we have terrorists to shoot at in Iraq? This isn't the fucking state fair. You don't get a prize for shooting down 6 flat metal jihadists with a pellet gun, man.

Quote :

"The whole "the war has created more terrorists" is a baseless argument that has no backing."

Actually, it is a strong argument. Saddam's government was entirely secular, meaning it was completely separate from Islam. There may have been some laws based on Islam, but Saddam didn't rule with any concern for the religion. Al Qaeda and the like HATED THAT. They weren't hiding in Iraq beforehand, but we know for sure now that they are in Iraq, and somehow you think that is a good thing? Al Qaeda now has a new hunting ground for recruits to which it never had access before, with plenty of people who are receptive to elements of their message. And you think that is good? And you think that doesn't create more terrorists? Screw your head on straight, dumbass, and think about that for a bit.

Quote :

"Even if this were true, there were obviously enough terrorists in the world before the war to empliment huge attacks against us."

Tell me, which is easier to do? Defend a given position, or go out and attack 100 areas with potential enemies who might attack what you want to defend? Really, which one is easier? Keep in mind, you have the same resources in both cases, so if you go out and pre-emptively attack people, you've still got to defend your position as well, and with the same manpower as if you weren't attacking people. Yes, you might take out some potential attackers, but it seems like you could mount a much better defense if you focused your efforts on your objective: defending your position.

10/24/2007 8:07:46 PM

aaronburro is one of the smartest people in TSB

10/24/2007 11:32:58 PM

Quote :

"Tell me, which is easier to do? Defend a given position, or go out and attack 100 areas with potential enemies who might attack what you want to defend? Really, which one is easier? Keep in mind, you have the same resources in both cases, so if you go out and pre-emptively attack people, you've still got to defend your position as well, and with the same manpower as if you weren't attacking people. Yes, you might take out some potential attackers, but it seems like you could mount a much better defense if you focused your efforts on your objective: defending your position."

You seem to have forgotten that when we were "defending our given position", 9.11 happened. Since we have been on the offensive, not one attack on our soil. Defending our position is a little hard to do with our porous borders, which is one of the biggest problems with the country. I understand your position though.


Also, the whole argument about Ron Paul winning debate polls: There's a pretty simple explination for this. I understand that Paul has a large following, which is great. However, think about the people that watch the debate. Ever person who is anti-war is going to vote that Paul won the debate. Ever person who is pro-war is going to vote for one of the other 7 candidates on the stage, splitting that large group of voters. Therefore, Paul will probably have the highest poll numbers for ever debate.

10/24/2007 11:49:40 PM

Quote :

"Since we have been on the offensive, not one attack on our soil"

and the time we werent as much on the offensive we've had what, 2 major attacks masterminded by foreign entities on our soil in 200 years? im counting pearl harbor as the other.

its not like we WERE getting attacked everyday and not thwarting stuff and NOW since 911 we havent had anything. so thats not a very solid argument and in fact my guess is that we are probably at a higher risk now by going over there than we were just upping our security on this end.

10/24/2007 11:54:35 PM

^ The "we haven't been attacked" argument is BS, but that's a somewhat disingenuous way of putting it.

10/25/2007 12:16:18 AM

Quote :

"You seem to have forgotten that when we were "defending our given position", 9.11 happened."

omfg 9/11 the turrists are everywhere. we gotta nuke iran, oust Saddam, and lead the crusade against the axis of evil. who needs privacy and personal freedoms when our national security has been compromised by all those towel heads and there could be a bomb waiting to explode anywhere.

10/25/2007 12:43:52 AM

Quote :

"The "we haven't been attacked" argument is BS"

10/25/2007 3:41:53 PM

Quote :

"Defending our position is a little hard to do with our porous borders, which is one of the biggest problems with the country."

Hmmm, just imagine how less porous we could make those borders if we had a bunch more troops over here instead of off in foreign lands, pissing off more people... Nah, that's just crazy talk.

Quote :

"Also, the whole argument about Ron Paul winning debate polls: There's a pretty simple explination for this."

You are right, there is a simple explanation for it: more people like Ron Paul. Cause, you know, that's the simplest explanation. Yours is far more contrived and has absolutely no evidence to back it up... And, for the record, the word is "every," not "ever." Thanks.

10/25/2007 8:24:33 PM

I find it funny that you have to call me out on typos to try to get a shot in. It's ok though, you need to take what you can. Anyone with half a brain can understand that the pro-war people are going to be split between 7 other candidates, and the anti-war people are all going to vote for the ONE anti-war candidate in the debate. It's not that big a deal and i'm sorry I bursted your little bubble. Explain to me how that doesn't make complete and total sense. Please.

10/26/2007 12:17:13 AM

anti-war and pro-war are definitely not the right terms there. anti-the current debacle in iraq maybe.

im not sure you even quite know yourself what youre trying to say. and no we're not just arguing semantics, anti-war has a lot stronger meaning.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:55 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2007 12:53:25 AM

^^ thanks for adding nothing to the discussion. You regurgitated the exact same thing you said earlier, again, offfering NO support or evidence to back up your statement. Once again, I'll continue to assume that the simplest explanation is the proper one.

10/26/2007 8:11:09 AM

There is no need for evidence. It's as simple as 2+2=4. Even though we have different views, I am at least honest with myself.

Also, the terms "pro-war" and "anti-war" were obviously referring to the war in Iraq. I'm sorry if they aren't PC enough.


Anyway, I have voiced my opinion and I am really not trying to ruin your thread or troll or anything. I just wanted to voice my opinion, as I feel strongly about this stuff like you all do. So good luck with Paul's campaign.

10/26/2007 9:26:48 AM

pro war here we go; lets git er dun. blow up towel heads and help my the big shots in government make more $$$ for their rich corporate buddies off the expense of the iraqi people, lives of american soldiers, and the taxpayers dime.

Does anyone here actually rationalize the Iraq war by comparing Iraq to nazi germany.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : a]

10/26/2007 9:48:48 AM

msnbc giving paul a little love.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21484526/

Quote :

"Just by being out there and pushing a strict constitutional line, I think he’s making them sweat a lot,” Mr. Gillespie said. “He’s highlighting the fact that they will say anything to get elected. Or at least to get through the primary"

10/26/2007 10:37:30 AM

Quote :

"Also, the terms "pro-war" and "anti-war" were obviously referring to the war in Iraq. I'm sorry if they aren't PC enough. "

well "obviously" they werent. You cant just describe someone as pro-war / anti-war and assume everyone knows youre referring to ONE war. Because thats a HUGE HUGE difference.

If you want to start arguing intelligently with people at least make your own points clear.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 11:00 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2007 10:59:38 AM

Quote :

"There is no need for evidence. It's as simple as 2+2=4. "

In that case, I will say RedStain is an inbred retarded monkey testicle. I don't need any evidence, because its as simple as 2+2=4. You might want to look up this thing called history, because historical precident (aka evidence) backs up Ron Paul and his platforms. Your assertions however are counter to most of our current world knowledge.

10/26/2007 9:49:34 PM

I think it's funny that Rep. Paul has only a 67% rating from the ACLU.

Not that it's news that the ACLU has a political agenda beyond the scope of protecting civil liberties.

10/27/2007 1:34:41 AM

ACLU CAN SUCK MY BALLS

10/27/2007 2:25:14 AM