Crazed fanatics attacking shit they don't agree with.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Cory

I know right. Remember you're talking to people who probably would've had us stay out of WWII because it's "none of our business". There is a very naive understanding of world affairs at play with these folks.

Al Qaeda and other assorted terrorist groups are not Nazi Germany you fucking spastic.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Shrike

Al Qaeda and other assorted terrorist groups are not Nazi Germany you fucking spastic.

I'm talking about their overall attitude towards foreign policy.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'm talking about their overall attitude towards foreign policy.

And i'm saying the situations are not remotely similar and to conflate them is ridiculous. And that to suggest that the only way to combat terrorism is with incredibly aggressive foreign policy is just wrong. It's a fallacy, used to attempt to stifle dissent and rational discussion of the issue.

Here is a home-grown terrorist plot foiled by a police action that didn't have to resort to illegal measures to gather evidence, and the suspects were tried and convicted in a Federal district court. Oh but apparently according to you that didn't happen and is impossible.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ve-missed?lite

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/ny...s.html?_r=2&hp

[The Pat-Man]

theres a happy medium somewhere between ron paul and what we got now, but no one ever votes for moderates.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Shrike

And i'm saying the situations are not remotely similar and to conflate them is ridiculous. And that to suggest that the only way to combat terrorism is with incredibly aggressive foreign policy is just wrong. It's a fallacy, used to attempt to stifle dissent and rational discussion of the issue.

Here is a home-grown terrorist plot foiled by a police action that didn't have to resort to illegal measures to gather evidence, and the suspects were tried and convicted in a Federal district court. Oh but apparently according to you that didn't happen and is impossible.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ve-missed?lite

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/ny...s.html?_r=2&hp

I'm not talking about fighting terrorism, I'm talking about combating our real Geo-political rivals like Russia and China. Also the point I made was a good one, that these are politically the same people who wanted to keep us out of WWII because it's "none of our business". I these folks had their way we very well could have been dealing with Nazi Germany as a continental superpower.

[Cerberus]

Originally Posted by p6867

When i used to write comedy on the internet i had a folder just labeled death threats.

Comedy, really? Who did you write for?

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by The Pat-Man

theres a happy medium somewhere between ron paul and what we got now, but no one ever votes for moderates.

Obama is a moderate. By any measure he's center/center-right

[Tachosomoza]

I seriously have no idea why a geriatric physician with a funny sounding voice would have a cult of 20 somethings who'd do anything for him.

[ChargerCarl]

Because he's anti-war and pro-drugs.

Not undefendible positions, but on everything else he's still crazy.

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by p6867

The latter half of my post was referencing USSR's ability by 1942 to fight a winning war against germany. The war would have lasted longer, but by 1942 the soviets were in a position to defeat germany. Meaning take germany in a fight, not take the actual nation. 'Take' was a poor choice of words that left too much ambiguity.

Probably, but not for a certainty. Consider this, due to the allied invasion the fall of germany came much quicker and abruptly. They might have developed nukes and became the dominate force.

[The Pat-Man]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Obama is a moderate. By any measure he's center/center-right

and your posting over the years leads me to believe you're far left/far far left. im sure you dont agree. all perspective.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

I seriously have no idea why a geriatric physician with a funny sounding voice would have a cult of 20 somethings who'd do anything for him.

Because his positions and ideas are ones that are not espoused by anyone else in the political spectrum. And because people trust him because he hasn't flip-flopped on his views just to win a few more votes here and there.

[ZappaFan]

Well, if it isnt obvious enough, I am a big supporter of Ron Paul. Why? Well, I support him for alot of reasons...

-His experience and his record.
Ron Paul has been in politics for decades now and has much more experience when you compare him to Obama and Romney. Of course that alone doesn't really make a shit, but what does matter are his records. Its hard to find a presidentail nominee that has been as consistant as Paul has. Obama, like most politicians, will say what you want to hear on the campaign trail, but once he was elected, he did not follow through on many of his promises he's made when he was running. Even though Mitt Romney hasn't won the presidency before, you can look back on his record to see just how many times he changed his view on several issues. To be fair, I don't know how successful he was as a business man in the private sector, so I cant really comment on that. However, I think its fair to say that Romney and Obama dont have the high level of political experience that Ron Paul has. Is that a good thing? Well, its not necessarily, but given the world economic crisis and a possible WWIII right around the corner, it makes more sense (to me anyway) to elect someone who is more familiar with political matters. We are at a breaking point here, so I would feel more comfortable with a president that has years of experience in political affairs, as well as following through his promises on the campaign trail.

-Ron Paul's "radical" stand on issues
This is what his supporters love about him, but also what his opposition hates about him. Wether you agree or disagree about Ron Paul's policies, I think its fair to say that he is way out in left field when you compare him to Obama and Romney. He's a libertarian, so naturally his views are seen as 'nutty' in a two party Republican/Democrat system. Naturally, this is the biggest reason the MSM is so anti-Paul. But when you compare Obama and Romney, there really isn't too much of a difference between the two. Regardless of who wins between Romney and Obama, it really feels like more of the same old same old. Ron Paul brings something very different to the table, something new radical. I dont really see why he is seen as a loon just because he is a strict Constitutionalist, but many people do feel that way. Wether you feel his ideas are good or bad, I think most of us can agree that he's the only one taking a truly different approach as President.

-Knowledge and Debating skills
I know its more of a personal matter of opinion, but I love hearing Ron Paul speak, especially in the recent GOP debates. I have always noticed most politicians use the technique of beating around the bush and not directly answer a question, but that fact is magnified when you throw in Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't win debates with talking points, which you hear all the time from others.

My support is with Paul and only Paul. However, Im not one of these Ron Paul supporters that go after people who dont support Paul. I enjoy debating them if they choose to do that, but these fanatics make alot of Ron Paul supporters look like cultist baffoons. OP, you shouldn't have gotten shit like that from a Ron Paul supporter. You made a valid point and a supporter got shitty with you. Ron Paul supporters are about freedom and liberty. I may not agree with your view, but I will support your right to say it.

Just know that all of Paul's supporters are not like that. Im not.

[Ghost Buster]

Heres a tip, they both suck, because american politics is a joke.

[Snoopy]

You guys bitch about crazed fanatics by... acting like crazed fanatics... wut?

[Ghost Buster]

Americans should just demand that the king of canada be made dictator of their country with complete and total power. It would never happen, but if it did, I bet their country would be better off.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TORTILLA

Making a judgement call before the primaries are even over is not neutral

Legitimate question here: Is it or is it not fact that Ron Paul doesn't have the delegate numbers to beat Romney?

[Ghost Buster]

What tastes better, a carrot dipped in shit or a celery stick dipped in shit?

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by Ghost Buster

What tastes better, a carrot dipped in shit or a celery stick dipped in shit?

The carrot

[ZappaFan]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Legitimate question here: Is it or is it not fact that Ron Paul doesn't have the delegate numbers to beat Romney?

You're right. Right now, Ron Paul doesnt have the delegate numbers to beat Romney. However, a real concrete number hasnt been established yet and we wont have an accurate number until the convention. Keep a couple of things in mind though...

Like I said, there is no concrete number when it comes to the delegate counts, but the numbers in most MSM are innacurate. A large portion of the delegates that have been assigned are nothing more than assumptions based on how well a candidate did in a state. Just because a candidate won the popular vote doesnt mean the delegate numbers are going to go that way.

Mitt Romney has won the popular vote in most states. However, in states like Maine, Ron Paul won the majority of the delegates compared to Romeny. This makes Ron Paul's delegate numbers go up, while Mitt Romney's delegate count goes down. This has happened in at least 8 states so far, so that is something to take into account.

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by ZappaFan

You're right. Right now, Ron Paul doesnt have the delegate numbers to beat Romney. However, a real concrete number hasnt been established yet and we wont have an accurate number until the convention. Keep a couple of things in mind though...

Like I said, there is no concrete number when it comes to the delegate counts, but the numbers in most MSM are innacurate. A large portion of the delegates that have been assigned are nothing more than assumptions based on how well a candidate did in a state. Just because a candidate won the popular vote doesnt mean the delegate numbers are going to go that way.

Mitt Romney has won the popular vote in most states. However, in states like Maine, Ron Paul won the majority of the delegates compared to Romeny. This makes Ron Paul's delegate numbers go up, while Mitt Romney's delegate count goes down. This has happened in at least 8 states so far, so that is something to take into account.

If you actually believe Ron Paul has a chance in hell you are seriously delusional.

[ZappaFan]

Originally Posted by DirtySanchez

If you actually believe Ron Paul has a chance in hell you are seriously delusional.

Will I think he will become president? Unfortunately, no. However, I support Ron Paul 100%. Just because he doesnt have the numbers compared to Mitt Romeny, means nothing to me and many of his supporters. Im going to treat him like he has a chance of beating Romney anyway. At the very least, Ron Paul's ideas have gained so much ground and thats not going to go away. He has challenged the 'conservitive' agenda no doubt.
If Romney is going to have any chance in beating Obama, he will need to get the Ron Paul supporters to vote for him. Thats only going to happen if he makes a compromise to the supporters. Even with that though, it may not help him so much, because for many people like myself, its no one but Paul.
Does Ron Paul have a chance to win this thing? Its possible, but not likely. That doesnt make a damn to me though.