For non RP Bots, why is Ron Paul a Loon?

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.

Yeah I'm done responding to this dumbass. He hasn't responded to any of my posts that directly and simply refute all of his bs, so I'm over it. I guess I had assumed that since he made the OP he would be interested in learning something, but that's not the case at all.

TROLL FTL.

Ok, looked through pages 4-8 the only thing I haven't responded to was your response stating that interventionism and Imperialism are hugely different. What am I missing does this really even warrant a response? If you don't understand that Imperialism is a severe type of intervention than I'm not sure what to tell you. I agree with you though, Iraq is definitely about Imperialism.

When I get more time I'll look back to see if I missed something, I'm sorry I offended you so.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.

Again, you're selectively responding to my argument.

What interventionism are you talking about? We spent 15 years between the wars twiddling our thumbs. We spent the years before World War I twiddling our thumbs. We were NOT interventionist. We didn't even ratify the Treaty of Versailles and, if we hadn't been at the table, do you really think the treaty would have been any different.

PLUS if the British and French had actually adhered to the treaty, Hitler would have been bounced from office in the 1930s. They didn't adhere for a host of complicated reasons, but I think I can effectively argue that if the US had intervened and told Britain we'd back them up militarily then Britain and France would have dealt with Hitler early in his reign, before he was really powerful (the Re-militarization of the Rhineland was a prime time for this type of action).

Again, US non-interventionism contributed a lot more to Hitler's rise than 'intervention' we did during World War I.

Secondly, you completely ignored my argument like usual. Please respond to the points that I made, not the points you wish I made.

Mavtek, just admit you have no response to what I've said and stop distorting history for your political arguments.

Gotta love this, responding for me, thanks, I needed that.................

UGH.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.

Again, you're selectively responding to my argument.

What interventionism are you talking about? We spent 15 years between the wars twiddling our thumbs. We spent the years before World War I twiddling our thumbs. We were NOT interventionist. We didn't even ratify the Treaty of Versailles and, if we hadn't been at the table, do you really think the treaty would have been any different.

PLUS if the British and French had actually adhered to the treaty, Hitler would have been bounced from office in the 1930s. They didn't adhere for a host of complicated reasons, but I think I can effectively argue that if the US had intervened and told Britain we'd back them up militarily then Britain and France would have dealt with Hitler early in his reign, before he was really powerful (the Re-militarization of the Rhineland was a prime time for this type of action).

Again, US non-interventionism contributed a lot more to Hitler's rise than 'intervention' we did during World War I.

Secondly, you completely ignored my argument like usual. Please respond to the points that I made, not the points you wish I made.

Mavtek, just admit you have no response to what I've said and stop distorting history for your political arguments.

Gotta love this, responding for me, thanks, I needed that.................

UGH.

You need something because you can't say anything in your own defense.

Stop making up history and, if you really think you aren't making it up, then, please, explain yourself. You have failed to do so for myself or for anyone else who has doubted the stuff you spew onto this forum and, quite frankly, it's insulting.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: virginiakid
All of the candidates are strapped for money except for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. He has been getting some major endorsements and it appears he is starting to be taken serious. People are really looking at him as a viable candidate.

Look, if we make stuff up we don't feel as bad about losing!

What part isn't true? Ron Paul already placed second in the Louisiana Caucus and the Nevada Caucus and, besides Romney, he's the only one with the dough for commercials, event managers, campaign managers, etc. Now that Thompson is out, those delegate votes will probably go to Paul as he's the next closest conservative there. He's far from being out.

From the last FEC filings, which were published last September, the frontrunners had huge amounts of cash. Romney had over 62 million, McCain had 30 million, Giuliani had 45million. Paul had 8 million.

I'm basing this off of pure speculation because Q4 campaign contributions haven't been posted. It appears that a lot of spending has taken place last quarter from what I'm gathering. Afaik, I haven't heard most of the top tier candidates raising that much this quarter and they're starting to run low on cash. I know Huckabee practically spent all his money. Who knows though..

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/