Ron Paul makes a fool of himself...

[Pabster]

And we get asked on here all the time why this idiot won't become President.

Watch it.

I say Paul is Howard Dean and I wish he would have stuck to running as a Libertarian. He's a real drag on the Republican Party.

 

[Arkaign]

Quote?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Quote?

The interviewer said it not this Ron Paul guy.

Interesting.

I like seeing the Republicans beat up on fellow Republicans.

Keep doing it through next November please. :thumbsup:

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Quote?

The interviewer said it not this Ron Paul guy.

Interesting.

I like seeing the Republicans beat up on fellow Republicans.

Keep doing it through next November please. :thumbsup:

Have you never seen a primary before?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Quote?

The interviewer said it not this Ron Paul guy.

Interesting.

I like seeing the Republicans beat up on fellow Republicans.

Keep doing it through next November please. :thumbsup:

doh I kind of figured that it was different than the thread title suggested.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Quote?

The interviewer said it not this Ron Paul guy.

Agreed. He did not say what the OP claims.

 

[Pabster]

I never said that he said it directly. He SUGGESTED it. Listen to the video and his response when the interviewer poses that question.

 

[Moonbeam]

Topic Title: Ron Paul makes a fool of himself...

OP makes a fool of himself. Oh wait, that's just my opinion and I provide no substanciation. Well how about this:
-------------

Topic Summary: Suggests Mall Security Officers doing better job than Armed Forces in

No, that was only suggested by the interviewer, in an attempt at distortion, not by Paul himself.

The subject under debate is a legitimate topic for discussion, the problem of our reducing our freedoms to fight Al Quaeda and whether they are wise or justified or effective. Pabster, of course, is only of the opinion, that his answer is right when in fact the nobody knows the real truth.

 

[bamacre]

This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani asking Ron Paul to apologize for saying we "invited the 9/11 attacks" when he never said it.

They love putting words in Paul's mouth.

 

[eits]

haha what a load of crap. ron paul never insinuated that security guards are doing a better job than our military. he was saying that when it comes to making sure a mall doesn't blow up, security guards are doing more than the military.

this thread does not deliver :thumbsdown:

pabster, are you rick santorum?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I never said that he said it directly. He SUGGESTED it. Listen to the video and his response when the interviewer poses that question.

What he suggested is that security guards in this country could be said to have done a good enough job with security to possibly be part of the explanation as to why we haven't been attacked again. In short this is an area of speculation in which valid arguments can be made in a number of directions, not just that we are more secure because we have thrown away our Constitutional freedoms in the name of safety.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani asking Ron Paul to apologize for saying we "invited the 9/11 attacks" when he never said it.

They love putting words in Paul's mouth.

I watched that live, and the video only reaffirms that in the case of blaming us for 9-11, Ron Paul does indeed by saying our policy invited it.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I never said that he said it directly. He SUGGESTED it. Listen to the video and his response when the interviewer poses that question.

actually, the interviewer suggested it. you're wrong again.

 

[kage69]

Where has this caring attitude been for the last 7 years? Seems to me if you can brush off the mountain of disrespectful and stupid comments coming from the actual president then you can do likewise for an out-of-context quip from a presidential nominee...


Unless of course you're scared of him and are just looking for issues to malign him over.


Feh. Let me know when Paul cracks bad jokes about the rationale for war, or encourages our enemies to "Bring it on." Then you'll have something to bitch about.

 

[StageLeft]

This thread gets worse than a failure. It was predicated on the same kind of poor info than Bush's war although at least there is some semblance of evidence here, so in fact it's based on better evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani asking Ron Paul to apologize for saying we "invited the 9/11 attacks" when he never said it.

They love putting words in Paul's mouth.

I watched that live, and the video only reaffirms that in the case of blaming us for 9-11, Ron Paul does indeed by saying our policy invited it.

Yup, not a mistake the founding fathers or Paul would have made. Don't stick your war machine in other people's business if you don't want to "bring it on".

Of course the frightened, like Jaskalas, demand protection and protection way way way over there. But you can never make the paranoid feel safe. They do whatever it takes to make their own nightmares come true.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani asking Ron Paul to apologize for saying we "invited the 9/11 attacks" when he never said it.

They love putting words in Paul's mouth.

I watched that live, and the video only reaffirms that in the case of blaming us for 9-11, Ron Paul does indeed by saying our policy invited it.

uh, he never said that we invited the attacks (even though we did). he politically sidestepped it. guiliani strategically seemed outraged and said he was outraged by ron paul's comment that we invited the attacks in order to make people think he said it, but he never did.

what ron paul said was that they hate us because of our foreign policy. they attacked us because we're over there. he said nothing about inviting the attacks.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This thread gets worse than a failure. It was predicated on the same kind of poor info than Bush's war although at least there is some semblance of evidence here, so in fact it's based on better evidence.

haha it's rubbing off on pabster

 

[StageLeft]

what ron paul said was that they hate us because of our foreign policy. they attacked us because we're over there. he said nothing about inviting the attacks.

But this upsets people because it forces them, if they agree with it, away from the black and white/good and evil/us vs them and forces them, even a little to empathize with people who've they've been trained like good little demagogue soldiers to hate.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: kage69
Where has this caring attitude been for the last 7 years? Seems to me if you can brush off the mountain of disrespectful and stupid comments coming from the actual president then you can do likewise for an out-of-context quip from a presidential nominee...


Unless of course you're scared of him and are just looking for issues to malign him over.


Feh. Let me know when Paul cracks bad jokes about the rationale for war, or encourages our enemies to "Bring it on." Then you'll have something to bitch about.

i honestly think that's the case... pabster's afraid of the support ron paul's getting and is trying his damnedest to make him look bad. i guess he's just afraid that there won't be someone with all the power deciding america's fate for him/us once a real american becomes president.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Topic Title: Ron Paul makes a fool of himself...

OP makes a fool of himself. Oh wait, that's just my opinion and I provide no substanciation. Well how about this:
-------------

Topic Summary: Suggests Mall Security Officers doing better job than Armed Forces in

No, that was only suggested by the interviewer, in an attempt at distortion, not by Paul himself.

The subject under debate is a legitimate topic for discussion, the problem of our reducing our freedoms to fight Al Quaeda and whether they are wise or justified or effective. Pabster, of course, is only of the opinion, that his answer is right when in fact the nobody knows the real truth.

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Quote?

The interviewer said it not this Ron Paul guy.

Agreed. He did not say what the OP claims.

You know you're having a bad day when people agree with the Davester :laugh:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani asking Ron Paul to apologize for saying we "invited the 9/11 attacks" when he never said it.

They love putting words in Paul's mouth.

I watched that live, and the video only reaffirms that in the case of blaming us for 9-11, Ron Paul does indeed by saying our policy invited it.

uh, he never said that we invited the attacks (even though we did). he politically sidestepped it. guiliani strategically seemed outraged and said he was outraged by ron paul's comment that we invited the attacks in order to make people think he said it, but he never did.

what ron paul said was that they hate us because of our foreign policy. they attacked us because we're over there. he said nothing about inviting the attacks.

Couple issues here:

1: He said it, you agree with it, but then you want to claim he ?sidestepped? and didn?t say it. Hell of a web you try to spin.

2: ?They attacked us because we?re over there?. WTF? Feel free to explain what ?we?re over there? meant back in 2001.

 

[Craig234]

Pabster's even wrong about Howard Dean, who is a great guy IMO.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani asking Ron Paul to apologize for saying we "invited the 9/11 attacks" when he never said it.

They love putting words in Paul's mouth.

I watched that live, and the video only reaffirms that in the case of blaming us for 9-11, Ron Paul does indeed by saying our policy invited it.

The words, "invited the 9/11 attacks," did not come out of Paul's mouth. They came out of the interviewer's.

That's my point.

The interviewer asked a "yes" or "no" question which was too complicated to answer "yes" or "no."

Now, you are suggesting that Paul's answer to that question equaled to a "yes," that Paul is apologizing for the 9/11 attacks because of US foreign policy, and that is simply not true. He isn't saying that we deserved the 9/11 attacks, he's just stating that they were one affect of our foreign policies, and he's just repeating what the CIA has said.

But I know the truth hurts, so it is not surprising to see many shield themselves from it by hearing and seeing what they want.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani asking Ron Paul to apologize for saying we "invited the 9/11 attacks" when he never said it.

They love putting words in Paul's mouth.

I watched that live, and the video only reaffirms that in the case of blaming us for 9-11, Ron Paul does indeed by saying our policy invited it.

uh, he never said that we invited the attacks (even though we did). he politically sidestepped it. guiliani strategically seemed outraged and said he was outraged by ron paul's comment that we invited the attacks in order to make people think he said it, but he never did.

what ron paul said was that they hate us because of our foreign policy. they attacked us because we're over there. he said nothing about inviting the attacks.

Couple issues here:

1: He said it, you agree with it, but then you want to claim he ?sidestepped? and didn?t say it. Hell of a web you try to spin.

2: ?They attacked us because we?re over there?. WTF? Feel free to explain what ?we?re over there? meant back in 2001.

?? wtf are you on?

1. he never did say it. i never said that he said it. i said that he politically sidestepped the question and didn't say it, meaning that he didn't even have the slightest chance of saying it. that's what you do in politics if you think that answering a question a certain way will only create sound bites against you even when you didn't mean it that way... you politically sidestep the question. that doesn't mean that he would have said it, it means that he didn't want to say something that could be interpreted as him saying it.

2. "over there" = "the middle east".... "here" = "the united states"... you = dumb? no offense, but how couldn't you understand that? it seems pretty cut and dry to me.