Ron Paul makes a fool of himself...

[Pabster]

Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

even if you did, you'd still be an ass for trying to spin it unfairly. you'd be implying that ron paul thinks that our military should be replaced by mall security.

the only ridiculous guy here is you for so desperately trying to smear ron paul.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

I'm no Ron Paul fan but you've been burned quite to a crisp, just change the Title to Pabster makes fool of himself and get it over with already.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: 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?

Not for a full 18 months

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

No, that is not right either. As I said what he implied is this:

"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."

And forgive me, but your one of the last people I would turn to to define what is sane. You are, in my opinion, filled with blind partisanship of an upside down kind.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, because those other Republicans have done nothing to drag themselves down. :roll:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

No, that is not right either. As I said what he implied is this:

"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."

And forgive me, but your one of the last people I would turn to to define what is sane. You are, in my opinion, filled with blind partisanship of an upside down kind.

:thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

No, that is not right either. As I said what he implied is this:

"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."

And forgive me, but your one of the last people I would turn to to define what is sane. You are, in my opinion, filled with blind partisanship of an upside down kind.

I think what Pabster is saying is that security guards aren't doing enough to protect us, and that malls across the country need military personnel with automatic weapons patrolling the local Sears and Gamestop.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

No, that is not right either. As I said what he implied is this:

"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."

And forgive me, but your one of the last people I would turn to to define what is sane. You are, in my opinion, filled with blind partisanship of an upside down kind.

I think what Pabster is saying is that security guards aren't doing enough to protect us, and that malls across the country need military personnel with automatic weapons patrolling the local Sears and Gamestop.

It would be a lot cheaper to entomb Pabster under tons of gold in Forte Knox where he'd be nice and safe.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I'm no Ron Paul fan but you've been burned quite to a crisp, just change the Title to Pabster makes fool of himself and get it over with already.

Thanks for the great laugh Dave :laugh:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Perhaps I should have said Paul agreed with the interviewer's assertion that Mall Security Officers are doing a better job than our Armed Forces.

No matter which way you Paul fans try to spin it, the guy is ridiculous. Any sane candidate would have disavowed that suggestion immediately.

No, that is not right either. As I said what he implied is this:

"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."

And forgive me, but your one of the last people I would turn to to define what is sane. You are, in my opinion, filled with blind partisanship of an upside down kind.

I think what Pabster is saying is that security guards aren't doing enough to protect us, and that malls across the country need military personnel with automatic weapons patrolling the local Sears and Gamestop.

HAHAHA :thumbsup: that actually made me lol

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Moonbeam seems to have the correct analysis in this case. One may as well say that shopping mall guards have been as effective as soldiers in preventing another 9/11, unless someone has direct evidence to the contrary.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Moonbeam seems to have the correct analysis in this case. One may as well say that shopping mall guards have been as effective as soldiers in preventing another 9/11, unless someone has direct evidence to the contrary.

i don't get any credit? *sniff sniff*

 

[Arkaign]

This is a delicious bit of self-roasting for the OP

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

lol.

Some of the very same people distorting Patraeus's comment beyond all recognition and with unbashed pleasure get all bent out of shape when the favor is returned and Ron Paul's comment gets spun.

Goose, meet gander.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eits
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.

Playing semantics, you can do better than that.

I'll try it again. How were we over there prior to responding to the attack against us? Is it anything compared to our presence over there now ? and does it actually justify the attack?

Moreover, we know Ron Paul believes the answer is yes, we know you believe the answer is yes. So once again, when Ron Paul is discussing the issue and he?s explaining that our policy invited the September 11th attack ? you want to play semantics and claim ?oh no, he doesn?t say it? when the entire point of his answer is a resounding YES!

I don?t care which words he used to blame us for September 11th, the POINT is he DOES. You have to be lying to claim otherwise.

 

[Arkaign]

Well I certainly didn't get bent out of shape, I just think it's humorous.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits
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.

Playing semantics, you can do better than that.

I'll try it again. How were we over there prior to responding to the attack against us? Is it anything compared to our presence over there now ? and does it actually justify the attack?

Moreover, we know Ron Paul believes the answer is yes, we know you believe the answer is yes. So once again, when Ron Paul is discussing the issue and he?s explaining that our policy invited the September 11th attack ? you want to play semantics and claim ?oh no, he doesn?t say it? when the entire point of his answer is a resounding YES!

I don?t care which words he used to blame us for September 11th, the POINT is he DOES. You have to be lying to claim otherwise.

he never said that we INVITED the attack... that would imply that we wanted the attack. what he's saying is that our foreign policy was what pissed them off enough to want to attack us. it REALLY isn't a hard concept... i don't see where you aren't getting this.

also, we had a military presence in the middle east for YEARS... we've got ships constantly eyeball-fucking middle eastern countries and patrolling their waters. how would you like it if china had war ships constantly cruising around the gulf of mexico and telling us what to do and what not to do?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits
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.

Playing semantics, you can do better than that.

I'll try it again. How were we over there prior to responding to the attack against us? Is it anything compared to our presence over there now ? and does it actually justify the attack?

Moreover, we know Ron Paul believes the answer is yes, we know you believe the answer is yes. So once again, when Ron Paul is discussing the issue and he?s explaining that our policy invited the September 11th attack ? you want to play semantics and claim ?oh no, he doesn?t say it? when the entire point of his answer is a resounding YES!

I don?t care which words he used to blame us for September 11th, the POINT is he DOES. You have to be lying to claim otherwise.

Help me out here. What precisely did Paul say? Did he use the actually say we deserved the attack and that Bin Laden was justified in doing it, or did he say that US foreign policy affected the middle east in such a way that people came to resent the US and attacked when the opportunity arose?

They aren't equivalent statements, and since I don't follow Paul much, you can help clear the air.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits
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.

I'll try it again. How were we over there prior to responding to the attack against us? Is it anything compared to our presence over there now ? and does it actually justify the attack?

We've had troops in Saudi for a long time. How would you feel if there was an Iranian military base in the heart of New York? I'm not saying hijacking planes is the correct response, but expecting a sane response from religious zealots is wishful thinking.

Moreover, we know Ron Paul believes the answer is yes, we know you believe the answer is yes. So once again, when Ron Paul is discussing the issue and he?s explaining that our policy invited the September 11th attack ? you want to play semantics and claim ?oh no, he doesn?t say it? when the entire point of his answer is a resounding YES!

I don?t care which words he used to blame us for September 11th, the POINT is he DOES. You have to be lying to claim otherwise.

I won't say he didn't say it, I'll say he's right. You're reading his response as "We deserved it" and I see it as "We should have expected it", there's a subtle difference.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
lol.

Some of the very same people distorting Patraeus's comment beyond all recognition and with unbashed pleasure get all bent out of shape when the favor is returned and Ron Paul's comment gets spun.

Goose, meet gander.

Yes, but some of us defended both and I'm evenly unashamedly pleased to do so.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits
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.

Playing semantics, you can do better than that.

I'll try it again. How were we over there prior to responding to the attack against us? Is it anything compared to our presence over there now ? and does it actually justify the attack?

Moreover, we know Ron Paul believes the answer is yes, we know you believe the answer is yes. So once again, when Ron Paul is discussing the issue and he?s explaining that our policy invited the September 11th attack ? you want to play semantics and claim ?oh no, he doesn?t say it? when the entire point of his answer is a resounding YES!

I don?t care which words he used to blame us for September 11th, the POINT is he DOES. You have to be lying to claim otherwise.

Help me out here. What precisely did Paul say? Did he use the actually say we deserved the attack and that Bin Laden was justified in doing it, or did he say that US foreign policy affected the middle east in such a way that people came to resent the US and attacked when the opportunity arose?

They aren't equivalent statements, and since I don't follow Paul much, you can help clear the air.

the latter.

 

[Shyatic]

Ron Paul should drop the Republican ticket, run as an independent and win.

He can do it. He'll raise the money no problem, especially if he's a VIABLE candidate. And if he declares at the end of the Republican primaries, when there are two frontrunners (Democrat and Republican), he will blast them away because all the candidates are USELESS.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Scribe
Ron Paul should drop the Republican ticket, run as an independent and win.

He can do it. He'll raise the money no problem, especially if he's a VIABLE candidate. And if he declares at the end of the Republican primaries, when there are two frontrunners (Democrat and Republican), he will blast them away because all the candidates are USELESS.

if he ran as an independent, he wouldn't have nearly the chance he has now of winning... not only that, but no one would hear his message. by being in a major party, he can voice his opinions during the debates.

he's more of a libertarian anyways.

 

[Shyatic]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Scribe
Ron Paul should drop the Republican ticket, run as an independent and win.

He can do it. He'll raise the money no problem, especially if he's a VIABLE candidate. And if he declares at the end of the Republican primaries, when there are two frontrunners (Democrat and Republican), he will blast them away because all the candidates are USELESS.

if he ran as an independent, he wouldn't have nearly the chance he has now of winning... not only that, but no one would hear his message. by being in a major party, he can voice his opinions during the debates.

he's more of a libertarian anyways.

I agree.. he should ride them like a cheap wh0r3 until the primaries end. Then take the momentum and start a national campaign running independant.

He can use them for the filthy politicians they are.