Koneg posted:

---

This isn't hyperbole or rhetoric...

---

Koneg posted:

---

Ron Paul's "foreign policy" (placed in quotes, since it's more accurately described as foreign lunacy)

* Believes 9/11 was an inside job courtesy of our own CIA. (Yes, he's a tr00ther)

* Believes we should not have fought Germany in WWII. At all. (Never mind the fact that Germany declared on us)

* Would not have authorized the SEAL team mission to take out Bin Laden.

* Believes that Israel should not exist as a sovereign state.

* Founding Member: Blame America First Crowd. Literally everything in his view is "blowback" for US foreign policy, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11. Everything is our own fault.

* Has stated that under his Presidency if he received concrete irrefutable proof that Iran had obtained a nuclear weapon, the US should do.... nothing. Damn the treaty they signed! It's their right to have Teh Bomb!

* Would close (or try to close) all military bases abroad. Every single one of them.

* Believes in the "North American Union" conspiracy theory.

* Would stop all foreign and humanitarian aid spending, including everything we're doing in Africa to combat AIDS and Malaria (never mind the fact that it'll come back to haunt the US if we don't fight that battle - he doesn't give a damn about the potential consequences)

---

Koneg posted:

---

Ron Paul's "foreign policy" (placed in quotes, since it's more accurately described as foreign lunacy)

* Believes 9/11 was an inside job courtesy of our own CIA. (Yes, he's a tr00ther)

* Believes we should not have fought Germany in WWII. At all. (Never mind the fact that Germany declared on us)

* Would not have authorized the SEAL team mission to take out Bin Laden.

* Believes that Israel should not exist as a sovereign state.

* Founding Member: Blame America First Crowd. Literally everything in his view is "blowback" for US foreign policy, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11. Everything is our own fault.

* Has stated that under his Presidency if he received concrete irrefutable proof that Iran had obtained a nuclear weapon, the US should do.... nothing. Damn the treaty they signed! It's their right to have Teh Bomb!

* Would close (or try to close) all military bases abroad. Every single one of them.

* Believes in the "North American Union" conspiracy theory.

* Would stop all foreign and humanitarian aid spending, including everything we're doing in Africa to combat AIDS and Malaria (never mind the fact that it'll come back to haunt the US if we don't fight that battle - he doesn't give a damn about the potential consequences)


To put it as succinctly and accurately as possible, Ron Paul is insane.

This isn't hyperbole or rhetoric - it's an easily provable fact. That there are those here who insist on supporting this lunacy continues to amaze.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Koneg posted:

---

This isn't hyperbole or rhetoric...

---

---

Koneg posted:

---

Ron Paul's "foreign policy" (placed in quotes, since it's more accurately described as foreign lunacy)

* Believes 9/11 was an inside job courtesy of our own CIA. (Yes, he's a tr00ther)

* Believes we should not have fought Germany in WWII. At all. (Never mind the fact that Germany declared on us)

* Would not have authorized the SEAL team mission to take out Bin Laden.

* Believes that Israel should not exist as a sovereign state.

* Founding Member: Blame America First Crowd. Literally everything in his view is "blowback" for US foreign policy, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11. Everything is our own fault.

* Has stated that under his Presidency if he received concrete irrefutable proof that Iran had obtained a nuclear weapon, the US should do.... nothing. Damn the treaty they signed! It's their right to have Teh Bomb!

* Would close (or try to close) all military bases abroad. Every single one of them.

* Believes in the "North American Union" conspiracy theory.

* Would stop all foreign and humanitarian aid spending, including everything we're doing in Africa to combat AIDS and Malaria (never mind the fact that it'll come back to haunt the US if we don't fight that battle - he doesn't give a damn about the potential consequences)


To put it as succinctly and accurately as possible, Ron Paul is insane.

This isn't hyperbole or rhetoric - it's an easily provable fact. That there are those here who insist on supporting this lunacy continues to amaze.

---

positive1lock posted:

---

At least get your facts right. Ron Paul has categorically denied any belief in 9/11 being a CIA job.

---

Student: …we’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.

Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.

Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.

Paul: Into 9/11?

Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.

Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.

Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?

Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it. There could be a better investigation because there’s a split in government. So I would certainly consider that and think it could be worthwhile. If you do the same thing over and over again, you’re just spinning your wheels. But I would certainly work with Dennis. So I’ll talk to Dennis and he’s in a position now in the party majority, so he might have a better chance with it.

Student: Yeah, he has subpoena power and everything, so…

Paul: And we’d have a better chance of getting a new investigation. Too often investigations on almost any issue is usually a cover-up.

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

positive1lock posted:

---

All you have to do is Google it... Ron Paul can no more distance himself from truthers than you can facts and VN posts. Follow the herd... you're just another cow.

---

Koneg posted:

---

positive1lock posted:

---

At least get your facts right. Ron Paul has categorically denied any belief in 9/11 being a CIA job.

---

Uh...

Students for 9/11 Truth:

Student: …we’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.

Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.

Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.

Paul: Into 9/11?

Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.

Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.

Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?

Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it. There could be a better investigation because there’s a split in government. So I would certainly consider that and think it could be worthwhile. If you do the same thing over and over again, you’re just spinning your wheels. But I would certainly work with Dennis. So I’ll talk to Dennis and he’s in a position now in the party majority, so he might have a better chance with it.

Student: Yeah, he has subpoena power and everything, so…

Paul: And we’d have a better chance of getting a new investigation. Too often investigations on almost any issue is usually a cover-up.

Alex Jones Show:

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

You can keep telling yourself over and over again that he's not a tr00ther, but those of us with multiple brain cells to run together aren't buying it.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Koneg is in meltdown mode today.

---

Koneg posted:

---

No, he has not categorically stated that 9/11 was an inside job - not will he.

---

reesescups posted:

---

Not only has Ron Paul NOT said it was an inside job

---

Koneg posted:

---

reesescups posted:

---

Not only has Ron Paul NOT said it was an inside job

---

And yet he has also said we need a new investigation because the first was, quote, a cover-up.

---

Clackdor posted:

---

Koneg is channeling illy in this thread.

---

Seething199 posted:

---

we've got a $15 trillion national debt and it's growing at a breakneck pace. we're spending more than a trillion per year on defense and wars. our politicians are discussing ways to cut programs that actually help americans in order to get the spending under control.


does that really make any sense at all? do we really owe it to the rest of the world to ruin ourselves and whatever other small, non-threatening country we feel like stomping on to keep everyone in line?

total lunacy. and we're so used to it that no one thinks twice about it.

---

Seething199 posted:

---

we're going to bankrupt and destroy ourselves playing world police. at some point we can't just ignore our completely unsustainable policies anymore. our quality of life is stagnating so that we can allow everyone else's to increase.

---

Thugoneous posted:

---

I could vote for Ron Paul if he change his position on murdering jews. I don't think we should.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Seething199 posted:

---

we're going to bankrupt and destroy ourselves playing world police. at some point we can't just ignore our completely unsustainable policies anymore. our quality of life is stagnating so that we can allow everyone else's to increase.

---

We're in a recession. That's the worst time to radically change policies that would upend the world stability. Or do you think we'd be better off as isolationists while ignoring the fact that we live in a global economy?

Our policies generate American wealth. Our "stagnation" is the world catching up to our giant economic lead. When your in first place, change would only see you to second.

---

Thugoneous posted:

---

I could vote for Ron Paul if he change his position on murdering jews. I don't think we should.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

ROFL! Back in 2008 it was; Obama = change, GOOD!


Now it is; oh! change is scareeeee!

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

We don't have those bases there because we're altruistic, our economic might is directly related to and intertwined with our military presence throughout the world.

---

reesescups posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

We don't have those bases there because we're altruistic, our economic might is directly related to and intertwined with our military presence throughout the world.

---

I am gonna go ahead and guess you don't see anything wrong with this...


And you accuse others of 'not thinking things through' and parroting talking points...

You are a narrow minded simpleton incapable of thought.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

So now you're going to argue that the US military dominance has lead to a less stable, more violent, and less free world?

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Sorry, but history does not back you up.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

I hope Dr. Paul lets me run the ovens.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Go pick up some books by numerous authors, like George Friedman for example.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Go pick up some books by numerous authors, like George Friedman for example.

---

So you have a source but no information, no argument. Very informative.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

Ron Paul thinks we shouldn't hold him responsible for a monthly publication that he owns and holds his signature. He claims he didn't know about it until ten years after it was published. Yet he wants us to believe he's responsible enough to run the country. Ten years after his term ends will he use the same excuse for things the country did under his name?

I thought the Republican Party was the party of personal responsibility.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

So in a thread where the Ron Paul camp accuses those against him of not having an original thought, their argument is to go read someone elses work.

Sorry guys, I'm not here to make your arguments for you. If you want me to believe he is right and you guys support him because our current policy is wrong, at least back up your claim with some reasons.

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

You've said we have a policy of destabilization and you can't even give me an example.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

You've said we have a policy of destabilization and you can't even give me an example.

---

The coup in Guatemala in 1954 would be an example, not that one isolated example would define the entirety of US foreign policy.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

You've said we have a policy of destabilization and you can't even give me an example.

---

The coup in Guatemala in 1954 would be an example, not that one isolated example would define the entirety of US foreign policy.

---

reesescups posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

You've said we have a policy of destabilization and you can't even give me an example.

---

The coup in Guatemala in 1954 would be an example, not that one isolated example would define the entirety of US foreign policy.

---

Or the entire middle east, Central America, South America...

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

All of the Middle East shat stems from two things: Our thirst for oil and our support for Israel.

---

Desnoxvu posted:

---

It is useless to argue foreign policy strategy with these clowns. They all pretend they would be better managers of the world when in fact they don't know anything about the culture, language, history or real life situations of these other countries. That is why non-interventionism is the best policy.

---

the_great_intex posted:

---

You guys are REALLLLLY reading into this publication thing, don't you? His publication went along for years (of which there were numerous authors in the publications) and there are tons of them out there yet like 2 or 3 that popped up, and he didn't even write himself, is the best people can roll with

That's kind of pathetic. I mean if you are going to try to attack someone's character talk about something that actually matters. This is as bad as that Rev. White crap that Obama went through. All through nothing but association

I am happy this is the worst people have ever found about him

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

What sort of tard would you have to be that foreign policy is your main objection to Ron Paul?

---

Koneg posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

What sort of tard would you have to be that foreign policy is your main objection to Ron Paul?

---

Main objection? Hardly

---

Desnoxvu posted:

---

Koneg, don't act like you have any valid policy discussion against his stances.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

ROFL! Back in 2008 it was; Obama = change, GOOD!


Now it is; well it sure beats crazy

---

Koneg posted:

---

You can keep telling yourself over and over again that he's not a tr00ther, but those of us with multiple brain cells to run together aren't buying it.

---

Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:

---

Koneg posted:

---

You can keep telling yourself over and over again that he's not a tr00ther, but those of us with multiple brain cells to run together aren't buying it.

---

Nothing you just posted said he thinks the CIA coordinated/staged 9/11.

In fact, all he said is that a portion of it is covered up. And frankly, anyone who doesn't think a government investigation into 9/11 doesn't cover up for SOMEONE in power along the way is an idiot.

<looks at Koneg's avatar>

Ooooh. Right. Sorry.

---

Desnoxvu posted:

---

Or we can just continue it on the "Koneg's Icon Sucks" thread.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

I am really up in the air as to whom to vote for. I know I don't like where we are headed. The more I hear of Paul the more I lean towards him just for something different, but who knows. It's still too early.

---