Ron Paul touted his newsletters in 1995

I don't see how this addresses a single point I made about issue. The Drug War failed because it was based on coercion. The Poverty War failed for the same reason. All wars fail; all coercion fails. And a vote for Ron Paul is the only possible vote against bomb attacks on children, people in cages for unlicensed plant ownership, and an unfettered Caesarian presidency.

 

Obama sends you a big THANK YOU for helping him get re-elected in 2012.

Because when Republicans tear up each other they help Der Furher not the Republican they happen to prefer.

 

Or we help Obama when we take a nutcase like Ron Paul serious. You keep touting this guy as the second coming, and completely ignore his past (which you already knew about). Then when it gets exposed you complain. The truth is, you should have been exposing this stuff from the beginning. Now you've created a mess we all have to clean up.

 

Excuses excuses excuses. But this illustrates how dangerous you pacifists are. The truth is, millions more jews, men women and children would have been butchered had the US not gotten involved.

Are you so naive as to think the Hitler would have stopped murdering if we just offered him friendship like Ron Paul wants to do?

The truth is, pacifism also has collateral damage and it's often far worse than going to war. But you don't care about that. You just want to protect your own hide, and to hell with everyone else. That's called being a coward.

You are fine with children being bombed and butchered...... until the bombs start heading in your direction.

 

What a racist statement.

 

Your typical Ron Paul basher. Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up as he goes.

 

Typical Ron Paul blind/deaf follower.

 

Hardly. I am not the one posting the same crap over and over again. I dont make multiple threads about the same things. I'm not the desperate one. Instead of trying to bash Paul why dont you post a thread about the candidate you support?

Are you afraid that candidate will be torn a new one?

 

IOW's "I can't defend Ron Paul anymore, so please shut up!"

 

When did i ever even imply that. Go through my post history. Ive been very detailed in debunking this racist nonsense. I have asked repeatedly for one of you trolls to link anything that Ron Paul actually said. Show a clip of him making anything that could even be construed as racist. You have all failed. You have over 20 years of speeches to go through and yet you nor the media can find a single clip of him saying anything close to racist. You fail.

You know (*)(*)(*)(*) well Newt cant be elected. There is way to much dirt on him. So instead of admitting defeat you are going after Paul.

Like i said. Desperate.

 

I think it's obvious that some posters on this forum are either paid hatchet men or simply work for one of the agencies of government that's going to get carved out of the bureaucracy and they're worried they'll have to get a real job.

 

LOL! You really think the government is paying me to posts this stuff? You guys crack me up. If you weren't so dangerous it would be a lot funnier.

Guys, you're in a cult. You need to get out now. Your guy is a fraud. He's lying to you and you're falling for it. He is not a god, he's a lowly human warts and all.

 

What mess? Care to elaborate why you believe Paul to be a nutcase?

 

What's your excuse for getting us involved in WWI, Calminian, and thereby giving birth to Hitler? What's your excuse for handing Eastern Europe over to Stalin?

In fact, you interventionists have only one big excuse, which is Hitler and WWII. That's your excuse to justify every single bomb, every single tank, every single sanction, every single secret prison in the history of the world. Hitler! Chamberlain! That's your excuse: the Hitler that you created.

Hitler! Chamberlain! But when you actually look at history you find that the unintended consequences of making war, including so-called "humanitarian" war, have been far worse than the alleged consequences of not doing so (alleged because whenever have we not gone to war?).

The Revolution? Well, of course, independence from the thumb of the British Empire was positive and we had every right to it. However, the cast of thing becomes a bit different when you consider that Carlisle Peace Commission in 1778 offered peace and self-rule in an arrangement not unlike that belonging to modern Canada but was rejected by the Continental Congress, which, I guess, preferred to continue the mutual killing and maiming and driving loyalists out of the their homes to the dystopian nightmare of Canada. Again, the question is: which is worse? Are tens of thousands of extra deaths really worth not being Canada and having the Queen on our money instead of dead politicians? Is life that cheap? Probably over 100,000 altogether died in the Revolution, not including those that died of disease. Oh, and taxes were soon higher under the American state than they had ever been under Britain.

After the Revolution, the victorious militarists and nationalists of America exercised their new-found freedom by spending the next hundred years massacring more Indians and stealing more of their land. Those were the so-called "Indian Wars." Deaths from these conflicts are particularly vague but certainly in the tens of thousands.

The chief grievance of the War of 1812 was the Britain was impressing American sailors to serve on its ships, a legitimate grievance except that Parliament voted to end that very practice before the US Congress declared war and had the news gotten across the Atlantic soon enough, it's likely it never would have been fought at all. So why not immediately declare ceasefire the minute the news had gotten across, instead of continuing the killing for three years? Costs of these needless boondoggle? 18,000 lives and the economic devastation, impoverishment, disease, maiming, psychological scarring, loss of economic and civil liberties, and empowerment and centralization of the state that always accompanies war.

The Mexican-American War was aggressive and imperialist land grab. Almost 30,000 deaths.

The Civil War. Slavery! It ended slavery! Of course, they could have ended slavery beforehand without a war just as every other country did. Or they could have let the South secede, which was their moral right (just as it was the moral right of the slave-owning colonies to secede from Britain), in which case slavery would almost have certainly died out by the 20th century anyway, once the South had industrialized, once every other nation on Earth had abolished the practice, and once it no longer had its rivalry with the North ginning up pro-slavery fervor. Furthermore, the North allowed slavery too, DC had slavery, the federal government had spent the past ninety years enforcing pro-slavery laws, and Lincoln did not enter the war to end slavery but to avoid a trade war and collect taxes--the great hero. Fort Sumter! Well, yeah, except Lincoln wanted the war and deliberately acted in such a way to provoke the South in firing the first shot, so that he'd have an excuse. 650,000 deaths, economic devastation of the South, massive centralization of the federal government (which set up something akin to a police state at the time, including conscription i.e. slavery), a decade of military rule in the South followed by a backlash and 100 years of Jim Crow.

The Spanish-American War. Remember the Maine! Starting on lie, to engage in another imperialist grab. 30,000 deaths. Then came the little known war to subjugate the Philippines, with possibly over a million deaths, mostly Philippine civilians.

As I already said, you militarists have all the consequences of the First World War around your necks, all the destruction unleashed by it directly + the Nazis + the USSR + Maoist China + the chaos in the Middle East. Almost all the horrors the occurred after WWI are thanks to WWI, and WWI is your fault. We were against it. Good luck trying to justify that horrible, ridiculous catastrophe that was the very definition of a war started just because the war-lovers wanted to have a good old mass-bloodletting. War-lovers can't handle peace; when there's an outbreak of peace they immediately start looking for an excuse to start a war. That's why wars start; that's why WWI started. 40 million deaths (admittedly most of them before the US got involved, though it didn't help) and the destruction of Western civilization. Thanks so much.

WWII? Hitler! Chamberlain! What would have happened had not the militarists in Britain and the US allied with Stalin in WWII (to clean up their own mess in creating Hitler)? What would have happened in that Hitler and Stalin would have carved up Eastern Europe, instead of just one of them getting the whole thing. Most probably, they then would have gone to war with each other, leaving one destroyed and the other weakened. The Western powers, if they were really the humanitarian heroes you claim, could have concentrated on getting the Jews out of Nazi-occupied territories, which probably wouldn't have been a big trick, considering that that's what the Nazis wanted in the first place! Over 60 million deaths.

The Cold War you created via WWI and II? Your useless adventures in Korea and Vietnam didn't stop communism, just murdered even more people. The Soviet Union, which you obsessively claimed to be the evil empire that would haunt us till the end of eternity (the subtext being that this would give us lots more excuses to fight more juicy wonderful wars), collapsed of its own weight, just as everyone that actually understood economics predicted it would. Perhaps 3 million deaths in Korea and 3 million in Vietnam (not including the 2 million Pol Pot killed), near-nuclear annihilation of the world, and a metastasized military-industrial complex with nothing better to do but seek more wars to fight and more American freedom to roll over.

So once the USSR collapsed--all by itself and without any major help from the United States, including Reagan's avuncular head nod--you were left without an enemy to fight. Thank goodness you managed to dig one up in the "Islamofascists." After fifty years of the US military state terrorizing the Middle East by installing and arming dictators, backing both sides of extremely bloody wars, and enforcing sanctions (against dictators you previously armed) that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, some fanatics decided to terrorize Americans in turn. Yes! Now we can fight more wars!! Hoo-rah! Anything from 100k-1 million deaths in Iraq, 80 thousand in Afghanistan, who knows how many in Pakistan and other places the Peace Prize winner has decided to bomb, and the destruction of the last of our civil liberties in the name of stopping "dah terr'rists" from destroying our civil liberties. Excellent job! Next up, Iran! Then North Korea! Then, oh I don't, let's just go attack Mexico again. Whatever, just so long as we're at war with somebody.

Who could possibly stand opposed to this monstrous litany of death, destruction, impoverishment, and tyranny? Now please present the facts and figures proving that had non-interventionists been running America during these times, it would have been, somehow, even worse.

 

I usually skip over rants, but this was a pretty good one. Quite a bit of subjective tone which accompanies all rants, but nonetheless, it is very compelling and persuasive as well.

 

he's a liar.

 

Actually i may agree with you on WWI. We may have overstepped and done more harm than good. But the problem is, you use that as an excuse to allow millions more to be butchered and gassed and bombed in WWII?

Honestly, you are that cruel? Sorry all you toddlers and kids! Since we made some bad decisions several years ago, we now are going to righteously allow you to be butchered? Wow, just wow! You are heartless beyond belief. Then again, most pacifists are.

Since that completely destroys your rant, no need to read the rest. You really should work on being more concise. More people might listen.

 

here's an example of why i think he's a nut case

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QubaQ3Xq0M0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QubaQ3Xq0M0[/ame]

watch ron paul whip a crowd into a frenzy using the 'outreach to rednecks' strategy, custom designed to pander to people who have little clue how the federal reserve works or what the constitution says

as opposed to romney's calm, thoughtful and insightful remarks

does ron paul not realize that president washington signed into law the legislation that chartered our first central bank?

this isn't intended as support of romney's campaign, it's meant to illustrate the difference between a coherent candidate and a nut case that's willing to lie and cheat to gain political control for his deceitful libertarian party

 

I'm not a Romney fan, but yeah, compared to Paul he's a genius.