Paul courts the morons for Iowa win

[mortons toe]

Maybe you're right, maybe Ron Paul is a kook....

Thanks Abe... bump

[HeinBallz]

You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?

Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11?   Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?

Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11?   Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.

. You can parse his words however you want, but he clearly believes that America's interventionist policies invited 9/11. Now, you can agree or disagree with Paul on this point - I'm not interested in arguing that - but it is indisputable that these sort of sentiments make Paul completely, 100%, without question, unelectable. It will never happen.

[LickNeckey]

why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???

[michigancat]

why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???

morons equate that to him saying "uncle sam flew the planes into the towers." As evidenced by this thread.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???

He can't win the GOP nomination because of the above, he can't win the Democratic nomication due to his views on the size and role of government, and he has disavowed any notion of running as a third-party candidate. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???

morons equate that to him saying "uncle sam flew the planes into the towers." As evidenced by this thread.

As evidenced by what? Nobody in this thread has accused Ron Paul of being a 9/11 Truther. Are you sure you're not confusing Paul with Van Jones?

[HeinBallz]

You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?

Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11?   Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.

. You can parse his words however you want, but he clearly believes that America's interventionist policies invited 9/11. Now, you can agree or disagree with Paul on this point - I'm not interested in arguing that - but it is indisputable that these sort of sentiments make Paul completely, 100%, without question, unelectable. It will never happen.

Wow, you'd make a great politician, taking a snipit of a debate out of context and all.   The only people that put the words into Ron Pauls mouth that America was to blame for 9/11 was the jack ass moderator & Rudy Giuliani.  The point he made was 9/11 was a result of careless foreign policy.  10 years of bombing the middle east tends to piss some people off.  Don't throw rocks at a bee hive and get pissed off when you're not totally prepared to be stung by a bee.  Bottom line, 9/11 happened because of Bush Sr. & Clinton Administrations combined.   The people & families of those that died on 9/11are the real victims - so stop acting like our government is also a victim.   There's other ways to launch humanitarian efforts and going to war isn't always the best way - so it becomes pretty transparent when the US government ignores conflicts in one country, but runs to wipe out insurgents & dictatorships in countries we buy oil from.   Any occupation of force in another country will incite more attacks on our people and our country - and why wouldn't it.  As Ron Paul so plainly put it, what would the US do if China forcfully put a military base on US soil?

[HeinBallz]

here's something funny - I was looking for a particular video - and it happened to be to the right of the video you linked.   

Give this a view: 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?

Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11?   Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.

. You can parse his words however you want, but he clearly believes that America's interventionist policies invited 9/11. Now, you can agree or disagree with Paul on this point - I'm not interested in arguing that - but it is indisputable that these sort of sentiments make Paul completely, 100%, without question, unelectable. It will never happen.

Wow, you'd make a great politician, taking a snipit of a debate out of context and all.   The only people that put the words into Ron Pauls mouth that America was to blame for 9/11 was the jack ass moderator & Rudy Giuliani.  The point he made was 9/11 was a result of careless foreign policy.  10 years of bombing the middle east tends to piss some people off.  Don't throw rocks at a bee hive and get pissed off when you're not totally prepared to be stung by a bee.  Bottom line, 9/11 happened because of Bush Sr. & Clinton Administrations combined.   The people & families of those that died on 9/11are the real victims - so stop acting like our government is also a victim.   There's other ways to launch humanitarian efforts and going to war isn't always the best way - so it becomes pretty transparent when the US government ignores conflicts in one country, but runs to wipe out insurgents & dictatorships in countries we buy oil from.   Any occupation of force in another country will incite more attacks on our people and our country - and why wouldn't it.  As Ron Paul so plainly put it, what would the US do if China forcfully put a military base on US soil?

In the video I posted, Ron Paul says exactly what you state above, so what was taken out of context? Rather than dash out a 200-word explanation to try to justify Paul's views, I simply stated that Paul "blames America for 9/11" and further explained that he believes "America's interventionist policies invited 9/11." Those are perfectly accurate statements. Again, I'm not interested in debating whether Paul is right - I'll never convince you otherwise - I'm just making the point that because of these views, he is unelectable.

[HeinBallz]

You're right.  He is unelectable.  Because of dumb mother fuckers that ignore a person warning you that hey, If you throw rocks at that bee hive, You'll get stung - then later when they tell you, hep dipshit - it's your fault that you got stung.... I told you that was going to happen.  You respond with, why do you hate me?  Take that back!  

I'm not saying the guy's perfect and I'm certainly not libertarian in every aspect of government - but anyone that says the guy is a kook for illogical reasons makes them look like a dumb ass.  

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Maybe if he were a Democrat he could get the nomination.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You're right.  He is unelectable.  Because of dumb mother fuckers that ignore a person warning you that hey, If you throw rocks at that bee hive, You'll get stung - then later when they tell you, hep dipshit - it's your fault that you got stung.... I told you that was going to happen.  You respond with, why do you hate me?  Take that back!  

I'm not saying the guy's perfect and I'm certainly not libertarian in every aspect of government - but anyone that says the guy is a kook for illogical reasons makes them look like a dumb ass.  

Your beehive analogy is overly simplistic, much like Ron Paul's isolationist views. And I'm glad we can agree that he is unelectable.

[HeinBallz]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.

[LickNeckey]

Catholics???

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Catholics???

That was 500 years ago.  They have evolved.

[wildfratcountry]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.

Unfortunately, we will probably never know if he is right or not because we don't know how to mind our own business. Correlation may not cause causation, but we have no way to determine.

Also, K-S-U-Wildcats!, I am curious as to why you think Paul's views on 9/11 make him unelectable. You haven't answered that question for me yet. The way you present your argument, you make it sound like RP blaming 'America' means he is blaming the American citizens. He is not blaming you and me, he is blaming the administration's decisions, and explaining differences that could be more effective. That's what you do with the government, you learn form past mistakes. Slap on the wrist to the voters, but we didn't ask them to make the decisions that they made once we elected the leaders. We are not as educated on what the effect of the administration will have on other countries. That's why you and I are not the ones running for president here. Obviously there is a reason that 9/11 was aimed at American Christians as opposed to Australian Christians. Do you think him blaming America hurts people's feelings? Is it even a bad thing to say? We obviously can't do anything about it now but since it happened under our current conditions, isn't it highly possible and reasonable to say that those conditions were to blame? But, If you are the national criteria creator for what does and doesn't make someone electable, then I apologize for questioning your elite status.

[michigancat]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.

tens of millions that want to kill all non-believers? That sounds made up.

[HeinBallz]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.

agree totally.  Perhaps our government should stop supplying $$, weapons, & motivation to these people.  Until then we can mind our own business and only go to war when congress declares it; not when a president with an agenda goes on a pot stirring campaign. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.

Unfortunately, we will probably never know if he is right or not because we don't know how to mind our own business. Correlation may not cause causation, but we have no way to determine.

Also, K-S-U-Wildcats!, I am curious as to why you think Paul's views on 9/11 make him unelectable. You haven't answered that question for me yet. The way you present your argument, you make it sound like RP blaming 'America' means he is blaming the American citizens. He is not blaming you and me, he is blaming the administration's decisions, and explaining differences that could be more effective. That's what you do with the government, you learn form past mistakes. Slap on the wrist to the voters, but we didn't ask them to make the decisions that they made once we elected the leaders. We are not as educated on what the effect of the administration will have on other countries. That's why you and I are not the ones running for president here. Obviously there is a reason that 9/11 was aimed at American Christians as opposed to Australian Christians. Do you think him blaming America hurts people's feelings? Is it even a bad thing to say? We obviously can't do anything about it now but since it happened under our current conditions, isn't it highly possible and reasonable to say that those conditions were to blame? But, If you are the national criteria creator for what does and doesn't make someone electable, then I apologize for questioning your elite status.

Paul is simply too extreme in too many different directions to build a large enough constituency to be elected to the presidency. His libertarian views on social issues are anathema to mainstream conservatives, his views on the limited scope and role of government are anathema to mainstream liberals, and his isolationist foreign policy (whether it be protecting our own interests or humanitarian aid/intervention) is actually rejected in a fairly bipartisan manner.

And, I think I've said this before, but I am not going to debate isolationism. It is pointless. We will just have to agree to disagree.

[michigancat]

And, I think I've said this before, but I am not going to debate isolationism. It is pointless. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Debating "isolationism" is pointless? That seems kind of stupid. Especially for someone whom (I assume) opposes big government.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.

tens of millions that want to kill all non-believers? That sounds made up.

I know. Pretty unbelievable.

[DQ12]

Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy...   I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints.  But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash? 

Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.

tens of millions that want to kill all non-believers? That sounds made up.

Pro-Tip: It is made up.

[CNS]

gotta be a pretty hard time to be a hard line R these days.

I mean, the only real crazy extremists have dropped out and all that's left are layups.  I mean, it's pretty obvs that the R party is just letting some have their shot while they focus on the next one, right?