Conquer Club

AndyDufresne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul did make it a point to not endorse Romney, but he also said he wouldn't endorse Gary Johnson or anyone else (maybe looking out for his son's future presidential run).

That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

thegreekdog wrote:
You should vote for Gary Johnson who more closely aligns with Ron Paul's political views than Mitt Romney.

I have been thinking about it for a long time, as he easily best represents my views. There are a couple problems though. I have never heard of this guy until just recently (1st Republican debate), and I have also come to notice that most of the people I know who support him are complete dickheads.

Woodruff wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul did make it a point to not endorse Romney, but he also said he wouldn't endorse Gary Johnson or anyone else (maybe looking out for his son's future presidential run).

That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

I think he didn't endorse Gary Johnson so that his son wouldn't get screwed over by the Republican Party. I'm more disappointed in Rand Paul than Ron. That being said, most Paulites I know (with some exceptions, e.g. Phattraitor) are voting for Gary Johnson. It's not like we're stupid. "Hmmm... who am I going to vote for? It has to be whomever Ron Paul endorsed. Wait, he didn't endorse anyone? Oh no! Whatever shall I do!"

Phatscotty wrote:I have never heard of this guy until just recently (1st Republican debate), and I have also come to notice that most of the people I know who support him are complete dickheads.

Those are horrendous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul did make it a point to not endorse Romney, but he also said he wouldn't endorse Gary Johnson or anyone else (maybe looking out for his son's future presidential run).

That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

I think he didn't endorse Gary Johnson so that his son wouldn't get screwed over by the Republican Party. I'm more disappointed in Rand Paul than Ron. That being said, most Paulites I know (with some exceptions, e.g. Phattraitor) are voting for Gary Johnson. It's not like we're stupid. "Hmmm... who am I going to vote for? It has to be whomever Ron Paul endorsed. Wait, he didn't endorse anyone? Oh no! Whatever shall I do!"

Phatscotty wrote:I have never heard of this guy until just recently (1st Republican debate), and I have also come to notice that most of the people I know who support him are complete dickheads.

Those are horrendous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.

?...reasons to vote for Romney.... are you trolling me?!?

I did not list those as reasons to vote for Romney, I listed those as my thoughts and feelings about Gary Johnson.

Woodruff wrote:That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

A lot of libertarians seriously question Johnson's libertarian credentials.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

A lot of libertarians seriously question Johnson's libertarian credentials.

Probably because he's a Republican. Ron Paul also happens to be a Republican.

Well, it's official now. It took our Commander in Chief 10 days to figure out we were hit by a terrorist attack in Libya, and he spent most of the time in those 10 days going on David Letterman, partying with Jay-z and Beyonce, hosting the WNBA champions (Minnesota Lynx ) hanging out in Vegas as well as attending 6 fundraisers, and all the while bitching at his opponent for being wrong..."the Middle East is on fire, but it's just a harmless protest over a video!!!!!"

Are we still asleep I asked? Aint no alarm clock that can wake up anything from this deep a slumber...

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it's official now. It took our Commander in Chief 10 days to figure out we were hit by a terrorist attack in Libya, and he spent most of the time in those 10 days going on David Letterman, partying with Jay-z and Beyonce, hosting the WNBA champions (Minnesota Lynx ) hanging out in Vegas as well as attending 6 fundraisers, and all the while bitching at his opponent for being wrong..."the Middle East is on fire, but it's just a harmless protest over a video!!!!!"

Are we still asleep I asked? Aint no alarm clock that can wake up anything from this deep a slumber...

How about some links?

<looks at poster's name>

Hah, nevermind.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it's official now. It took our Commander in Chief 10 days to figure out we were hit by a terrorist attack in Libya, and he spent most of the time in those 10 days going on David Letterman, partying with Jay-z and Beyonce, hosting the WNBA champions (Minnesota Lynx ) hanging out in Vegas as well as attending 6 fundraisers, and all the while bitching at his opponent for being wrong..."the Middle East is on fire, but it's just a harmless protest over a video!!!!!"

Are we still asleep I asked? Aint no alarm clock that can wake up anything from this deep a slumber...

How about some links?

Links to what? The terrorist attack in Libya on September 11th? Or links that prove Obama was on Letterman? I would love nothing more than to provide links, but that is a lot of stuff the President has been very, VERY busy). Please state specifically which links you need more information about, and you shall receive with the most joyous of pleasures.

Links shows that "It took our Commander in Chief 10 days to figure out we were hit by a terrorist attack in Libya"

and then, why not provide support for 'since he was spending all this time doing other stuff, then [insert your relevant conclusion here].'

BigBallinStalin wrote:Links shows that "It took our Commander in Chief 10 days to figure out we were hit by a terrorist attack in Libya"'

the last 10 days.....

show

Also, Saxitoxin made a really good thread, and most of this has been documented in there, you should take a look, specifically the first few pages. Lots more information there

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

A lot of libertarians seriously question Johnson's libertarian credentials.

I've heard a bit of it, but I have not heard it being seriously bandied about that much. Which of his proposed policies are in question?

Hey, PS, thanks for the links. A question came to mind for anyone:

why would the Obama admin dilly-dally about this?

PRE 9-11 THINKING IN PIX

9/11/01

"Idea! We should send guns, money and advanced training to Afghanistan insurgents."


Breaking News: Afghanistan insurgents fly planes into WTC.


"LOL! Woops! Our bad ... never forget, etc."


9/11/12

"Idea! We should send guns, money and advanced training to Libyan insurgents."


Breaking News: Libyan insurgents storm consulate, assassinate ambassador.


"LOL! Woops! Our bad ... never forget, etc."




9/11/20

"Idea! We should send guns, money and advanced training to Syrian insurgents."


Breaking News: Syrian insurgents detonate nuke in LA.


"LOL! Woops! Our bad ... never forget, etc."

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, PS, thanks for the links. A question came to mind for anyone:

why would the Obama admin dilly-dally about this?

and right smack in the middle of thee most important campaign in his entire life.....

saxitoxin wrote:PRE 9-11 THINKING IN PIX

I don't think any people or group or country should ever forget the reasons they were attacked

Phatscotty wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:PRE 9-11 THINKING IN PIX

I don't think any people or group or country should ever forget the reasons they were attacked

I agree. If the U.S. Government remembered they were attacked because they put short-term gains over long-term interests (instead of letting the Red Army and Afghan government crush a cabal of nutcases - they armed said nutcases to allow them to survive and score a minor tactical victory over the USSR), they wouldn't have stopped Qaddafi from crushing the same cabal of nutcases and wouldn't, right now, be trying to stop Assad from doing the same.

But Brent Scowcroft and Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are all Ivy League educated. They're not stupid; they're aware of these facts. They just have a different, grander, loftier agenda than some middle-aged secretary on the 98th floor of the WTC who is just trying to get out of a burning building alive.

Phatscotty wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:PRE 9-11 THINKING IN PIX

I don't think any people or group or country should ever forget the reasons they were attacked

I think more than half of our country is unwilling to accept the reasons why we were attacked, never mind having to remember them.

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:PRE 9-11 THINKING IN PIX

I don't think any people or group or country should ever forget the reasons they were attacked

I agree. If the U.S. Government remembered they were attacked because they put short-term gains over long-term interests (instead of letting the Red Army and Afghan government crush a cabal of nutcases - they armed said nutcases to allow them to survive and score a minor tactical victory over the USSR), they wouldn't have stopped Qaddafi from crushing the same cabal of nutcases and wouldn't, right now, be trying to stop Assad from doing the same.

But Brent Scowcroft and Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are all Ivy League educated. They're not stupid; they're aware of these facts. They just have a different, grander, loftier agenda than some middle-aged secretary on the 98th floor of the WTC who is just trying to get out of a burning building alive.

in this one thing I agree with sax: it is a tragedy that our leadership flat out REFUSES to acknowledge the mistakes of the past and learn from them, but continues on in the same vein... they fall into the very definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Links shows that "It took our Commander in Chief 10 days to figure out we were hit by a terrorist attack in Libya"'

the last 10 days.....

show

Also, Saxitoxin made a really good thread, and most of this has been documented in there, you should take a look, specifically the first few pages. Lots more information there

I guess I jumped the gun a little bit. Now it is officially official.

it is obvious. US politicians are bought by weapons companies. these companies tell their politicians to start wars and provoke hostilities (afghanistan, libya, pacific nations and more). now the politicians make money for their masters in the arms company HQ.

the usa government are motherfuckers, but sure so is every other government. usa is not worse than anyone else to its own people.

the thing that is so lame about the US government is that it pretends to be moral and noble, policeman of the globe. at least the other dick suckers don't pretend to be anything other than corrupt fascists.

like i said though, every government is the same. i don't mean to attack the US government specific, for it is almost no different to any other. the Party are dickswingers.
it is just good to debate these issues frankly, i hope i don't seem hostile.

梦龙 wrote:the thing that is so lame about the US government is that it pretends to be moral and noble, policeman of the globe. at least the other dick suckers don't pretend to be anything other than corrupt fascists.

I'd argue with you on this point. no govt. out and out says they're assholes, whether they are or not. there's always some excuse (usually bullshit about it being for the greater good).

His English has vastly improved!

很好啊!

Pre 9-11, the rest of the world thought America was great, and was a bit jealous. Post 9-11, the rest of the world hates America's freedom, just because they're jealous.