Who Else Knows That Ron Paul will NEVER be President?

S

SisterMaryElephant

Active Member
From 2008 when he tried that lie before:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_fantasy_of_ron_pauls_milit.asp

"[h=1]The Fantasy of Ron Paul's Military Support[/h]
Does Andrew Sullivan read stories before he comments on them? In this case, I suspect he didn't, otherwise he's engaging in pure military-related fantasy. In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among "donors identified as affiliated with the military," Sullivan headlines a post "Whom the Troops Support," with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion (actually this is the whole post):
Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who's first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don't they?
​
Except this isn't about campaign donations from "active service military members," whatever they might be, but "donors affiliated with the military," which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first "active service military member" and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth. Further, the Chron notes that the average size of Paul's donations from this subset was $500. How many active duty soldiers are giving $500 to fringe candidates a year out from the election? Not many, I suspect. In fact, among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000--out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren't even active duty."

Those darn facts are rough on RPbots... :D
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
grammar lesson for baby deprave the collegiate: the correct conjugation of "be" when used with a plural like "theories" is "are".

and i did not state any theory about rawn pawl's history, i stated his history.

ya know, the history where he rails against civil rights?

ya know, the history where he tries to legislate that homosexuality is unacceptable?

ya know, the history where he says sex for reasons other than procreation is immoral?

remember?
Click to expand...
I remember looking up several of your claims with the results being:

A) Ron Paul didn't even write it.

B) Its his opinion, never his legislation.

Ron Paul doesn't legislate morality. I have spent enough time derailing your claims that you have lost all credibility in your attempts to slander Ron Paul. I am not having this argument again, we are discussing whether the neocons or the Ron Paul Republicans have a better platform. This has nothing to do with Obama so you don't need to intervene.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
SisterMaryElephant said:
From 2008 when he tried that lie before:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_fantasy_of_ron_pauls_milit.asp

"The Fantasy of Ron Paul's Military Support


Does Andrew Sullivan read stories before he comments on them? In this case, I suspect he didn't, otherwise he's engaging in pure military-related fantasy. In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among "donors identified as affiliated with the military," Sullivan headlines a post "Whom the Troops Support," with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion (actually this is the whole post):
Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who's first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don't they?
​
Except this isn't about campaign donations from "active service military members," whatever they might be, but "donors affiliated with the military," which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first "active service military member" and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth. Further, the Chron notes that the average size of Paul's donations from this subset was $500. How many active duty soldiers are giving $500 to fringe candidates a year out from the election? Not many, I suspect. In fact, among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000--out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren't even active duty."

Those darn facts are rough on RPbots... :D
Click to expand...
I can copy and paste too.... the difference is I have legitimate sources:

"Summing up, Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s.


We rate his statement True." POLITIFACT

:dunce:
 
S

SisterMaryElephant

Active Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
I remember looking up several of your claims with the results being:

A) Ron Paul didn't even write it.

B) Its his opinion, never his legislation.
Click to expand...
OK, if he didn't write it then:

1) How do you know it's his opinion?

2) Why did his campaign claim he was quoted out of context?


Also, if it IS his opinion:

3) What makes you believe he didn't write the newsletters if he agrees with the bigoted statements in them?

4) How do you know his opinion hasn't influenced his votes on various issues? His opinion on spending affect his votes.


Explain this:
A time-line of Ron "the bigot" Paul’s racist newsletters:
1995: Paul talks to C-Span about his newsletters, indicating he is familiar with their contents.


1996: Paul is confronted about racist comments in his newsletters during his campaign for Congress. He defends the newsletters, saying quotes were taken out of context. He defends a quote saying that only 5 percent of black men in Washington, D.C., have "sensible political opinions" as being from a legitimate "think tank" study.


2001: Paul tells Texas Monthly magazine that he did not write racist comments in his newsletter but he had some "moral responsibility" for his newsletters’ content.


2008: The New Republic publishes excerpts from Ron Paul’s newsletters critics call racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic and supportive of the right-wing militia movement. He defends himself in an interview by claiming that Libertarians are "incapable" of being racist.


2011: Paul "disavows" offensive comments in his newsletters and his campaign manager says they were written by a "ghostwriter" he refuses to identify. Paul tells an Iowa radio station that he was an editor, not a writer, for the newsletter.


2011: Paul admits to writing parts of his newsletters, but said didn’t always read the newsletters published under his name and racist comments were slipped in without his knowledge.


2012: Paul’s former secretary said he proof-read every newsletter before it was sent out and was very active in putting them together. She said she still supports Ron Paul.

It can't all be true...he couldn't have been "quoted out of context" if he didn't write them. Right?
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Common sense would tell you that it was either A or B. Since you can't even grasp that concept, Im gunna go do something more constructive.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
Where it says that the congress has the power to declare war and where it limits standing armies.

Article 1 sec. 8. Do it.
Click to expand...
There's no point in trying to get through to her. She insists on calling people bigots when she is the biggest one of all. She is a self loathing hypocrite that gets off on stroking elephant trunks. That's why I refuse to respond to her any longer, and notice how her sentences get shorter and shorter to me because she cant come up with anything intelligent or original to say.
 
S

SisterMaryElephant

Active Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
I can copy and paste too.... the difference is I have legitimate sources:

"Summing up, Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s.


We rate his statement True." POLITIFACT

:dunce:
Click to expand...
Military *CONNECTED* is not ACTIVE DUTY or even retired. When you donate anyone can put anything they want for employment. You should have read my links and your own.


You lose again and with your own link... :D
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
SisterMaryElephant said:
Section 8 says that congress *can* declare war and pay for it 2 years at a time.



Still waiting...
Click to expand...
Article 1 section 8 is powers given to congress, which has the power to declare war not the Executive Branch. (The GOP nor the dems follow this)
It also says we shouldn't fund armies for more than 2 years (Probably to avoid bombing countries for a decade straight, which the GOP condones)

Again, the GOP doesnt follow this part of the constitution, nor do they with monetary policy, nor civil rights. At least the dems pretend to defend civil rights, sometimes.

You are such a failure.
 
S

SisterMaryElephant

Active Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
Article 1 section 8 is powers given to congress, which has the power to declare war not the Executive Branch. (The GOP nor the dems follow this)
It also says we shouldn't fund armies for more than 2 years (Probably to avoid bombing countries for a decade straight, which the GOP condones)

Again, the GOP doesnt follow this part of the constitution, nor do they with monetary policy, nor civil rights. At least the dems pretend to defend civil rights, sometimes.

You are such a failure.
Click to expand...
Wow, you are stupid...

1) Congress *did* declare war, not President Bush. I know you want to blame/hate him but you're wrong.

2) That's not what it says. It says, "no Appropriation of Money to that Useshall be for a longer Term than two Years" which means they can't fund war for 4 years at time, they have to authorize funding every 2 years max. That doesn't mean that you only get 2 years to fight and it's over. :roll:

Still waiting...
 
RawBudzski

RawBudzski

Well-Known Member
So many said a black man won't be president.. I won't put it past americas stupidness to do something as such.
 
S

SisterMaryElephant

Active Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

You're an idiot.
Click to expand...
From your own wiki article:

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term."

Does it physically hurt to be as stupid as you must be?

Moron... :D
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
"The table below lists the five wars in which the United States has formally declared war against eleven foreign nations."


Try reading the whole fucking thing you partisan loser.
 
S

SisterMaryElephant

Active Member
[h=3]"Military engagements authorized by Congress"[/h]
Read the rest, loser. We already established that there is "no formal format" to "declare war." Just because the people that edited the wiki are ignorant RP supporters doesn't mean they were undeclared wars. If Congress authorizes force and passes an appropriations bill for up to 2 years, it's a Constitutional declaration of war.

Why mental midgets have some ignorant idea that a war declaration must have the words "Declaration of War" (in bold calligraphy) as part of the document is not supported by the text of the Constitution. Making stuff up in your head doesn't count. :D


You lose again... :D
 
S

SisterMaryElephant

Active Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[SUP][1][/SUP] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."

"There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated."

"The invasion was reviewed by the US federal courts and it was determined to be legal."


You wouldn't know anything about truth or facts anymore that you know about the Constitution or reality... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top