Welcome Ron Paul Cultists!

I’ll be overseas somewhere watching you and the majority of the American Dolts being forced relocated-to make way for that cheap labor coming in from China and India-oh yes, my little armchair patriot, that means your white-collar bullshit job will soon be given to someone willing to do it at a fraction of what you think you’re worth. You WILL be forced-relocated OUT of that swanky neighborhood you think defines your life. Fucking American Dolt-If I could pay them what they’re worth and sell them for what they think they’re worth, I’d be even more well-off! Remember this WELL my deluded, ignorant, stinkbag: You WILL enjoy a police state and maybe, if your really lucky-free trips to the FEMA camps!

Wordsmith: Is it really necessary to bait these fools so openly?

Really, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel anyway.

I’ll stand by my previous statement regarding these cult freaks: not one of them has EVER been part of a relevant political process.

I feel cheated that my comment got deleted. Ron Paul feels cheated too.

Welcome, CommonSenseMan!

May I offer you some Kool-Aid?

No thanks. I prefer my own flavor brand. You can keep yours.

Wordsmith: Is it really necessary to bait these fools so openly?

Yes.

im on ur myspace adding ur buddis
deebating ron iz deebating
i can beez prezident?

Lolrons!

[/cuckoo, cuckoo!]

A ridicule contest? Great! You SUCK!

Now get your sad carcass out of the way of the revolution!

“A ridicule contest? Great! You SUCK!
Now get your sad carcass out of the way of the revolution!”

rofl

nu-uh, infinity

First rule of spotting a Ron Paul fanatic:

If you’re not with em, you’re a neocon

Heil Paul!

Hmmm, how WOULD I classify myself? I voted for Clinton twice, Bush twice. I vote both parties re Congress. I guess I dunno. Maybe that makes me a RINO/DINO/Centrist/Independent rather than an isolation-minded national socialist?

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/williams/09052007.htm

“Hmmm, how WOULD I classify myself? I voted for Clinton twice, Bush twice. I vote both parties re Congress. I guess I dunno. Maybe that makes me a RINO/DINO/Centrist/Independent rather than an isolation-minded national socialist?”

You would be classified as a supporter of the status quo. Support for the status quo in this country equals support for big government, perpetual war (the government will always find more enemies once the old ones disappear), decreasing living standards (notice how debt is a requirement to do almost anything these days?), and troops in over 150 countries and territories. Under reasonable examination, that sounds like a recipe for disaster. To you, it’s “mainstream” and thus the correct view. Go figure.

I know you may not believe this, but almost all other countries are not “isolationist” yet do not attempt to garrison the globe with their troops. Bringing troops home does not represent “isolationism”, it represents sanity.

“You would be classified as a supporter of the status quo.”
Yeah, I guess for the most part the status quo isn’t that bad for me. I don’t feel oppressed, and I don’t live in fear of our government, other governments, or even terrorists.

“Support for the status quo in this country equals support for big government, perpetual war (the government will always find more enemies once the old ones disappear), decreasing living standards (notice how debt is a requirement to do almost anything these days?), and troops in over 150 countries and territories. ”
Run-on aside, no, I don’t like big government, but by the nature of this nation the government will be described as big by anyone who’s not an anarchist. As to perpetual war, I submit Plato had it right when he said that only the dead have seen the end of war (perhaps Ron Paul knows better than Plato). As to debt, ya get as much as you want and then some, but it’s the “then some” that gets you into debt. Money’s always a tight thing and it has been since currency began, but to pretend debt is new is ignorant of all history. Lastly, as to the 150 countries bit, I’d have to say that yeah, the US has forces in a lot of countries, and in almost all cases as guests and at the request of those countries even to the benefit and request of their citizens. Too often paranoid politicos see the presence of US forces in 150 countries as imperialistic, but in places like Ramstein, or the UK, or Canada, or perhaps 130+ other countries, those troops are awfully welcome and help protect those people. American forces aren’t invading 150 countries, or terrorizing them, or even hurting them-quite the opposite. In fact, I’m not even sure the 150 country claim is accurate, and it certainly isn’t accurate to portray an image that the US is alone or even in a small group of countries that have forces in other nations (see also nations that contribute to UN peacekeeping etc).

Contrary to all that, it sounds to me like most of Ron Paul’s supporters who’ve posted here are really fringe loons from the left who can’t stomach the centrist steering that most of the DNC candidates give anymore, and so find their affirmation in the paranoia of black helicopters and steel riveted jackboots of the ICE or stormtroopers of Department of Homeland Security (lo to those who dare to monitor what library books I check out for I have a right to surf the web at my library and look for gay puppy dog porn in privacy without Big Brother Bushie watching, right?). Maybe if America just got rid of the US military, formed a Dept of Peace instead of a Department of Defense, and just let the world live in harmony (see Africa model), then we could be debt free individuals with no malice from 6 billion others who would just look on and go, “wow, those Americans are so nice to leave us unprotected and for refusing to come to our aid when we need them.”

[end complimentary run-on]

“I know you may not believe this, but almost all other countries are not “isolationist” yet do not attempt to garrison the globe with their troops. Bringing troops home does not represent “isolationism”, it represents sanity.”
It represents national cowardice in international affairs

Religous aspects aside, I wonder what part of Osama Bin Laden’s latest ranting differs from Ron Paul and his supporters dogma

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070907_bin_laden_transcript.pdf

To all the Ron Paulians.
These guys thought they had all the answers too:
All the answers

This site guarantees we’ll all be subjected to anal probes by space aliens and then locked up in FEMA concentration camps!

AIIIEEEEEE!!!

(You rock, Wordsmith!)

Oh, and he’s also a reading-comprehension-deficient retard.

What’s your excuse, Lester? You the same Ronulan paleocon that populates and bloviates all over Burkean Reflections?

lksjdflsjdf:

What a childish rant! Does your mother know you’re typing such screeds on her computer?

Clearly, you’re not capable of any rational discourse, so I won’t waste much time. But two points:

First, Winston Churchill was derided as a “warmonger” stirring up trouble. He was proven right, but sixty million people died because of delusional moonbats like you lacked even a modicum of appreciation for the lessons of history which Churchill so clearly saw.

Second, “tell me how terrorists are going to blow me up.”

Had you been on one of the three planes that crashed on 9/11 this would be a moot point. Had President Bush not stopped terrorists plots from attacking the Library Tower, JFK airport, Fort Dix…. this would be a moot point.

There are such things are irrational fears and rational fears.

A rational fear is when you KNOW something can hurt you, like putting your hand on a hot stove, or cozying up to a Jihadi. Irrational fears are propated by ignorant moonbat boobs like you who don’t even have the good sense to realize how stupid they sound.

P.S. Tell your mom I said hi!

Curt: I wasn’t expecting any response. I guess McDonald’s doesn’t offer it’s employees internet access while frying the burgers and his Mom has probably disconnected his broadband anyway.

Wiki’s a nice and malleable source, so I choose dictionary.com or my handy dandy websters both of which are not so comfortable nuianced.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
i·so·la·tion·ist
—noun
1. a person who favors or works for isolationism.
—adjective
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of isolationists or isolationism: to be accused of isolationist sympathies.
[Origin: 1860—65, Americanism; isolation + -ist]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,
American Heritage Dictionary
i·so·la·tion·ism
n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
WordNet
isolationist
adjective
1. of or relating to isolationism
noun
1. an advocate of isolationism in international affairs

The Wiki source provided above is real nice in that it sorta suggests MILITARY isolationism, and economic engagement, but the two are not exclusive policies. One cannot possibly engage in the global economy and at the same time be a military isolationist because it means that protecting American trade, protecting Americans, and protecting American interests extends only to 12miles off the US coast (about 1.2minutes flying time in a hijacked/kamikaze jetliner btw).

Better definitions point out the difference and describe ISOLATIONISM as being an economic element as well (ie “or”), and my point has always been the economic isolationism as denied by the Paulbots is impossible if there is military isolationism…err, military, non-interventionism. TO understand this parity in its complete form, look at the “military” non-interventionism that preceded US military involvement in WWI and WWII. In both cases, the lack of military involvement (ie, American isolationism) allowed small regional conflicts to explode, and the US failed to enter until economic interests were at stake (ironically, this same argument is made for getting involved in the Gulf in 1990 and not earlier in 1979 when it would have been militarily cheaper in both blood and treasure).

Military non-interventionism IS a form of isolationism, and if it is not, please explain (a historical example would be great) a situation in which President Ron Paul and his Paulbots would advocate taking action beyond the US’ 12mile limit? Don’t even try with the “if we had solid or 100% intel” bit as no intel is solid, and that’s why they call it intel not evidence

But one tidbit food for thought first….
“When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”
-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941

“When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”
-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941

The Navy Department of the United States has reported to me that on the morning of September fourth the United States Destroyer Greer, proceeding in full daylight toward Iceland, had reached a point southeast of Greenland. She was carrying American mail to Iceland. She was flying the American flag. Her identity as an American ship was unmistakable.

She was then and there attacked by a submarine. Germany admits that it was a German submarine. The submarine deliberately fired a torpedo at the Greer, followed later by another torpedo attack. In spite of what Hitler’s propaganda bureau has invented, and in spite of what any American obstructionist organization may prefer to believe, I tell you the blunt fact that the German submarine fired first upon this American destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design to sink her.

Our destroyer, at the time, was in waters which the Government of the United States had declared to be waters of self-defense — surrounding outposts of American protection in the Atlantic.
In the North of the Atlantic, outposts have been established by us in Iceland, in Greenland, in Labrador and in Newfoundland. Through these waters there pass many ships of many flags. They bear food and other supplies to civilians; and they bear material of war, for which the people of the United States are spending billions of dollars, and which, by Congressional action, they have declared to be essential for the defense of our own land.

The United States destroyer, when attacked, was proceeding on a legitimate mission.

If the destroyer was visible to the submarine when the torpedo was fired, then the attack was a deliberate attempt by the Nazis to sink a clearly identified American warship. On the other hand, if the submarine was beneath the surface of the sea and, with the aid of its listening devices, fired in the direction of the sound of the American destroyer without even taking the trouble to learn its identity — as the official German communique would indicate — then the attack was even more outrageous. For it indicates a policy of indiscriminate violence against any vessel sailing the seas — belligerent or non-belligerent.

This was piracy — piracy legally and morally. It was not the first nor the last act of piracy which the Nazi Government has committed against the American flag in this war. For attack has followed attack.

A few months ago an American flag merchant ship, the Robin Moor, was sunk by a Nazi submarine in the middle of the South Atlantic, under circumstances violating long-established international law and violating every principle of humanity. The passengers and the crew were forced into open boats hundreds of miles from land, in direct violation of international agreements signed by nearly all Nations including the Government of Germany. No apology, no allegation of mistake, no offer of reparations has come from the Nazi Government.

In July 1941, an American battleship in North American waters was followed by a submarine which for a long time sought to maneuver itself into a position of attack. The periscope of the submarine was clearly seen. No British or American submarines were within hundreds of miles of this spot at the time, so the nationality of the submarine is clear.

Five days ago a United States Navy ship on patrol picked up three survivors of an American-owned ship operating under the flag of our sister Republic of Panama — the S.S. Sessa. On August seventeenth, she had been first torpedoed without warning, and then shelled, near Greenland, while carrying civilian supplies to Iceland. It is feared that the other members of her crew have been drowned. In view of the established presence of German submarines in this vicinity, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the flag of the attacker.

Five days ago, another United States merchant ship, the Steel Seafarer, was sunk by a German aircraft in the Red Sea two hundred and twenty miles south of Suez. She was bound for an Egyptian port.

So four of the vessels sunk or attacked flew the American flag and were clearly identifiable. Two of these ships were warships of the American Navy. In the fifth case, the vessel sunk clearly carried the flag of our sister Republic of Panama.

In the face of all this, we Americans are keeping our feet on the ground. Our type of democratic civilization has outgrown the thought of feeling compelled to fight some other Nation by reason of any single piratical attack on one of our ships. We are not becoming hysterical or losing our sense of proportion. Therefore, what I am thinking and saying tonight does not relate to any isolated episode.

Instead, we Americans are taking a long-range point of view in regard to certain fundamentals and to a series of events on land and on sea which must be considered as a whole — as a part of a world pattern.

It would be unworthy of a great Nation to exaggerate an isolated incident, or to become inflamed by some one act of violence. But it would be inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents in the face of evidence which makes it clear that the incident is not isolated, but is part of a general plan.

The important truth is that these acts of international lawlessness are a manifestation of a design which has been made clear to the American people for a long time. It is the Nazi design to abolish the freedom of the seas, and to acquire absolute control and domination of these seas for themselves.

For with control of the seas in their own hands, the way can obviously become clear for their next step — domination of the United States — domination of the Western Hemisphere by force of arms. Under Nazi control of the seas, no merchant ship of the United States or of any other American Republic would be free to carry on any peaceful commerce, except by the condescending grace of this foreign and tyrannical power. The Atlantic Ocean which has been, and which should always be, a free and friendly highway for us would then become a deadly menace to the commerce of the United States, to the coasts of the United States, and even to the inland cities of the United States.

The Hitler Government, in defiance of the laws of the sea, in defiance of the recognized rights of all other Nations, has presumed to declare, on paper, that great areas of the seas — even including a vast expanse lying in the Western Hemisphere — are to be closed, and that no ships may enter them for any purpose, except at peril of being sunk. Actually they are sinking ships at will and without warning in widely separated areas both within and far outside of these far-flung pretended zones.

This Nazi attempt to seize control of the oceans is but a counterpart of the Nazi plots now being carried on throughout the Western Hemisphere — all designed toward the same end. For Hitler’s advance guards — not only his avowed agents but also his dupes among us — have sought to make ready for him footholds and bridgeheads in the New World, to be used as soon as he has gained control of the oceans.

His intrigues, his plots, his machinations, his sabotage in this New World are all known to the Government of the United States. Conspiracy has followed conspiracy.

For example, last year a plot to seize the Government of Uruguay was smashed by the prompt action of that country, which was supported in full by her American neighbors. A like plot was then hatching in Argentina, and that Government has carefully and wisely blocked it at every point. More recently, an endeavor was made to subvert the Government of Bolivia. And within the past few weeks the discovery was made of secret air landing fields in Colombia, within easy range of the Panama Canal. I could multiply instance upon instance.

To be ultimately successful in world mastery, Hitler knows that he must get control of the seas. He must first destroy the bridge of ships which we are building across the Atlantic and over which we shall continue to roll the implements of war to help destroy him, to destroy all his works in the end. He must wipe out our patrol on sea and in the air if he is to do it. He must silence the British Navy.

I think it must be explained over and over again to people who like to think of the United States Navy as an invincible protection, that this can be true only if the British Navy survives. And that, my friends, is simple arithmetic.

For if the world outside of the Americas falls under Axis domination, the shipbuilding facilities which the Axis powers would then possess in all of Europe, in the British Isles, and in the Far East would be much greater than all the shipbuilding facilities and potentialities of all of the Americas — not only greater, but two or three times greater — enough to win. Even if the United States threw all its resources into such a situation, seeking to double and even redouble the size of our Navy, the Axis powers, in control of the rest of the world, would have the manpower and the physical resources to outbuild us several times over.

It is time for all Americans, Americans of all the Americas to stop being deluded by the romantic notion that the Americas can go on living happily and peacefully in a Nazi-dominated world.

Generation after generation, America has battled for the general policy of the freedom of the seas. And that policy is a very simple one — but a basic, a fundamental one. It means that no Nation has the right to make the broad oceans of the world at great distances from the actual theater of land war unsafe for the commerce of others.

That has been our policy, proved time and time again, in all our history.

Our policy has applied from the earliest days of the Republic — and still applies — not merely to the Atlantic but to the Pacific and to all other oceans as well.

Unrestricted submarine warfare in 1941 constitutes a defiance — an act of aggression — against that historic American policy. It is now clear that Hitler has begun his campaign to control the seas by ruthless force and by wiping out every vestige of international law, every vestige of humanity.

His intention has been made clear. The American people can have no further illusions about it.

No tender whisperings of appeasers that Hitler is not interested in the Western Hemisphere, no soporific lullabies that a wide ocean protects us from him — can long have any effect on the hard-headed, far-sighted, and realistic American people.

Because of these episodes, because of the movements and operations of German warships, and because of the clear, repeated proof that the present Government of Germany has no respect for treaties or for international law, that it has no decent attitude toward neutral Nations or human life — we Americans are now face to face not with abstract theories but with cruel, relentless facts.

This attack on the Greer was no localized military operation in the North Atlantic. This was no mere episode in a struggle between two Nations. This was one determined step toward creating a permanent world system based on force, on terror, and on murder.

And I am sure that even now the Nazis are waiting to see whether the United States will by silence give them the green light to go ahead on this path of destruction.

The Nazi danger to our Western world has long ceased to be a mere possibility. The danger is here now — not only from a military enemy but from an enemy of all law, all liberty, all morality, all religion.

There has now come a time when you and I must see the cold, inexorable necessity of saying to these inhuman, unrestrained seekers of world conquest and permanent world domination by the sword: “You seek to throw our children and our children’s children into your form of terrorism and slavery. You have now attacked our own safety. You shall go no further.”

Normal practices of diplomacy — note writing — are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws who sink our ships and kill our citizens.

One peaceful Nation after another has met disaster because each refused to look the Nazi danger squarely in the eye until it actually had them by the throat.

The United States will not make that fatal mistake.

No act of violence, no act of intimidation will keep us from maintaining intact two bulwarks of American defense: First, our line of supply of materiel to the enemies of Hitler; and second, the freedom of our shipping on the high seas.

No matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will keep open the line of legitimate commerce in these defensive waters.

We have sought no shooting war with Hitler. We do not seek it now. But neither do we want peace so much, that we are willing to pay for it by permitting him to attack our naval and merchant ships while they are on legitimate business.

I assume that the German leaders are not deeply concerned, tonight or any other time, by what we Americans or the American Government say or publish about them. We cannot bring about the downfall of Nazism by the use of long-range invective. But when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.

These Nazi submarines and raiders are the rattlesnakes of the Atlantic. They are a menace to the free pathways of the high seas. They are a challenge to our sovereignty. They hammer at our most precious rights when they attack ships of the American flag — symbols of our independence, our freedom, our very life.

It is clear to all Americans that the time has come when the Americas themselves must now be defended. A continuation of attacks in our own waters, or in waters that could be used for further and greater attacks on us, will inevitably weaken our American ability to repel Hitlerism.

Do not let us be Hairsplitters Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack.

The time for active defense is now.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say: “We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned.”

This is the time for prevention of attack.

If submarines or raiders attack in distant waters, they can attack equally well within sight of our own shores. Their very presence in any waters which America deems vital to its defense constitutes an attack.

In the waters which we deem necessary for our defense, American naval vessels and American planes will no longer wait until Axis submarines lurking under the water, or Axis raiders on the surface of the sea, strike their deadly blow — first.

Upon our naval and air patrol — now operating in large number over a vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean — falls the duty of maintaining the American policy of freedom of the seas — now. That means, very simply, very clearly, that our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships — not only American ships but ships of any flag — engaged in commerce in our defensive waters. They will protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface raiders.
This situation is not new. The second President of the United States, John Adams, ordered the United States Navy to clean out European privateers and European ships of war which were infesting the Caribbean and South American waters, destroying American commerce.

The third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, ordered the United States Navy to end the attacks being made upon American and other ships by the corsairs of the Nations of North Africa.

My obligation as President is historic; it is clear. It is inescapable.

It is no act of war on our part when we decide to protect the seas that are vital to American defense. The aggression is not ours. Ours is solely defense.

But let this warning be clear. From now on, if German or Italian vessels of war enter the waters, the protection of which is necessary for American defense they do so at their own peril.

The orders which I have given as Commander in Chief of the United States Army and Navy are to carry out that policy — at once.

The sole responsibility rests upon Germany. There will be no shooting unless Germany continues to seek it.

That is my obvious duty in this crisis. That is the clear right of this sovereign Nation. This is the only step possible, if we would keep tight the wall of defense which we are pledged to maintain around this Western Hemisphere.

I have no illusions about the gravity of this step. I have not taken it hurriedly or lightly. It is the result of months and months of constant thought and anxiety and prayer. In the protection your Nation and mine it cannot be avoided.

The American people have faced other grave crises in their history — with American courage, and with American resolution. They will do no less today.

They know the actualities of the attacks upon us. They know the necessities of a bold defense against these attacks. They know that the times call for clear heads and fearless hearts.

And with that inner strength that comes to a free people conscious of their duty, and conscious of the righteousness of what they do, they will — with Divine help and guidance — stand their ground against this latest assault upon their democracy, their sovereignty, and their freedom.

Boy Howdy, I looked at that last post and all I could read was blah, blah, blah, blah blah….blah, blah.

Aaah…you really should read it. You probably did…but then realized Scott was making too good a point.

It’s well-worth the read.

Scott points out what I already knew about wikipedia, so I’m ashamed I used it in this post.

I agree with Scott when he typed:

Military non-interventionism IS a form of isolationism

Scott’s other points echo this comment from The Jump Blog, which I had linked and quoted in my Isolationist post:

So, we shouldn’t entangle ourselves in foreign affairs…except of course to trade with them. And travel to them. And have diplomatic relations with them. Which of course would lead to things like trade treaties. Which lead to real treaties. Which lead to military obligations and charges of American Imperialism and makes a target of our trade partners. Which would put us right back where we are. If, that is, the terrorists didn’t just decide to start knocking us off back here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Which of course they would.

We kicked their ass, let them put themselves back together. The US military is a sledgehammer. Its purpose is to destroy, not to police the world or to build nations.

Historically, that’s not true. Our military has always found itself in the roll of “nation-building/occupation”.

Our mistake in Afghanistan was leaving a vacuum there after the Soviets were defeated, allowing the Taliban to come build the schools that would teach and promote their brand of Islamic interpretation; and having taken over the country, instituted their fundamentalist approach to governance.

I reprint here a quote from Max Boot which I used in a previous post (in which you also commented…yet maybe you also skimmed what it said as “blah, blah, blah”; so here it is again for your edification):

Soldiers follow orders, and presidents have often found it convenient or necessary to order the armed services to perform functions far removed from conventional warfare. Throughout U.S. history, marines at home and abroad have found themselves providing disaster relief, quelling riots, even guarding mail trains. Soldiers also have often acted as colonial administrators- in the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Veracruz, to say nothing of post-World War II Germany and Japan or the post-Civil War South.

In fact occupation duty is generally necessary after a big war in order to impose the victor’s will on the vanquished. If ground forces win a battle and go home, as the Powell Doctrine advocates and as actually happened in the Gulf War, the fruits of victory are likely to wither on the vine. Only boots on the ground can guarantee a lasting peace.

More from johnnyB:

You folks just don’t seem to get it, so I will not bother wasting my time,

You’ve been doing a lot of that here….wasting time not “getting it”, because you don’t want to “get it”. You are just interested in pushing RP as THE candidate. After all, I think I read somewhere, a comment you left regarding a thousand dollar donation to the RP campaign, and that “it felt good”.

You are emotionally and financially invested and bogged down in RPist ideology. You’re no longer interested in truth-seeking. Just agenda-driven.

So, since you won’t bother “wasting your time here anymore”, are you throwing in the towel because you’ve ran out of arguments to put forth?

Ron Paul is the last chance for the republic, and when he fails to get the nomination, I am going to sit back and laugh while the democrats beat the crap out of the Republicans in yet another election, then I’m going to cry whn the democrats turn this country into a commie hell hole.

Yep, you retards are doing a real bang up job here at flopping aces, take my advice and kill yourselves.

Sounds like reality of having thrown a thousand dollars down the toilet is beginning to sink in.

Don’t worry. It’s only money. The best you can do for yourself, is learn from your mistakes and not buy into the hype of an inconsequential candidate selling snake oil politics, in the future.

Don’t worry about my thousand bucks wordsmith, I’ll make that up in a day short selling the US dollar against the Euro of all damned things. I hate making money shorting dollars, it makes me sad, I would much rather being shorting other currencies and buying dollars, but what can you say when the US currency loses half of its value against the Euro in a matter of 6 years! AS they say, the trend is your friend.

The House of Saud seems pretty capable of keeping its oil wells pumping and those pipelines flowing. Ol’ Saddam wasn’t the best oilman in the business, but he was doing a sight better than they are doing in Iraq now.

Our intervention in foreign affairs has done nothing to increase the oil supply, in fact it has had the exact opposite effect, and decreased the global supply, which has lead to the price of a bbl of crude more than TRIPLING! Not to mention that our foreign adventurism has provided fertile ground for commies like Hugo Chavez and Islmofascists like Ahmadinejad to play the devil’s advocate and do their own little saber rattling, which spooks the markets so traders are afraid to short sell oil futures and instead start speculating on a supply interruption which drives the price up through the roof.

With all this money to made made in the commodities market, why invest in business? The fast money has been in futures, so in attempt to spur the economy, the fed keeps on dumping money into the system, but the traders keep on getting that money and playing the futures market with it, which is just driving prices further. Sure some of it trickles into the stock market, and there is economic growth, but the money supply is increasing faster than our economy is growing so the value of our money goes down.

I wish I could say that this trend is coming to an end and that the US dollar is now under valued, but that’s not the case. The dollar is still overvalued and there is still a lot of money to be made by getting rid of your dollars and buying just about any other currency under the sun.

Forget for a moment that Bush is a Republican, and imagine if he were a Democrat what sort of reaction you would have to the Bush presidency. We elected him as a Republican, and he’s been acting like a democrat ever since.

As I recall, we elected Bush to get us out of Socialist Security, but instead we get this huge prescription drug entitlement program. We had confidence that Bush would not resort to nasty ol’ Keynesian Economics, and would instead rely strickily on Laffer, but NO! When we were threatened with recession, Bush uses both Laffer and Keynes creating all these other big stupid government garbage.

We hoped that Bush would get rid of the Department of Education, but instead we get No Child Left Behind, which like every other stupid government bureaucracy has been an outstanding failure. After 9/11, certainly a good Republican would not have fallen back to a centralized Bureaucracy for Homeland Security, but Bush creates a whole New Department Named the Department of Homeland Security, just making a bigger centralized mess of everything!

I’m sorry fella’s but I want to send a President to the white house that I can trust to do his best to kill this beast that has become the Federal Government, and the only Republican that I hear talking about killing the beast is Ron Paul. All of the rest are Big Government guys, and even if they had the possibility of winning against Hillary, which they don’t, but if they did all we could trust them to do is give us a slightly less socialist government than Hillary would.

AS far as this “War” goes, I do not give a damn about Iraqis. I could not care less if they all kill themselves, all I care about is that they keep that oil pumping. Bush has proven that its far cheaper to just buy the oil rather than fight incredibly expensive wars for it. There is no threat in all of the middle East that the US Navy cannot take care of from the safety of the Ocean, or that our stealth fleet cannot destroy in 24 hours.

Now about your argument for us Protecting Saudi… We do not need to protect Saudi, we sell expensive ass weapons so they can protect themselves. Even still we do not get a lot of our oil from Saudi, we make most of our own oil that we consume, then Canada, Mexico and Venezuela supply most of the rest, so yeah if for some reason Saudi quit pumping it would make oil prices sky rocket, but it would not cause any sort of major supply disruption, and would not force us into a recession.

The US needed the French Navy during the Revolution because we did not have one back then, but we have the Worlds greatest Navy now which is plenty capable of keeping the trade routes of the World open for business. Putting boots on the ground is hardly ever needed.

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

Why do conservatives condemn domestic government social engineering as counterproductive and socialist while they cheer nation building social engineering abroad as an American ideal? You are confused. And with 65-70 percent of Americans polled now opposing the War in Iraq, if the Republicans nominate a pro-war Republican they may just as well hand the White House over to the democrats. You drew the wrong conclusions to the 06 elections. Ron Paul is the only Republican running that can save the GOP from its own Waterloo. Get ready for a Hillary Clinton as President with all the powers of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. You deserve as much for your insane screed against a true Constitutionalist like Dr. paul.

A reminder to all the Paulbots: PayPal donations can be made on the righthand sidebar. It’s just your way of saying “thank you” to us at FA for indulging you and giving you free attention and advertisement for your inconsequential candidate.

I now know what many of the “pumped up” “passionate” Ron Paul supporters remind me of: Amway salesmen. I had a roommate who fell into this pyramid scheme, and it was weird. I can just picture a roomful of Ronulans at a RP infomercial clapping their hands as if they were at a religious revival or dancing on top of their chairs as if it were a Tony Robbins seminar.

There really is something “cult-like” in the following of RP.

Google 1776 wordsmith, you might learn a thing or two about some truely rabid, lefty-looney, crazies whose goal was is to exact change – and apparently it worked for a few hundred years anyway. Now , where is that big fat check I received from George Soros – Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.