One for the 'hope and change' crowd....

[Higher Game]

Ron Paul sold out. All real conservatives are against "civil" disobedience, because it's not fair to everyone else who supports the system. What's the point in voting for representatives if their laws are seen as recommendations instead of rules? Why celebrate outlaws? All nations are built on order, not anarchy. It's disgusting how much respect Parks, King, and other lawbreakers are given. This kind of backwards thinking is why democracies rarely last more than a few centuries, but empires last thousands of years.

 

[Bast]

That's old news. Only a deluded reactionary like you would be fooled by an obvious Swift Boat attack as simple as this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108



Anybody who has actually taken the time to listen to what he has to say obviously knows these allegations are completely untrue, yet he is still a big enough of a man to accept moral responsibility for it, even though he clearly had nothing to do with it.

I suggest you look in the mirror to see the best candidate for that particular honor.

Baseless personal attacks.

So basically we're supposed to believe that "other people" without names wrote in Ron Paul Political Report for years without him checking. And they were writing to smear his name? Yeah, right.

And talking about reactionaries, why do you like him so much considering his venomous anti-immigration stance? Seems like you're the closet reactionary, not me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This kind of backwards thinking is why democracies rarely last more than a few centuries, but empires last thousands of years.

You mean like your vaunted Third Reich? I think you have that backwards, as usual.

And talking about reactionaries, why do you like him so much considering his venomous anti-immigration stance?

Because he's not a reactionary while you clearly are?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38

While I certainly don't agree with Dr. Paul on some issues such as this one and abortion, I do think he was by far the best Republican candidate to be president. He was also one of the few who was actually a conservative. I find it very interesting that the far-right crowd seems to have so much difficulty with his love of freedom and liberty, as well as his strong dislike of tyranny and big government.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Double post...

 

[Bast]

Because he's not a reactionary while you clearly are?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38

While I certainly don't agree with Dr. Paul on some issues such as this one and abortion, I do think he was by far the best Republican candidate to be president. He was also one of the few who was actually a conservative. I find it very interesting that the far-right crowd seems to have so much difficulty with his love of freedom and liberty, as well as his strong dislike of tyranny and big government.

Once again, baseless personal attacks. How am I a reactionary?

No one asked you who was the best Republican candidate. According to your values you shouldn't be supporting him at all due to his stance on Immigration and Civil rights and his political report. It seems to me that they're just secondary issues that you can easily discard when someone suits your agenda. That's why you're a fake and a closet reactionary.

Anyone who seriously is anti-reactionary cannot like Ron Paul in the slightest.

Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any movement or ideology that opposes change or progress in society, and which seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante).

Yeah, he's a true conservative, all right, like you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How am I a reactionary?

From your posts. If you were merely a conservative like him, Ron Paul's stances wouldn't bother you so much.

No one asked you who was the best Republican candidate.

Well, here's a clue. I really don't care what you might want or not want me to discuss.

According to your values you shouldn't be supporting him at all due to his stance on Immigration and Civil rights and his political report.

First, you obviously don't have any idea what my own views are despite numerous posts in this forum.

Second, you obviously don't know what Ron Paul's views are on civil rights and civil liberties. That was clear from your diatribe above. Here's some more proof, although I'm sure it is going to fall on deaf ears once again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNJmRSTOUNI

Anyone who seriously is anti-reactionary cannot like Ron Paul in the slightest.

Because you say so.

And no, I'm not "anti-reactionary". I'm not really anti-anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious.

 

[Bast]

And no, I'm not "anti-reactionary". I'm not really anti-anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious.

Yeah and I'm point out the obvious that you condone an anti-immigration, anti-civil rights act (I don't need Youtube clips, Ron Paul said that he would vote against the Civil Rights Act) and hate speech writing politician because he suits your agenda.

 

[MobBoss]

Unlike you, Dr. Ron Paul doesn't hate anybody. After all, he is an obstretician who has delivered over 3000 babies.

Logical fallacy for teh win. Because he is a doc that has delivered a bunch of babies doesnt mean he doesnt hate anyone.

Kinda funny too since your're the guy always complaining about other peoples strawman arguements.

OP/Mobby: Could you please put the BBC link in the first post, as well?

BBC Article: 'No US rights' for Bagram inmates

Many people would not believe Fox, if Fox stated that water's formula is H2O.

Its an AP story simply being run on Fox, Zarn. But I will comply with your request.

Gee, I wonder why?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Proverb

Perhaps fools should learn to look for the AP logo in a news story regardless of the site that hosts it.....Proverb.

 

[Zarn]

I appreciate it. The BBC does have slightly different info. In particular, I am referring to the information on the treatment comparison between Gitmo and Bagram. It's one of the reasons I had asked. I just did not give it to you.

Although small in size, the 5th to last, 4th to last, and 3rd to last paragraphs say a lot.

 

[Bast]

Having vastly different opinions than many other politicians and being outspoken about it will surely attract enemies to some extent.

Anyway, the burden of proof is on your side. You have nothing other than a name on a paper to support that Paul wrote that. If you have more evidence, me and others will be interested in hearing that, but you have no right to judge someone who hasnt be proven guilty (presumption of innosence).

Actually, the burden of proof is not on me. The proof is there, it's up to Ron Paul to tell us who wrote them if he didn't. Frankly, claiming that he knew nothing about them when they were released under his name actually shows gross irresponsibility and incompetency. How is he going to govern a country when he couldn't even control who writes in his newsletter? It actually shows that he's unqualified to be releasing newsletters let alone be holding public office. College students do a better job keeping abreast of their editorial content if that were the case.

 

[Frank327]

Ron Paul sold out. All real conservatives are against "civil" disobedience, because it's not fair to everyone else who supports the system. What's the point in voting for representatives if their laws are seen as recommendations instead of rules? Why celebrate outlaws? All nations are built on order, not anarchy. It's disgusting how much respect Parks, King, and other lawbreakers are given. This kind of backwards thinking is why democracies rarely last more than a few centuries, but empires last thousands of years.

What empire hasn't fallen? All empires when large enough fall apart eventurally. Look at the greek empire, roman empire, mongolian empire, english empire etc. First the grow, then they fall apart because of corruption.

Also, all great nations are built in order, but also all major humanitarian disasters in history. America is quickly moving into the direction of a police state. Sometimes you just have to break the law.

By the way, there's not way in hell you understand all the laws that apply to you. But if you don't understand them, how can they apply to you? Modern laws are a complicated mess.

If the system becomes corrupt, you have to resist it before it takes the step too far. In germany this step was the burning of the reichstag. What will be the step in america? The introduction of obama's new homeland security force? Hell, america had the FBI and the police already. Then homeland security, and now obama wants to draft young people for a civil service thing because of security issues. Aren't you getting a little itchy too?

 

[PiMan]

What empire hasn't fallen? All empires when large enough fall apart eventurally. Look at the greek empire, roman empire, mongolian empire, english empire etc. First the grow, then they fall apart because of corruption.

The English empire didn't fall apart due to corruption, it fell apart because the leaders wanted it to. The English gave more and more powers to the colonies until they were their own countries. Some of the colonies achieved their independence more suddenly than that, like India or Australia.
But overall it was not due to corruption.

 

[Frank327]

The English empire didn't fall apart due to corruption, it fell apart because the leaders wanted it to. The English gave more and more powers to the colonies until they were their own countries. Some of the colonies achieved their independence more suddenly than that, like India or Australia.
But overall it was not due to corruption.

What is corruption? Taking advantage of the colonies could go through as corruption. Sure, it was the people's active choice to use the colonies to gain personal wealth, but it's still some sort of corruption.

This empire fell apart in a natural way, but it also couldn't have sustained.

 

[PiMan]

England gave most of the colonies independence slowly. This was not a money grubbing issue, it was a "lets not be idiots by doing what we did with the US" issue.
Australia achieved independence because the people voted for it, India achieved independence because the people (largely non-violently) demanded it, English colonies in Africa achieved independence because countries in Europe asked for it.

It wasn't corruption, it was diplomacy. The English broke up their empire before corruption could brake it for them.

 

[aelf]

What the hell is the English Empire?

 

[Frank327]

What the hell is the English Empire?

Ever heard of the commonwealth countries? Those were once all a part of england. They had a world wide empire. That was before all the countries gained independence.

I agree, the english empire dissolved through consent. But still, empires dissolve. That's a rule of nature pretty much, and that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[holy king]

british...

 

[aelf]

Ever heard of the commonwealth countries? Those were once all a part of england. They had a world wide empire. That was before all the countries gained independence.

Ahahaha I'm sorry, but I find it hilarious that some people are trying to discuss history seriously and talking about "the English Empire" Reminds me of... Youtube comments

Sorry, please continue.

 

[Frank327]

Ahahaha I'm sorry, but I find it hilarious that some people are trying to discuss history seriously and talking about "the English Empire" Reminds me of... Youtube comments

Sorry, please continue.

Oh yeah, I meant british , that was a brainfart on my case.

 

[PiMan]

What the hell is the English Empire?

I occasionally choose to ignore the differences between the country known as the United Kingdom, the island known as Great Britain and the entity also known as a country called England (despite it being entirely within the UK).
This disrespect often extends to related entities, such as the British Empire.