Ron Paul Owns CPAC 2010, FOX is not pleased

[Lucavi]

The serious argument? Made 30 years ago by the Soviet General running Afghanistan. Every mujahideen you kill has more male relatives then you have fingers and they will all take it personally when you kill their male relative and that shit won't be pretty.

So the solution is forced sterilization! Brilliant! Lets make it happen - I hear nuclear radiation is terrible for breeding. One more justification for the bombs.

[Leif]

What the hell, Leif; you can't even take 2 seconds from politics to acknowledge my welcome back?

Off my Christmas list. This is bullshit.

Reasons for my ban included: "Thread Trolling" "other" "Postcount spammer" and "Postcount spammer".

I would love to respond to every post, but I don't want to be accused by Morgan Freeman of being an evil person for the fifth time.

Thank you for your kind words. =)

You say that now, much like your televised counterparts, the irony in this however is that it has been touted an important indicator in years past. The right can't go on for years about the significance of this specific poll and then when the result is something they disapprove of say, well its meaningless.

You're absolutely right. It's not meaningless. CPAC represents a large chunk of the party's base, plus young people and libertarians.

Considering the current political climate were the Democrats' evil plots are given a higher priority than social issues, the vote completely makes sense.

But, as I said before, the message is not strong enough for Democrats to scream "Ron Paul is their next candidate! Boy can we win for sure next time!"

The serious argument? Made 30 years ago by the Soviet General running Afghanistan. Every mujahideen you kill has more male relatives then you have fingers and they will all take it personally when you kill their male relative and that shit won't be pretty.

This is how war works. It's not pretty. Just because you make their family angry doesn't mean you're creating more enemies than you kill. Eventually, even the cave dwellers in Afghanistan will get the message. You can be peaceful and nice to us and your own people, or you can die.

[Olo401]

He wants to bring the troops home and use them to secure our borders and coastlines which are currently as open as lindsey lohan's legs. How is that not good for national security?

Because it doesn't bring home the oil for our buddies at ExxonMobil and it doesn't kill them thurr a-rabs..

BTW thanks for bringing up the abortion thing Leif, because it's one of the biggest issues where Ron Paul is a fucking hypocrite.

[ZarakiKujata]

Yeah I agree Leif, hence why I said we should just nuke the whole mess and be done with it


edit: but seriously, you honestly think that you can convince a people that play polo with still bleeding goats heads and who have more AKs in the country than people that they should change their warlike ways after 30 years of war and anarchy?

[Leif]

Because it doesn't bring home the oil for our buddies at ExxonMobil and it doesn't kill them thurr a-rabs..

Are you seriously going to accuse the US of going to war for oil? That's complete liberal fantasy.

Yeah I agree Leif, hence why I said we should just nuke the whole mess and be done with it

The Republicans don't have the guts to commit mass murder. Democrats do, but it just so happens they would be wiping their number one victim class off the face of the earth.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Are you seriously going to accuse the US of going to war for oil? That's complete liberal fantasy.

That is by no means a "complete" fantasy, oil is at the very least a part of the reasoning behind everything we've ever done in iraq

[ZarakiKujata]

Step 1: Former CEO as VP
Step 2: Invade country with 3rd largest oil reserves
Step 3: Give VP's company that he still owns stock in sweet contracts
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Kill Arabs!
Step 6: Profit.

[ephel]

wb Leif

[Not not Mattaru]

How do I put Leif on ignore (minus avoiding anything questioning his sensibilities and moral fiber)?

I tried to find out how to ignore Egon once, but never found the button.

[ZarakiKujata]

its stickied at the top of the forums...

[Not not Mattaru]

its stickied at the top of the forums...

I have not read that in who knows how long, but I have it fixed.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Why would you block leaf? You'll never understand whats going on in a thread till he gets banned again

[Olo401]

Why would you block leaf? You'll never understand whats going on in a thread till he gets banned again

That's a fair point..

[Not not Mattaru]

Its more important to understand an issue than a thread. My understanding of an issue is in no way (or at least not increased in an economical manner) by reading whatever Leaf has to say on it. If I wanted his opinion I'd watch Fox News, read Ann Culter, etc.

Let us have an experiment. We can self-moderate or leave it up to mods. If everyone besides the 4-5 token conservatrolls ignores Leif and company if desired we have successfully reached the goal we want by weeding out an obvious inferior product from the almighty force of the market. Or we can leave it up to the mods to get rid of a troll.

If we all self-moderate Leif may score a small ideological victory, but it will be worth it.

If we let mods get rid of him, an authoritative force has intervened to increase the collective good (i.e. getting rid of a broken record troll) and we get a double win.

Either way in this game we are coming out somewhat ahead!!!

EDIT: Don't take my game too serious.

[Atreides]

sometimes I kinda wonder if leif is hot irl but I sincerely doubt it

[Stumblingdrunk]

the gay community has spoken, head to the RL pic thread leaf

[archibaldcrane]

Sometimes I wonder if Leaf is mad about the first widely commercially available 100% electric car in the U.S. being named after him.
http://www.treehugger.com/Nissan-Leaf-EV-1.jpg

[willriker]

That's insane and completely unsubstantiated. The idea that killing terrorists creates more terrorists is completely illogical. This requires a serious argument rather than a poor excuse not to fight any wars.

The idea that fighting winning wars and killing your enemies makes you less safe from those same enemies is preposterous. As Ann brilliantly explains, there will be less of them.

>.> i really dislike that frame of mind. The act of killing terrorists does not breed a significant amount of additional terrorists. The method in which, the US, seeks them out and elliminates them does breed more terrorists. I do agree that isolationism revived at the end of WWI. Then it died with the start WWII. Since that point in time, the gradient between isolationism and intervention has only increased. Some called, and still call, this a learning curve. Proponants say that you cannot prevent another Sadam, or w/e, from coming to power through an isolationist point of veiw. You must be proactive. You need to go out and kill people like this before they have a chance at real power. They will point at Usama bin Laden as a prime example of how this works. The USA left him a lone, for the most part, following the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. He rose up, and struck at the US. Now the US has been keeping the pressure on him, and since the US has put the pressure on AlQ there have been no successful attacks on US soil... But, this type of intervention has to be handled in a diferant way than Bush/Cheney did.

They scream that this policy works. They shout that this policy keeps us safe. They exclaim that we must continue to root out all evil in this world, or at the very least root out all that is harmful to the US. But, this type of logic has many serious flaws.

Many of these people rose to power through thunderous aplaus. Its not exactly easy to take out such people without them becoming a form of martyr. They need to have done something pretty awefull, and by then its already to late for an intervention type of policy to have had any sort of effect other than resentment towards the US for not acting sooner. And then you are stuck in a catch 22 situation. If you were to intervine too early, the country will either:

-say wtf are you even doing in our country, we can handle this
-hate you for taking out a leader they liked
-already be taken over, with what you were trying to prevent already in the works. (too late)

If you were to intervine too late, well all sorts of atrocities have occured due to inaction.

Another flaw lies in that you need to determine who is a threat before that person amasses power enough to cause havok. So, when is the opportune time to do so? Most times it is when the person/group is small. The question now becomes how much force is necisary? Do you need to invade another soveriegn country with your army to take out a small group? I cannot see how this fosters trust or cooperation in the international community, let alone the farmer whos fields are being plowed by foreing tanks.

Lastly is what country are you invading. Its always a factor. Do you invade 1936 germany/ 1950 russia circa? Do you invade Afganistan/Iraq? All four are soverieng nations. All four posed a significant risk to the United States. But somehow, the invasion of the latter is more palletable. This is yet another problem with an intervention type of policy.




I would like to see the US head to more of a middle ground between isolationism and intervention. We should have a smaller group to assist/suppliment sovereign nations to deal with their internal issues. But the majority of our forces should be used on holding our borders safe, or going to where there is a clear, and near unanimous international concencus of, egregeous[sp?] violation of human rights around the world. Things like the genocides in africa should be a concern for our military. Things like providing humanitarian relief in the Dominican Republic, the Philipines, and New Orleans should be a driving force in our military. Invading entire countries, setting up entire new governments in the process, to execute ALQ members, should not be the prime directive of the US military.

The UN said it, the US balked at that approach. Heck even i did. Looking back, balking at the UN plan was a huge mistake.

More recently there was talk, around these parts, of invading Pakistan. There are AlQ memebers AND Taliban members in Pakistan. Unlike Iraq, there is an international concensus that Pakistan has WMD's. We didnt even need to sink money into satilite photos of trucks that could be carrying nuclear weapons... or ice cream to determine if they have them. Instead of invading Pakistan, we are working with the Pakistani government. That is the type of intervention policy that should be in place. We shouldn't have the cluster fuck that was made out of Iraq and Afganistan.

[Soa]

I really didn't like that doucher college kid at the end..

I remember they brought him on to CNN to debate a chick from the Young Democrats a couple times during the Presidential election, and she would whoop his ass so bad in their debates. He would get so frustrated by the end he would pull an EBM and start spouting off nonsense in a hysterical voice and his face would get all red. Was some funny shit.

[Jakson]

Let us have an experiment. We can self-moderate or leave it up to mods. If everyone besides the 4-5 token conservatrolls ignores Leif and company if desired we have successfully reached the goal we want by weeding out an obvious inferior product from the almighty force of the market. Or we can leave it up to the mods to get rid of a troll.

What goal is this that you speak of, that requires the trolls to be gone to attain?