Ron Paul Owns CPAC 2010, FOX is not pleased

[Not not Mattaru]

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

Maybe I misread. The welcome backs were sincere?

[Jakson]

Nah, I just thought maybe you had some other goal than getting rid of trolls, or that there was some point that was being obscured by trolling, i.e. bitching or trolling about bombing terrorists = a stop in the bombing of terrorists.

[Lucavi]

I don't mind Leif. Its one big circle-jerk here when everyone agrees with one another. I just hate Ann Coultier, because she's a racist fuck-stick, and Lief's unabashed support of a judgemental bitch like her irks me.

[Jakson]

I don't mind him either, I just find it amazing that people can get so in depth in these discussions that don't accomplish anything.

[Lucavi]

Well I'm guilty of that in the FFXIV section - not everyone wants to "win" all the time, but one certainly wants others to acknowledge their viewpoints, especially when we feel that someone else is "wrong".

[Not not Mattaru]

I don't mind Leif. Its one big circle-jerk here when everyone agrees with one another. I just hate Ann Coultier, because she's a racist fuck-stick, and Lief's unabashed support of a judgemental bitch like her irks me.

I agree it is one big circle jerk. On the other hand, we can seek self-satisfaction by testing our opinions against unoriginal, crackpot, mouthpiece brick walls who mire any real discourse and only succeed in maybe making them look a little dumber and somehow increasing their own faith in their fervently held nonsense. Mutual masturbation is the way to go.

In the end its all about splooging all over the place so lets go to Fuck or Duck and stop kidding ourselves.

[Lucavi]

Well that and shamelessly hitting on female mods, especially if you knew them before they were mods.

[Jakson]

Yeah, that's why I kinda feel that getting into these arguments with people who are very unlikely to change their minds (and certainly not by someone on the internets) is pointless, especially when nobody who reads/participates here is going to DO anything about it that they weren't before, such as voting.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

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.

Your #3 is incorrect. He didn't still own stock.

[ZarakiKujata]

Your #3 is incorrect. He didn't still own stock.

I seem to recall a book mentioning that he was still getting paid in some way by Halliburton or had benefits of some sort but its been 7 years I could very well be wrong.

[Not Kuno]

Well that and shamelessly hitting on female mods, especially if you knew them before they were mods.

Welcome to BG!

[Leif]

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

It would be absolutely fabulous if its development wasn't subsidized.

I don't mind Leif. Its one big circle-jerk here when everyone agrees with one another. I just hate Ann Coultier, because she's a racist fuck-stick, and Lief's unabashed support of a judgemental bitch like her irks me.

Ann Coulter is not racist. What makes someone "judgemental"? I seriously doubt that she judges people on anything but their ideas. Even saying that, she still wishes all liberals go to heaven.

Really long stuff

I haven't forgotten you.

[Lucavi]

Welcome to BG!

And I'm loving every minute of it!

Edit: Leif, if I was tasked with doing an interview with Ann Coultier, I know -exactly- what kind of look I would initially get from her. You can try to spin it however you want it, but life experience >> comfortable thoughts behind a monitor.

She's as racist and as judgmental as the day is long. Looks, appearance, background, religion, "values" and especially skin color are all tools to divide, when it comes to people like her.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I seem to recall a book mentioning that he was still getting paid in some way by Halliburton or had benefits of some sort but its been 7 years I could very well be wrong.

Hmm, maybe, but it wasn't stock b/c I'm pretty sure he sold it all prior to the election b/c the Dem's were giving him such shit for it.

[Leif]

Edit: Leif, if I was tasked with doing an interview with Ann Coultier, I know -exactly- what kind of look I would initially get from her. You can try to spin it however you want it, but life experience >> comfortable thoughts behind a monitor.

Sorry, I'm not going to respond to your victim stories and how you "know" when you're being oppressed. That's pathetic, and rather insulting to Chairman Ann when you assume she is a racist based on nothing.

She's as racist and as judgmental as the day is long. Looks, appearance, background, religion, "values" and especially skin color are all tools to divide, when it comes to people like her.

What are you talking about?

>.> 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.

What's that? What method?

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.

So? An ally can never become an enemy?

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.

You keep alluding to this "method". What is it?

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.

The policy did work. It did keep us safe. And we much continue to defend America at all costs. What 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:

I'm lost, where are the flaws?

-say wtf are you even doing in our country, we can handle this

Who has ever said this?

-hate you for taking out a leader they liked

Good thing this didn't happen in Iraq. Afghanistan is another story, but liberals claim that was the "war of necessity".

-already be taken over, with what you were trying to prevent already in the works. (too late)

What?

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

Can we invade Iraq faster next time then?

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.

How is this a problem? "Hi, you're a threat to us. We don't want you to be a threat to us, so we're going to invade your country."

It sounds like a fine plan to me.

I'm sorry. I really don't understand your point. I can only guess you advocate being nice to our enemies or something.

[archibaldcrane]

How is this a problem? "Hi, you're a threat to us. We don't want you to be a threat to us, so we're going to invade your country."

It sounds like a fine plan to me.

Unless we're wrong and they aren't actually a threat to us.

Then we have a bunch of dead Americans, which is a real fucking bummer.

[ZarakiKujata]

Unless we're wrong and they aren't actually a threat to us.

Then we have a bunch of dead Americans, which is a real fucking bummer.

Hey how about you honor the troops sacrifice you goddamn commie?

[archibaldcrane]

Hey how about you honor the troops sacrifice you goddamn commie?

Is "I can't be against the troops, my sister has PTSD from time in Mosul" the new "I can't be racist, I have a black friend"?

[Atreides]

I can't hate gays, I have one as my hairdresser!

[Leif]

Unless we're wrong and they aren't actually a threat to us.

Then we have a bunch of dead Americans, which is a real fucking bummer.

Sure. But I'll trust our elected officials over you any day.

If you aren't happy with the decisions they make, what makes your decisions better? Why should people listen to you?

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs or what have you. It destabilized the region and created a terrorist breeding ground for terrorists who would do something we could understand - attack our troops. That way they're not attacking civilian targets in America and we have a chance to fight them in a way our commanders understand.

Iraq is just a casualty in the process.

Wait, so by going in to a country, taking out its Al Quada-collaborating government, freeing its people, and killing terrorists we have...

"created a terrorist breeding ground!"

I'm sorry. What?