Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Pretty much nobody.  Only reason he got second was because absolutely no one ran negative ads against him.  $ wins campaigns, and none was used to make him look bad.  Put simply, it was a fluke, and it's looking likely that Romney's getting the nomination.

Cool, you are a massive fuckin' idiot.  I would ask you how you got from my post that I support Romney, or anyone else for that matter, but you would only struggle before coming up with "Durr, but you said Romney was probably gonna win.  Must mean you support him!  Makes sense to me..."  Which would be stupid of you, so I'll spare you that embarassment.  Second, the reason I even started following politics was because of Ron Paul, whom I've supported since 2007, when he announced his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election.  "But, hmm, other people I know just found out who he was... Duhh, so you're just jumping on the bandwagon like everyone else"  I guess you didn't do very much thinking before deciding to have a "thought."

And before you think of setting up the damp cardboard defense "I never said you supported Romney, you made that up," look up the definition of presupposition.  In that, your statement *presupposes* our support for particular candidates, among other things.

Excuse me, embarrassment*

That's also true.  If I remember correctly, he either went to every district in Iowa or at least made the attempt.  Dude was busy, no doubt about that.

I was going to answer, but the only thing i could come up with was that he spent his entire campaign in Iowa only to lose the nomination, I don't actually know anything about his beliefs. I guess he's just the Kwanza of politics, because none of my friends know about his beliefs either :P

As for Ron Paul, he was the first politician I ever took seriously. Before I heard what he was saying, I was judging who should win by "This guy looks the best out of all of them" or "This guy is the most popular", it wasn't untill I saw his videos that I said "This is the person who we need to be President." I've never followed another candidate this closely either, although i keep missing all the Republican Debates, I really need to figure out when they show :P

I think Obama is beatable and I don't think it will make a difference who the Republicans put against him.  I think the only way Obama wins is if there is a third party canidate that splits the votes.  I look forward to seeing Obama's presidency ending.  I think Ron Paul is a whack job but I'd vote for him over Obama.

How is Ron Paul a whack job? First off,  let me say that I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul on several of his policies. I like that he is an advocate of the Constitution. I like that he opposes big government and big corporate bailouts. I like that he wants to abolish several wasteful and over reaching departments of government.    Whack job is hyperbole that I sometimes slip into and I should have refrained from it because I am new to this forum and the people here and it probably came of trollish. If push comes to shove, I’d gladly vote for Ron Paul over the neocommie Obama hands down. (neocommie is NOT meant to be hyperbole)

Research?  I've lived in the Middle East buddy, have you?  I'd say you've bitten down on the propaganda that your leftist school propably taught you.  Are you actually saying that we DESERVED to be attacked on 911?  Are you saying that the Muslims are justified in attacking us?

Maybe YOU should do some research.  Terrorism was nothing until 1976 because it had no base of operations until 1976 when the Iranian revolution came down.  Then terrorism world wide had an ally with Iran and funding.  They have pubically stated  that they want to exterminate the United States.  We lived in peace with many muslim nations prior to the Iranian revolution.  Ron Paul has no grasp of history.  

I did see the commercial and what I was impressed with is how easily it is to edit history and dupe ostridges to bury their heads in the sand and hope that the bad men will go away.  At the same time I agree that energy independence will at least slow their aggression against us.  You are a dumbass fool if you think it will stop them.  READ their Koran.  They talk about how to create a holy war by starting wars and that is precisely what has happened. 

The supply system of the United States is vast and cumbersome but if disrupted it would bring our society to a halt and millions would die.  Ron Paul thinks that he can bargain with these evil bastards by simply going away.  He's nuts just as Chaimberlain was stupid to think he could negotiate with Hitler. 

I love Ron Paul's stance on budget cuts and reigning in the Federal Reserve. 

We've had a heroin problem in the past.  Ron Paul wants to legalize it.  He's nuts.  He ignores history and he is dangerous.  I'd vote for him over Obama only because I know he would be booted out in four years. 

Let me get this straight.  Having LIVED in a place and meeting natives of various Middle East countries is not RELEVANT evidence?  Are you kidding?  My experiences are something witnessed and not filter by second hand news casts my friend.  You just don't want to ACCEPT what I've seen.  I'd say that what I went through and verified with my OWN EYES has shaped my opinion in an educated way that TRUMPS anything you've READ.  You don't have to accept my experience but you should have the decency to respect it. 

You take my terrorism argument out of context and then set up a strawman defense.  Terrorism against the United States in its present form began in 1976 shortly after the Iranian Revolution.  Up until then we had peaceful and acceptable relations with every nation in the Middle East.  Iran set up financing and cover for their terrrorist allies.  Iran has made war through terrorism. 

I did not say ALL muslims are evil.  Don't put words in my mouth.  I do think that the act of terrorism committed on 911 IS EVIL.  I also think there is a world of difference between genocide in the Bible and genocide as practiced today by misguided Muslim extremists.  Genocide in the Bible is directed at one specific tribal group and not EVERYONE who does not follow the Koran.  BIG DIFFERENCE. 

Would I personally use heroin?  No, because I'm not a moron.  However I wouldn't be stupid enough to drink and drive either.  Still there are hundreds of thousands of people who abuse their right to consume alchohol and heroin was selectively banned for a reason.  It is far to addictive and destructive and there are many fools who do not care about themselves nor the people around them that they destroy.  The drug utopia that the Netherlands has regarding drugs has been a collossal failure.  Even the Dutch want to correct the Pandora's Box they have unleashed upon themselves. 

I've also asked several questions and yet you don't have the courtesy to respond.  Please justify the butchering of the thousands that have died on 911.  You can't and neither can Ron Paul. 

What exactly is wrong with profit?....Other than you envy their paycheck?

Bo is okay with me.  I don't take the things he says personally. 

Russia was NOT more aggressive than Iran.  Are you kidding?  There was a vote in 1982 in the Russian Duhma (Congress) whether to go to war or not when Reagan came to office.  The Soviets voted 8 to 1 against going to war against NATO even though they had superiority of forces at the time.  Russia backed down in 1963 in Cuba.  The Soviets might have played hardball but the Iranians play dirty.  Russia has used it nukes as political collatteral.  Never once have the Soviets threatened to exterminate us like Iran has. 

Iran doesn't have to use ICBMS.  Their missile can strike at anything within the Straights of Hormuz where 90% of the world's oil goes in and out of.  They have a missile delivery system that can reach any of our carrier groups within range.  And perhaps you have never heard of an EMP  airburst but all you would need is one nuclear weapon to do catastrophic damage to the US. What you have told me is that you know jack squat about warfare Bubba.  

Our troops invade Afghanistan AFTER 911!!!  What history have you been reading?

You want a video about how long Al Quada and Osama Bin Laden have been after us?  Try this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okN0jB9Ezis  To give you some background, it is July of 1987 and Oliver North is being drug before Congress for a grilling about a security system.  Watch and see who North is defending himself against and then see the Congressmen laugh at him when he tells them.  Keep in mind this is 14 years PRIOR to 911. 

You seem to rail a lot against FOX.  Are you so naive as to think that FOX is the only biased news channel?

Whether he wanted to inconvenience us or just didn't want me to notice I'm not sure, but he posted this a little bit up. I'll post down here and reply to it as if he actually posted in the normal way.

"Let me get this straight.  Having LIVED in a place and meeting natives of various Middle East countries is not RELEVANT evidence?  Are you kidding?  My experiences are something witnessed and not filter by second hand news casts my friend.  You just don't want to ACCEPT what I've seen.  I'd say that what I went through and verified with my OWN EYES has shaped my opinion in an educated way that TRUMPS anything you've READ.  You don't have to accept my experience but you should have the decency to respect it. 

You take my terrorism argument out of context and then set up a strawman defense.  Terrorism against the United States in its present form began in 1976 shortly after the Iranian Revolution.  Up until then we had peaceful and acceptable relations with every nation in the Middle East.  Iran set up financing and cover for their terrrorist allies.  Iran has made war through terrorism. 

I did not say ALL muslims are evil.  Don't put words in my mouth.  I do think that the act of terrorism committed on 911 IS EVIL.  I also think there is a world of difference between genocide in the Bible and genocide as practiced today by misguided Muslim extremists.  Genocide in the Bible is directed at one specific tribal group and not EVERYONE who does not follow the Koran.  BIG DIFFERENCE. 

Would I personally use heroin?  No, because I'm not a moron.  However I wouldn't be stupid enough to drink and drive either.  Still there are hundreds of thousands of people who abuse their right to consume alchohol and heroin was selectively banned for a reason.  It is far to addictive and destructive and there are many fools who do not care about themselves nor the people around them that they destroy.  The drug utopia that the Netherlands has regarding drugs has been a collossal failure.  Even the Dutch want to correct the Pandora's Box they have unleashed upon themselves. 

I've also asked several questions and yet you don't have the courtesy to respond.  Please justify the butchering of the thousands that have died on 911.  You can't and neither can Ron Paul"

1st paragraph:

I'm not acting like you living there provides you with no experience whatsoever, simply that your account -which may or may not be true- does not overturn statistics that have been proven and reproven, only to be ignored by war zealots like you. Anywho, when I counter one guy who lived in the Middle East for a while with multiple military officers who not only lived there as well, but FOUGHT THESE PEOPLE and they say that the statistics are true (and that not all muslims want to wage holy war, but you kind of ignored that part), I'm going to listen to them.

2cnd paragraph:

"Terrorism was nothing untill 1976 because it had no base of operations untill 1976"

Oh, my mistake, I thought that when you said terrorism was nothing, you meant terrorism was nothing. My bad, I was clearly in the wrong. You didn't say 'In the middle east' or ' nothing like it is today', you said it was nothing until 1976. Oh, and btw, remember that whole part of american history when the Presidents decided to use the military to settle differences and overturn governments in South America? They didn't exactly like that, and we still have sour relations with us. The same thing happened with the Middle East. We showed up with thousands of soldiers and told them we were here to protect them, and when they said no we stayed anyway, and how do you think they would love us if it wasn't for terrorism in Iran?

Also, IRAN does not wage war on America, MILITANT GROUPS IN IRAN like the TALIBAN wage war on Iran. Sure, some people support them and want to aid them in driving America out, but this is the exact same thing that Paul argues will happen, so the whole "Paul is a wackjob" argument doesn't really add up. 1+1=2, same logic.

3rd paragraph:

You said the Koran tells it's people to wage holy war. You called the people who wage holy war on us terrorists. Muslims follow the Koran. Yes, you basically said muslims are terrorists through basic reasoning, even if you ignore your quote of "Are you saying that the Muslims are justified in attacking us?", not that terrorists are justified, just muslims. Yes, you are saying muslims are terrorists. 

Oh, and you might want to look at the great flood. Evidentally God killed almost every living thing on Earth, which I think counts as EXTREME genocide, and do you know why? They stopped believing in him and started doing things that Christians saw as immoral. Yup, there's genocide in the Bible, even if you don't count killing Egyptian children untill they stopped persecuting a religion, which you can twist into terrorism :)

4th paragraph:

Precisely, YOU WOULDN'T DO DRUGS JUST BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIDN'T TELL YOU NOT TO. The point's pretty much proven there, the people who are stupid enough to do drugs and drink and drive anyway wouldn't be effected by the Federal government telling them to do something or not to do something, so why does it matter?

However, I noticed that you didn't even try to argue Paul's policy on what you thought was 'legalizing heroin', so I'm guessing you realize that Paul doesn't believe in everything Fox news says he does. He's not a wackjob, he just proposes "radical" new ideas that the media loves to call crazy to deter votes from him

5th paragraph:

Name 2 questions I didn't respond to.

I specifically said I wasn't calling 9/11 justified, and you were just throwing it out there to make me look bad. What I was saying was  not all muslims act this way, and the ACT OF BOMBING INNOCENT CIVILIANS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY 9/11. However, if we want to talk about who dropped what arguments, I'd have a field day pointing out what you refused to adress.

What Ron Paul has been saying is that agression in the middle east is caused by hatred of America. You know how hatred of America grows? By sending thousands of armed soldiers through streets under the excuse that they can't police themselves. By killing hundreds of unarmed civilians in one night because one militant group attacked the US. By attempting to justify thousands of innocent deaths with claims of "they started us" or "they have nukes", even though neither was true. By withdrawing from the Middle East, we are stopping these accidents (accidents referring to civilian deaths) from happening, and at the same time putting more soldiers than ever before in the US, meaning we would be even more defended from terrorist attacks.

Whole thing:

I'm with 3J on this, I'm not entirely sure you're not trolling right now. You're making insane arguments and justifying them with '9/11 WAS EEEEEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLL'. I honestly hope you're trolling, because otherwise you are living proof of the amount of ignorance displayed by some Americans.

We still have sour relations with them*

militant groups in Iran are at war with us*

That's it, I'm gonna have to re-read everything I've written before I post it now.

claims of "they started it"*

1at paragraph--I'm in accordance with what those people say.  You need to reread what I'm saying.  Not all muslims are terrorists. 

2nd paragraph--considering that South America is a CONTINENT and not a country---I'm laughing my ass off at your blunder.  I'm trying to think of which country we invaded in South America.  Lets see---there was Nicaragua in 1935--but that is Central America, and Panama which was technically Columbia in the early 1900s.  Grenada in 1985 but that is an island in the Carribean and Cuba which was technically Spain back in the late 1800s. Which South American country are you talking about?  Damn!  The whole continent is pissed and we haven't even hit the mainland!

3rd paragraph---That is by far the stupidest deductive reasoning and faulty logic that I've seen in a long long time.  Who is trolling who now? 

4th paragraph--I believe I did respond to that. I don't have a problem with state rights and I agree with him that the Feds should mind their own business as per the Constitution.

5th---Sorry Bo.  I can't go with Paul saying that we brought 911 on ourselves.  He is full of shit.  You can whine all you want about troops being deployed.  We are there.  If you think it will all be forgiven and forgotten once we come home you are in for one hell of a surprise. 

Anyway--good one.  You managed to waste a lot of my time.  I have better things to do.  You actually changed my mind about Ron Paul.  Should he be the nominee I might just sit the election out instead of voting for him.  Congradulations.

1st paragraph:

I listed later in the argument how the reasoning/wording you used resulted in my drawing the conclusino that you were ranting against Muslims. However, the main point of the first paragraph was that when faced with the decision of whose  (not quite sure if that's the proper use of the word) testimony to use - one person who's been to the middle east or multiple people who fought there combined with documented statistics- my sources would be the better to refer to. Now that it turns out it was just a misunderstanding and we both knew that it wasn't all Muslims who waged holy war, or even supported the holy war, then my entire argument under the "first paragraph" section is irrelevant.

2cnd paragraph:

"overturn governments in South America"

I didn't say we invaded South America or anything like that, the main emphasis should be on ''IN South America", as it doesn't say 'OF South America'. I was talking about seperate countries in South America, so I'm not getting how I made a blunder there, although I'm happy you found so much amusement in it.

As for the Central America V South America thing, you might have something there. However, for now I'm going to cite my Glencoe Textbook, the part where it was talking about our foreign affairs policies towards the countries in South America. You know, Dollar Diplomacy and the Roosevelt Corrolary and the like.

3rd paragraph:

It's simple 1+1 reasoning, if you don't get it, I feel sorry for you. If you say the Koran preaches about waging holy war, and that Muslims believe in the Koran, then you say Muslims believe in waging holy war.

As for the whole 'God killing everyone in teh world' thing, yeah, that was trolling :)

4th paragraph:

Once again you drop the Paul vouching for legalizing Heroin argument.

5th paragraph:

For the love of God, wild, get this through your thick skull. I'll even put this in these pretty, capital letters because apparently you can't understand normal ones. 

RON PAUL DOES NOT SAY 9/11 WAS JUSTIFIED. HE SAYS THAT AGGRESSION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS CAUSED BY OUR TRYING TO DOMINATE THEIR LIVES BECAUSE WE HAVE  A BIGGER MILITARY. HE ADVOCATES NON-INTERVENTIONALISM BECAUSE WHEN WE WITHDRAW, WE WILL BE SPENDING LESS ON FOREIGN WARS, WE WILL HAVE MORE SOLDIERS TO DEFEND OUR HOMES, AND ANTI-US AGRESSION IN THE MIDDLE EAST WILL DECREASE OVER TIME.

Hopefully you will be able to understand that.  You barely put anything to respond to, so this post is much smaller than my other debate posts.

Bo your "Empiricism versus Rationalism" argument sound like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me.  Are you saying that you don't believe in the Scientific Method which is something that Empiricism uses?  And let me clue you in on something--reasoning uses both deductive and inductive reasoning.  Do you know the difference?  It sounds to me like you half ass know a philosophy that you can't explain very well.  Again you polevault over my observations and provide no proof. 

Ron Paul did say that we brought 911 on ourselves did he not?  So I'm asking you how in the hell can one justify this murderous act.  Paul seems to think that terrorism operates in a vacuum and our presence in the Middle East (which has been there for over a century) sparked a homicidal act that we are somehow responsible for.  Please explain his thinking. 

As for the civilian casualties in Iraq.  It's called war.  I have no problem with it.  It is a simple formula.  Don't kill my people and I won't kill yours. 

"Also, have you seen that episode of family guy where Louis's every response to the political debate was "Nine Eleven"? This reminds me of that :)"   That episode kinda sums up a childish viewpoint of war now doesn't it?  Personally I don't think war is such a good thing nor do I find it funny.  Of course my perspective is from actually fighting one and then seeing how your own politicians and countrymen spit on you for doing what you were ordered to do. 

"1.) explain to me how not sending thousands of troops to the countries in the Middle East, most of whom don't even want to be there and try to sabotage us, will disrupt the supply system enough for millions of people to die. I really want to hear your answer"

This question completely displays your ignorance of the politics of the Middle East.  And having never LIVED there you wouldn't know that the Kuwaitis were tickled pink that we were there.  You wouldn't know that a lot of Iraqis were happy to get rid of Saddam.  The Saudis kiss our butts regularly because they know that we keep Iran off their ass.  They have a tightrope walking that line because they also have to save face and act like they hate the infidels.  Bahrain, the Arab Emirates, and Oman certainly like our presence. 

Buddy, the fact that you know NOTHING about the Straights of Hormuz alone shows just how ignorant you are on the matter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9023637/Nato-urges-Iran-to-keep-Strait-of-Hormuz-open.html

and here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

The other straights are the Straights of Malacca which go through Indonesian waters.  Either one of these could severly disrupt the supply lines. 

Here is what happened to Argentina when they had economic collapse.  Just imagine it on a global scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999%E2%80%932002)

If you want something closer to home try Hurricane Katrina and how quickly supplies ran out. 

2.) Seriously, bro, come to Alabama. We'll love your 'All Muslims are evil bastards' rhetoric... well, most of us anyway. Ugi and I are just 2 exceptions.

I DID NOT SAY THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL.  I will say that Ahmadinajad is one twisted evil sonafabitch.  He happens to be running Iran and he and Hitler do have A LOT in common.  This is what it comes to in a "debate".  You have to go to the lowest common denominator and you have to resort to name calling. 

As for the Ron Paul heroin rhetoric---that is your response? I agree with Ron Paul that most decisions should be up to the states to decide as per the Constitution.  That isn't what galls me.  What trips me out is that Paul believes that legalizing heroin would have no repercussions.  You mean to tell me that no one would use it?  Do you want kids to use it?  If not then at what age should they be allowed to?  And why not allow them to experiment and try their right to heroin at any age?  Seems to me that the idea to legalize it is dumb to begin with. 

Thanks for the appology.  I didn't take offense but I appreciate the sentiment.  Likewise I have a strong oppinion about war and such having fought in one.  I took a lot of shit from people over the years and sometimes it vents out.  So if I was a bit trollish or rough---that's not who I am on the balance.  I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.  We may disagree but at least you have the balls to step into the arena of ideas and hash it out.  I respect that. 

"Are you saying that you don't believe in the Scientific Method which is something that Empiricism uses?  And let me clue you in on something--reasoning uses both deductive and inductive reasoning."

Let me explain my reasons for not choosing that philosophy. By choosing Rationalism over Empiricism, I'm not declaring everything in Empiricism false, I'm simply saying that I believe in Rationalism more. So no, I do not declare the scientific method false - I never even implied that - I am simply saying that experience is not the best way of attaining knowledge. Analyzing statistics and reading about violence in the Middle East can grant you just as much knowledge as living through violence in the Middle East, so I hold Rationalism as my mental philosophy rather than  Empiricism. And yes, I know about deductive and inductive reasoning, it's pretty basic knowledge. However, when you've been proven wrong, telling someone they don't know what they're talking about doesn't really hold much weight unless you can prove it, which you can't. I still have those links if you want them by the way.

"Again you polevault over my observations and provide no proof."

Actually, I countered your self-experience argument with testimonies from several military officers ranging from the Air Force to the Army (which would prove you wrong even if you only wanted to see things through Empiricism's eyes) and later with statistics (which would satisfy the Rationalistic side of the argument), so I didn't exactly "polevault" over your argument. Unless of course you were talking about a completely different argument that I didn't see, in which case you shouldn't have tagged that little snippet in the end of your paragraph that was talking about the Empiricism argument. If that's the case, please tell me what I apparently "polevaulted".

"Ron Paul did say that we brought 911 on ourselves did he not?  So I'm asking you how in the hell can one justify this murderous act.  Paul seems to think that terrorism operates in a vacuum and our presence in the Middle East (which has been there for over a century) sparked a homicidal act that we are somehow responsible for.  Please explain his thinking."

I'll gladly explain it. His main foreign affairs philosophy is that of non-interventionalism, which is simply not using our military to fight in foreign wars, especially if they don't want us there. One of his main arguments for this is that of perpetual war brought on by our involvement. He argues that our sending thousands of soldiers to uncoopoerative countries, policing their streets without their consent, and accidentally killing innocents (which is an unfortunate eventuality in any war)  is what leads to anti-US hostility. This hostility causes some to rise against us because they want to be able to rule themselves their own way (after all, no matter how many insurgents and terrorists we mow down, more come up in their wake. Do you really think this is just because they want some virgins?), and we will want to calm the situation by killing the "insurgents" in the belief that it will bring their people safety. Because of this,war there will be neverendign, and we will be spending shitloads on it instead of on ourselves.

However, I have yet to see you show an instance when Paul said 9/11 was justified. He does not agree with it, he knows it was an evil act, but to say there was no reason for it happening is not only ignorant, it's basically calling the concept of cause and effect wrong by saying that these things happen for absolutely no reason.

"As for the civilian casualties in Iraq.  It's called war.  I have no problem with it.  It is a simple formula.  Don't kill my people and I won't kill yours."

And there lies the problem, we killed the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and others in the Middle East because of what one exremist group did. These people did not live under Al Qaeda's rule, they did not support Al Qaeda, and there are videos of and pictures of people in teh Middle East crying in the streets over what happened in 9/11, just like in many other places in the world. Your attitude of wanting to slaughter innocents because of what one group of people did (Little fun fact: during the first night of bombings, most Iraqi hospitals didn't see a single soldier, all the hundreds of injuries, amputations, and deaths were civilian casualties. Some didn't even see a single soldier that night) directly proves Ron Paul's concept of perpetual war because - and get this - WE ARE KILLING THEIR PEOPLE. IN THE EYES OF THE PEOPLE WE ARE KILLING, THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, SO THEY WILL HAVE THE EXACT SAME MENTALITY AGAINST US. You claim 9/11 was evil, probably because they killed thousands of innocents, guess what we have done in Iraq? You are the worst kind of American, the kind that is so ignorant that your views are that we are infallible, and as such we can kill as many people as we want because you believe they started it all. To make matters worse, I used to be like you untill I opened my eyes.

"Of course my perspective is from actually fighting one and then seeing how your own politicians and countrymen spit on you for doing what you were ordered to do."

I don't disrespect the men who fought in Iraq, they were ordered there by their government, and they did their job. That's all, they are not immoral, the people behind the war are, and by saying the war is unjustified I do not mean that the people who fight in the war are bad people, simply the people who think the killing of innocents was justified because of 9/11 are ignorant and close-minded. I'm sorry if it was implied that I was dissaproving of the soldiers, but I'd like to say right now that was not my intention, I have nothing but respect for those who are willing to give their lives for their countrymen.

"This question completely displays your ignorance of the politics of the Middle East.  And having never LIVED there you wouldn't know that the Kuwaitis were tickled pink that we were there.  You wouldn't know that a lot of Iraqis were happy to get rid of Saddam.  The Saudis kiss our butts regularly because they know that we keep Iran off their ass.  They have a tightrope walking that line because they also have to save face and act like they hate the infidels.  Bahrain, the Arab Emirates, and Oman certainly like our presence."

Two things

1.) I have direct testimonials from people who have "LIVED" there that several people do not want us in their countries, so imagine me as a proxy for them. I could get verbatim quotes tomorrow, but I doubt you would even pay attention to them seeing as they don't agree with you.

2.) When faced with the argumetn of "Several people in the Middle East do not want armed patrols roaming their streets", saying "A few people do" does not counter it. I'm not saying that people didn't want to see Sadam toppled, I'm saying that when people don't want us there, hostilites will grow.  If you noticed, I specifically stated "Countries that don't want us there" repeatedly, so I don't really see why you think saying some people want us there negates what I'm saying.

"Buddy, the fact that you know NOTHING about the Straights of Hormuz alone shows just how ignorant you are on the matter"

I'll be the first to admit that I was uneducated on the matter, but I checked out the links so I could learn more on the subject. You're right, they are major pipleines, but the US is not the only country passing through these waters, they are multi-national shipping routs, so chances are that if it did somehow get to the point that millions of people were going to die like you suggested, a coalition would be made to free the waters from pirates, a hostile government, terrorists, or whoever took it. It would not be US soldiers alone actign on misguided vengeance, it would be a multi-national effort acting to save millions of lives, which would be completely and totally justified.

 "I will say that Ahmadinajad is one twisted evil sonafabitch.  He happens to be running Iran and he and Hitler do have A LOT in common.  This is what it comes to in a "debate".  You have to go to the lowest common denominator and you have to resort to name calling."

Two things:

1.) Check my message above for how your message could be construed as anti-muslim. You did not specify at all, and so when you say "Ahmadinajad is a twisted evil sonafabitch" it is not they same as "Ron Paul thinks he can negotiate with these evil bastards" (you did not specify Iran as the evil bastards) and 'He might as well negotiate with Hitler' (You did not specify the leader of Iran'.

2.) haha, check the timeline bro. You said that if I believed a certain way, I was a "dumbass". After that I resorted to namecalling, as that barrier had already been breached by you, so your just as bad as I am in that account, "buddy" :)

"What trips me out is that Paul believes that legalizing heroin would have no repercussions.  You mean to tell me that no one would use it?  Do you want kids to use it?  If not then at what age should they be allowed to?  And why not allow them to experiment and try their right to heroin at any age?  Seems to me that the idea to legalize it is dumb to begin with. "

You have to take a better look at my argument. Never once did I say that there would be no repercussions, nor did I say no one would do heroin. I stated that those who are smart enough to say away from harmful drugs stay away, and those that are stupid enough to do harmful drugs will do them anyway. Pay attention to when I typed "Let's imagine that you live in the state that legalized it. Is your immediate respone "Oh my God, no one's telling I can't do heroin, I have to stick a needle in my arm!" I honestly hope your answer is no". That argument was made entirely to show that the national government does not control all the choices you make, the same anti-drug videos will be circulating in schools, and parents will still (hopefully) be telling their children not to do them, so an old dude in the white house saying "don't do it" doesn't have huge repurcussions.

Furthermore, a main point in  my argument is that it would not be made legal, even if his policy was approved by Congress. Name one state that would make Heroin legal.

"Likewise I have a strong oppinion about war and such having fought in one"

No problems dude, I understand. I didn't serve myself, but I have family who has served, friends who have and still do serve, teacher who have served, and most of my friends come from military families. Most of us have at least one connection to the military, and as such we have strong feelings about it. Perhaps not as strong as someone who has lived through it, but we feel them nonetheless.

"I took a lot of shit from people over the years and sometimes it vents out.  So if I was a bit trollish or rough---that's not who I am on the balance"

I'm sorry that happened, it pisses me off to no end when someone looks at a soldier and acts like it's his fault the war happened, or he's evil for serving the country, or anything like that.

Thanks for the compliment btw, this is something I believe in very heavily, otherwise I wouldn't have invested this much time in it :)

Okay, I'll try to couch this in your own terms.  With statistics would you care to guess what percentage of all the world armed conflicts a muslim nation or group is NOT involved? 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm 

Ron Paul seems to think, and you agree, that when we put troops abroad this creates terrorism and therefore we brought 911 on ourselves.  This IS his premis.

http://terrortrendsbulletin.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/ron-paul-blame-america-first-for-jihad/

If you read the article you can see that this is a faulty premis.  If you look at the statistical evidence you would realize this is a faulty argument.  But, let us say that Ron Paul is right in that when we put an airbase in Saudi Arabia it really pissed off Osama Bin Laden.  Paul is referring to the Prince Sultan Airbase (1996), but even though he is pathetically wrong because we had the Khobar Towers airbase long before that let us just give Ron Boy the benefit of the doubt shall we?  We used a Saudi airbase in Khobar since 1991 during Operation Desert Storm and this is what triggered 911.  When did we first hear of Osama Bin Laden?  Hmmm?

This video is when Osama Bin Laden is first known to the US public and the Congressmen are trying to pin North on corruption charges.  Note how they laugh at Oliver North when he tells them who he is afraid will kill his family and Americans----it is Osama Bin Laden and this occured YEARS BEFORE AN AIRBASE WAS IN SAUDI ARABIA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okN0jB9Ezis

"You're right, they are major pipleines, but the US is not the only country passing through these waters, they are multi-national shipping routs, so chances are that if it did somehow get to the point that millions of people were going to die like you suggested, a coalition would be made to free the waters from pirates, a hostile government, terrorists, or whoever took it. It would not be US soldiers alone actign on misguided vengeance, it would be a multi-national effort acting to save millions of lives, which would be completely and totally justified."

This also shows your naivete on how a military works.  Who has a navy that can deploy and take on an operation like this?  If you get this "coalition" of forces they aren't always compatible.  We relied on French tanks in Somalia when "Black Hawk Down" occured.  It ended up as a mess.  That was a cakewalk compared to something like a naval operation.  Great Britains forces were so pared down that when they fought Argentina during the Fakland War and the Argentinian forces nearly beat them.  The were humiliated fighting a third rate navy and they took heavy casualties.  Ron Paul wants to strip the navy precisely because they are a world wide navy.  He wants to reduce them to a coast guard force.  It would take YEARS to build a navy from that to be able to retake the Straights of Hormuz.  

In foreign policy you don't second chances.  Nevil Chaimberlain thought he could reason with Hitler much like Paul thinks you can reason with everyone in the Middle East.  Some you can and some you can't.  Iran has been hostile towards us since their revolution.  Ron Paul demonstrates sheer ignorance in foreign policy. 

I think on the other arguments like legalization of heroin and such we agree that state rights are important but disagree on if drugs and such should be legalized.  I think that drugs are destabilizing.  Hezbollah (an Iranian backed terrorist group) is working with drug cartels.  Wherever you see the drug cartels  you see distabilized governments and that is why I don't want to give in to legalizing it.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. 

"Yur attitude of wanting to slaughter innocents because of what one group of people did (Little fun fact: during the first night of bombings, most Iraqi hospitals didn't see a single soldier, all the hundreds of injuries, amputations, and deaths were civilian casualties. Some didn't even see a single soldier that night)"

One thing that is hard for people to understand is that war is not a sanitized process.  It is fucking brutal.  Innocents get hurt and we are in one.  I don't know of many soldiers who died during 911.  I believe the vast majority were civiilians excpet for the few who died at the Pentagon.  Most warriors that I know, in fact all of them that I know, do NOT like war or want there to be war.  At the same time I feel that weakness INVITES danger.  911 came because we appeared to be weak.  I think that being deployed all over the world isn't the answer either but pussing out because the going gets tough is a bad idea too.  Al Quaida had funding and a base of operations, now it is on the run.  They have not had a significant victory or attack since the invasion of Afghanistan. 

We'll I've got work to do.  I swing at you later Bo.  Don't get soft on me.  Get riled up and try again. 

Bo can't beat anyone in a debate Written... uh, I'm just going to cut the power to my internet.

Unless you count crushing in word count (I have a tendency to make things wordy, I don't intend to) I don't think he can be "crushed" at all, he's pretty good.

Yeah Bo, I think I learned that lesson firsthand -_-

haha, one good thing they teach you in LD, if you find a bit of circular logic, flaunt it. I could type at least a paragraph on one of the fallacies you made, so take advantage of the internet's environment. Read your post over for fallacies (I know it gets long so you'll want to do it earlier on to root out these problems ASAP), do some research, etc. etc.

I'll respond to wild's post later, I've been studying for about 5 hours, which is the longest I've studied for anything... ever. I'm fried when it comes to thinking right now haha.

Really? I've never studied once in my life... maybe that's why I'm barely passing.

Not studying is the fastest way to the bottom of the food chain Playa.  Don't worry about it.  You keep using your freedom the way you want to!  Besides, sudying and brains brings certain expectations that you don't need.

Haha actually, the low grades are because I don't feel like learning unimportant shit about how the sum of a quadrilateral's angles invariably add up to 360 degrees. I'm just blowing off Sophmore year because I'm going to go to a technical school to help me train to become a firefighter next year.

I have a healthy respect for firefighters.  I hope you get to be one.

Are you thinking or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?  I'm not in a debate.  These are my opinions.  I don't have to take a positive or negative side and look for fallacies.  Put what you THINK and FEEL out there Bo.  There is nothing wrong with liking Ron Paul because he has a snazzy haircut or that you like his Libertarian views.  Debating takes the humanity out of the equation.  Freedom isn't logical and when it is practiced it is often not ethical but I LIKE it and I'd favor it over anything else.  If you just wanted to debate........you should have told me.  I would have shut up. 

What the hell is LD?

You do realize that a debate is whenever two people assert ideas to see if one set is better than the other, right? So yes, this is a debate, and yes, these are my real beliefs. Debating actually can be emotional, but more on that later. I don't think this is arguing for the sake of arguing, I think we really are in a serious debate (seeing as this is actually a debate) and I'm doing this to show that A. Paul isn't a whackjob and B. Our occupation of the middle east is wrong. So yes, these are my real beliefs and no, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.

LD stands for Lincoln Douglass, which is a debate style used in the National Forensics League based on the morality debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass. The point of LD is to combine emotions, morality, and logic, to decide how the world should be, so it's pretty philosophy-heavy, but there's always a way to insert your own beliefs into an argument even if you're arguing a side you don't agree with. I'm a member of Prattville's LD team.

I'm not schooled in debate.  Your working against an average joe.  I don't see how anyone can be proved wrong.  Ron Paul has a strong isolationist stand on foreign policy.  Perhaps I used hyperbole to say he was whacko.  I just think it is dangerous to expose your supplyline is all. 

You used the word occupation.  That is a charged word.  I see that as being an oppressor and therefore illegit.  How do you define occupation pre 911?  Define wrong and please explain how many Americans deserved to die due to the occupation.  I'm all ears.

How many Americans deserved to die? Are you on this 9/11 thing again?  I don't beleive 9/11 was justified and neither does Paul, he simply beleives that there was a reason that it happened. His standpoint is to stop being involved in foreign wars and hopefully tension will die down.

I know I keep saying this, but I will eventually respond to the long post, but as of now I haven't read it, I've been busy. If you want to continue I'm fine, but consider this my offer of surrender :P I'll continue if you want, though, just expect it to be a while before my next post. Then agian I did spend at least an hour organizing my Crescent Drafting method, so maybe it's just a question of work ethic...

LOL---you put up a great scrap.  I won't accept your surrender.  I'll call it a draw. 

Oh, and if I was supporting based on hair... my choice would obviously be  Romney :)

Don't worry, I'm not trying to rekindle the debate here, just asking a question :)

Wild, if you're still around (we seem to be losing too many people who look like they're going to become regulars these days) I was intrigued by what you were saying about Paul saying 9/11 was justified. I didn't believe, and I still don't, but I wanted to look for what made you think this so delved into my regular sources, and althuogh I didn't see anything directly saying 9/11 was justified, I did find the following the quote.

"5,000 American servicemen and women is NOT a fair tradeoff for 3,000 American citizens, no matter the number of Iraqi-Pakistanian-Afghan people who are killed  or displaced."

Is that something along the lines of what you were talking about? Although I can find loads of stuff where Paul is saying we shouldn't have invaded various countries in the Middle East after 9/11, I can't find him saying that it was justified. I'm genuinely interested in where you found this, because this isn't a topic I want to be misinformed about.

Paul never said my quote or that 9/11 was justified?

To justifiy something is to declare that it was right to do an action or to say they can't be blamed for doing an action, which Paul absolutely did not say. I don't think the bombers were justified in flying planes into the Twin Towers, I just think there was a reason, HUGE difference between saying something was morally right and saying there was basic cause and effect.

Anywho, just like the people of Iraq didn't deserve to be killed for Al Qaida's actions, neither did the people of the United states deserve to be killed for the actions of an elite few that control oil companies. Basically, neither side had it coming.

None of these politicians' arguments makes any difference or should be listened to. Anyone who wants to be President, or hold public office for that matter, shouldn't be allowed to run.

Look at the difference between what the politicians say and what they do, then observe as they insist politics is "complicated" in defense. The three branches are like a pit filled with conniving lizards.

May as well keep Obama as hire on Romney or some other rich lizard.