Posted on 12/18/2007 7:41:42 AM PST by mnehring
YouTube video via Drudge- Ron Paul quote this morning on Fox and Friends- "When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. "
Kook.
Don’t ever associate the honorable Duncan Hunter with that terrorist appeasing cut and run coward you support.
“Really?
I haven’t seen one yet!”
That’s because you support the cut and run coward.
“So, why haven’t we hit Iran for killing U.S. troops?”
Who says that something isn’t already in the works?
Besides why the hell would you care? Your heerow el run paul has said that Iran is not a threat, that they have no military, That everything being said about them is false, and that he wouldn’t attack them.
“I call them hypocrites.”
Yet you think that “Do as I say, not as I do” paul is a truthful and honorable man.
Speaks volumes about the ingrained hypocrisy of your views.
“More empty rhetoric.”
We expect nothing less from the paul campaign
“I do not see any U.S. Bombers flying over Iran?”
That’s because they’re STEALTH bombers.....You know, the very same bombers that your heerow voted to kill.
“The Old Right conservatives want to take back our foreign policy and fight for U.S. interests, not global ones.
So much of what you rant and rave about is really anti-neocon and pro-Old Right.”
Oh so now the America hating terrorist supporting freak show known as the ron paul pollution is trying to claim the mantle of the “Old Right”?
“So stop nominating RINO Republicans.”
Oh, so we can nominate the RINO that you support?
“It will not be done by any neocon!”
“And it should be the neocons that you are complaining about since they controlled policy during the Vietnam war (no victory) and are controlling it now (no victory).”
Oh no! The big bad neocon boogyman!
You paul supporters sound just like the communists that populate the DUmp or dailykos with your shrill cries about neocons.
But then again everyone who refuses the ron paullution is a neocon in your book.
“I believe that if U.S. troops are fighting they should be given the chance to actually win, not fight to create a NWO and put on trial for war crimes whenever they kill the enemy.”
None of our troops have been put on trial for “war crimes”.
They have been put on trial for abusing prisoners.
They have been put on trial for killing prisoners.
They have been put on trial for murdering innocent civilians.
ALL of which is in accordance with the UCMJ (UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE) which is the Congressional Code of Military Criminal Law applicable to all military members worldwide.
“BREAKING:
Cache of 100’s of Ron Paul photo-ops discovered in unprotected folders on Stormfront site”
Rah Row!
Check out reply #36 by Buzzsawmonkey
LOL!
“Wow, that was so clever!”
Shouldn’t you be braying to your master?
“The fact that NO campaign cross-checks every single one of the hundreds of thousands donations they get,”
Excuses, excuses.
If donations are not cross checked then how can a campaign report in good faith to the FEC that the donations are legal?
“and the fact that you simply don’t want it to be true, doesn’t prove anything.”
The FACT is the claims made by you paulbot are NOT true.
And your twisting and turning only shows just how desperate the paul campaign is to be relevant.
“For the claim to be “debunked” you have to have actual proof that thousands of people all conspired to fill in fake information.”
Yet when you paulbots claim that something is debunked, you offer no proof whatsoever.
Not that it doesn’t surprise me since chief paultard himself is the king of double standards especially when it comes to issues such as earmarks and term limits.
“Simply wishing something to be true because it conflicts with your personal opinions is not “debunking.””
By all means keep on wishing that the military supports your village idiot because wishing for something to be true doesn’t make it so.
“Do you understand the tremendous leap in logic from “I don’t want that to be true and I can think of a scenario where it isn’t.” to “That never happened!!!!!!!”?”
It’s obvious that you do not understand that the military DOES NOT SUPPORT HIM no matter how much you wish for it to be true.
“For all their talk of angry conspiracies, the obsessive anti-Ron Paul types on here are masters of them.”
Project much?
“I would consider that a great insult...from a coward.”
What can I say, It’s typical paultard.
“It was a part of a bookcase that was panned behind Huckster.
The part of the bookcase that was in the image was deliberately framed to look like a cross.
There is NO possible way this was accidental and people just happened to notice after it was released.
None.”
Loosen up your tinfoil hat.
Don’t ever associate the honorable Duncan Hunter with that terrorist appeasing cut and run coward you support.
Well, Duncan Hunter has a three step progrem regarding Iraq and the 3rd step is getting Americans out of Iraq.
Unlike the neocons who think America should stay forever in Iraq.
So, the only thing that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul disagree regarding U.S. troops in Iraq is their timetable in leaving, but both agree that they need to leave.
That’s because you support the cut and run coward.
[ “So, why haven’t we hit Iran for killing U.S. troops?” ]
Who says that something isn’t already in the works?
Well, the Bush admininstration is certainly taking its time in doing so.
Besides why the hell would you care? Your heerow el run paul has said that Iran is not a threat, that they have no military, That everything being said about them is false, and that he wouldn’t attack them.
If U.S. troops are going to be exposed to the Iranians, they should be protected.
If Iran is such a threat, why isn't anything being done about them and why aren't you tough talking sorts demanding it?
Paul would remove U.S. troops so they wouldn't be targets.
[ “I call them hypocrites.” ]
Yet you think that “Do as I say, not as I do” paul is a truthful and honorable man.
Paul is an honorable man-and nothing you anti-Paul zealots had brought up shows otherwise.
Speaks volumes about the ingrained hypocrisy of your views.
Speaks more to the blind irrational hatred on your part and the rest of the anti-Paul zealots.
I guess it makes you feel more patriotic to attack him but not to attack the guys in power who actually have the ability and responsibity to do something.
[“More empty rhetoric.”]
We expect nothing less from the paul campaign
And I expect nothing less from the anti-Paul zealots.
[ “I do not see any U.S. Bombers flying over Iran?” ]
That’s because they’re STEALTH bombers.....You know, the very same bombers that your heerow voted to kill.
Oh, yes and are any of those 'stealth' bombers dropping any bombs?
Maybe the bombs are stealth also, and are destroying the enemy but we just don't know it.
As for defense spending, Paul believes in a strong national defense.
[“The Old Right conservatives want to take back our foreign policy and fight for U.S. interests, not global ones. So much of what you rant and rave about is really anti-neocon and pro-Old Right.” ]
Oh so now the America hating terrorist supporting freak show known as the ron paul pollution is trying to claim the mantle of the “Old Right”?
That is exactly his position, that he is representing the principles of the Old Right, of non-interventionism and defending American interests, not those of the Globalists, as put forth by the neocons.
[ “So stop nominating RINO Republicans.” ]
Oh, so we can nominate the RINO that you support?
No, you can support a Republican who actually wants to defend American values, not those of the UN.
[ “It will not be done by any neocon!” “And it should be the neocons that you are complaining about since they controlled policy during the Vietnam war (no victory) and are controlling it now (no victory).” ]
Oh no! The big bad neocon boogyman! You paul supporters sound just like the communists that populate the DUmp or dailykos with your shrill cries about neocons.
Well, you had better check out who is actually in control of the foreign policy of this nation and their neocon affilitations.
But then again everyone who refuses the ron paullution is a neocon in your book.
No, but if any of those major candidates get nominated, it will just be 'busisness as usual' with the same neocon foreign policy.
[ “I believe that if U.S. troops are fighting they should be given the chance to actually win, not fight to create a NWO and put on trial for war crimes whenever they kill the enemy.” ]
None of our troops have been put on trial for “war crimes”. They have been put on trial for abusing prisoners. They have been put on trial for killing prisoners. They have been put on trial for murdering innocent civilians. ALL of which is in accordance with the UCMJ (UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE) which is the Congressional Code of Military Criminal Law applicable to all military members worldwide.
Charged with war crimes, U.S. troops get legal help from home http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/asia/troops.
US Law Concerning War Crimes TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html
Not. And your academic sophistry is old hat.
Oh, you if you mean by 'academic sophistry' having actual facts, then yes it is 'old hat'
Facts trump empty, angry, bitter, rhetoric everytime.
” Oh, you if you mean by ‘academic sophistry’ having actual facts, then yes it is ‘old hat’
Facts trump empty, angry, bitter, rhetoric everytime.”
Facts? When you post facts then we’ll talk. And you’ll be hard put to find “empty, angry, bitter, rhetoric” in my replies to you.
Since you’ve persisted in pursuing my one remark, I take it that it trampled your toes or something?
And you disingenuously failed to include the FACT that Duncan Hunter wants to pull the troops out AFTER victory is achieved.
In fact, here is what the Honorable Mr. Hunter has said:
"The idea that Congress pulls the rug out from under the soldiers as they're actually carrying the mission out, by condemning this mission . . . I thought it was a disservice to our soldiers. There is a right way to leave Iraq and that is to continue to rotate Iraqi battalions that we've trained and equipped into the fight."
That chickensh*t cut and run coward that YOU support says this:
"RETREAT!"
"Unlike the neocons who think America should stay forever in Iraq."
And according to that cut and run coward YOU support, Duncan Hunter is a neocon too because *GASP* he wants to WIN before bringing the troops home.
"So, the only thing that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul disagree regarding U.S. troops in Iraq is their timetable in leaving, but both agree that they need to leave."
No.
The difference is Duncan Hunter wants our troops to WIN before they come home.
YOUR little cut and run coward wants to tuck tail and run.
BIG difference.
And you disingenuously failed to include the FACT that Duncan Hunter wants to pull the troops out AFTER victory is achieved. In fact, here is what the Honorable Mr. Hunter has said: "The idea that Congress pulls the rug out from under the soldiers as they're actually carrying the mission out, by condemning this mission . . . I thought it was a disservice to our soldiers. There is a right way to leave Iraq and that is to continue to rotate Iraqi battalions that we've trained and equipped into the fight." That chickensh*t cut and run coward that YOU support says this: "RETREAT!"
Not exactly.
Ron Paul states that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Hunter states that we are already in the second phrase of the 3 part program already, as Bush withdrawal of Combat troops states.
So, the only difference between the two men is the timetable.
Iraqi troops will be able to defend their own nation by the time the next President takes office, but if one of the major candidates is elected (it won't be Hunter), they will keep our troops there indefinitely, exactly what Hillary wants as well.
[ "Unlike the neocons who think America should stay forever in Iraq." ]
And according to that cut and run coward YOU support, Duncan Hunter is a neocon too because *GASP* he wants to WIN before bringing the troops home.
Last reports I have seen is that we have won and now the only issue is getting the Iraqi troops trained to handle their own fighting.
There is no more organized enemy left in Iraq that is a threat to the government.
[ "So, the only thing that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul disagree regarding U.S. troops in Iraq is their timetable in leaving, but both agree that they need to leave." ]
No. The difference is Duncan Hunter wants our troops to WIN before they come home. YOUR little cut and run coward wants to tuck tail and run. BIG difference.
Well, the big difference is that we have won, there is no serious organized enemy left to defeat.
And that has even been posted on FR in several threads, how the enemy has admitted that he is defeated.
So, the only question remaining is if we will leave Iraq at all, not when.
So, stop blowing smoke about 'victory', the neocons will not even give a definition of what constitutes victory so they can have an excuse to remain in Iraq forever.
Oh by all means let's whip out the Staples "Easy Button" or Harry Potter's magic wand to make it happen right now because YOU say it's going too slow.
Oh, you don't think five years is too long?
[ "If U.S. troops are going to be exposed to the Iranians, they should be protected."]
They are protected. No thanks to that POS coward you support who has voted against providing the very protective equipment they need.
No, they are not being protected from Iranian attacks since Iran isn't being hit for them.
As for U.S. troops in field, Ron Paul has voted to keep them supplied so stop your lying.
[ "If Iran is such a threat, why isn't anything being done about them and why aren't you tough talking sorts demanding it?"]
Funny but your cut and run heerow said that Iran isn't a threat....And we all know that EVERYTHING he says is the truth.
Iran isn't a threat to the United States, they are a regional threat and can be handled by those other nations in that region.
If they are such a great threat, why haven't they been hit?
[ "Paul would remove U.S. troops so they wouldn't be targets."]
And those troops will still be targets no matter where your cut and run heerow places them.
Not if they were in the US, they wouldn't be.
[ "Paul is an honorable man-and nothing you anti-Paul zealots had brought up shows otherwise."]
Pull your head out of his rear end and get a clue.
Brillant answer.
[ "Speaks more to the blind irrational hatred on your part and the rest of the anti-Paul zealots."]
As opposed to your blind hatred towards anyone who dares to tell the truth about that cut and run coward you worship?
The only one expressing 'blind hatred' is you as shown by the language and tone you use.
But that is common to all of you anti-Ron Paul zealots.
[ "I guess it makes you feel more patriotic to attack him but not to attack the guys in power who actually have the ability and responsibility to do something."]
We are attacking the guy who has the power to do something about it since he swears up and down that only Congress has the power to declare war.
Well, he is only one Congressman and only Congress does have the right to officially declare war, it is in the Constitution.
[ "And I expect nothing less from the anti-Paul zealots."]
As opposed to the brainwashed sheeple that worship at the feet of the cut and run coward and ignore the truth about him?
More empty rhetoric.
[ "As for defense spending, Paul believes in a strong national defense."]
BS! He's on record whining about how the clinton military cuts didn't go DEEP enough. He has voted against every military budget since he slithered into office. He has voted to kill numerous defence programs to include the B-2. He has voted against providing our troops with body armor. So do me a favor, save that "He's for a strong defense" BS for your fellow clueless sheeple.
Well, that is what Ronald Reagan said about him!
[ "That is exactly his position, that he is representing the principles of the Old Right, of non-interventionism and defending American interests, not those of the Globalists, as put forth by the neocons."]
Surrendering to the enemy is NOT a principle of the "Old Right". And how is the cut and run coward going to defend our intrests when his policy is that of isolationism?
So, I guess when Reagan took off after Beirut, he was just a 'cut and runner' also.
[ "No, you can support a Republican who actually wants to defend American values, not those of the UN."]
Defend American values? Last I checked, retreating in the face of an enemy, and sticking our heads in the sand are not American values.
Last I checked, fighting for American interests and not that of the UN were American values.
[ "Well, you had better check out who is actually in control of the foreign policy of this nation and their neocon affiliations." "No, but if any of those major candidates get nominated, it will just be 'business as usual' with the same neocon foreign policy."]
Neocon, neocon, neocon......You're sounding like a broken record.
Well, that is who is directing the US foreign policy of Globalism.
[ "Charged with war crimes, U.S. troops get legal help from home http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/asia/troops."]
Hmmm shows what little you know because those soldiers were charged under the UCMJ, and were tried by OUR military in a court martial. But I guess that we should look the other way when our troops rape and murder a 14 year old girl and her family. Oh the outrage that they be held accountable for their actions.
; The point was that they were charged with 'war crimes' so just because they fell under the auspices of the USMJ, they were still regarded as war crimes.
[ "http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html"]
Oh what's this? Figures that you'd rely on a website that spews hatred for America as a source for information.
That was just to give you the definition of what a war crime is.
Considering that you wanted our troops to be under the rules of the Geneva Convention, while the enemy is not, they would be vulnerable to all kinds of false accusations, as we have seen in the recent trials.
As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=40
Ah...but anyone who reads Burke and Kirk is at least on the right tracks.
Merry Christmas to you!
Today’s soldiers should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. All Americans will benefit from a coherent foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination.
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=78
Not exactly?
Then you follow up with this:
"Ron Paul states that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible."
In other words he wants out BEFORE the mission is finished. He wants out before the Iraqi's are fully trained. He wants out before we complete the hand over.
And your cut and run coward is ON RECORD as saying that we should pretty much drop everything and pull out immediately.
"Hunter states that we are already in the second phrase of the 3 part program already, as Bush withdrawal of Combat troops states."
Well your cut and run coward wants to pull out before the "second phase" is finished.
"Iraqi troops will be able to defend their own nation by the time the next President takes office,"
That (like everything else in a war) is not a certainty.
"but if one of the major candidates is elected (it won't be Hunter), they will keep our troops there indefinitely, exactly what Hillary wants as well."
Indefinitely?
I think you need to stop your drug use and reading that crap on lew rockwell or alex jones because it's rotting your brain.
"Last reports I have seen is that we have won and now the only issue is getting the Iraqi troops trained to handle their own fighting."
Getting them trained eh?
Funny but that chickensh*t coward you support doesn't even want to do that.
"There is no more organized enemy left in Iraq that is a threat to the government.'
Uh huh.
"Well, the big difference is that we have won, there is no serious organized enemy left to defeat."
Uh huh.
"So, the only question remaining is if we will leave Iraq at all, not when."
We will leave Iraq WHEN:
1.) We are sure that ALL al qaida in Iraq elements have been killed or captured.
2.) We will leave Iraq when their military is fully trained and able to handle threats by themselves.
It's unrealistic to think that the training will be complete by the time the next president takes office.
It takes several years of training to ensure a quality fighting force. Not that I expect you to understand since you more than likely never served in the military. The fact is that training doesn't stop when you leave boot camp. We will more than likely have a small force there for the next few years to train, and advise the Officer and the Non-Commissioned Officer corps to bring them up to professional levels.
That small force will probably be no bigger than a brigade task force that will offer additional support if the Iraqi National Army gets in over it's head
But to say that we'll be there indefinitely is once again disingenuous.
"So, stop blowing smoke about 'victory', the neocons will not even give a definition of what constitutes victory so they can have an excuse to remain in Iraq forever."
The only one who's been "blowing smoke" around here is YOU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.