Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[CILONE/SK]

Good job on trying to change the topic to force me to defend myself. Hahaha. When you have nothing to add, attack the poster. Typical.

 

Too bad you can not deviate from the slob knobbed script which is readily available on the Daily Paul.

 

Not one single time has anything been offered up to show Ronnie paulie is not a isolationist. All that has been given is to attack the word and change it. Isolationist or non interventionist, does not matter, it accomplishes the same thing. Isolation.

 

Do you have anything else?

[CILONE/SK]

There are no major world threats to us? What the fuck is the war on terror about than? You kidding me???

 

What country is at war with us or even close to war with us? Terrorists are a very small part of the worlds population or any other group. Even when you take into account the number dead from terrorists attack, they are numerically insignificant.

 

Since you brought up the war on terror, lets take a look at ronnie paulies FP concerning it. wouldn't us pulling back into our borders and only involving ourselves in actions that directly affect our borders or our interests allow terrorism to grow?? What would stop countries like Iran (which RP says we should allow nuclear weapons) from harboring terrorists until they grow enough to actually attack our borders? The answer is nothing. That is why his FP is bullshit. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Anything else big guy????

[Zig]

You have the most ridiculous manner of arguing I've ever seen here, it's very childish and paranoid. This is the process you repeat with everyone who doesn't follow your train of thought, or who doesn't agree with you.

 

Good job on trying to change the topic to force me to defend myself. Hahaha. When you have nothing to add, attack the poster. Typical.

 

First you accuse of "changing the topic" in order to strengthen our argument. What topic was changed? What topic was being discussed before, and what did I change it to? Honestly, it's pointless asking you because I think you're a little delusional and illiterate so that's a rhetorical question.

 

Not one single time has anything been offered up to show Ronnie paulie is not a isolationist. All that has been given is to attack the word and change it. Isolationist or non interventionist, does not matter, it accomplishes the same thing. Isolation

 

Than you proceed to say that nothing presented in support of a point you disagree with matters. Doesn't matter if it's factual information from reliable official sources, doesn't matter if it's scholarly articles from credible individuals, doesn't matter if it's articulately eleborated opinions by individual members of this forum, you just throw the claim out that it's 100% IRRELEVANT to the discussion. You usually proceed with "anything else?" as if you won some kind of battle and you're moving on to the next victory. HAHAHA!

 

What country is at war with us or even close to war with us? Terrorists are a very small part of the worlds population or any other group. Even when you take into account the number dead from terrorists attack, they are numerically insignificant.

 

Ron Paul agrees with you! No country is at war with us! We are actually VERY SAFE from any foreign invasion that could be mustered in our generation. What creates dead American bodies and terrorism is our foreign policy of intervention, and our manipulating of sovereign third world nations for decades. Here is a video of Ron Paul agreeing with you CILONE. It's shocking isn't it...

 

 

Too bad you can not deviate from the slob knobbed script which is readily available on the Daily Paul.

 

What script? Where is this script? DailyPaul? I don't even fucking visit that website unless the article is linked on reddit. If you want to know where I get all my Ron Paul news it's at http://www.reddit.com/r/ronpaul/

 

Isolationist or non interventionist, does not matter, it accomplishes the same thing. Isolation.

 

No. They are two entirely different political policies.

 

wouldn't us pulling back into our borders and only involving ourselves in actions that directly affect our borders or our interests allow terrorism to grow?? What would stop countries like Iran (which RP says we should allow nuclear weapons) from harboring terrorists until they grow enough to actually attack our borders?

 

I don't need to answer questions for Ron Paul, he's answered this question tons of times. Even in the video I just linked you he is answering this question. You should read some books on blow-back theory.

 

You're very immature. I should learn not to argue with people like you on the internet but I seriously can't resist. You're definitely a huge hypocrite, and that's not even to insult you it's just the truth most people here should be able to see that clearly.

[CILONE/SK]

Not one single thing you said is in support of a pro-isolationist/non-interventionist RP FP. Not one. All you do is attack me and do not have anything to add.

 

Just because i said no country is at war with us, does not mean we should pull all our troops and close all operations overseas. Your link is not relevant, because it only addresses a very small part of what I said.

 

You called me a hypocrite, yet not a single one of you can stay on topic.

 

BTW, they are not two different policies and if they are, you have not shown that. All you have done is say they are different. They might be slightly different, but the end state is the same. Can you tell me what would stop terrorists from building power in a pro-terrorism country until they are strong enough to actually attack us???

 

Keep attacking the poster and not addressing the topic. pathetic.

 

BTW, you are following the daily paul script and to deny that is to acknowledge that you do not even read my posts and you are just posting bullshit Also proves that you are full of shit because we both know you are well aware of the daily paul, since it is a prime place for knobslobbers like you.

 

 

Here is the plan from the daily paul:

The first part of the conversation does not involve foreign policy, but it was a crucial way for me to initially establish Paul's credibility, soundness of his ideas, and dismantle this notion that he is "crazy." After that, this is the general framework to dismantle the isolationist argument: 1) Ask person to define "isolationism"; 2) point out their definition of isolationism is inconsistent with how the word is commonly used; 3) point out the "isolationist" stance of other countries toward the US and the outcome if they behaved in a non-isolationist fashion; 4) draw analogies to basic property relationships and/or travel; 5) displace the term isolationist and replace it with a more appropriate term (e.g. non-interventionist). Your choice of word or phrase is largely dependent on your audience and your desired effect.

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/174111/ron-...lationist-loonThe only reason you are getting frustrated is because Ron Paul and his policies are bullshit and you can not adequately support them in the face of a reasonable argument.

[CILONE/SK]

You're very immature.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What does that make you?????

 

 

 

I should learn not to argue with people like you on the internet but I seriously can't resist. You're definitely a huge hypocrite, and that's not even to insult you it's just the truth most people here should be able to see that clearly.

 

Is it really the truth or is it just you few are actively sucking ron pauls balls???? I have not recieved any negs from anyone but you ball suckers. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Zig]

i haven't received any negs from anyone but you lol, and i'm not frustrated at all arguing with you is pointless you repeat the same things over and over and claim nothing matters. it's like talking to a brick wall.

[Zig]

how many times are you going to call someone a name or insult someone in your responses, it's ridiculous.

[CILONE/SK]

Not one single thing you said is in support of a pro-isolationist/non-interventionist RP FP. Not one.

 

BTW, they are not two different policies and if they are, you have not shown that. All you have done is say they are different. They might be slightly different, but the end state is the same. Can you tell me what would stop terrorists from building power in a pro-terrorism country until they are strong enough to actually attack us???

 

arguing with you is pointless you repeat the same things over and over and claim nothing matters. it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: You are just like AOD, can not stay on topic, try to change the subject when called on it, and get mad when you can not answer a valid question. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Just so you do not forget, you still have not answered the question or backed up that Ron Paul is not an isolationist other then calling it a different word. That is the current topic, stay on it.

 

 

BTW, go fuck yourself:lol: :lol: :lol:

[CILONE/SK]

how many times are you going to call someone a name or insult someone in your responses, it's ridiculous.

 

 

I guess alot.

 

 

fuck you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Zig]

what subject did i try to change?

[Zig]

guys... we're talking about ducks now. i said so.

[CILONE/SK]

Just so you do not forget, you still have not answered the question or backed up that Ron Paul is not an isolationist other then calling it a different word. That is the current topic, stay on it.

 

 

Ignore a valid question lately???

You sure are dumb. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Also,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fuck you:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Zig]

what subject did i change cilone?

 

i'm not going to argue points that Ron Paul himself adresses... why would I argue the entire isonlationist/non-interventionist point here in my own words when you can research tons of articles and listen to RP himself talk about this issue. If you have points on how he is an isolationist and how non-intervention is actually isolationism I'd be happy to hear that and respond as rebut it as best I can but you are just making false claims that they are the same thing because YOU say so. Christo came in here talking about isolationist and I'm 100% positive he will present a debatable argument supporting his position. That's what I'm waiting for. You on the other hand is just something to laugh at in this thread.

 

Let me guess you're going to respond either insulting me or saying I haven't added anything and than you're going to say anything else?

[profsuspecto]

Just because I am sick of seeing this inane point being slugged back and forth.

 

Isolationism. The term isolationism denotes a country's determination to avoid unwanted foreign involvements and the power to compel others to respect that intention. In practice the internal and external foreign policy environment of the United States permitted an isolationist policy only under uniquely favorable circumstances. U.S. isolationism was never a mere response to geographic factors or a thoughtless preoccupation with internal concerns or self-sufficient pursuits. The United States was never a hermit nation; its isolationism was predominantly military and political, not commercial or intellectual. From its beginning the United States faced the recurrent demands for protection of its commercial and trading interests, the pressures of democratic ideologues to involve the country wherever freedom and self-determination seemed to be at stake, and the necessity to curtail or eliminate competing centers of power in the Western Hemisphere or threats to the balance of power in Europe. The Founders demanded the freedom of action that would enable the nation, in George Washington's words, to choose “peace or war, as our interests, guided by justice, shall counsel.” Together these external pressures permitted little isolation, whether in mind or action, from the major trends and events in world politics. From its founding, the United States became involved in every European war that ventured onto the Atlantic.

 

Behind the isolationism of the Founders was the conviction that the United States would render itself more harm than good by meddling in external affairs that were not its direct concern. Policy, so defined, governed the conduct of nations generally. U.S. noninvolvement in the political and military affairs of Europe in the nineteenth century resulted from the continent's fundamental stability. The perennial security of the United States from European encroachment in the absence of costly defense measures created the illusion that such security flowed, not from the European equilibrium or British naval dominance of the Atlantic, but from the great ocean itself. For many in the United States, security became synonymous with separation from the politics of Europe under the assumption that no European development could endanger the United States. What began to change after 1900 was the increasing frequency of trends and events that seemed to challenge the country's ever-expanding interests. Writers and intellectuals who demanded U.S. responses to perceived threats from abroad seldom advocated more than moral strictures or reliance on international agencies. Interwar isolationists still presumed that German power and expansionism could not endanger the security of the United States if properly defended with air and naval power. By the late 1930s U.S. isolationism assumed an Asia-first cast; leading isolationists who opposed any involvement in European affairs from 1939 to 1941 revealed no restraint in their demands for an uncompromising posture toward Japanese expansion in the Far East.

 

After Pearl Harbor some historians accused the isolationists of poor judgment, sympathy for fascism, even denying the United States the policies required to prevent war. A determined, if ineffectual, isolationism reappeared in opposition to the Cold War involvements in Europe from the Truman Doctrine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as well as in the determination of some Republicans, in their response to the China, Indochina, and Korea issues, to return U.S. foreign policy to an Asia-first orientation. Only later amid the globalist policies of the Cold War did many historians and analysts begin to judge that the isolationists of the 1930s were not totally wrong in their efforts to constrain the country's burgeoning commitments that led eventually to a two-front U.S. war during World War II. But isolationism cannot describe the preferences of those in the United States who, since midcentury, have favored a more limited definition of national interests and thus a more restricted use of force than that demanded by concepts of global danger and responsibility.

 

Norman A. Graebner "Isolationism" The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 19 August 2011 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t121.e0380>

 

 

CILONE, you are wrong. Learn to read before mouthing off.

[Zig]

thank you.

[CILONE/SK]

Here is the plan from the daily paul:

The first part of the conversation does not involve foreign policy, but it was a crucial way for me to initially establish Paul's credibility, soundness of his ideas, and dismantle this notion that he is "crazy." After that, this is the general framework to dismantle the isolationist argument: 1) Ask person to define "isolationism"; 2) point out their definition of isolationism is inconsistent with how the word is commonly used; 3) point out the "isolationist" stance of other countries toward the US and the outcome if they behaved in a non-isolationist fashion; 4) draw analogies to basic property relationships and/or travel; 5) displace the term isolationist and replace it with a more appropriate term (e.g. non-interventionist). Your choice of word or phrase is largely dependent on your audience and your desired effect.

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/174111/ron-...lationist-loon

 

I guess profjerkoff is on step two of the script, but too bad that he does not know what the fuck he is talking about because it is what Ronnie Paulie is suggesting as a FP.

 

 

I have looked into it and his whole FP is isolationism and the way he backs it up is to say that he is not a isolationist but a non-interventionist. He has not provided any other support to back himself up or to suggest how we stop terrorism if we are only within our borders.

 

That is why you can not answer the question or back it up, because it is wrong. The end state are both are the same, so it does not matter which word you use.

 

Not one time has he addressed stopping terrorism and his whole FP will actually allow terrorism to grow unimpeded as long as they do not mess with our borders. By that point, we will have no positions away from our borders to address anything and they will be too powerful to stop.

 

 

Do you have anything??? anything at all???

 

 

Keep attacking the word and not arguing the results of his FP make even the smallest bit of sense. You all know they do not, so you do not want to address it.

[CILONE/SK]

I am on step two and should learn to read before mouthing off.

 

fixt. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

 

 

BTW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fuck you newb or who ever you use to be.

[CILONE/SK]

Norman A. Graebner "Isolationism" The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 19 August 2011 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t121.e0380>

 

I even tried to check his link and you need to be a member. Prof jerkoff, how about you give us your membership ID???:lol: :lol: :lol:

[CILONE/SK]

Just found a link that shows Ron Paulie is wrong on numerous levels.

 

You do not need a membership to verify it, like the retard above.

 

Why Ron paul is wrong.

[profsuspecto]

Yes you need a membership to access Oxford Reference Online. If you don't want to pay then go to a library or look up the definition from another source.

 

I really have better things to do than argue with someone so obviously moronic.

 

Peace out.

[CILONE/SK]

Good job citing a dictionary, but still stay unable to actually talk the subject. You will fit right in with these Ron Paul knobslobbers. :lol: :lol: :lol: If you had something better to do you would not have been here pasting something from a source you get from your college. Stay in school kid.

[Zig]

Than you proceed to say that nothing presented in support of a point you disagree with matters. Doesn't matter if it's factual information from reliable official sources, doesn't matter if it's scholarly articles from credible individuals, doesn't matter if it's articulately eleborated opinions by individual members of this forum, you just throw the claim out that it's 100% IRRELEVANT to the discussion. You usually proceed with "anything else?" as if you won some kind of battle and you're moving on to the next victory. HAHAHA!

 

I rest my case.

[CILONE/SK]

Just so you do not forget, you still have not answered the question or backed up that Ron Paul is not an isolationist other then calling it a different word. That is the current topic, stay on it.

 

How many times do I have to remind you that you failed to respond to a question???

 

Not once have you addressed my point that I keep bringing up.

 

 

You sir are dumb.:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I have looked into it and his whole FP is isolationism and the way he backs it up is to say that he is not a isolationist but a non-interventionist. He has not provided any other support to back himself up or to suggest how we stop terrorism if we are only within our borders.

 

That is why you can not answer the question or back it up, because it is wrong. The end state are both are the same, so it does not matter which word you use.

 

Not one time has he addressed stopping terrorism and his whole FP will actually allow terrorism to grow unimpeded as long as they do not mess with our borders. By that point, we will have no positions away from our borders to address anything and they will be too powerful to stop.

 

 

Do you have anything??? anything at all???

 

 

Keep attacking the word and not arguing the results of his FP make even the smallest bit of sense. You all know they do not, so you do not want to address it.

 

 

Please show me where you have addressed any of this???

[Zig]

you're a poor representation of an Obama supporter on this forum man, I really wish you'd step up your game.

[CILONE/SK]

Motherfucker you thought you would catch me sleeping and get the last word. I am forever.

 

 

BTW when did you address any of the above. The answer is never because you are full of shit.

 

Now go to sleep and have dreams you were able to prove me wrong, because it damn sure is not happening tonight.

[Zig]

When have you made sense in this thread? You're the one who's full of shit and can't do anything but call people names and dismiss their arguements as irrelevant. I'm going to go with the trend and put you on ignore finally. I don't need the last word, you can have it.

[CILONE/SK]

What is the problem, can't talk about your ronnie paulie with any substance? Now go run and hide instead of answering valid questions about his policy. If you had anything to back it up, you would say it. Now everyone knows that even his hardcore supporters are not able to answer realistic questions that dig deeper then the rhetoric all you suckers love to spout.

 

Good night bitch.

 

Hahaha

[angelofdeath]

i haven't received any negs from anyone but you lol, and i'm not frustrated at all arguing with you is pointless you repeat the same things over and over and claim nothing matters. it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

only thing that makes sense is putting dude on ignore. arguing with him is like arguing with a zombie. no progress can be made, keeps repeating the same propaganda lines in response to detailed arguments, etc. ignore list is great.

[CILONE/SK]

You all are just mad that you can not answer valid questions about your candidate. You both continually try to redefine the argument into something that is easy for you to talk, but you still refuse to address realistic questions. To do so, would highlight ronnie paulies faults and none of you are willing to say that he is not the god like character that you make him out to be.

 

 

BTW AOD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fuck you.:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

little bitches who can not think for yourself. Put me on your ignore list, we all know you will still read what I say.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

You all are just mad that you can not answer valid questions about your candidate. You both continually try to redefine the argument into something that is easy for you to talk, but you still refuse to address realistic questions. To do so, would highlight ronnie paulies faults and none of you are willing to say that he is not the god like character that you make him out to be.

 

 

BTW AOD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fuck you.:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

little bitches who can not think for yourself. Put me on your ignore list, we all know you will still read what I say.

 

Nobody is redefining anything, we clearly explain very loose terms you apply to RP. After it is explained in a manner in which you SHOULD understand, you result to denying this explanation, than turn around and start insulting everyone involved.

 

I won't ignore you, because you are entertainment, sort of like watching an episode of The Jersey Shore. Train wreck status.