Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
vanfullofretards

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CILONE/SK (View Original Post)

 

 

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???

 

Ok lost brain show where any of this has been answered, or are you full of shit like the rest of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

I thought about this. Not one single time can any of you talk specifics about ronnie paulie and his bullshit policies, not once. When asked specific questions that are very valid, you all whine like little bitches about me insulting you, yet you all are on 12oz and want to complain about insults. Little bitches. Also, those valid questions should be very simple to answer if his policies made any sense. Questions such as, how do we stop terrorists from getting too powerful if we do not do anything as long as they do not mess with our borders??? What happens to sick people who are too poor to afford health care??? What is to stop corporations from ruining our environment under a free market when you take the teeth out of the government????

 

Those are not unreasonable questions for a presidential candidate to answer when his policies seem to be inline with causing these issues.

 

The only ones who think they are unreasonable and try to change the subject are those of you who suck RP balls and are too brainwashed to see reality. Luckily for America, there are reasonable realistic people that see past Ronnie paulies bullshit and ensure he has no chance in hell of winning any election.

 

He can not even win his own district anymore now that he has been redistricted by the GOP. Black people will not vote for him and that is his new district.

 

So start answering reasonable questions and back up your candidate or shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of your questions have been discussed previously. Look back through the thread before making such crass dismissals. I'm sure you genuinely mean to promote discussion but you only work to alienate yourself with your low brow responses and your 'black and white' refusal to engage with anything other than these poorly conceived questions.

 

how do we stop terrorists from getting too powerful if we do not do anything as long as they do not mess with our borders???

 

See previous discussion relating to blowback.

 

What happens to sick people who are too poor to afford health care???

 

Pick up any micro-economic textbook and you will see that government intervention increases the cost of any service rather than lowers it.

 

What is to stop corporations from ruining our environment under a free market when you take the teeth out of the government????

 

Property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sure is funny that you actually do not answer the questions.

 

Property rights is not an answer and neither is blowback. If you have something of substance, say it. You just refer to basic libertarian nonsense. Answer the questions with real answers, because I can reply to your answers with "just do some research and all your answers are debunked".

 

Why can none of you actually respond with real realistic answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a micro-economic text book explain what a poor person does when they are sick and can not afford healthcare???

 

You might think that I am being an ass, but none of you are actually taking a look at situations that real peole will face if Ronnie paulie is elected. It is easy to revert to some text book bullshit, but when you have to deal with real people, life is not so black and white and writing off people to blowback, property rights, or micro economics does not mean shit.

 

Realistically answer the questions and I will be glad to discuss them with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...