Say Anything Blog

"Uh, I wasn’t present when the money was accepted and it is accepting this money will bring the country together.  These attacks are the politics of old.  Same on You!!!  Now quite being xenophobic and clinging to your guns and personal faith in God!” -One scary socialist

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Wow, my spelling was horrible on that last post.  sorry guys.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Uh, I’m pretty sure Code Pink meant to send money to victims of the war--you know, women, children who have been hurt by the Bush Admin’s decision to invade Iraq.

Also, Dougee, what did your post mean?  It didn’t make any sense.  (Do you have a reading/writing disability?)

Ivan

Obama continues to reveal his true “context”.

IG: I’m sure Saddam Hussein intended his Oil-for-Food scam to benefit the poor and downtrodden in his country(where he regularly made them that way), but somehow it never made it to them. 
The road to hell is paved with “good intentions”.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

PINK...it’s the new ‘RED’.

Definitely, Rob…

Ivan: are you sure the Code Pink isn’t in a way ‘lobbying’ Obama?

You know, here’s $50,000 for our interests Obama…

I’m positive that if they wanted to help the wounded (U.S. Children haven’t gone to war, you goof)from the soldier’s offensive on dangerous and relentless extremists not the Bush’s Administration (to defend us through winning the middle-east) decision of war there are charitable non-profit organizations that are MUCH MORE EFFECIENT AND QUICK THAN OBAMA...!!!!!

Logically, if they meant to do as you say, Obama would not be the best choice.

C’mon.

Also, Dougee, what did your post mean?  It didn’t make any sense.  (Do you have a reading/writing disability?)

I was just putting together a bunch of famous Obama quotes that he could use to justify taking the money.  And no to your question.  I was watching the Wild playoff gave while writing so I wasn’t paying that much attention.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Ivan Geotsky - Uh, I’m pretty sure Code Pink meant to send money to victims of the war--you know, women, children who have been hurt by the Bush Admin’s decision to invade Iraq.

Oh, I get it. You’re playing a game of “look over here instead”.

If clinging to guns and church is what the conservatives do when they’re “bitter”, then chaining yourself in front of a Marine recruiting office is what liberals do when they’re bitter!
(Not to mention the whole BDS thing!)

What else can you think of that liberals do when they’re bitter?
Spike trees.
Throw fake blood on people wearing fur.
Burn SUV’s.
Whine. Bitch. Moan. Cry. Lie. (No, wait! They do that all the time!)

“When Liberals are Bitter” - sounds like a FOX NEWS special!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

It seems par for the course that Obama would accept money from code pink.

dirt126:  “Goof”? You are aware that innocent Iraqi women and children are dying as a direct result of the U.S. occupation?  (And anyway, some--many--of the U.S. soldiers could also be considered children, given their age and lack of life experience....)

I couldn’t understand the rest of your post. “Defending us through the middle east”?  What does that mean?  Bush declared war on Iraq, not vice versa.

robert108: It’s doubtful that Saddam intended to use the Oil for Food scam in any way other than for his own purposes.  Equating Code Pink with Saddam is disingenuous and sleazy (at best).  The road to hell isn’t paved with good intentions--that’s a cliche spouted by uninformed idiots.  The road to hell is paved with corruption and avarice.

Dougee: The whole problem with the U.S. is that people are watching corporate sports instead of paying attention.  But don’t worry, I’m sure in the future they’ll still have corporate sports on tv while you serve your time in a debtor’s prison.

Ivan is still playing his “look over here instead” game.

What a goof.

Equating Code Pink with Saddam is disingenuous and sleazy (at best). I didn’t “equate” them, I simply pointed out the similarities. The road to hell isn’t paved with good intentions--that’s a cliche spouted by uninformed idiots. No, it’s quite true; maybe you confuse “intentions” with “actions”. The road to hell is paved with corruption and avarice. I agree, especially in the case of govt greed. There are many elements in the pavement on the road to hell.

Incidentally, Ivan; Iraqi citizen casualties are mostly the direct and indirect responsibility of the terrorists.  We made war on them, not the Iraqi people.  You seem to be ignorant of that fact.  The Iraqi people now have a representative govt for the first time in 5000 years, courtesy of us.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108: Regarding the hell we are currently mired in in Iraq--was its road paved with good intentions?

Banal, pointless cliches aside, please answer this: When, exactly did we declare war on the terrorists in Iraq?  There weren’t any in Iraq when we declared war on Saddam’s sovereign regime.  They came after our mission was “accomplished” (i.e. the fall of Saddam’s Baghdad. 

I think you misunderstand even the (bogus) official reason for the invasion.  The U.S. didn’t go to Iraq to “make war” on the terrorists--but the fact that we opened the door for them with our nonexistent exit strategy will be one of history’s great tragedies.  Check out the film “No End in Sight"--or, if you can manage to read an entire book I can recommend a few titles.

P.S. It’s kind of insulting to be called “ignorant” by somebody who obviously gets all their information from White House press releases.

P.P.S. The “representative” gov’t in Iraq would rather do business with Iran than the U.S.--check out the article in the Baltimore Sun on April 11.  (Sorry-- it’s not from a White House press release or Fox News.)

likwidwaste: “Ivan is still playing his ‘look over here instead’ game.  What a goof.”

Hey, look over here!  I actually don’t even know what the “look over here game” is.  Please explain.

robert108: Regarding the hell we are currently mired in in Iraq-

Wrong.  The Islamic terrorists are the ones “in hell” there, and we’re sending more of them there on a daily basis.
As for the rest of your boilerplate leftie talking points propaganda, it has been refuted many times in many places; if you don’t know that, it’s not my job to educate you.
You are the one dispensing banal and pointless cliches here, Ivan.

The “look over here game” is what you did when you tried to hijack this thread, which is about Obama receiving campaign cash from Code Pink to a banal and pointless monologue about your ignorance about Iraq.
You did it, you got busted for it.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

“Leftie talking points agenda”??

I always know when I’m dealing with a dipsh*t when I’m accused of being a “leftie”.

My original post was about Code Pink--I was defending from this post’s accusation that they funnel money to Iraqi terrorists.  Whatever you might think of Code Pink (I personally think they are misguided in their belief that it is only the politicians’ fault that Americans are neck deep in the biggest disaster in modern history), accusing them of funnelling money to terrorists is libel, unless they’ve been convicted of such a deed.  (If they have, it’s news to me.)

It was YOU, my ignorant, misguided friend, who brought up the OIlf for Food program.

“Leftie”!! I can’t get over how funny that is!

And just to hit the point home: Code Pink are a bunch of naive fools.  Obama is a run-of-the mill politician disguised as some kind of “revolutionary”.  And Code Pink has every right in the world to give money to Obama, and he has every right to take it.  This is still AMERICA, you idiots!  (For awhile, anyway.)

I do agree with one point from the original post: Obama will NEVER unite this country.

Ivan Geotsky shows us that he’s a fool - When, exactly did we declare war on the terrorists in Iraq?  There weren’t any in Iraq when we declared war on Saddam’s sovereign regime.

No terrorists in Iraq while Saddam was dictator?

Only an idiot or someone who agreed with Saddam’s rule could say such a thing.

They came after our mission was “accomplished”...

Why is the word accomplished wrapped in scare quotes? The accomplishment was defeating the world’s fourth largest military in a little over three weeks.

I think you misunderstand even the (bogus) official reason for the invasion.

This comment is just rich in ignorance. Do tell, what was “bogus” about the reason?

The U.S. didn’t go to Iraq to “make war” on the terrorists...

You’d have to give supporting points in order to prove this contention of yours. These supporting points have thus far been absent.

Check out the film “No End in Sight”...

Good men will always be in opposition to those who wish to rule over them. There is, quite literally, no end in sight to this ancient drama of humanity.

P.S. It’s kind of insulting to be called “ignorant” by somebody who obviously gets all their information from White House press releases.

Another baseless assertion from the ignorant one.

likwidwaste

Awww. That’s cute.

You’re an idiot, Ivan.

likwidhoe: Terrorists--in EVERY country in the Middle East--were wary of crossing Saddam because he ruled with an iron fist.  (And don’t ever accuse me of “agreeing” with Saddam; he was a brutal dictator--much like countless other brutal dictators that the U.S. has done business with.)

Saddam was wary of doing business with terrorists because he didn’t want to jeopardize the strength of his brutal dictatorship. He may have secretly supported some terrorist operations, but a wholesale terrorist training camp was absent until we got there. Give me one example of a terrorist attack within the borders of Iraq before we got there.  They WERE’NT THERE.  Only an idiot believes they were.

The mission was supposed to be brief.  You know--overthrow Saddam, install a democracy, and get out.  Didn’t happen.  We’re still there.  Mission NOT accomplished.  My tax dollars are paying for a FAILED WAR.  You’re a FOOL if you disagree.

“You’d have to give supporting points in order to prove this contention of yours. These supporting points have thus far been absent.”

Ignorant fool.  Or a liar.  Seriously, try to use your brain to think about why we went in there.  Overthrow Saddam.  NOT THE SAME THING as “making war on the terrorists.

I have more to say, but I have an appointment.  Bye!

Terrorists--in EVERY country in the Middle East--were wary of crossing Saddam because he ruled with an iron fist.

No kidding.

Your point? That terrorists didn’t exist because they were afraid to operate?

And don’t ever accuse me of “agreeing” with Saddam...

You said that there weren’t any terrorists in Iraq while Saddam ruled. There’s only one conclusion to be had from that statement. The so-called accusation fits.

...much like countless other brutal dictators that the U.S. has done business with.

You threw that in there as if it were relevant to what we are discussing.

He may have secretly supported some terrorist operations...

No, he openly supported terrorist operations. He acted as an economic broker of terrorism, even to the point of personally paying suicide bomber families.

...but a wholesale terrorist training camp was absent until we got there.

Besides the entire country.

You’re making up your own reality as you go along.

Give me one example of a terrorist attack within the borders of Iraq before we got there.

Every single day.

Do you know how Saddam ruled?

They WERE’NT THERE.  Only an idiot believes they were.

Apparently, you don’t.

The mission was supposed to be brief.  You know--overthrow Saddam, install a democracy, and get out.  Didn’t happen.

Actually, it did happen and it is happening.

But that’s reality, something that you haven’t shown that you recognize, so I might as well be talking to a wall.

We’re still there.

Yes. We haven’t been there as long as we were in Japan and Germany, two other campaigns that you would also consider to be failures based on nothing more than an artificial timeline.

Mission NOT accomplished.  My tax dollars are paying for a FAILED WAR.  You’re a FOOL if you disagree.

Just like after WW2 in Germany and Japan. Only a fool would disagree that Japan became successful after more than a decade of installing a representative government.

Right?

Your argument crumbles in the face of history.

Ignorant fool.  Or a liar.

Alright, I’m done talking with you. It is fruitless, you’re willfully ignorant and happy about it, and I will never change that. Recognizing reality and knowing history (so that you can compare the timelines there) has to come from you. I can’t hold your hand and spoon feed you.

Good luck in your knowledgeable endeavors. May you defeat that belligerence of yours.

Yes, Ivan, I am aware of the innocents dying.
...
“By defending us through WINNING the middle-east” is what I said.  Give some thought to posts if you don’t understand them.  You’ll never understand them if you dismiss them.

“I’m pretty sure Code Pink meant to send money to victims of the war--you know, women, children who have been hurt by the Bush Admin’s decision to invade Iraq.”

Ok. I’m done being nice.  Your statement is idiotic.  Code Pink would never send money to a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE unless to lobby/endorse him.  Obama is not a human charity organization.  There are countless non-profit organizations that Code Pink Would send money to for those in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I’m sorry, but it’s just plain dumb to think that Obama could do that [as effectively as a charity organization].

Are you even a part of one these organizations that you so care about?  Have you given anything to the marines out of charity?  Your free time, your money, your possessions? I have.

Btw, glad you agree Obama isn’t necessarily for this country.

Obama has a commercial of him denying money from lobbyists on the basis of principle.

The example of Code Pink is a complete contradiction, unless I missed something.  Those democrats have no defintive language, they leave it to their chaotic whims very often.

On the war: the war is failed if we leave it.  It will never succeed if we leave it.  It’s not over till we quit.

In ‘defending’ the failure of thhe war you propose we leave?  Because ironically, you will be supporting then the “failure” of the war.  Although I’m not sure you have any illusion of that.
Pessimists are subject more to their thought than fact.

Ivan is obviously a “hate America first” leftie who wants us to be defeated by the terrorists.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

"Besides the entire country.”

Come on--the whole country?  Terrorists?  The WHOLE country? 

“Actually, it did happen and it is happening.”

Sure--let me know when it’s done.  Until then, can I keep my tax dollars for something that will actually HAPPEN?

IMPORTANT INTERJECTION: I’m not somebody who thinks we should pull out.  Don’t get me wrong.  We’re in it, and we’re in it for a long time.  If we leave, it will be much worse.  I’m not a leftie.  I believed it was a bad idea from the start, but most of the idiots in the US disagreed with me.  Fair enough.  Now we’re in it, and no politician is going to be able to disentangle it.  Here’s the war will end: The Democrats will eventually get elected (maybe not this election cycle) and, to prove they’re as “tough” as the Republicans, they’ll make an even bigger troop commitment.  More troops will die, more money will be sunk, we’ll get further and further into debt, and eventually the U.S. will collapse.  I’m not happy about this, but there’s really, honest to God, no other way for this war to end.  Bush/Cheney will go down in history as the administration that set in motion the machine that destroyed the U.S., and the next Democratic administration will be the ones to finish us off for good.  Bye bye America, hello NAU.  We’re all going to be living in debtor’s prison, working off debts to our Chinese, Saudi, and/or Mexican overlords.

Trust me, it’s gonna happen.  Believe me, I’m no leftie.  Bush/Cheney are not conservatives.  I’m sorry if I p*ssed everyone off with my arrogant attitude, but I really truly can recommend some great books if anybody’s interested.  We are in a heap o’trouble.  There are no leaders on the horizon.  Where is our next Eisenhower?  I’ll tell you where--he’s been discredited b/c he bought into the Iraq mania.  Colin Powell could have been a great president, but instead he’s been destroyed by his belief in a FAILED WAR.  As we all will be destroyed by it.

dirl186: Genuine apologies for misreading your statement.  But what exactly would we “win” anyway?  Our only powerful oil-producing ally in the region (Saudi Arabia) is actuall one of the WORST regimes vis a vis human rights, etc.  Do we want to create more Saudi Arabia’s?  I’m all for securing cheap oil, but it’s a pipe dream (no pun intended).  Won’t happen.

Sorry for getting so far off-topic.  It wasn’t my intention.  The whole point is that, trashing Code Pink and Obama are not particularly helpful.  We need to rethink the whole idea of leadership in the country.  ‘Cause right now er’re being sold down the river by a corrupt bunch of thugs--Democrats and Republicans alike.

"Give me one example of a terrorist attack within the borders of Iraq before we got there.”

likwadshoe:  Every single day.  Do you know how Saddam ruled?”

Yup, he ruled like a brutal dictator.  Like many, many other dictators.  It’s pretty common--in the Middle East, Africa, Central ASia, etc., etc., etc.

NOT THE SAME THING AS STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM.

I wish the education system in the U.S. were better.

Bush/Cheney will go down in history as the administration that set in motion the machine that destroyed the U.S.

Sorry for calling you a leftie, Ivan; you’re obviously a Ron Paul-type nutbag.

If anything “destroys” the United States, it will be entitlement spending, not fighting the war on terrorism.  During some years in WWII, we spent 130% of GNP on winning the war, so your claims are way overblown, since our spending to fight terrorism are around 15% of GNP.  As far as your idiotic debt diatribe, read some econ about economic debt.  You might learn something.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

dirl126: “Are you even a part of one these organizations that you so care about?  Have you given anything to the marines out of charity?  Your free time, your money, your possessions? I have.”

I feel like we got off on the wrong foot, and I’m sorry.  I respect your decision to support causes you care about.  But don’t you think it’s kind of ridiculous that you have to give more of your own money to support your military--when there are private companies making literally hundreds of millions in dollars off of this war?

Unfortunately, unlike 99% of people on the internet, I don’t have any answers.  We never should have gone down this road.  But there’s no time machine to get us back to 2003. 

Watching this country go down the tubes is the most painful thing imaginable to me.

I enthusiastically accept your apology!  I’ve been a bit crass myself too…

Well, Ivan.  I must say I don’t think it’s gone down the tubes.  We’ve ousted an oppressive leader, and since the surge, secured more peace and diminished a LOT of extremism in the country.

What I mean by winning over the middle-east is making the middle-east not just a safe place for “democracy” but for the people there.

I don’t regret the 2003 decision.  Why? because extremists WILL attack us.  Sounds like a theory, but my 9/11 is my proof.

Extremism is dangerous, to the innocents in the middle-east (which is what we must win over) and to us here.  WAY more dangerous than people realize.  I think Bush should have emphasized that, bypassing the MSM, in the State of the Union Address.

robert108: Maybe I am a nutbag, I don’t know.  I don’t hink so, though.  I agree with Ron Paul 100% about the economy and civil liberties, but not necessarily everything else.  I also don’t think he’d be an effective leader of the country.  If we could cross Ron Paul’s fiscal beliefs with Colin Powell’s military record and Obama’s charisma, we might have someone great.  Unfortunately I don’t see anybody like that on the horizon.  I like McCain personally, but he doesn’t actually seem to have any conviction whatsoever.

BTW, Ron Paul would agree 100% on the opinion that entitlements will eventually desrtroy the nation.  As do I.  When I say we’re going down the tubes, I don’t mean it’s ONLY b/c of the Iraq war. It will be helped along by national debt, inflation, bad immigration policies, more Wall Steet bailouts, new credit crises (wait unyil personal credit card debt and commercial real estate hit the fan), oil price increases, sky-high entitlement obligations, etc., etc., etc.

I agree with Ron Paul 100% about the economy and civil liberties…

Why am I not surprised?  Ron Paul’s economic thinking is hopelessly archaic(as well as reactionary).  His ideas on civil liberties are hardly original.  Your obvious driving force is hatred, which doesn’t speak well for you.
Colin Powell is a weasel, and has been since Vietnam.
As a military man, he’s a good politician, shifting his position as the wind blows.
Your Frankenstein monster made up of Ron Paul, Obama and Colin Powell is truly hilarious, though.
I don’t think entitlements will actually destroy the US; we will rein them in before that happens.  Your lack of faith in the US and in the Founding Principles is sad.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Don’t waste your time with R108, Ivan.  I’m not so sure if he’s out here for political enlightenment as he is so much here for his ego!

; D

Ivan? Let me hip you to the deal. When commenting in threads it is best to not transcribe direct or cut&paste your talking points. Break it up, make it seem more natural. Or! Have an original thought, consider it for a time, then post a comment. Otherwise, folks just stop reading what you post, and gangbang you with derision.

Learn to think. Then learn to read. Then get back to us.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Ivan Geotsky - Yup, he ruled like a brutal dictator.  Like many, many other dictators.  It’s pretty common--in the Middle East, Africa, Central ASia, etc., etc., etc.

NOT THE SAME THING AS STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM.

Saddam was a dictator who sponsored terrorism.

That makes it state-sponsored terrorism.

I wish the education system in the U.S. were better.

Ironic you say that considering that you’ve been twisting into pretzels trying to convince me that Saddam wasn’t running a terrorist enterprise.

BTW, cute names. likwidwaste, likwidhoe, and likwadshoe. Am I arguing with a 17 year old?

Oh, gawd. Another paulette. Sorry I wasted time on it already.

As to the actual subject of this post, and inspite of ivoids sad attempt at misdirection we will address the topic, codepink is a funnel through which PACs move money to politicians. Always has been. Had they, in fact, actually wanted to help the victims of terrorist humanshield tactics they would have put that money in the hands of any one of 12 organizations(at last count)who are doing exactly that in Iraq. And Somalia. And DR Congo. And Afghanistan. You savy, ivoid?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

BTW Ivan, Unfortunately, unlike 99% of people on the internet, I don’t have any answers.

And then he proceeds with an answer…

We never should have gone down this road.

What was that he was saying about wishing an education system was better? Ivan’s education needs to be better.

NOT THE SAME THING AS STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM.

I’m sure the people Saddam had fed into wood chippers appreciated that distinction without a difference.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

likwid: “And then he proceeds with an answer… ‘We never should have gone down this road.’”

Yawn.  “We never should have gone down this road” wasn’t supposed to be an answer, bud.  It was a lamentation.  Time machine=not a viable option, as I’ve mentioned.

“Am I arguing with a 17 year old?”

No, but my inner 17 year old thinks that “likwidwaste” was pretty funny.  I wouldn’t make fun of anybody’s real name--only stupid internet handles.

As for Iraq and terrorists, let me spell it out for you.  Sorry if you’re confused.  Here’s how it works:

Iraq under Saddam: A brutal--but sovereign--nation which secretly funded terrorist operations, but nowhere near the level of, say Saudi Arabia’s terrorist funding.  No terrorist training camps.  No terrorism against Iraqi civilians by terrorist groups.

Iraq under U.S. occupation: Lots and lots of terrorist groups operating, of many different stripes.  (Yes, there are different stripes amongst Islamic terrorists; read up on it if you’re unfamiliar with the nuances.) Terrorist training camps.  Daily terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians.

2Hotel19: I don’t think I can be accused of not having any original thoughts.  Even if my Ron Paul-Obama-Powell monster is “truly hilarious”, it’s certainly not unoriginal. 

Here’s another original thought:  Let’s turn every private contract job in Iraq into a military job.  Private contractors are given 14 days to get out of Iraq, or continue working, but at Army pay.

Also, please don’t offer any unsolicited advice about posting.  I don’t know you, I don’t think much of your opinion, and I still can’t figure out why Code Pink has any less a right to financially support a politician than, say, you do. 

robert108: Fiscal responsibility.  Civil liberties.  You’re right, these aren’t original ideas.

So what?

I don’t have a lack of faith in the founding principles.  I have a lack of faith that citizens will fight to protect them.  So far, I’ve been proven right, except by a very small minority.  A small, beaten-down, disenfranchised minority.

And my driving force is not hatred; it’s anger.  Raw, unadulterated, mind-bending anger.  And confusion--i.e. why aren’t more people angry?

I don’t disagree about the wood chippers.  I seriously would have shut my mouth about the whole debacle if the Iraqis would have ended up in a BETTER situation under U.S. occupation.  Saddam was a bad, bad man.  But nobody is better off now--not the Iraqis, and not the West.  Wait, Iran is better off.

Everybody: Who on this thread has watched the film “No End in Sight”?

“We never should have gone down this road” wasn’t supposed to be an answer, bud.

Then why did you write if that’s not how you feel?  However, that statement is moot cause we are a long way down that ‘road’ and have to contend with where we are today.

Second guessing is easy and not very helpful.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Fiscal responsibility.

Not even close.  Paul wants a return to a medieval gold-based monetary system, where the value of the economy resides in the money, not the productivity of the overall system.  That’s not anything resembling “responsibility”, but it is pure stupidity.

I don’t watch propaganda films.

Your rationalizing your obvious hate as anger is childish, but nothing that surprises me from you.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

This idiot ivoid just gets funnier and funnier. 

OK, paulette. We will start from the ground floor. List for us Herr Doktor’s successes in defeating all that crap you, and he, endlessly whine about. Hell, I’ll go easy on your ignorant ass, just give us 3. Not what he has voted against. Not what he refused to vote on. What he has successfully done. 28 years in government, you should be able to fill that list in less time than it took me to type this sentence. Lets us hear.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

“’We never should have gone down this road’ wasn’t supposed to be an answer, bud.”

Then why did you write if that’s not how you feel? It IS how I feel!  It’s just not an “answer”!  An “answer” would offer a viable solution to the Iraq debacle.  I don’t have an answer! 

However, that statement is moot cause we are a long way down that ‘road’ and have to contend with where we are today. My point exactly!  Did you even read my comment in context?

Robert108: Please accept my deepest apologies for indulging you.  You are obviously an intellectual dwarf.  Try to scrape the crud off your brain and consider what the Federal Reserve system has done to the economy.  “I don’t watch propaganda films.” It’s actually painful reading your comments.  You make me embarrassed to have even engaged in a debate!  I was going to ask where you DO get your info, but I can’t even bear the idea of reading your answer.  I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re one of those people who listens to a few sound bites by Bill Kristol and then pretends to read the National Review. 

2Hotel9: You’ve actually proved my own point.  In fact, you’ve proved 2 of them:

1) My belief that Ron Paul would not be an effective leader of the country.  Exact quote (1:08 PM) - “I also don’t think he’d be an effective leader of the country.”

2)My belief that American citizens won’t do a damned thing to protect their own civil liberties.  And that the few courageous people who try will be ground into paste by smug idiots like yourself.  So Ron Paul hasn’t changed things for the better.  Wow, what a tremendous victory for smug idiots like yourself.

And yet, you are entirely incapable of supplying that list. I been following the comical exploits of Herr Doktor since the late ‘70s, so spare me you child like stupidity. Tell us what he has done. Or shut the fuck up.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9: Wow.  Shut the f*ck up?  Wow.

Anyway.

“And yet, you are entirely incapable of supplying that list.”

Yup.  I am incapable.  FOR THE REASONS I STATED IN MY POST.  Can you read?

Try to get this through your thick skull:

I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s ideas.

I do agree with his never-ending battle to reign in government overspending, and restore citizens’ civil liberties.

His battle has thus far FAILED.  There is no list of accomplishments that I can provide.  THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

It’s a failure of our political system.

And you’re a failure of our education system.

Where is the list of Herr Doktor’s political accomplishments? Supply it, now, or toddle back where you came from. Whilst shutting the fuck up, you leftarded, mentally retarded moron. There? That get your attention, paulette? Tell your troubles to Jesus, the Chaplain went over the hill.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Ivan,

Don’t waste your time with 2Hotel, aside from telling you hot to shoot someone in the gut for the purpose of drawing out others to shoot, his intellectual contributions are on par with the Cookie monster from Sesame Street.

his intellectual contributions are on par with the Cookie monster from Sesame Street.

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Of course, Cookie Monster looks like Mortimer Adler compared to Hannitized’s infantile mumbling!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Yep, another paulette that does not know its ass from the hole in its face. And sanni likes it. Wonder it sanni will let it get to third base on the first date? Ah, who we trying to fool?!?! ivoid gives sanni a hit of its stash and sanni will be ass in air, wiggling like a cat in heat. Your such a slut. Or is that “your such a crack ho.”? I just can’t keep track of all the goofy little terms of endearment you kids use anymore.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

"Where is the list of Herr Doktor’s political accomplishments?”

2Hotel9:  Are you one of those f*cktards who refuses to cede the last word even after you’ve been bested in an argument?

If so, do you do this in your “real life” as well?

If so, do you have any friends?

If so, are they retarded?

Just like all paulettes you can not supply even one(1) example of Luap Nor ever having done anything other than enriching himself at our expense. Instead you whine and cry and ratshit about,,,well, nothing. Just like Herr Doktor.

Proof, yet another paulette fails, as they fail at everything in their lives. Sadly pathetic, just like their boy, Luap Nor.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Am I correct in assuming that you’re a former believer in Dr. Paul who became disillusioned?

For the uninformed, Paul used to be a libertarian, as was I once upon a time.  Also at one time, libertarian principles were fundamentally inline with the US Constitution whose purpose was to limit federal government and protect individual rights.  However the Libertarians were unsuccessful in the political arena for numerous reasons which I will not describe here.  Therefore, because he wanted to be a US representative and presumably to take libertarian ideas into Congress, Paul ran as a Republican candidate and was successful.  The rest of the story is that Paul was unsuccessful selling libertarian ideals to enough Congressmen to make an impact and to pass his legislation.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

I have followed the duplicitous, two-faced antics of Herr Doktor since the ‘70s. Do you know anything beyond the campaign literature concerning Luap Nor?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Not to mention his tactic of piling on all kinds of spending to items he votes against. Knowing full well that his nay vote is meaningless, the piece will pass, and his added spending will go through. Real American of him, wouldn’t you say, ivoid?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Actually, 2H, Paul seemed very normal (for a libertarian) until the Iraqi war when he and the libertarian party imploded.

Why do you call him duplicitous since even as a Republican he pursued libertarian ideals; he also used them in his campaigns.  He happened to live in a very conservative district and was elected because he seemed closer to conservative ideals (small government, etc.) than the other candidates.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Lying in order to hoodwink people into voting for him, that is duplicitous. Inserting spending appropriations into items that he then votes against, knowing full well they will pass in spite of his nay, that is duplicitous.

Herr Doktor has not, in all the years of screeching&wailing about this litany of conspiracy theory crap ever done anything to alter, stop, or even inconvenience any of these so called “enemies of America”. He has, in fact, done little more than stand about haranguing passers by, while with the other hand he was cramming tax dollars into his poke as fast as he could.  Duplicitous.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem