Paulians: What’s this popular vote thing you speak of?
According to the Washington Times, Ron Paul may have ended his campaign for the presidency months ago, but his supporters are trying to make an end run around the will of the voters. Even though Paul garnered only single digits among primary voters in every state except in states in which he was one of two choices, somehow Ron Paul’s supporters think they know better than the majority who should be president;
A federal judge this week allowed delegates supporting Mr. Paul to file an amended complaint in a case in which they accuse the Republican National Committee of manipulating the delegate allocation process.
Judge David O. Carter did, however, grant the RNC’s motion to dismiss a previous complaint. The Paul delegates’ amended complaint is due by Aug. 20, just a week before the Republican National Convention is scheduled to begin.
Nevertheless, Mr. Paul, though he effectively ended his campaign in May without having won the popular vote in any state, has relied on an intensely loyal cohort of followers and staffers who took advantage of sparsely attended caucuses and entered into state party organizations to expand their influence and increase his delegate count across the country.
And then they wonder why the rest of the party thinks they’re crackpots. They claim that they’re the only ones who understand the Constitution and then they show how much they care about the Constitution by circumventing the will of the voters. Although I agree with much of Ron Paul’s domestic policy, his foreign policy is juvenile and more suited to an 18th century agrarian nation. If he suddenly became brilliant in regards to foreign policy, I still wouldn’t support him because I don’t want to be associated with the infantile jerk-offs who do. Grow the hell up, for crying out loud.
Category: Ron Paul
Ah, a troll. One not even up to the intellectual honesty and integrity of insipid. Multiple logical fallacies, multiple failures period. Not worth the time, and they are well identified. Not worth further engagement or consideration by anyone with two neurons to form a synapse.
Or perhaps the reverse view is as illogical as your assertion, Lizbot. Are you implying that because you are arguing against some mythical charge you made that it exempts you from military service?
You are simply making no sense whatever. But then most of our trolls, resident or otherwise, rarely do.
You are asking a question which has no answer yet you continue to make assertions based on assumptions wrapped around a straw man who just ate a red herring as justification to then act all self-righteous when no one here seems to want to play your silly game.
Well, OK, then.
OWB: on target. Dim Lizzie is just trying to resurrect the tired, old “chickenhawk” argument.
And, yes, I would volunteer, except I am over the age limit as well.
Well, my DD214 says I’m subject to recall, but I volunteered during the Retiree Mob Call, anyway. Just to remind them that I’m out here.
Fellas, Nicki’s question was (comment 37):
Now answer my direct question to you: Do you believe that only those who are currently serving in the military have any standing to be concerned about foreign policy? It’s a simple yes or no. Answer it. [my answer was no]
I asked why those who claim foreign policy is the most important issue facing voters are not heading down to the recruiting station?
If you can read both and conclude the questions are related, well, I don’t know what to say.
My point is, if something is important to me, I find a way to do it.
If you don’t believe that only those who volunteer for military service (I didn’t see the initial reply) are qualified to be concerned about foreign policy, why are you asking the question? What is the purpose here?
Nicki, I started by asking Jonn the question. He answered it. Some other members of the cadre chimed in, too.
My purpose was to better understand the disconnect between one’s stated priorities and one’s actions.
What’s unclear to me is why you and Hondo went to such great lengths to derail the conversation, but I digress. As I stated earlier, pissing contests aint my bag.
@57… “Do you believe that only those who are currently serving in the military have any standing to be concerned about foreign policy?”
-Yes. And many are. Many agree that Paul is out of touch with reality on foreign policy. Your average soldier/marine/etc doesn’t WANT to go to war, but unlike most of the people in this country, knows that there are indeed bad guys out there who would not think twice of killing as many civilians as they could. And when SHTF nobody fights for “freedom” or “the American dream” or chest thumping politicians. They fight to keep the guy next to em alive, complete the mission, and get everyone home in one piece.
“I asked why those who claim foreign policy is the most important issue facing voters are not heading down to the recruiting station?”
-Can only speak for myself,but it’s because I’m rated 100% disabled as of 2005. Is that a valid reason? If I wasn’t, I’d still be in.Without a second thought.
“My purpose was to better understand the disconnect between one’s stated priorities and one’s actions.” What utter bullshit that is.. you think that those who already did so much can have no say if they are not willing (in your mind) to “man up” another time? Sorry their Missie, but we already gave at the office and earned our right to call the paulbots loons, and Paul’s Foreign Policy to be that of a delusional isolationist with their head firmly jammed up their ass.
So, just who the heck are you to lecture or suggest anyone here goes backs and once again puts their lives at risk once again…. To me, that is absolutely insulting and pathetic. So go pound sand, you wanted confrontation and now you have it so stuff the pretentious and self righteous bull shit.
@59–you claim you aren’t into pissing contests, but what you’re spraying doesn’t look, sound, or smell like rain, toots…
I got on your case, Lizzie, because I really don’t like people who lie in print and argue unethically merely to provoke. You’ve done both above – and continue to do so. And you’re obviously smart enough to know precisely what you’re doing. You are the one who attempted – crudely and obviously, I might add – to hijack this discussion. The original subject being discussed was the hypocrisy of Ron Paul’s supporters in claiming to respect the Constitution while attempting to subvert the democratic process that it defines because they didn’t like the outcome. You seized on a minor, throwaway point Jonn made in the article and tried to make that the subject of the discussion because it suited your purposes. I called you on that. You’ve been denying the truth ever since and claiming – falsely – that your bogus, clumsily-changed new subject was in fact the original subject of discussion. You’ve also falsely accused Nicki and I of being the ones to hijack the discussion when you know damn well you are the one who did so. You continue your mendacity in comment 57. Your original question was, and I quote: “So basically everyone here is in a agreement that foreign policy is the most important issue facing voters? Anyone need a ride to the recruiting station? Lemme know.” That’s not at all the same as your restated question. Rather, it’s a leading question, phrased to elicit a particular answer supporting your predetermined conclusion. The replies clearly show that your preferred answer is in no way an opinion universally held here, as you also clearly know (I for one answered in the negative). And the implied gratuitous insult after your leading initial question was absolutely uncalled for. Fair question my ass. You were intentionally trying to provoke, and you know it. But you got caught, so now you’re trying to lie your way out of trouble. I’ve seen leftists and Ronulans (and others) use those rhetorical devices far too many times to keep silent any more. You’re not here to argue; you’re here to troll and provoke.… Read more »
Quote the Lizbot: “I asked why those who claim foreign policy is the most important issue facing voters are not heading down to the recruiting station?”
Asking 73 more times will not get an answer which satisfies you, so why do you keep asking it? You have been told repeatedly that it doesn’t pertain to most of us here, yet you continue to ask it. Clearly, you have an agenda, one which apparently does not include contributing anything of value here.
Sorry, but this is a no-go. You made an ASSUMPTION that there’s a disconnect between people’s views and actions here. And you did so arrogantly and snidely. I put up my credentials in response to your “challenge,” and I told you to put up yours. There was no attempt to derail anything on OUR part. You started this and whined when challenged.
I think that everybody that loves the US, whether they served in the miitary or not, should rank foreign policy in the top half dozen most important issues. And whether they served or not, they should be able to opine freely about the topic. Of course, if they have an uninformed, sophomoric view of reality, those opinions should be ridiculed and discounted. I don’t think having served in a war and being a disabled vet gives my opinion special weight.
That said, it is abundantly obvious that Thin Lizztard is an agent provocateur…s/he/it (probably an effeminate male, by the profile and passive-aggressive posture). This type of troll is especially prevalent around election season, when they get defensive about their flimsy ideology and feel the urgent need to defend it vociferously. The species is filthy and not worth much of our time.
Lizzie. I am in Afghanistan now. Where are you?
Oh, and to forestall claims of hypocrisy from you, “Lizzie”: between 9/11 and mid-2009, I served in excess of 4 1/2 years on active duty in support of GWOT operations. (In case you’re numerically-challenged, that works out to “more time in uniform than not”.) All of it was duty a considerable distance away from my home. That also includes a year split between Afghanistan and Iraq – while in my 50s – which took me 3 years to find and for which I volunteered. And many others here have broadly similar histories.
So how about you just freaking cease work with the implications that folks here haven’t “done their part” to support GWOT, or haven’t “put their money where their mouth is”. We’ve put far more than our money on the line – it was our lives.
I’d like to point out that the first person who said anything about “foreign policy is the most important issue facing voters” was Lizzie.
Well, if something were important to you, you’d find a way to get it done. That’s all I’m saying.
What most fail to grasp is the disconnect between one’s STATED priorities and one’s ACTIONS. All I’m looking for is consistency…and thus far I’ve not found it.
Anyone can send others to die for a cause he/she deems worthwhile…veteran or non-veteran, it doesn’t make a difference.
What you are saying Lizzie, is that you are a shit stirring ass who believes that we can only opine on this subject if we are willing to put into action our beliefs.. even though many of us have put our beliefs on the line so to speak already.
You are really just a sniveling douche. Seriously, I have absolutely no respect for you or your opinions on this, because it is pure and unadulterated garbage. You are speaking to veterans not a bunch of gamers who only play soldier in video games or airsoft. We earned our right to declare our position and disdain for you idiot Pualbots and his idiotic foreign policy.
You have a nice day dumbass.
Lizzie: are you really so stupid that you do not understand that Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines DON’T GET TO CHOOSE THE WARS IN WHICH THEY FIGHT?
Choosing which wars to fight and which to avoid is the province of political leadership. Choosing how to execute at the strategic level is the province of Senior DoD leadership and/or that of the individual services (Army/Navy/USAF/USMC). Unless you’re wearing 3 or 4 stars, you don’t have much say in how – and even less in where. Or about when – or even if – you go at all.
I feel comfortable in asserting that none of the regulars here are (1) members of the national political leadership, and (2) aren’t senior DoD or service officials. Ergo, in general none of us have the choice of where or how we serve. In rare cases, one might have some control over that. But in general, all one can do is perform the duties one is assigned.
Your argument re: consistency is both illogical and illegitimate. Most here are already serving in one capacity or another, or are not eligible for further active-duty service due to law and/or regulation. Ergo, you’re complaining to the wrong people. You need to direct that question to those who aren’t already serving.
And you need to quit coming here and insulting those who already have – or are currently – serving by implying they’re not doing enough. That’s bullshit, and you know it as well as we do. The majority here either have already or are currently “walking the walk” – whether they support the current Administration’s policies or not.
Have you?
What most fail to grasp is the disconnect between one’s STATED priorities and one’s ACTIONS.
Again, what would you have someone over normal retirement age do, Lizzie?
Most of us have served in places you’ve never heard of, you’ll likely never know or understand what many of us do, and even if you had put on a uniform (I’m betting you haven’t–would I be wrong?) you’d likely have been laughed aside had you walked into a FOB or other base and tried to spew your bullshit.
In short, Lizzie–poof–begone! The adults are trying to have a conversation here.
Back O/T…again, telling that Paul isn’t actually telling his supporters to stop being a bunch of douchenozzles themselves, but then again…
Thin Lizzie- I am currently in the military. How can I use that fact to effect foreign policy?
NH Sparky, do you always accept ‘no’ as an answer, without question?
Have you ever been told you couldn’t do something and it pissed you off so much you made it your life’s mission to prove that person wrong?
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
rb325th, that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying: IF foreign policy is your #1 issue, THEN you’d sign up to fight.
What you’re saying is, IF I am hungry, THEN I don’t need to eat anymore because I had dinner 20 years ago.
When it’s painfully obvious that there’s a REASON behind it, yeah.
So NO, it doesn’t always mean that I’m going to be motivated to do something just because they say it can’t be done.
Standards–perhaps you’ve heard of them? Perhaps you can understand there’s a reason for them being there in the first place?
And NO, you aren’t making a coherent argument. You’re sounding like a, “I know you are, but what am I?” type of tool.
Finally, thanks for not answering my query above. Thought you might avoid it.
No, Lizzie. If foreign policy is one’s #1 priority, you’ll vote for the candidate you feel will implement the best foreign policy. You’ll only go sign up to fight if (1) you agree with the way current foreign policy is being conducted, (2) are qualified to serve, (3) are convinced that is the best way you can promote US foreign policy, and (4) aren’t already signed up – as many here already are.
You’re obviously only trolling here. Please leave. We have more important things to do than continue discussing anything with a troll who’s willfully ignorant and merely arguing for the sake of argument; who dissembles and lies; and who can’t even come up with a coherent, logical, and consistent argument.
“”that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying: IF foreign policy is your #1 issue, THEN you’d sign up to fight. “”
This is the most inane of arguments I have seen in some time, it doesn’t matter what anyone does or doesn’t do to have an opinion on any topic in America.
By this weak logic if the economy is your #1 issue you would head to university to get a degree in strategic economics and join the government budget office in some capacity to aid in assisting the economy….
However this is a representative democracy therefore you could just vote for a representative that shares your concerns over the economy so they voice your similar opinions in the congress….similarly if foreign policy is a huge concern, and it might be foreign policy unrelated to the GWOT, so joining the military to fight a non-existent military threat from the Chinese when your actual concern is economic threats from the Chinese would be stupid, you pick a candidate whose thoughts and opinions on foreign economic policy mirrors your views on adjusting said policy to benefit the nation.
Or you could continue to make weak logical assumptions and try to connect dots that not only don’t need connecting but just aren’t there.
Damn Hondo, you beat me to the punch by five minutes, I should stop trying to work and post at the same time…
NHSparky, see my earlier comments, I don’t do pissing matches because (1) it’s impossible to prove anything in an online forum, and (2) it’s irrelevant.
All I want to know is, is there anyone here willing to put his/her money where his/her mouth is? I’m starting to reconsider my transportation offer.
No more passed tense – can we please discuss why no one here is willing to sign up again? I don’t understand why past ‘glories’ apply to today’s conflict, ESPECIALLY because we all know the enemy never sleeps.
Anyone can commit someone else to fight. Leaders are always ahead of the curve, fellas.
@80- I already told I’m signed-up… what do I do now?
kp, keep your head down & stay safe. Don’t murder anyone.
I didn’t have to be in the service for that and it will have absolutely no effect on foreign policy.
Damn I must be bored.
The military is an instrument used when foreign policy fails. Those who want to effect foreign policy would be better suited to work at the Department of State in some capacity than the Department of Defense. Additionally, the standards are much lower. So, Lizzy, your real question should be if we need a ride to Foggy Bottom.
By your demeanor, I’m going to assume that you haven’t served in any capacity. By your own line of thinking, I should then assume that you don’t give a crap about foreign policy. If that is the case, then why the concern about foreign policy?
It’s time for you to go play in traffic, Liz. You’re wasting oxygen.
Bobo, you’re wrong all the way around.
You don’t know me and, what’s more, you erected a (terrible) straw man out of silly assumptions.
Nevertheless I’m impressed you know what I’m thinking. Actually, if true, I’m rather creeped out.
I guess no one wants to take me up on my offer. Unlike the bulk of the cadre, I refuse to live my life inconsistent with my principles. No pension is worth compromise.
@80
Ron Paul’s foreign policy regarding economics is weak so what does signing up to fight accomplish there? We are not at war with the EU or China/Japan, so are you suggesting the Paul supporters advocate a war over economic issues with current favored nation trading partners?
Ron Paul actually made the claim on Jan 30th 2008 that our government operated a foreign empire to the tune of a trillion dollars, he got to the trillion by including everything from our US Border Patrol to debt service payments on the total national debt…that’s hardly someone with a clear grasp on foreign policy. So many folks here and most Republican voters don’t think he’s the man for the job.
That’s how a democracy works, you had your chance and made your play with a guy who can’t get the job done so he lost. Accept the reality and move on, no need for frivolous lawsuits.
So, by following your logic (or apprent lack thereof) those who think foreign policy is important should….enlist? Then by that lack of logic you display, if you hate this country, you should……leave. Am I doin it right? That arguement’s a cop out, always has been.
And don’t murder anyone? Fuck right off, you dumb bitch. According to you we’re all murderers over here in murder fuck ville, SW Asia? The fuck you talkin about? Wait, don’t asnwer that, you clearly don’t know. You’re out of your freakin’ mind.
Lizzie, you really are a dim witted, dip shit of a troll! Most, if not all of us would gladly sign on the line, again. However, due to age or physical disabilities from signing the first time, we are regulated to become instructors or not allowed to serve at all. I have a friend that is also an illogical idiot and sometimes he needs the shit knocked out of him. But, alas, I do believe that if someone were to knock the shit out of you, you would disappear.
So with that said, if you really want to give a guy a ride to the recruiters office, stop on by. I will take you up on the offer. Better yet, I will stand in support of you as we BOTH sign on the line.
Lizzie, I would gladly ride on down to the recruiting station with you….. And they would tell me for the 3rd time since I was medboarded out of the Army that I CANNOT reenlist. Shut the fuck up already you pretentious fuck.
Do we really need a class on DIME, PMESSI, and the role of the military in diplomacy a la Clausewitz, Huntington, Janowitz, Mearsheimer, and Schelling before you can understand?
The military does not contain the full spectrum of foreign policy. At best, it is used as a threat, and, with a complete failure of foreign policy, that threat is implemented.
The proponent for foreign policy across the spectrum, to include introducing the threat of military action, is the State Department. In the DIME design, they are the D, control the I, threaten with the M, and regulate the E.
So, again, if you want to maintain your linkage to foreign policy and a recruiting station, you can continue to expose your ignorance of policy and decision making at the strategic level. Please, tell me where I’m wrong on any of this, but I would first recommend you expand your reading list beyond The Revolution: A Manifesto.
detn8r, my offer still stands. I’ll give you a ride to the recruiting station. But I’m not signing up because foreign policy is not my number one issue.
And yeah, you could probably beat the snot out of me, but what would that prove? Violence doesn’t make you correct. It makes you a thug, capisce?
My argument has been sound and consistent throughout this thread, and has withstood all challenges.
The funny thing about character assassinations, pissing contests, chest thumping, name calling, what-have-you is that it reveals a helluva lot more about the person launching the attacks that it does about the person being attacked.
Said differently, I’m talking about insecurity.
ARoberts, how about a ride to Blackwater/Xi/Academi, then?
Find a way to get it done. I’ll help you.
Yeah, lizzie, do you spend much time over at democratic underground? I got a feeling you fit right in there. They never make any sense.
Folks: “Lizzie” here either (1) is an agent provocateur arguing solely to provoke or (2) has the intellect of a fence post. Or possibly both. (I’m personally betting on (1), but I guess I could be wrong.) He/she is either incapable of understanding logical argument or is deliberately ignoring same.
I think it’s time to stop feeding the troll and to start simply ignoring it.
I would have to agree with you on one point and one point only, beating the snot out of you would prove useless. You have not proved your point. Foreign policy is not the only area Paul is week. You have been the only one making absurd assumptions that it is the #1 issue with the followers of this post.
Maybe you should enlighten the readers as to what is “your number one issue”.
By the way, I am very secure with myself and abilities, Ive been considered a lot of things but never a thug.
I also think we could find a use for you in the military that will not infringe on you lack of concern for foreign policy. I really think you should at least attempt to join.
Lizzie, Once again I will point out that nobody said anything about foreign policy being the #1 priority until YOU said foreign policy being OUR #1 priority. Since you seem to hate our Country so much that you are defending a group that wants to do a run around the United States Constitution I’m sure someone on here would be happy to give you a ride to the nearest borders….any takers.
I am also currently in, so what am I supposed to do. Don’t worry I will try to refrain from murdering anyone.
I will now take Hondo’s advise and no longer feed the troll. Where is the three billy goats gruff when you need them?
The rapier wit of a small soap dish…
Lizzie what part of medically boarded is difficult for you to understand? The part where Im injured or the part where I couldnt do the job anymore (to include wearing body armor)? Me thinks YOU should go enlist or sign a contract at one of the above mentioned place as it seems that you have done exactly nothing with your life other than antagonize people who have accomplished much more than you ever will.
Methinks that since Lizzie has no intention of serving, by her own criteria she needs to eat a big steaming bowl of STFU and disappear most ricky-tick.
@95, Hondo, I’m going with both.