Support NeoGAF

[Karma Kramer]

ron paul supporters = saddam hussein sympathizers

Which government provided Saddam with the weapons that allowed him to kill his people?

I take offense to what you just said btw. All forms of unnecessary violence is evil. I am not favoring a murderer at all.

 

[Jenga]

Which government provided Saddam with the weapons that allowed him to kill his people?

who got saddam to actually kill his people?

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Let me tell you then.

Pre-war Iraq/Afghanistan had bigger problems that an ailing economy. No, I don't think it was the US's job to fix those problems, but to imply that living under Saddam's rule is even remotely similar to living in the US today is very hypocritical IMHO.
I used the word "disrespectful" because the ad basically ignores the fear that many Iraqis lived in under Saddam.

I am aware of the suffering the war has brought upon them, and totally agree with those who say it was a mistake. I just don't think it's fair to draw parallels between life in modern-day US and Saddam-era Iraq.

I understand and appreciate your point of view, and I hope I've managed to make myself clear this time.

What about the majority of Iraqis that thought it was better under Saddam?

 

[Karma Kramer]

who got saddam to actually kill his people?

No, I didn't say that... all I said is who provided Saddam the ability to do so

 

[NullPointer]

The people who don't believe having troops in Afghanistan is an issue that needs to be fixed aren't going to be swayed by some jerkoff screaming in their ear for 2 minutes.

I've seen stranger things happen.

I see it as a good attempt to bring the issue up and it takes balls to present it in this way. For.

 

[Jenga]

No, I didn't say that... all I said is who provided Saddam the ability to do so

we did

but we did so indirectly, not directly

if we knew he was gonna go around commit genocide on his own people and become an enemy for the next couple of decades we most likely wouldn't have

 

[Soule]

What kind of video is this called? I mean where the words are creatively moved around and are the focus, I remember a few years ago a friend who I used to play diablo 2 with had an assignment where he had to do a video like this and it had some technical name but I've forgotten and he was just some random I played with online and can't track him down.

 

[Tristam]

There's not much of a reason for our military to be in South Korea anymore. The North would be decimated by the South's military, even without assistance from the U.S., because the North almost completely lacks modern air support. I mean, it wouldn't even be close; their hyped million-man army would be strafed to hell and back while crossing the DMZ. They certainly could level a good chunk of Seoul before their mortar and missile installations were wiped out, but there's little the American military could do to prevent that.

The South Korean government maintains the military relationship because they enjoy access to American defense technology, and the U.S. government probably maintains the relationship because they see some strategic interest there (whether it's simply the country's proximity to North Korea and China, I have no idea.)

 

[outunderthestars]

Liar. (that isn't to say that you're right about the others, I just flat out happened to KNOW you were wrong about that.) Any further claims please source them.

Not a lie. He has consistently voted against food safety laws, inspections, and oversight.

H.R. 2749 is a perfect example.

he has also said that the believes airlines can self regulate safety and that we have no need for an FAA.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/ron-paul-nah-we-dont-need-an-faa.php?ref=fpb

 

[GaimeGuy]

I usually dont vote. I will vote for him.

you're a well informed, responsible member of society, to not make your voice heard normally, and to vote for someone due to a 3 minute ad about one of a myriad of issues.

</sarcasm>

 

[Rehynn]

Let me ask you something. Who is the bigger terrorist, Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein or the United States?

Think about our history a little bit

I respectfully refuse to dignify that question with an answer.
You country helped liberate mine in WWII, accidentally killing some of our people and destroying parts of cities in the process, and I'd never engage in a debate over whether to call FDR a terrorist.

BTW, it's not "our" history, and I don't meam that in an offensive manner, I'm just not American.

 

[Karma Kramer]

we did

but we did so indirectly, not directly

This has happened many many times in US history... do you want me to go over them?

 

[loosus]

But my point is I don't think Ron Paul particularly cares either. I don't think it's on his agenda if he gets elected. I don't think it would be on his second term agenda. That question was designed to play "gotcha" and "look at the crazy libertarian" rather than talking about the real issues like every other candidate. What does Ron Paul think of the health care law? You wouldn't have found out from the presidential debates even though he's a doctor. Federal Reserve? they actually asked the OTHER candidates about that and ignored him even though that's been his driving force (ad nauseum) for DECADES. The media is supposed to shed light on candidate's views in debates but they've seemed more interested in painting him as a caricature rather than treating him like the other candidates on the issues of the day.

That may be the case, but when you hear a politician like him say something crazy just once, it's really, really hard to get past it. I don't know if he has openly talked about parks, but I know he has talked about spending LIKE parks, anyway, and when you do that, nothing else really matters. It's like dating someone and then, just once, they say something about murdering their mom, and then not being about to past it. It will always be an issue.

So, if he is "pro parks" or whatever, he needs to come out and make that known. Otherwise, he's going to stay in the lunatics bin, and every other thing that comes out of his mouth is IRRELEVANT.

 

[Angry Fork]

Really? Ron Paul, the man who doesn't believe in government, is more liberal than Obama?

I'm not really sure if you understand the concept of modern liberalism.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in a federal social safety net, abortion, parks, environmental protections, fuel standards, airline, food, or drug inspections, etc etc.

He is more conservative than Dick Cheney on the vast majority of issues. Dick fucking Cheney.

Don't let his faux folksy charm distract you from the horrible nature of true views. This, once again, is a man who refuses to give his full time staffers health insurance and told someone he called "one of his best friends" to ask churches for help when became sick and later died.

I personally find him to be one the most vile, greedy, and misguided people in politics today.

but hey, he's for legal drugs and a absurdly limited military/state department, so i guess that makes him liberal.

I'm aware of his stance on regulations, and I disagree with them. However he thinks for himself and isn't a puppet like Obama. At this point in time the country sucks so fucking hard and no politician seems real in what they believe that I don't care about Ron Paul's other crazy shit. I'd rather have him in office than a liar with no backbone.

 

[Jenga]

This has happened many many times in US history... do you want me to go over them?

what does this have to do with saddam hussein's government and ron paul's implication that iraq was doing fine and dandy under his rule?

before you speak further, no I am against the iraq war, and do believe it was a significant blunder

 

[Karma Kramer]

I respectfully refuse to dignify that question with an answer.
You country helped liberate mine in WWII, accidentally killing some of our people and destroying parts of cities in the process, and I'd never engage in a debate over whether to call FDR a terrorist.

BTW, it's not "our" history, and I don't meam that in an offensive manner, I'm just not American.

Acts of violence have to be justified by the aggressors (the united states). WW2 is justified... Vietnam war and Iraq war... not so much. I think between those two wars we have killed more civilians than Saddam and Osama.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Not a lie. He has consistently voted against food safety laws, inspections, and oversight.

H.R. 2749 is a perfect example.

he has also said that the believes airlines can self regulate safety and that we have no need for an FAA.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/ron-paul-nah-we-dont-need-an-faa.php?ref=fpb

He is completely ignorant about the history of aviation and air traffic management if he truly believes that.

How are different airlines with different control systems and tracking standards supposed to ensure that their aircraft don't crash into each other? How do they come to an agreement about clearance, particularly runway usage?

 

[Rehynn]

What about the majority of Iraqis that thought it was better under Saddam?

That's one of the main reasons why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq. They did not pose a threat to the US, and the Iraqi people did not invite US troops to bring them democracy. There WAS a problem, it just wasn't up to the US to fix it.

You are absolutely right.

 

[Gaborn]

Not a lie. He has consistently voted against food safety laws, inspections, and oversight.

H.R. 2749 is a perfect example.

So your position is because he didn't support adding MORE bureaucracy that may or may not increase food safety (that was already at an all time high in any case before it passed) that he's against ALL food inspections? Logic! Or, you know, smearing. If you're not with the dems on one bill you're clearly against them.

he has also said that the believes airlines can self regulate safety and that we have no need for an FAA.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/ron-paul-nah-we-dont-need-an-faa.php?ref=fpb

And? it isn't clear to me that we need an FAA either. The important thing is that planes get to and from their destinations safely. I'm not sure why you think that requires a federal organization.

Gaime Guy - why do you assume they would be different. Impose federal standards that airports are required to meet.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Except it's not going to do any of that. The people who don't believe having troops in Afghanistan is an issue that needs to be fixed aren't going to be swayed by some jerkoff screaming in their ear for 2 minutes. They aren't going to be swayed by anything at this point. If the argument is the ad is simply trying to let people know Ron Paul will bring the troops home, they've heard it before, and got only a quarter of what was promised. Few people outside of diehard Paulites are going to believe Ron will be anymore honest to them than any other politician.

Considering that Ron Paul doesn't care about political party "boundaries," always speaks his mind (even when it goes against him) and votes against his own party all the time what makes you think he would pull a 180 if he got into office?

It's the honesty that makes people like Ron Paul and it's also the reason he won't get into office.

 

[Jenga]

And? it isn't clear to me that we need an FAA either. The important thing is that planes get to and from their destinations safely. I'm not sure why you think that requires a federal organization.

lol

 

[siddx]

I'm aware of his stance on regulations, and I disagree with them. However he thinks for himself and isn't a puppet like Obama. At this point in time the country sucks so fucking hard and no politician seems real in what they believe that I don't care about Ron Paul's other crazy shit. I'd rather have him in office than a liar with no backbone.

You are right, he does think for himself. I can respect that he sticks by his (sometimes idiotic) beliefs and stances...but if he ever made it into the president's chair, we would see the same puppetry as we have with every president since...ummm...ever? There is a reason it's called the presidency and not dictatorship. There are too many fingers in the pie, too many voices demanding to be heard, and too much power and influence in our government to think that any man, no matter how stubborn and nutty, could ever deliver on every promise they made.

 

[V_Arnold]

Just because a person has "wrong" beliefs, that should not make him a bad candidate in an election.

Funny thing about these, it does not matter how many times a newly elected president and his regime takes a 180 degree turn about what they "presented as true" and went with a different direction instead. Simply amazing. The timing must have been precisely thought because of this, otherwise it would be a lot harder to screw people over and over and over again.

I do not live in US, but if I would, my vote would go for Ron Paul anyway.

 

[loosus]

He is completely ignorant about the history of aviation and air traffic management if he truly believes that.

How are different airlines with different control systems and tracking standards supposed to ensure that their aircraft don't crash into each other? How do they come to an agreement about clearance, particularly runway usage?

The problem is that people like him don't understand why such laws were put into place to begin with. There was a problem, and these laws alleviated it. Can it be tweaked? Probably. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Also, people like that really don't give the pro-air-traffic-control people enough credit. After all, if there WERE a way to do away with them, it'd already be done. It would save billions of dollars.

 

[Karma Kramer]

what does this have to do with saddam hussein's government and ron paul's implication that iraq was doing fine and dandy under his rule?

We empower dictators to be in that position by giving them that power through the sales of weapons. The burden of proof to use violence is on those who argue for violence. It is irresponsible of the United States to so carelessly empower dictators who will unjustly use that power.

 

[NullPointer]

what does this have to do with saddam hussein's government and ron paul's implication that iraq was doing fine and dandy under his rule?

I'm not seeing the implication here. Although I'm not sure whether he'd care if it was doing fine and dandy or not, as it's not our business.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Add the brawndo voice and that'd be straight out of idiocracy.

 

[loosus]

And? it isn't clear to me that we need an FAA either. The important thing is that planes get to and from their destinations safely. I'm not sure why you think that requires a federal organization.

This is the sort of borderline-lunatic craziness that I am talking about. And the fact that you can't see why that would be taken as such is even more disturbing.

 

[Jenga]

Just because a person has "wrong" beliefs, that should not make him a bad candidate in an election.

Funny thing about these, it does not matter how many times a newly elected president and his regime takes a 180 degree turn about what they "presented as true" and went with a different direction instead. Simply amazing. The timing must have been precisely thought because of this, otherwise it would be a lot harder to screw people over and over and over again.

I do not live in US, but if I would, my vote would go for Ron Paul anyway.

listen, this isn't a hard concept

i am a liberal. ron paul is a libertarian. as refreshingly anti-corporate and anti-war he is, nearly everything else he believes in outside of pot legalization is pure poison for me

and is poison for most of the disillusioned liberals the ron paul supporters seem desperate to snatch

ron paul should be aiming for the quiet disillusioned republicans, not the liberals

 

[Karma Kramer]

listen, this isn't a hard concept

i am a liberal. ron paul is a libertarian. as refreshingly anti-corporate and anti-war he is, nearly everything else he believes in outside of pot legalization is pure poison for me

and is poison for most of the disillusioned liberals the ron paul supporters seem desperate to snatch

ron paul should be aiming for the quiet disillusioned republicans, not the liberals

you are disillusioned into think you are supporting "liberals" currently on the national level

 

[Jenga]

you are disillusioned into think you are supporting "liberals" currently on the national level

you are disillusioned if you think a libertarian is anywhere close to supporting "liberals" in any meaningful way

 

[Gaborn]

The problem is that people like him don't understand why such laws were put into place to begin with. There was a problem, and these laws alleviated it. Can it be tweaked? Probably. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Also, people like that really don't give the pro-air-traffic-control people enough credit. After all, if there WERE a way to do away with them, it'd already be done. It would save billions of dollars.

The problem with "people like you" is you don't know the history of the aviation industry. Or, heck, the history of other countries aviation industry. For example, did you know in most of the rest of the world governments, either national or local do not own airports? In the US virtually all of our major airports (all of the NY airports, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver, etc etc etc) are either owned by the city or by a corporation that is owned by the city. In London, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Rome, etc etc etc that's not the case. The airports are privatized and much of the air traffic control system is too.

I don't have a problem with federal regulation to standardize things across the board but just like, say, the federal government has a specific standard for what a "cheese" is I think they can define clear and unambiguous rules that impose a uniform standard on air traffic control systems... without requiring it be manned by federal officials. Because if that's all the objection is I don't see the objection. It's sort of like people that believe the post office should have exclusive access to first class mail and the mail box. There is no reason Fed Ex or UPS cannot do the job too.

 

[Karma Kramer]

you are disillusioned if you think a libertarian is anyway close to supporting "liberals" in any meaningful way

pro-peace, pro-pot, and pro-civil liberties?

 

[Jenga]

pro-peace, pro-pot, and pro-civil liberties?

anti-regulation, anti-government, and anti-abortion?

 

[Karma Kramer]

anti-regulation, anti-government?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67ZFpuZwl4

 

[Gaborn]

anti-regulation, anti-government, and anti-abortion?

Jenga: in favor of unlimited government, unlimited regulation, and unlimited abortion. Right? because that's the kind of caricature in reverse people seem to want Ron Paul to be.

 

[loosus]

The problem with "people like you" is you don't know the history of the aviation industry. Or, heck, the history of other countries aviation industry. For example, did you know in most of the rest of the world governments, either national or local do not own airports? In the US virtually all of our major airports (all of the NY airports, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver, etc etc etc) are either owned by the city or by a corporation that is owned by the city. In London, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Rome, etc etc etc that's not the case. The airports are privatized and much of the air traffic control system is too.

Here is the thing, though: I'm OKAY with them being government owned. You think it's a problem by default. I don't. You got hung up on that very fact. What we have works, and I'm okay with it.

I don't have a problem with federal regulation to standardize things across the board but just like, say, the federal government has a specific standard for what a "cheese" is I think they can define clear and unambiguous rules that impose a uniform standard on air traffic control systems... without requiring it be manned by federal officials. Because if that's all the objection is I don't see the objection. It's sort of like people that believe the post office should have exclusive access to first class mail and the mail box. There is no reason Fed Ex or UPS cannot do the job too.

Again, I'm OKAY with there being federal officials in there. Again, you're hung up on that technicality, and I'm not.

 

[Jenga]

Jenga: in favor of unlimited government, unlimited regulation, and unlimited abortion. Right? because that's the kind of caricature in reverse people seem to want Ron Paul to be.

i don't know dude, airplanes don't need to be regulated

 

[Angry Fork]

You are right, he does think for himself. I can respect that he sticks by his (sometimes idiotic) beliefs and stances...but if he ever made it into the president's chair, we would see the same puppetry as we have with every president since...ummm...ever? There is a reason it's called the presidency and not dictatorship. There are too many fingers in the pie, too many voices demanding to be heard, and too much power and influence in our government to think that any man, no matter how stubborn and nutty, could ever deliver on every promise they made.

Why did Bush administration get away with so much? People said it's because he had full repub in house/senate and that's fine but democrats had the same in 2008/2009 and they did nothing with it. Fuck democrat politicians seriously. Republicans are bat shit crazy but they don't bend over, they say what they want, make it heard loud and clear, bitch and moan and then get what they want in the end.

Democrats are like oh hehe well ok hmm let's shake hands wait no but oh well you want this oh well hmm ok that's tough hmm ok fine buddy lolol. Shit is so annoying. There isn't a democrat in office right now that will simply say fuck you to republicans and not do ANYTHING they ask. Obama didn't have to back down on so much shit but he did anyway because he's a cunt looking out for his own shit.

I like Ron Paul just because he seems like a genuine person with his own ideas and isn't bullshitting around with hope/change crap that ends up saying nothing at all (like almost all Obama speeches now). And admittedly I fell for Obama's shit because he's an incredible speaker with massive charisma but people don't care about that anymore.

 

[Gaborn]

Here is the thing, though: I'm OKAY with them being government owned. You think it's a problem by default. I don't. You got hung up on that very fact. What we have works, and I'm okay with it.

Again, I'm OKAY with there being federal officials in there. Again, you're hung up on that technicality, and I'm not.

Actually I'm "okay" with there being federal officials in there too. The difference seems to be you're afraid that somehow if it was privatized the sky would fall in. I AM "ok" with things now. ending the FAA is not a big issue for me. BUT if it ended? I wouldn't shed one tear or worry for one second.

 

[loosus]

Actually I'm "okay" with there being federal officials in there too. The difference seems to be you're afraid that somehow if it was privatized the sky would fall in.

It's not a matter of being "afraid" or not. You want to fix something that is not broken.

 

[Jenga]

what ron paul believes on abortion:

# Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
# Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
# Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
# Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (A
# Deregulate the adoption market.
# Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
# No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
# Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized.
# Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
# Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
# Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
# Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
# Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood.

ron paul supporters confirmed to hate science

 

[Tristam]

Why did Bush administration get away with so much? People said it's because he had full repub in house/senate and that's fine but democrats had the same in 2008/2009 and they did nothing with it. Fuck democrat politicians seriously. Republicans are bat shit crazy but they don't bend over, they say what they want, make it heard loud and clear, bitch and moan and then get what they want in the end.

Democrats are like oh hehe well ok hmm let's shake hands wait no but oh well you want this oh well hmm ok that's tough hmm ok fine buddy lolol. Shit is so annoying. There isn't a democrat in office right now that will simply say fuck you to republicans and not do ANYTHING they ask. Obama didn't have to back down on so much shit but he did anyway because he's a cunt looking out for his own shit.

I like Ron Paul just because he seems like a genuine person with his own ideas and isn't bullshitting around with hope/change crap that ends up saying nothing at all (like almost all Obama speeches now). And admittedly I fell for Obama's shit because he's an incredible speaker with massive charisma but people don't care about that anymore.

The Democratic Party is not nearly as ideologically homogeneous as the Republican Party.

 

[Gaborn]

It's not a matter of being "afraid" or not. You want to fix something that is not broken.

No. I said very clearly I don't have a problem with privatization. That doesn't mean I "want" it or don't. I'm not even sure it's preferable one way or another right now, there are many bigger issues to tackle right now. I simply have no objection to privatization, I don't think it's a position to freak out over or think it's so outrageous.

 

[Karma Kramer]

US is a leading terrorist state, here is a good example...

Jenga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s#t=33m33s

 

[LCGeek]

Agreed 100%, it's too bad most people can't look past these issues with their blinders on to see what's really important right now. Hopefully people will spread the message as Ron Paul is pretty much ignored by the MSM.

He is routinely mocked and downplayed on the big networks. His fans and conspiracy nutjobs have shown how cnn, msnbc, and fox all avoid him or even when giving him time drag out non issues to deflect away from his solid points. Ignore is one thing but to be spiteful and outright just try to hold a man down is just wrong.

 

[Karma Kramer]

The Democratic Party is not nearly as ideologically homogeneous as the Republican Party.

Despite favorable support from the majority of Americans regarding the public option.

 

[soco]

too long. ineffective graphics. couldve edited out half and been 4x as effective.

 

[loosus]

No. I said very clearly I don't have a problem with privatization. That doesn't mean I "want" it or don't. I'm not even sure it's preferable one way or another right now, there are many bigger issues to tackle right now.

You just don't get it. You say there are "bigger issues" to tackle right now, which implies that you DO think air traffic control being government controlled is an issue, albeit smaller than some others we face. I don't even agree with that premise. It's just not an issue at all for me. Literally, I have no problem with it never being privatized. Could it be? Yes, every single government function COULD be privatized. There just is no reason to do so.

 

[unomas]

Ron Paul wins another straw poll

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-wins-straw-poll-cain-2nd-193226764.html