|
Ron Paul supporters are scary. They are---
cultish......
neocons and interventionists should be scared of RP supporters as
their livelihood depends on those who won't object to their misplaced
agenda
---
They don't play well with others......
they don't agree with the interventionist and financial policies of
neocons and won't pretend to
---
They fail to see the
flaws within their own candidate,
not true ...
proof:
he's somewhat squirly, not appealing or a good speaker, wings it too
often by not sticking to 'talking' points on issues, etc.
Give us your examples of his flaws.
---
and look upon him with this God-Like
quality.
baseless accusation
admiration would be a better description
---
Many of them tend to draw ranks with Moonbats. (e.g.;
"T-Party-Cons"? Come On!)
drawing attention to wall street and the federal reserve is
warranted ... regardless of unsolicited allies
---
Yep.....These are the things that cause most libertarians,
conservatives
and just Plain Old Americans with common sense to stop and say,
"WTF"?
his delivery needs an overhaul but his message is sound
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:14 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
On May 9, 1:08 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is but one example of why Ron Paul supporters are scary. They are
> cultish......They don't play well with others......They fail to see the
> flaws within their own candidate, and look upon him with this God-Like
> quality. Many of them tend to draw ranks with Moonbats. (e.g.;
> "T-Party-Cons"? Come On!)
>
> Yep.....These are the things that cause most libertarians, conservatives
> and just Plain Old Americans with common sense to stop and say, "WTF"?
>
> It's hard to join ranks with crazy folks......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > *T-Partycons Encounter the Paulians
> > *Posted on May 8, 2012 by LHR, Jr.
>
> > Lots of meat in this very interesting article<http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/05-08-12-12-20-rationally-def...>by Adam Sparks, "Rationally Defending Ron Paul: Detractors and Supporters
> > Read it all<http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/05-08-12-12-20-rationally-def...>> > Beware." I like, among much else, his description of a TP org, which has
> > backed Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Scott Brown, meeting the Ron
> > Paulians in Austin. It was a rally for Republican senate candidate Ted
> > Cruz, but naturally people came to see Ron:
>
> > It's not surprising, then, that it takes a certain skill to whip a Ron
> > Paul rally into a frenzy. So if you're looking to please a crowd of a
> > couple thousand people holding Ron Paul signs in front of the Texas Capital
> > and don't know exactly what to say, here's a start: Don't just stand there
> > bashing Barack Obama. Paul supporters have bigger fish to fry.
> > Last Sunday, Ron Paul was back in Austin headlining a Tea Party rally on
> > the steps of the Capitol. Paul's supporters launched the Tea Party movement
> > back in the 2008 election cycle, but, by the 2010 midterm elections, the
> > [Tea] Party (or at least a large segment of it) had been co-opted by the
> > traditional right.
> > Amy Kremer, spokesperson for the Tea Party Express which was organizing
> > Sunday's rally and one of the emcees for the event, rattled off the
> > traditional Tea Party rhetoric (Obama is evil, Obama sucks, Obamacare is an
> > unconscionable travesty). The crowd was almost comically un-enthused by her
> > tired Republican talking points; by the end of her speech, Kremer couldn't
> > go a minute without the crowd erupting into chants of "Ron Paul, Ron Paul,
> > Ron Paul!"
> > As a general rule in life, you should do everything in your power not to
> > rub Ron Paul supporters the wrong way. This can occur A) at rallies where
> > Dr. Paul is to speak, and B) on the Internet, which, if comment boards are
> > to be trusted, is populated entirely by Paul diehards.
> > Amy Kremer made the first mistake, fighting against the tide when all
> > everyone really wanted to do was chant "End the Fed!"
>
> > .> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
We've seen this before, and now we are seeing it again.
This time it was U.S. President Barack Obama's quick, unadvertised visit to Afghanistan to sign a partnership deal with President Hamid Karzai, and to assure U.S. troops and all Americans that "there is light on the horizon."
In other words, Obama is all but conceding defeat.
We saw it in Vietnam when then-president Richard Nixon assured that the withdrawal of American troops meant "peace with honour" — and America's South Vietnamese allies were abandoned to the forces of Ho Chi Minh.
President Obama promises U.S. forces will mostly be out of Afghanistan by 2014, except for those training the Afghan National Army. Already, negotiations are underway with the Taliban to "share power," while continuing to pursue al-Qaida.
The U.S. plans no permanent bases in Afghanistan.
There are several points that could be made from Obama's Afghanistan speech.
First of all, if one is intent on winning a war, or at least not guaranteeing one's own defeat, one does not give a timetable for leaving and proclaiming that your fighting soldiers will cease fighting on such-and-such a given date.
Where, in that, is the incentive for the enemy to stop fighting?
And does one notice how Obama stresses that al-Qaida is now the enemy and not the Taliban?
While the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to rid the country of al-Qaida training camps, it was the Taliban who were the main enemy.
And over most of the last decade, the casualties endured by American and Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were inflicted by the Taliban, not al-Qaida.
Again, the idea of "sharing" power with the Taliban, or even including the Taliban in some sort of regime of reconciliation, is nonsense.
Of course the Taliban leaders may agree — why not?
Agreements mean little in that part of the world — look at Syria, where Bashar al-Assad assured the UN he'd halt killing Syrian citizens and then continued killing Syrians.
The Taliban are capable of agreeing to anything that suits their interests and then ignoring any deal and grabbing all power. Little about the Taliban indicates willingness to share power. They want to win. Period.
It's understandable President Obama wants the Afghan mission concluded, victory or no victory.
There have been some positive changes. A lot of money has been invested (or at least spent) in Afghanistan. But it's still a country where, if the Taliban have power, Sharia law will flourish, women will continue to be persecuted, niceties like amputations, stonings, honour killings and such will blossom.
Miscalculation has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ironically, Iraq (for which Obama blamed former President George Bush) has tamed down, while Afghanistan, which Obama adopted as "his" war, has become the disaster of the moment.
Perhaps "disaster" is too strong a word. Much of the country is pacified and has benefited from the presence of western soldiers and aid agencies.
But positive gains are destined to fade if the Taliban again assumes power — a reality to which President Obama (and certainly some Canadians) seem resigned after alliance troops pull out, and leave the country to its own devices --
