OpieRadio Logo
Compound Media Logo
Jim Norton Logo

Paul builds campaign on doomsday scenarios

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BIV, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. BIV

    BIV I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    77,723
    Likes Received:
    27,101
    Blame Reuters for the headline, I am merely the messenger.

    http://news.yahoo.com/paul-builds-campaign-doomsday-scenarios-161301486.html


    If I didn't think this nutjob could get us all killed, I'd say throw him in office. It would be a hoot.
     
  2. DJ Evel Ed

    DJ Evel Ed MayYourCumCrustedCocksBeConstantlyCoveredInCunt

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,599
    Likes Received:
    74
    What about Homeland Security? How redundant is that dept? We have the FBI, CIA, & State Dept. Now they have to carbon copy Homeland Security on everything.

    Hey if Obama didn't get us killed, nobody will. The guy has been emasculated by Congress & the Senate. Has he passed ANYTHING that will work? Jeeze.

    It's either Ron Paul or the first Libertarian I see.
     
  3. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    Exactly how would he "get us all killed"? By bringing the hundreds of thousands of troops home, instead of overseas? How many Americans have EVER been killed by someone IN Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, or Italy? Think about that question. Almost no one in the history of the United States has come over here and tried to kill us in our own country. You really think Iran has a chance in hell of coming over here and killing us?

    I bet those same analysts said the stimulus would work too...

    Allegedly Gary Johnson will be running Libertarian. He is making a big announcement on Wednesday morning. Gary Johnson = younger Ron Paul - all the religious stuff - conspiracy nut followers + two terms as Governor + experience running a business.
     
  4. Begbie

    Begbie Wackbag Generalissimo

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    4,977
    [​IMG]

    I consider myself more libertarian and I'd fully support a libertarian for POTUS. Just not Paul. As I've said, the guy is old...in fact, at 77, he'd be the oldest sitting President ever. So...this guy needs to at least be open now about who he'd tab as VP. And it needs to be a 1B kinda guy...he needs to be experienced and carry Paul's wacky views. The only person Paul has mentioned is Judge Andrew Napolitano. Not my idea of strong running mate. I've heard Paul fans talk about anyone from Rand Paul to Jesse Ventura to Kucinich to pastor Chuck Baldwin. I'm itchin to vote for anyone besides Obama...but any one of those VP picks, as it stands now, would not get me out to the polls to vote for Paul. That's not to say Ken-Doll Romney is going to drag me out to the polls any quicker...but at least I consider him more stable than Paul, even if it means voting for a lefty RINO.
     
  5. KRSOne

    KRSOne Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    12,665
    Likes Received:
    2,851
    Because the current way the government has been doing things has kept us safe. Its kept us so safe that 3 thousand people died on 9/11 and now we have to lose our liberties because apparently we are in constant danger. The OP is clearly an idiot, the type that does the same thing over and over and expects a different result.
     
  6. BIV

    BIV I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    77,723
    Likes Received:
    27,101
    Almost none...because we military stationed all over the world.
     
  7. SaltyDelights

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    503
    I can re-phrase a couple of the scenarios in that Reuters article into a news tease:

    *The UN taking control of our money supply? Find out what one presidential candidate says the global body could do to your money.

    *Arab Spring... American Winter? We'll tell you why some believe social unrest could be headed here and how much time you have to get ready.

    My point is doomsday scenarios are everywhere and exploit people's fears constantly with great success. Every news tease on FOX "News" has some Doomsday feel to it. Drudge's headlines (especially on Iran) are all Domsdayish. My favorite financial blog Zero Hedge is a non-stop barrage of doomsday prediction. All these sites thrive on it.

    So now a politician has decided to embrace the tactic. So what? It beats the phony rah-rah shit that we have now. Or the attack-the-opponent thing that got old 20 years ago.
     
  8. OilyJillFart

    OilyJillFart Well-Lubed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    If he got himself into a position of power where he could actually touch the Federal Reserve he would find himself dead and being the new JFK-like conspiracy. Nobody is going to fuck with the worlds richest thugs.
     
  9. Norm Stansfield

    Norm Stansfield 私は亀が好きだ。

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,949
    Likes Received:
    4,077
    Lies, lies, lies. Obvious liar obvious. That comparison is not an error in this guy's thinking. It is an intentional lie, and a clear item of propaganda against the gold standard.

    OPEC's yearly oil output is over 200% of the global strategic oil reserves, government and private put together. (Opec's output is roughly 10 billion barrels, and there are 4.1 bill barrels in reserve, worldwide)

    Now let's look at gold. There are an estimated 165.000 tons of gold in the world (the IMF alone holds 3000+ tons). South Africa produces a total of 1200 tons of gold a year (Uzbekistan produces a lot less, this guy just picked it because it sounds more dangerous to trust Uzbekistan with gold prices - China is in fact the largest producer, a little above South Africa). That means that South Africa produces less then 1% of total gold reserves, yearly.

    In other words, South Africa could influence global gold prices to the extent OPEC could influence oil prices, if they only produced less than 0.5% of what they actually produce. China, South Africa and Uzbekistan together could influence gold prices to the extent Slovenia can today influence oil prices.

    How much can Slovenia influence oil prices, you ask? None. That's how much. Everything this guy said is a lie. Cheap propaganda. Gold is stable, variations in production have very little effect on its price, because we don't actually use up gold, the way we do oil. We still have most of what was produced, throughout the centuries, so the extra production being done today doesn't affect the overall supply all that much.
     
  10. Begbie

    Begbie Wackbag Generalissimo

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    4,977
    Bingo.
     
  11. BIV

    BIV I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    77,723
    Likes Received:
    27,101
    That would have made more sense with the word "have" in there...but my point stands.
     
  12. Creasy Bear

    Creasy Bear gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
    Donator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    47,666
    Likes Received:
    35,439
    No... that's the definition of insanity not idiocy.

    The definition of idiocy is listening to Alex Jones over and over and expecting sanity.
     
  13. afternoonquil

    afternoonquil Apology Ostrich

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    864
    I've seen the 8 hour long 3 part documentary on the back of the dollar bill.

    It obvios Ron Paul is a disinformation psych war mole sent by the by the illuminati.

    Sometimes I forget some of you aren't epiphanied into the enlightened few. One day the chickens will come home to roast, and you'll thank mr jones for the warnings.
     
  14. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    That's $700 billion per year.

    Uh oh, Canada must be getting decimated by terrorists constantly...

    Huh?

    Huh?
     
  15. Begbie

    Begbie Wackbag Generalissimo

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    4,977
    Hey, I'm all for "strategically" scaling down our operations overseas and cutting foreign aid. It's got to be done to some degree. I, however, consider Paul's non-interventionism and neutrality about as misguided as Obama spending trillions in stimulus in order to spur economic prosperity for all. I just don't think other countries are capable of playing nice when the big, bad United States takes their ball and goes home. We saw in the 1930's after passage of 4 US Neutrality Acts under FDR and our territory WAS attacked by a foreign country (Japan) and one of our Neutrality Patrol ships was sunk by another foreign country (Germany). Am I saying World War 3 is going to break out once we pull out of all of these countries? No. But the United States is not immune to a regional conflict, or dare I say, a more global conflict going on somewhere in the world. Nor do I think a neutral US has the set of balls to squash a conflict if it escalates too far. You get Paul in there to pull troops/aid out of these countries, and the next liberal President comes in with some major foreign conflict going on that we have no intelligence on (because we're no longer installed there and haven;t been for years) and he wavers and wavers until it spirals out of control.

    We've got the resources and infrastructure in these countries already. We need to clean house, no doubt. But the last thing we need to be doing right now is telling the Middle East, among other regions of the world, to fend for themselves and fight their own battles.

    Canada is a terrible example. You are aware that Canada is about 1/10th the size of the United States...with nearly 80% of it's people living within 130 km from the US border, right? It's a large country, mind you...but it's a country buried in a nearly uninhabitable arctic tundra.

    And why would Canada feel the need to install bases overseas when the stronger, larger country to the south has bases overseas and would likely do anything to defend them if they were attacked?
     
  16. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    The reason that I sued Canada as an example is because someone asserted that the ONLY reason that we are not being attacked ON OUR OWN SOIL is because we have thousands of bases overseas. Now, Canada is a free, non-Muslim nation so it would stand to reason that since (allegedly) the only reason terrorists attack us is because they hate freedom, Canada should be feeling some of that hate. Canada also does not have thousands of military bases abroad, so there is another (alleged) reason that they should be getting attacked constantly.

     
  17. Norm Stansfield

    Norm Stansfield 私は亀が好きだ。

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,949
    Likes Received:
    4,077
    That's all fine and dandy, except that the statement you were trying to disprove is that "the US isn't being attacked on its own soil because of all those bases".

    "Canada should be getting attacked" is not a logical consequence of that statement. Canada and the US are not logically inter-changeable elements. When you switched them, without first proving that Canada and the US are in fact logically inter-changeable in this context, you erred against the rules of logic. Sorry, can't switch A and B midway through a proof. That would just be the silliest logic this side of DonTheTrucker's arguments in support of God.

    That invalidates your argument. And you really shouldn't try to prove that Canada and the US are the same. That would just be silly, they're obviously very different, in relation to each other as well as the rest of the world. The US is clearly a protector of Canada, and the western world as a whole.

    The proper way to argue against that statement would be to ask for a logical basis for it. While I think BIV is absolutely right in what he said, he didn't actually make the case for his statement, he just stated it. Or, since maybe BIV isn't here right now, to tell you all about how the Soviet Union was stopped from expanding across Europe and South Asia, and ultimately defeated, I would be happy to provide you with the historical facts that support his statement.
     
  18. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    Thank you for the expalnation, however you have erred in your logic. I used the often spouted premise that the reason terrorists hate us is that we are free and that we are a non-Islamic nation. In both respects we and Canada ARE the same. Arguing from that premise (that we are the same in the aspects that allegedly enrage terrorists), it follows that we should be equally hated since we are roughly equally free and equally non-Islamic. If that premise is true, then Canada should need tons of bases to protect themselves from people thousands of miles away too.
     
  19. Norm Stansfield

    Norm Stansfield 私は亀が好きだ。

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,949
    Likes Received:
    4,077
    -
    Not likely. Certainly. Canada is a member of NATO. We have a binding agreement to go to war for them. We almost ended the world once based on that treaty, and it wasn't to defend an entire NATO country right on our border, it was to defend half a city on the other side of the globe (West Berlin, 1961).
     
  20. Norm Stansfield

    Norm Stansfield 私は亀が好きだ。

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,949
    Likes Received:
    4,077
    Your last inference is once again incorrect. You're switching the US and Canada, without proving that the US is Canada.

    Remember, it's not enough to prove that they are similar. You must prove that they are identical, in every relevant way. Otherwise any logical conclusions based on the premise that (the US is Canada), which you are clearly relying on, is illogical.

    Begbie mentioned a relevant way in which the US and Canada are not identical. Address it, or get off the logical high horse. You're wrong, in a way that can be demonstrated using nothing but formal logic.
     
  21. Begbie

    Begbie Wackbag Generalissimo

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    4,977
    Yet you also compared dollar amounts in both countries' defense budgets. $700B a year to have military bases in every corner of the globe with no attacks ON OUR OWN SOIL and pointed out that the Canadian's only spend $18.9B in defense with no military presence on foreign soil and have faced no attacks ON THEIR OWN SOIL.

    Historically, neutrality rarely has ever worked out for the United States. Even dating back to the late 1700's/early 1800's when we were declared neutral during the war between Britain and France and the British started seizing our ships and attacked the Chesapeake. Fast forward nearly 100 years to President Wilson's Neutrality Act of 1914...we wanted no part in the European conflict. We didn't take sides. Even after Germans sank the Lusitania in 1915, we stayed out. Even after the Germans threatened to sink any non-German vessel in the Atlantic..the US gov't stayed the fuck out. And what did we get for 3 years of neutrality? The Germans offered to help Mexico take back Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in exchange for Mexico's allegiance.

    Then came the 4 separate Neutrality Acts during the 30's. In fact, it was partly our neutrality THAT CAUSED Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. How so? The Neutrality Acts FDR passed put an embargo on all shipments of "war" goods and resources to other countries. We didn't want to appear as if we were aiding one side or the other. That's the big "benefit" of being neutral. We halted all shipments of gas, iron, and machinery parts to Japan, who we already had strained relations with. We however, didn't ban shipments of oil to Japan. Japan was heavily dependent on our oil and it was felt that, had we stopped shipping oil there, the Japanese would see that as a provocation. And, us being a neutral country and all, we didn't want that. But, we stopped shipping just about everything that Japan could use for war, and that alone, pissed off the Japs. They thought we cut off supplies because we would interfere with their plans to take Southeast Asia. So they attacked us and tried to knock out our Pacific Fleet.

    I can't explain why we just can't be left alone, regardless of whether or not we're engaged in foreign affairs or not. We are a powerful country, with tremendous assets. And even if Paul pulls us out of foreign lands, and focuses on building a more powerful military here in the US...we're still going to be perceived as a threat, as the Japanese thought in the 1940's. There's just no proof that isolationism can work for our country, and in fact, there's evidence we're not the least bit safer. But I guess that's what insanity is...the type that does the same thing over and over and expects a different result. :icon_cool
     
  22. Begbie

    Begbie Wackbag Generalissimo

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    4,977
    Yeah, "certainly" or "absolutely" would be more fitting. We'd treat an attack on Canada as if it were an attack on the United States. And rightfully so.
     

Share This Page