Conquer Club

Ron Paul is toast...sorry jay and other Ron Paul supporters. There is no way in hell this guy is getting elected, especially after I watched the FOX debate on my lunch. His answers are now absurd, the body politic has changed. It is too late, we are already in alliances...that is the reality of the situation, and to revert back to a non interventionist policy would severely cripple us. Ron Paul's answer to the Iranian incident seemed quite absurd. He can't just start comparing this incident with the Gulf of Tonkin!

I am no longer supporting Ron Paul...

If not Ron Paul...then who?

It's the armaggedon! It's starting. Next jay will become muslim and then the universe shall implode!

Iliad wrote:It's the armaggedon! It's starting. Next jay will become muslim and then the universe shall implode!

I am closer to being a Muslim then jay...jay would never, ever consider being a Muslim.

Iliad wrote:It's the armaggedon! It's starting. Next jay will become muslim and then the universe shall implode!

Actually, Jay becoming a muslim is about average for here.

That's quite the sudden change. I actually thought he did very well for himself in the debate.

On a brighter note, at least the various conspiracy theory threads will be less associated with Ron Paul now

OnlyAmbrose wrote:That's quite the sudden change. I actually thought he did very well for himself in the debate.

On a brighter note, at least the various conspiracy theory threads will be less associated with Ron Paul now

But he's asked his supporters to stop with the 9/11 conspiracies.
edit: I never read the fine print...

OnlyAmbrose wrote:That's quite the sudden change. I actually thought he did very well for himself in the debate.

On a brighter note, at least the various conspiracy theory threads will be less associated with Ron Paul now

But he's asked his supporters to stop with the 9/11 conspiracies.

DaGip wrote:If not Ron Paul...then who?

I have the name of the person you seek written on a pebble in my hand...when you can snatch the pebble from my hand you will have your answer



-EDIT-

I should have asked Guiscard to photoshop this for me

browng-08 wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:That's quite the sudden change. I actually thought he did very well for himself in the debate.

On a brighter note, at least the various conspiracy theory threads will be less associated with Ron Paul now

But he's asked his supporters to stop with the 9/11 conspiracies.

That's probably why DaGip has stopped supporting him

Exactly my point. He may have made a good argument, but he no longer wants 9/11 conspirators.

Well Gippy my boy, how about McCain? Or is there some sort of conspiricy about him as well?

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well Gippy my boy, how about McCain? Or is there some sort of conspiricy about him as well?

Some people are a little creeped out by the whole "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" thing. Others just aren't convinced by his ultra-patriotic rhetoric.

Straight talk express. Y not believe him with a bus like that?

Unfortunately, Ron Paul never had a chance. He had a better chance running as an independant, which he should have done (who knows, maybe create history)

As of now, I'm rooting for Mike Huckabee / Colbert =D (Not only does he have Colbert on his side, but Chuck Norris aswell.

And for the democratic side, Barack Obama. He seems to know what to do. He wants to stop the Crisis in Darfur.

browng-08 wrote:Straight talk express. Y not believe him with a bus like that?

Oh I believe him all right. That's why I won't vote for him.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well Gippy my boy, how about McCain?

There ya go!

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

browng-08 wrote:Straight talk express. Y not believe him with a bus like that?

Oh I believe him all right. That's why I won't vote for him.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well Gippy my boy, how about McCain? Or is there some sort of conspiricy about him as well?

Some people are a little creeped out by the whole "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" thing. Others just aren't convinced by his ultra-patriotic rhetoric.

That's something called a joke Ambrose. What he wants to do is keep tabs on Iran, and if need be, put sanctions on them. And political retorhic? Coming from someone who supports Ron Paul? I know you haven't gone to as extreme measures as jay and gip, but come on!

muy_thaiguy wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well Gippy my boy, how about McCain? Or is there some sort of conspiricy about him as well?

Some people are a little creeped out by the whole "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" thing. Others just aren't convinced by his ultra-patriotic rhetoric.

That's something called a joke Ambrose. What he wants to do is keep tabs on Iran, and if need be, put sanctions on them. And political retorhic? Coming from someone who supports Ron Paul? I know you haven't gone to as extreme measures as jay and gip, but come on!

Patriotic rhetoric. There's a big difference between patriotic rhetoric and political rhetoric. Given that these people are politicians, political rhetoric is fine by me.

When Ron Paul talks about foreign policy, he talks about logical cause-effect relationships between policies and results. He cites historical examples as evidence.

When McCain talks about foreign policy he talks exclusively about "brave men and women," "never surrendering," "the competence of our officers," etc. Now I come from a family of military men, and I plan to be one myself, but I am unimpressed by someone who talks more about the honor and glory of the American military than practical solutions to our problems.

And most military men agree with me. It's a fact I've brought up numerous times that Ron Paul has received more campaign cash from active duty military men than any other candidate.

And what, exactly, are his plans?

muy_thaiguy wrote:And what, exactly, are his plans?

In regards to the middle east? Didn't you see the debate? He laid them out pretty clearly. I'm supposed to be writing an English essay so I'll be brief: let Israel be, but at the same time cut aid to her enemies (which amounts to 3x as much as the aid given to Israel). Iraq would take too long for me to talk about in this thread, but I've written about it countless times. Really this post doesn't do justice to his policies, so it may be best to ignore it until I can find more time.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:And what, exactly, are his plans?

In regards to the middle east? Didn't you see the debate? He laid them out pretty clearly. I'm supposed to be writing an English essay so I'll be brief: let Israel be, but at the same time cut aid to her enemies (which amounts to 3x as much as the aid given to Israel). Iraq would take too long for me to talk about in this thread, but I've written about it countless times. Really this post doesn't do justice to his policies, so it may be best to ignore it until I can find more time.

Ignoring the fact that this would probably doom Israel (though it might make it's leaders less antoginistic towards Palestine and Co. when they realise their tank supply just dried up) there are quite a few people living in Palestine who depend on the aid. Hell, I doubt cutting aid will do anything to stop the conflict; Palestinian (and Israeli) politicians haven't exactly been overwhelming in their concern for the welfare of their people.
Civilians will starve, blame will be redirected to the US and Israel will be thoroughly trounced by superior numbers when their weapon stocks run out. Either that, or Israel will turn the area into a thoroughly irradiated wasteland.

I only watched a small bit of the debate at lunch...and when I heard Ron Paul start comparing the Iran incident to the Gulf of Tonkin, I about choked on my turkey sandwich! I mean, he doesn't know if this whole thing was staged, right? If this incident was staged, his answer was still absurd, because he doesn't know if it was staged...ridiculous.

Maybe the rest of the debate went better for him, but I am backtracking on this whole non-interventionist policy. The fact is that we do have allies, we can't be expected to break all those freindships now. We are stuck in the Middle East, so screw it...let's do the best job we can to win!

But we are going to need a giant force field to cover North America...

DaGip wrote:I only watched a small bit of the debate at lunch...and when I heard Ron Paul start comparing the Iran incident to the Gulf of Tonkin, I about choked on my turkey sandwich! I mean, he doesn't know if this whole thing was staged, right? If this incident was staged, his answer was still absurd, because he doesn't know if it was staged...ridiculous.

Maybe the rest of the debate went better for him, but I am backtracking on this whole non-interventionist policy. The fact is that we do have allies, we can't be expected to break all those freindships now. We are stuck in the Middle East, so screw it...let's do the best job we can to win!

But we are going to need a giant force field to cover North America...

I believe we are seeing some drastic, also quick, changes with Gip.

DaGip wrote:I only watched a small bit of the debate at lunch...and when I heard Ron Paul start comparing the Iran incident to the Gulf of Tonkin, I about choked on my turkey sandwich! I mean, he doesn't know if this whole thing was staged, right? If this incident was staged, his answer was still absurd, because he doesn't know if it was staged...ridiculous.

Maybe the rest of the debate went better for him, but I am backtracking on this whole non-interventionist policy. The fact is that we do have allies, we can't be expected to break all those freindships now. We are stuck in the Middle East, so screw it...let's do the best job we can to win!

But we are going to need a giant force field to cover North America...

Wha?