The civil war, and Ron Paul

Oh and for the record Baka I never complained about topics going off thread. I said how it's annoying every thread I go in gets turned into a thread about socialism/communism. I do talk about other things. This is yet another case. And I also never complained about you calling me those demaning name's for women aka bimbo. I said how it was pathetic that's the only name you can think of to use for someone who claims to be intelligent. I don't cry over something a loser said to me.

SouthernBelle82 said:
I called you a dumbass. Not a demaning name for a male did I? Anyone can be called a "dumbass." Gee weren't you just bitching about being on topic? Now look who it is. I at least was still on topic Baka. Once again hun Asshat asked how free people compete with slavery and my answer was "worker control." If you can't get that through your thick skull than fuck off. Keep repeating your tired old shit for all I care. I'm still on topic dumbass baka.
Click to expand...
 
The evidence keeps mounting and the blind just close their eyes tighter.

His comments about the Civil War border on the lunatic and are the ramblings of a sick old man. Just add this demented farce to the mountain of other evidence about the character of Ron Paul and what you get is a bunch of deperately blind people who know little of politics or the world looking for Jesus .. in a sick old man.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
No dumbass. It's about the workers being in control duh. If you did the research like I told you in my intro thread a thousand times you wouldn't still be an ignorant shit. And what does thought crimes have to do with the topic? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

hey skank. You explain to me how your theory enables free people to compete with slaves. If you can't explain the dynamic you posit in a concise sentence or two, then you don't understand it yourself.
 
AssHatZombie said:
hey skank. You explain to me how your theory enables free people to compete with slaves. If you can't explain the dynamic you posit in a concise sentence or two, then you don't understand it yourself.
Click to expand...

Skank, who wouldn't respond righteously to such?
 
I already did that hun a thousand times in my intro thread. This thread is about the civil war and Ron Paul's lack of history. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again dumbass. You don't deserve it.

AssHatZombie said:
hey skank. You explain to me how your theory enables free people to compete with slaves. If you can't explain the dynamic you posit in a concise sentence or two, then you don't understand it yourself.
Click to expand...
 
Uh maybe you need to look at the definition of what it means to be antiwar. And sure anyone who paid attention is antiIraq occupation (not a war really if you think about it). I saw the news coverage of bombing Baghdad and I even had a horrible feeling about it and didn't approve and I didn't know anything about what was going on at the time.

Damocles said:
So, only pacifists who believe that we should just take the rape are anti-war?

He is anti Iraq war without a doubt.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Uh maybe you need to look at the definition of what it means to be antiwar. And sure anyone who paid attention is antiIraq occupation (not a war really if you think about it). I saw the news coverage of bombing Baghdad and I even had a horrible feeling about it and didn't approve and I didn't know anything about what was going on at the time.
Click to expand...
He was anti invasion. The occupation is an extension of the larger war, I believe that it counts that way... But that matters not.

He, like I, had the opinion that we should not invade any nation without a formal declaration of war. That the founders put that in the constitution to protect us from folly and from Senators pretending that they voted for the war because they thought it was only pretend (even as the Navy and Army were building up right outside their border) even though it was clear to even my daughter at 4 that Bush would attack with that authorization.
 
Right. You get no objection on that from me.

Damocles said:
He was anti invasion. The occupation is an extension of the larger war, I believe that it counts that way... But that matters not.

He, like I, had the opinion that we should not invade any nation without a formal declaration of war. That the founders put that in the constitution to protect us from folly and from Senators pretending that they voted for the war because they thought it was only pretend (even as the Navy and Army were building up right outside their border) even though it was clear to even my daughter at 4 that Bush would attack with that authorization.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
He was anti invasion. The occupation is an extension of the larger war, I believe that it counts that way... But that matters not.

He, like I, had the opinion that we should not invade any nation without a formal declaration of war. That the founders put that in the constitution to protect us from folly and from Senators pretending that they voted for the war because they thought it was only pretend (even as the Navy and Army were building up right outside their border) even though it was clear to even my daughter at 4 that Bush would attack with that authorization.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reminder, it was his attempt to introduce a Declaration of War that at first made me consider him as a possible candidate. Truly, I think there should be a requirement that Congress declare war, before the US wages war. That is not the fault of the President, but Congress giving up a stated power, but not wanting the long term responsibility of war.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Uh maybe you need to look at the definition of what it means to be antiwar. And sure anyone who paid attention is antiIraq occupation (not a war really if you think about it). I saw the news coverage of bombing Baghdad and I even had a horrible feeling about it and didn't approve and I didn't know anything about what was going on at the time.
Click to expand...

She had a horrible feeling, guys! We should have known then and there, if only we had asked SB we could have avoided this whole Iraqi mess!

I had a feeling that the Sox were going to win the World Series (and, to my great joy, they did), but that in no way makes my opinions as a fan on par with the decisions or work of people who actually play baseball.

Perhaps I am being a little mean, but I get sick of the people who validate their opinions by saying that they felt one way or another before public opinion eventually supported their viewpoints--- you had a 50% shot at being right about the Iraq war, and even with that I believe there are too many shades of grey for the armchair strategists to start crowing already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top