Traitors to its own people?

imported_guy

Dear ill informed liberal, i would like to aware you of a certain republican named Dr. Ron Paul (representative from texas 14th district, former ob/gyn, a veteran from the airforce, and a twice presedential candidate)

i would also like to point out his voting record on some of the stuff you have listed

* You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
Dr. Paul voted no on the patriot act

* You didn't get mad when ye illegally invaded a country that posed no
threat to the USA.
Dr. Paul voted no for the invasion of iraq/afghanistan

* You didn't get mad when ye spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
Dr. Ron paul has voted no on every bill proposing increased military expenditure since 2001

* You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wire-tapping
Americans.
See the voting record on patriot act and the amendments

* You didn't get mad when ye gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
Dr. Paul believes Tax is illegal and unconstitutional and wants to abolish the IRS

* You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
Dr. Paul wants to abolish the fed and believes in having a sound free market economy with a sound monetery policy

* You didn't get mad when the weapons inspectors, who said there were no WMDs, were ignored.
See the voting record on invasion of another country

* You didn't get mad when hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq.
See the voting record on invasion of another country

* You don't get mad having suffered for eight years, at the hands of Bush and Cheney who totally ignored the rule of law and the idea of democracy!

Dr. Paul wants to limit the power of the government to what is allowed in the constitution, no ifs, no buts, etc.


* You. republicans, finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.

every one has the right to see a doctor, Dr. Ron paul who himself is a physician has treated hundereds of people free of charge because they simply could not afford the bill, but he is still opposing the idea of obama care because he is a firm beliver in LESS government.

imagine this senario

you're neighbour is sick, he picks up his gun and comes to you're house and tells you to give him everything you have otherwise he will kill you because he is poor and cant afford his medical treatment, thats why he needs you're money..

well you wouldnt like being robbed would you?... well the american government is robbing its people and its unconistitutional and IT IS A CRIME.


from now on please try not to genralise the whole republican party the next time, there are many others like him in the party who are proud republicans.

---

for the source on the voting record see here

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

his views on iraq, what he would cut (stuff like FED/IRS, abolish the income tax)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

thank you for your attention, i hope you learned something.

Memnoch

imported guy - it sadly appears that you did not read this thread. We've already been through the whole Ron Paul thing, and it's been debunked, and in that sense your post is a little redundant.

Exile 1798

imported_guy wrote: »

Dear ill informed liberal...

Is there anyone that expected a clever argument that made sense after that?

How does the existence of a Libertarian Republican like Ron Paul affect any of the charges made by the OP?

Does Ron Paul cancel out the awful record of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and the current nihilists who run the Republican Party?

Does Ron Paul’s principled opposition to the trillion dollar Iraq War disaster cancel out the fact that the war was conceived by and carried out by Republicans with the overwhelming support of the party base?

imported_guy

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Is there anyone that expected a clever argument that made sense after that?

How does the existence of a Libertarian Republican like Ron Paul affect any of the charges made by the OP?

Does Ron Paul cancel out the awful record of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and the current nihilists who run the Republican Party?

Does Ron Paul’s principled opposition to the trillion dollar Iraq War disaster cancel out the fact that the war was conceived by and carried out by Republicans with the overwhelming support of the party base?

will any democrat reverse the damage that has already been done?, actully the one in office is the one doing all the damage, 2 trillion dollar deficit in the first year? wtf?

its all about damage limitation for the next few decades, the damage done is pretty much not reverseable, the troops that died in iraq cant be ressurected, but those who are alive can be brought back

Memnoch

imported_guy wrote: »

will any democrat reverse the damage that has already been done?, actully the one in office is the one doing all the damage, 2 trillion dollar deficit in the first year? wtf?

its all about damage limitation for the next few decades, the damage done is pretty much not reverseable, the troops that died in iraq cant be ressurected, but those who are alive can be brought back

Again... I ask... did you read the rest of the thread? The whole Ron Paul thing has been debunked pretty thoroughly, so the original point still stands.

imported_guy

Memnoch wrote: »

Again... I ask... did you read the rest of the thread? The whole Ron Paul thing has been debunked pretty thoroughly, so the original point still stands.

i have, and you're stupidly long posts on trying to trying to paint the whole republican party with one crayon, seriously you need a reality check, when you have a 2 party political system, that doesnt mean everything will be black and white, there will always be shades of grey, ron paul isnt the only shade of grey, we have jesse ventura, Judge andrew, rand paul (running for senate in kentucky), and these are all pretty big libertarians and some of who are part of the republican party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc

Exile 1798

imported_guy wrote: »

will any democrat reverse the damage that has already been done?, actully the one in office is the one doing all the damage, 2 trillion dollar deficit in the first year? wtf?

its all about damage limitation for the next few decades, the damage done is pretty much not reverseable, the troops that died in iraq cant be ressurected, but those who are alive can be brought back

Let's have a look at who's responsible for that 2 trillion dollar deicit.

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&hp

So as we can see, the Republicans laid waste to the economy and budget and now seek to blame it all on the new President.

What Republicans do when they are in power is cut taxes and raise spending and borrow borrrow borrrow. If there's a more cynical, more irresponsible major political party in the Western World I don't know of them.

Will the Democrats be able to address the debt in future? Well let's see, that would require two things

1) Raising taxes
2) Cutting spending

I'm sure if these two measures are proposed we will see a supportive, constructive response from the Republican opposition....:rolleyes:

Memnoch

imported_guy wrote: »

i have, and you're stupidly long posts on trying to trying to paint the whole republican party with one crayon, seriously you need a reality check, when you have a 2 party political system, that doesnt mean everything will be black and white, there will always be shades of grey, ron paul isnt the only shade of grey, we have jesse ventura, Judge andrew, rand paul (running for senate in kentucky), and these are all pretty big libertarians and some of who are part of the republican party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc

Do you have any factual evidence or statistics to refute those I provided in my two "stupidly long posts?" I've provided direct evidence in the form of accepted scientific polling which clearly point out the majority thinking of the republican base on many key issues. Evidence that directly contradicts your claim of diversity of opinion within the republican party.

There might be individuals within the republican party with differing points of view, but it's clear what the MAJORITY of the party wants and this majority's opinion has been reflected in the ACTIONS of the republican party during it's period of power and in it's stances when outside of it.

Please, if you are able, refute a single one of my points, which I researched and provided evidence for. Or are you only able to dismiss my post outright and thus concede the point since you don't have any proof to counter my claims.

Since you found my posts too long.. let me sumarise the key findings...

70% of Republicans trust Fox News and rely on it for accurate reportage. These also consider all other news outlets to be biased and untrustworthy.

Republicans have a strongly favourable opinion of Rush Limbaugh with a margin of 60-23%. Moreover, he has currently over 14 million listeners.

88% of Republicans agreed with the Supreme Court Decision to abort the Florida recount and APPOINT G. W. Bush to the presidency of the U.S. of A. Further 97% of Republicans considered Bush's presidency to be legitimate.

Nearly two-thirds of Republicans argued that Cheny's refusal to hand over records relating to the ENRON scandal was based on the principal that the executive branch needs to be able to seek advice freely.

Only 12% of Republicans believed the patriot act goes too far in restricting civil liberties, while 61% believed it was "about right."

Over 74% of Republicans STILL believe that the U.S. was RIGHT to invade Iraq.

Only a minor 80% of Republicans believe that the use of torture on terrorism suspects is justified.

While 61% oppose an investigation into the use of torture.

THIS is what the republican majority and party stand for, as evidenced by the above statistics AND THEIR ACTIONS when they we're in power. Use whatever crayon you like, it won't change the facts.

I await your erudite dismal of my arguments accompanied by the mandatory ad hominem attacks.

imported_guy

Memnoch wrote: »

Do you have any factual evidence or statistics to refute those I provided in my two "stupidly long posts?" I've provided direct evidence in the form of accepted scientific polling which clearly point out the majority thinking of the republican base on many key issues. Evidence that directly contradicts your claim of diversity of opinion within the republican party.

There might be individuals within the republican party with differing points of view, but it's clear what the MAJORITY of the party wants and this majority's opinion has been reflected in the ACTIONS of the republican party during it's period of power and in it's stances when outside of it.

Please, if you are able, refute a single one of my points, which I researched and provided evidence for. Or are you only able to dismiss my post outright and thus concede the point since you don't have any proof to counter my claims.

Since you found my posts too long.. let me sumarise the key findings...

70% of Republicans trust Fox News and rely on it for accurate reportage. These also consider all other news outlets to be biased and untrustworthy.

Republicans have a strongly favourable opinion of Rush Limbaugh with a margin of 60-23%. Moreover, he has currently over 14 million listeners.

88% of Republicans agreed with the Supreme Court Decision to abort the Florida recount and APPOINT G. W. Bush to the presidency of the U.S. of A. Further 97% of Republicans considered Bush's presidency to be legitimate.

Nearly two-thirds of Republicans argued that Cheny's refusal to hand over records relating to the ENRON scandal was based on the principal that the executive branch needs to be able to seek advice freely.

Only 12% of Republicans believed the patriot act goes too far in restricting civil liberties, while 61% believed it was "about right."

Over 74% of Republicans STILL believe that the U.S. was RIGHT to invade Iraq.

Only a minor 80% of Republicans believe that the use of torture on terrorism suspects is justified.

While 61% oppose an investigation into the use of torture.

THIS is what the republican majority and party stand for, as evidenced by the above statistics AND THEIR ACTIONS when they we're in power. Use whatever crayon you like, it won't change the facts.

I await your erudite dismal of my arguments accompanied by the mandatory ad hominem attacks.

well i dont need to provide any proof to refute anything you say because the only thing you're trying to prove is that everyone in the republican party is the same, which is absurd and retarded, i already pointed out ron paul, who never endorsed any republican presedential candidate running in the 2008 election, unlike rudy/mitt/mike etc who all endorsed mccain.

you dont have to be a republican to like fox news, i love fox news because it has hot reporters, and because i find bill o reilly really really amusing and funny, and i actully support the political views of judge andrew napolitano, sure fox news is a little biased, but what media isnt?, lol.

i'll quote you're figure of 88 and 97% concerning the recount of the vote/legitimacy of bush's presidency, now i wasnt a fan of bush myself, even though i strongly support the republican party, you can see from YOUR OWN QUOTED FIGURES THAT NOT EVERYONE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SUPPORTED GEORGE W. BUSH, sure it was a majority, but what im saying is you cant genralise

74% believe the iraq invasion was right, well in that case im one of the other 26% who believe it was wrong, why are you trying to paint me with the same color as the other 74%?

i already adressed how alot of people in the republican party, like ron paul feel about the patriot act and policing the world, so you can read my replies again if you feel like it.

all im saying is not all conservatives or republicans are the same, if you cant get that inside you're head then its not worth my time trying to "refute" any information you copy/paste off the interwebs.

imported_guy

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Let's have a look at who's responsible for that 2 trillion dollar deicit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&hp

So as we can see, the Republicans laid waste to the economy and budget and now seek to blame it all on the new President.

What Republicans do when they are in power is cut taxes and raise spending and borrow borrrow borrrow. If there's a more cynical, more irresponsible major political party in the Western World I don't know of them.

Will the Democrats be able to address the debt in future? Well let's see, that would require two things

1) Raising taxes
2) Cutting spending

I'm sure if these two measures are proposed we will see a supportive, constructive response from the Republican opposition....:rolleyes:

1) taxes are unconstitutional

2) i agree with the cutting spending part, and those are pretty good facts on where the deficit came from since the start of obama's term but the democrats cutting spending and they never will, the 2 trillion deficit came from bailing out the banks, the iraq war, the afghan surge, all 3 of these are pretty retarded expenses, america shouldnt be at war with countries that did not attack them at all, the taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, neither did saddam hussien, it was just osama bin laden and some other people, who planned and carried out the operations from inside mainly germany and trained themselves inside the U.S.

obama should have let the banks to go into liquidation rather than bailing them out

and to understand the credit crisis look here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZAlj2gu0eM

take a look at this, hope it will inform you more on how wrong the bailout was, and how it should have been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdmI14oSe4g

Memnoch

imported_guy wrote: »

well i dont need to provide any proof to refute anything you say because the only thing you're trying to prove is that everyone in the republican party is the same, which is absurd and retarded, i already pointed out ron paul, who never endorsed any republican presedential candidate running in the 2008 election, unlike rudy/mitt/mike etc who all endorsed mccain.

Wait.. when did i say that everyone in the republican party was the same? Did you even read the original post at the start of this thread... which said...

I don't understand some Republican Americans and their stupid mentality!
The following sums up what I don't get!

Dear traitors, can you please explain why...

So quoting Ron Paul in this context is pointless, because obviously the OP wasn't referring to him, but to the large majority of those other republicans who DO hold said views.

all im saying is not all conservatives or republicans are the same, if you cant get that inside you're head then its not worth my time trying to "refute" any information you copy/paste off the interwebs.

Who cares whether they are ALL EXACTLY the same, or if there are dissenting voices. In the end, it's the majority opinion that counts. Since it is the majority opinion which DICTATES policy. The fact is that the OP is right, the above is what the MAJORITY of the republican party believe in.

Therefore, any vote for the republican party that puts them in power or helps to solidify their power automatically becomes a vote to support those agendas. Since those are the agenda's that were and will continue to be enacted every time they get a chance.

You're never going to get a 100% agreement on anything, so I don't see how that is somehow a defence here.

We're talking about POLICY and POSITION. If you really disagree with such a widespread range of actions and policies adopted by Republican Party, perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and desert. You don't have to vote for the democrats, but if you vote for the republicans, then you endorse the above, whatever you claim your personal politics to be.

imported_guy

Memnoch wrote: »

We're talking about POLICY and POSITION. If you really disagree with such a widespread range of actions and policies adopted by Republican Party, perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and desert. You don't have to vote for the democrats, but if you vote for the republicans, then you endorse the above, whatever you claim your personal politics to be.

you know there arent that many independants who make it on to the ballots or write-in candidates over in america, usually its a choice between democrats and republicans, if i had to choose between mccain and obama i probably would have excersised my right to with-hold my vote because both of their policies were equally retarded, but if i had to choose between lets say obama and some other libertarian republican like say ron/rand/jesse/judge/jeff flake etc etc i would have chosen any one of them over mcain and lets face it all of those guys are libertarian-republicans they dont actully associate themselves with the libertarian party, but rather the republican party or in case of jesse ventura the reform party or independant

Exile 1798

imported_guy wrote: »

1) taxes are unconstitutional

Nonsense.

imported_guy wrote: »

2) i agree with the cutting spending part, and those are pretty good facts on where the deficit came from since the start of obama's term but the democrats cutting spending and they never will, the 2 trillion deficit came from bailing out the banks, the iraq war, the afghan surge, all 3 of these are pretty retarded expenses, america shouldnt be at war with countries that did not attack them at all, the taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, neither did saddam hussien, it was just osama bin laden and some other people, who planned and carried out the operations from inside mainly germany and trained themselves inside the U.S.

obama should have let the banks to go into liquidation rather than bailing them out

Obama didn't bail out the banks, Bush did.

If you're concerned about the debt the United States is accruing and the deficit they are running then you better hope Obama has two terms as President and the Democrats maintain control of the House and Senate.

The Republicans will NEVER even consider seriously cutting spending. They ALWAYS run huge deficits.

Will Obama be able to attack this problem? Who knows. He's already taken a step in the right direction by reforming Health Care, the biggest problem in the American economy. The reform will reduce the deficit, such is it's fiscal conservatism. Did the Republicans support this effort? Off course they didn't, because they don't actually give a **** about these issues.

imported_guy

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Will Obama be able to attack this problem? Who knows. He's already taken a step in the right direction by reforming Health Care, the biggest problem in the American economy. The reform will reduce the deficit, such is it's fiscal conservatism. Did the Republicans support this effort? Off course they didn't, because they don't actually give a **** about these issues.

lol @ reforming healthcare

the onlything an american can do now is get an insurance plan even though they have a pre existing condition, this will destroy the insurance companies and esentially make them non profit organizations.

so now if im 65 year old senior who has lung cancer because i have been smoking 20 fags a day for the last 50 years, i can just ring up the insurance company and insure myself as the cancer is spreading in my lungs




why cant i call my home insurance company and insure my house as it catches on fire?, why should i insure it before it catches on fire?

cuz thats not how insurance is supposed to work.

Overheal

imported_guy wrote: »

1) taxes are unconstitutional

Seriously?


Seriously?


Seriously?

imported_guy

Overheal wrote: »

Seriously?


Seriously?


Seriously?

Something many people don't actually know is that in the United States of America, there is no written law that states one must pay a federal income tax. You can research it yourself if you like; the government has been robbing its people for the better part of a century now.

check this out http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/showdown.htm

this

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-01-29.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments

Nitochris

Biggins wrote: »

* You didn't get mad when ye let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

But they did vote overwhelmingly to help after the fact:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll460.xml

Exile 1798

imported_guy wrote: »

lol @ reforming healthcare

the onlything an american can do now is get an insurance plan even though they have a pre existing condition, this will destroy the insurance companies and esentially make them non profit organizations.

so now if im 65 year old senior who has lung cancer because i have been smoking 20 fags a day for the last 50 years, i can just ring up the insurance company and insure myself as the cancer is spreading in my lungs

why cant i call my home insurance company and insure my house as it catches on fire?, why should i insure it before it catches on fire?

cuz thats not how insurance is supposed to work.

If someone is 65 they would be on Medicare. How can you not know this?

How it is that you see fit to give your opinion on something you obviously know next to nothing about?

Putting the 65 year old aside, your scenario about someone getting insurance the moment they get sick is a Fox News line and is a complete nonsense. In the plan everyone will be mandated to purchase insurance. So buying insurance the moment you get sick isn't and issue. Far from putting them out of business this means 32 million new customers for the insurance companies.

GuanYin

imported_guy wrote: »

1) taxes are unconstitutional

Completely untrue.

The first article of the US Constitution clearly states

Artical 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution wrote:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Now, Bill Benson has claimed that the 16th amendment to the constitution was never ratified and we cannot have direct income taxes imposed on us. However, the 16th amendment only applied to other forms of direct income and would have meant a tax on property, shares, stock, bonds etc. The First article of the constitution, relating to direct taxation on primary income, is separate and distinct from this.

kev9100

imported_guy wrote: »

S
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments

Are you really trying to use wikipedia as a genuine source?:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

kev9100 wrote: »

Are you really trying to use wikipedia as a genuine source?:rolleyes:

What's wrong with wikipedia ?

kev9100

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's wrong with wikipedia ?

It can be written and changed by absolutely anyone.