Other Forums

[swiftfoxmark2]

Since we aren't really using this forum all that much, I thought I'd post where I've been recently and if anyone has any they have been, please share:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forum.php

Please note that I've been completely banned from letfreedomringtrue.com by Pixie. I have not done the same to here on this forum though because I tolerate other viewpoints, even if they are flawed and stupid. As for ACOC and Covert Conservatives, my login still works, but I refuse to go to either one because the mods over there are idiots.

[annie]

Hi Swifty

Thanks for posting the RP forum address - I may go and check out the forum. I have been out of chat rooms and away from my computer for quite a while now but with the presidential election coming up it may be time to jump back in. I was thinking of returning to ACOC to check things out and offer backup to any Ron Paul supporters who may be posting there - RP is still my man.

I noticed that hjpt has joined this forum and maybe more with differing views from ours will as well. We may get some good threads going here.

Swifty, do you remember the smilie smile at CC? I like that one so much better than this ( ) - at least the one at CC actually looked pleasant. lol Anyway, if you do know the one I mean, do you know how to get it and add it here? Thanks.

[Doc Trock]

Hey Annie, good to see you!

I'm back at ACOC for a bit.....election and all.
Voice of Reason is gone.....so is a good part of the nastiness.
Mason isn't around much either, but he did jump on me my first post with all sorts of nastiness.

Some good support for Paul is most welcome.

[annie]

Hi Doc Trock, it's good to see you as well!

Voice of Reason was one of the reasons I stopped posting at ACOC - he was such a rabid RP hater and he dogged me whenever I posted there. He was convinced I was Coyote's wife

I'm glad to hear some of the nastiness has stopped but I'm willing to bet things will fire up to vicious levels again as the election nears. I'm curious to see who the GOPers at ACOC are lining up behind.

[swiftfoxmark2]

Hey annie

I looked over at Covert Conservatives and didn't find any emoticon that was smiling like you asked. It seems they've downgraded a lot of them anyway.

I'll have to check out ACOC. If Voice of (No)Reason is gone, maybe I can have real discussions with people there.

Of course, optimism was never my gift.

[Doc Trock]

ACOC isn't that bad right now......not that good....still full of republicans.....still in love with George Bush.....most threads are anti-Obama threads.....but I'm actually having some good discussions.

I'm sure it won't last.....

[swiftfoxmark2]

I give you about two weeks Doc before you are banned.

Of course, I haven't seen much mod activity over there.

[Doc Trock]

I give you about two weeks Doc before you are banned.

Of course, I haven't seen much mod activity over there.

I think I'm on week 4 now......but Mason just came back.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing a new found respect for "Ron Paul voters." They hate us, for sure.....but they also realize that they're on the wrong end of everything and can't merely laugh him off like they used to.

[swiftfoxmark2]

Did you catch the Monroe Doctrine debates? They have yet to respond and I think they don't have a leg to stand on.

[Doc Trock]

Did you catch the Monroe Doctrine debates? They have yet to respond and I think they don't have a leg to stand on.

No....they don't have a leg to stand on. But that used to mean a constant stream of personal attack and abuse.....which is barely present compared to 4 years ago. I find that interesting......

These poor people.....

[swiftfoxmark2]

Crap, Voice of Reason is back.

I should be banned by next week some time since I will not back down from him.

[Doc Trock]

Crap, Voice of Reason is back.

I should be banned by next week some time since I will not back down from him.

Yep.

Oh well....

[mason]

Crap, Voice of Reason is back.

I should be banned by next week some time since I will not back down from him.

Yep.

Oh well....

Way to go tough guy! Sock it to him! That Mason guy is crazy too! Poor guy! I feel so sorry for him.

[Doc Trock]

I'm not going to pile on Mason. He's been unemployed for a while, and just got fired from a truck driving job. The last thing he needs is more grief.

The fact that he's attacked me, and my profession notwithstanding, I don't hit a man when he's down.

That's the difference between me and him. He genuinely hates me and does not wish me well. But I do not hate him, and actually do wish him well.

I think it might have something to do with Christian charity.

[mason]

What a moron. How stupid do you have to be to get fired from a truck driving job.

[Doc Trock]

Mmm.....hmmmmm.....what's your point?

[mason]

Mmm.....hmmmmm.....what's your point?

You just made it.

[Doc Trock]

I made no such thing. You're obviously trying to stir something up. Well, go right ahead. But you're going to have to do better than try to bait me into talking bad about someone who isn't here to defend themselves.

You could probably get my dander up by saying something about Ron Paul....like maybe that he's anti-semitic or something.....

But Mason isn't here. You could invite him, I suppose.....that might make some sparks fly. But then I'd have to ask, "Why?"

[mason]

You could probably get my dander up by saying something about Ron Paul....like maybe that he's anti-semitic or something.....

OK. How about, he's naive?

Exposed: Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Ignorance and Naivety

Did it never occur to the congressman that al-Qaeda could be, um, lying when he regurgitates their talking points?

Among other qualities, a good presidential candidate must be knowledgeable and able to think outside the box; equally important, he must not be naive or gullible — certainly not swallow everything the enemy says hook, line, and sinker.

During the recent Republican candidate debate, Congressman Ron Paul exhibited his ignorance and gullibility when the panel was asked: “Do you plan to decrease Defense spending, to balance spending, or do you believe high spending is essential to security?”

After Paul explained how he was “tired of all the militarism that we are involved in,” and his plan on cutting back, he said, “But we’re under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. … The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us … but we’re there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves.”

This is, of course, an old and well known narrative.

By questioning Paul, however, Rick Santorum exposed the latter’s naivety when it comes to the goals and motives of al-Qaeda:


On your [Paul’s] Web site on 9/11, you had a blog post that basically blamed the United States for 9/11. On your Web site, yesterday, you said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11. Now, Congressman Paul, that is irresponsible. The president of the United States — someone who is running for the president of the United States in the Republican Party should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11. We should have — we are not being attacked and we were not attacked because of our actions. We were attacked, as Newt [Gingrich] talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists.

After rejecting Santorum’s thesis, Paul made his fatal blunder:


Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit — they have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing — [audience booing] I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing.

This exchange clearly revealed Paul’s lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the enemy. After all, it’s one thing for some Americans to believe that the source of all conflict is the United State’s presence in some countries, it’s quite another — it’s dangerous — for a potential president to think, and speak, this way.

~snip~

Link

[Doc Trock]

OK! Now we're dealing with more honesty. That's a good first step.

Even Paul Wolfowitz has shared the position that AQ was motivated by american troops in the "holy land."

Q: And then the last question, you've been very patient and generous. That is what's next? Where do we stand now in the campaign that you talked about right after September 11th?

Wolfowitz: I think the two most important things next are the two most obvious. One is getting post-Saddam Iraq right. Getting it right may take years, but setting the conditions for getting it right in the next six months. The next six months are going to be very important.

The other thing is trying to get some progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I do think we have a better atmosphere for working on it now than we did before in all kinds of ways. Whether that's enough to make a difference is not certain, but I will be happy to go back and dig up the things I said a long time ago which is, while it undoubtedly was true that if we could make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue we would provide a better set of circumstances to deal with Saddam Hussein, but that it was equally true the other way around that if we could deal with Saddam Hussein it would provide a better set of circumstances for dealing with the Arab-Israeli issue. That you had to move on both of them as best you could when you could, but --

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement.

Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

[mason]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Doc Trock]

True.....they don't.

The fundamental question here is which one of our opinions is wrong?

The government screws everything up.....royally. Logically speaking, they also screw up foreign policy....because we both know their track record in everything else they do.

Common sense and a long memory tell me that all the fear mongering is nothing more than them wanting the sheep to run to the other side of the paddock while the ranchers do some kind of project that enables them to shear/slaughter the sheep better.

America's FP with regard to the Middle East has been a disaster. I'm more than willing to bet that the current foreign policy is no better than the past, maybe worse given their performance in every other area they control:

energy
education
healthcare
war on drugs
war on obesity
war on tobacco
war on poverty
war on illiteracy
ad nauseum.

they've messed up each on of these areas in spectacular fashion. Why do you suppose they are doing such a good job with foreign policy/war?

[mason]

I'm not going to pile on Mason. He's been unemployed for a while, and just got fired from a truck driving job. The last thing he needs is more grief.

The fact that he's attacked me, and my profession notwithstanding, I don't hit a man when he's down.

That's the difference between me and him. He genuinely hates me and does not wish me well. But I do not hate him, and actually do wish him well.

I think it might have something to do with Christian charity.

Is this your idea of Christian Charity?

Conservatives.....and you, Mason, are a great example....are my enemy.

Feel the love!

[swiftfoxmark2]

I'm not going to pile on Mason. He's been unemployed for a while, and just got fired from a truck driving job. The last thing he needs is more grief.

The fact that he's attacked me, and my profession notwithstanding, I don't hit a man when he's down.

That's the difference between me and him. He genuinely hates me and does not wish me well. But I do not hate him, and actually do wish him well.

I think it might have something to do with Christian charity.

Is this your idea of Christian Charity?

Conservatives.....and you, Mason, are a great example....are my enemy.

Feel the love!

You are the one who goaded Doc into attacking Mason, who I assume is you or someone he knows from ACOC, and now you mock him for not doing it?

Conservatives are their own worst enemy and Doc has clearly stated that on another forum. And Doc does not want them to be his enemy, since he believes that they are generally good and decent people.

[mason]

Oh good grief! It's all Mason's fault.
How juvenile.

Are you sure it's not Bush's fault?

[Sponsored content]