Fascinating

[PsyOps]

...because I think 'reason' and 'invite' are two different words. How can I explain this if we speak a different language?

Then perhaps you can explain how it is someone as educated as Rudy misunderstood the difference? Or how a great number of our population was convinced that Bush is a liar, yadda, yadda...

 

[PsyOps]

...to get you to say it just one more time.

I can sort of see that. Is that your reason or invite? Let's be perfectly clear here now.

 

[PsyOps]

...when we read the word 'conservative' we come up with two different meanings.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

[Larry Gude]

It's not a TAKE...

I agree with your take on what Paul said.

...it's what he said.

Speed Limit 55 is not a 'take' it's what the sign says.

Lather, rinse, repeat, is not a 'take'; it is what it says.

'Invite' means we asked them to come kill us. That is Rudy's 'take' on the word 'reason'. That's not my 'take' on what Rudy said; it is what he said.

One of the REASONS conservatism has taken the lead in the US from 1980 to date, from politics to radio to TV, is because of people who wanted to argue that words like 'reason' meant something else. People got tired of the media saying this or that or the other in direct contradiction of what was actually said, tired of being told words meant something other than what they used to mean. Tired of being told they don't get it or they're stupid.

People began to accept that leftists in this country were simply opposed to the US not for it's mistakes, but in total. People began to tune out being told what was said even though that wasn't what they heard. People began to react to the facts and less to the interpretation.

If Dan Rather wants to sit there and argue that Ron Paul says we 'invited' 9/11 when he said no such thing, let him stand there like a buffoon. Let's not do it for him. You and Vrail seem to agree that YOU don't think Paul meant 'we deserved it'. Maybe Rudy could say the same thing? Maybe we could get back to what people say and forget about what Dan Rather's agenda.

It worked in the past. I suggest you get back to trusting the American people for two reasons;

1. They might not be as stupid as you think they are.

2. If they are, you're not going to help it by saying YOU get it but no one else does and they, we, are all we got.

 

[Larry Gude]

You didn't...

...I say that?

...I did.

In response to your comment;

I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility. Like it or not, the US is the most powerful nation in the world and that mantle comes with a burden of responsibility. I think sticking your head in the sand is an extremely bad policy. It's probably the only thing that I don't like about Ron Paul, but it's bad enough that I will not vote for him.

...I thought it was a reasonable question.

 

[Larry Gude]

Personally...

Then perhaps you can explain how it is someone as educated as Rudy misunderstood the difference? Or how a great number of our population was convinced that Bush is a liar, yadda, yadda...

...I think Rudy was waiting for the chance. He knows where Paul stands; non intervention, opposed the war. He knows where he, Rudy, stands, pro war thus pro intervention. So, how to knock Paul, the guy with the uncomfortable record, off? Wait for a comment along the lines of '9/11 happened because of our foreign policy' or something like that and, viola, "OH MY GOD! Did Ron Paul just say we 'invited' 9/11???

No, Rudy, you moron. In your zeal to score a zinger, what he said, Piggy, was the 'reason', not 'invited'.

Rudy jumped on it like he was waiting for it and he took a bad shot.

People who say Bush lied are just like the people who say Paul said 'invited'. It HAS to be because that's the only way to fit how they feel with what they had done.

If Bush didn't lie, then the Dems who voted for it are responsible for their votes. Can't be!

If Paul didn't blame America then maybe he has a point worth considering. Maybe we would be better off out of there. Can't be!

 

[PsyOps]

...it's what he said.

Speed Limit 55 is not a 'take' it's what the sign says.

Lather, rinse, repeat, is not a 'take'; it is what it says.

'Invite' means we asked them to come kill us. That is Rudy's 'take' on the word 'reason'. That's not my 'take' on what Rudy said; it is what he said.

One of the REASONS conservatism has taken the lead in the US from 1980 to date, from politics to radio to TV, is because of people who wanted to argue that words like 'reason' meant something else. People got tired of the media saying this or that or the other in direct contradiction of what was actually said, tired of being told words meant something other than what they used to mean. Tired of being told they don't get it or they're stupid.

People began to accept that leftists in this country were simply opposed to the US not for it's mistakes, but in total. People began to tune out being told what was said even though that wasn't what they heard. People began to react to the facts and less to the interpretation.

If Dan Rather wants to sit there and argue that Ron Paul says we 'invited' 9/11 when he said no such thing, let him stand there like a buffoon. Let's not do it for him. You and Vrail seem to agree that YOU don't think Paul meant 'we deserved it'. Maybe Rudy could say the same thing? Maybe we could get back to what people say and forget about what Dan Rather's agenda.

It worked in the past. I suggest you get back to trusting the American people for two reasons;

1. They might not be as stupid as you think they are.

2. If they are, you're not going to help it by saying YOU get it but no one else does and they, we, are all we got.

If the speed limit sign SAYS 55 then why don’t you do 55? Since anyone rarely does 55 could it be possible it is only your take that you chose to do 65 knowing the police wont ticket you unless you exceed 10 over? So does it really SAY 55 or is that just our own take because no one really does 55.

Anyway… Okay, it’s not YOUR take, it’s what he said. It was referenced to how others would see it (your take vs. theirs).

In this context please explain to me how, when every politician in our government was saying Saddam was armed to the teeth with WMD, but in the end the left became convinced that it was Bush that lied to us? How could they possible come up with such a misinterpretation of the facts? The media propagated this lie. It doesn’t seem people got all that tired of hearing this lie. They ate the whole fish head to tail. Yet it is in complete contradiction of the facts.

We are playing a war of words that the conservatives are losing. The democrats took control of Congress based on a plethora of lies. This buffoonery won them power in congress and I consider it to be a very dangerous thing that Americans can become so easily swayed by such lies.

Rudy was right to clear the record. It seems Rudy understands his political enemies and knows exactly how words will be used against them.

 

[Larry Gude]

As I said...

In this context please explain to me how, when every politician in our government was saying Saddam armed to the teeth with WMD, but in the end the left became convinced that it was Bush that lied to us? How could they possible come up with such a misinterpretation of the facts? The media propagated this lie. It doesn’t people got all that tired of hearing this lie. They ate the whole fish head to tail. Yet it is in complete contradiction of the facts.

...earlier Bush HAD to lie or else they were responsible for their votes. I wrote this years ago as the 'lies' campaign got off the ground. He did enough arguing for the dangerous to loosely support the contention.

Bush stuck his head in the lions mouth in Iraq. NOTHING stopped him from fighting this thing his way for the first two years and he let it spiral out of control, allowing the militias to grow and outside interests to interfere.

If Iraq was all coming together and making compromises and there were no militias and no acceptance of outsiders (kind of an oxymoron given our presence) then all the Dems who voted for the war would be celebrating our resolve and strength in doing this great and necessary deed.

As it is, it's a mess and rats leave sinking ships. Call me a rat, but I'm not suicidal. Iraq has more than enough manpower to control the entire country. They have the weapons, they have the training. They will not gain the will as long as we are doing it.

We find ourselves enmeshed, against the cautions of our founders, in foreign entanglements with no good options.

 

[Larry Gude]

No they didn't...

The democrats took control of Congress based on a plethora of lies. This buffoonery won them power in congress and I consider it to be a very dangerous thing that Americans can become so easily swayed by such lies.

...they won because people, rightly, after 3,000 deaths, 25,000 wounded and nearly $500,000,000,000 dollars don't know what the hell is going on; only that Iraq is still a mess, that Osama is still on the loose, that more heroin than every comes to our streets from Afghanistan and that gas costs $3 a gallon.

 

[PsyOps]

...they won because people, rightly, after 3,000 deaths, 25,000 wounded and nearly $500,000,000,000 dollars don't know what the hell is going on; only that Iraq is still a mess, that Osama is still on the loose, that more heroin than every comes to our streets from Afghanistan and that gas costs $3 a gallon.

Well, there you have it. Bush is a liar. It was Bush, not Congress, that sent these poor unassuming soldiers to die for a lie. Iraq was never a just cause, even though the UN substantiated action against Iraq with UNR 1441. God knows, this war has not seen a day of success unlike WWII that was... well let's just say more died, by the scores, in a single day during WWII than in this entire conflict in Iraq. Yet we stayed in Europe even to this very day. There's no possible way that leftist propaganda played no role in American's decision-making. The fact that you make a tie between $3 a gallon for gas and this war shows how you have been influenced by these lies. Our current gas prices have ZERO to do with the war. It has everything to do with production and failing refineries that the left refuse to allow the building of more and repair of the existing ones.

Wars cost money and lives. They go badly. But the standard has been drawn by this new wave of right wing thinking. Someone please tell me where this outspoken critic of the war was when we entered into Iraq? Oh, hmmm, could it be that we are coming upon a presidential election and that politicians will say exactly what they think Americans want to hear? I don't suppose this last election has anything to do with it hmmmmmm??????

 

[Larry Gude]

I would argue...

and this war shows how you have been influenced by these lies. Our current gas prices have ZERO to do with the war. It has everything to do with production and failing refineries that the left refuse to allow the building of more and repair of the existing ones.

Wars cost money and lives. They go badly. But the standard has been drawn by this new wave of right wing thinking. Someone please tell me where this outspoken critic of the war was when we entered into Iraq? Oh, hmmm, could it be that we are coming upon a presidential election and that politicians will say exactly what they think Americans want to hear? I don't suppose this last election has anything to do with it hmmmmmm??????

....this shows how you have been influenced. War? What war? You mean the one where 7 man patrols are sent to do police work? The one where we ride around in fear of booby traps instead of the enemy fearing our coming? The one we have to make up new terms for avoiding using our forces to kill the enemy? That 'war'?

The reason why people supported WWII was because we were fighting. A man came home dead trying to kill his nations enemies, not blown up by some bomb while trying to police a nation that should be policed by the people who live there.

 

[PsyOps]

I would argue this shows how you have been influenced. War? What war? You mean the one where 7 man patrols are sent to do police work? The one where we ride around in fear of booby traps instead of the enemy fearing our coming? The one we have to make up new terms for avoiding using our forces to kill the enemy? That 'war'?

Yes that war. And the fact that all of the sudden we have to redefine what war is shows how desperate folks are to get us out of Iraq. There is a REAL enemy in Iraq that we are fighting. They are called al Qaeda. Seems I remember them somewhere before. Ah yes, 911. They are influencing every aspect of violence launched on our military and civilians in Iraq. When you have large groups of people trying to kill our military with bullets, RPGs, and road-side bombs, those are the elements of war. But I guess you have decided that it must fit that traditional defined front-line engagement of the enemy. They wear uniforms as to be readily identifiable and fit a specific design in order to classify it as war.

The reason people supported WWII was because we were fighting. A man came home dead trying to kill his nations enemies, not blown up by some bomb while trying to police a nation that should be policed by the people who live there.

I’m quite sure when we liberated France there was no policing on our part. We swept in, cleaned up and left. I’m pretty sure all those bases we built throughout Europe were just there for decoration and to provide a larger economic flow at the expense of American soldiers. I’m quite certain the Cold War was nothing more than fiction.

But since Paul’s REASON for al Qaeda attacking us was because we were “bombing Iraq for 10 years”… we are bombing Iraq now, what is keeping al Qaeda from attacking us again on our soil?

 

[PsyOps]

Link

Excuse me... Since al Qaeda's reason for the 911 attack was because we were bombing Iraq for 10 years then why are they bombing the crap out of us now here at home?

Thanks for the correction Knuckle

 

[RadioPatrol]

...WWI did not have one damn thing to do with us. Not one.

WWII is somewhat different in that Japan did attack us and we paid them back in spades. Germany did declare war on us, BUT we went to war in Europe to save Great Britain. We went to war in 1917 to get in on the spoils. Lotta good that did. We stood by while England and France sowed the seeds of the next war.

According to Rise to Globalism by Stephen Ambrose The USA pretty much stood on the sidelines with the exception of Lend - Lease, Cash and Carry, letting the Eurpeons ie Great Britain and Russia fight Hitler. Isolationist and Interventionist fought over what to do and FDR stood in the middle asking for a repeal of the arms embargo (required by the Neutrality Act of 1935 ) in Nov 1939.

Cash and Carry symbolized what was to follow. It aligned the US with democracies, reiterated American concern and friendship for Western Europe and made it clear that it would resist any attempt to upset the balance of power in Europe. America would sell arms to democracies as long as the democracies picked them up and carried them off. ..... with the fall of Poland in 1939 a period of stagnation set in on the Western Front. Americans called it a "Phony War" and saw no pressing reason to strain themselves and build up. FDR barely raised the Regular Army from 210k to 217k and asked for an Army Budget of 853 mil which was cut by 10% by Congress. The new German Offensive in 1940 brought on new verbal but limited practical response from the US. The president asked for supplemental troop increases to 255k, and after hearing desperate appeals from Army Chief of Staff George C Marshall, raise the force to 375k. ... The Nazi's Rolled on. Churchill requested 40 to 50 American Destroyers to protect the Britain's Atlantic Supply Line. Churchill called it life or death, FDR was reluctant to act. On June 5, with the fall of France imminent FDR commented to a Cabinet official that it would require an act of congress to transfer the ships and implied he was not ready to ask for such a bill. On June 14 French Premier appealed to FDR to send troops, in Frances hour of need, to which FDR replied even if he wanted to act, he had no troops to send overseas, France signed the armistice with Germany a week later. The face of the conflict had changed, now only Britain stood between the US and Germany. While Germany was no direct threat, if Britain were defeated and Germany acquired the UK's Navy the everything would change, and so while FDR still promised in speeches he would not send American Boys to fight another European War something had to be done. The British still acquired material on a cash and carry basis and lacked the means to protect the Atlantic Convoys. On July 20, Churchill made another eloquent plea for destroyers, " Mr President, with great respect I must tell you in all the in the long history of this great world this is a thing to do now."
The British were losing merchant shipping in the Battle of the Atlantic in appalling numbers, the Battle of Britain was at its peak, and the German General Staff was preparing plans for invasion of the British Isles. The President allowed private groups to work out the details of a destroyer-for-basis deal, which eventually (Sept. 2) gave the British 50 over age American destroyers in return for rent free basis on a British possessions from Bermuda to British Guiana.

There was, meanwhile, a growing tension between the War Department and the White House. General Marshall reasoned that the only way to defeat Hitler was to fight and defeat the German Army in Northwestern Europe.

Congress proved more willing to act than the President ... In late August of 1940, Congress authorized the President to call the National Guard and other reserves to active duty for one year and on September 16th, it provided for selective service for one year. Both measures limited the employment of the troops to the Western hemisphere.

 

[vraiblonde]

Ron Paul does give us hope for the improvement of the Republican Party.

Just had to quote this and make sure everyone saw it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Just had to quote this and make sure everyone saw it.

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while.

 

[vraiblonde]

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while.

Rosie O'Donnell was singing Ron Paul's praises on The View the other day, too.

Gee, wonder where all those "Ron Paul won the debate" votes came from?

 

[Larry Gude]

All right...

Just had to quote this and make sure everyone saw it.

...duly noted.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Rosie O'Donnell was singing Ron Paul's praises on The View the other day, too.

Gee, wonder where all those "Ron Paul won the debate" votes came from?

One came from me in each of the polls. And Rudy still will never get my vote even if he is the only name on the ballot in the general election.

 

[ylexot]

I wonder if Rosie/JPC know any of his positions other than being against the Iraq war/GWOT. :shrug: