Ron…please..I was just starting to like you

  Every time I start thinking I might vote for this guy, like when I look at my income tax deductins, he opens his mouth and says something really moronic.  No he didn’t say the blue hairs of parakwat7 are going to invade us in their long cigar shaped spaceships.  He didn’t say that his astrologer had helped him talk to Abe Lincoln and Abe told him he had been wrong about States Rights.

what he did was close though.  He said in a radio interview that the government was going to incite a war through a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation.   Here’s the link btw.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Ron_Paul_warns_of_staged_terror_attack.html 

First, only democrats do that sort of thing, and second Iran really is involved in Iraq.  What you need to ask yourself is why wouldn’t they be?  Us mired in Iraq is good for Iran…it’s that simple.

I’ll grant that Chertoff’s gut feeling is hardly a reason to build a bunker, but a lot of experts are saying an attack is likely. Now, in case their is a pan-global conspiracy to make Bush look good, and therefore make Ron Paul’s standing drop (how’s that work btw) then they are better at it this time than they ever have been before.  The only people think this is going on is the random whacked in the head blogger, and Ron Paul.  It inspires the pauliacs so it’s hard to blame the guy, but I have a tip for him.  Looking like you have lost another of your all to few marbles is not going to broaden your base.  Unless an attack occurs, and you can prove it was our government that instigated it.  Good luck with that, numbnuts.

this info comes courtesy of MDVP

Advertisements

19 Responses to Ron…please..I was just starting to like you

  1. mdvp says:

    Very good (just forgot the courtesy of mdvp part. 🙂 But I jest, of course, you’ve already thanked me), I have to see what the Pauliacs come up with on this one. They’ll probably go along with it.

    Idiots.

  2. nope…you’re right…that was oversight

  3. ha…toss a pauliac steak in front of me and i lose my head a little

    its corrected, and thanks for pointing it out. I’d of felt bad about that later

  4. Michael says:

    oh brother another one…
    he didnt say that. The interviewer/Cindy Sheehan did. RP simply agreed that overstating the threat of Iran was a possible tactic to sustain support for continuing the War in Iraq.

  5. hello michael

    concurring is the same as saying

    thanks for coming by

  6. ChenZhen says:

    Yea I didn’t see where he said that either. Maybe I need to listen to the audio.

  7. Michael says:

    Overstating the threat of Iran is NOT the same as staging a terrorist attack.

    and thank you for having me =)

  8. are we talking about the same interview? Alex Jones?

    you’re always welcome michael…political discourse is important.

  9. hello chen… I’m digging further as well, but i have reputable sourcing, and whether he said it or agrees with it is a semantic issue to me

    thanks for coming by

  10. michael and chenzhen…I’ve removed the offending part of the article. i agree he did not say that. I still recommend the rest of the link for its stance. Is that Mancow? sure sounds like him

  11. Thomas says:

    That’s not what he said. He made no prediction. He didn’t even say a high probability. He said a great danger. You can take a small (but not insignificant) probability and a very high cost and get a great danger. That is why I by insurance. I it is matter of diligence to be alert to dangers.

    So why is this probability not insignificant? People have done this in the past. Moreover, this president has lied in the past and people have died because of it. What might be 1 chance in a million in one president might be 100 or 10,000 chances in a million for another. The high cost makes this great danger.

    Besides, Ron Paul generalized the threats and included a large category of government threats as great danger.

  12. hello thomas..thanks for that insight. you are right, Ron Paul does generalize all his dire predictions, and that interviewer generalized as much as possible, but the gulf of tonkin resolution was mentioned in the question, and Ron paul did not ask that it be retracted, therefore he gave tacit merit to it by anwering. I retracted the only part of my post that was not factual. He sounded very much the typical conpirscy whackjob, and is trying to make hay on spreading fear. Iran is a threat, is involved in Iraq, and is not going to be attacked by the US. Now, lets see who is right. Ron Or I? Wanna bet payvhecks?

    thanks for stopping by

    thanks for stopping by.

  13. […] House Link to Article iraq Ron…please..I was just starting to like you » Posted at because I said […]

  14. mdvp says:

    Hey, they’re resorting to semantics.

  15. Hi MD…yes they are. I did retract the comment that alluded to government fake terrorist plot. Although I didn’t here him say he didn’t agree with that, it was unfair to project it onto him. The rest of it he either said or allowed to stand what othe interviewer said. Did You listen? He sounds a little nuts to me.

  16. mdvp says:

    To the video where the Ron Paul stuff kept popping up? Only for the first 30 seconds.

    I suppose I’ll just have to take your word for it. 🙂

  17. take the word of a nut about a nut…the squirrels agree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: