Ron Paul Speech

Submitted by: madest 5 years ago in Games

Done in video gamey style animation.
There are 61 comments:
Male 4,902
I like
0
Reply
Male 3,631
P.S. - Fu(k Romney.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Thank you davymid and Madest for the encouraging polling updates!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]9pm central update on the Caucus. Santorum 25%. Paul 23%. Romney 19%. Am I banned? This won`t post![/quote]
Lol, no AJ, of course not! I-A-B has an inbuilt anti-spambot thing where it won`t allow you copy-pasta the exact same comment across multiple boards. All you have to change is one character (eg adding an extra space or add a period) and you can post it. I see you made the same comment on the other forum nearer the top of the page, presumably you copy-pasted it here then added "Am I banned? This won`t post!". Which of course, allowed it to be posted.

Anyways, useful intel, keep the info coming in from the hustings as they develop (though suggest you do so in the other more recent thread, more people will be reading it).
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Okay. That was weird.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
9pm central update on the Caucus. Santorum 25%. Paul 23%. Romney 19%. Am I banned? This won`t post!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
He needs a democratic congress to keep his crazy in check. But either way he`ll only be president not king.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@madest: Yeah, until the Washington lobbyists get a hold of him. hate to tell ya, but politicians can`t get anything accomplished without them, and i don`t see a lot of RP fans fighting that system.
OWS
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Drastic times call for drastic measures. At least with RP you know where he stands. No need to live in waffle land where campaign promises mean nothing while your rights are chipped away piece by piece. You know there`s only one selfless candidate in the mix, to me there`s only one choice.
0
Reply
Female 152
heh...Not Uganda (I`m a dumbass), Rwanda.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@madest: First, let me start by saying that it pains me to agree with Crakr and AJ on anything..lol! (although AJ and i do have the same taste in women) However, it doesn`t matter whether or not N. korea could defeat S. Korea or not. If they attacked, the consequences would be mind -boggling, no matter who "won" in the end. And yes, they do have nukes. I`m strongly against most pre-emptive strikes (as in iraq, and even Libya), but I think it would be crazy to pull our troops out of certain countries. Also, please take a more critical lok at Ron paul. He might want to legalize pot, and appears to be a pacifist, but he has the most conservative voting record since 1937. How cool is that...we can have toys with lead paint again!
0
Reply
Female 152
The expense of fixing other peoples problems comes from within the populace through lack of education for the people who need it, which is the greatest determinant of health. poo in, poo out.
0
Reply
Female 152
This might sound stupid as well, but aren`t the US troops present in the more opportunistic areas which are the ones that cost the most in any which way? If it was for more "peacekeeping" UN reasons, wouldn`t the presence be in more needed countries? Take Uganda for example, Dallaire didn`t see much help then but there wasn`t a dime to be made either. Plus I don`t see many blue helmets on the news.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]You may be more right than me Cajun. I won`t doubt that, but N Korea`s drat you attitude toward the global community, and the abject starvation of it`s people by the government is the reason I have the stance I do. Maybe Kim Jong Un will change things, but I doubt it.[/quote]


It`s understandable, but considering how expensive and costly war is I`m seriously inclined to think that an invasion of North Korea would not be in anyone`s best interests especially the North Korean people. Hopefully this terrifying regime won`t outlive any of us. In the end the only people who can help the North Koreans are the North Koreans themselves.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Now if what I say is true you might ask, why doesn`t South Korea go ahead and invade the North already in light of these aggressions? They CAN do that, the problem is it would be prohibitively expensive. It would be like our occupation of Iraq, but on some rather serious steroids. Quite frankly the South Koreans do not know how to deal with their indoctrinated and emotionally crippled cousins in the North. In the mean time the best course of action, quite frankly, is to hope for the well-being of the North Korean denizens, laugh at their dictatorships empty threats (and I seriously mean empty), and wait for a solution to present itself.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
That old thing that you use every time I mention you? No... Show`s a lack of originality on your part and I have no problem with it.

And this just in: Exit polling in Iowa has Ron Paul in the lead @ 29% to Romney`s 25%. Santorum non-factor.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
You may be more right than me Cajun. I won`t doubt that, but N Korea`s drat you attitude toward the global community, and the abject starvation of it`s people by the government is the reason I have the stance I do. Maybe Kim Jong Un will change things, but I doubt it.

It`s not drinking kool aid Madest. It`s wanting the N Koreans to do right by their people. I wish the same of the Chinese against the Tibetans. The Somali warlords against their people, etc.....
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@madest

So you didn`t delete my comments? Great, but...

0
Reply
Male 10,855
The problem with that AuburnJunky is that the Russians were specifically gearing up for war meaning they were disciplined soldiers. North Korea on the other hand most of their military, including their reserves, are busy farming rather than training. Their tanks are outdated and sit in the garages with very little if any maintenance. Most of their advanced military technology is 50 years old. Two-thirds of their airforce is comprised of the MiG-21/MiG-19, both of which were introduced in the late 1950s. Hell the latter of those planes has swept wings as opposed to delta wings.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
And your analogy only works on a defending force. It`s why we lost in Vietnam. Nonetheless I didn`t delete a thing and have no clue what you`re crying about.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Madest deletes and adds comments to threads to make it support his argument. Once you have the answers, he changes the questions.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I wasn`t making N Korea a defending force, I was just using the Russians and the Battle of Stalingrad as an example of a larger, but less equipped force, defeating a smaller, better equipped force.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@madest

Deleting my comments?

YOU`RE DEFINITELY NOT HELPING!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
@Cajun, Don`t waste your breath. AJ is a typical word twisting republican. jtrebowski suggested that if America were to remove our forces from the DMZ South Korea would be overrun by the North. To which AJ confirmed but is now back tracking by making N. Korea the defending force. It`s all double-talk to reaffirm an argument he cannot win.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@AuburnJunky

Here`s some things that put doubt on the notion of "sheer will".

1)The Nazi infantry at the battle were used to fighting alongside tanks which don`t yield any significant advantage in urban warfare.
2)Hitler was an idiot. Had he let Paulus retreat it would`ve saved the entire unit.
3)Shear will power does not mean anything in the face of tactics and strategy. November 1942 the Soviets launched Operation Uranus leading to the encirclement and entrapment of the Nazis.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Lol... most of these comments take the extreme one way or the other. You people are completely unrealistic.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Cajun: The number of weapons to soldiers in the battle of Stalingrad, was 1 gun to every 5 soldiers. They were not equipped, but still won due to numbers, and sheer will. (Plus, the fear of getting shot if they deserted.)
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]It would be like the Battle of Stalingrad, where the Russian`s outnumbered the Germans 3 to 1, but had 1/3 of the German`s firepower. The Russian`s won based on army size alone.[/quote]

No and no, it was because Stalin decided to get serious about equipping his army after a disastrous a campaign in Finland. The Fins BTW were outnumbered.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Plus, N Korea has nukes[/quote]

The only real threat from those would be if the Kim`s decided to turn those into dirty bombs and sell them. I seriously doubt China would allow that as it would jeopardize their trade relations with us.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote">North Korea would mash South Korea on numbers alone. Without our support, the reds would march right over them to Seoul. There`s about 500k in the south`s military, compared to over 1.5 million in the north`s.[/quote">

You got it backwards actually, numbers don`t mean anything without the proper supplies. South Korea could actually overrun the entire nation before WE the United States could even mobilize our own forces.
Link
0
Reply
Male 7,378
So republicans it seems have all bought into the North Korea is a military powerhouse lie. I bet they all think Iran is a threat to America as well. That kool-aide must be delicious.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote">We are THE largest contributor to the UN and we play the biggest role as peacemakers all over the globe.[/quote">

Also known as the most corrupt organization on the planet.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Halfsandwich: Or maybe, he`s just a nut lol.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Plus, N Korea has nukes, and are stupid enough to use them. They would nuke any assembled army, and our weak leadership would go into negotiation mode.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
North Korea would mash South Korea on numbers alone. Without our support, the reds would march right over them to Seoul. There`s about 500k in the south`s military, compared to over 1.5 million in the north`s.

It would be like the Battle of Stalingrad, where the Russian`s outnumbered the Germans 3 to 1, but had 1/3 of the German`s firepower. The Russian`s won based on army size alone.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
@jtrebowski, Really? You think that North Korea could defeat South Korea in a war? I mean North Korea is a technologically backward society. Their military hardware was constructed in the 1950`s. They may have a large military but they`re ill fed and equipped. I think South Korea would destroy North Korea with modern American made weaponry within days and any fear of North Korea is simply unfounded make believe.
0
Reply
Male 145
@zombunny:

actually ron is the only political candidate i`ve seen that has been saying the same things over and over even though they may be unpopular. if he wanted to just be president he would have changed his foreign policy views a long time ago.

i don`t like or agree with everything he stands for, but given the fact he`s been so consistent with his message and in his views, i respect that. the other republican candidates have flip flopped more than a fish on the ground, and obama poll tests every single word his speaks.

if you haven`t noticed the left wing media calls him a nut and the right wing media calls him a nut, if he just wanted to get votes don`t you think he would try to appease one or the other? how do you get votes when both media machines are against you?
0
Reply
Male 3,364
If I could add an example...perhaps Paul would pull our troops out of S. Korea. Now what would happen then if N. Kore attacked the south. Can you imagine the bloodshed, not to mention the political and economic ramifications?
0
Reply
Female 2,525
If you think this man is doing anything other than saying whatever will win him the most votes without an ounce of authenticity, you`re an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@Jamie and miniqeko: I understand your sentiments, and to some extent, you`re right, (i.e, going into Iraq) but unfortunately, not entirely. We have allies that rely on us for security. There are other countries that would gladly step up to the plate and possibly turn them against us. You don`t have to like it (I sure don`t), but it`s an unfortunate reality.
0
Reply
Male 662
@bataleon27 He will never get elected because he WOULD be true to his word.
0
Reply
Male 2,521
"I just hope he has a plan to support his isolationist ideas. If not, him being elected would be highly irresponsible and frankly, a recipe for disaster."

Agreed. It would be different if we hadn`t spent the last 60 years pissing off half of the world. I mean, if we were Allies with everyone, then his idea would be just fine.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] Why should America be afraid of these muslim terrorists blow back, when it`s they that should be afraid of our blow back, after all WE are the super power in this equation.[/quote]

We won`t be if we keep these expensive elective wars up.

[quote] We`ve been isolationist before twice, then dragged into world wars not of our making, costing tens of thousands of our countrymen their lives and costing much more in manpower and material to fight those wars than we currently pay to keep peace worldwide instead.[/quote]

...and just like Germany both times we`ve been the most involved and the greatest threat to world peace since. So much that we`ve eaten the collective luncheon of Kaiser and Hitler.
0
Reply
Male 1,178
He speaks some sense. But I doubt he would be true to his word in any way shape or form. He speaks like a true politician - charismatic, but he says what people want to hear.

I know nothing about this guy btw, being a UK citizen, I don`t follow US politics that closely
0
Reply
Male 2,332
I just hope he has a plan to support his isolationist ideas. If not, him being elected would be highly irresponsible and frankly, a recipe for disaster.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
jamie: Why should America be afraid of these muslim terrorists blow back, when it`s they that should be afraid of our blow back, after all WE are the super power in this equation. We are THE largest contributor to the UN and we play the biggest role as peacemakers all over the globe.

Ron Paul wants us to retreat from our role as peacemakers and just let the rest of the world go all to hell.

We`ve been isolationist before twice, then dragged into world wars not of our making, costing tens of thousands of our countrymen their lives and costing much more in manpower and material to fight those wars than we currently pay to keep peace worldwide instead.

I`d rather see us remain peacekeepers at an affordable cost, than get dragged into more world wars at a much higher cost.
0
Reply
Male 149
jtrebowski no, no it`s not
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Holy fu<k are te Japanese now making our political ads?
0
Reply
Male 675
Hey, americans, please do elect this guy.
At least if they kill him after that it will be clear to everyone something is very rotten in the usa.
0
Reply
Male 14,834
If he`s elected and does what he plans to do, it would be tantamount to a revolution. Big business would lose a lot of leverage overseas, unable to manipulate aid, to imply the threat of war to support their own aims and with less ability to divvy up arms contracts. Lobbies would fail to twist the workings of government to line the pockets of the big wigs. Government waste and beaurocracy would reduce. The country would slowly reduce its indebtedness and the ordinary person would see their lot improve. His election would prove that democracy prevails and the citizenry rules the patricians. Sadly he will either not be elected or will be Kennedey`d by one of the affected parties in short order. I can only hope for the sake of the world that he is elected, that the SS are able to keep him safe and that for once Congress gets into the spirit.
0
Reply
Male 57
I love ron paul
0
Reply
Male 914
"Might be a stupid question, but why do people hate this guy? "

Because some people are foolish enough to believe that we can have the perfect candidate instead.
0
Reply
Female 152
Might be a stupid question, but why do people hate this guy?
0
Reply
Male 667
I really want Ron Paul to be president but there are a lot of powerful people who are also against it. It`s a shame...
0
Reply
Male 2,345
jtrebowski

you`re type of thinking is EXACTLY waht causes blow back and exactly what got us into this entire mess.

you and those like you are the true danger to this world...far more dangerous than Osama ever was.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
That`s a cool ad.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
sorry falling asleep...lets try that again. We are a super-power, which means that it`s our duty to basically be involved in global scenarios. As long as we do it for the ri9ght reasons, and as long as it`s paid for, getting involved with other countries conflicts and protection.
0
Reply
Male 38,481

Was that the sequil to Polar Express ?
0
Reply
Male 3,364
Yeah..if only it were that simple. we arr a super-power, whuch means thay it`s actua;; our duy
0
Reply
Male 312
awesome
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: Ron Paul Speech [Rate Link] - Done in video gamey style animation.
0
Reply