[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Ron Paul Puts on the Tinfoil Hat BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Ron Paul has recorded a commercial for us here, a special message. Yeah. Let's do that first, 'cause I think they're a little preemptive over there at the Paul camp. (playing of Ron Paul spoof) RUSH: Actually it's a commercial for Washington Republicans, not Ron Paul. Here is Ron Paul in the debate last night. This is Bret Baier. I thought the Fox moderators did a good job last night, too. I thought it was good. (interruption) Yeah, "fair and balanced," they were good. Bret Baier: "Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say that Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the US sanctions on Iran, including those added by the Obama administration. So to be clear: GOP nominee Ron Paul would be running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran?" PAUL: You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming! It is war propaganda going on, and we're arguing... To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran -- and -- and the sentiment is very mixed. We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq. RUSH: Now, you may have astutely noticed that Ron Paul didn't answer the question? So Bret Baier, after the applause died down, said, "Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul" that they got a nuke. We're not talking about being on the come. "I'm asking you about solid evidence they've got one, and yet you still at that point would pull back US sanctions -- and, again, as a GOP nominee, be running to the left of Barack Obama on this issue?" PAUL: Yes. Eh, eh, all we're doing is promoting their desire to have it. They are surrounded! They have a desire -- and how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them, we talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed him. So it makes more sense to work with people and the whole thing that nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan. India. Israel has 300 of 'em! We have our ships there. We gotta get it in a proper context! BAIER: All right. PAUL: We don't need another war. RUSH: (impression) "We don't need another war. I mean, we have enough! We ought to do what we did to Libya: Take their nuuuukes away and theeeen kill 'em." Baier said, "Congresswoman Bachmann," and this is her opening. She wanted to seize on this. "Congresswoman Bachmann, today's the official end of the US military operations in Iraq. There's real concern, as you know, about growing Iranian influence inside Iraq. Also the deputy prime minister there has expressed concerns about the country possibly slipping into a civil war. Are there any circumstances, as president, where you would send US troops back into Iraq?" BACHMANN: With all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul. We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon; they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map; and they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian Constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan. RUSH: Okay, Congressman Paul, she just called you a lunatic and an insaniac. What is your reply. (Well, I'm adding a little color there, but that's basically the implication.) What's your reply, Congressman Paul. PAUL: To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to the Switzerland and Sweden? RUSH: Yeah. PAUL: I mean that's absurd! What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran and we're begging and pleading and how we're gonna start a war to get this drone back? Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? You're trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis and 8,000-some Americans have died since we've gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war! RUSH: Okay, now, I got a question in the e-mail. Somebody said, "Well, wait a minute. Didn't Ron Paul just admit that Libya had a nuclear program and so why is it so hard to believe Iran has one?" Ron Paul wants them to have a nuclear program. This is what people are missing. He says (paraphrased): "Look, when you have a nuclear bomb is when you're respected. Take a look at the way we dealt with the Soviets in the Cold War for 30 years as opposed to what we're doing with Iraq. We're talking about bombing Iraq off the face of the earth. We're talking about bombing a billion people! (Ron Paul impression) We never talked that way about the Russians because they had the same number of boooombs pointed at us! If you were Iraaaan you'd want a nuclear boooomb, too. Besides, the only reeeeason they want nuuuuclear weapons, because we're making 'em dooo it. It's our fault. If you were in Iraaaan, and you had to face these evil Americans, you'd want a bomb, tooooooo!" Anyway, this was the, say, highlight of the night for Congressman Paul. There are memorable moments in each debate. That little exchange was his. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#20. To: Mad Dog (#0)
(Edited)
"What is a logical fallacy? All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true." The fallacy in this question is the assumption that being hawkish and placing sanctions on another nation is 'conservative' and therefor Paul would be to the left of Obama. This assumption is, of course, ridiculous. If the traditional American position is one of non-intervention and a humble foreign policy, then sanctions against another nation cannot be conservative. The correct assumption would be that Paul is far to the right of Obama AND the current hawkish, "mainstream" Republicans.
So to be CLEAR, I didn't WRITE the F' ing piece. Do you have any idea how ABSURD you look trying to hold ANY political discourse to a standard of LOGIC? You PaulTARDS sure don't make your wee failed FRAUD hero achieve that goal as a matter of course. Here's a word for you CULT boy, HYPOCRITE. How about "DOUBLE STANDARD"? I WISH that we could apply LOGIC to politics, but no adult has had THAT particular delusion for many years. I especially like the way you TRY to "look down your nose" at those who do not meet your LOGICAL standard! One last word for ya CULT boy, REALITY. TRY it sometime.
One last word for ya CULT boy, PROPAGANDA. TRY and RECOGNIZE it sometime.
TRY and RECOGNIZE it sometime. Are you DRUNK or HIGH cult boy? Because it's the PaulTARD "machine" that is pumping out nothing but PROPAGANDA and LIES 24/7 cult boy. My father was a professional in the PROPAGANDA game cult boy, I was taught to recognize it before you were shitting yellow. Did you study "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard when you were in the third grade cult boy? My problem is that I cannot quit seeing it. Piss OFF cult boy.
Joseph Goebbels
There are no replies to Comment # 35. End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|