Ron Paul choice of the troops march on the white house

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Mairuzu
9yewKCcFSvQ


uJndFcz9WWc


zJVBxzuKimw


If anyone has a say, its the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country. Obviously wasn't covered by mainstream media in the usa.

Thoren
The media hates Ron Paul. Well they hate anyone who isn't a government puppet.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
If anyone has a say, its the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country.

why should they have more of a say than the average citizen?

because they agree with you?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Thoren
The media hates Ron Paul. Well they hate anyone who isn't a government puppet.

I think it is because he is too ugly. wink

Mairuzu
Tis true. Which reminds me of the movie "Network".


1ocJn_V6qyU


Originally posted by inimalist
why should they have more of a say than the average citizen?

because they agree with you?


I don't believe they should have more of a say but I would concider their opinion quite important. Any more brain busters? stoned


Do you not respect the opinion of the people defending you? Of course you would wouldn't you? Don't be stupid. Keep trying to nit pick at everything I say though. wink

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I don't believe they should have more of a say but I would concider their opinion quite important. Any more brain busters? stoned

ok... why?

and to be fair, I couldn't find anything to say that the military as a whole supports Paul over other candidates outside of campaign contributions. Interesting, but hardly indicative of who the military, as a whole, wants to win the election.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Do you not respect the opinion of the people defending you? Of course you would wouldn't you? Don't be stupid. Keep trying to nit pick at everything I say though. wink

do I respect their opinion about who should run the country? no, not really. Not more so than other special interest groups. shit man, how many of these types of "important" groups do you think support Obama? You think teachers and doctors are going to line up behind Paul? academics? scientists? like, this is essentially political dick measuring.

the fact that soldiers might support him says absolutely nothing about his policy, and in fact, is a red herring designed to detract from any meaningful discussion of the matter.

"support paul"

"why"

"we are soldiers"

"oh..."

Mairuzu
Originally posted by inimalist
ok... why?

You're asking why I concider the opinion of a soldier about our current foreign policy to be important? The ones who risk their lives for us? You're seriously asking me why?

Why does it matter to you what my opinions are? I take their opinion highly with much respect. Simple as that. I don't see the what you're trying to get out of it by asking.

Originally posted by inimalist

and to be fair, I couldn't find anything to say that the military as a whole supports Paul over other candidates outside of campaign contributions. Interesting, but hardly indicative of who the military, as a whole, wants to win the election.


Do you see other troops marching outside for other candidates? Do you see them marching for obama? romney? santorum? gingrich? I sure as hell don't. The news would be all over that shit as long as its not for Paul. To be fair though, I could give a rats ass if you couldn't find anything OUTSIDE the contributions. Such a strawman argument lol.

Btw, how did you go about trying to find military, as a whole, support Ron Paul outside contributions? What did you do? Google it? Lol

So because you cant find anywhere that shows the whole entire military supporting ron paul, you're just going to shrug it off? Simple question.

Your debate tactics are humorous.

Originally posted by inimalist

do I respect their opinion about who should run the country? no, not really. Not more so than other special interest groups. shit man, how many of these types of "important" groups do you think support Obama? You think teachers and doctors are going to line up behind Paul? academics? scientists? like, this is essentially political dick measuring.


You don't have to respect their opinion just as much as I can give a rats ass about yours. stoned

This has to do with foreign policy. It has to do with current america and the wars we are in. These are people that put their LIVES on the line. Is a teacher putting their life on the line as much as a soldier? Is a doctor at a local hospital putting their life on the line as much as a soldier?

Originally posted by inimalist

the fact that soldiers might support him says absolutely nothing about his policy, and in fact, is a red herring designed to detract from any meaningful discussion of the matter.

"support paul"

"why"

"we are soldiers"

"oh..."


Lmfao. They arent telling anyone to support Ron Paul. They are simply showing THEIR support for ron paul. This was a rally on the white house to show Obama and everything watching who the choice of troops is. These troops. Keep up with the strawman though.



Have you watched all of the videos I presented? Woooosh

inimalist
this is a strange brand of authoritarianism to see from you...

have you read/seen Coriolanus?

but you are right, I will stop asking you questions about the thread you started on a public discussion forum.

Mairuzu
You guys make it easier to defend Paul everyday now that I get more familiar to the type of people who oppose him haermm


You can do whatever you want my man. I'm here to show that troops support ron paul. You can write whatever you want.


But to ask me why I concider a soldiers opinion to be important, despite the importance of every elses opinion, is pretty irrelevant. Don't you think? stoned

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
...
but you are right, I will stop asking you questions about the thread you started on a public discussion forum.

Wait, I object. laughing out loud

Mairuzu
Yes cause we all like reading irrelevant topics on a relevant based section stoned

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yes cause we all like reading irrelevant topics on a relevant based section stoned

No, I like reading your threads. confused

Mairuzu
At least its providing some enjoyment. 131

But the question being asked originally wasn't really a bright question at all. At least thats my opinion on it. But if you're gaining satisfaction then... **** it.

inimalist
"Your voices: for your voices I have fought;
Watch'd for your voices; for Your voices bear
Of wounds two dozen odd; battles thrice six
I have seen and heard of; for your voices have
Done many things, some less, some more your voices:
Indeed I would be consul."

-Coriolanus, Coriolanus, Act 2, Scene 3

Mairuzu
What are you trying to get at?

inimalist
"I've bled and killed for your voices
therefore your voices should support me as consul"

The entire play is about an extremely potent warrior who would be a dictator, justified by his contribution to the Roman military effort. In part, there are a couple of awesome revenge subplots and issues of class purity, but the main comparison I'm seeing here is that, for some reason, you are making the fallacious argument that people who risk their lives for the nation are somehow more deserving of having a voice.

Like, among republicans, Paul polls around 10-20% nationally. To suggest that military support for Paul is a reason to vote for him is also to suggest that this group of people should be given more say than the 80-90% of the population, who might not be soldiers, who don't support him. It is a fallacy, and a dangerous one imho... It seems surprising to me that you would make an appeal to the violent arm of the government as a justification for why to vote for someone who you point to as a peace maker.

surely you wouldn't claim that the majority of police officers should determine national policy on crime (re: they overwhelmingly support harsher punishment for drug laws)

Mairuzu
Originally posted by inimalist
"I've bled and killed for your voices
therefore your voices should support me as consul"

The entire play is about an extremely potent warrior who would be a dictator, justified by his contribution to the Roman military effort. In part, there are a couple of awesome revenge subplots and issues of class purity, but the main comparison I'm seeing here is that, for some reason, you are making the fallacious argument that people who risk their lives for the nation are somehow more deserving of having a voice.


You don't realize that you're jumping the gun quite a bit? Are you comparing this to a movie? Lol

These were active and non active vets at that event among hundreds of others viewing. Who said anything about them being more deserving over others to have a voice? This is simply a rally to show that the troops support Ron Paul. To get their voice out because they are being ignored by the main stream media. This was a good way for the troops to get heard despite the lack of appearance by the MSM. But you keep posting irrelevant shit lol.

Originally posted by inimalist

Like, among republicans, Paul polls around 10-20% nationally.

I'm showing about 21% and his polls show he is favored over Obama, if not tied.

Originally posted by inimalist

To suggest that military support for Paul is a reason to vote for him is also to suggest that this group of people should be given more say than the 80-90% of the population, who might not be soldiers, who don't support him. It is a fallacy, I would say so too which is why this is not the case. Do you just like reading your own words?

Originally posted by inimalist

and a dangerous one imho... It seems surprising to me that you would make an appeal to the violent arm of the government as a justification for why to vote for someone who you point to as a peace maker.

Lol you are a fool. Do you know who Adam Kokesh is at all? Do you know anything about him and why he is so active with his Ron Paul support and his stance against the war? Apparently you don't know shit about this movement, I can tell.

Originally posted by inimalist

surely you wouldn't claim that the majority of police officers should determine national policy on crime (re: they overwhelmingly support harsher punishment for drug laws)

Strawman continues. stoned



I suggest you take the time to actually understand what I'm posting in the thread instead of making a fool out of yourself lol.

inimalist
boy, you make me happy I took the time to elaborate on my point

are you a deadline sock?

Omega Vision
Troops marching on a nation's capital in support of a fringe politician is rarely a good sign.

Now that's not to say that I think Ron Paul is a populist military dictator in the making, that would be ridiculous. Just that saying soldiers support someone isn't in of itself a good argument for why that person should be given power.

Mairuzu
I hope you realize you completely wasted your time.


These troops are against the war after experiencing it for themselves. They are marching on the white house against Obama and his foreign policy. They saluted to all the fallen troops that were under Obama's orders once they got to the front gates. By doing so they announce that they support Ron Paul for president.

I make a thread about it.


You: OH SO BECAUSE THE TROOPS SUPPORT RON PAUL WE SHOULD TOO!? OH NO WAY MAN THATS SUCH A FALLACY MAN.


You're a fool. You can support any damn person you feel like. I'm here showing this movement. All these troops want to do is be heard.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
Troops marching on a nation's capital in support of a fringe politician is rarely a good sign.

Not when our president has us in an unwinnable war. Record breaking stats showing the increase in suicides from returning troops. Sending people overseas for war profitting


Originally posted by Omega Vision

Now that's not to say that I think Ron Paul is a populist military dictator in the making, that would be ridiculous. Just that saying soldiers support someone isn't in of itself a good argument for why that person should be given power.

Good thing no one is making that argument right? stoned

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Troops marching on a nation's capital in support of a fringe politician is rarely a good sign.

Now that's not to say that I think Ron Paul is a populist military dictator in the making, that would be ridiculous. Just that saying soldiers support someone isn't in of itself a good argument for why that person should be given power.

Unless the kill you if you disagree, but that's different issue. wink

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
why should they have more of a say than the average citizen?

because they agree with you?

I totally agree with this sentiment

Stating the obvious though: I think we both know that American politics always puts a lot of emphasis on Soldiers and Veterans.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I hope you realize you completely wasted your time.


These troops are against the war after experiencing it for themselves. They are marching on the white house against Obama and his foreign policy. They saluted to all the fallen troops that were under Obama's orders once they got to the front gates. By doing so they announce that they support Ron Paul for president.

I make a thread about it.


You: OH SO BECAUSE THE TROOPS SUPPORT RON PAUL WE SHOULD TOO!? OH NO WAY MAN THATS SUCH A FALLACY MAN.


You're a fool. You can support any damn person you feel like. I'm here showing this movement. All these troops want to do is be heard.

you know there are these things called blogs

I know it wont satisfy your attention whore needs, but if you get so defensive from criticism, you might consider it

Mairuzu
Originally posted by inimalist
you know there are these things called blogs

I know it wont satisfy your attention whore needs, but if you get so defensive from criticism, you might consider it



I post it anywhere I damn near please. This isn't the first and definitely not the last place. smile


Looks like its you whos getting defensive lol. How in any way would me posting a video of other people bring me attention? You're hilarious. A fool but hilarious. Keep trying though.

inimalist
getting defensive because you are calling me a fool repeatedly?

are you seriously criticizing me for defending myself?

Mairuzu
I call it like I see it stoned

You are indeed really foolish.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I call it like I see it stoned

You are indeed really foolish.

damn, they wont let me make that my sig...

Mairuzu
You can just put "I'm a fool".



haermm

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I call it like I see it stoned

You are indeed really foolish.

Ron Paul is ashamed of you. stick out tongue

Mairuzu
I still support him stoned

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
You can just put "I'm a fool".



haermm

the important part was the attribution

its an honor to get Mairuzu rage

Mairuzu
haermm Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.



You could just light up a bowl my boy.






Lets not forget about the troops marching up to tampa bay as well. Did you watch that video?

Bardock42
Has this place always been so childish?

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Bardock42
Has this place always been so childish?


The problem is you have a lot of people here that have ego issues and will do anything to elevate themselves. But to answer your question yes, this place is very childish. You've also hard your fair share of childish behavior as well. wink As well as me and basically everyone here.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Bardock42
Has this place always been so childish? Yes. Since Zeal was banned, someone needed to pick up the tunnel-visioned slack, and Mairuzu is filling in adequately.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yes. Since Zeal was banned, someone needed to pick up the tunnel-visioned slack, and Mairuzu is filling in adequately.




Yeah too bad we aren't rabbits like you. smokin'

The all seeing eye!

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yeah too bad we aren't rabbits like you. smokin' It is a shame. If you were, you'd be f*cking like one instead of devoting yourself to a cause.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It is a shame. If you were, you'd be f*cking like one instead of devoting yourself to a cause.

Your not? confused

Mairuzu
I prefer to bite my women down and give them great lovin'


http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/lions-mating-179.jpg


Lion status

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your not? confused I don't see the point in devoting myself to a political cause or ideology when I don't believe in what any of them are selling.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't see the point in devoting myself to a political cause or ideology when I don't believe in what any of them are selling.

No. "f*cking" jk roll eyes (sarcastic)

Mairuzu
Congrats big grin


Lots of women for Ron Paul out there brosephina.

Plenty of time to act like a rabbit. wink

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. "f*cking" jk roll eyes (sarcastic) Oh, nah I'm all about that. Rabbits unite!

Mairuzu
assuming someone gives you the opportunity...

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Mairuzu
assuming someone gives you the opportunity... Lawl. Personal insults are not what Dr. Paul wants of you. And you call yourself a true Paulite.

Mairuzu
Oh don't get me wrong. I've never seen your face nor do I know anything about you. As men we enjoy a nice little rabbit **** now and then. I'm just saying over here on the Ron Paul side there are plenty of women getting hot by the words of this sexy 76 year young politician. stoned


The choice is yours my man. Do you get the chance to rabbit ****? Since you claim that its better than devoting it toward a cause.

Lord Lucien
See, I hang out at the Apathy Club, where we scope for Paulite chicks every night. It usually takes a couple of waves of the Roofie Wand, but they come around to our side. And when they want to abort their rape baby, they can't. Cuz they're Ron Paul supporters. And their messiah doesn't believe in it.

Mairuzu
Fortunately for those women Ron Paul doesn't believe his views should be forced upon you. Seeing as he is a doctor whose delivered over 4,000 babies and enjoys life. Go figure stoned


And when they hear this.... oh boy do their legs open!




But really though, you're not that misguided are you?

inimalist
unless you live in a state where they would ban abortion rights...

but hell, that would never happen

Mairuzu
^ Nice sig

But I didn't claim superior intellect over you. But apparently you feel that way, so be it. stoned


No need to be so butthurt my friend. We should smoke together and talk it over.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
unless you live in a state where they would ban abortion rights...

but hell, that would never happen

Libertarianism should allow that.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Fortunately for those women Ron Paul doesn't believe his views should be forced upon you. Seeing as he is a doctor whose delivered over 4,000 babies and enjoys life. Go figure stoned


And when they hear this.... oh boy do their legs open!




But really though, you're not that misguided are you? Must be. Though your definition of 'misguided' might be a little misguided. You don't honestly believe that if--and I mean IF, because there's no WHEN in this case--if Ron Paul became president, he wouldn't let his beliefs on abortion, separation of church and state, evolution, gay marriage, gold-backed dollar, etc. affect his presidency? You really don't believe that it wouldn't have any bearing on his administration's policies and decisions?

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
^ Nice sig



No need to be so butthurt my friend. We should smoke together and talk it over.

as amazing as it might sound, the words typed by someone thousands of miles away anonymously on the internet don't do much to ruin my day wink

ya dude, come north of the border and we can do this

Originally posted by Mairuzu
But I didn't claim superior intellect over you. But apparently you feel that way, so be it. stoned

na, you two are the only ones in recent memory who have gotten all personal with it, so I'm starting a new "thing"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Libertarianism should allow that.

only if it is massively federalized in the way Paul wants it, and in what is largely consistent with American political history (ie, states have massive rights)

Libertarianism isn't, by default, against a centralized government that determines rights for the nation. They might be against forcing a doctor to perform one if they had a moral issue, but I don't think they are against the idea of rights that are applied at a national level

Mairuzu
Agreed, there is no when because we can't predict the future now can we? stoned

According to his own statements (and if you even took the time to listen to him) of course it wouldn't. This is not what he is running on. He's running on smaller government. Bring most of these issues to the state level where they belong and have the people vote on their issues. You don't favor them? Change states. Seems easier than moving countries I'd say. Individual liberty my friend.

Robtard
Can't be bothered to read the whole thread, but is this yet another "wah, everyone's picking on Ron Paul" thread?

Cos the whiny-constant-victim thing got old for ole Paul in the last election. Man up, you picked politics as your career.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
...
Libertarianism isn't, by default, against a centralized government that determines rights for the nation. They might be against forcing a doctor to perform one if they had a moral issue, but I don't think they are against the idea of rights that are applied at a national level

That's not what my nutty Libertarian friends say. wink

Mairuzu
Originally posted by inimalist
as amazing as it might sound, the words typed by someone thousands of miles away anonymously on the internet don't do much to ruin my day wink





Good to know. stoned


Keep it lit.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Robtard
Can't be bothered to read the whole thread,

Knowing you, I wouldn't hold you to it wink

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
According to his own statements (and if you even took the time to listen to him) of course it wouldn't. This is not what he is running on. He's running on smaller government. Bring most of these issues to the state level where they belong and have the people vote on their issues. You don't favor them? Change states. Seems easier than moving countries I'd say. Individual liberty my friend.

but thats the thing, not everyone has the option to just move, and some people believe certain rights are universal.

for instance, imho, free speech is free speech, no government, regardless of how local or centralized or whatever, should have the right to infringe this (except in places like "fire" in a threatre if it causes injury or panic).

but like, with the type of extreme downward delegation of states powers, rights no longer become universal, but subject to local culture. I'm sure you and I can agree that there are places where the culture would massively restrict certain rights. If you don't think certain things are universal, I suppose that is ok, but I don't agree that some local bunch of rednecks should be allowed to pass legislation that restricts the rights of women or minorities, which we know they would. Even in the Roe v Wade context there are laws being passed to create entirely unreasonable standards that abortion clinics have to meet, forcing the mother to be counseled about the life of the child and see pictures of it and the state sanctioned rape in the case of a trans-vaginal ultrasound. This gets worse in a Paul presidency.

Like, free speech, I'm actually sure Paul himself is more in line with my ideas than probably any other candidate in either of our nations, but his ideology specifically states that if the small geographical locality I live in just happens to be populated by enough people who are offended by something, they can infringe on my speech rights.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by inimalist
na, you two are the only ones in recent memory who have gotten all personal with it, so I'm starting a new "thing"




Hah, did I wind you up that much? petpet



^Already spotting fallacies in there. I already stated you aren't even worth the time but since you keep on keeping on I'll get back to you later. If I feel like it. stoned

inimalist
enough to make a sig about it :O

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
^Already spotting fallacies in there. I already stated you aren't even worth the time but since you keep on keeping on I'll get back to you later. If I feel like it. stoned

fallacies or just being wrong...?

Paul might have said something different about universal rights that I have never seen, but the logic seems tight, imho

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Knowing you, I wouldn't hold you to it wink

You don't know me though. smile

Mairuzu
So you say keeping it at the federal level is better than the constitutional state level for issues on abortion and gay marriage? I'm saying its easier to move states than countries. If there are enough people to believe it to be universal then there should be enough people within those states to make it so, no?


Originally posted by Robtard
You don't know me though. smile

Enough stoned

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
So you say keeping it at the federal level is better than the constitutional state level for issues on abortion and gay marriage? I'm saying its easier to move states than countries.

well, that might be relevant if I thought a federal government had the right to infringe those rights. Sure, in a hypothetical situation it might be easier to jump state lines than national ones, so long as both of those states uphold mobility rights and don't restrict travel, as they could now do.

how much of an exodus of the tax base does a state take before it says nobody can move out?

and really, that is just a deflection of the issue. So you do agree that there are states who would oppress people's rights, you are just saying "you don't like oppression, just leave". That is not a moral position I think is worth supporting.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
If there are enough people to believe it to be universal then there should be enough people within those states to make it so, no?

so you would argue that all states in America would uphold a woman's right to her own body if they were given the ability to?

like, you know the civil rights act, opposed by Paul, would have failed in a referendum. It would be cool, to you, if that had never passed because people didn't want it?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
So you say keeping it at the federal level is better than the constitutional state level for issues on abortion and gay marriage? I'm saying its easier to move states than countries. If there are enough people to believe it to be universal then there should be enough people within those states to make it so, no?




Enough stoned

See...

Mairuzu
Oh boy. I'll do us both a favor and just stop it here. You clearly need to look into this matter more. You're canadian so go figure.

inimalist
man, you support ron paul so much you wont even defend him against someone so obviously wrong

d.e.v.o.t.i.o.n!

(yes, a nation that scores higher than America on nearly all relevant international rankings and has a banking system far more secure than yours, but go figure)

Mairuzu
pTjccxVZ8B0





Nah I just know when I'm wasting my time stoned

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
why should they have more of a say than the average citizen?

because they agree with you?

If you're versed in the nuances in American Politics (which you definitely are), you'd be quite aware of how important presidential candidate support from the military is. Don't forget about how huge American Patriotism is in electing the person you'd like to "have a beer with".


Originally posted by inimalist
do I respect their opinion about who should run the country? no, not really. Not more so than other special interest groups. shit man, how many of these types of "important" groups do you think support Obama? You think teachers and doctors are going to line up behind Paul? academics? scientists? like, this is essentially political dick measuring.

the fact that soldiers might support him says absolutely nothing about his policy, and in fact, is a red herring designed to detract from any meaningful discussion of the matter.

"support paul"

"why"

"we are soldiers"

"oh..."

Sure, I agree with you that they should not get any special inspection than other interest groups but you should definitely consider the environment they are coming from. Obviously, major new corporations do not really like Paul. If a democrat had this much military support, the American Media would be going apesh*t with coverage over these guys. Remember the 2008 election? Remember Trrops for McCain ? Yeah, I do too. I see much more support for Paul than I did for McCain, from American Military personnel, so why the asymmetric media representation for Paul? It would definitely persuade the American voters as they watched how much their heroes support a particular person: "He's uhmerican cause my boys support him. Imma vote fer dat guy."




I see that you have had conversations quite a bit in this thread. Man...how can I address every interesting post within context? Internets suck for having any sort of conversation: we could talk this entire thread out out in 5-10 minutes (unless you are more verbose, verbally).

inimalist
Originally posted by Mairuzu
pTjccxVZ8B0


he explicitly says it should be a state issue, to the point that he doesn't believe Roe v Wade should have ever been heard at a federal level...

what about this answers my issues above... I have made no factually incorrect statement about his position, I just don't think it is a good one

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're versed in the nuances in American Politics (which you definitely are), you'd be quite aware of how important presidential candidate support from the military is. Don't forget about how huge American Patriotism is in electing the person you'd like to "have a beer with".

...

Sure, I agree with you that they should not get any special inspection than other interest groups but you should definitely consider the environment they are coming from. Obviously, major new corporations do not really like Paul. If a democrat had this much military support, the American Media would be going apesh*t with coverage over these guys. Remember the 2008 election? Remember Trrops for McCain ? Yeah, I do too. I see much more support for Paul than I did for McCain, from American Military personnel, so why the asymmetric media representation for Paul? It would definitely persuade the American voters as they watched how much their heroes support a particular person: "He's uhmerican cause my boys support him. Imma vote fer dat guy."

...

I see that you have had conversations quite a bit in this thread. Man...how can I address every interesting post within context? Internets suck for having any sort of conversation: we could talk this entire thread out out in 5-10 minutes (unless you are more verbose, verbally).

Oh, no totally, I'm not saying I don't understand it as a propaganda tool, but more, questioning the culture behind it entirely.

To me it is really no different than saying any group supports anything, its a fallacious appeal to some authority rather than an examination of the policies for their own merits.

(that being said, in terms of campaign contributions, Obama is second behind Paul in military donations)

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
Like, among republicans, Paul polls around 10-20% nationally. To suggest that military support for Paul is a reason to vote for him is also to suggest that this group of people should be given more say than the 80-90% of the population, who might not be soldiers, who don't support him. It is a fallacy, and a dangerous one imho... It seems surprising to me that you would make an appeal to the violent arm of the government as a justification for why to vote for someone who you point to as a peace maker.

surely you wouldn't claim that the majority of police officers should determine national policy on crime (re: they overwhelmingly support harsher punishment for drug laws)

I don't believe he appealed to the violent arm of the government. The American Military is far more than a group that kills people. The majority of them do more than dedicate their time on how to kill people.

And, police officers would be a better group to poll on what to do about US Crime because they are literally crime experts (not all of them, mind you, but many of them: it is what they get paid fora living to address). So, yes, you'd get a more relevant opinion on how to address crime from a tenured police officer than you would a Posh Wall-Street trader. You may be surprised to know that law enforcement personnel are consulted for crime related laws, at times.

This is not to say that they have a better vote: their opinion is literally better, however.

At the polls, their votes still count as one (depending on how corrupt you think the elections are).

However, the power of persuasion can be used by groups.

Use the military personnel to flex patriotic support for a particular candidate. Consult and get the support from local law enforcement to get some law passed having to do with crime: "8 out of 9 police officers support this bill".

Now, the use of "appeal to the violent arm of the government" is quite he strawman. Since Paul is about reining in the American Military and especially stopping much of the excessive occupation (and violence), your point runs opposite of Paul's position and the American Military's personnel's support of Paul.

Basically, this;
"Violent people support him!"
"Wait a minute...he's about reducing that very violence you speak of...and those people you are calling violent support him and his positions. What's your point?"

Mairuzu
Originally posted by inimalist
Oh, no totally, I'm not saying I don't understand it as a propaganda tool, but more, questioning the culture behind it entirely.

To me it is really no different than saying any group supports anything, its a fallacious appeal to some authority rather than an examination of the policies for their own merits.

(that being said, in terms of campaign contributions, Obama is second behind Paul in military donations) But saying obama is second isnt really saying much when you tally the numbers.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Troops marching on a nation's capital in support of a fringe politician is rarely a good sign.

Polling 10-20% support, consistently, is hardly fringe. His political positions are hardly fringe, as well.

Well, wait, I may be jumping the gun here. What do you mean by "fringe"?



Originally posted by Omega Vision
Now that's not to say that I think Ron Paul is a populist military dictator in the making, that would be ridiculous. Just that saying soldiers support someone isn't in of itself a good argument for why that person should be given power.

thumb up

But this is uhmerica. Having troop support is important for getting votes. 313

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
as amazing as it might sound, the words typed by someone thousands of miles away anonymously on the internet don't do much to ruin my day wink

ya dude, come north of the border and we can do this

A true gent. Very few people can set aside differences and agree to still share a bowl. Arguments can be serious business, but not THAT serious business.


Originally posted by inimalist
only if it is massively federalized in the way Paul wants it, and in what is largely consistent with American political history (ie, states have massive rights)

Libertarianism isn't, by default, against a centralized government that determines rights for the nation. They might be against forcing a doctor to perform one if they had a moral issue, but I don't think they are against the idea of rights that are applied at a national level

As I understand it, Paul wants less centralization and stronger reserved powers. He believes (and correctly so) that the reserved powers have been slowly eroded into a less efficient system. The Federal government should protect unalienable rights, for sure. But there are also rights that the Federal Gov. should not be making laws on.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
well, that might be relevant if I thought a federal government had the right to infringe those rights. Sure, in a hypothetical situation it might be easier to jump state lines than national ones, so long as both of those states uphold mobility rights and don't restrict travel, as they could now do.

So your argument against allowing states to decide more on rights is the potential for future state laws that restrict mobility?

Originally posted by inimalist
how much of an exodus of the tax base does a state take before it says nobody can move out?

Again...you're using non-existing laws to arguing against the point. That makes no sense.

If a state, via elected representatives, turns their state into a "ghost town", why would you care? Eventually, they'd "clean up" their ways. If states are forced to compete more for citizens, obviously, the constituents would eventually pull their head out of their *ss and stop making anti-people laws. That's part of why Oklahomans still elect democrats despite being the reddest state in the union during the 2008 election. smile

Originally posted by inimalist
you are just saying "you don't like oppression, just leave". That is not a moral position I think is worth supporting.

Yeah, it's not like our ancestors did just that when they didn't like something, in the US. I'm a Mormon...so my religion's history is rife with "**** it, we hate this state, this state and its people hate us...let's move." And they moved. Sure, thousands died in the move, but we hardly live in the era where thousands would die if they made a max state exodus.

But wait, there's more: remember the dust bowl in Oklahoma? Yeah, tens of thousands picked up and left Oklahoma for the western US. Sure, many died on the way there but far less died. Highway 66 is still "praised" in highschool history books, by the way.

So, yes, one can simply just pick up and go to another state if they hate the laws in their state. Depending on where you live, it's a 2-hour drive or less.




Originally posted by inimalist
so you would argue that all states in America would uphold a woman's right to her own body if they were given the ability to?

This is an argument that has beaten into the ground. The question to your question is:

"So you would argue that all states in America would uphold an unborn child's rights to life if the states allowed it?"

But to actually address your point: abortion rights are hardly seen as "unalienable" rights in the US. They are not guaranteed rights. As we progress with our technology, I think we will actually go back to a more conservative position on abortion and this supposed "liberal" movement about women's rights to their bodies will become nulled.

Originally posted by inimalist
like, you know the civil rights act, opposed by Paul, would have failed in a referendum. It would be cool, to you, if that had never passed because people didn't want it?

The Civil Rights Act is rife with problems. It is those problems that Paul opposed. If a bill has one thing wrong with it, Paul "no's
it. It either has to be all correct or struck down, according to Paul. He is disenfranchised with ear-marks or addendums being used to inappropriately or even unethically getting legislation passed by dishonest congressmen.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
Oh, no totally, I'm not saying I don't understand it as a propaganda tool, but more, questioning the culture behind it entirely.

To me it is really no different than saying any group supports anything, its a fallacious appeal to some authority rather than an examination of the policies for their own merits.

I agree. And, yes, I suspected, you were already aware of the "importance" of "troops support".

Originally posted by inimalist
(that being said, in terms of campaign contributions, Obama is second behind Paul in military donations)

I did not know that. That's...remarkable. The Paul machine has very peculiar support from specific groups.



And it seems that only person making points in this thread, is you. Mairuzu is admittedly tired of the debate and the others are making small "already heard" one-lines here and there.

Mairuzu
http://m.motherjones.com/files/images/military-donations-candidate500px.png





Combined.

Mairuzu
I was like damn yo

Omega Vision
I'm surprised at how little the total comes out to.

I'd think the armed forces and veterans would be donating around the $10 million mark at least.

Mairuzu
Troops are broke. We're in a recession yo

Mairuzu
http://m.motherjones.com/files/images/military-donations-branch500px.png

dadudemon
I have asked the Paul supporters before and I still do not understand it:

If Paul is about bringing troops home, reducing the Defense Budget, and reining in our foreign bases...why would the troops support him so much? Many people join the military for the adventure; with less adventure, why the support? Many people join to fight the "enemy"; if we stop doing that, why the support. Many people join up because of the career opportunities; with less career opportunities due to a reduced budget, why the support?

The reasons I have been given by friends and family that support Paul are non sequitur to the actual question I ask. "Because he is an honest man that is faithful to the constitution, bla bla bla." That hardly addresses my question. Or am I considering those two things to be separate but they are actually psychologically related? It would appear that Paul's policies on the US Military would breed contempt from the US armed forces. WTF?!?!?!?


Someone with a brain please explain this to me before I punch a guinea pig.

Lord Lucien
I wonder how many people sign up out of a desire to "defend" America, but aren't thinking of defending it's economic/foreign interests?

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have asked the Paul supporters before and I still do not understand it:

If Paul is about bringing troops home, reducing the Defense Budget, and reining in our foreign bases...why would the troops support him so much? Many people join the military for the adventure; with less adventure, why the support? Many people join to fight the "enemy"; if we stop doing that, why the support. Many people join up because of the career opportunities; with less career opportunities due to a reduced budget, why the support?

The reasons I have been given by friends and family that support Paul are non sequitur to the actual question I ask. "Because he is an honest man that is faithful to the constitution, bla bla bla." That hardly addresses my question. Or am I considering those two things to be separate but they are actually psychologically related? It would appear that Paul's policies on the US Military would breed contempt from the US armed forces. WTF?!?!?!?


Someone with a brain please explain this to me before I punch a guinea pig. I would wager that it's because most of those soldiers don't think the implications through to that level. If I was a soldier in Afghanistan and I heard that the President was ending the war, shortening the budget and bringing us all home, my thoughts would be "**** yeah I get to get out of this shit hole in one piece". Not "wait a minute a smaller budget means less military funding and hook-ups for me after I'm out of here".

edit- On an unrelated note, I'm having an argument with an anti-Call of Duty/Battlefield gamer who's stating that he doesn't understand why people who like "realistic shooters" don't just join the military.

It's kind of weird how there are so many people in the world who don't seem to really understand that choosing to join the military has a very high chance of ending with you getting the shit blown out of you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I would wager that it's because most of those soldiers don't think the implications through to that level. If I was a soldier in Afghanistan and I heard that the President was ending the war, shortening the budget and bringing us all home, my thoughts would be "**** yeah I get to get out of this shit hole in one piece". Not "wait a minute a smaller budget means less military funding and hook-ups for me after I'm out of here".

So why did they join up to begin with? AHA!

RE: Blaxican
Because there's a world of difference between seeing cool commercials on TV that show soldiers doing cool shit and getting paid lots of money to do it, and experiencing first hand what it's like to sit on your sweaty dehydrated ass doing nothing in the middle of the desert while getting shot at?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
edit- On an unrelated note, I'm having an argument with an anti-Call of Duty/Battlefield gamer who's stating that he doesn't understand why people who like "realistic shooters" don't just join the military.

It's kind of weird how there are so many people in the world who don't seem to really understand that choosing to join the military has a very high chance of ending with you getting the shit blown out of you. Well it makes sense, Call of Duty is as realistic as real life. Same goes for Halo--that's why Buzz Aldrin joined the NASA Marines: to fight aliens over control of the Moon oil.

dadudemon
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because there's a world of difference between seeing cool commercials on TV that show soldiers doing cool shit and getting paid lots of money to do it, and experiencing first hand what it's like to sit on your sweaty dehydrated ass doing nothing in the middle of the desert while getting shot at?

I don't know, man. Even you didn't seem that naive at 17. 313

I mean...I know people...but they aren't that dumb.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know, man. Even you didn't seem that naive at 17. 313

I mean...I know people...but they aren't that dumb.

They are.

rudester
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I would wager that it's because most of those soldiers don't think the implications through to that level. If I was a soldier in Afghanistan and I heard that the President was ending the war, shortening the budget and bringing us all home, my thoughts would be "**** yeah I get to get out of this shit hole in one piece". Not "wait a minute a smaller budget means less military funding and hook-ups for me after I'm out of here".

edit- On an unrelated note, I'm having an argument with an anti-Call of Duty/Battlefield gamer who's stating that he doesn't understand why people who like "realistic shooters" don't just join the military.

It's kind of weird how there are so many people in the world who don't seem to really understand that choosing to join the military has a very high chance of ending with you getting the shit blown out of you.

We know each other in real life dont we,,,,,,?????

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
They are.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for the clarification.

lol, though really, I do think a lot of people joining up have no clear understanding of how it will actually be, personally I don't think I can imagine how it would be.

Do you think that's wrong?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
lol, though really, I do think a lot of people joining up have no clear understanding of how it will actually be, personally I don't think I can imagine how it would be.

Do you think that's wrong?

I certainly do think there is some Naivete going on when they sign up, for sure.

However...when the recruiters come around to our highschool and tried to recruit ever abled bodied young man, multiple times, for the last 2 years of our highschool "career", the young men were HARDLY fooled. I could have been in a particularly isolated group of young men that were highly soclialized beings..........................but that's just complete and utter bullshit. lol! Right after wafting a fart at one of their homies, they would ask, "Did the recruiter try to sell the Army to you guys, too? Lol, what a douchebag."

So this is why I say young men are far from ignorant to what they sign up for.

The two young men from my class that DID sign up for the military were already planning to do so because that's what their fathers did (and they wanted to go into the family business...amirite? awesome ).



Back to my original question because you're smart people and may be able to answer: why do the military peeps support Ron Paul so strongly?

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://m.motherjones.com/files/images/military-donations-candidate500px.png





Combined.

the thing thats such a joke about our government being a free country is many people in the military have said they want to attend Pauls conventions and support him but their superiours they have said wont let them go and support him.The establishment is doing everything they can to keep Paul out of office and since we are not a government of the people like we are SUPPOSE to be where we serve them instead of them serving us like they are suppose to,they will rig the elections to make sure paul does not get in.they have already rigged many for their boy romney.seems like he is the CFR'S poster boy they want in now if not Obama for a second term.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have asked the Paul supporters before and I still do not understand it:

If Paul is about bringing troops home, reducing the Defense Budget, and reining in our foreign bases...why would the troops support him so much? Many people join the military for the adventure; with less adventure, why the support? Many people join to fight the "enemy"; if we stop doing that, why the support. Many people join up because of the career opportunities; with less career opportunities due to a reduced budget, why the support?

The reasons I have been given by friends and family that support Paul are non sequitur to the actual question I ask. "Because he is an honest man that is faithful to the constitution, bla bla bla." That hardly addresses my question. Or am I considering those two things to be separate but they are actually psychologically related? It would appear that Paul's policies on the US Military would breed contempt from the US armed forces. WTF?!?!?!?


Someone with a brain please explain this to me before I punch a guinea pig.



Soldiers are waking up to realize that they are not the enemy and that they are just growing in by the numbers while we continue to occupy their land. Drones have been killing innocents and they believe in "blowback".

I guess they are moral enough to sacrifice seeing the world with killing innocent people.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Soldiers are waking up to realize that they are not the enemy and that they are just growing in by the numbers while we continue to occupy their land. Drones have been killing innocents and they believe in "blowback".

I guess they are moral enough to sacrifice seeing the world with killing innocent people.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Soldiers are waking up to realize that they are not the enemy and that they are just growing in by the numbers while we continue to occupy their land. Drones have been killing innocents and they believe in "blowback".

I guess they are moral enough to sacrifice seeing the world with killing innocent people.
You really think that's the calculation most of these guys have made?

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You really think that's the calculation most of these guys have made?


Do you have a better answer to DDM's question? We already know he has a lot of military support (active and non active) and the question is why?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Do you have a better answer to DDM's question? We already know he has a lot of military support (active and non active) and the question is why?
Maybe that as humans they all have their own unique reasons for doing what they do and trying to nail down one answer to account for so many different people is folly?

Some of them may well support Paul due to his Anti-War stance, but many may just support him because of all five candidates he's the only one with real military experience, or something else entirely.

Mairuzu
It may seem folly to you but I'm bringing an answer nonetheless. My answer is based off the many videos I've seen of these veterans talking (and not to mention the veterans supporting and agreeing with the one talking)

I'm not just talking out of my ass here but thanks for the concern. stoned

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Mairuzu
It may seem folly to you but I'm bringing an answer nonetheless. My answer is based off the many videos I've seen of these veterans talking (and not to mention the veterans supporting and agreeing with the one talking)

I'm not just talking out of my ass here but thanks for the concern. stoned
A widespread survey would be much better than the assertions of a few people.

Most likely the ones getting interviewed are the most ideologically charged.

And that's a nice tone too, great way to build sympathy for your cause.

I'm a former Ron Paul supporter, I agree with a lot of what he says regarding foreign policy (I think he's misguided on some issues though), but every time you post you make me scrutinize what the man says closer because you can tell a lot about a politician from how his supporters behave.

Mairuzu
Quite a few people actually. A great deal of people. I wouldn't expect you to know just yet, I do a shit load of video watching here at work stoned


You better catch up.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Quite a few people actually. A great deal of people. I wouldn't expect you to know just yet, I do a shit load of video watching here at work stoned


You better catch up.
Have you tried watching videos that aren't on Ron Paul channels?

Also, the level of your condescension is ridiculous.

Mairuzu
Lol am I obsetting you in some way? I seem condescending to you? lol stoned Its alright bro. I'm just here giving out information, at ease soldier.


Wait... you want me to watch videos that don't have to do with ron paul to realize why the troops support him? What?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol am I obsetting you in some way? I seem condescending to you? lol stoned Its alright bro. I'm just here giving out information, at ease soldier.


Wait... you want me to watch videos that don't have to do with ron paul to realize why the troops support him? What?
Yes, you are being condescending. And immature. You're suffering from horrendous confirmation bias when it comes to Ron Paul.

Contrary to your belief, Ron Paul does appear on other You Tube channels.

Mairuzu
Lol you're entitled to your own opinion. Sorry that I effected your ego enough for you bring up an unrelated topic. Can we chill now? stoned

We are all entitled to our own opinions of course. I concider my opinion to be quite accurate due to the amount of time and months I've actually been studying this. You don't have to agree with me at all but this is what I'm bringing to the table.

Yeah such as AdamKokesh's channel. Yes I'm quite aware of the lot of them. But I don't see what your point is? Adamkokesh isn't a ron paul channel but its a channel supporting ron paul. So?



You're sort of making a big deal out of me saying that the troops are sick of a bullshit war and they believe in blowback.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol you're entitled to your own opinion. Sorry that I effected your ego enough for you bring up an unrelated topic. Can we chill now? stoned

We are all entitled to our own opinions of course. I concider my opinion to be quite accurate due to the amount of time and months I've actually been studying this. You don't have to agree with me at all but this is what I'm bringing to the table.

Yeah such as AdamKokesh's channel. Yes I'm quite aware of the lot of them. But I don't see what your point is? Adamkokesh isn't a ron paul channel but its a channel supporting ron paul. So?



You're sort of making a big deal out of me saying that the troops are sick of a bullshit war and they believe in blowback.
Nice ad hominems.

I'm making a "big deal" of you seeing only what you want to see and discrediting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you.

Mairuzu
crylaugh you're bringing up ad hominems. Thats some funny shit.

I'm not discrediting anything actually. Its simple. Ron Paul is the choice of the majority of troops compared to other candidates. There isn't really much for me to discredit.


I think you're just taking this a little too personally.

Omega Vision
You're in no position to talk about personal investment.

PM me if you want to continue this convo.

Mairuzu
Nah it just seems like a big ol dick measuring contest of personal attacks and the need for the other to be correct and to prove others wrong haermm


Its pretty much what KMC has always been about.

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu

I'm not discrediting anything actually. Its simple. Ron Paul is the choice of the majority of troops compared to other candidates. There isn't really much for me to discredit.


Factual? Or are you just saying that cos of those serving who are willing to donate, they donate more times to Paul? Which really just means Paul has more support from those service personal who are less Jewey.

There could be 10x more that support *other candidate*, but they just don't donate.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Robtard
Factual? Or are you just saying that cos of those serving who are willing to donate, they donate more times to Paul? Which really just means Paul has more support from those service personal who are less Jewey.

There could be 10x more that support *other candidate*, but they just don't donate. haermm okay

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
haermm okay

It was a question. Are you counting all service personal, or JUST those that donate to political campaigns?

Mairuzu
I was hoping you'd read it yourself. Listen, I'm already aware of your stance on Ron Paul and because I brought it to the table you feel the need to nit pick and every little thing I say. I play along because I'm bored at times but really?

Mairuzu
woops

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I was hoping you'd read it yourself. Listen, I'm already aware of your stance on Ron Paul and because I brought it to the table you feel the need to nit pick and every little thing I say. I play along because I'm bored at times but really?

Just a question; it's easily answered.

I really don't hate Ron Paul, I do find the hero-worship attributed to him by his fans to be hilarious, it's even more epic than the Obama-worship before the 2004 election.

Mairuzu
Wouldn't say hero like but hes definitely represeting something lots of people have been looking for in politics. Realism and not rhetoric.


Edit: People realize the major mistake they made by voting obama. With Paul they at least have a 30+ year consistant voting record along with videos of his predictions over the years.

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Wouldn't say hero like but hes definitely represeting something lots of people have been looking for in politics. Realism and not rhetoric.

I'd say hero fits perfectly in how some view him; it's just my view though.

But the question?

Mairuzu
The question is stupid tho~

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
The question is stupid tho~

So a dodge.

Mairuzu
Maybe not that stupid but its highly unlikely. You can't see that lol?



10x more support yet less than 10x donations? No rallys?
The other candidates only advocate more war. Seems silly.


Common sense.

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well not stupid but highly unlikely. You can't see that lol?

Unlikely? WTF, man.

Considering not every single military person donates(I'd guess less don't than do), it's silly to say: "Ron Paul has more of the support from the military than other candidates", if (this is the key word) you're only counting those personal who donate and not the military as a whole.

So, are you counting only those military personal who donate (and rally)?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Maybe that as humans they all have their own unique reasons for doing what they do and trying to nail down one answer to account for so many different people is folly?

With all opinions, it will be broken down into parts. However there is at least a "plurality" reason if not a majority reason as is the case with every thing like this. There are definitely not thousands of different reasons: there are probably 1 to 2 reasons that account for 70-80% of their support. I'm wanting to know what that is. Mairuzu's answer seems to be one of those, for sure: tired of the bullshit that they have witnessed first hand (and have seen the blowback) and want to put a stop to it. Makes sense.


I thought of another reason: his loyalty to the original "US Constitution" and his patriotism (because of his message) rings really well with people that are very patriotic...such as military personnel.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
Also, the level of your condescension is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol am I obsetting you in some way? I seem condescending to you? lol stoned Its alright bro. I'm just here giving out information, at ease soldier.

laughing laughing laughing




Omega Vision, this is the same dude that cut a black man off when exiting off of the highway and when the other dude flipped him off for doing so, Mairuzu responded with, "You're black!" laughing I'm not sure why...but that's just funny to me. Maybe because it's not an insult but he used it as one.


Originally posted by Robtard
Unlikely? WTF, man.

Considering not every single military person donates(I'd guess less don't than do), it's silly to say: "Ron Paul has more of the support from the military than other candidates", if (this is the key word) you're only counting those personal who donate and not the military as a whole.

So, are you counting only those military personal who donate (and rally)?

I think it is better to say that from the pool of donating military personnel, Ron Paul gets the most donations/attention. The argument is one of semantics, only, though. Like it is going to make a difference in the actual point: "Derp...Paul gets way more military support than the other GOP candidates."

Not sure why you're focusing on a non-issue.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
With all opinions, it will be broken down into parts. However there is at least a "plurality" reason if not a majority reason as is the case with every thing like this. There is definitely not thousands of different reasons: there are probably 1 to 2 reasons that account for 70-80% of their support. I'm wanting to know what that is. Mairuzu's answer seems to be one of those, for sure: tired of the bullshit that they have witnessed first hand (and have seen the blowback) and want to put a stop to it. Makes sense.


I thought of another reason: his loyalty to the original "US Constitution" and his patriotism (because of his message) rings really well with people that are very patriotic...such as military personnel.
I think you're oversimplifying human psychology, but then I'm not well-versed in psychology beyond the basics.

I don't think that all soldiers are thinking as much as you and Mai give them credit is what I'm saying. Personally, I think a good number of them are supporting Paul first and foremost because he's Ex-Military.

Mairuzu
Edit: To Rob.

Well the problem is your questions are based off nothing but assumptions while I provide you with evidence of support.

I don't recall seeing any other march for a candidate by our troops. That shit would have been all over the news non stop. First we had the main one, the march on the white house... and a decent size group here in california as well. I haven't checked on the other states yet if anyone else held a march but I wouldn't doubt it.


Originally posted by dadudemon



laughing laughing laughing




Omega Vision, this is the same dude that cut a black man off when exiting off of the highway and when the other dude flipped him off for doing so, Mairuzu responded with, "You're black!" laughing I'm not sure why...but that's just funny to me. Maybe because it's not an insult but he used it as one.

Lmfao you remember that shit? Well you sort of do. He actually cut me off. I was driving on the free way and I was barely entering it from the off ramp, not exiting. I was trying to catch up to traffic and there is this van in front of me so I change lanes because hes going too slow and this b**** gets in front of me right when IM about to pass him. Im like WHAT THE ****

So I swirve around him again to pass his ass up and his head is sticking out his window and hes shouting some crazy ritual shit and i'm looking at him like wtfff!?!?



...you're black!




Edit: But on topic, you're right DDM. They also support him for the consitution he follows and swore to because its the same one they swore to defend with their life as well.

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well the problem is your questions are based off nothing but assumptions while I provide you with evidence of support.

I don't recall seeing any other march for a candidate by our troops. That shit would have been all over the news non stop. First we had the main one, the march on the white house... and a decent size group here in california as well. I haven't checked on the other states yet if anyone else held a march but I wouldn't doubt it.

WTF, I am asking if you're counting all military personal, or just those that donate cash and rally? You continually avoid a direct answer.

If anyone making assumptions, it's you with your claim. If you're only counting a select few of the military and basing your stance on that.

Mairuzu
Dammit you jew, its cause you're asking a question you already have the answer to. You think I went over to all the US bases around the world and asked which ones didn't donate and which you support? **** no.


But it doesn't prove anything you're trying to claim at all. Typical strawman shit.


I'm giving you more evidence of support that doesn't have to do with donations. Smoke and your common sense will increase.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think you're oversimplifying human psychology, but then I'm not well-versed in psychology beyond the basics.


I think you mean scientific polling because that's what I was talking about and what I thought what you were talking about. I mean...sure, you can consider political polls to be part of human psychology I guess.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think that all soldiers are thinking as much as you and Mai give them credit is what I'm saying.

Clarification: about a third of my male acquaintances are either in the military or retired military. Of my family members, about a third of the males also are the same. For some reason, they overwhelmingly support Ron Paul...they are abnormally represented in that particular (military personnel) demographic from my personal perspective. Then I see that there is large support of Paul outside of my personal and narrow view of political support and it makes me think: Jeez...why do military people support Ron Paul so much?

So to directly address what you're saying above: I don't think you're giving the military personnel nearly enough credit for how much thought they have put into it. So much so that I find your position a tad insulting: they aren't stupid grunts, man. erm Sure, many of them may not be as smart and as educated as you but they are far from air-headed laymen that are jumping on a derp wagon.

For some reason...spending a few tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan make them support Ron Paul. Not universally, but abnormally so.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Personally, I think a good number of them are supporting Paul first and foremost because he's Ex-Military.

That does not account for the massive support he got in 2008, though: McCain was also ex-military but Ron Paul still shared an absurd disproportion of military support.

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Dammit you jew, its cause you're asking a question you already have the answer to. You think I went over to all the US bases around the world and asked which ones didn't donate and which you support? **** no.


But it doesn't prove anything you're trying to claim at all. Typical strawman shit.


I'm giving you more evidence of support that doesn't have to do with donations. Smoke and your common sense will increase.

So you're only counting a very select few of the military(campaign donators and rally goers) to base your claim on and not the whole. Got it.

Seems silly.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lmfao you remember that shit? Well you sort of do. He actually cut me off. I was driving on the free way and I was barely entering it from the off ramp, not exiting. I was trying to catch up to traffic and there is this van in front of me so I change lanes because hes going too slow and this b**** gets in front of me right when IM about to pass him. Im like WHAT THE ****

So I swirve around him again to pass his ass up and his head is sticking out his window and hes shouting some crazy ritual shit and i'm looking at him like wtfff!?!?



...you're black!


Oh, so that's how the story went? It's been years since you told that story in the OTF.

Also, my version is better. schmoll




Originally posted by Mairuzu
Edit: But on topic, you're right DDM. They also support him for the consitution he follows and swore to because its the same one they swore to defend with their life as well.

It's possible that it is an all of the above thing, really. Like.....maybe 70-80% of them (the ones that donated money) support Ron Paul because:

1. The Backlash from our atrocities.

2. The seeming military corruption at times.

3. Their parallel feelings of upholding the Constitution (parallel with Ron Paul).

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Robtard
So you're only counting a very select few of the military(campaign donators and rally goers) to base your claim on and not the whole. Got it.

Seems silly.


Yeah I figured you would see it that way. I'll leave it to you to do the number crunching since you're so interested in seeing how many DONT support paul compared to how many that do despite lack of support from any other candidate. stoned



Why does it seem silly though? Whats silly about me showing this march on the white house rally? Its what I came in here to do afterall lol.

dadudemon
Can the apathetic voter be considered against a certain candidate, though?

AHA!


Some would argue that the apathetic voter is automatically against the candidate. Some would argue that the apathetic voter should not be counted. Some would argue that the person should count for both (for and against). And, finally, I argue that they do not count at all in anyway by reason of "they literally are not counted when the votes come in".

Mairuzu
Basically

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you mean scientific polling because that's what I was talking about and what I thought what you were talking about. I mean...sure, you can consider political polls to be part of human psychology I guess.



Clarification: about a third of my male acquaintances are either in the military or retired military. Of my family members, about a third of the males also are the same. For some reason, they overwhelmingly support Ron Paul...they are abnormally represented in that particular (military personnel) demographic from my personal perspective. Then I see that there is large support of Paul outside of my personal and narrow view of political support and it makes me think: Jeez...why do military people support Ron Paul so much?

So to directly address what you're saying above: I don't think you're giving the military personnel nearly enough credit for how much thought they have put into it. So much so that I find your position a tad insulting: they aren't stupid grunts, man. erm Sure, many of them may not be as smart and as educated as you but they are far from air-headed laymen that are jumping on a derp wagon.

For some reason...spending a few tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan make them support Ron Paul. Not universally, but abnormally so.



That does not account for the massive support he got in 2008, though: McCain was also ex-military but Ron Paul still shared an absurd disproportion of military support.
I wasn't insulting the military, just people in general. I do think that there are various reasons for why people adopt causes, many of them beyond any ideological inclinations.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wasn't insulting the military, just people in general. I do think that there are various reasons for why people adopt causes, many of them beyond any ideological inclinations.



I agree. Look at obama and romney supporters haermm

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yeah I figured you would see it that way. I'll leave it to you to do the number crunching since you're so interested in seeing how many DONT support paul compared to how many that do despite lack of support from any other candidate. stoned



Why does it seem silly though? Whats silly about me showing this march on the white house rally? Its what I came in here to do afterall lol.

Except I didn't make the claim of "Ron Paul has more supporters in the military than other candidates". You did, so I'm not the one that has to support their claim.

I'm asking how you came to that conclusion based on what seems to be a very limited scope of people.

No, the march is fine, drawing conclusions for a whole group(the military) from it is what is silly.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wasn't insulting the military, just people in general. I do think that there are various reasons for why people adopt causes, many of them beyond any ideological inclinations.

I think the military personnel would be offended by your sentiments. That was all I was commenting on, there.

But, I also think their support can be boiled down to a very small grouping. I do not think we'll be able to come to an agreement, here, so we should probably agree to disagree, if you want.



Originally posted by Robtard
Except I didn't make the claim of "Ron Paul has more supporters in the military than other candidates". you did.

I'm asking how you came to that conclusion based on what seems to be a very limited scope of people.


I do not understand your point, anymore, Rob. It doesn't make sense. I think the answer to your question is obvious: "Because out of the politically active military personnel, Ron Paul enjoys a majority". That fairly soundly addresses your question, imo. No other assertions need to be made.

Or are you saying that out of the politically active military, there's some other phenomena going on that is independent of Ron Paul and the correlation is throwing things out of wack or being misunderstood?

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Robtard
Except I didn't make the claim of "Ron Paul has more supporters in the military than other candidates". You did, so I'm not the one that has to support their claim.

I'm asking how you came to that conclusion based on what seems to be a very limited scope of people.


I guess it depends on your definition of support stoned

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the military personnel would be offended by your sentiments. That was all I was commenting on, there.

But, I also think their support can be boiled down to a very small grouping. I do not think we'll be able to come to an agreement, here, so we should probably agree to disagree, if you want.
Well I'm an Air Force Brat, I've learned that it's impossible not to offend the military at some point. uhuh

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I guess it depends on your definition of support stoned

Nope.

Mairuzu
But it really does.

Donations = Support. Ron Paul got the highest amount of donations from active military.


Being active = Support. Troops from california to D.C. creating rallies and marches to express their support for ron paul. Reaching as far as obama door step to express they want him out.



Your denial is amazing.




Edit: Perry was also military and had horrible support as you can tell. Funny thing is, before he brought in the towel, Perry started to mimic most of Paul's ideas during the live debates. Didn't work out so well.

Robtard
Your ability to assume connections with minimal proof is what is amazing.

Again, you're counting the military as a whole (the very large), based on the actions of those who donated (the small). There are about 1.4million active people in the military, about how many of those do you think donated to political campaigns?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Your ability to assume connections with minimal proof is what is amazing.

Again, you're counting the military as a whole (the very large), based on the actions of those who donated (the small). There are about 1.4million active people in the military, about how many of those do you think donated to political campaigns?

Robtard, look at my last post on the previous page, por favor. Unless your goal is not to have your questions actually answered*, I think the topic has been beaten to death, at this point.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard, look at my last post on the previous page, por favor. Unless your goal is not to have your questions actually answered*, I think the topic has been beaten to death, at this point.

I did and I agree with your assessment, as you're not including the military as a whole; simply those who donate and/or are politically active in rallies and such.

Rookwood
True

Symmetric Chaos
I think its mostly the ones with TBIs. The new helmets that protect better against brain damage are a way to reduce support for Ron Paul.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Robtard
I did and I agree with your assessment, as you're not including the military as a whole; simply those who donate and/or are politically active in rallies and such.

Lol who ever claimed "military as a whole"?


Having fun beating them straws?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think its mostly the ones with TBIs. The new helmets that protect better against brain damage are a way to reduce support for Ron Paul.

mean

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Thoren
The media hates Ron Paul. Well they hate anyone who isn't a government puppet.

I never would have guessed YOU knew that. the world is full of surprises. eek!

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>