Bravo, Newt! Hope It's True.

[pspr]

Quote from DAS Trader:

There is a picture of me in uniform on this forum. Let's see yours.

Will that further your argument for Ron Paul?

Paul has no chance of being the nominee. He has no chance of getting his stupid policies voted into law.

Take a look at this that was posted in a newsletter under his name in the '90s. Although he says he didn't write them, they are probably his and would certainly be tied to him in a presidential election (which will never happen in this country).

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/...rs_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

 

[DemZad]

Quote from pspr:

Will that further your argument for Ron Paul.

Paul has no chance of being the nominee. He has no chance of getting his stupid policies voted into law.

Take a look at this that was posted in a newsletter under his name in the '90s. Although he says he didn't write them, they are probably his and would certainly be tied to him in a presidential election (which will never happen in this country).

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/...rs_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

It will further my credentials, as compared to your lack of credentials, in matters of foreign policy. You see my youngling, I've been an instrument of our foreign policy. I've been to some of the countries we are talking about. Have you? You've intimated several times that you've served so have you or haven't you?

I have. Ron Paul has. Ron Paul receives more support and donations from active and retired military than all other GOP candidates combined, including our Commander in Chief who's unconstitutional policies you seem to want to defend. You attempt to pass yourself off as a conservative but you defend the socialist. Do you f*cking suffer from schizophrenia or what?

Now, the newsletters, which even the NAACP defended Ron Paul against, can you prove he wrote them or even saw them before they were published? Because if you can, I suggest hiring yourself out to the serial adulterer and advocate for hire (Gingrich). Otherwise, and again, you are simply talking out of your ass.

 

[pspr]

Quote from DAS Trader:

It will further my credentials, as compared to your lack of credentials, in matters of foreign policy. You see my youngling, I've been an instrument of our foreign policy. I've been to some of the countries we are talking about. Have you? You've intimated several times that you've served so have you or haven't you?

I have. Ron Paul has. Ron Paul receives more support and donations from active and retired military than all other GOP candidates combined, including our Commander in Chief who's unconstitutional policies you seem to want to defend. You attempt to pass yourself off as a conservative but you defend the socialist. Do you f*cking suffer from schizophrenia or what?

Now, the newsletters, which even the NAACP defended Ron Paul against, can you prove he wrote them or even saw them before they were published? Because if you can, I suggest hiring yourself out to the serial adulterer and advocate for hire (Gingrich). Otherwise, and again, you are simply talking out of your ass.

You are just really ignorant. I'm putting you on ignore because I really have a problem continuing to read poor arguments from people with low comprehension like yourself. You just don't know.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from pspr:

You are just really ignorant. I'm putting you on ignore because I really have a problem continuing to read poor arguments from people with low comprehension like yourself. You just don't know.

Just as I thought, you are a chickenhawk armchair punk. Good day to you and thank you for proving my assertions regarding your character, by omission.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from pspr:

I was going to quote you but then realized you had nothing to say. It was just jibberish. Who are you with your 47 posts. Optional377 perhaps?

No matter. Out of the box this stupid is worthy of being on ignore. So be it.

LOL ... ad hominem at all lately? I could have ZERO posts, either what I say is true and accurate or it is not. Instead of addressing what is being said, you ramble on about 47 posts. Then to put the cherry on top, you say something about "ignoring".

Go hang out with the bureaucrats err technocrats err assocrats err whatever. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from pspr:

You have no idea. But if that is your only retort, I was correct in my previous assessment of you.

Once again, just stating things like you are God and offering no proof.

How about this:

YOU have no idea. But if that is your only retort, I was correct in my previous assessment of you.

LOL ... see? Do you get it yet or are you here on auto pilot, brain put on hold in storage?

 

[traderwann]

Take a look at this that was posted in a newsletter under his name in the '90s. Although he says he didn't write them, they are probably his and would certainly be tied to him in a presidential election (which will never happen in this country).

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/...rs_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS [/B]

Lots of people write things or think things and then change their mind. I'm sure you and me and everyone else is the same. I've been deluded into thinking stupid things and then on MY OWN figured out they were wrong. The world isn't perfect.

If you want to talk about saying stupid stuff, focus on Newt and the establishment puppets. They have more ghosts and dirty laundry in their closet than all of us put together. Like how about divorcing your wife when she is dying of cancer? Sounds great?

 

[traderwann]

Quote from pspr:

You are just really ignorant. I'm putting you on ignore because I really have a problem continuing to read poor arguments from people with low comprehension like yourself. You just don't know.

LOL. The ignorant (i.e. uninformed) person here is the one who can't back up what they say. Who call people names and then think that is proof. Who say other people have poor arguments when they can't even argue with an intelligent 8 year old.

Here about about this:

YOU just don't know. Ok? No proof. No comments. No arguments. Just statements of non-fact represented as fact. Just because I said so. Man oh man where did you ever go to school and how awful were your teachers to never show you anything of value? I feel sorry for you.

Ignore yourself. That would help more.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from traderwann:

LOL. The ignorant (i.e. uninformed) person here is the one who can't back up what they say. Who call people names and then think that is proof. Who say other people have poor arguments when they can't even argue with an intelligent 8 year old.

Here about about this:

YOU just don't know. Ok? No proof. No comments. No arguments. Just statements of non-fact represented as fact. Just because I said so. Man oh man where did you ever go to school and how awful were your teachers to never show you anything of value? I feel sorry for you.

Ignore yourself. That would help more.

At least he was entertaining...but like all establishment shills, he is short on substance on long on bullsh*t.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from DAS Trader:

It will further my credentials, as compared to your lack of credentials, in matters of foreign policy. You see my youngling, I've been an instrument of our foreign policy. I've been to some of the countries we are talking about. Have you? You've intimated several times that you've served so have you or haven't you?

I have. Ron Paul has. Ron Paul receives more support and donations from active and retired military than all other GOP candidates combined, including our Commander in Chief who's unconstitutional policies you seem to want to defend. You attempt to pass yourself off as a conservative but you defend the socialist. Do you f*cking suffer from schizophrenia or what?

Now, the newsletters, which even the NAACP defended Ron Paul against, can you prove he wrote them or even saw them before they were published? Because if you can, I suggest hiring yourself out to the serial adulterer and advocate for hire (Gingrich). Otherwise, and again, you are simply talking out of your ass.

So you have to be a vet with a well-worn passport to have creds?

I say Ron Paul is a kook. Or alternatively he could be called an islamofascist apologist and hopelessly ignorant isolationist without the first clue as to how to run an economy or world affairs. He is kinda like Barrack Obama in that regard.

Either way he is better suited as a democrat and he should have simply challenged Obama in a democratic primary. American conservatives would *never* nominate a nut-covered-cheese-log like Ron Paul I assure you.

He'll probably run some kind of half-assed independent campaign and throw the election to Obama and be relegated to the embittered-crackpot category like Ralph Nader.