Because he specialized in gynecology later, he could have been an air force/national guard doctor for 5 years? Is there any legitimacy to your claim? What's it based on? You think gynecology and delivering babies is funny, so you wrote about it in a post? Why should we care?

You claim a discrepancy between his "supposed" donations and his "supposed" supporters and actual votes received. Based on what figures? How is his getting 10x the military contributions of other candidates a bad thing? What poll shows him not getting many military votes? What is your basis for the claim that the "vast majority" stay away from him?

You're just making vague accusations because you've openly stated that you have no defense of your conservatism against libertarian ideals. You don't even try to argue your positions. You've stated 0 basis for any of your claims here.

Rage rage rage. He doesn't think the federal government should be the bedroom police. Rage rage rage. He doesn't support sending our young men off to die. Rage rage rage. He votes against things that my beloved Republicans vote for. Must use vague accusations to pretend this is WORSE than voting for those bills.

Sure, he's a dirty politician. But you hate him because he's LESS dirty than your beloved bedroom police war-monger corporate whore sheep-herder masters. So you use vague insults and rage about him.

You failed to respond to some of the points I would make in previous threads.

You failed to provide any backing for your statements here, even when I questioned your basis for specific ones in this thread.

This is getting really boring, with you immediately conceding my every point.

Your right to move your hand ends where my nose begins. Nuff said.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=28233

99 donors last Presidential Election claimed they were in the military. At least one was a Ron Paul Staffer.

This election so far has interesting numbers.

http://www.redstate.com/kudzu630/2012/01/21/ron-pauls-lack-of-military-support/

In military towns his support actually DROPS.

http://www.examiner.com/article/ron-paul-s-military-support-awol-south-carolina-exit-polls-say

In fact ALL OTHER CANDIDATES did better than Ron Paul in military votes.

Ron Paul is a bag of lies, where your a bag of gas.

Oh and a REMF is a Rear Echelon Mother [fixer-upper].

They get little respect from front line guys like me (infantry and combat engineers).

But he was a REMF of REMF's! He was an air force gynocologist. There was a 0% chance he would be put in a combat theatre. He was more an outsider wearing a uniform than a soldier. In short he was a [gynecologist] working on [providing services to people in need of gynecological assistance].

Any soldier who checks his milhistory would mock him. He ain't a soldier, and in our minds he ain't a vet.

You're right. He's far worse than corporate-whore socialist war-monger Republicans because he's a politician who doesn't necessarily get the military support he claims and wasn't in combat.

So he wasn't on the front lines. Most service members weren't. It takes a lot of support staff to wage war. Are cooks (who are weapon-trained) on vessels which are not attacked not service members, because they got lucky and weren't on the front lines? You're arguing that the doctors to pilots aren't service members, as if his job wasn't important or necessary.

"Any soldier who checks his milhistory would mock him. He ain't a soldier, and in our minds he ain't a vet."

What front-line experience do you have to make these claims? Who are you to tell us that soldiers do not consider non-combat personnel "vets"? If they get lucky and they aren't sent to/near the front-lines, they never served? And why does it matter how specifically we define "vet"? Ron Paul hasn't claimed to have fought in war-zones or on front-lines, so what's the relevance of reminding us that he didn't?

It's all well and good that you don't want to give him credit for front-line experience he doesn't have. But it's indisputable that he has more military experience than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum put together. How is his lack of front-line experience a legitimate attack on Ron Paul? This still leaves him with more military service than all of your beloved Republicrats combined. Why does this make us hate Ron Paul, again?

Btw leaving the other points huh? According to your language that's conceding...

Why are we even debating his military efforts? If anyone i would say that anyone running for office is better qualified if they have more real life experience, that of business and more relevant issues than battle.

Military service can be a sign of a lot of things, Noir. Service, sacrifice, discipline, proficiency of command (kinda wish someone had verified Obama didn't have this before the election), world travel experience, etc. While it's certainly not required for public office, for these reasons it's generally considered very desirable in a candidate. The President of the United States of America is the Commander in Chief of its armed forces. People like knowing that the commander of our armed forces knows a thing or two about service, sacrifice, and command.

In this case, Einstein is arguing that it's a negative that Ron Paul never served in combat. He has't posted a reason why, just cried about it.

He similarly referenced Rick Perry w/o reason. Rick Perry never saw combat either, I don't think. (sorry, I couldn't care less) And he was in the race for all of 30 seconds and dropped out long before the others I mentioned. Supposedly it's relevant that I didn't mention Rick Perry (what point does mentioning him make?). Presumably it's not; that was just more pointless crying.

Einstein,
You want me to prove that 16 trillion dollars of debt is bad?

You want me to prove that a bunch of guys who support massive deficit spending are bad?

You want me to prove that war-mongering is bad?

Wow you're a big-government liberal who doesn't even respect human life. I have already explained why I detest your socialist views in a thread you started asking for my views. I will not repeat my explanation here. As for your willingness to get our young men and women killed for corporate interests, that's just disgusting.

What argument? You haven't made one. You've never told us why it's supposedly a negative that Ron Paul never saw combat.

You're arguing now that Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney are all good guys? They're all supporters of our massive deficit spending--easily the biggest problem America faces--while Paul speaks out against it regularly.

What are you asking for? Santorum was a big spending senator. It's a fact. Gingrich balanced the budget--I respect that--but he's a juvenile little man. He runs whatever ads and says whatever his advisors and focus groups tell him will poll, and even says stupid, ignorant things they'd surely tell him not to, given the chance. OMFG ROMNEY MADE MONEY OHNOES CAPITALISM IS BAD! OH WAIT I <3 CAPITALISM! He's not serious. You must be joking.

If you think those 4 aren't clowns, you must think our debt is imaginary and what we're doing is sustainable and responsible.

"In the case of the KKK, it's easily understood they were confused about "evil" and employed terrorism to get their way. So they really aren't a relevant example.
Last edited by Justinian I (Yesterday 14:57:37)"

Not in the 1920s.  After the first generation of Klansmen who joined to basically keep fighting the Civil War, it became a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant special interest group and militia.  Mayors and Governors ran as Klansmen.  They paraded in the streets of DC in the 1920s wearing their hoods.  They helped keep Al Smith, a Catholic, out of the White House and their help was welcomed.   

And again, while people were certainly compelled to offer support for the Klan, no question, nobody HAD to join.

That you think this massive political movement is no relevant example, just shows you don't understand how freedom works.  People need to believe they are living within the rules.  It is not a question of whether we have rules -- you can't stop people from imposing them on themselves.  I It's a question of what rules we enforce.  There's no point being ashamed of it.

The idea that anybody could see the Klan was cruel and evil, is bogus.  Plenty didn't.  That point of view had to be imposed on the country by outlawing the Klan and breaking it up with the force of law.

The use of government force against the Klan is well documented, and so, no, you don't get to come back after force was used and say "Oh but it's repressed by peaceful means" any more than you could pretend the Brits don't run the US because of our good relations with the UK.

Ahhhhhh so you bold libertarians oppose murder, kidnapping, torture etc, you just demand the right of people to join Hooded Murder Torturers Klub! Hurray