Rudy wouldn't understand terrorism if it hit him with a plane on 9/11. Oh...

[Richard Masters]

Rudy wouldn't understand terrorism if it hit him with a plane on IX.XI. Oh...

0.81818181818181818181818181818182

So why is anybody voting for him? Isn't this supposed to be an important issue this election? Do we really need more wars of aggression and an authoritarian retard for president?

After all, to Rudy, anybody who opposes Israel, or is Muslim is a terrorist.

Then, there's McCain who is interested in a 100 year war in Iraq

He must have forgotten the pain of his own facial reconstruction.

And I won't mention Hillary who is in bed with the defense industry and AIPAC.

My prediction for 2008, 2009? Reps win with John McCain if Hillary gets the nomination. Dems win with Obama unless Ron Paul gets the nomination.

If Giuliani, McCain or Hillary win the presidency, prepare for an extended stay in Iraq, and a new confrontation with Iran.

If Romney or Obama get elected, get ready for wish-washy foreign policies.

Of course, if you are looking for World War IV and more super-dogmatic authoritarianism, vote for Rudy Giuliani.

 

[Kerberos]

My prediction for 2008, 2009? Reps win with John McCain if Hillary gets the nomination. Dems win with Obama unless Ron Paul gets the nomination.

You aren't seriously suggesting that Ron Paul would win against Obama (or Clinton or Edwards) are you? You need to get a grip, supporting RP is just strange. Actually thinking he has a chance in hell of winning the normination, let alone the national election is downright delusional.

 

[mortimer]

unless Ron Paul gets the nomination.

 

[Richard Masters]

You aren't seriously suggesting that Ron Paul would win against Obama (or Clinton or Edwards) are you? You need to get a grip, supporting RP is just strange. Actually thinking he has a chance in hell of winning the normination, let alone the national election is downright delusional.

Do you understand what conditional logic is? The point of my post isn't whether Ron Paul has a chance, but the stupidity of voting for Giuliani, Hillary or McCain.

 

[Kerberos]

Do you understand what conditional logic is? The point of my post isn't whether Ron Paul has a chance, but the stupidity of voting for Giuliani, Hillary or McCain.

In that case you don't speak Englsih very well, for your education the sentence "Dems win with Obama unless Ron Paul gets the nomination." implies that Obama might not win if the republicans nominate Ron Paul. A suggestion that is only plausible isofar that norminating RP would cause the world to colapse into a singalarity.

As for the rest of your "points" you could try to make them without blatantly misquoting McCain. As for Gulliani your Godwinization makes my eyes bleed so I'll pass pass on reading that link, but somehow I doubt he sai that.

 

[Richard Masters]

In that case you don't speak Englsih very well, for your education the sentence "Dems win with Obama unless Ron Paul gets the nomination."

And that's exactly what I meant.

implies that Obama might not win if the republicans nominate Ron Paul. A suggestion that is only plausible isofar that norminating RP would cause the world to colapse into a singalarity.

Yes, I really doubt people are going to "norminate RP" [sic]. That doesn't break my argument. Sorry.

As for the rest of your "points" you could try to make them without blatantly misquoting McCain.

You mean I should try to avoid using hyperbole? Like your assertion that the world is going to "colapse" [sic] into "singalararity" [sic]?

As for Gulliani your Godwinization makes my eyes bleed so I'll pass pass on reading that link, but somehow I doubt he sai that.

You doubt who "sai" [sic] what?

You want Godwinization? Here is some Godwinization for you:

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/rudy-mussolini-1.png

 

[Brainster]

Do you understand what conditional logic is? The point of my post isn't whether Ron Paul has a chance, but the stupidity of voting for Giuliani, Hillary or McCain.

You've said that McCain would win against Hillary, so why is a vote for him stupid?

Paul would get crushed by any of the Democrats, even his soul-brother, Dennis Kucinich. Not that we have to worry about that.

 

[Upchurch]

Double Godwin'd in less than 40 minutes.

 

[Richard Masters]

You've said that McCain would win against Hillary, so why is a vote for him stupid?

Because, like Giuliani, he doesn't seem to understand terrorism.

Paul would get crushed by any of the Democrats, even his soul-brother, Dennis Kucinich. Not that we have to worry about that.

Not relevant to my argument.

 

[Richard Masters]

Double Godwin'd in less than 40 minutes.

True, but it's not always a fallacy. It's just bad form. By the way, the first picture is from an actual article published by "The American Conservative".

 

[Kerberos]

And that's exactly what I meant.

Which demonstrates you're delusional.

Yes, I really doubt people are going to "norminate RP" [sic]. That doesn't break my argument. Sorry.

Still with the non-sequitur, and you can't even think of a better one than pointing out spelling mistakes an typos. So we have establoshed that I can't spell in a foreign language and you have no grasp of political realities. I don't think that comparison comes out in your facour, particuarly not if you don't speak a foreign language better than I speak English.

You mean I should try to avoid using hyperbole? Like your assertion that the world is going to "colapse" [sic] into "singalararity" [sic]?

No, you should just try to have your post contain something substantial as well, at least if you want to be taken seriously, Of cause that never seemed to be the highest priotiry of RP bots.,

You doubt who "sai" [sic] what?

Gulliany, do you have some brain defect that cause you to be aunable to unsderstand a normal sentence the moment it contains a typo?

You want Godwinization? Here is some Godwinization for you:

No thanks, I prefered the other one, at least it wasn't in oversized format.

 

[Kerberos]

You've said that McCain would win against Hillary, so why is a vote for him stupid?

Because he is not the almighty PR, Praise be his name!

 

[Tailgater]

Do you understand what conditional logic is?

Is it being strapped to a chair, having your eyes taped open, while Paulites chant, "Giuliani is a Nazi" in the background?

 

[WildCat]

In the pic in the OP Rudy is holding a book entitled "World War IV". Dis I sleep through WW III?

 

[Richard Masters]

Which demonstrates you're delusional.

I'm delusional because I think Ron Paul has a better chance among Republicans of beating Obama *IF* Ron Paul were to win the nomination? Care to elaborate? Or are you still having difficulty understanding what "IF" means?

Still with the non-sequitur, and you can't even think of a better one than pointing out spelling mistakes an typos. So we have establoshed that I can't spell in a foreign language and you have no grasp of political realities. I don't think that comparison comes out in your facour, particuarly not if you don't speak a foreign language better than I speak English.

I don't mean to disappoint you again, but I do speak several languages, and one of them more fluently than English. You have decided to go after Ron Paul, even though that's not even the point of my main post, nor do you seem to understand what *IF* means.

No, you should just try to have your post contain something substantial as well, at least if you want to be taken seriously, Of cause that never seemed to be the highest priotiry of RP bots.,

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is not even about Ron Paul, so why do you continue to bring him up? Is it because the only way you can argue is by straw man arguments?

Gulliany, do you have some brain defect that cause you to be aunable to unsderstand a normal sentence the moment it contains a typo?

No, it's just that I didn't misquote Giuliani, so I was wondering what you were referring to.

No thanks, I prefered the other one, at least it wasn't in oversized format.

So may I ask, why exactly do you support Giuliani? Is it because his lack of understanding of foreign policy appeals to you?

 

[Richard Masters]

In the pic in the OP Rudy is holding a book entitled "World War IV". Dis I sleep through WW III?

You should ask "The American Conservative" Magazine. I think it was either Gingrich or Rumsfeld who suggested we are at WW III.

However, my personal take is that Rudy would start both WW III and WW IV. After all, he has the terroristic mindset for it.

 

[Kerberos]

In the pic in the OP Rudy is holding a book entitled "World War IV". Dis I sleep through WW III?

WW3 was the Cold war. Or else it was the Korean War. Oe possibly it was the war against terror. It all depends on what is politically or rethorically convenient for the speaker. The Napoleonic wars get no love for some reason.

 

[Suddenly]

WW3 was the Cold war. Or else it was the Korean War. Oe possibly it was the war against terror. It all depends on what is politically or rethorically convenient for the speaker. The Napoleonic wars get no love for some reason.

No No No....

WWIII was when the trilateral commission, the federal reserve, and George Bush's college fraternity joined to secretly overthrow all freedom loving governments and leave behind puppet regimes dedicated to making free people slaves to international bankers.

WWIV is when Rudy invades Iran, Nepal, and Belgum to further hide that the American People lost WWIII...

 

[Richard Masters]

No No No....

WWIII was when the trilateral commission, the federal reserve, and George Bush's college fraternity joined to secretly overthrow all freedom loving governments and leave behind puppet regimes dedicated to making free people slaves to international bankers.

WWIV is when Rudy invades Iran, Nepal, and Belgum to further hide that the American People lost WWIII...

You CTist.

 

[rtalman]

Who the hell cares about Giuliani? He has negligible popularity west of the Hudson River.