I know of one at least outspoken donor who refuses to answer a simple YES or NO question.
That's a lie. Many times I have stated my support for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader. Many have seen me support these folks before. What Part of "I support Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader don't you understand?
Especially RP and DK who both speak against and voted against the invasion authorizations and voted against all the war up-funding bills, (while your man Obama voted for all the war up-funding bills). RP and DK have hands down the strongest anti-war voting records in all of Congress...It's interesting to me that you cannot tell the difference between the strongest anti-war voting records in Congress, and Obama's mirror opposite Pro-war upfunding voting record,
(plus he has clearly tripled the Afpak wars). The strongest anti-war voting record in Congress and you accuse him of being pro war, while you back Obama, the war voter, war tripler.
It's odd that you knock RP as being pro-war with his strongest in Congress antiwar voting record, while you push war voter, war tripler Obama. Maybe thats what happens when you listen to too much Democrat propaganda? Are you still listening to Air America?Dear forumers,
I highly recommend you don't read this post
because the method that SPACEBROTHER is trying to get away with is to avoid answering my key question by throwing out an explosion of distraction to get people to be so sick of seeing his snowstorm (or even get people to blame me
for debunking some of it), that he successfully gets away from answering the one key question I have asked, (that he cannot answer).So it's not necessary to read this post; this post is only to service SPACEBROTHER:
Well, SPACEBROTHER, again you have claimed to have already answered the question:How can you claim you don't vote for war escallations when you voted for and continue to support Obama who has greatly escallated (tripled), the Afghan and Pakistan wars.
If you have already answered it, then again I'll challenge you: please copy and paste the answer in because I haven't seen any answer. Claiming you have answered a question multiple times, answering other questions that were not asked, giving me repeated questions to answer, or attacking RP or me personally are all not answers to the above question.
So if you say you've answered it, I'm calling you on it, I say you haven't. All I see is spam about other things. Prove me wrong with a simple copy and paste, I say you can't do it because you are bullshitting about having answered that question before, there is nothing to copy and paste.You voted for, and continue to support the great war escallator Obama, yet you say you don't vote to escallate wars. If both those facts are true (and they are), then that is hypocracy. I figure I ought to give you benefit of doubt and give you an opportunity to answer to defend yourself, but the answer has to go to the question, it can't be RP or baddy attacks, or answers to other questions that were not asked.
Actually I no longer give a shit if you answer it or not, your non answer is answer enough, it's enough for the forum to see you "charged" with hypocracy about voting for and supporting Obama and his killing of thousands of innocents, and failing to defend yourself, (they haven't seen an answer either). Besides, arrcee is right with his proverb advice, you are not going to answer the question.
So, I can warn people when you tell them to vote for Obama but don't tell them about the nasty war escallating, thousands of innocent civillian killing, part of your pro-war voting advice.
As long as they know, as long as you can't trick them into voting for Obama's wars without somebody telling them what you are leaving out.
My beef is you tell people to vote to kill thousands of my innocent brothers abroad without telling them about the killing part of your voting advice...and now I can just bump this thread to warn them about what you didn't tell them.
(Huck, that is actually the primary reason for this thread).
And now, since we're in a dedicated thread that you can spam as much as you want and it won't fuck up other threads...
As claimed before, I did answer your multi-repeat question about supporting Ron Paul. Not only will I answer it again now, but I will also copy and paste one of my previous answers, and post a link to it to show where I answered it before.
I will also answer about those stupid bills you put in that are supposed to be RP pro-war bills, were you hoping people wouldn't look them up?
Perhaps in return you will also copy and paste where you supposidly answered the voting/supporting for Obama and his Afpak war escallations while you claim to not consiously vote for war escallations uestion?
This is what I wrote before when SPACEBROTHER was again repeating to ask me about my RP support...the same question again and again in the Breaking News thread.
Although it was written last week for the breaking news thread but I didn't post it beacuse the answer to the explosion of SPACEBROTHERS "question evasion spam" is of course spam.
But seeing it's still coming, maybe this'll stop it, (or at least get SPACEBROTHER to post some new question evasion spam).
From last week, but not posted:
I'm really sorry to have to do this, but I've stayed off the forum for more than week but SPACEBROTHERS baddy and RP attacks just keep on coming, (lol, I think I created a snow machine when I asked SPACEBROTHER how he gets off claiming he doesn’t vote to escallate wars while at the same time he voted for and supports Obama and his tripling of the Afpak wars).
So dear forumers: I VERY STRONGLY RECOMMEND JUST SKIPPING RIGHT OVER THIS ENTIRE POST.
Meanwhile, I will try to take care of our spam problem, I don’t know if it will help, I think not. I rather think arrcee’s proverb post is likely true,…but I will answer this question again so it’s more difficult for SPACEBROTHER to assert that I have not answered it…then as he promised, maybe we’ll see an answer to my question on his denial that he votes for war escallations while he votes for Obama’s war escallations.
If the snowstorm rages on after I’ve answered his question again, well then let it snow.
I've already answered this that I support Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader), and I've already commented why. In that I'm getting big capital letters to answer it again...I guess I'll have to answer it again...
I will gladly answer and discuss your latest round of questions Baddy once we resolve this lingering issue......Do you denounce Ron Paul for his acceptance of money from war-profiteering corporations and *his pro-war and **preemptive war votes?
*5/28/10 Vote 320: H RES 1391: Congratulating Israel for Its Accession to Membership in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development RP's vote=Yes
**H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid. RPs vote=Yes
I've commented that Ron Paul's and Dennis Kucinich's consistant NO voting on the invasions, and constant NO voting on all of the wars up-funding bills since,
(while SPACEBROTHERS war tripling Obama voted opposite Kucinich and Paul, voting yes on all the war up-funding bills, and now as commander in chief is actually the one creating
the war problem that RP and DK and the rest of us have to constantly fight), along with Ron Paul's (and DK’s) constant and famous denouncing of the wars and wars funding are two of the strongest antiwar voting records in the House, and they’re the reasons that I will continue to support Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.Here’s RP on the House floor the other day denouncing Obamawars, boy, it would be hard to imaging war escallator Obama saying these things,
tell me who’s anti war.
So yea, I support Ron Paul. Is there any part of that that you don’t understand?
There, I answered your question...again...
Is there any need for you to ask again?
So to refresh you on when I answered this before:
I know you said Ron Paul's solid NO votes to the invasions and to all the up-funding war bills mean nothing, but I say we need a Congress full of representatives who will speak out against, vote against, and consistantly vote to defund the wars.
Not all people agree with you SPACEBROTHER that Congressmens NO votes against invasions and up-funding mean nothing, I corrected you that Congressmens votes are the prize of the lobbiests, that Congressmens votes mean everything, and furthermore, RP's constant NO votes to the invasions and ALL of the wars up-funding bills pretty much shoots holes in your case that I should reject him as being on the take to war profeteering companys as he and DK have the strongest voting records against the wars in all of Congress. War profiteering companys need all YES votes to wars and war up-funsing as Hillary and Obama give them, not solid votes against the wars and war funding ad RP and DK give them.
You also said you "suspect" RP's votes against the invasions and wars up-funding are a trick to get other Republicans elected...how far will you stretch over to reach that straw? (Lol, I remember when you reached so far as to say supporting RP was pro war because people attack abortion clinics and that is pro-war).
I rather think this is just bullshit generated by a pro-war, pro-Obama, "Democrat can do no wrong," die hard that needs to come up with some distraction as he's been asked to explain how he says he doesn't consiously vote to escallate wars yet voted for and continues to support Obama who mega-escallates wars, (tripled the Afghan war from 33, 000 to 100, 000 troops, and tripled his so harsh on innocent civillians Pakistan drone/Hellfires).
So, although you've accused me of not answering it 10 times since I last answered it, NO, I do not denounce Ron Paul, nor his or DK’s strongest antiwar voting records in Congress.
And for the curious, here's where I answered it before on this page
I also don't want to let SPACEBROTHER divert me off track with the things he writes instead of answering the immorality question, (I promised him I'd answer all this other stuff later, but I'm all done being diverted for the moment), but fraught with problems is this latest diversion, not the least of which is the bottom line, if someone like RP got in and ordered the wars closed, then this whole discussion about coprorate doners to the DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN partys becomes moot. The purpose of war companys giving money is to buy the politicians vote...but if politicians such as Kucinich and Paul consistantly vote against wars, then it's clear that this latest diversion is also a moot point.Yes, it DOES matter when politicans in Congress vote against the wars, that is exactly the bottom line.
I also believe you are wrong when you say that Congressmens votes against wars don't matter, and I think a lot of people would agree with me.
If the majority in congress voted as Kucinich and Paul vote, (or if either of them were elected President, the wars would have ALREADY been over). They are commander in chief, they order troops home, they come home, and there is nothing in this world that can stop that.Some politicians vote in favor of corporations and against the people in order to keep the money coming in...some politicians (kucinich and paul), vote AGAINST what the corporations want with complete disregard for what the corporations want.
The proof of what I say is in the pudding:
You see, if most or all politicians spoke voted as RP and Kucinich against
the authorizations and repeated re-fundings of these wars...then the war interests would stop trying to buy the votes of the Democrat and Republican partys because it wouldn't be working for them...another proof that congressman's voted DO matter...they give money to both partys to buy votes, they don't give money to politicians as people do, out of patriotism and a desire for a better country. Aparently, there are a few people left that still don't understand this.
It's sad to see these good politicans defeated by the money every time, the wars and all this suffering truly would have been over years ago, (and prosperity would have of course returned as well....we are in the grips of the money, and THEY make out like kings, not US.
Are ya happy now SPACEBROTHER? There's two answers to your question...now maybe you'll answer my one question on how you get off saying you don't consiously vote to escallate wars when you voted for and continue to support Obama, a TRIPLER the civillian harsh Afpak wars.
OK now, Let’s have a look at those two bills SPACEBROTHER keeps throwing in my face as some hypothetical RP pro-war bills…I don’t see anything pro-war about them at all, (and I think it’s a little absurd coming from a pro-war voter who says the Afghan war is justified), In the first one, HR 1391, there’s nothing war-like about it.
It’s simply a customary statement that was unamously voted for (in the house), 435 to 0, to recognize Israels entry into OECD. Both Palestine and Israel need to be welcome participants in the world commutity, it is the “Zionist regime” that afflicts the Israeli government I have a problem with, not the Israeli people. It’s a worldwide organization of I think up to about 100 countries now who collect ideas and aconomic data for distribution in the hope that pooling ideas will lift up people in jobs and education. The OESD mission statement:
OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:
Support sustainable economic growth
Raise living standards
Maintain financial stability
Assist other countries' economic development
Contribute to growth in world trade
The Organisation provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies.
OECD also shares expertise and exchanges views with more than 100 other countries.
In May 2007, OECD countries agreed to invite Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership of the Organisation and offered enhanced engagement to Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. While enhanced engagement is distinct from accession to the OECD, it has the potential in the future to lead to membership. The approval of so-called "road maps" marked the start of accession talks with Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia.
Chile became a member of the Organisation on 7 May 2010.
On 10 May 2010, the OECD invited Estonia, Israel and Slovenia to become members of the OECD. Each country’s membership will become official once necessary formalities, including parliamentary approval, have been completed.
For more than 40 years, OECD has been one of the world's largest and most reliable sources of comparable statistics and economic and social data. As well as collecting data, OECD monitors trends, analyses and forecasts economic developments and researches social changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation and more.
OECD is one of the world’s largest publishers in the fields of economics and public policy. OECD publications are a prime vehicle for disseminating the Organisation's intellectual output, both on paper and online.
Publications are available through OLIS for government officials, through Source OECD for researchers and students in institutions subscribed to our online library, and through the OECD Online Bookshop for individuals who wish to browse titles free-of-charge.
So no SPACEBROTHER, I’m not going to get all excited about Ron Paul joining a unanimous and benevolent, and customary Congressional vote for the US recognizing Israel’s acceptence into the OECD.And on HR 5842, it’s interesting that you didn’t copy and paste over the date of HR5842, which was 30 years ago in 1979.
The constitutional bill to decline giving US taxpayer dollars to Iranian students I would say was unnecessary, but it would be understandable as this was two weeks after Iranian students captured 66 American hostages.
It’s a little odd this coming from an Obama supporter, Obama who is in command of three carrier task forces (complete with an arsenal of locked on nuclear tipped missles), right now parked off Irans beaches, while he repeatedly shakes his “everything’s on the table” sword at the Iranian government. …meanwhile the one you are attacking (RP) is famous for speaking out and voting against Obama’s wars as well as against Obama’s imflammatory posture against Iran.
So no, I’m not going to get excited about 1979’s HR 5842.
So finally, I approach the end of answering (and reanswering) your spam.
This link you posted…
I think all antiwar people would like that link a lot, I'd recommend they click it...
It’s difficult to know how you came up with that title for this link, it doesn’t mention BP at all. It does talk about the oil spill, and RP correctly states that it’s unfortunate that the US National Guard is off fighting wars in other parts of the world…Ron Paul laments:
RON PAUL: “If all the states had their Guards back maybe we’d have enough manpower to clean up the beaches and prevent this oil from coming in.”
What’s wrong with that?
Furthermore, we didn’t have enough Guard over here after Katrina, not only Guard manpower, but all the National guard heavy equipment and medical and water trucks and all the other equipment that's over in Iraq instead of Lousiana where it belongs.
Ron Paul's right, we need our National Guard in the US where it belongs, and that would be a big help for the oil cleanup.
And with regards to RP’s comments in the link sticking up for Shee’s gut reaction statement that Afghanastan is Obama’s war, what the fuck is wrong with saying that? I say we need MORE people saying that…
In your attack link RP says the media should not jump on people for saying “Afghanastan is Obama’s war,” and that it truth. Also RP agrees YES it IS Obama’s war:
He said Obama fought to get the tripling of troops over there…he said “Look what progressive Democrats have to put up with, why is it not good political talk to say the truth? It is
Obama’s war, and he comments that most americans agree with this truth…RP goes on to comment:
“Here’s Obama trying to appeal to the progressive base saying: we’ll be out in a year...
…while at the same time Obama appeals to the neocons saying we want more war, I’ll take all the troops I can get because we’re gonna win this war….but at the same time the truth is the politicians and military do not believe there is a chance of military victory.”
So what’s wrong with that? I say the RP’s comments on wishing more National Guard manpower was available to help clean up the oil is a good thing, and most of the rest of the video pointing out how destructive and pointless prosecuting Obama’s Afpak wars is something any antiwar person would be happy with…difficult to know why you posted such a favorable anti-war video of RP as an attack, and titled it about BP. I’d say any antiwar person would like to click on that video, I’d recommend it.
And finally, I’m running out of time, but just to mention I’m not so fond of Rand. He’s off my research rader as he’s from a different state, but I think he failed the moral test of sending troops into Afghanastan, I need more clarification, but I think he said he would have been for sending special forces into afghanastan after 9/11 which would be a violation of international law and the Constitution. I need more clarification but if that’s true, I can’t support him.
So there’s your questions, fully answered…again.
Maybe you’ll keep your word and answer my one question:
How do you get off saying you don’t consiously vote for war escallations when you vote for and support Obama and his huge war escallations?
Voting and supporting the escallation of the killing of literally thousands of innocent people who mean you no harm, then to hide it away and not tell people what you’re telling people to vote for, while at the same time smearing antiwar politicians who voted against the invasions, and against every single war up-funding bill. Rejecting those who will stop the wars while voting for escallation in senseless killing of our innocent brothers, how ugly can a man get?