You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar….
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
what happened to good old fashioned war-mongering!?
😉
They have decided to focus on new-fashioned war mongering.
Covert-ops, drone strikes, and illicit assasinations.
To be fair, I think it might be working, but we’ll sure never know about it this decade.
______
actually, that is old-fashioned war mongering!
let’s funnel another billion or two to the CIA
The covert Iran war is already being waged with our tax dollars. The central banker-controlled complicit news propaganda won’t be properly covering it, to ensure the public goes along with it.
You can attract more killer bees with honey than with vinegar.
excellent, really excellent point!
I think Ron Paul would be the greatest president in history when in comes to domestic policy.
but internationally, we’d have world war 3 in 2 years.
why? because he does not understand that not every genocidal dictator thinks like a good American libertarian who just wants to be left in peace and won’t cause any trouble if left alone.
his passive stance would be interpreted as a gigantic sign of weakness by people who do not share Paul’s values, but live to eradicate them.
he does not understand how North Korea or a Middle east dictator thinks.
he see’s attacks on America as proof of our guilt. good people would never do something that awful like a suicide attack without reason, right?
he follows the same logic as people stoning a rape victim. that good man surely didn’t act like that without provocation!
he can not understand that a sizable part of human beings are brutal savages who’d fuck you up in a second as soon as they could get away with it.
and because any attack like 9/11 would be proof in his eyes that he did something wrong, he would never respond in the right fashion.
thus, he’d provoke the next attack, and so on.
you are a confused, misguided young man … take a few deep breaths
tis better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt
si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
I’m old enough to know the original 😉
and it’s “’tis” not “tis”
but entertain us and for once make an actual argument and tell me where I’m wrong
Who you going to vote for then? Another pro-communitarian, anti-rights CFR or Trilateral Commission member presidential candidate? I’d love to hear your logic behind that decision. Paul is the only worthwhile candidate not on the central banker payroll.
He’s unelectable. Do you want Obama to win again?
Can you fucking imagine?
_________
Jake —
If he’s so “unelectable,” then why am I and nearly everyone I know voting for him for president?
I think you may underestimate the vast amount of young people that would vote for Ron Paul. Some of them are very misguided, some of them are just looking to legalize drug use, some of them are tea party members, and some are the OWS vagrants that are fed up with Obama. Some of them ‘get it’. But with his antiwar policy and Timothy Leery look and radical stance on the economy, he is the guy likely to win over the youth and the undecideds as well as confused people. The old people have already made their minds up about where they stand on issues and will mostly always vote for their “party”. Only about 10% of the voters are true independents that switch back and forth and THEY are the ones that swing back and forth and decide the elections.
I liked Paul’s chances a lot better last election when liberals and moderates were out in force tired of the war AND poor economy. If republicans would have had a guy with a vastly different policy on either of those issues, they would have won.
I’m not sure if War is a strong enough issue this time around since liberals somehow think Obama expanding Bush’s foreign policy is “different”, or else they are confused… Aside from that, in every poll I have seen Paul stacks up just as well, and sometimes better than any other candidate against Obama. Paul isn’t nearly as ‘ideal’ this time around, but at this point the “anyone but Bush” shoe is now on the other foot.
“his passive stance would be interpreted as a gigantic sign of weakness by people who do not share Paul’s values, but live to eradicate them.”
What objective and independently-funded research supports this statement?
Necessary and unprovoked force is a sign of weakness. A strong nation demonstrates strength through tolerance. Only a threatened/vulnerable nation attacks.
So… what was 911?
Warning: If you say “an inside job” you’re also unelectable.
________
he lives in a bubble… probably a pampered lefty who has never worked a day in his life and listens to msnbc all day…
if he ever stepped one foot into the real world, he’d know that schoolyard bullies the unprovoked attackers never need a reason and that they do not see their bullying as a sign of weakness.
he is so far gone, it’s not even funny.
he’d watch a lion tear the throat out of a gazelle and wonder what mean things the evil gazelle might have done to provoke this attack.
only someone who lives as protected from the real world as leftists do, could write such utter bullshit about war.
Try Libertarian. Not the central banker-fabricated Tea Party kind, either.
I’m far more conservative than you are.
Next time someone tells you that you’re an asshole to your face, see if you have the inner strength to not get your panties in a bind over it. Having the ability to squash someone and not using it is the ultimate sign of power.
I could have killed the bullies at school if I wanted to, so many years ago. I chose not to. I had more self-control than they did. They were just emotional wimps with fragile egos.
you get an F for evasion, another F for missing the point and a third F for plain stupidity.
IF you could have dispatched bullies so easily, then you were not bullied. lol… unbelievable.
the point is not how buff you were in school, but what a bully does. he goes after the weakest link.
a bully, by definition will not attack the strongest one.
I stated that his victim will not be the one to blame.
in truly leftist manner you confuse action and reaction.
do you think someone beaten to a bloody pulp by a bully is the “stronger” one in this equation?
you talk about feeling morally superior.
that is your whole strategy.
in the real world, war does not care about your sensitivities or if you are morally in the right.
it is about life and death.
I don’t think either of you are thinking “crazy” enough. A suicide bomber is not a bully, he’s like the mentally handicapped kid that gets a rush from hitting himself in the head. He has his motivations that may make sense to his fucked up mind, but we have no clue why. He goes after the strongest looking bully just to get hit in the face and laughs about it and does it again because he enjoys the pain.
The bully is too dumb to realize that by smacking him in the face for “respect” he is only encouraging him, and he fails to see that everyone in school including the strength training steroid eating coach who is the father of the retarded kid is watching and that the rest of the world doesn’t like the way the strong is treating the weak…
Ronald Reagan is the one that ran from Lebenon after realizing his mistake of underestimating how batshit crazy these fuckers in the middle east are. They are not the “bully” type, they are the mentally handicapped “get punished to get into paradise” type.
That you are a purported mature adult male and that you never weighed all the facts around what happened on 9/11 makes you an easily manipulated sissy boy in my eyes. A mental child in an adult body still makes you a child.
I’ll try to be gentle with you, given your situation.
Problem: Retarded Jimmy(crazy fuckers in the middle east) is(are) hitting himself in the head. Every time you get close and try to tell him to stop politely, he swipes at your face. You try being stern and he does it again, you try punching him and he hits you harder… How do you get retarded jimmy to leave you the fuck alone?
Solution: leave brass knuckles in his locker when he’s not looking and take a few days off.
Problem: some dumbass fuckers keep bombing the shit out of “infidels” along with themselves in their own secluded world.
Solution: Put up a few churches labeled “infidels” in their language and replace their normal small suicide bombs with nukes, then get the fuck out and let them bludgeon themselves to death until they either die or realize ‘for all they know the “70 virgins” could all be dudes ready to assrape them.’
further proof they do not teach history in schools any more…
Hitler. that word alone disproves your whole “thesis” and proves mine.
he was not attacked, but offered peace after his annexation of a European country.
the British Prime Minister’s wish for “peace for our time” was understood as a sign of weakness by Hitler.
He said so himself.
The same is true for most conflicts between strong and weak powers. the weak make concessions while the strong demand them.
today, the reverse is taught in universities and schools, because the left tries to rewrite history and has the hots for dictators like Lenin, Mao and his ilk.
Taco refuses to answer, it seems…
in case, you’re not a history buff, Hitler was that German guy…
I believe I asked you a few questions first. Stop playing the asshole provocateur and realize I am not going to let you control this conversation. You are my bitch and you should get used to that.
see, we all know that you got nothing. otherwise you’d have a shred of an argument about the topic at hand.
I quote from your post minutes ago:
“I could have killed the bullies at school if I wanted to, so many years ago. I chose not to. I had more self-control than they did. They were just emotional wimps with fragile egos.” (7:56)
sounds very mature… let’s see how much time a Taco needs to go into full pre-adolescent meltdown:
“You are my bitch and you should get used to that.” (8:01)
5 minutes!
you should give courses in anger management, if your appeasement studies leave you enough time 😉
and you asked me a question:
““his passive stance would be interpreted as a gigantic sign of weakness by people who do not share Paul’s values, but live to eradicate them.”
What objective and independently-funded research supports this statement?”
I answered that with Hitler and appeasement. the very post you “replied” to… read it
correction , Hitler was that Austrian guy
Hitler told the people of Germany that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets.
Hitler did not attack the US who was neutral and failed to go to war. It was only when FDR followed an 8 point plan devised by the Office of Naval Intelligence (according to declassified documents) to PROVOKE Japan into attacking us.
President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam.
America has gone to war over a lie much more often then by bringing their troops home to defend their borders.
please stay on topic…
the point was that Hitler was not the one attacked.
he acted aggressively and was appeased instead of confronted. (if they had confronted him, Hitler would have been deposed via a coup
from wikipedia: “In Germany, the decision preempted a potential revolt by senior Army officers against Hitler.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
)
that lead to WWII
appeasement, “strength through tolerance” as Taco sees it, is directly responsible for millions of deaths.
“A strong nation demonstrates strength through tolerance.”
Strength through tolerance? LOL, what is that, how the school health teacher said to behave at recess? This is a really warped and arrogant way of thinking.
Strength through tolerance is from the frat party where they drink and the guy with the most tolerance survives and the other guy dies of alcohol intoxication
LOL!
Now the next step will be when people accept that Israel was bluffing all along and its leadership does not have the guts to do an attack on Iran if it doesn’t have american “approval” (they consider US and other western countries as their slavemasters). Then oil goes off the cliff.
I’m short on WTI… would be great….
and thx for that post… “strength through tolerance”… that guy sounds like a sensitivity training seminar come to life…
he wouldn’t survive a second in the real world
Oh, so when I agree with you on something I’m against the liberal loonies, but when I disagree with you it means I’m a liberal? That’s a strange worldview, but I guess I’m starting to understand its parameters at least.