Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Stossel: Rand Paul Wants to End America's Wars" video.

@holoholohaolenokaoi2299 I don't see why people are ganging up on him, he stated his opinion and then backed it up with a non-liberal source. Do you have any counter argument that isn't simply an insult?
9
 @DieselRamcharger "it was an operation, it worked, it cost NO AMERICAN LIVES" - so you're pro war when it's an "operation"?
4
The rise of ISIS was caused by US meddling in the attempts to topple Assad.
3
Unfortunately his own father turned his potential fanbase into anarchism years ago.
3
We know it's you, John McCain. I hope Hell is burning you to a crisp.
1
@lapamful it's the brain tumor pressing on the right spot. But the love for warfare and spilled blood stayed the same.
1
@bhough410 "What benefit is there to "knocking China down a rung?"" - for example the fact that corporations getting involved with China has lead to freedom of speech in the US being threatened by corporate control.
1
cevaiom it's funny, because by calling me an idiot you're only exposing your own ignorance. Ron Paul himself said anarchy was a good thing.
1
@ponraul1221 if that's directed at me, I seriously don't get where you're coming from because it takes a clear head to take the deep dive into libertarian theory. On the other hand, one must be under heavy sedation to think that libertarianism can work with a state.
1
cevaiom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoSFarMaBsI ahahaha seems like I was correct and you are the idiot and the LIAR.
1
cevaiom Dr. Paul provided you the context you dishonest little shit - he quickly stated that he was not for violent uprising, but then started talking about anarchism. He said it's a great idea. He said the invididual should be allowed to opt out of government. You're using his preemptive disavowment of violence or anarchism that uses force and twisting his words to make it seem like he said something else. He said he's not for violent anarchists, but that anarchism is a great idea, he has friends who are anarchists, and there's groups of people who want to voluntarily opt out of government. You're still a liar and you haven't apologized for your lies and insults.
1
@UC9jeLMDovQslZkEbfYr-zPg I didn't say that that Ron Paul himself is an anarchist. I just made the argument that he recognizes the anarchist ideal but chose to work through political action. The "peaceful" part is because he knows there could be less stable people who'd take his statement as a codeword to kick off the boogaloo and because he doesn't want to associate with "anarchist" groups who simply break McDonald's windows and set cop cars on fire. You can't take the statement "I think anarchy is a great idea" and then go "nooooo he meant the peaceful part".
1
@UC9jeLMDovQslZkEbfYr-zPg also abortion will have to be a dilemma solved by technology. The balance between right to life and the right to evict someone out of your property (even the body) should exist and I hope we reach a point we can take fetuses and grow them in artificial wombs for adoption.
1
cevaiom "The clip is out of context" - how so? "The real problem is you don't like what the constitution has to say" - you're pulling this shit out of your ass. What the fuck are you even talking about? "No politician has ever been as consistent as this man and you government freaks" - you're delusional. Take your fucking meds.
1
@ponraul1221 "You just skipped the important second half of his statement where he focuses on personal responsibility." - because it doesn't contradict anything I said. "Again, claiming he supports anarchy based on this statement is really stretching and misrepresenting what he means, which is that he supports personal responsibility" - holy shit you can't admit Ron Paul ever entertained the idea of anarchism so you're resorting to focus on everything else Paul said except what matters. Taking responsibility for yourself contradicts the leftist definition of anarchy so obviously Dr. Paul needs to add caveats. Just like he needs to say that you shouldn't go out and shoot government officials just because you want to be left alone. If he said "I think car racing is wonderful but people should drive responsibly and not infringe on others' rights" you'd be here telling me Ron Paul doesn't like racing, just driving responsibly. "You’re also putting words into my mouth claiming I said “noooo he meant the peaceful part.”" - YOU'RE LITERALLY DOING IT RIGHT NOW, NOOOO HE DOESN'T SAY ANARCHY IS A GOOD IDEA HE'S SAYING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS A GOOD IDEA holy shit man "This is all ignoring the fact you are claiming he supports anarchy" - I didn't say that, I said he thinks anarchy is a great idea You know what Paul also said in that same video clip? That socialists getting together and voluntarily living in socialism would be permissible and a good thing to have in a libertarian society. But that doesn't make him a socialist. I mean, in the video you have a perfect example of someone capable of entertaining thoughts without agreeing with them and you STILL don't get that Ron Paul is friendly to ideologies that aren't his own.
1
cevaiom you're completely delusional and you're imagining things. Dr. Paul was asked about his opinion on anarchy and you're telling me he deflected the question?
1
@ponraul1221 ”I think I know that doesn’t make me a socialist. I also am very sympathetic to anarchists and share many values with them, and I think I know I’m not an anarchist. ” - so essentially you are now saying what I've been saying across multiple posts. I'm glad that you've essentially refused to read and had to make the connection by yourself. ”I’m still arguing about your original main comment” - Joke - Q: you know the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? A: about six months Hopefully it's clear as mud because it couldn't get any clearer than my first post. ”When someone says something is a good thing or a great idea I think it’s logical to conclude that they support it; but apparently you don’t. In fact I think it’s quite impossible to consciously not support something if you think it’s good thing or a great idea.” - so after saying that, what do you think about Dr. Paul saying he thinks anarchy is a great idea? I want you to expand on that. ”if someone says they support anarchy and turned thousands (maybe millions) of people into anarchists (like you have claimed Ron Paul does/did) I think it’s reasonable and logical to conclude that they are an anarchist” - that makes no fucking sense lol Ron Paul turned people into anarchists because many libertarians caught a glimpse of reality and saw how libertarianism was sabotaged. If you have the best man and you send him out to play the game and you see the referees screwing him over you'll become dissatisfied. I'm going to play it from the other side. Would you disagree that Bernie Sander's campaign sabotage (and him selling out and kissing the Clinton ring) took many Democratic Socialists and made them turn to Communism because they realized that Democratic Socialists will always be sabotaged by liberals? But if you ask Sanders about Communism he'll start mumbling about Scandinavia. He won't even dare to say he thinks Communism is a great idea but I have no fucking doubt a lot of the Antifa chucklefucks are butthurt Berniebros. The fact that you can't even concieve how a person's actions might create introspection and lead his followers to dwelve deeper into the theory and realize they were too optimistic makes your response sound childish. You'd rather ignore REAL human responses to events and pretend the world is linear just for the sake of clicking Post Comment instead of thinking about the subject and having an actual conversation.
1
@ponraul1221 "but it isn't true for the vast majority of people getting into libertarianism" - because it's a joke. If you found it funny it's because you see why my original comment has validity. Most of the people I've been with in the journey into libertarianism simply got more and more fed up. Ron Paul was sabotaged, Gary Johnson turned out to be an absolute buffoon. "Dr. Paul never said he thinks anarchy is a great idea" - Except that he did. "he said the idea of anarchists peacefully exercising personal responsibility is great" - Again, if Ron Paul said car racing was great, but you shouldn't be street racing near schools or behaving recklessly, being a threat to people, you'd be here saying he never said racing was great, it's all the personal responsibility he thinks is great. "isn't an argument and pure condescension" - you're the condescending one. You literally went "nah this thing totally doesn't happen" when it does. "that doesn't make them have the responsibility of that outcome" - I simply stated that Rand Paul has the uphill battle of trying to appeal to normies but also the people who supported his father. When people saw how the political process screwed with Ron Paul you don't mellow out and drive towards the center, you get outraged and become even more against the government. You trying to make this about "responsibility" has fuck all to do with the initial statement - Ron Paul was a major influence to many people and Rand doesn't want to carry the torch. Which is fine, but like I said is an uphill battle. "Your argument is akin to a kindergarten teacher who taught Einstein to add 2+2=4 claiming she was the reason he came up with the General Theory of Relativity." - no, my argument is more akin to seeing your kindergarten teacher getting absolutely screwed over by the school board over some bullshit and you vow to homeschool your kids because of what you've witnessed. "I put the responsibility upon communists advocating communism" - but if those people had never been Bernie supporters, and never got to witness how the DNC screwed him over and still managed to make him bend the knee, they could have been basic-bitch liberals. Again, I'm not pinning Bernie with the bill for the burnt cars and broken windows. Just stating cause-and-effect. "you're the one ignoring REAL human responses to events and pretend the world is linear" - except I'm the one using nuance while you flat out say "that doesn't happen lol" but okay
1
@thunberbolttwo3953 the problem is that others can crash the oil prices or decrease demand for US dollar. Saddam was selling oil for Euros in 2002. Guess what happened next year.
1
@thunberbolttwo3953 what the fuck does the UN have to do with anything? The US economy isn't based on oil but the value of the USD is. That's why the allies of the US that produce oil have made a cartel that trades oil in USD, to maintain a global demand for US Dollars. If there's demand, value increases. Countries like Iran and Venezuela are a problem to the US because they're not in the cartel.
1
ISIS got powerful because they took advantage of the US support of "moderate" rebels against Assad. Now the US is cleaning up the mess they created. "I don’t understand this argument that “we’ve been there 19 years” or “America’s longest war”. So what?! How is that an argument?!" - so you spent 2 weeks headbutting the wall and you still haven't breaches through the brick wall. Should you pack up and leave or keep headbutting? “If the Taliban fills the void again were we to leave, how long before another September 11th?“ - I know that this is probably the first time you've heard this but most hijackers in 9/11 were Saudis. They were not Taliban nor representing the nation of Afghanistan during the attack. The United States tracked Bin Laden's whereabouts and demanded the Taliban to surrender him, but Bin Laden had asked them for asylum first and the Taliban did not want to break their promise. After 7-8 days of bombing the Taliban eventually reconsidered and said they agreed to surrender Bin Laden to a neutral country but the US refused the deal and pressed with the invasion. Before 9/11 the US maintained open dialogue with the Taliban and now after almost 20 years of war the US has resumed negotiations. There's a pipeline to be built through Taliban controlled terrain and everyone wants a deal to make sure the Taliban will agree to not attack it. Because there's no chance the US will take over nor will the ANA manage to keep those installations under control. Now mind that it is thought that Bin Laden fled to Pakistan after the Battle of Tora Bora so suppressing the Taliban meant nothing. Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan and was killed in Pakistan according to the official story.
1
@OptimusJedi "Are you ready? It doesn’t matter" - LMAO so it doesn't matter that you're OBSESSED with the ocupation of Afghanistan when they were not behind the attacks. "The same way it wouldn’t have mattered if the pilots of the Japanese Navy had been Greek when they bombed Pearl Harbor" - the problem here is that the correct analogy would be something like a group of Guam separatists or something attacking Pearl Harbor instead of the Japanese, but you still want to invade Japan. "The hijakers could have been Australian and we wouldn’t have invaded Australia because, wait for it, THEY WEREN’T OPERATING UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN MILITARY’S ORDERS!" - they weren't operating under the Afghan flag nor were they Taliban or following Taliban orders. "Where was Al Qaeda based? Afghanistan" - YOU CLEARLY STATED THAT THE TALIBAN WOULD COMMIT ANOTHER 9/11 AND IMPLIED THAT THE OBJECTIVE WAS TO PREVENT TALIBAN CONTROL Your worries about leaving Afghanistan were not about the Al-Qaeda but the Taliban.
1
@OptimusJedi and men who initially fought against the US invasion of Iraq later joined the coalition forces to fight Al-Qaeda. Sometimes players change jerseys. "You also clearly aren’t getting the point in regards to the absurdity of arguing that the hijakers were Saudis." - it's you who doesn't get the point, because you implied that if Afghanistan was left to its own devices that a second 9/11 would happen. "I also find it interesting that you think I have an obsession" - you literally have an irrational desire to occupy Afghanistan. How is it a projection to correctly state the facts? To you, it doesn't even matter who did 9/11, what matters is preventing the Afghan people from causing another.
1
@OptimusJedi I love the historical revisionism. Not only are you ignoring the Surge policy revisions that emphasized not treating Iraqis as the enemy, you're also discounting the efforts in integrating fighters into the security forces or even how the US straight up paid fighters to be on the US side. It's not a matter of "realizing the US wasn't all that bad". The US committed a huge mistake by disbanding the Iraq army, leaving fighting men unemployed and who found their new line of work in the insurgency. Part of the Surge policy was, get this, allow these men to take up work as security forces. During the 2006 Battle of Ramadi the killing of Abu Ali Jassim also lead to the creation of the Anbar Awakening movement. So no, it wasn't a case of people suddenly having a change of heart. The US had to undo its mistakes and benefited from happenstance that caused tribal leaders to turn against the Al Qaeda - and fight alongside the US now that they could get paid for it. And then the mistake was remade when Nouri al-Maliki refused to let the militias be integrated and caused some to go fight for ISIS. "it’s the remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban!" - again, the US is attempting peace talks with the Taliban. The US apparently has no problem in leaving the Taliban be as long as they don't become a problem. In fact the Taliban have fought the Islamic State while the Afghan government has been caught helping it.
1
@OptimusJedi The Surge worked because it forced the US to reconsider the Iraq situation. The problem was caused by the US wrecking a country, and then setting loose fighting men who had no opportunities in a war torn country rather than integrating them. You completely missed my point, which was that you can't get hung up on people changing from the Taliban to Al Qaeda in places where the battle lines of tribal warfare often change not through capture of territory but simply switches in allegiances. "some of them saw that siding with the US was the better option" - but the problem is that you're coming at it from the standpoint that Iraqi people "saw the light" and decided to side with the US because they're better. The changes in policy MADE the US better. Pre-Surge US was the invader that destroyed your country, occupied your land and literally dissolved your job position. Post-Surge US offered you a better paying job. We can downplay it as much as we want, but the US essentially bribed people to stop fighting. You can't say that people changed their opinion of the US because over time they started to enjoy their presence, it was mostly a fact that the job was more secure than having funds sent to you through dodgy mosques that support Islamic extremism. "Shouldn’t we keep troops in Afghanistan until that time?" - so essentially the conflict dragged for years for nothing?
1
@OptimusJedi "The end result is that the surge resolved the problem" - I'm baffled, because I only used the surge as an example of allegiances switching (and thus why people moving from the Taliban and Al Qaeda and vice versa isn't the big deal you seemed to imply it was). The problem being solved or not wasn't the topic at hand. "Therefore, having troops" - back the fuck up. The surge fixed the problems in Iraq in the same way that if you go out to buy a bunch of superglue you're gonna glue mom's fine china back together after you rode a skateboard in the living room. The change in policy fixed the US's mistakes, and most of the problems that were fixed were directly caused by US intervention. So saying "therefore, having troops" over there is the solution when sending the fucking troops was what caused the clusterfuck in the first place... That's circular logic. "I never said that they saw the light" - brother then stop saying they "realized" the US wasn't as bad. They didn't "realize" shit, they just got offered a better deal. "Bin Laden is dead as a result of the war in Afghanistan" - holy shit and the internet exists as a result of Hitler invading Poland. Gather round all the families of dead US soldiers and the maimed veterans and let's tell them - we sent them to a kerfuffle just to keep UBL hidden in Pakistan for like 10 years then shoot him. "Afghanistan is no longer under the yoke of the Taliban" - but the Afghan government only controls 30% of the country and the Taliban still control key areas which is why negotiations are necessary. "doesn’t have Al Qaeda terrorists running around the country" - that objective was completed essentially a decade ago as Al Qaeda presence in the entire country was estimated to be lower than 100 members and the Taliban severed their ties to them. What was 2009-2019 for, then? "So much so that our enemies have come to the table to talk" - You misunderstand their position. The war is massively unpopular at home. Where have you seen this before? Vietnam. They take the "loss", and then they win.
1
@OptimusJedi The issue is that I talked about the Surge as an example of why you can't be offended at people changing sides in a place where alleigeances are fluid. Yesterday's enemy is today's ally and tomorrow's enemy again. You somehow steered the conversation to a point where if the Surge worked, you "win". Even though the point was that you can't take things personally. And that the Surge working points to the fact that you need to learn to work with the people who were shooting at you for the past few years. ”merriam-webster definition of “realize”” - holy fuck if I paid you 5000 dollars to say I'm right and I won the argument you wouldn't have realized shit, you'd simply take the bribe. You can pull all the fucking dictionary definitions but if I pay you money to fuck off that doesn't mean you conceived anything as real. “Now, why was Bin Laden in Pakistan again? He ran away from the invasion. One thing leads to another. Follow along.“ - Bin Laden fled to Pakistan in 2001 after Tora Bora. There were rumors of him coming back to Afghanistan in 2009 but they weren't credible. This makes the invasion completely useless from that moment up to now. “The Afghan government controls 30% of the country. Ok, how much did the democratically elected government control before the US invasion?“ - so the Afghan government can't even keep their own country under control with US presence, how the fuck is that a victory? “You understand that stability is needed to ensure that our enemies don’t return right?“ - Al Qaeda? The Taliban have agreed to the deal that they won't harbor terrorists. “Massively unpopular?“ - the current US president campaigned to end the wars. The democrats are also taking about pulling out. Now, if both sides are campaigning to bring the troops home wouldn't you call the war unpopular? “considering there were active protests“ - Irrelevant. You had literal communists in universities and unions. What matters is the fact that the populace has no interest in the war, politicians are promising to end it. The Taliban will sign a peace deal, promise to keep terrorists and the Chinese out in addition to the cease fire. Then the US pulls out, the Afghan government will get overwhelmed and the Taliban will regain control by breaking the cease fire just like the North Vietnam broke the peace treaty. But the US will not come back.
1
@OptimusJedi "Strange that it’ll go exactly like Vietnam as you describe" - yeah strange that a group fighting the US would use a tactic that was already proven to work against the US. And that Taliban leaders have already slipped up to journalists and many Afghanis who have participated in activism against the Taliban fear the Afghan government's incompetence will lead to them suffering reprisals after the peace process is done. It's almost like things make sense when you pay attention. "My point of giving you the dictionary definition was that you made huge jumps in logic" - No, I didn't. You flat out claimed insurgents realized the US wasn't so bad. That is completely wrong and you still haven't retracted that statement after I completely debunked it. "What time frame, in years, does the US have to declare and then end the war? How many years can we be at war in your opinion?" - That's completely irrelevant by your own admission. The objective of the Afghanistan war was, by your own standards, about pushing Bin Laden into Pakistan. This was acomplished in 2001. Nobody is asking for a time limit. The war just went into overtime for no reason.
1