Ron Paul calls Bradley Manning a hero and a true patriot

cplmac

cplmac

Registered User
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
3,840
At first I thought somebody was just making a joke about the occasionally naive, cynical and ignorant congressman from Texas, then I saw the video. I guess when your official position is "what's wrong with Iran having a nuke, and we brought 9/11 on ourselves or even that the tax rate should be zero (all things he has said on national television during the republican presidential primary debates), it shouldn't come as a surprise that he could say something so entirely ridiculous as this. Bradley Manning is the petulant homosexual who stole hundreds of thousands of classified documents and gave them all to wikileaks to be published for the world to read. He leaked the Apache video from Baghdad 2007, he leaked the engineering specifications to the military's IED detection devices, he leaked the entire library of classified battlelogs from Iraq and Afghanistan 470,000 files from those two combined, he leaked 250,000 classified state department diplomatic records, he leaked 75 classified state department cables, and he released the names of informants working with the US military in Afghanistan, some of whom have disappeared. All in all, a real fucking winner and by a country mile the winner of the biggest leaker of classified information in US history (followed closely by Patrick "Leaky" Leahy, the only current US Senator expressly forbidden from serving on the Senate Intelligence committee because of his history of overt intelligence leaking). Manning was busted for being gay before the repeal of DADT and was in process to be discharged when he had his epic tantrum and decided to get people killed the cowards way. Ron Paul feels that he is a hero, a true patriot. You really just can't make this shit up, fuck off Ron Paul you senile twat. Thank god your son inherited your good half, he's the one who should be running for president.

[video=youtube;8pbSCT2SE6U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8pbSCT2SE6U[/video]
 
If all the info you posted is true then I can check him off the list. Where is Abe Lincoln when you need him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Texans?
Click to expand...

They live in a large area surrounded by reality. There's nothing wrong with them, it's the rest of the country that has a problem.
 
The government has already taken the death penalty off the table, which he IS eligible for under one of the charges they are bringing against him (1 count of aiding the enemy specifically). These are the exact charges against him as brought by the government thus far:
[h=3]Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)[/h]
  • Spec. 1: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-6(k): The 2007 July 12 Baghdad video
  • Spec. 2: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-6(k): 50 classified US Dept of State cables
  • Spec. 3: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-6(k): A classified Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation
  • Spec. 4: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Adding unauthorized software to SIPRNet
[h=3][edit] Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)[/h]
Set 2
The second set of charges came on March 1, 2011, and are as follows:[SUP][11][/SUP]
[h=3][edit] Additional Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 104 (Aiding the enemy)[/h]
  • Spec. 1: Knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy through indirect means
[h=3][edit] Additional Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)[/h]
  • Spec. 1: (statute not given): Causing intelligence to be published, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy
  • Spec. 2: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): A file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi"
  • Spec. 3: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): Memorandi from a US intelligence agency
  • Spec. 4: 18 U.S.C. ? 641: 380,000 records from the CIDNEI database
  • Spec. 5: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEI database
  • Spec. 6: 18 U.S.C. ? 641: >90,000 records from the CIDNEA database
  • Spec. 7: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEA database
  • Spec. 8: 18 U.S.C. ? 641: >700 records from a US Southern Command database
  • Spec. 9: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): >3 records from a US Southern Command database
  • Spec. 10: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): >5 records relating to an operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan
  • Spec. 11: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): The files "BE22 PAX.zip" and "BE22 PAX.wmv"
  • Spec. 12: 18 U.S.C. ? 641: 250,000 records from the State Dept Net-Centric Diplomacy database
  • Spec. 13: 18 U.S.C. ? 1030(a)(1): >75 US State Dept cables
  • Spec. 14: 18 U.S.C. ? 1030(a)(1): The State Dept cable named "Reykjavik-13"
  • Spec. 15: 18 U.S.C. ? 793(e): A record of a US Army Intelligence organization
  • Spec. 16: 18 U.S.C. ? 641: The US Forces - Iraq Microsoft Outlook / SharePoint Exchange Server global address list
 
Dude, Ron Paul is fucking wack. If he is referring to Manning, who is a fucking traitor and an example of failed leadership he is out of his fucking bird. It's okay for Iran to have a nuke? negatron spaceman...im pretty sure it's a global consensus that it's definitely NOT okay for Iran to posses a nuclear weapon....any sane person would feel the same.

I don't know why he gathered so much support for being such a fucking dumbass.
 
Dirty-Lex said:
Dude, Ron Paul is fucking wack. If he is referring to Manning, who is a fucking traitor and an example of failed leadership he is out of his fucking bird. It's okay for Iran to have a nuke? negatron spaceman...im pretty sure it's a global consensus that it's definitely NOT okay for Iran to posses a nuclear weapon....any sane person would feel the same.

I don't know why he gathered so much support for being such a fucking dumbass.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly!
 
SFC RENNO said:
Stealing your whole post and putting it on face book :)
Click to expand...

Glad you checked in, I actually started this thread specifically for you. Was going to PM it to you but thought it was important enough to make a thread for everyone to see.
 
So who's your alternative in the GOP? Remember--we're down to Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul--and most primary and caucus deadlines have long since passed. I'd love a better messenger but I cannot stand the other three.
 
Bobsama said:
So who's your alternative in the GOP? Remember--we're down to Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul--and most primary and caucus deadlines have long since passed. I'd love a better messenger but I cannot stand the other three.
Click to expand...

Gingrich; although he is a grumpy troll; he is a smart mofo
 
Bobsama said:
So who's your alternative in the GOP? Remember--we're down to Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul--and most primary and caucus deadlines have long since passed. I'd love a better messenger but I cannot stand the other three.
Click to expand...

Dude seriously? I'm a diehard Republican but I can't vote for any of these guys. They're all slimy. What's that old expression? Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. That's exactly how I feel at this point.
 
For me it's Gingrich, honestly there is nothing new about him on the negative side and his up side is much higher than the others.
 
cplmac said:
For me it's Gingrich, honestly there is nothing new about him on the negative side and his up side is much higher than the others.
Click to expand...

Way too religious for me. Anytime someone lets God make rational decisions that affect the day to day lives of hundreds of millions of people I have to take a pass.
 
cplmac said:
For me it's Gingrich, honestly there is nothing new about him on the negative side and his up side is much higher than the others.
Click to expand...

Gingrich is a walking encyclopedia, but he is also a sociopath (not to say many other politicians arent). His little open marriage/ affair thing really puts me off. How can you claim that you are a defender of marriage when you yourself is sleeping around. you have to practice what you preach. Not to mention that at the same time as the cheating took place he was calling for Clinton's head for his scandal.

The best candidate imo was Huntsman. but he was too much in the middle to even have a chance at the GOP nomination. I did vote Paul here in NH but not for reasons that I thought he could win, because he is virtually ignored at the national level (any see the CNN debate where they seemed to just pass over him as they pleased?) and I do like some of the issues he covers and some of his own philosophies.
 
MotherMan said:
Gingrich is a walking encyclopedia, but he is also a sociopath (not to say many other politicians arent). His little open marriage/ affair thing really puts me off. How can you claim that you are a defender of marriage when you yourself is sleeping around. you have to practice what you preach. Not to mention that at the same time as the cheating took place he was calling for Clinton's head for his scandal.

The best candidate imo was Huntsman. but he was too much in the middle to even have a chance at the GOP nomination. I did vote Paul here in NH but not for reasons that I thought he could win, because he is virtually ignored at the national level (any see the CNN debate where they seemed to just pass over him as they pleased?) and I do like some of the issues he covers and some of his own philosophies.
Click to expand...

Gingrich is by far too dangerous for me to consider voting for. He may be smart, but he's scary with his ideological inconsistencies and his self-righteous bullshit. Further, I think his brand of American Exceptionalism is pure propaganda for his candidacy. Romney's views were practically Obama's 4 years ago so forgive me if I can't reconcile his many changes of heart. I also don't trust his donors--he's by far the best financed candidate (mostly by financial services firms--the same that financed Obama and the same that will prevent any change in monetary policy). Santorum is for crazy homophobes and neocons. Which leaves Paul--who's a bit crazy but at least consistent--he sticks to the philosophy of the Libertarian-Right--including personal freedom and government transparency.

The other three want to grow our overseas expenditures while cutting back just a little bit on our domestic budget. They'll turn Obama's $1T annual deficits into $800B annual deficits but otherwise I think they want business as usual. They've all compromised in an inclusive way--they included their political opponents' pet projects so long as their own pet projects were included. None of them decided to remove both sides sacred calves for the least legislation possible. And further, none of them see our monetary policy as a problem or for one second doubt the metrics used to come up with jobs or inflation reports. I'd love to be able to cut up the candidates and assemble one far better.
 
407683_10150602406662803_101352102802_10802294_1813357397_n.jpg


I'll vote on which bowl shit that smells less. I'd rather have walking encyclopedia than person doesn't know they're doing like the current president.
 
Romney is over commercialized and not talking about the +5,100 he has fired/laid-off or about being truthful about his off accounts. Oh and he flip-flops on issues a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top