Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ron Paul, crazy?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:25:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is my favorite Republican candidate (Jon Huntsman) hitting my 2nd favorite republican candidate (Ron Paul) in an ad. What do you think?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:10:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war.:

What was wrong with that comment? It's true. If the abolition of slavery was that important to the Union they should have offered to compensate them for the wages lost. Just because speaking of human beings as chattle is abhorrent doesn't deny history, whether we like it or not, and compensating owners could have done two good things -- freed the slaves, and compensated the loss.

He also handled the racism accusations very poorly.:

Expound please.

What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it.:

No, most people don't even know what a libertarian is, and most that do are because of Ron Paul. Like it or not, he's the main guy who brought libertarian ideology to the forefront.

Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.:

It was radical to free slaves... it was radical to face the British empire... Sometimes what seems "radical" to some now becomes the norm later. The status quo continues to fail us, year after year, president after president. Yet Ron Paul predicted all these events long in advance of them coming to fruition. Who can say that about any other politician?

If you want a do-nothing president whose legacy is more important to them than the future of the country, keep going down the same path that has lead to destruction. If not, give Ron Paul a second look.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false. And there is a difference between like and respect for a candidate and a seduced cult following of a candidate. Learn the difference you idiot.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:30:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false. And there is a difference between like and respect for a candidate and a seduced cult following of a candidate. Learn the difference you idiot.

Are you SERIOUSLY willing to say that Ron Paul supporters such as yourself are merely being respectful but not being cult-like? Right...

Btdubs, ad hominems don't work.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:33:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false. And there is a difference between like and respect for a candidate and a seduced cult following of a candidate. Learn the difference you idiot.

Ladies and Gentlemen, announcing the arrival of Izbo- the political equivalent! http://media.comicvine.com...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:34:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:33:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false. And there is a difference between like and respect for a candidate and a seduced cult following of a candidate. Learn the difference you idiot.

Ladies and Gentlemen, announcing the arrival of Izbo- the political equivalent! http://media.comicvine.com...

lol I was just about to post that.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:48:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:30:02 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false. And there is a difference between like and respect for a candidate and a seduced cult following of a candidate. Learn the difference you idiot.

Are you SERIOUSLY willing to say that Ron Paul supporters such as yourself are merely being respectful but not being cult-like? Right...

Btdubs, ad hominems don't work.

Yes. A cult is defined as
cult
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

We definitely don't do 1, in 2, there is a difference between veneration and respect, in 3, again there is a difference between devotion and respect, 4 describes everybody who follows a Candidate, and 5 we also don't do. All 5 definition have either been proven false, or you believe in them too.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:49:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:33:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false. And there is a difference between like and respect for a candidate and a seduced cult following of a candidate. Learn the difference you idiot.

Ladies and Gentlemen, announcing the arrival of Izbo- the political equivalent! http://media.comicvine.com...

Ladies and Gentlemen, annoucing the arrival of something completely irrelevant to this forum and is just plain stupid.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:52:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:10:10 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war.:

What was wrong with that comment? It's true. If the abolition of slavery was that important to the Union they should have offered to compensate them for the wages lost. Just because speaking of human beings as chattle is abhorrent doesn't deny history, whether we like it or not, and compensating owners could have done two good things -- freed the slaves, and compensated the loss.

The purpose of the Civil War first and foremost was to save the union, not abolish slavery. Abolition was a secondary goal that was introduced midway through the war by the emancipation proclamation. The Confederacy waged war on the United States not just merely through secession but by then attempting to steal a federal fort from the United States,...after that, Paul's implications of it being an unjustified war are downright insane.

To buy something is to assume rightful ownership of the entity from which it is bought. Freedom is unconditional, so the notion that the U.S should have appeased slaveowners in such a dignified way is utterly maniacal.

He also handled the racism accusations very poorly.:

Expound please.

He essentially tried to brush it off as nothing significant, and had very circuitous responses to questioning.

What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it.:

No, most people don't even know what a libertarian is, and most that do are because of Ron Paul. Like it or not, he's the main guy who brought libertarian ideology to the forefront.

Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.:

It was radical to free slaves... it was radical to face the British empire... Sometimes what seems "radical" to some now becomes the norm later. The status quo continues to fail us, year after year, president after president. Yet Ron Paul predicted all these events long in advance of them coming to fruition. Who can say that about any other politician?

Like how? Its easy to distort things in a way as to make someone have appeared to predict something. I also don't accept your assertion that Obama is a failure. The economy has been improving, unemployment recently presented a significant fall and this year is proving to be promising. He prevented a Depression, he handled the conflict in Libya without even landing a single soldier in there, he is responsible for the gutsy decision to invade Osama's compound... Did Paul predict all that too?

By the way, its was also radical for Hitler to purge Germany of jews. It was also radical for the Bolsheviks to take over the Russian government. It was also radical for Malcolm X to use violence and bloodshed as a means to achieving civil rights....your examples are bias as they give radicalism a historically positive air, neglecting to mention the numerous times it was responsible for historical atrocities...


If you want a do-nothing president whose legacy is more important to them than the future of the country, keep going down the same path that has lead to destruction. If not, give Ron Paul a second look.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 11:52:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.

No empirical evidence? He wants to follow the constitution. That is evidence enough. Anyone who is willing to bypass the constitution does not have America's best interests in mind. And for the last time, there is a difference between devotion and respect.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:20:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:52:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:10:10 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war.:

What was wrong with that comment? It's true. If the abolition of slavery was that important to the Union they should have offered to compensate them for the wages lost. Just because speaking of human beings as chattle is abhorrent doesn't deny history, whether we like it or not, and compensating owners could have done two good things -- freed the slaves, and compensated the loss.

The purpose of the Civil War first and foremost was to save the union, not abolish slavery. Abolition was a secondary goal that was introduced midway through the war by the emancipation proclamation. The Confederacy waged war on the United States not just merely through secession but by then attempting to steal a federal fort from the United States...

If one believes in secession, the Confederacy would have the right to buy the federal fort back from the Union government. They offered, but the Union refused. Would the Union tolerate a Confederate fort?

after that, Paul's implications of it being an unjustified war are downright insane.

To buy something is to assume rightful ownership of the entity from which it is bought. Freedom is unconditional, so the notion that the U.S should have appeased slaveowners in such a dignified way is utterly maniacal.

As if waging war on your own countrymen isn't maniacal?

He also handled the racism accusations very poorly.:

Expound please.

He essentially tried to brush it off as nothing significant, and had very circuitous responses to questioning.

Circuitous? They were written by a ghostwriter. That's it.

Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.:

It was radical to free slaves... it was radical to face the British empire... Sometimes what seems "radical" to some now becomes the norm later. The status quo continues to fail us, year after year, president after president. Yet Ron Paul predicted all these events long in advance of them coming to fruition. Who can say that about any other politician?

Like how? Its easy to distort things in a way as to make someone have appeared to predict something.

Paul predicted the housing bubble crisis five years before it burst.

Paul predicted that the invasion of Iraq would lead to acts of terrorism three years before 9/11.

By the way, its was also radical for Hitler to purge Germany of jews. It was also radical for the Bolsheviks to take over the Russian government. It was also radical for Malcolm X to use violence and bloodshed as a means to achieving civil rights....your examples are bias as they give radicalism a historically positive air, neglecting to mention the numerous times it was responsible for historical atrocities...

Naturally, there are examples of good and bad radicalism. This means that we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not it is radical, but whether or not it is good.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:46:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:10:10 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war.:

What was wrong with that comment? It's true. If the abolition of slavery was that important to the Union they should have offered to compensate them for the wages lost. Just because speaking of human beings as chattle is abhorrent doesn't deny history, whether we like it or not, and compensating owners could have done two good things -- freed the slaves, and compensated the loss.

He also handled the racism accusations very poorly.:

Expound please.

What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it.:

No, most people don't even know what a libertarian is, and most that do are because of Ron Paul. Like it or not, he's the main guy who brought libertarian ideology to the forefront.


Not true! Robert Nozick did a better job bringing awareness.



If you want a do-nothing president whose legacy is more important to them than the future of the country, keep going down the same path that has lead to destruction. If not, give Ron Paul a second look.

He will be a "do-nothing" president. Congress would never go with much of what he wants, and the next president will come in and reverse most of his dealings. (if he does not compromise, which I think he will...)
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:47:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false.

Only if you believe his story, and feel that the responsibility of what gets published does not fall on the publisher...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.

Or he is just an ideologue that is young, under educated, and inexperienced.
Young- I did not check but youth are among Ron Paul's biggest supporters. I wonder why...
Under educated- The minute you read, study, and understand complex issues with an open mind, he will see that this stuff sounds crazy to follow it to a tee. Some good ideas are there, but to follow it like it were god shows youth, under education, and lack of experience.
Inexperience- Because, lets face it, most times age brings about experience. Good or bad experience is not in question. More time in this capitalistic world gives people more experience.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:59:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 11:52:32 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.

No empirical evidence? He wants to follow the constitution.

No, he wants to follow his interpretation of the constitution. Obama is doing the same, but his interpretation may not be yours.

That is evidence enough.

It really isn't...

Anyone who is willing to bypass the constitution does not have America's best interests in mind.

Who is trying to do this?
Obama? The law professor at one of the best programs in our country is trying to undermine the very work that made his career?

And for the last time, there is a difference between devotion and respect.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 1:05:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:20:30 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:52:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:10:10 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war.:

What was wrong with that comment? It's true. If the abolition of slavery was that important to the Union they should have offered to compensate them for the wages lost. Just because speaking of human beings as chattle is abhorrent doesn't deny history, whether we like it or not, and compensating owners could have done two good things -- freed the slaves, and compensated the loss.

The purpose of the Civil War first and foremost was to save the union, not abolish slavery. Abolition was a secondary goal that was introduced midway through the war by the emancipation proclamation. The Confederacy waged war on the United States not just merely through secession but by then attempting to steal a federal fort from the United States...

If one believes in secession, the Confederacy would have the right to buy the federal fort back from the Union government. They offered, but the Union refused. Would the Union tolerate a Confederate fort?


One should realize that Texas would possibly cease to exist without joining the Union.
It was definitely in trouble, and begged to be a part of the very Union they all want to secede from... just saying...


Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 1:07:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:47:52 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:26:29 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:46:21 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:36:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
completely agree with the video, he's nuts. The worst I heard out of him was probably that comment about the civil war. He also handled the racism accusations very poorly. What gives him his popularity is merely the fact that he's Libertarian and thats it. Its funny how the word "mainstream" and its associations are rapidly developing this underlining negative connotation....but in reality so many things outside mainstream are either dangerous or just plain bad. Yet here we have a faction of voters virtually seduced by Paul's radicalism.

OMG. We agree!!!!!!

His comment about the civil war makes sense, and what is he supposed to do about the racism comments? One, they were 20 years ago, and two, the are completely false.

Only if you believe his story, and feel that the responsibility of what gets published does not fall on the publisher...

One, he didn't publish it, it was made up, and two, I believe his story 100%.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 1:13:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:59:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:52:32 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.

No empirical evidence? He wants to follow the constitution.

No, he wants to follow his interpretation of the constitution. Obama is doing the same, but his interpretation may not be yours.

That is evidence enough.

It really isn't...

Anyone who is willing to bypass the constitution does not have America's best interests in mind.

Who is trying to do this?
Obama? The law professor at one of the best programs in our country is trying to undermine the very work that made his career?

And for the last time, there is a difference between devotion and respect.

No. He wants to the follow the constitution to the t. He is a strict constitutionalist, and does not follow the supposed "Constitution" that most politicans today use. Defending Ron Paul using the constitution is evidence enough. He actually wants America to be governed the way the founding fathers intended. I will give you lots of names of people who follow their own constitution: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, most Democratic Senators and Reprensentatives, some Republican Senators and Representatives, most in the Beaucracy, Democratic members of the Supreme Court, Obama's Cabinet, the list goes on forever. And I am not being biased. Yes, the majority of non-Constitution followers are Democratic, some are Republican.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:13:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 1:13:00 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:59:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:52:32 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.

No empirical evidence? He wants to follow the constitution.

No, he wants to follow his interpretation of the constitution. Obama is doing the same, but his interpretation may not be yours.

That is evidence enough.

It really isn't...

Anyone who is willing to bypass the constitution does not have America's best interests in mind.

Who is trying to do this?
Obama? The law professor at one of the best programs in our country is trying to undermine the very work that made his career?

And for the last time, there is a difference between devotion and respect.

No. He wants to the follow the constitution to the t. He is a strict constitutionalist, and does not follow the supposed "Constitution" that most politicans today use. Defending Ron Paul using the constitution is evidence enough. He actually wants America to be governed the way the founding fathers intended. I will give you lots of names of people who follow their own constitution: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, most Democratic Senators and Reprensentatives, some Republican Senators and Representatives, most in the Beaucracy, Democratic members of the Supreme Court, Obama's Cabinet, the list goes on forever. And I am not being biased. Yes, the majority of non-Constitution followers are Democratic, some are Republican.

Honestly now: I support Ron Paul, bu not because he's a Constitutionalist.

In fact, that mentality of "what the founding fathers intended" will probably be the thing that'll drive this country into the ground. I think a stricter interpretation, at least for the moment, is in order, but "to the t?" Are you mad, sir?

The world is changing, and we have to change with it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:20:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 2:13:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 1:13:00 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:59:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:52:32 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.

No empirical evidence? He wants to follow the constitution.

No, he wants to follow his interpretation of the constitution. Obama is doing the same, but his interpretation may not be yours.

That is evidence enough.

It really isn't...

Anyone who is willing to bypass the constitution does not have America's best interests in mind.

Who is trying to do this?
Obama? The law professor at one of the best programs in our country is trying to undermine the very work that made his career?

And for the last time, there is a difference between devotion and respect.

No. He wants to the follow the constitution to the t. He is a strict constitutionalist, and does not follow the supposed "Constitution" that most politicans today use. Defending Ron Paul using the constitution is evidence enough. He actually wants America to be governed the way the founding fathers intended. I will give you lots of names of people who follow their own constitution: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, most Democratic Senators and Reprensentatives, some Republican Senators and Representatives, most in the Beaucracy, Democratic members of the Supreme Court, Obama's Cabinet, the list goes on forever. And I am not being biased. Yes, the majority of non-Constitution followers are Democratic, some are Republican.

Honestly now: I support Ron Paul, bu not because he's a Constitutionalist.

In fact, that mentality of "what the founding fathers intended" will probably be the thing that'll drive this country into the ground. I think a stricter interpretation, at least for the moment, is in order, but "to the t?" Are you mad, sir?

The world is changing, and we have to change with it.

What the Ninja says is true.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:20:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 2:13:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 1:13:00 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:59:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:52:32 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 11:50:49 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Your inclination to defend Ron Paul without any sort of empirical evidence back you up shows your extreme devotion to this candidate.

BTW, look at definition three.

No empirical evidence? He wants to follow the constitution.

No, he wants to follow his interpretation of the constitution. Obama is doing the same, but his interpretation may not be yours.

That is evidence enough.

It really isn't...

Anyone who is willing to bypass the constitution does not have America's best interests in mind.

Who is trying to do this?
Obama? The law professor at one of the best programs in our country is trying to undermine the very work that made his career?

And for the last time, there is a difference between devotion and respect.

No. He wants to the follow the constitution to the t. He is a strict constitutionalist, and does not follow the supposed "Constitution" that most politicans today use. Defending Ron Paul using the constitution is evidence enough. He actually wants America to be governed the way the founding fathers intended. I will give you lots of names of people who follow their own constitution: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, most Democratic Senators and Reprensentatives, some Republican Senators and Representatives, most in the Beaucracy, Democratic members of the Supreme Court, Obama's Cabinet, the list goes on forever. And I am not being biased. Yes, the majority of non-Constitution followers are Democratic, some are Republican.

Honestly now: I support Ron Paul, bu not because he's a Constitutionalist.

In fact, that mentality of "what the founding fathers intended" will probably be the thing that'll drive this country into the ground. I think a stricter interpretation, at least for the moment, is in order, but "to the t?" Are you mad, sir?

The world is changing, and we have to change with it.

Following the constitution now will repeal hundreds of Democratic policies that have bankrupted this country. Taking a more isolationist stance on Foreign Policy (but not complete isolation) will reduce our budget and bring more troops home. Maybe to the t is not a great idea with certain aspects, but with others, it is absolutely necessary to the survival of the country and prevent a bankruptcy for this country.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:45:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 2:20:34 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

Following the constitution now will repeal hundreds of Democratic policies that have bankrupted this country. Taking a more isolationist stance on Foreign Policy (but not complete isolation) will reduce our budget and bring more troops home. Maybe to the t is not a great idea with certain aspects, but with others, it is absolutely necessary to the survival of the country and prevent a bankruptcy for this country.

Following the Constitution now would repeal hundreds of Republican policies that have morally bankrupted this nation. Taking a more liberal stance on domestic policy will reduce poverty and social governmental control, as well as provide veterans benefits for our troops.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:47:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 2:45:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 2:20:34 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

Following the constitution now will repeal hundreds of Democratic policies that have bankrupted this country. Taking a more isolationist stance on Foreign Policy (but not complete isolation) will reduce our budget and bring more troops home. Maybe to the t is not a great idea with certain aspects, but with others, it is absolutely necessary to the survival of the country and prevent a bankruptcy for this country.

Following the Constitution now would repeal hundreds of Republican policies that have morally bankrupted this nation. Taking a more socially liberal and economically conservative stance on domestic policy will reduce poverty and social governmental control, as well as provide veterans benefits for our troops.

Fix'd.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:54:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 2:45:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 2:20:34 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

Following the constitution now will repeal hundreds of Democratic policies that have bankrupted this country. Taking a more isolationist stance on Foreign Policy (but not complete isolation) will reduce our budget and bring more troops home. Maybe to the t is not a great idea with certain aspects, but with others, it is absolutely necessary to the survival of the country and prevent a bankruptcy for this country.

Following the Constitution now would repeal hundreds of Republican policies that have morally bankrupted this nation. Taking a more liberal stance on domestic policy will reduce poverty and social governmental control, as well as provide veterans benefits for our troops.

That's genius you stupid Liberal. Yes. It's the Repeblican policies that bankrupted the nation. Let's blame it on them. The Democrats did nothing. They are innocent bystanders. Democratic policies made the country lazy, stupid, and bankrupt. Republican policies made the market freer to get us out of recessions, reduced laziness in this country, and are absolute genius. Following the Constitution would repeal Obamacare, all Federal Bailouts, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Democratic Economic Policies. You are wrong.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:56:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ron paul, this will be you in two months:

http://www.debate.org...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 3:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 2:54:09 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/1/2012 2:45:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 2:20:34 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

Following the constitution now will repeal hundreds of Democratic policies that have bankrupted this country. Taking a more isolationist stance on Foreign Policy (but not complete isolation) will reduce our budget and bring more troops home. Maybe to the t is not a great idea with certain aspects, but with others, it is absolutely necessary to the survival of the country and prevent a bankruptcy for this country.

Following the Constitution now would repeal hundreds of Republican policies that have morally bankrupted this nation. Taking a more liberal stance on domestic policy will reduce poverty and social governmental control, as well as provide veterans benefits for our troops.

That's genius you stupid Liberal. Yes. It's the Repeblican policies that bankrupted the nation. Let's blame it on them. The Democrats did nothing. They are innocent bystanders. Democratic policies made the country lazy, stupid, and bankrupt. Republican policies made the market freer to get us out of recessions, reduced laziness in this country, and are absolute genius. Following the Constitution would repeal Obamacare, all Federal Bailouts, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Democratic Economic Policies. You are wrong.

Let's see here:
Ad hom, straw man fallacy, circular reasoning...

You're just saying things now. But, hey! You're doing a good job of defending your masters, Dubbuya and Bane-r.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 3:04:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 2:56:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ron paul, this will be you in two months:

http://www.debate.org...

At least izbo tried to back himself up with facts.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus