Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
He's some presidential candidate who gets some attention from obscure radio stations and a grouping of fringe internet lunatics, who think he's gonna be our next president.
Here are his credentials:
1. Republican
2. Religeous
3. Texan
4. Possesses one of those "penis like" noses, similar to Bill O'reilly's (another nut job)
And hell be damned, but this country has not recovered from the last Republican presidency, and probably won't during this generation and the next.
Need I say more?
Boy, that's one of the most ignorant responses to a Dr. Paul thread yet. Please tell me you're not registered to vote seeing as you obviously don't know how to determine what a candidate's credentials are.
Wow, you really are deluded. Oh, please, your exalted Dr. Paul. :roll:
I am registered to vote and I do know how to determine what a candidate brings to the table, or what he doesn't. Apparently, you have not learned to make that distinction yet.
I'm sorry, but you sir are the one who hasn't figured it out yet. If you think that Party affiliation, Religious tendencies, where someone is from, or what their freaking nose looks like has any bearing on a candidates credentials, you have no clue what the word "credentials" means. Maybe you should look at voting records, political and social ideologies, and maybe even what they speak about. You can dislike Dr. Paul because you don't agree with his philosophies, but the reasons you've given for not supporting him are straight up horse puckey and as previously stated, ignorant.
You realize that the first two are how 99% of the country decides who to vote for, right? If political party were irrelevant, why would anyone declare one? If religion didn't matter, why would the front-runners constantly pander to religious audiences? No, party and religion play a role in virtually everyone's mind when they enter the voting booth. Just because you may be enlightened enough to distance yourself from voting based on these things doesn't make them the wrong issue to vote on.
cre·den·tial: anything that provides the basis for confidence, belief, credit, etc.
Seems to me that political party and religion probably fall under this category for most voters.
Originally posted by: bamacre
It is sad really that after 7 years of Bush's imperialistic foreign policy and stripping away of constitutional rights, so many heavily criticize a man who not only promises to do the opposite, but also has a voting history that stands up to that promise.
You can make fun of his poll numbers, sure, but otherwise, there should be a lot more respect for an unfortunately rare display of dignity and integrity in Congress, and his respect for the Consititution and his constituents.
It is almost as if the people's rejection of Ron Paul is parallel to man's overall rejection of and hiding from truth. We have allowed our beautiful idea government to become something so evil and so corrupt, and we don't want to believe that we have done something so terrible.
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
He's some presidential candidate who gets some attention from obscure radio stations and a grouping of fringe internet lunatics, who think he's gonna be our next president.
Here are his credentials:
1. Republican
2. Religeous
3. Texan
4. Possesses one of those "penis like" noses, similar to Bill O'reilly's (another nut job)
And hell be damned, but this country has not recovered from the last Republican presidency, and probably won't during this generation and the next.
Need I say more?
Boy, that's one of the most ignorant responses to a Dr. Paul thread yet. Please tell me you're not registered to vote seeing as you obviously don't know how to determine what a candidate's credentials are.
Wow, you really are deluded. Oh, please, your exalted Dr. Paul. :roll:
I am registered to vote and I do know how to determine what a candidate brings to the table, or what he doesn't. Apparently, you have not learned to make that distinction yet.
I'm sorry, but you sir are the one who hasn't figured it out yet. If you think that Party affiliation, Religious tendencies, where someone is from, or what their freaking nose looks like has any bearing on a candidates credentials, you have no clue what the word "credentials" means. Maybe you should look at voting records, political and social ideologies, and maybe even what they speak about. You can dislike Dr. Paul because you don't agree with his philosophies, but the reasons you've given for not supporting him are straight up horse puckey and as previously stated, ignorant.
You realize that the first two are how 99% of the country decides who to vote for, right? If political party were irrelevant, why would anyone declare one? If religion didn't matter, why would the front-runners constantly pander to religious audiences? No, party and religion play a role in virtually everyone's mind when they enter the voting booth. Just because you may be enlightened enough to distance yourself from voting based on these things doesn't make them the wrong issue to vote on.
cre·den·tial: anything that provides the basis for confidence, belief, credit, etc.
Seems to me that political party and religion probably fall under this category for most voters.
Originally posted by: bamacre
It is sad really that after 7 years of Bush's imperialistic foreign policy and stripping away of constitutional rights, so many heavily criticize a man who not only promises to do the opposite, but also has a voting history that stands up to that promise.
You can make fun of his poll numbers, sure, but otherwise, there should be a lot more respect for an unfortunately rare display of dignity and integrity in Congress, and his respect for the Consititution and his constituents.
It is almost as if the people's rejection of Ron Paul is parallel to man's overall rejection of and hiding from truth. We have allowed our beautiful idea government to become something so evil and so corrupt, and we don't want to believe that we have done something so terrible.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I challenge your position. You have made blanket statements about how Ron Paul is a loon. But have yet to provide your logic for it. I want to see what issues you have aught with.
1.) What are his "Whack-job" idea's?
2.) Why is he a "loon" in your opinion?
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Boberfett, that's the third personal attack in just a few weeks. All because I've insulted your dream candidate, who in many people's opinion (including mine) is a total Loon.
The fanaticism exhibited by the pro-Paul contingent on this forum is almost as scary as the Whack-Job ideas of your candidate.
That fanaticism, all by itself, is a big red button screaming to be pushed.
Aside from that, the pro-Paul contingent congesting the board with the same "Isn't he just dreamy?" posts is annoying, as they all pretty much say the same thing over and over and over.
I'm also sure you'll be disappointed to know that, while he is by far the most trivial candidate in the race and generally not worth the effort of generating a post, I can at least gather some satisfaction in the fact that I am obviously annoying you at least as much as the pro-Paul contingent and your/their "I've got SUCH a crush on Ron" postings are annoying me.
The fact that you feel you must repeatedly resort to personal attacks just underscores the lame positon (and candidate) you are attempting to argue.
It's like an annoying commercial on the TV or radio. I don't buy their stuff either. I send email to the station (and sponsor) and let them know that their annoying commercial has caused me to change the channel. It's (probably) not going to change what they do, but at least I know I've done what I can to express my opinion. No threats or name-calling, just letting them know that I think their commercial stinks enough to stop listening to them, at least for a while.
The only exception is Air America. Nearly all their commercials suck, but they suck so bad as to be entertaining (much like many of their hosts).
So, once again BoberFett, chill. You take yourself way too seriously.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Boberfett, that's the third personal attack in just a few weeks. All because I've insulted your dream candidate, who in many people's opinion (including mine) is a total Loon.
The fanaticism exhibited by the pro-Paul contingent on this forum is almost as scary as the Whack-Job ideas of your candidate.
That fanaticism, all by itself, is a big red button screaming to be pushed.
Aside from that, the pro-Paul contingent congesting the board with the same "Isn't he just dreamy?" posts is annoying, as they all pretty much say the same thing over and over and over.
I'm also sure you'll be disappointed to know that, while he is by far the most trivial candidate in the race and generally not worth the effort of generating a post, I can at least gather some satisfaction in the fact that I am obviously annoying you at least as much as the pro-Paul contingent and your/their "I've got SUCH a crush on Ron" postings are annoying me.
The fact that you feel you must repeatedly resort to personal attacks just underscores the lame positon (and candidate) you are attempting to argue.
It's like an annoying commercial on the TV or radio. I don't buy their stuff either. I send email to the station (and sponsor) and let them know that their annoying commercial has caused me to change the channel. It's (probably) not going to change what they do, but at least I know I've done what I can to express my opinion. No threats or name-calling, just letting them know that I think their commercial stinks enough to stop listening to them, at least for a while.
The only exception is Air America. Nearly all their commercials suck, but they suck so bad as to be entertaining (much like many of their hosts).
So, once again BoberFett, chill. You take yourself way too seriously.
Keep dancing, little monkey. It amuses me.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modern-day Republicans are a disgrace to the original origins of the party's ideology and especially conservativism generally. Any true conservative that supports hacks like Giuliani or Thompson really should be ashamed of themselves if they truly understand what it means to be fiscally conservative.
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I challenge your position. You have made blanket statements about how Ron Paul is a loon. But have yet to provide your logic for it. I want to see what issues you have aught with.
1.) What are his "Whack-job" idea's?
2.) Why is he a "loon" in your opinion?
Wanting to eliminate the Federal Reserve is rather loony. I'm open to the idea of putting it under government control rather than keeping it as a private organization, but killing it entirely is ridiculous. Has Ron Paul even put forward a plan as to how he will go about eliminating the Fed? You do realize that every single bank in this country depends heavily on the Fed. You can't simply eliminate the Fed without causing a nationwide banking collapse.
Originally posted by: ScottMac
(extracted partial quote from PC Surgeon)
I challenge your position. You have made blanket statements about how Ron Paul is a loon. But have yet to provide your logic for it. I want to see what issues you have aught with.
1.) What are his "Whack-job" idea's?
2.) Why is he a "loon" in your opinion?
(end partial quote)
It just doesn't do any good trying to explain it to you (again). Many posters in this thread and the many other threads the RP Fan Club and Kool Aid Appreciation Society have put up explain why his ideas and solutions are sub-optimal to the point of what some (including me) would consider extreme / looney.
As is the most frequent response to a reasonable argument in this forum, you ignore it, or pull some minor fragment to challenge and focus (or divert). The source will never be authoritative enough for you, it will always be out of context, the source will be biased, or any of the usual lame excuses for not accepting the other person's facts and / or position. If you want to know, re-read this and virtually every other thread the Fan Club has posted.
One poster went into great detail (over a full screen, several times) of explaination as to why some of the RP ideas absolutely and beyond any doubt wouldn't work, couldn't work ... your response was basically "that's nice, but RP has a much better idea" (please note that the preceeding was not meant to represent a direct quote, I parphrased it as a concept) and just drag up the original point again, completely ignoring the poster's dead-spot-on explaination as to why the original RP thesis is invalid.
You don't want to know my opinion, or any other opinion that is contradictory to your own. You will not change your mind, it's not likely that I will change mine.
To this day, the RPFCaKAAS members won't even admit that RP is human and "may" have made mistakes or mis-spoke; every word falling out of his mouth is perfect, every thought golden, every word written a treasure. The way you folks gush over the Loon is just way over the edge.
So, I suppose, the bottom line is that while the RPFCaKAAS members are getting all worked-up wet & sticky about some pearl of wisdom bestowed upon the masses by RP himself (All Hail RP!), someone might drop in a post to remind you that not everyone shares your fanaticism.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
He's some presidential candidate who gets some attention from obscure radio stations and a grouping of fringe internet lunatics, who think he's gonna be our next president.
Here are his credentials:
1. Republican
2. Religeous
3. Texan
4. Possesses one of those "penis like" noses, similar to Bill O'reilly's (another nut job)
And hell be damned, but this country has not recovered from the last Republican presidency, and probably won't during this generation and the next.
Need I say more?
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
He's some presidential candidate who gets some attention from obscure radio stations and a grouping of fringe internet lunatics, who think he's gonna be our next president.
Here are his credentials:
1. Republican
2. Religeous
3. Texan
4. Possesses one of those "penis like" noses, similar to Bill O'reilly's (another nut job)
And hell be damned, but this country has not recovered from the last Republican presidency, and probably won't during this generation and the next.
Need I say more?
Those aren't credentials. I guess I must be one of your 'fringe internet lunatics' as well, eh?
Real credentials:
Consistent voting record
Rated 84+% conservative by American Conservative Union
Consistently opposed pay increases for himself and other congressmen
Voted against Iraq War
Voted against Patriot Act
Religious, but does not make it an issue nor believe it to be one
Outspoken and often is the ONLY one to vote against a particular bill on grounds on unconstitutionality
...
Need I go on?
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Modern-day Republicans are a disgrace to the original origins of the party's ideology and especially conservativism generally. Any true conservative that supports hacks like Giuliani or Thompson really should be ashamed of themselves if they truly understand what it means to be fiscally conservative.
Please. If anything, modern day Democrats are a disgrace to their party's origin. FDR would never approve of the modern Democratic Party. It's went so far off it may never recover.
I'd also remind you that Conservative != Republican. I know a fair number of Conservatives who identify as Libertarian, Independent, or even Democrat. The Blue Dogs, ya know.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
There's virtually no one that identifies themselves as Democrats who are also conservative. This is 2007 not 1977. But nice deflection to a Dem discussion. I mean good lord, do you even realize I'm not a Dem or a leftie, or are you really so paranoid that you think that those who know what's wrong with the neocon agenda and how it has destroyed many conservative/Republican values that you believe they must be Dems? rolf you're sad.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Is everything he says "golden"? Maybe, maybe not. I have yet to see anything he has said that I would consider "bad".
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
There's virtually no one that identifies themselves as Democrats who are also conservative. This is 2007 not 1977. But nice deflection to a Dem discussion. I mean good lord, do you even realize I'm not a Dem or a leftie, or are you really so paranoid that you think that those who know what's wrong with the neocon agenda and how it has destroyed many conservative/Republican values that you believe they must be Dems? rolf you're sad.
You're clueless. The vast majority of Democrats who were elected in '06 are so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats. They're moderate at best, and do not tow the hard-left agenda of Pelosi and Reid. Some of them are quite conservative in many areas.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Is everything he says "golden"? Maybe, maybe not. I have yet to see anything he has said that I would consider "bad".
Wanting to get rid of the IRS, SEC, EPA, and Federal Reserve, to me, makes no sense. His ideas are too radical because he litterally doesn't want to replace those gov't organizations with anything. Well, he said as much about abolishing the IRS and replacing them with nothing. The other agencies, I only know that he said he'd get rid of them. But his implication seems to be he'd replace them with nothing. Except how are environmental standards or economic regulation going to be enforced otherwise? Don't say private firms because there is an inherent conflict of interest there, which is why the military isn't privatized.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Blackwater ring a bell? heh
No actually I think he wants to remove the federal government from controlling those things and allow the states to do it independently. Yes, the IRS is to be abolished <confetti in the air>
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Boberfett, that's the third personal attack in just a few weeks. All because I've insulted your dream candidate, who in many people's opinion (including mine) is a total Loon.
The fanaticism exhibited by the pro-Paul contingent on this forum is almost as scary as the Whack-Job ideas of your candidate.
That fanaticism, all by itself, is a big red button screaming to be pushed.
Aside from that, the pro-Paul contingent congesting the board with the same "Isn't he just dreamy?" posts is annoying, as they all pretty much say the same thing over and over and over.
I'm also sure you'll be disappointed to know that, while he is by far the most trivial candidate in the race and generally not worth the effort of generating a post, I can at least gather some satisfaction in the fact that I am obviously annoying you at least as much as the pro-Paul contingent and your/their "I've got SUCH a crush on Ron" postings are annoying me.
The fact that you feel you must repeatedly resort to personal attacks just underscores the lame positon (and candidate) you are attempting to argue.
It's like an annoying commercial on the TV or radio. I don't buy their stuff either. I send email to the station (and sponsor) and let them know that their annoying commercial has caused me to change the channel. It's (probably) not going to change what they do, but at least I know I've done what I can to express my opinion. No threats or name-calling, just letting them know that I think their commercial stinks enough to stop listening to them, at least for a while.
The only exception is Air America. Nearly all their commercials suck, but they suck so bad as to be entertaining (much like many of their hosts).
So, once again BoberFett, chill. You take yourself way too seriously.
Keep dancing, little monkey. It amuses me.
And thus, I rest my case.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Blackwater ring a bell? heh
And how does that help your argument? What percentage of Blackwater personnel compared to DoD, DIA, etc.? Not even close, and Blackwater hasn't turned out well in some respects. You're proving my point.
No actually I think he wants to remove the federal government from controlling those things and allow the states to do it independently. Yes, the IRS is to be abolished <confetti in the air>
OK, but that's utterly ridiculous if that's what he wants; that would give the states leeway to control aspects of the tax code that by my understanding and basic common sense must be under federal jurisdiction. McCulloch vs. Maryland ring a bell?
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Blackwater ring a bell? heh
And how does that help your argument? What percentage of Blackwater personnel compared to DoD, DIA, etc.? Not even close, and Blackwater hasn't turned out well in some respects. You're proving my point.
Yes I know, maybe that was the intention? Relax, sheesh.
No actually I think he wants to remove the federal government from controlling those things and allow the states to do it independently. Yes, the IRS is to be abolished <confetti in the air>
OK, but that's utterly ridiculous if that's what he wants; that would give the states leeway to control aspects of the tax code that by my understanding and basic common sense must be under federal jurisdiction. McCulloch vs. Maryland ring a bell?
Any reason why you're so edgy? Or sarcastic? Shoosh. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know all the laws. But to me this would be a more efficient form of government and I'm willing to discuss that if you wish.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I'm not edgy at all, this is the Internet; it would be pretty difficult or really near impossible, for you to ascertain my emotional state. Not sure how that's relevant to this discussion anyhow.
But if you're a staunch Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his most controversial stances, then there's really not much else to say.