ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Dr. Love]

Um, there's a difference to "disagreeing on the internet" and using it as a venue for being a smarmy dick....

For such an aggressive personality you use a lot of passive language. Yes, there is a difference. I am not sure you (or I) care if there is one. Neither of us resist the urge to be dicks in our own way. Mine is more snide and yours is more personally attacking. Who gives a shit.

You keep saying you 'didn't understand,' yet you responded articulately to exactly the issue I stated. I mean, really? I mean I thought I was speaking incomprehensible gibberish!

Context... you eventually give enough of it for me to piece together your train of thought if I sift beyond the hyperbole and personal attacks enough.

You should ask yourself why it takes so many posts from you for someone else to get to the crux of your point (assuming it was, and assuming you had one).

But it's not really Ron Paul's stance on abortion, it's more his stance on legislating morality...

And what's his stance on legislating morality? The federal government shouldn't be involved.

Wow. In all my life I have never seen such a fucking cop out! Really, so you're essentially saying that though Ron Paul personally believes that abortion is a "violent crime," he believes that the (federal) state has no right in legislating against such violent murders, nor infringing upon the sanctity of the state governments in either sanctioning or restricting such violent crimes.

Practically all violent crime is handled at the state level.

So, theoretically Ron Paul believes that when he is President of a government that he both instinctively and ideologically hates (despite being well paid as a senator in it), that if a given state decides to commit violent crimes against a segment of its population, that there are "no regulations" provided against them doing so and that he would be powerless as a president to act against state or municipal level tyranny (as Ike, Kennedy, and LBJ did). No?

Congressman, not senator. One of the only few that returns a fair portion of his budget every year to the treasury. And I don't think you get the whole concept of liberty. Would he act as president to stop a state from violently harming its citizenry? I believe he would. It is consistent with the philosophy, which is pretty straightforward: You can do what you want so long as you don't harm someone else in doing it. When that occurs, the government steps in to protect the people.

I know of no one that would disagree with this. But we're talking about more than a single position here!

You've fixated on abortion as an area of hypocrisy (which I disagree with). The only other things we've discussed is philosophy on where federal and state boundaries lie. So I don't think we're talking about much more than a single position.

Tell me all about "logical fallacies." You seem to be drawn to them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid". By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

Fallacies can be used to win arguments regardless of the merits. Among such devices, discussed in more detail below, are: "ignoring the question" to divert argument to unrelated issues using a red herring, making the argument personal (argumentum ad hominem) and discrediting the opposition's character, "begging the question" (petitio principi), the use of the non-sequitur, false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc), bandwagoning (everyone says so), the "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is oversimplified, "card-stacking" or selective use of facts, and "false analogy". Another favorite device is the "false generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention from careful exploration of a subject.

I believe several of those apply.

Pot meets tea kettle...

I think you mistake my responses. I am completely happy to speak candidly and reasonably. That is by far the exception around here. No one is interested in a real debate. My responses aren't personal attacks, they are parody of the people involved in the conversation.

Then why are you conversing with me?

There's the rhetorical question/red herring.

Maybe when you are finally queefed out of that vagina you live in, and stop giving handjobs for handouts while obama fucks you in your asshole, you can figure out why.



This over-the-top, hyperbolic, personal-attack thing is going to take some time to get just right.

[Seshmeister]

The more I read about Grandpa Paul's strategy to influence the party's platform by holding his delegates hostage until he gets what he wants......the more I think it isn't, in theory, a bad idea or as naive as I had once thought.

Now it seems like there is a real possibility the GOP will have a brokered convention....Frothy and Newt both are banking on this. Coupled with the reality that no one wants Mitt.....it's going to make for an interesting convention. I still think it's a long shot but the odds are getting better every day. The GOP doesn't want a fractured convention because it makes them all look weak going into the nationals but with no candidate willing to step down it could be a reality.

Changing the course of the debate and getting his followers involved in running for office or using their delegates to ensure party influence might make a difference in the long term. The more I think about his strategy the more I think it could effect the GOP in 2014 and in 2016....long after Paul is out of the picture or is merely a figurehead by then.

Paul's having a minor influence on the debates and not as major of an impact as his supporters have wanted but he has brought a few things into the debate that wouldn't be there without him. As far as his influence goes come Nov......a coin toss at best. Any promises that Romney may make are not enforceable and he can't publicly promise any cabinet position for support because it's illegal.....so even if a backdoor deal is made.....it's only Romney's word that can keep it and that's a lot of faith to put in that scumbag.

Looking back to Pat Robertson's run in 1988....he started this religious reich madness that people like Dubya and Frothy are converts to. Ruined the GOP, IMO but he brought religion into the forefront of the GOP.

Barry Goldwater had a similar influence on the GOP in the '60's.

The big test to the Ron Paul movement is what happens to his supporters after Nov......will his supporters die off and fade away or will another person come in and take the mantle in 2014's mid-terms. That is going to be the test if Paul's ideas will last beyond his time or not. If his supporters don't mobilize and have a cohesive direction in the mid-terms the same thing will happen to Paul that happened to Perot's supporters.

I still am cynical enough to think money and fear and not ideas will run the GOP for years to come but I am man enough to admit I was wrong about Paul's strategic plan......especially with Newt and Frothy now playing the same game.

If all that is true would that not also mean that Santorum, with lots more delegates is going to wield a lot of power too? Scary...

[knuckleboner]

I am glad to Ron Paul for one thing ... previous to this cycle I've always sat on the side and been snarky, not really committing to any vision because nothing appealed. After this cycle I am immensely motivated to be involved in the local and state level as well as to participate and advocate at a national level.

outstanding, doc. improvements will not happen over night. but if more people had your attitude, it WILL happen.

[knuckleboner]

Here is what I think. I think anybody is an improvement to Obama. This dick head is still convinced the road to lower gas prices is reducing dependency on oil.

of course, he's producing more U.S. oil than bush ever did. but i guess the republican talking point still holds...

[Dr. Love]

Great news on the delegate front!

Ron Paul is sweeping various counties/districts as his supporters get ready for the state conventions.

Here's a recount of the county caucus in King County (seattle, I believe), WA:

Right off the bat it was evident that Paul supporters were the majority, around 120 of the 222 delegates. So when it came time to replace the temporary chairman with a permanent one, the Paul voters won and put in their candidate who in turn was able to reappoint the rest of the administrative positions (teller, secretary, sergeant at arms, etc.). This pissed off the Romney people immensely, and a woman at their table got up and ran out with two boxes (which we later learned had our bubble sheet ballots) she was stopped by a Paul supporter who asked what she was carrying, and she said it was 'republican property and they couldn't have it' . Everyone at the caucus was a republican…

So it comes time to vote, and the new chairman asks for the ballots and there is no response from the people who organized the caucus. Then they said that there were no ballots. Then they said that the candidate list that we were given WAS the ballot (it was just a list of all the electable delegates, ). They were doing this because they knew there were no other ballots, so we would have to resort to some sort of public vote (which is illegal by state GOP rules) this would invalidate all delegates from our District. The language of the GOP rule was that it had to be a printed ballot with all the delegates names on it, which the delegate list qualified as. So the chairman decided to declare the list a valid ballot and we would circle the candidates we were voting for. Several Romney supporters protested this saying that they had marked on the ballots, and had fears multiple ballots would be turned in. After some lengthy arguments over bylaws and robert's rules, they decided that authorized tellers, (comprised of delegates from all 4 factions) would collect the ballots and mark on our credentials stickers that we had turned in one. After the votes were tallied, all of the people in the Ron Paul slate (group promoted by the party to fill the exact number of spots, so as not to split their vote) had 110+ votes, while the Romney slate were all around 70-85. A motion was brought to, in the name of speeding things up, appoint the next 21 highest vote receivers as the alternates. This motion failed by a majority vote. After another lengthy discussion on weather the alternate candidates would get to speak prior to voting, and a fellow paul supporter (not from the district) running to Kinkos to print alternate ballots, Ron Paul ended up with all the delegates and all of the alternates. This was all accomplished by having about 55% of the vote.

TL,DR Ron Paul won all the delegates and alternates in district 36 of King County, Washington State

Here's what the reports are for today:

WA:

36th district, King County: RP wins all 21 delegates, all alternates, supporters take over all GOP offices for that county
46th district, King Country: RP wins all 20 delegates


MN:

60th district - RP takes all delegates for the congressional and state conventions


MO:

Taney County - RP takes all 22 delegates
Greene County - Paul 65 Romney 40 Santorum 6
Jasper County - Santorum 24, Paul 11, Romney 7, Newt 3
Franklin County - RP gets 24/40 delegates (60%)
Christian County - Santorum takes all 37 delegates
Buchanan County - Santorum takes all delegate (no count given) - "The committee were all Santorum supporters and had all the delegates preselected and gave no chance for any other slates to be nominated."
St. Charles County - no delegates selected - "They tried to do that in St Charles CO but when Romney and Paul supporters were outraged the meeting was adjourned with nothing completed. I'll post details as soon as I can."
Hadley township (St. Louis) - 3 Romney 2 Santorum 2 Paul 1 Gingrich
Meramac (St. Louis) - Santorum took all delegates (no count given)
Cole County - RP 26, Romney 44
Creve Coeur (St. Louis) - Romney takes 12 all delegates


Obviously not comprehensive, but nice to see him overperforming vs the straw poll. Looking at Missouri, it looks like RP got x of the y delegates (%) of what was posted about today!

For example, here's Missouri's totals from this sample set:

Ron Paul - 150 (38%)
Mitt Romney - 113 (29%)
Rick Santorum - 116 (30%)
Newt Gingrich - 6 (<1%)

Numbers won't add up to 100% because of rounding. From what I've been reading most caucuses around all the caucus states are going either like this (with RP people controlling them) or with a lot of arguing and disregard for the rules. In most cases, the RP people represent a very large part of the caucus proceedings, if not the majority.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the numbers are after the state conventions, and if they try to subvert the process to keep RP from getting any delegates.

[Nickdfresh]

For such an aggressive personality you use a lot of passive language. Yes, there is a difference. I am not sure you (or I) care if there is one. Neither of us resist the urge to be dicks in our own way. Mine is more snide and yours is more personally attacking. Who gives a shit.

Fair enough...but you know I gotz nothing but love for you Dr. Loves...

Context... you eventually give enough of it for me to piece together your train of thought if I sift beyond the hyperbole and personal attacks enough.

You should ask yourself why it takes so many posts from you for someone else to get to the crux of your point (assuming it was, and assuming you had one).

Part of your style is in fact ignoring a point you'd rather not discuss and just dismissing away what is a major chink in Ron Paul's libertarian armor...

And what's his stance on legislating morality? The federal government shouldn't be involved.

Which means that the tyranny can just be shifted to individual state gov'ts and municipalities. Sort of like Segregation...

Practically all violent crime is handled at the state level.

You may be right, but I'd like to see the stats on that one. However, I can tell you I was just discussing a local case (see David Cain Tree Service for more info) where some psychotic asshole basically terrorized an entire town to the extent that it took a federal task force to take him down. Major violent crimes by more powerful criminal syndicates drawing on large resources are prosecuted by the feds...

Congressman, not senator. One of the only few that returns a fair portion of his budget every year to the treasury. And I don't think you get the whole concept of liberty. Would he act as president to stop a state from violently harming its citizenry? I believe he would. It is consistent with the philosophy, which is pretty straightforward: You can do what you want so long as you don't harm someone else in doing it. When that occurs, the government steps in to protect the people.

I'm pretty sure I get the concept of liberty, and it applies to women, not just males. Would Ron Paul intervene? He probably would or would be deposed via some form of impeachment. However, one must also reckon what has happened in history with those of Ron Paul's beliefs of Laize Faire. The U.S. suffered much more in the Great Depression largely because of the inaction by the Hoover Admin. And since it is St. Patrick's weekend, I'd also point out the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-52 was vastly worsened by the British gov'ts notion that government has no place in relief efforts, and that was the job of charities. Tens of thousands perished or were forced to emigrate from their homes as a result.

You've fixated on abortion as an area of hypocrisy (which I disagree with). The only other things we've discussed is philosophy on where federal and state boundaries lie. So I don't think we're talking about much more than a single position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...

I think you mistake my responses. I am completely happy to speak candidly and reasonably. That is by far the exception around here. No one is interested in a real debate. My responses aren't personal attacks, they are parody of the people involved in the conversation.

Your responses are in the eye of the beholder. Once one write something, he or she loses complete ownership of the syntax...

There's the rhetorical question/red herring.

Maybe when you are finally queefed out of that vagina you live in, and stop giving handjobs for handouts while obama fucks you in your asshole, you can figure out why.



This over-the-top, hyperbolic, personal-attack thing is going to take some time to get just right.

Oh my Dr. Love, what was ever on your mind this evening? Being in a vagina is kind of nice, I don't give handjobs for handouts, but if I did, it really wouldn't be a "handout" since I earned it! And I don't think Obama has ever tried to fuck my asshole. In fact, I support his policies of middle class tax breaks while striving for a fair tax burden...

[Kristy]

Ron Paul 2012. What an inevitable reality.

[Kristy]

Regardless of the vote counts, it really makes me happy to see so many people turn out to hear the ideas.

Those are not people those are a bunch of over-privileged 20-something college grads pissed off beacuse they can't find a job, or if they do find a job, feel they are entitled to a minimum of $65K/y. Wonder how many of them served as grunts in Iraq, much less ever wondered where their next meal came from. Paul is nothing more than a limp-wristed daddy figure to these miscreants. And what "ideals" does Paul have? Is he going to abolish the Fed for good? No? Maybe give reprieve on student loans for these shitheads? No? Make healthcare affordable for all? No? So where does this mindset of Paul having some sort of Utopian future for America come from? Paul is noting more than another rich, white Rethuglican pandering a non-religious angle to America's dumbed-down youth for votes. He's not going to change a single thing.

[Kristy]

Okay.



I'm saying Ron Paul can "disagree" all he wants, but after that I lost you as well...





You mean like posting Ron Paul meme pics?



Check your nonsensical third sentence in your post, then get back to me on making sense...

You're too much of a pussy to have any real conversation. You long ago stated that you 'don't care about abortion' in order to stifle any discussion. But the fact is that Ron Paul if a bit of a frothing and disingenuous hypocrite based on his belief that government should regulate womens' bodies. But you don't care about that, do you? You simply ignore what you find inconvenient...

Your quote & paste counter-arguments are really starting to get old, Nick. Please fuck off.

[Headly1984]

- Ron Paul has support of some of the troops who are sick of being part of longer rotations in a currently never ending war with expanding fields of engagement

How long was WWII ? How man yrs has Gulf I, Gulf II, Afghanistan been ? and maybe next Iran, oh yeah, Libya - maybe Syria .. Are we the UN ? what an amazing coalition we have with US - UK lol! wow 2 out of how many nations ?

- Thank Ron Paul for being a person of real opinion unlike Mitt the weather vain or McOld in the last election or Barry shallow elected for skin color by many who thought why not him, lets try something different - it was him or Gramps - what a selection last time ..

this election too - who picks these winners Mitt? Santorum? oh man - if these guys are the best lets just let the Military run the country like Egypt lol!

Ron Paul is if nothing else, injecting debate and opinion into the process again and his grass roots supporters may just keep the GOP honest for the next couple of yrs - I hope he gets to the convention and gets the VP or some concession of fiscal matters by whoever gets the nod

Why was it after the bubble crash - after TARP - which never did purchase troubled assets as a relief program, why was the FED never audited to see where it placed its bets regarding our market - when fannie mae's finances were looked at we saw that they were placing bets on home owners defaulting contrary to the mission of Fannie Mae -oops!

How do we know what our nations bank is doing if we are not allowed to audit them ?

[Dr. Love]

Oh, I love you too nick. :P

I disagree but I understand where you are coming from. I agree it's not so simple, but I still like a lot of the ideas, and I like hearing someone speak about solving problems rather than prolonging them, bring honest about how they see the world instead of using talking points, and answering questions directly instead of using sound bites.

I don't think he has all the answers and I don't think he is right on everything but I do think he is more genuine than the rest.

[Nickdfresh]

Your quote & paste counter-arguments are really starting to get old, Nick. Please fuck off.

Okay, I'll fuck off then. But only because you asked nicely...

[Dr. Love]

Those are not people those are a bunch of over-privileged 20-something college grads pissed off beacuse they can't find a job, or if they do find a job, feel they are entitled to a minimum of $65K/y. Wonder how many of them served as grunts in Iraq, much less ever wondered where their next meal came from. Paul is nothing more than a limp-wristed daddy figure to these miscreants. And what "ideals" does Paul have? Is he going to abolish the Fed for good? No? Maybe give reprieve on student loans for these shitheads? No? Make healthcare affordable for all? No? So where does this mindset of Paul having some sort of Utopian future for America come from? Paul is noting more than another rich, white Rethuglican pandering a non-religious angle to America's dumbed-down youth for votes. He's not going to change a single thing.

Those aren't people, huh. You do realize that Ron Paul's campaign receives more contributions from the military than all of the other candidates (including the President) combined, right?

RP's plan is fairly straight forward - give people the freedom to choose how to live their lives and the accountability that goes along with it. Think about what that means if you apply it to every question you asked.

Aside form that, yes, he will try to abolish the fed. His audit bill is only 4 cosponsors away from a majority in the House.

If you listen to what he says and proposes, I highly doubt it's pandering. Pandering is telling someone you're going to give them everything they want. Ron Paul's plan is a bitter pill to swallow -- basically that he's going to start taking government control of things away and return that control to the people, which is practically the opposite of saying that the government will give you everything you want.

[Nitro Express]

Ron Paul 2012. What an inevitable reality.

We can give Ron the same battery powered heart pump Dick Cheney has to keep him going.

[Kristy]

Those aren't people, huh. You do realize that Ron Paul's campaign receives more contributions from the military than all of the other candidates (including the President) combined, right?

RP's plan is fairly straight forward - give people the freedom to choose how to live their lives and the accountability that goes along with it. Think about what that means if you apply it to every question you asked.

Aside form that, yes, he will try to abolish the fed. His audit bill is only 4 cosponsors away from a majority in the House.

If you listen to what he says and proposes, I highly doubt it's pandering. Pandering is telling someone you're going to give them everything they want. Ron Paul's plan is a bitter pill to swallow -- basically that he's going to start taking government control of things away and return that control to the people, which is practically the opposite of saying that the government will give you everything you want.

Wasn't Obama pretty saying the same 4 years ago? Isn't that how you win the heart of a liberal - tell them what they want to hear? The definition of pandering. You say Paul takes in more contribution for the military? Are we talking the industry complex or ex disgruntled vets? Even if grandpa was elected, I doubt he would end the Fed in 4 years, give reprieve to a single student college loan or let anyone live their life to their own accountability. He's just another Rethuglican puppet.