ron paul kills it at cpac

Feh, Ron Paul. The guy and his son skeeve me out and set off my racist and antisemitic spider sense worse than Pat Buchanan writing a Reagan speech. Besides, Libertarianism is failed concept. It didn't work 200 years ago, it is largely responsible for the mess we're in right now, and there's no way for digging up out of the hole. We should stop listening to morons like Ron Paul and the fascist tea baggers and embrace hard line social democracy in the style of Europe in the 1980's and the German Iron Front in the 1930's. Freedom, security, and employment for all, Justice for all, innovation helping all, and zero tolerance of conservatism (aka what it really is, post-enlightenment feudalism), communism, and fascism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, you mean the illegality of NOT using gold and silver? He's not whining: he's right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If by that you mean, "the constitution of the USA", then, yes, the words flow right through him. What's different about Paul is he "hides" directly behind the most correct and fundamental elements of our laws rather than hiding behind the bloated legislation we have today.

This seems no better than Biblical literalism. How cans he "believe in the Constitution" but not in the legitimacy of the institutions it created? Last I checked the THE CONSTITUTION said that deciding if a law was constitutional or not was the job of the Supreme Court rather than unilateral declarations by Congressman.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But.....he is Jeffersonian on multiple policies. 😬 He's also not only "Jeffersonian" and has never said he was.

Edit - I understand now what you make this seem negative: you think all polices from the nascent US are bad.

You mean George Washington's Farewell Address (because "Washingtonian" foreign Policy is not a real political term, it's a word made up when people want to pontificate (nothing wrong with that, just make sure you pontificate with accuracy).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=washingtonian+foreign+policy (Ignore the smartass way it goes about taking you to the results, please: just wanted a quick way to show you the results.)

This "feels" like empty rhetoric on your part. I don't think that you can legitimately substantiate the above claim without showing that you're just typing out empty anti-Paul rhetoric. If you do attempt to substantiate that, you'll end up showing that you misunderstood Paul, were simply wrong, or a combination of the 2.

Oh, wow. You could not be further from the truth. Just the opposite. Are you getting your information directly from Ron Paul's stances or are you getting this from an anti-Ron Paul blog?

As fact, here's the reference you are taking out of context:

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/healthcare.html

Seems to have been taken completely out of context on your part. He's not talking about 91% tax rates. Just the opposite: he wants to eliminate income taxes or settle for a flat tax. In addition, he wants to give the same tax benefits that the RICH get.

That's definitely wrong in addition to also being an inappropriate criticism. The MIC is so heavily entrenched in the government's pockets that it is almost impossible to cut certain programs because they intelligently fragment projects into different programs. If that's not corrupt, I do not know what is.

Additionally, he wants to cut the budget, massively, to military. Why is that a problem?

Oh, you mean the illegality of NOT using gold and silver? He's not whining: he's right.

He's also advocated the removal of taxes on gold transactions. He also has stated that he does not want to go back, 100% to a pure "gold standard."

Here's the official quote:

YouTube video

Start at around 2 minutes.

He proposes a "newer" type of gold standard. It's not the "pure" gold standard of yesteryear.

Decreasing the rate of inflation, extending tax benefits related to healthcare to the average joe, and even trying to get rid of income taxes? That's runs directly opposite to your anti-Paul rhetoric.

Unrealistic because of corruption and a gigantic government, not because all of his ideas are bad. We would need 20 years to undo 70 years of crappy government polices.

As do most rational, free-thinking voters.

Additionally, the diversity in the democratic and republican parties is huge. Why does he need to form his own party when he fits in just fine into his own party's ideals (the Republican party is much larger than it's contemporary elected officials. The same goes for the Democratic party.)

You REALLY hate Ron Paul, don't you? 😄

Anyway, again, only unrealistic because it would be impossible to dismantle so much infrastructure without falling prey to what I outlined to Darth Jello a week back.

If by that you mean, "the constitution of the USA", then, yes, the words flow right through him. What's different about Paul is he "hides" directly behind the most correct and fundamental elements of our laws rather than hiding behind the bloated legislation we have today.

Can you provide examples of Ron Paul corruptly interpreted or misinterpretted the constitution? From what I can tell, he's the exact opposite of what you stated above.

No, not really.

No, not that either.

In fact, this particular point of yours is exactly wrong. You would have been correct if you had stated something like, "He whines about the big corrupt government stealing from it's people and lying about what they do with the money." He supports a small flat-tax (10%) if eliminating income taxes is not possible.

So...where's the problem with that?

So Ron Paul is advocating we change the US system to that of the one 1792 (he's not)? You also believe that all of the policies in the constitution are not at all realistic in today (because, that's what you've indicated with your sweeping statement)?

I've never heard one single Ron Paul supporter calling him "Obama" or "Obama version 1." The best I've heard from Paul supporters is people saying something similar, "Meh, I guess I'll have to settle for Obama."

No, I do not misunderstand Ron Paul, but your entire post screams of misunderstanding what I have said. In the morning, I'll tell you exactly what you misunderstood, stepped over, misconstrude and flat out ignored in favor of your position that Ron Paul is what you are now saying that I think of Obama; that he is the answer to everything. You're wrong, just as wrong as Mr. Paul, in your understanding of reality.

Originally posted by skekUng
No, I do not misunderstand Ron Paul, but your entire post screams of misunderstanding what I have said. In the morning, I'll tell you exactly what you misunderstood, stepped over, misconstrude and flat out ignored in favor of your position that Ron Paul is what you are now saying that I think of Obama; that he is the answer to everything. You're wrong, just as wrong as Mr. Paul, in your understanding of reality.

I figured I would at least give you post a fair shake. Everyone else seemed to not really take it seriously. I think you did make some good points, but most of them were either wrong or the typical political poop slinging. There's much better criticisms that I've seen such as "ending birthright citizenships." I like that "law." I do agree that the reasons around that, ending illegal immigrant welfare, is a good idea.

I was talking to Robtard about Paul a few years back and I think I concluded that I liked somewhere between 70-90% of what he had to offer.

I'm against and for a flat tax.

I think we should become super isolationist compared to what we do now, but also improve foreign relations. That means: bring troops home, fire half of them, and put the rest to better work. Instead of spending tens of billions building and protecting other nations, why can't we spend about half of that, domestically? What's wrong with the army building houses, here, instead of in a poor country? What's wrong with feeding, via our military, the poor, here? And so forth.

There's a huge list of things he has great ideas on...but there's also a sizable list of things that are either not feasible or just can't happen. (And those lists overlap.) Just like Romney, I really don't care about listing out tons and tons of positions and telling you why I agree or disagree with each point: that would take hours.

So, I concede whatever it is you will counter.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This seems no better than Biblical literalism. How cans he "believe in the Constitution" but not in the legitimacy of the institutions it created? Last I checked the THE CONSTITUTION said that deciding if a law was constitutional or not was the job of the Supreme Court rather than unilateral declarations by Congressman.

Some things are very specific and easy to understand. Such as, the way we conduct war, 'handle' money, and so forth. No amount of the application of the elastic clause can justify those other than: "Who the **** cares about what the constitution says?" No challenge reaches the SC, the law happens. At this point, it is impossible to dismantle them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I figured I would at least give you post a fair shake. Everyone else seemed to not really take it seriously. I think you did make some good points, but most of them were either wrong or the typical political poop slinging. There's much better criticisms that I've seen such as "ending birthright citizenships." I like that "law." I do agree that the reasons around that, ending illegal immigrant welfare, is a good idea.

I was talking to Robtard about Paul a few years back and I think I concluded that I liked somewhere between 70-90% of what he had to offer.

I'm against and for a flat tax.

I think we should become super isolationist compared to what we do now, but also improve foreign relations. That means: bring troops home, fire half of them, and put the rest to better work. Instead of spending tens of billions building and protecting other nations, why can't we spend about half of that, domestically? What's wrong with the army building houses, here, instead of in a poor country? What's wrong with feeding, via our military, the poor, here? And so forth.

There's a huge list of things he has great ideas on...but there's also a sizable list of things that are either not feasible or just can't happen. (And those lists overlap.) Just like Romney, I really don't care about listing out tons and tons of positions and telling you why I agree or disagree with each point: that would take hours.

So, I concede whatever it is you will counter.

That's a nice way of going back an pretending you know everything I'm going to day as a response to your bullshit post; your bullshit, assumptive post. Had you waited until I responded, then you might have come across as more certain of your statements AND less insecure of your ability to totally misinterpret a post. On the internet. Where we both apparently spend to much time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]But.....he is Jeffersonian on multiple policies. 😬 He's also not only "Jeffersonian" and has never said he was.

Edit - I understand now what you make this seem negative: you think all polices from the nascent US are bad.

It is exactly nascent. The fact that you realized that afterwards explains a alot of what you're capable of understanding that counters what Mr. Paul pretends not to understand - even though you now decide to use it as a reason to further your support for the man.

Mr. Jefferson wrote a living document, meant to change with the understand, evolution and progress of the times. Some of this change has happened under republican control, under democrat control, etc. What corrupts Mr. Pauls ideaology, thus making it naive, is that it hinges uppon any and every evolution of the document. Mr. Paul wants the wordsof our founders to be absolute and unchanging. This is not only unrealistic, but it is -as I pointed out earlier- not Jeffersonian. Mr. Jefferson spoke at length to Mr. Adams about this happening with their words, just as they did with the words of Jesus the Christ. What might strike Mr. Paul, is the profound sympathy Thomas Jefferson had for him, even though Jefferson called for revolution in every generation, it wasn't the kind of head-in-the-sand revolution Mr. Paul espouses his own support. Mr. Jefferson, more than anybody, more than Mr Paul, understood the constitution was a document concieved of as a living one. A document meant to change with the times and hoped that those elected to change it were bright enough to know how and why they were doing so. Mr Paul draws a line in the sand, and ignores the intentions of the very document he professes to holdin such high regard. His writing proves that. His son's public positions cement that.

You mean George Washington's Farewell Address (because "Washingtonian" foreign Policy is not a real political term, it's a word made up when people want to pontificate (nothing wrong with that, just make sure you pontificate with accuracy).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=washingtonian+foreign+policy (Ignore the smartass way it goes about taking you to the results, please: just wanted a quick way to show you the results.)

Exactly the historical reference I am addressing...one Mr Paul claims with little ebarassment. Mr. Jefferson ignored Washington's advice, based on the shift in political realities of the time. That shift was based on the reality that what happened with the barbary pirates, Adams sedition act, etc, were realities facing the country of that time. Mr. Paul wants to end every foreign entanglment, but ignores thaqt doing such a thing would mean the end of every teenager cheering for him at C-Pac, but also people like yourself who post on the internet about him being the greatest constitutionalist since the founding fathers themselves.

This "feels" like empty rhetoric on your part. I don't think that you can legitimately substantiate the above claim without showing that you're just typing out empty anti-Paul rhetoric. If you do attempt to substantiate that, you'll end up showing that you misunderstood Paul, were simply wrong, or a combination of the 2.

Oh, wow. You could not be further from the truth. Just the opposite. Are you getting your information directly from Ron Paul's stances or are you getting this from an anti-Ron Paul blog?

As fact, here's the reference you are taking out of context:

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/healthcare.html

Not rhetoric, at least not on my part. He and his party have both decried and bashed Carter for the national call for responsability, sacrifice and understanding. He poopoos Carter as though free-market capitalism, if the government would just get out of the way, proves Carter andObama wrong. But, there is no other reality than our finite planet, the bullshit of assuming that it isn't limited and that any political perspective, global warming aside, is the position of the naive and irresponsible. Mr. Paul professing that everyone will be fine if the government gets out of the way is unrealistic and naive. Especially when he pretends to decry the government so that private business can reign free and suck up those finite respources even faster -and at a profit at the expense of their consumers- even faster

Seems to have been taken completely out of context on your part. He's not talking about 91% tax rates. Just the opposite: he wants to eliminate income taxes or settle for a flat tax. In addition, he wants to give the same tax benefits that the RICH get.

That's definitely wrong in addition to also being an inappropriate criticism. The MIC is so heavily entrenched in the government's pockets that it is almost impossible to cut certain programs because they intelligently fragment projects into different programs. If that's not corrupt, I do not know what is.

This is where you supposed two different statements, but assumed only one. He mentioned Eisenhower, but ignored the 91% tax on business, which is how Eisenhower proposed to fund that MIC -AND-AND- the progress made by Roosevelt's promises, deserved promises, to the
American people. Mr. Paul would like to see all of us pay 10 tax. Which is fine, except that he wants no ounce of government getting between a business and it's own consumers.

Additionally, he wants to cut the budget, massively, to military. Why is that a problem?

I have ZERO concern about cutting the military budget. But, I'm pretty sure that everyone who enjoys television, pesticides, indoor paint, cell phones, liking something on facebook or text blogging about Ron Paul does.

The entire point of my industrial revolution comments are aimed at Mr. Pauls inability or unwillingness to realize that everything this country assumes is it's standard of living, it's unapologetic standard of living, is oil based. We no longer have the oil; that's why we have an empire. It has nothiong to do with spreading democracy, spreading free market ideas, promoting common wealth among the citizens of a nation or just wanting to **** with brown people in hot parts of the world. It has everything to do with the plastic that goes into a ron paul sign, a rand paul sign, and cell phone, a tire and an airbag. Our standard of living in based entirely on our ability to consume oil. How loud will your cry for a Ron Paul presidency, or the hard on you get about thinking you've just proven something to a stranger on the internet, sound when there is no more internet, no more laptop, no more digital camera to photograph your smug face? Perhaps that sounds like a good idea given Mr. Pauls willingness to dial back our society, but as long as that return to growing corn and tobacco is still plausible for the rape of big business, then Mr. Paul will be vindicated in ignoring the desired evolution, not of money or religion or indifference, of the thought process. The very and most-pure desire of those founding father's Mr. Paul incites so often and you ignore while defending him.

[quoteOh, you mean the illegality of NOT using gold and silver? He's not whining: he's right.

He's also advocated the removal of taxes on gold transactions. He also has stated that he does not want to go back, 100% to a pure "gold standard."

Here's the official quote:

YouTube video

Start at around 2 minutes.

He proposes a "newer" type of gold standard. It's not the "pure" gold standard of yesteryear.[/quote]

Where, exactly, does that leave everyone without gold? I did close my panning operation in favor of unbacked cotton paper with a government promise facetype on it? No, but thazt's what I've been trading since the Nixon administration. My neighbor doesn't have any gold. That's fine, though, he doesn't have any kids.

Decreasing the rate of inflation, extending tax benefits related to healthcare to the average joe, and even trying to get rid of income taxes? That's runs directly opposite to your anti-Paul rhetoric.

You are confusing this with a conversation about anti-Paul and my support ofr Obama. I can assumre you that gutting Mr. Paul's desire for pretending that everything has to be for profit and can not be given government intrusion is a real desire of mine. It's called socialism. The marriage of socialism and democracy (which democracy really was to begin with) is the most correct way to go. So, by those standards, everything I say and support is anti-Paul. It simply doesn't take into consideration how naive Mr. Paul is, given the blind support for his strict historical interpretation. An interpretation you seem to love.

Originally posted by skekUng
That's a nice way of going back an pretending you know everything I'm going to day as a response to your bullshit post; your bullshit, assumptive post. Had you waited until I responded, then you might have come across as more certain of your statements AND less insecure of your ability to totally misinterpret a post. On the internet. Where we both apparently spend to much time.

Originally posted by skekUng
It is exactly nascent. The fact that you realized that afterwards explains a alot of what you're capable of understanding that counters what Mr. Paul pretends not to understand - even though you now decide to use it as a reason to further your support for the man.

Mr. Jefferson wrote a living document, meant to change with the understand, evolution and progress of the times. Some of this change has happened under republican control, under democrat control, etc. What corrupts Mr. Pauls ideaology, thus making it naive, is that it hinges uppon any and every evolution of the document. Mr. Paul wants the wordsof our founders to be absolute and unchanging. This is not only unrealistic, but it is -as I pointed out earlier- not Jeffersonian. Mr. Jefferson spoke at length to Mr. Adams about this happening with their words, just as they did with the words of Jesus the Christ. What might strike Mr. Paul, is the profound sympathy Thomas Jefferson had for him, even though Jefferson called for revolution in every generation, it wasn't the kind of head-in-the-sand revolution Mr. Paul espouses his own support. Mr. Jefferson, more than anybody, more than Mr Paul, understood the constitution was a document concieved of as a living one. A document meant to change with the times and hoped that those elected to change it were bright enough to know how and why they were doing so. Mr Paul draws a line in the sand, and ignores the intentions of the very document he professes to holdin such high regard. His writing proves that. His son's public positions cement that.

Exactly the historical reference I am addressing...one Mr Paul claims with little ebarassment. Mr. Jefferson ignored Washington's advice, based on the shift in political realities of the time. That shift was based on the reality that what happened with the barbary pirates, Adams sedition act, etc, were realities facing the country of that time. Mr. Paul wants to end every foreign entanglment, but ignores thaqt doing such a thing would mean the end of every teenager cheering for him at C-Pac, but also people like yourself who post on the internet about him being the greatest constitutionalist since the founding fathers themselves.

Originally posted by skekUng
Not rhetoric, at least not on my part. He and his party have both decried and bashed Carter for the national call for responsability, sacrifice and understanding. He poopoos Carter as though free-market capitalism, if the government would just get out of the way, proves Carter andObama wrong. But, there is no other reality than our finite planet, the bullshit of assuming that it isn't limited and that any political perspective, global warming aside, is the position of the naive and irresponsible. Mr. Paul professing that everyone will be fine if the government gets out of the way is unrealistic and naive. Especially when he pretends to decry the government so that private business can reign free and suck up those finite respources even faster -and at a profit at the expense of their consumers- even faster

This is where you supposed two different statements, but assumed only one. He mentioned Eisenhower, but ignored the 91% tax on business, which is how Eisenhower proposed to fund that MIC -AND-AND- the progress made by Roosevelt's promises, deserved promises, to the
American people. Mr. Paul would like to see all of us pay 10 tax. Which is fine, except that he wants no ounce of government getting between a business and it's own consumers.

I have ZERO concern about cutting the military budget. But, I'm pretty sure that everyone who enjoys television, pesticides, indoor paint, cell phones, liking something on facebook or text blogging about Ron Paul does.

The entire point of my industrial revolution comments are aimed at Mr. Pauls inability or unwillingness to realize that everything this country assumes is it's standard of living, it's unapologetic standard of living, is oil based. We no longer have the oil; that's why we have an empire. It has nothiong to do with spreading democracy, spreading free market ideas, promoting common wealth among the citizens of a nation or just wanting to **** with brown people in hot parts of the world. It has everything to do with the plastic that goes into a ron paul sign, a rand paul sign, and cell phone, a tire and an airbag. Our standard of living in based entirely on our ability to consume oil. How loud will your cry for a Ron Paul presidency, or the hard on you get about thinking you've just proven something to a stranger on the internet, sound when there is no more internet, no more laptop, no more digital camera to photograph your smug face? Perhaps that sounds like a good idea given Mr. Pauls willingness to dial back our society, but as long as that return to growing corn and tobacco is still plausible for the rape of big business, then Mr. Paul will be vindicated in ignoring the desired evolution, not of money or religion or indifference, of the thought process. The very and most-pure desire of those founding father's Mr. Paul incites so often and you ignore while defending him.

Where, exactly, does that leave everyone without gold? I did close my panning operation in favor of unbacked cotton paper with a government promise facetype on it? No, but thazt's what I've been trading since the Nixon administration. My neighbor doesn't have any gold. That's fine, though, he doesn't have any kids.

You are confusing this with a conversation about anti-Paul and my support ofr Obama. I can assumre you that gutting Mr. Paul's desire for pretending that everything has to be for profit and can not be given government intrusion is a real desire of mine. It's called socialism. The marriage of socialism and democracy (which democracy really was to begin with) is the most correct way to go. So, by those standards, everything I say and support is anti-Paul. It simply doesn't take into consideration how naive Mr. Paul is, given the blind support for his strict historical interpretation. An interpretation you seem to love.

You're right about everything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're right about everything.

I know I am. Do you understand that Mr. Paul is wrong about almost everything, though? That's the question.

Originally posted by skekUng
I know I am. Do you understand that Mr. Paul is wrong about almost everything, though? That's the question.

My understanding is that he's not wrong about most things (political stances), meaning, greater than 50%. Like I said prior, most people did not take you seriously, I decided to take just that one post seriously, to show you how far the discussion really could be taken. We could go back and forth for days, but that's not something I desire. After I made my point about the Anti-Paul rhetoric, I was done. I did not feel a nagging need to argue any more points as I had shown what I chose to show: it can be argued just like any other political stance can. We could do the same for Romney, Obama, Palin, and so forth. It's just that no one really gave that post a good reply, so I figured I would.

I'm a "middle" with a 2 point lean (on a 50 point scale) towards the "libertarian" quadrant. Meaning, I share ideas with contemporary republicans, democrats, independents, and general libertarianism.

I must have missed the PM that said you spoke for everyone. No one took anything I said seriously, why? Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

Oh, you agree with every political ideology. Is that so you can enter every thread, read the topic, spend the next hour researching it on wikipedia and then coming back on here and showing all of us how much you know about 'a little bit of everything'? That position much be a real luxury when it comes time to defend something you've said. Guess what, Cephus, everybody agrees with something in every political ideology. But, this isn't about every political ideology; this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

Didn't you say I was a sock troll and that you would never speak to me again? What changed? Do you hate me that much, or do you just love Ron Paul that much?

Maybe we could talk about all those unprovided reasons you think Mitt Romney would make the best president. but, then again, when you didn't do so in that conversation, you said you agreed a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side. Does that stance sound familiar to you?

Sounds like an undecided voter.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Feh, Ron Paul. The guy and his son skeeve me out and set off my racist and antisemitic spider sense worse than Pat Buchanan writing a Reagan speech. Besides, Libertarianism is failed concept. It didn't work 200 years ago, it is largely responsible for the mess we're in right now, and there's no way for digging up out of the hole. We should stop listening to morons like Ron Paul and the fascist tea baggers and embrace hard line social democracy in the style of Europe in the 1980's and the German Iron Front in the 1930's. Freedom, security, and employment for all, Justice for all, innovation helping all, and zero tolerance of conservatism (aka what it really is, post-enlightenment feudalism), communism, and fascism.

personally i could really give a shit. he is vocally opposed to to war on drugs, and speaks openly about the prison industrial complex. thats more resistance against the racial status quo than i've seen out of any democrat.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i've heard that he's supposedly some kind of racist cause there was a newsletter with his name on it that had some racist comments..

personally i could really give a shit. he is vocally opposed to to war on drugs, and speaks openly about the prison industrial complex. thats more resistance against the racial status quo than i've seen out of any democrat.

If you've just "heard" what you're talking about, then you don't really know enough about it. Read the papers in question, consider the position his kid has when it comes to privte businesses waiting on gays or coloureds, or just anyone they don't like, compare it to the social progress of the country as a whole, and get back to us.

Originally posted by skekUng
I must have missed the PM that said you spoke for everyone. No one took anything I said seriously, why? Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

Oh, you agree with every political ideology. Is that so you can enter every thread, read the topic, spend the next hour researching it on wikipedia and then coming back on here and showing all of us how much you know about 'a little bit of everything'? That position much be a real luxury when it comes time to defend something you've said. Guess what, Cephus, everybody agrees with something in every political ideology. But, this isn't about every political ideology; this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

Didn't you say I was a sock troll and that you would never speak to me again? What changed? Do you hate me that much, or do you just love Ron Paul that much?

Maybe we could talk about all those unprovided reasons you think Mitt Romney would make the best president. but, then again, when you didn't do so in that conversation, you said you agreed a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side. Does that stance sound familiar to you?

Just pointing out the elephant in the room.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's a euphemism for "black people".

It's a euphemism for "ghetto black people" to be exact.

Originally posted by skekUng
I must have missed the PM that said you spoke for everyone.

Who's sock account are you? You don't make enough spelling and punctuation mistakes to be Devil King and you're not well-spoken enough to be him, either.

Regardless, instead of spending an hour wasting my time addressing your lengthy posts, I'll address this post (it's easier.)

Originally posted by skekUng
No one took anything I said seriously, why? Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

A personal attack, eh?

Well, let's see:

Originally posted by Robtard
I am for giving him four years though, even if he is an old, old fart.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm still willing to give people a shot,

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think he seems more honest and principled than these other assholes we've got to deal with,

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd personally like to see Ron Paul in a cabinet position [ignore the irony of this statement because Ron Paul decries the majority of the cabinet being unconstitutional]

Originally posted by Digi
But sure, give his ass 4 years. For science, if nothing else.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd love to see him in office...
I think he has so many great ideas, but like you said, sort of goes bananas on some other things. With a strong and at least relatively powerful opposition though, I think it might just work

So why single me out and say I'm naive when my opinion is EXACTLY the same as Robtard's on Ron Paul? Obviously, your points were largely ignored (if read at all) an no one was "enlightened" to what a "poor choice" he would be.

Originally posted by inimalist
Oh, you agree with every political ideology.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm a "middle" with a 2 point lean (on a 50 point scale) towards the "libertarian" quadrant. Meaning, I share ideas with contemporary republicans, democrats, independents, and general libertarianism.

As fact, the opposite would have to be true.

I wonder how you got that I scaled as "50" into all quadrants on a Cartesian plane when I would have to actually be 0 on all scales except libertarian (actually, I believe it was 1 point into republican and 2 points into libertarian)? That's a very hard thing to pull off, but, meh, i guess you thought it was a four point mapping and looked like a quadrilateral on the Cartesian plane? I took the test online and it was through some research OU was conducting on what people claim their political philosophies were vs. what their actual political philosophies were (because most people claim to be Republicans in Oklahoma but have no idea what Republicans actually stand for or push on Capital Hill.) I said I was neutral with a slight republican and libertarian lean. It ended up being almost exactly true at the end. It was fun. I wish that the test was still open because every here should take it.

Originally posted by skekUng
Is that so you can enter every thread, read the topic, spend the next hour researching it on wikipedia and then coming back on here and showing all of us how much you know about 'a little bit of everything'?

Woah. False conclusion based on a false premise and a personal attack, as well.

Originally posted by skekUng
That position much be a real luxury when it comes time to defend something you've said.

It's a real luxury to be able to have an adult conversation with fellow posters and friends about topics I may or may not agree on, but not what you said because you're...like...way off base there.

Originally posted by skekUng
Guess what, Cephus, everybody agrees with something in every political ideology.

Now you're being condescending and a smartass about it? Come on, dude, at least try to have an adult conversation.

Originally posted by skekUng
But, this isn't about every political ideology;

No, this is exactly about political ideas and how yours fits with Ron Paul's because of him taking CPAC.

Originally posted by skekUng
this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

Don't think you're going to slyly sneak in that calling me a dipshit.

Because you said:

Originally posted by skekUng
Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

And then you said:

Originally posted by skekUng
this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

So, let's make it quite clear that you're making two personal attacks:

1. You called me naive, and everyone else in the thread naive.
2. You called me a dipshit and everyone else in the thread a dipshit.

Originally posted by skekUng
Didn't you say I was a sock troll and that you would never speak to me again? What changed? Do you hate me that much, or do you just love Ron Paul that much?

Lord Sorgo, eh? So your hate from Facebook spilled over into KMC, yet again?

Originally posted by skekUng
Maybe we could talk about all those unprovided reasons you think Mitt Romney would make the best president.

Please quote where I said that Mitt Romney would make the best president.

Originally posted by skekUng
but, then again, when you didn't do so in that conversation, you said you agreed a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side. Does that stance sound familiar to you?

I don't remember saying: "I agree a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side." Or even something very similar to that.

But, to address your point, it's called being a moderate that doesn't agree, fully, with any of the mainstream politicians. I don't even identify myself as a libertarian...I do have libertarian leanings at times, but I'm not a libertarian.

Do you think children should be randomly murdered? If you don't, then you agree with McCain, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Paul, etc. Do you see how your logic got lost in translation?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds like an undecided voter.

Correct. That's a very simple point and one that he's ignoring to make personal attacks.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist

Oh, you agree with every political ideology.

I didn't say that

Originally posted by inimalist

I didn't say that

Mess up quote tag and or copy and paste.

that is suspiscious, I suspect intentional slander