Ron Paul responds to the Critics!
- Thread starter mmafan
- Start date
- Status
applesanity
New member
I forget the exact wording, but didn't RP also say that we're at fault for 9/11, on national TV? Yes, I get what he was trying to say (and technically, he is making a valid point), but seriously, how off touch with the American psyche is that man?
Watched the YouTube video again; at one point RP admitted that he didn't know all the facts on the Browns. Again - too much honesty there, buddy.
I keep telling myself that I can convey more meaning and feeling in subleties. In vain, of course. It's a lost art.
Watched the YouTube video again; at one point RP admitted that he didn't know all the facts on the Browns. Again - too much honesty there, buddy.
I keep telling myself that I can convey more meaning and feeling in subleties. In vain, of course. It's a lost art.
That wasn't damage control; that was an affirmation of looniness.
I don't know how you watch arguments - Neil Cavuto had the upper hand the entire time. He sucessfully interrupted RP countless times, but RP never was able to put Neil down.
"But AppleSanity, that just shows that RP is polite and Neil is a bully."
By polite, do you mean... weak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Look, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong: what matters is if you *appear* right - that's what the american electorate wants. Someone with a backbone. That's what's separates a sucessful politian (and sucessful presidents) from the bench warmers. Think back to the Nixon v. Kennedy TV debate. Or even the Bush v. Kerry debates (BTW, Kerry ran THE WORST campaign ever. How the hell could he lose?)
Kerry: "I propose a commitee of foreign diplomats to congregate"
Bush: "Let's get them evildoers."
Bench warmers have lots of opinions - but they can't play the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
My sister, who doesn't care jack ___ for politics, saw that video. That was the first time she's ever heard of RP. She said, "He looks like that friendly old teacher back in highschool that everyone pulled pranks on."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Your original post was just as full of fallacies as mine one, and constantly pointing out every single fallacy someone makes is an extremely lame way to argue your point. There is a reason you dont see people yelling "Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem!" when debating on TV, because its lame.
Applesanity = a combination of
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/profundusmaximus.htm
and
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/lamer.htm
And I am done "debating" you as its pointless and I dont want to take the chance of getting myself banned.
I don't know how you watch arguments - Neil Cavuto had the upper hand the entire time. He sucessfully interrupted RP countless times, but RP never was able to put Neil down.
"But AppleSanity, that just shows that RP is polite and Neil is a bully."
By polite, do you mean... weak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Look, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong: what matters is if you *appear* right - that's what the american electorate wants. Someone with a backbone. That's what's separates a sucessful politian (and sucessful presidents) from the bench warmers. Think back to the Nixon v. Kennedy TV debate. Or even the Bush v. Kerry debates (BTW, Kerry ran THE WORST campaign ever. How the hell could he lose?)
Kerry: "I propose a commitee of foreign diplomats to congregate"
Bush: "Let's get them evildoers."
Bench warmers have lots of opinions - but they can't play the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
My sister, who doesn't care jack ___ for politics, saw that video. That was the first time she's ever heard of RP. She said, "He looks like that friendly old teacher back in highschool that everyone pulled pranks on."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Your original post was just as full of fallacies as mine one, and constantly pointing out every single fallacy someone makes is an extremely lame way to argue your point. There is a reason you dont see people yelling "Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem!" when debating on TV, because its lame.
Applesanity = a combination of
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/profundusmaximus.htm
and
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/lamer.htm
And I am done "debating" you as its pointless and I dont want to take the chance of getting myself banned.
The economy is being driven by cooked statistics. No one seems to be concerned over the inherent conflict of interest in the situation of one entity controlling the collection of economic statistics and then using the information developed from those statistics to set economic policy. For instance the federales collects statistics on inflation then has to respond to laws mandating welfare payments based on those same inflation figures. So it pays the federales to understate inflation. Pick a statistic: inflation, GDP, unemployment, employment, payroll, etc. All are used to describe our "prosperity" yet everyone seems to miss the built in conflict of interest. Amazing!
Ron Paul is a radical
And the founding fathers were not radicals?
-Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men.
Edwin Louis Cole
I personally am a bit skeptical of some of what paul says, however, that doesnt mean I wont keep an open mind. Also you have to remember, its not like he will be the only one running the government, he will have to contend with congress, the senate, and the judiciary.
Of all the candidates he seems to me the only one with truely fresh ideas, the most principled, and least beholden to special interest.
Do I think he will win, well I would like to think so, but I doubt it. However that does not mean I will not support him or his ideals, I think its important to have people like him shouting out ideas without reguard to who it offends or what people think.
Quite honestly if he had as much money as some of the other candidates, I think he would have a real chance of winning.
But since the person who spends the most/runs the nastiest campaign usually wins, he probably wont. Our republic is slowly dieing, not from a giant conspiracy on the part of elites, but from the apathy and general stupidity of the masses.
And the founding fathers were not radicals?
-Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men.
Edwin Louis Cole
I personally am a bit skeptical of some of what paul says, however, that doesnt mean I wont keep an open mind. Also you have to remember, its not like he will be the only one running the government, he will have to contend with congress, the senate, and the judiciary.
Of all the candidates he seems to me the only one with truely fresh ideas, the most principled, and least beholden to special interest.
Do I think he will win, well I would like to think so, but I doubt it. However that does not mean I will not support him or his ideals, I think its important to have people like him shouting out ideas without reguard to who it offends or what people think.
Quite honestly if he had as much money as some of the other candidates, I think he would have a real chance of winning.
But since the person who spends the most/runs the nastiest campaign usually wins, he probably wont. Our republic is slowly dieing, not from a giant conspiracy on the part of elites, but from the apathy and general stupidity of the masses.
Look, I've supported Dr. Paul since '97 in one form or another. I've enjoyed dinner with the man. I've donated to his earlier campaigns. I even thought I was a Libertarian when I was MUCH younger.
The fact is, whether right or wrong, he can't win. He won't even get close.
mmafan, here's the crux of the question...When Ron fails to get the nomination, are you going to support a third party run? A run that will be Hillary Clinton's wet dream?
If you do, you will accomplish 2 things:
-You'll feel you've made your point (neato)
-you'll put a strong gun grabber in the White House
Some of us were around and in the fight when Ross Perot made his run. This is precisely the same situation, only with different players.
The fact is, whether right or wrong, he can't win. He won't even get close.
mmafan, here's the crux of the question...When Ron fails to get the nomination, are you going to support a third party run? A run that will be Hillary Clinton's wet dream?
If you do, you will accomplish 2 things:
-You'll feel you've made your point (neato)
-you'll put a strong gun grabber in the White House
Some of us were around and in the fight when Ross Perot made his run. This is precisely the same situation, only with different players.
Look, I've supported Dr. Paul since '97 in one form or another. I've enjoyed dinner with the man. I've donated to his earlier campaigns. I even thought I was a Libertarian when I was MUCH younger.
The fact is, whether right or wrong, he can't win. He won't even get close.
mmafan, here's the crux of the question...When Ron fails to get the nomination, are you going to support a third party run? A run that will be Hillary Clinton's wet dream?
If you do, you will accomplish 2 things:
-You'll feel you've made your point (neato)
-you'll put a strong gun grabber in the White House
Some of us were around and in the fight when Ross Perot made his run. This is precisely the same situation, only with different players.
Well except that Perot actually could have won if had not publically balked and then came back to campaigning so close to election day.
Even then he still got 19% of the popular vote.
At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). Just prior to the debates, Perot received 7-9% support in nationwide polls. It is likely that the debates played a significant role in his ultimate receipt of 19% of the popular vote. Although his answers during the debates were often general, Perot's wit, folkisms, and straight talking were so impressive that even many Democrats and Republicans conceded that Perot won at least the first debate.
Paul has stated he will not run as a 3rd party, so I am not worried, of course I would like to see him win the primary, I actually do think he could possibly beat hillary and co in the general election as no conservative will ever vote for hillary and Paul has alot of popularity with independents and moderates
The most likely 3rd party guy now is Bloomburg, and he hurts Hillary more then anyone else.
The fact is, whether right or wrong, he can't win. He won't even get close.
mmafan, here's the crux of the question...When Ron fails to get the nomination, are you going to support a third party run? A run that will be Hillary Clinton's wet dream?
If you do, you will accomplish 2 things:
-You'll feel you've made your point (neato)
-you'll put a strong gun grabber in the White House
Some of us were around and in the fight when Ross Perot made his run. This is precisely the same situation, only with different players.
Well except that Perot actually could have won if had not publically balked and then came back to campaigning so close to election day.
Even then he still got 19% of the popular vote.
At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). Just prior to the debates, Perot received 7-9% support in nationwide polls. It is likely that the debates played a significant role in his ultimate receipt of 19% of the popular vote. Although his answers during the debates were often general, Perot's wit, folkisms, and straight talking were so impressive that even many Democrats and Republicans conceded that Perot won at least the first debate.
Paul has stated he will not run as a 3rd party, so I am not worried, of course I would like to see him win the primary, I actually do think he could possibly beat hillary and co in the general election as no conservative will ever vote for hillary and Paul has alot of popularity with independents and moderates
The most likely 3rd party guy now is Bloomburg, and he hurts Hillary more then anyone else.
Perot got 19% of the popular vote after blowing the other candidates out of the water in the debates and being the crux of media coverage. Dr. Paul has done neither.
It's very important to remember that Perot's 19% gave us Billary.
That, and only that, is what support for a Presidential Paul will give us.
Why is the phrase "condemned to repeat it" coming to mind?
It's very important to remember that Perot's 19% gave us Billary.
That, and only that, is what support for a Presidential Paul will give us.
Why is the phrase "condemned to repeat it" coming to mind?
Regardless of the wisedom of their choices, people in this country have the right to vote as they believe.
Trumpeting about rights (RKBA) and then condemning someone for exercising their franchise as they see fit seems to border on Hypocrisy.
Believe me I understand the frustration, I've had to stand there and support 1'st amendment rights for any number of people whom I'd really rather just slap but we can't be "grocery cart" supporters (take what we want and leave the rest on the shelf) of the Constution or we'll have already given up what we were fighting for in the first place.
Trumpeting about rights (RKBA) and then condemning someone for exercising their franchise as they see fit seems to border on Hypocrisy.
Believe me I understand the frustration, I've had to stand there and support 1'st amendment rights for any number of people whom I'd really rather just slap but we can't be "grocery cart" supporters (take what we want and leave the rest on the shelf) of the Constution or we'll have already given up what we were fighting for in the first place.
Silver Bullet
New member
That's good to know. I guess I've been giving Clinton too much credit. Now we know what inspired the Exxons of the next decade.
applesanity
New member
Next time, read the Wiki entries before you send them. I am challenging RP's skills a debater, by calling him a weak debater. Not an ad hom.
That... that just doesn't make sense. Try again.
Welcome aboard the Clue Train; last stop is you. *The vast majority of Americans vote on appearances. It became ever so obvious (gee I hate repeating myself) after the first televised presidential debate between Nixon and JFK.* The Clue Train is a service brought to you by the Real World.
You don't know what is a fallacy. As for replying to this section of your post... well it's just too easy. I'll just leave it up for everyone else to see.
You missed your stop there, buddy.
Last edited:
Perot got 19% of the popular vote after blowing the other candidates out of the water in the debates and being the crux of media coverage. Dr. Paul has done neither.
It's very important to remember that Perot's 19% gave us Billary.
That, and only that, is what support for a Presidential Paul will give us.
Why is the phrase "condemned to repeat it" coming to mind?
LMAO, how many times do I have to say it, Paul has already stated he would not run as an independent if he did not win the repulican primary.
Good God you guys are paranoid.
It's very important to remember that Perot's 19% gave us Billary.
That, and only that, is what support for a Presidential Paul will give us.
Why is the phrase "condemned to repeat it" coming to mind?
LMAO, how many times do I have to say it, Paul has already stated he would not run as an independent if he did not win the repulican primary.
Good God you guys are paranoid.
. . . we are the wealthiest most powerful nation in the history of mankind, and we have a decent level of freedom too.
Unfortunately for us, that's changing. Our wealth has been squandered in a hundred or so wars, conflicts and police actions all over the world. In a mad, headlong race to become "equal" to every other "turd-world" tin-pot dictatorship, we've traded most of our freedom for a 'feeling' of security. The worst part is this is still the best place in the world to live . . . for now.
Within fifty years or so, if the world lasts that long, China will have taken our place as the wealthiest, most powerful nation and their economy will demand even greater freedom than they now have.
Unfortunately for us, that's changing. Our wealth has been squandered in a hundred or so wars, conflicts and police actions all over the world. In a mad, headlong race to become "equal" to every other "turd-world" tin-pot dictatorship, we've traded most of our freedom for a 'feeling' of security. The worst part is this is still the best place in the world to live . . . for now.
Within fifty years or so, if the world lasts that long, China will have taken our place as the wealthiest, most powerful nation and their economy will demand even greater freedom than they now have.
My summation of how I feel about candidates is that I want one who stands for this.
As things originally were, as they were intended. Fred Thompson seems closest so far.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, with his endorsement of violent tax evaders who have threatened to kill LEOs, seems to stand for this:
And that is not at all acceptable. We need someone who reads the Constitution and upholds it, not a bomb-thrower.
As things originally were, as they were intended. Fred Thompson seems closest so far.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, with his endorsement of violent tax evaders who have threatened to kill LEOs, seems to stand for this:
And that is not at all acceptable. We need someone who reads the Constitution and upholds it, not a bomb-thrower.
Wow Maned, did you even watch the video? I may not like Ron Paul (the guy's political views are weird), but I don't mind him (they're weird in a way that calls for less government). He said a few times in the video that he thinks it's alright that they refused to pay their taxes (nonviolent resistance) but they need to know that when they stand up like that, they can go to jail. Doesn't sound very bomb-throwy to me.
- Status