Ron Paul interview in Businessweek

[fossten]

First of all I said he doesn't "look" Presidential 'enough' for me. I did not make any physical deficiency comments.

I not only demand the right principles in my candidates, I also like them to be good people. Like in the mold of Reagan. Thompson is the closest to Reagan but Hunter is by far and away THE MOST qualified of ANY of the candidates on ANY side of the aisle. But alas, he won't get elected.

The most qualified guy won't get elected. Go figure. I can't cry about it can I? Just like Paul won't get elected.

You can hope some of his ideas while he has 'some' of the nation's attention during the primary and debates will hopefully rub off on a guy like Thompson, thus making him a stronger candidate.

Say all you want but Paul shouldn't be carrying the torch. He has a much better role in politics.

He should do his best while in the running for C.I.C. to befriend whomever it it that wins the Presidency for the Republicans and maybe ask the him for a choice committee. Fossten, you can put him in charge of whatever committee you want. Let him be tough and angry and who he is in the CONGRESS taking on all the Dem Lib socialists.

Let's elect a Republican candidate that will be the most Presidential in every respect to maintain the Level of Prestige we are enjoying in the world.

What??? Prestige???? But Bush sucks and everybody hates us.

Hummm.
France
Germany
Venezuela
Iraq

Don't let the American liberal media fool you. People around the world understand what is going on and they are counting on us to stay strong and keep the peace in the World because nobody is willing to do it. People are moving closer to the U.S. ideologically, as seen in the elections in France Germany and now Venezuela. And if you think for a second that withdrawing from the world and becoming introverts is the way to go, you are sadly mistaken.

Let's keep a guy in the Oval (not oral) Office that can project the image we need to project to the world. A likable guy that is tough, not one that is mean and snarly.

IMHO, Hunter and Thompson are the most qualified to fill those shoes at this time in our nation's history.

You'd better talk to Calabrio. He thinks you need to consider who can win an election, not who the best candidate is. You seen the polls lately?

 

[MonsterMark]

You'd better talk to Calabrio. He thinks you need to consider who can win an election, not who the best candidate is. You seen the polls lately?

Let's face it. Americans are stupid and incredibly ill-informed. You can hope they pick the best candidate for the job but you pray they at least elect one that won't 'f' things up.

 

[fossten]

Let's face it. Americans are stupid and incredibly ill-informed. You can hope they pick the best candidate for the job but you pray they at least elect one that won't 'f' things up.

Nah, they either elect the one who seems the most Presidential (hmm, who do I remind you of? ) or they elect who the media tells them to.

 

[Calabrio]

I rest my case.... another weasel post where you simply struggle to save face, not actually persuade anyone of anything... You're a bore, Fossten. You seem to think that hostility and aggression compensates for your inability to persuade.

I'd like to respond to you without resorting to the quote/respond model. Because it lowers the quality of the discussion, and both of us know how to exploit the format, but I don't think it's going to be possible in response to your last post.

But I didn't say that having SUPPORTERS disproved leadership. I simply said that having supporters doesn't MEAN he's a strong leader. YOU are the one who attempted to make this link, I simply addressed it.

You respond without any regard to context. You respond without any interest in advancing the conversation, but only with the sole motivation of demonstrating how right you are, regardless how many times you need to contradict yourself to do so.

To repeat, AGAIN, being a legislator does not disqualify you from being President, or from having leadership or executive ability. Again, I will repeat, without once waivering from what I originally said, it simply doesn't DEMONSTRATE it. You can not say, simply because a man was int he Congress, that he'll be an effective executive? Do I need to repeat this again for you? Maybe I should copy the paragraph and just start out every post by pasting it because you haven't acknowledged this yet.

But again, I think it's obvious to everyone, you're not interest in honest discussion or a debate in good faith.

Paul is showing leadership because 35,000+ people each donated on that day.

Paul might have demonstrated leadership had he been involved in organizing that. He wasn't. He eventually learned of it and mentioned it in some speeches. That wasn't even leadership on the part of his campaign. So, again, BAD EXAMPLE on your part.

I mean, really, Calabrio, you're degenerating down to 5th grade level arguing here. And by the way, perhaps YOU didn't know, it was $4.3 million. At least get your figures and facts straight before you launch another attacking, immature rant.

You seem to think this kind of nit-picky stuff strengthens your hostile, weak arguments. It doesn't. Because my figure of about $3.75M was accurate.

The 3.75 million was the amount raised by 11PM on the 5th. Not the '24 hour' total that the campaign has been quick to publish of $4.3 million which bled into the 6th.

And the plan was to raise $10,000,000....

Not that it even matters if I were off by $0.5M anyway, it still wouldn't have weakened my point or strengthened yours.

In addition, you have yet to extol the virtues of any of the other candidates, nor have you answered any of my criticisms of them.

I've stated this before, I haven't aligned myself with any candidate yet. That's why your moronic cries of BIAS are so absurd. But my disinterest in defending some other candidate has nothing to do with your inability to persuade anyone to support the one you've chosen to support.

Show me the exact quote and I'll show you that you just dishonestly misrepresented and distorted what I said. You and I both know that it was an example of what YOU would say. In FACT, you just FULFILLED MY PREDICTION OF WHAT YOU WOULD SAY. So I'm right again.

Here, let everyone judge for themselves, I'm not afraid of my own words like you are:

And you said this:
Once again, you're trying to narrowly define what leader means. Let me help you. Being a leader doesn't necessarily mean you walk around saying, "I present myself as a leader!" It can also mean you have followers who believe in you. Note that I didn't say "likers." You're trying to avoid saying followers, so you say people "like him." But you cannot deny that people follow him. In fact, Rudy came up to Paul after the debate and said to him, "You sure have a lot of supporters." So even Rudy's envious of the number of people willing to follow Paul to an event. "Oh," you say, "just because 500 people show up at an event to support their candidate doesn't mean he's a leader." Do you seriously hear what you are saying?

You specifically question my judgment because I don't think the fact 500 people show up to support a candidate demonstrates that a person is a "leader."

Do us all a favor, stop trying to catch me in a technical error and just focus on your argument.... maybe learn to present one while your at it, without turning your allies into your adversaries. It might be a good skill to learn even outside the message board.

I would argue that he is the only candidate that answers EVERY question with a direct answer. You cannot make that claim for any other candidate. Period. His straight talk is what attracts people to him as well as his ideas. You could not know this because you don't do ANY research..

You're such a belligerent person. I have recognized that Paul is a good man, a straight shooter, and an asset to the Congress. He does answer his questions honestly and candidly. Some of the answers are refreshing and wonderful to hear a candidate say on a national platform. Some of the answers are just plain wrong.... enough of them are wrong, on important that I wouldn't vote for him in the primary.

You can cry and whine about incrementalism all you want, but you cannot deny this: The Republicans have NEVER reversed the tide of liberalism and big governmental control in this country. They have only slowed it at times. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican (person, for that matter) talking about actually REVERSING the tide. I would argue that ALL of the other candidates will only support the status quo. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I've never argued this point.

But then the question is, putting aside the poor foreign policy issues, do you think that Paul would have the ability to either be elected, and if elected be able to single handedly roll the government back in a single term?

I do not. If he ever were to ascend to a level of being actually being competitive to win the nomination, the tone of his media coverage would change immediately. "Did you know Ron Paul wants to stop funding education? Did you know he wants old people to starve to death?"

And if he overcame that and someone won, I don't think he'd be able to accomplish any of his domestic policy, yet would only be able to apply his bad foreign policy with the Democrats in congress.

Lose/Lose situation.

Feel free to disagree. Vote for him in the primary. Now is the time to do it. But I think that Ron Paul can better serve the country in a role OTHER than President. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE!!! I hope he uses his new found prominence to speak and persuade on a national level. I hope that he demonstrates that leadership ability you maintain he has and ascends to a LEADERSHIP position in the Congress and affects change.

That's where you are wrong. A President does not EVER have to compromise. The one President that I saw that lived that the most was Reagan.

If you think Reagan never had to come to compromises with the Democrat congress, you need to review your history books. Politics is full of compromise. What's important is knowing what things you're willing to compromise on and what things you won't.

The fact that you do not understand what compromise truly is shows that you are no conservative.

No, but this does demonstrate that you know little about how government always works. Perhaps you didn't know, but even the CONSTITUTION was the result of compromise. Fossten, don't even attempt to try to talk down to me. You're an angry fool and the conservative movement will DIE if it falls into the hands of people like you. You fail to recognize that Reagan's strength wasn't that he was unyielding, adversarial, or combative- the model you seem to have adopted. But the fact he educated and persuaded people when he communicated. Once you alienate the audience, it doesn't matter what you say, they're going to dismiss you.

Despite your puny attempt to pigeonhole me with another straw man, you know good and well that I didn't say that. I was attacking your argument, which was silly. Do you know the answer to this question: If all A's are B's, are all B's A's?

Here's what you said...
You are confusing leadership with administrative skills, and that's unfortunate.

It wasn't a strawman. Your "arguments" are weak enough so that strawmen are never needed.

No, your larger argument is that unless he has strong executive/admin skills, he's not qualified. In other words, the only definition of a leader is strong exec/admin skills. There you go, you said it again.

No..... that's not accurate, but it's hardly important. But a good president would have strong executive/leadership/administrative skills...

How is that? According to you, if the movement keeps going, he was just a figurehead, and yet if the movement dies, his ideas were crap. No matter what, you'll claim victory and move on to your Mitt McHuckniani.

I'm not claiming victory if Paul fails to win the nomination. But Paul is not a movement, I hope he becomes ones. I hope he leads a movement and inspires a wave of new classic Americanism (without some of his bad foreign policy applications). I'm only going to claim victory if a good leader is elected President in '08.

Your confidence notwithstanding, you really don't know anything about Ron Paul, and you've admitted that you don't know much about the candidates, and you've ALSO admitted that you don't plan to make a decision on them until they come and speak to you in person. And you're calling ME lazy? I'd puke, if I weren't laughing so hard.

I said no such thing in this thread. In the past I have said that I would wait to make my ultimate decision on who I'd be supporting in the primary until after I had the opportunity to see them in person.

Otherwise, I've researched and read on all the candidates extensively. Including Ron Paul.

If you DO NOT KNOW how his supporters are to be divided up, then HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE THAT HE WILL PULL CONSERVATIVE VOTERS in the general?

You can't have it both ways, Fossten. Either he's appealing to constitution minded, libertarian influenced voters, who tend to vote Republican, or his support is overwhelmingly coming from the anti-War kook left fringe.

I've stated before, I think his support is inflated by the kook element, but he does pull single digits from the GOP. If Hillary can only get 48% of the vote, a 3% loss to a third party candidate (or a block of discouraged voters who chose to stay home) could assure her the win.

Let me quote from your initial post. Ron Paul on Ron Paul's application of foreign policy:

You want to take the troops out of Iraq, but what about Iran? What do we do if other nations turn hostile?

I'd treat them something like what we did with the Soviets. I was called to military duty [as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon] in the '60s when they were in Cuba, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we didn't have to fight them. We didn't have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can't solve the problem if we don't understand why they [attack us]. And they don't come because we're free and prosperous. They don't go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we've occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren't. We've been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein's ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I'd be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger.

He's idealistic and that would be dangerous. He does not understand the threats in the world and he's application of isolationist theory would only make the world more dangerous. You can't turn back nearly a century of foreign policy within the span of one term. And to do that would be a disaster.

It would not make us safer. It would not make our enemies tolerant of us. And it would not lead to greater stabilization around the world. I'm glad that Paul has also studied the German economists, but perhaps he'd be advised to read a bit of Kissinger before ascending to the Presidency.

And I have no rage directed at you Fossten. I think you've descended into a sad caricature. You lack the ability to persuade those who don't agree with you and you've developed the ability to alienate and irritate those who agreed with you 90% of the time. That's pathetic and counter productive. You harm the very movement you wish to support. Other than preaching to the converted, you're useless.

 

[fossten]

I rest my case.... another weasel post where you simply struggle to save face, not actually persuade anyone of anything... You're a bore, Fossten. You seem to think that hostility and aggression compensates for your inability to persuade.

And your evidence of this is...? Really, your pathetic accusations are so childish. I'm embarrassed...for you. If I'm such a bore, why do you persist in these overlong wastes of space?

I'd like to respond to you without resorting to the quote/respond model. Because it lowers the quality of the discussion, and both of us know how to exploit the format, but I don't think it's going to be possible in response to your last post.

Oh cry me a river. You're a whiny baby, Calabrio, plain and simple. I've got news for you, what lowers the quality of the discussion is your inability to discuss a subject without resorting to name calling and invective. Then when someone uses your own tactics on you, you start boo-hooing and bleeding all over the rest of us. Get over it and grow up. Jeez.

But I didn't say that having SUPPORTERS disproved leadership. I simply said that having supporters doesn't MEAN he's a strong leader. YOU are the one who attempted to make this link, I simply addressed it.

Oh, now it's STRONG leader? Well, you keep moving the goalposts. First it was leader, then a supporter wasn't the same as a follower. Now it's "DISPROVE" and "STRONG." Well, who can argue with your continual massaging of your own statements?

You also tried to make a distinction between supporters and followers. Setting aside how childish and stupid that was, you are now trying to back away from the fact that I showed you how wrong and stupid that was. Now you're trying to pretend you said something else.

You respond without any regard to context. You respond without any interest in advancing the conversation, but only with the sole motivation of demonstrating how right you are, regardless how many times you need to contradict yourself to do so.

And you're different from this how? Oh, I can answer that. You're different from this only that you repeatedly ASSERT how much smarter and more equipped and eloquent you are than me. "My d*ck's bigger than yours" and all that childish prattle.

To repeat, AGAIN, being a legislator does not disqualify you from being President, or from having leadership or executive ability. Again, I will repeat, without once waivering from what I originally said, it simply doesn't DEMONSTRATE it.

And your point, which you've literally twisted yourself into little angry pretzels in order to make, is silly and unimportant.

You can not say, simply because a man was int he Congress, that he'll be an effective executive? Do I need to repeat this again for you? Maybe I should copy the paragraph and just start out every post by pasting it because you haven't acknowledged this yet.

Uhh..."I can not say, simply because a man was int he Congress, that he'll be an effective executive?" Is that a question? If it is, I don't understand it, mostly due to your inability to put a sentence together using proper structure. But hey, your posts are "consistent, thoughtful, and reasoned," so who am I to criticize?

But again, I think it's obvious to everyone, you're not interest in honest discussion or a debate in good faith.

Same old canard, and false as usual. Look up to the top part of the thread. I don't have to play silly little kids games with you, but you seem to know no other way of communicating other than to insult, taunt, and name-call. You have yet to discuss foreign policy. Still waiting, hypocrite. Don't project your inadequacies and fears onto me.

You seem to think this kind of nit-picky stuff strengthens your hostile, weak arguments. It doesn't. Because my figure of about $3.75M was accurate.

The 3.75 million was the amount raised by 11PM on the 5th. Not the '24 hour' total that the campaign has been quick to publish of $4.3 million which bled into the 6th.

Link please? Otherwise, you're just throwing up smoke screens. By the way, I thought the day didn't end until Midnight. But hey, I didn't go to the Calabrio School of Stupid Daylight Savings.

And the plan was to raise $10,000,000....

Ron Paul has raised over $10 million this quarter. And the goal was $12 million. Jeez your facts are all screwy. Hey! I know! Go visit his website FOR THE FIRST TIME!

And you said this:
Once again, you're trying to narrowly define what leader means. Let me help you. Being a leader doesn't necessarily mean you walk around saying, "I present myself as a leader!" It can also mean you have followers who believe in you. Note that I didn't say "likers." You're trying to avoid saying followers, so you say people "like him." But you cannot deny that people follow him. In fact, Rudy came up to Paul after the debate and said to him, "You sure have a lot of supporters." So even Rudy's envious of the number of people willing to follow Paul to an event. "Oh," you say, "just because 500 people show up at an event to support their candidate doesn't mean he's a leader." Do you seriously hear what you are saying?

You specifically question my judgment because I don't think the fact 500 people show up to support a candidate demonstrates that a person is a "leader."

Do us all a favor, stop trying to catch me in a technical error and just focus on your argument.... maybe learn to present one while your at it, without turning your allies into your adversaries. It might be a good skill to learn even outside the message board.

Do us all a favor? I don't see anybody else attacking me except you. Even Deville has been able to converse on this subject without rancor. You, on the other hand, are spewing a Vesuvian pile of crap with every sentence you falteringly type.

You are my ally? Since when did this happen? All I've ever experienced from you is personal attacks and oblique, irrelevant questions. Stop trying to paint yourself as noble when all you do is thumb through your brand new Thesaurus in search of a new way to say "moronic."

You're such a belligerent person.

Do you even edit your posts? How is this insult relevant to the next paragraph to which it was attached? Your inability to control your anger is telling, Rage-boy. You need to seek anger management.

I have recognized that Paul is a good man, a straight shooter, and an asset to the Congress. He does answer his questions honestly and candidly. Some of the answers are refreshing and wonderful to hear a candidate say on a national platform. Some of the answers are just plain wrong.... enough of them are wrong, on important that I wouldn't vote for him in the primary.

I've never argued this point.

But then the question is, putting aside the poor foreign policy issues, do you think that Paul would have the ability to either be elected, and if elected be able to single handedly roll the government back in a single term?

I do not. If he ever were to ascend to a level of being actually being competitive to win the nomination, the tone of his media coverage would change immediately. "Did you know Ron Paul wants to stop funding education? Did you know he wants old people to starve to death?"

Right. And when Huck gets nominated, it'll be, "Did you know that Huck's a Bible-thumping, Catholic-hating, do-gooder Christian who wants to force you and your family to memorize the Ten Commandments and stop watching Cinemax?"

So what? Are you advocating selecting the candidate that is least vulnerable to media attacks? If so, you are completely naive and also a chickensh!t.

And if he overcame that and someone won, I don't think he'd be able to accomplish any of his domestic policy, yet would only be able to apply his bad foreign policy with the Democrats in congress.

Yeah, you've said this before. But that shows how little you know of Paul. He's got very sensible incremental starter programs that would ease the transition back to freedom. You'd better think about what will happen to the dollar and to our economy if we continue the path we're on, paying taxes, printing money, and staying dependent on Muslim oil.

If you think Reagan never had to come to compromises with the Democrat congress, you need to review your history books. Politics is full of compromise. What's important is knowing what things you're willing to compromise on and what things you won't.

Since you didn't bother to read my post, I'll repost the relevant portion here, to refresh you in your ignorance. Note the part in bold:

That's where you are wrong. A President does not EVER have to compromise. The one President that I saw that lived that the most was Reagan. And even he didn't fight the liberals as hard as he could have. And now every Republican wishes we had him back again.

So I guess I DO know Reagan. Not that I need your petty approval to know it, youngster.

No, but this does demonstrate that you know little about how government always works. Perhaps you didn't know, but even the CONSTITUTION was the result of compromise. [whiny voice] Fossten, don't even attempt to try to talk down to me. [whiny voice] You're an angry fool and the conservative movement will DIE if it falls into the hands of people like you.

YOU MEAN...LIKE 9/11 TIMES A THOUSAND!/?!?!11ONE
Again, more Rage-boy type insults that are irrelevant to the following argument. If you could somehow separate your anger and control your knee-jerk outbursts, you might have a chance of making an argument. But your frothing rage blunts your ability to reason with people.

You fail to recognize that Reagan's strength wasn't that he was unyielding, adversarial, or combative- the model you seem to have adopted. But the fact he educated and persuaded people when he communicated.

I've never failed to recognize that. But that wasn't what we were talking about, were we? We were talking about compromise, and among Reagan's MANY strengths (he didn't have just one, you nitwit) was the backbone to refuse compromise. Leave it to you to try and avoid the subject by throwing in some other factoid that isn't relevant to the point. Rage-boy, you really aren't as smart as you think you are. You're not even as smart as I used to think you were.

Once you alienate the audience, it doesn't matter what you say, they're going to dismiss you.

A lesson you've yet to learn, eh? I guess it's ok when you do it, right? Or do you just write me off as someone who doesn't matter? Hmm? You're a first class hypocrite and you ought to be ashamed to call yourself a conservative.

Here's what you said...
You are confusing leadership with administrative skills, and that's unfortunate.

It wasn't a strawman. Your "arguments" are weak enough so that strawmen are never needed.

Your opinion is noted, and discarded as unsupported.

I said no such thing in this thread. In the past I have said that I would wait to make my ultimate decision on who I'd be supporting in the primary until after I had the opportunity to see them in person.

Otherwise, I've researched and read on all the candidates extensively. Including Ron Paul.

:bsflag: The proof is in the pudding. Haven't seen a shred of evidence that indicates this. You're a rumor whore, nothing more.

You can't have it both ways, Fossten. Either he's appealing to constitution minded, libertarian influenced voters, who tend to vote Republican, or his support is overwhelmingly coming from the anti-War kook left fringe.

Typical. You're trying to steal my argument. But you're the one trying to say that it's the "kooks" that worry you, and then trying to say that it's the conservs who will hand Hillary the election. YOU are the one who has yet to say which side pulls the most votes, Oh Mr. Know it all. And my point is proven below:

I've stated before, I think his support is inflated by the kook element, but he does pull single digits from the GOP. If Hillary can only get 48% of the vote, a 3% loss to a third party candidate (or a block of discouraged voters who chose to stay home) could assure her the win.

Another straw man, considering we don't know what numbers the GOP voters hold, right? But: Hmm. Fuzzy math here. 100-48=52. 52-3=49. 49>48. Geez, wrong again, aren't you? And this time it's just a simple case of NOT BEING ABLE TO SUBTRACT. More Acme School O' Math, eh?

Let me quote from your initial post. Ron Paul on Ron Paul's application of foreign policy:

You want to take the troops out of Iraq, but what about Iran? What do we do if other nations turn hostile?

I'd treat them something like what we did with the Soviets. I was called to military duty [as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon] in the '60s when they were in Cuba, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we didn't have to fight them. We didn't have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can't solve the problem if we don't understand why they [attack us]. And they don't come because we're free and prosperous. They don't go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we've occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren't. We've been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein's ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I'd be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger.

He's idealistic and that would be dangerous. He does not understand the threats in the world and he's application of isolationist theory would only make the world more dangerous. You can't turn back nearly a century of foreign policy within the span of one term. And to do that would be a disaster.

It would not make us safer. It would not make our enemies tolerant of us. And it would not lead to greater stabilization around the world. I'm glad that Paul has also studied the German economists, but perhaps he'd be advised to read a bit of Kissinger before ascending to the Presidency.

See, now if you'd just posted this portion and left off all the Rage-boy routine, you might have managed to make this a profitable and amicable discussion. But you can't seem to resist giving into the temptation to rant and rave and name call. I used to think you had a mind, but now it's been replaced with anger at anyone who dares disagree with you once you've said your piece.

You're entitled to your opinion. I've already said that I can't quite agree with his stance on foreign policy, but the rest of what he wants to accomplish is so much better than that of Huck McRomniani, I would choose him first. No, he's probably not going to win the nomination, but until that's over, I'll stick with him. And YOU won't have a choice in the matter anyway, since it'll probably be over by the time it gets to Florida.

And I have no rage directed at you Fossten. I think you've descended into a sad caricature. You lack the ability to persuade those who don't agree with you and you've developed the ability to alienate and irritate those who agreed with you 90% of the time. That's pathetic and counter productive. You harm the very movement you wish to support. Other than preaching to the converted, you're useless.

You're talking out of your a$$ now, Calabrio, so don't bother trying to kiss mine. Your continued name callling, insults, and pejoratives shows that you have a problem with self control. You are not the nobleman you think you are. Seek help before you harm someone close to you.


Oh, and Rage-boy, you NEVER DID ANSWER MY QUESTION about your Hillaryesque straddling of the fence about voting for Paul in the general. Typical, you spend all your "typing" energy busting on me personally, and you avoid taking a stance of your own. I knew I was right when I used the word COWARD.

 

[Calabrio]

Oh cry me a river. You're a whiny baby, Calabrio, plain and simple. I've got news for you, what lowers the quality of the discussion is your inability to discuss a subject without resorting to name calling and invective.

I did label you Capt. Ad Hominem.
The name stands, you continue to lack the ability to distinguish the topic from the person discussing it. That's hardly a personal attack, or a particularly nasty one, especially when reviewing your last post.

You've never heard me "boo-hooing" over anything. Knowing what I've written, I can't imagine anyone but yourself would consider it "rage." But, if that's the distraction you'd like to employ to avoid honest debate, have at it. For now, I will refrain from responding in a similar tone as you. If either of us have issues with anger and hostility, based on our posts, I'm confident it's not me.

There's simply no point in repeating the same posts for three pages. You'll isolate a sentence, attempt to parse it, void of the context and meaning, and then explain why you don't feel the need to respond to the challenge. You're not interested in anything but weaseling around and contorting in a desperate attempt to save face and avoid direct challenges. It's tiresome, it's boring, and while you may be capable of more, you've yet to ever demonstrate it.

To date, all you've managed to do has been to drive people away from this particular forum with your retarded pit-bull or crack debate/discussion style.

Regarding the single point you made:

No, he's probably not going to win the nomination, but until that's over, I'll stick with him. And YOU won't have a choice in the matter anyway, since it'll probably be over by the time it gets to Florida.

The Florida Primary is on January 29, 2008.


And if anyone is so motivated, if I have come across as though I were in a RAGE, send me a message and let me know. If anyone else thinks I've avoided some challenge or evaded answering some question, let me know.

 

[RRocket]

I don't come here often anymore. But I saw this post and had to comment. Quite some time ago (when he was still in love with Bush) I sent Fossten a PM asking him about Ron Paul, since I liked him. He basically said that he was a loony. But now I see this post. Fossten has done his homework and better yet he has the stones to admit he was initially wrong on Ron Paul.

So I just wanted to say BIG PROPS to Fossten for going back and researching something he initially had written off. And not only that, he admits it. It's refreshing to see....wish I could see more people doing this though.

Way to go Fossten.......

 

[fossten]

I did label you Capt. Ad Hominem.
The name stands, you continue to lack the ability to distinguish the topic from the person discussing it. That's hardly a personal attack, or a particularly nasty one, especially when reviewing your last post.

You've never heard me "boo-hooing" over anything. Knowing what I've written, I can't imagine anyone but yourself would consider it "rage." But, if that's the distraction you'd like to employ to avoid honest debate, have at it. For now, I will refrain from responding in a similar tone as you. If either of us have issues with anger and hostility, based on our posts, I'm confident it's not me.

There's simply no point in repeating the same posts for three pages. You'll isolate a sentence, attempt to parse it, void of the context and meaning, and then explain why you don't feel the need to respond to the challenge. You're not interested in anything but weaseling around and contorting in a desperate attempt to save face and avoid direct challenges. It's tiresome, it's boring, and while you may be capable of more, you've yet to ever demonstrate it.

To date, all you've managed to do has been to drive people away from this particular forum with your retarded pit-bull or crack debate/discussion style.

Regarding the single point you made:


The Florida Primary is on January 29, 2008.


And if anyone is so motivated, if I have come across as though I were in a RAGE, send me a message and let me know. If anyone else thinks I've avoided some challenge or evaded answering some question, let me know.

We'll see, won't we? The next time I innocuously post something positive about Ron Paul, let's see if you actually debate the content posted, instead of personally attacking him or me. I'll bet you can't keep from it. You haven't been able to yet. If you would use all your energy trying to make your point instead of constantly trying to mischaracterize my statements, you'd make more progress. Ah, but can a leopard change his stripes?

 

[MonsterMark]

I sent Fossten a PM asking him about Ron Paul, since I liked him. He basically said that he was a loony. But now I see this post. Fossten has done his homework and better yet he has the stones to admit he was initially wrong on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a loon. No problem with most of the message. The messenger can only lose it for the Republicans.

You guys just don't get it. You elect the person most capable of carrying out the job, and more inportantly, the person capable of beating the opposition so you at least have a chance to have your ideas heard.

[Sarcasm On]But, but, but I feel so good about myself when I support him.[/Off]

It's refreshing to see....wish I could see more people doing this though.

What is happening to this world if Fossten and RRocket think they are on the same page. Shows you are BOTH confused.

 

[fossten]

Ron Paul is a loon. No problem with most of the message. The messenger can only lose it for the Republicans.

You guys just don't get it. You elect the person most capable of carrying out the job, and more inportantly, the person capable of beating the opposition so you at least have a chance to have your ideas heard.

[Sarcasm On]But, but, but I feel so good about myself when I support him.[/Off]




What is happening to this world if Fossten and RRocket think they are on the same page. Shows you are BOTH confused.

Bryan, I think you are confused about what job I want the President to accomplish. None of your favorite candidates want to reduce the size of government and the level of interference in our lives. The job they want to do is to perpetuate the status quo. Most of them are soft on immigration and are busy accusing each other of being the softest. Well, how's that working out for us these days? I pay too much in taxes, and there are too many laws. Liberal values, illegal immigrants, and hate speech laws trump personal freedom nationwide. Government is getting bigger by the second.

You can put your head in the sand about that if you want to, but nobody on the ballot wants to change that. You've been crowing about a coming Civil War, which some people would find loony (not me, however). The only way we can avoid either a Civil War or totalitarianism is to shrink government. Now you say that the only candidate with a platform of shrinking said government is a loon?

 

[MonsterMark]

Now you say that the only candidate with a platform of shrinking said government is a loon?

Spend your energy convincing the Constitution Party crowd to get a new spokesman and I'll listen.

For the last time, I have no problem with the message, just the messenger. The guy is Un-Presidential and Un-Electable. Period.

He could run as an Independant and pull Ross Perot numbers and hand the Presidency to Hillary, or worse, Obama.

So get with the program before it is too late. Get behind a candidate that CAN WIN! Then work to make the changes we need - incrementally - starting with winning the election and getting to nominate the next 3 Supreme Court Justices.

All you are doing is taking your eye off the ball and swinging for the fences. Can you say - StrikeOut?

 

[Joeychgo]

Well put

 

[fossten]

So get with the program before it is too late. Get behind a candidate that CAN WIN!

Whom do you suggest?

 

[fossten]

Ron Paul Video on Youtube - Appearance on the View today

Professor David will give you points for research if you watch this and comment...:shifty:

 

[MonsterMark]

Whom do you suggest?

In my order of preference:

Hunter: The best candidate and most conservative I might add. Would really project a strong military of which our adversaries would immediately know that this guy would react if provoked and would bring the rain if needed. Little lobsided on the defensive side of things but really looks and acts Presidential.

Thompson: Second choice. Has the right personality traits and is firm yet reserved. Just needs to show a little more gumption.

Huckabee: Could be (probably is) a RINO cloaked as a genuine Republican. Comes off well on the screen. Doesn't project much in the way of power though. Question his religious background being a minister and all. Plus he has a couple of huge deficiencies.

Romney: Appears calm cool and collected. Right guy if economy is overriding issue in '09.

McCain: Would be a steading force in the White House.

Guiliani: Would be a good C.I.C. if he wasn't so damn liberal on so many issues. Man I wish he would stop talking about New York.

 

[MonsterMark]

Professor David will give you points for research if you watch this and comment...:shifty:

Ding Ding. I watched it.

Same thing. Messenger not message. Although I might add he wasn't nearly as confrontation and angry. Must have been all the 'p' around him, being he's a gyno and all.

 

[112 LS]

Bravo RON PAUL.

 

[shagdrum]

Ron Paul Video on Youtube - Appearance on the View today

Professor David will give you points for research if you watch this and comment...:shifty:

This just furthers the illusion that The View has credibility and relevance.