Video: CNN reporter Dana Bash gets "Snowballed" by Ron Paul supporters

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

 

I am growing impatient.

So am I.

Please respond to this post .

Not only did I about 20 minutes ago, I got to explain that a few times now since then. That is not impatient, that is something else.

I have asked twice now what name I called you.

Respond to each point I made and explain why you disagree or agree.

You do not get to dictate to me about anything. Hell, you cannot even tell me what name I called you.

Otherwise I am afraid you are clearly avoiding it.
Which will reveal your true intentions here.

Hmmm. So what does your harping on it for 20 minutes after I replied to it reveal about you?

reply to post by muzzleflash


So predictable....

In order to reign in Govt subsidies, unreasonable contracts, etc; the President can utilize Veto power and prevent specific bills from being passed. Also by cutting many agencies from the Executive branch it will also cut out large funding mechanisms for the corporations. For example the Department of Education cuts. Agencies like this essentially award lucrative contracts to various corporations and overpay for services thus giving them more power than they would have otherwise in a more competitive market paradigm. Also if we had a President who was not getting us involved in conflicts/wars without the consent of Congress than we would be involved in far less foreign engagements, and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.

This is exactly right. He could also dismantle all of those unconstitutional federal agencies put in place by the last three or four presidents.
An exhaustive list of what Paul could accomplish seems like a great idea! Hmmm.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

 

You claimed he was going to allow the corporations to have free reign without explaining how he has the power or mechanisms to do it as well, didn't you?

I said he wants to. So what is it, what he wants to do or can do?

In order to reign in Govt subsidies, unreasonable contracts, etc; the President can utilize Veto power and prevent specific bills from being passed.

So he is just going to veto every bill that has a .... oh wait I get it. "Unreasonable." Uh ok sure. Wink wink nudge nudge.


That is so tangible you cant taste it or not.

Also by cutting many agencies from the Executive branch it will also cut out large funding mechanisms for the corporations.

For example the Department of Education cuts.
Agencies like this essentially award lucrative contracts to various corporations and overpay for services thus giving them more power than they would have otherwise in a more competitive market paradigm.

What good is cutting the DOE going to do our children? Can't your Ron Paul just make it run right? It seems like you and he suggest that anything and everything that does not work 100% perfectly should just be thrown out. That is a whole lot torn down bridges in the US.

Then what?

Also if we had a President who was not getting us involved in conflicts/wars without the consent of Congress than we would be involved in far less foreign engagements, and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.

Really? By how much? I want to see real world examples of when this has happened and what it has cost
vs.
what it cost when congress does give consent.

Thank you.


BTW, I am leaving my computer for a while. Do not flip out for 3 posts because I am not responding yet. K?

reply to post by Littikani


So you are saying that the Executive branch does not have veto power to stop Congressional legislation?

All legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as Head of State.

If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it (sign into law). According to Article 1. Section 7 of the Constitution, when the president chooses, If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the United States Congress in which it originated, while the Congress is in session. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. This action, in effect, is a veto.

If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

Veto # United States (wiki)

It appears the President does have power to make a difference.

Originally posted by Littikani


What good is cutting the DOE going to do our children? Can't your Ron Paul just make it run right? It seems like you and he suggest that anything and everything that does not work 100% perfectly should just be thrown out. That is a whole lot torn down bridges in the US.

Then what?

The Dept of Education disappearing won't do anything to the children, that's an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.

By eliminating expensive and bloated bureaucracies, we save money and are able to pay off national debt and lower taxation rates.

Also according to the statistics, the United States overall public schooling system has scored progressively worse than prior to the inception of this department. So the ED actually lowered the educational standards of the nation on average significantly.

And as the scoring aptitude decreases, the standards for testing are lowered so as to "make the scores look better".

Also we have higher crime rates in schools since the Department's inception in 1979-80.

Also it's not the 'DOE'- That's the Dept of Energy. You can use either "ED" or "DoED" for Dept of Education.
Dept Education (wiki)

Your appeal to emotion is actually entirely unfounded.

Originally posted by Littikani

Also if we had a President who was not getting us involved in conflicts/wars without the consent of Congress than we would be involved in far less foreign engagements, and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.

Really? By how much? I want to see real world examples of when this has happened and what it has cost
vs.
what it cost when congress does give consent.

False dichotomy and supressed correlative fallacy.

This isn't a debate of the costs between:
1) Wars Undeclared by Congress yet still pursued
and
2) Wars Declared by Congress

This is actually a debate of the frequency of war involvement between:
1) Wars Undeclared by Congress yet still pursued
and
2) Wars Declared by Congress

And the facts reveal that Congress is reluctant to declare war often times, whereas the President is not as reluctant to pursue an undeclared (unofficial) war.

If the President does not pursue undeclared wars than the frequency of war involvement overall drops drastically and thus the lack of those wars will cause the cost of the nation's war expenditures to drop significantly.

Nice try on attempting to shift the debate into a false dichotomy, but alas, no cigar.

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

 

I am growing impatient.

So am I.

Please respond to this post .

Not only did I about 20 minutes ago, I got to explain that a few times now since then. That is not impatient, that is something else.

I have asked twice now what name I called you.

Respond to each point I made and explain why you disagree or agree.

You do not get to dictate to me about anything. Hell, you cannot even tell me what name I called you.

Otherwise I am afraid you are clearly avoiding it.
Which will reveal your true intentions here.

Hmmm. So what does your harping on it for 20 minutes after I replied to it reveal about you?

You did indeed make a veiled ad hominem attempt multiple times. You just said "What does it reveal about you?" This is an insinuated ad hominem and disingenuous.

You also said :

Originally posted by Littikani

So what does that make you?

It is ad hominem because you are making ME the subject, rather than the topic of debate which is RP's political platform and the misunderstandings about it.

Also you did not reply to my specific post until after I asked you 3 times, the time stamps and the progression of the last few pages proves this.

Your initial response is here link
time stamped : 04:51 AM

The very post you are quoting was just above your response, time stamped : 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Littikani

We all know that Ron Paul wants you to be free to run your business however you want no matter what you sell because he says the free market will fix it.

"No matter what you sell"?

Nice absolutist claims.

Show me where he says that?

OH? So he does plan to regulate some business based on what they sell?
Can you be specific? What products will be on that list and what further regulation of those companies will he enforce?
I would be happy to be corrected.

Are you insinuating that Ron Paul wants businesses to be allowed to sell nuclear weapons to the public?
Debunked.

No because that is not even close to what I wrote.
Where do you see "Ron Paul wants you to be able to sell anything you want?"

Cuz I never wrote or insinuated anything like that.

You did insinuate it because you made an absolutist claim. You said :

Originally posted by Littikani
Ron Paul wants you to be free to run your business however you want no matter what you sell

"No matter what you sell", was the exact wording.

Also you are again using another reversed logic ploy: you are asking for a "list" of what is going to be "further regulated".

However in reality we have the opposite, we already have heavy regulations on most aspects of economic activity. RP wants to lift certain regulations through dismantling executive agencies and limit further regulation through veto power.

By looking at what agencies or departments are to be eliminated, we can naturally deduce which ones will be left afterwards. What is left reveals what regulations will remain in place.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

 

So you are saying that the Executive branch does not have veto power to stop Congressional legislation?

So I come back and this is the first thing I see?
No, that is not what I am saying. I would have said it were that what I were saying.
Want to try this one again before we move on. I hope this is not the start of a trend because it is the exact thing that was making me weary of even bothering to try talking to Paul fans to begin with. I am starting to think that I might as well just ignore him and them for the sake of my sanity if I am going to have to say everything twice.

reply to post by Littikani

At least Dana Bash knew when she was getting snowballed.
Hint.

Ron Paul supporters should take it to the next level and throw snowballs at Dana Bash. Snowballs filled with ice. And rocks.

Originally posted by muzzleflash


The Dept of Education disappearing won't do anything to the children, that's an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.

By eliminating expensive and bloated bureaucracies, we save money and are able to pay off national debt and lower taxation rates.

You making a factless assertion does not change reality. What is it you are doing? Appealing to emotion. "It costs too much, we are drowning in debt" That is the argument you just presented with no facts at all.

Also according to the statistics, the United States overall public schooling system has scored progressively worse than prior to the inception of this department. So the ED actually lowered the educational standards of the nation on average significantly.

So no need to look at cause and effect, right? How about the expensive Republican NCLB plan? That was a great idea to Republicans a few years ago. Toss more money at the schools but no direction.

I am afraid you do not understand the difference between money spent and money spent well. If the fire dept fails to put out my neighbor's house on time, you suggest I destroy the fire department and take care of my own fires myself. Obviously the fire dept is a waste. Or there are variables you need to look at.
I am noticing a huge lack of citations to go with what you claim. Why is that?

And as the scoring aptitude decreases, the standards for testing are lowered so as to "make the scores look better".

Which is a bad idea.

Also we have higher crime rates in schools since the Department's inception in 1979-80.

That must be the reason then. I have fewer dear in my backyard since I through out a ripped pair of blue jeans. That must be the reason.

Also it's not the 'DOE'- That's the Dept of Energy. You can use either "ED" or "DoED" for Dept of Education.
Dept Education (wiki)

Yet you knew what I meant just fine because in context only an idiot would have thought I was talking about the department of energy, right? Thanks so much.

Your appeal to emotion is actually entirely unfounded.

So far so is yours. The funny thing is, you tried harder than I did. Well kind of. You wrote more but really included very little in the way of facts. Your entire argument is that the department of education is harming our children and should be stopped. It is the EXACT SAME APPEAL TO EMOTION.
Looking at your citations, also unfounded.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

False dichotomy and supressed correlative fallacy.

This isn't a debate of the costs between:
1) Wars Undeclared by Congress yet still pursued
and
2) Wars Declared by Congress

This is actually a debate of the frequency of war involvement between:
1) Wars Undeclared by Congress yet still pursued
and
2) Wars Declared by Congress

Are you for real? It was not MY DICHOTOMY. I was not the one that set that premise up. I asked how it would work with real numbers. Obviously real numbers scared you so you had to try to change the argument and frame it as something I did.
What I responded to again was

and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.

So you tell THEM it was a false dichotomy. Who wrote that again?

And the facts reveal that Congress is reluctant to declare war often times, whereas the President is not as reluctant to pursue an undeclared (unofficial) war.

And that matters why...?

If the President does not pursue undeclared wars than the frequency of war involvement overall drops drastically and thus the lack of those wars will cause the cost of the nation's war expenditures to drop significantly.

Holy crap you are #ing with me on purpose now. So now it is about cost after lecturing me on how it is not about cost? WHAT THE #?!

Nice try on attempting to shift the debate into a false dichotomy, but alas, no cigar.

Are you a real person?
I did not shift a #ing thing. HOLY CRAP this is a useless waste of time. I thought you were going to politely discuss Ron Paul with me? What the hell is this crap?

I responded to the dichotomy that was set up. You tell me I framed it wrong. Then you frame it the exact same way and then repeat that it is wrong.

I cannot deal with this nonsense.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You did indeed make a veiled ad hominem attempt multiple times. You just said "What does it reveal about you?" This is an insinuated ad hominem and disingenuous.

Then you can tell me exactly what that ad hominem attack is. So now that I am asking you a third time, why do I feel like you are lying here to play on other people's emotions? You are telling the thread I am picking on you but you are making it all up. Where is the ad hominem? Veiled or not, unless you can tell me what it is, you do not understand the word.

You also said :

Originally posted by Littikani

So what does that make you?

It is ad hominem because you are making ME the subject, rather than the topic of debate which is RP's political platform and the misunderstandings about it.

No, it is a question about you. Look up ad hominem.

Also you did not reply to my specific post until after I asked you 3 times, the time stamps and the progression of the last few pages proves this.

Also, I responded to it last because it was the longest and I wanted to give it the most time and respect. I had responded to it before I even got to your repeated requests. The times stamps of my replies show that so you completely lose that one.

Your initial response is here link
time stamped : 04:51 AM

The very post you are quoting was just above your response, time stamped : 04:43 AM

edit on 14-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

You do realize that this entire post of yours is about me, right?

Speaking of ad hominems, you did not even touch the topic in this post. You just ranted on about things you made up about me.

You are not for real.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

You did insinuate it because you made an absolutist claim. You said :

Originally posted by Littikani
Ron Paul wants you to be free to run your business however you want no matter what you sell

"No matter what you sell", was the exact wording.

Oh good, another post ALL ABOUT ME from mr. ad hominem.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I WROTE. Maybe you need to read it a few more times, I do not know. How you get that I suggest Ron Paul wants you to be able to sell anything from that is way beyond me. That is not what I wrote, meant, insinuated, hinted at, or implied. Not even close.

"No matter what you sell" means exactly that. That the condition applies no matter what it is you are selling. Nowhere in there does it say anything about what it is you are going to be able to sell. I do not get how you even make that leap.

Also you are again using another reversed logic ploy: you are asking for a "list" of what is going to be "further regulated".

No I am not. The post I responded to advocated for regulation. I want to know what kind and how much more of it this Ron Paul fan wants.

ARE YOU EVEN READING ALONG? IF YOU CANNOT READ WHAT I AM RESPONDING TO YOU ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE CONFUSED AND WRITE THIS NONSENSE.

Someone else is advocating regulations on private companies in the name of Ron Paul. I asked them for specifics. There is nothing reversed logic about asking someone to detail what they mean by what they say.

I do not even get this.

However in reality we have the opposite, we already have heavy regulations on most aspects of economic activity. RP wants to lift certain regulations through dismantling executive agencies and limit further regulation through veto power.

That is great but it is so #ing far from what I wrote and responded to that I have no clue where it even applies at the moment.

By looking at what agencies or departments are to be eliminated, we can naturally deduce which ones will be left afterwards. What is left reveals what regulations will remain in place.

If you actually read what I responded to and understood it I bet you would have written something that made sense.
If someone as a Ron Paul fan advocates for regulations on private industries, there is nothing wrong with me asking them what regulations and what industries will be included. It is a simple question to what they wrote. You keep trying to alter the premise of my post be changing what I responded to in order to further alter the meaning of my actual words.

How is that working out for you?

I wanted to learn why I should love Ron Paul.
What have you tried to do so far? insult me and twist my words.
How does that help Ron Paul or America?

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Littikani

 

At least Dana Bash knew when she was getting snowballed.
Hint.

I am not sure where you all come from but around here "snowballed" is a sexual term. Ever seen "Clerks?" Trust me, this thread is a lot funnier than you think it is.

I do love that your posts to me are nothing but empty, angry little jabs. Paul campaign headquarters must be thrilled.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Ron Paul supporters should take it to the next level and throw snowballs at Dana Bash. Snowballs filled with ice. And rocks.

That would be assault and most likely aggravated at that point. You sure that is what you want? Ron Paul must love seeing his supporters advocate violence against a private citizen for doing their job.

Ron Paul wants less regulations on business.
You are a Ron Paul supporter.
Dana is a private citizen who works for a private company.
She is not doing what YOU WANT her to do so you advocate assault?

WHAT THE #!

reply to post by Littikani
Just responding since you quoted me early on, and wanted to say welcome to ATS and you sure are a determined poster. But moderation is good, too. So, who're you rooting for in 2012? Will go out on a limb and assume not Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by Littikani

 

Just responding since you quoted me early on, and wanted to say welcome to ATS and you sure are a determined poster. But moderation is good, too. So, who're you rooting for in 2012? Will go out on a limb and assume not Ron Paul.

THANK YOU.
This is the first polite response I have gotten in any Ron Paul thread. I cannot tell you how much a difference that makes. Moderation would be great if I did not get spammed like this. All my posts are responses. You understand that don't you? So who is going overboard? The crowd spamming me or me responding to all those posts?
Who am I rooting for? I am not sure but I can tell you this much. Ron Paul's name has a big black line through it in pencil based on my experience here at ATS. The way his supporters have acted and reacted has made me more than skeptical about the man. Why are so many of his supporters so hostile? Is that what I will become? No thanks.
Who are you rooting for? Paul? Can you tell me why without pointlessly using words like liberty and freedom? I have a feeling you might be the one that can actually communicate with me.

Since you suggest I need moderation, you have read my posts? You see the issues I have? Do you have answers?

Do you approve of Ron Paul supporters advocating violence against Dana for doing her job for her private company?
Are you like the rest here that claim to support Ron Paul and his quest for freedom for corporations and at the same time want CNN put out of business because they are not regulated?

reply to post by Littikani


I remember you calling us morons...now quit posing