Ron Paul campaign Press Release: Ron Paul WINNING the Battle for Delegates.

reply to post by Tecumte


Jesus.

You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton. "It dependeds on what your definition of is, is".

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


He was certified by both. Just because he is no longer currently certified doesn't change that, because he did nothing to lose that certification. He chose to not be affiliated with the board. This is a non issue that you are trying to use. Pick your fights because they are a reflection of you and right now you seem fairly shallow and very inefficient.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Right so again you ignore the fact that he lied about being certified by both, repeatedly.

In 2010 Rand claimed he was certified by both, but...

[H]is certification by the rigorous American Board of Ophthalmologists lapsed at the end of 2005

www.courier-journal.com...

He was NOT certified by both when he questions were asked.

AND, his BS about a moral stand is completely undermined by the fact that by doing his own certification wherein he is NOT bound to keeping up with industry best practice, not bound to reveal anything about his level of training, etc.

You can pretend he's a good guy by lying, and by pretending what he's done is a moral stance, but the fact is that it's not true. His stance is based on a very small issue, that a small (and dwindling) number of ophthalmologists didn't have to follow one new rule.

An equivalent: Older people often are exempt from having to re-take driving exams related eye-tests. Whereas in many places you have to do this frequently. Rand Paul, in this case, was basically saying, I will create my own driver licensing service, and give myself and seven friends a license to drive. hen when people ask I will say I have both my license and the state one. Then when I get busted lying I'll claim I was doing it because old people don't have to take eye exams.

You Paul folks will justify ANY behaviour your candidate and his son engage in.

Finally, thanks for expressing your concern about the efficiency of my fight-picking. Don't worry though, I make up for this inefficiency in other areas of my life.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I don't have to read past your first sentence. He has been certified by both. Whether he remained certified by both is different story all together. I am done talking about it though. It's off topic and you are being unreasonable. Just using anything you can to smear Paul, even when it completely irrelevant and not even about Ron himself.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Ahh... so when it's shown you don't know what your talking about you turn and run, claiming boredom. When you were SOOOOOO adamant he'd done nothing wrong, and that I wasn't paying attention.

You were WRONG about this. Rand LIED to cover his ass. He's not a good guy, buddy.

And yet your hero Ron trots him out at every opportunity... Trots out a guy that wants to imprison people for listening to a speech, a guy who lies about his qualifications.

And Ron chooses to be part of a party that repeatedly steals elections, according to his own followers.

Ron obviously has pretty poor judgement. Which was evident the second he started associating himself with that welfare queen Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Jesus.

You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton. "It dependeds on what your definition of is, is".

No not at all. I simply want to know exactly what was said and in what way and what was meant.

I like to really know before I jump to conclusions. Again has Rand explained this? Do you know? Do you care? Just rather mindlessly bash?

I've already said, IF Rand believes putting people in jail just for attending speeches where they are guilty of no real crime, then I disagree with him. Got That? Are we clear on that?

I do wonder though why you spend so much time, trying to bash the Paul's, and nit picking when there's so many much better targets of your bashing out there. You ignore their voting records and try to only find small specks of dirt? Why is that?

What have you got to say about Newt's honesty? Care to start a thread? How about Romney's? Obama's? Why such a miopic agenda concerning the Paul's? When I go back and read all of your comments it does seem you have some fixation on just the Paul's. Strange. I definately sense an agenda.

reply to post by Tecumte


I gave up. We are arguing with a troll. It became obvious when he held onto the link he wanted to share for like six posts before providing it. He's just arguing to argue. He tries to make a point that can't be made because he has no real evidence. He laces his posts with arrogant condescension so he obviously doesn't have the good sense to be respectful, that is counter intuitive to actually trying to turn someones opinion so he is just trying to inflame. Lastly he jumps from topic to topic like a mad person. He does this because none of his arguments are quality so he is relying on quantity. Best to just leave it alone. He can't spread his poorly conceived ideas with no one listening or replying.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Tecumte

 

I gave up. We are arguing with a troll. It became obvious when he held onto the link he wanted to share for like six posts before providing it. He's just arguing to argue.

Sure. I fully suspect there are trolls out here on the net with no other purpose than to try and counteract the Paul's growing popularity and support who obviously will try and use anything and everything to try and smear them. But I think that says alot. It's great to see their message of Liberty and Privacy being such a 'threat' to the established order of partisan favor seekers and warmongers that all the little trolls have to come out from under their little rocks. Makes me think the Liberty movement is attracting alot of attention, eh?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I have shown you the evidence and AGAIN you dodge it.

I'm not a troll; I am used to you guys justifying these Paul's behaviour and beliefs, no matter how ridiculous, so I'm careful to get people on the record... thus me holding back the link... but hey, if you're cool promoting a hypocrite and a liar, knock yourself out.

I'll choose to NOT do that, but sure.. whatever gets you through the night.

reply to post by Tecumte


I don't ignore their voting record, I disagree with tons of it, but I don't ignore it.

Bring up votes and we'll talk about them, some I DO agree with.

But I am actually allowed to both agree with a few of their votes AND think they espouse a selfish and dangerous (and often irrational) philosophy, one which most of their supporters seem to be in denial about. I am allowed do that.

For the record guys, you know he's against closing GITMO... yes?

For people that think his quote was taken out of context:

reason.com...

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


You have never said anything positive about Paul. There is no way that any reasonable person can't find something they like. He stands for liberty. There has to be something you like. Maybe say that and one of us could feel like we aren't posting for no reason to a troll. Show us some reasoning and that its not blind hatred. If you ever gave anything you would seem like you had a head on your shoulders, but that isn't how you come off. You go off on weird tangents and find new things constantly to attack. You actually spend your time working against him.

I don't like Obama or Romney, but I don't seek out there threads to trash talk them. I never ever have done that. I don't like them so I don't care to do that. Your behavior is strange to me and that is what makes me suspect you are a troll.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I don't think he stands for "liberty" I thinks that's pure rhetoric like a certain "change we can believe in".

I like that he's against the patriot act. That's pretty sweet.

I basically think he's about as awful, from an idealogical point of view, as a politician comes. I think people are, like they did with Obama, projecting onto him, without knowing what he believes. Like the people that say he'd stand up to corporations (wrong) or that he's trying to fight for the little man (wrong). There's such a gap between what he believes and what people believe he believes, it's shocking.

You may be for the de-funding of public education or the removal of all regulations on business, but I think that's suicidal. You can frame suicide as "liberty," but it won't make me support it.

And btw, you have seen my reasoning posted repeatedly, you usually just choose to ignore it. You ignoring my reasoning doesn't mean I'm full of "blind hatred". That's a pretty silly/paranoid reading of the situation. I don't hate Paul at all (though Rand is a piece of work); I do however think his ideology is as dangerous as Communism/Fascism/etc.

Add to that the delusions about how wonderful his kid is, based on nothing more than them being related, and more rhetoric, and it disgusts me.

Chomsky is right, as are all the other sane-headed critics of US Libertarianism; it's an extreme ideology, based on a biased and dishonest reading of the constitution. It's wrapped in populous rhetoric, because if it was honest about its aims it would flop (see the first 20 years of Libertarianism in the US).

It has realised, under Paul, that it can simply pitch itself as anti-government, pro-"Liberty" and people will respond to it. But it's just rhetoric.

I can disagree almost completely with someone and not be a troll as well. And I can be passionate in my disagreement.

I can also try and correct people who are spreading misinformation as I care about my country. Calling me a troll is essentially an attempt to silence me.

On top of that, there's SOOOOOOO many Pro-Ron Paul threads on ATS you guys would think you;d be able to take criticism without getting all paranoid about "trolls".

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

You may be for the de-funding of public education or the removal of all regulations on business, but I think that's suicidal. You can frame suicide as "liberty," but it won't make me support it.

Source?

Add to that the delusions about how wonderful his kid is, based on nothing more than them being related, and more rhetoric, and it disgusts me.

This sentence illustrates your hatred.

Chomsky is right, as are all the other sane-headed critics of US Libertarianism; it's an extreme ideology, based on a biased and dishonest reading of the constitution. It's wrapped in populous rhetoric, because if it was honest about its aims it would flop (see the first 20 years of Libertarianism in the US).

Chomsky is a joke. He is not a Libertarian. He would vote for Hillary Clinton over Ron Paul, what does that tell you?
B.S. alert

Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate...and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent? Chomsky: No.

He is a friggin globalist.

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow


Source? Understanding what US Libertarian's want, based on their websites, their writing, etc. And by reading Ayn Rand and knowing what Objectivism means.

If you don't know what they believe, go do some research. What i said is only controversial if you are ignorant.

As far as Chomsky being a Libertarian. Libertarian means something completely different in the rest of the world. Only in the US does it somehow equate to Objectivist fantasy.

Btw:a quick look at the main Libertarian FAQ states that a Libertarian government would PRIVITIZE ALL VITAL PUBLIC SERVICES.

That not me yelling, that's me accenting it you you don't skim over it.

Maybe it's time you learned a bit about Libertarians and what they believe.

One more thing, I'd vote for Hillary over Paul as well, not cause I like Hillary, but because Libertarianism is pretty awful. Worse than anything Hillary believes.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

You are stuck using words that are bigger than your understanding, but ironically, these words like "Objectivism" don't really mean much in the real world. Look up demagogy. Calling Ron Paul dangerous is what the tools in the mainstream media do to stir up the ignorant masses. You are a demagog.
Let's take Libertarianism, another one of your favorite words. You paint Ron Paul with this brush, but he doesn't call himself a Libertarian because demagogs like Chomsky have ruined the word and made it mean nothing at all. Just something to be "feared".
Ron Paul is dangerous....what a crock.
How about you figure out who these other (other than Ron Paul) politicians work for, and then come back and have a grown up conversation. If you are intelligent, you can figure it out on your own, but Chomsky is a tool.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

Let's take Libertarianism, another one of your favorite words. You paint Ron Paul with this brush, but he doesn't call himself a Libertarian

Ron PAul the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988? Ron Paul whose website uses the word Libertarian hundreds of times? Who says things (insane things) like, "I happen to believe the founders were Libertarians". And, in January 2012 said, "But if sexual harassment involves violence, as libertarians, we are very opposed to any violence." That's just one of many many quotes where he refers to himself as a libertarian.

But no, no your right, he's not a libertarian at all. He doesn't refer to himself as one ever.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillowdemagogs like Chomsky have ruined the word and made it mean nothing at all

Ludicrous. Just insane. Libertarianism was a term used by the extreme left for 200 years before the US Libertarian party decided to redefine it in the 1970s...

So hmmm... 200 years meaning one thing... one group redefines the meaning and yet, according to you:

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillowdemagogs like Chomsky have ruined the word and made it mean nothing at all

By the way, if ANYONE is engaged in demagogy it's Paul, with his dishonest rhetoric.He know people like you have no idea what he believes, for a variety of reasons, but will still line up and help him take your freedom away.

You know for liberty and patriots and stuff.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
For people that think his quote was taken out of context:

reason.com...

Wow, very nice thanks, that link does seem to put things in a bit more perspective.

"All I'm saying is that attending a rally where you call for the violent overthrow of the United States—one, it's against the law to say that, but attending the rally would be supportive evidence for a judge." RP

I don't have a problem *necessarily* (based on reasonable circumstances) with the first part of that equation, but the part "but attending the rally would be supportive evidence for a judge.", is very troubling iMo if Rand means he supports that. I hope not. He really needs to make this clear.

reply to post by Tecumte


its very clear...he said supportive evidence for a judge, not supportive evidence for Rand Paul.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
He stands for liberty.

What does that actually mean?
It is sooo vague. Who says they stand against liberty?