Thread: What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Nice strawman. I don't watch any news because I'd rather know I'm not informed than untruthfully believe I am informed.

Ignoring how obvious it is that Fox news is run by unapologetically subjective journalists I'll just mention a general note on the News.

There was a poll taken in California asking if people thought violent crime was going up in the state and the vast majority of people that get their news from the TV said yes, even though violent crime in the state had actually gone down. The reason is every single year violent crime gets more and more news time, even though there's less and less of it. Why? Because violent crime sells.

Fox News has an audience it sells to, the republicans, and it does whatever it can to reinforce negative associations with liberals (like the one above) and censor real news. I don't think it's that much worse than the other news networks though. If you were to compare it to a new network that reported the truth in a panoramic manner they would all look pretty much the exact same.

But all this censorship of Ron Paul only helps his campaign. If only the republicans watched the debates, then they'd see how untouchable he is as a candidate. He just schools the other candidates.

Straw man? No, a straw man argument involves a false assessment of someone else's claim. I did not make anything up to say that mystic believes in numerology and prophecy. He admits it. His whole argument was that there is something wrong with me, so I ragged him back. No strawman. Sorry.

Read what I said in the ecstasy thread and what I have said in the religion forum and then try to tell me that I am a Republican.

All of the news networks have some bias, but Fox News has the least. MSNBC has a fierce agenda of news slanting against Bush. Even their straight news reporters show it every day. Fox News has analysts that are biased toward Republicans, but they have several that are biased toward Democrats. Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, and Greta Van Susteren are all liberal commentators. The straight news reporters are far less biased than the straight news reporters at MSNBC and CNN. However, I don't think any of the three can get away with lying, which is very different from mere slanting. They are all big time corporations in obsessive competition with each other, and MSNBC and Fox News have personal hate against each other. CNN hates Fox almost as much as MSNBC does. They are all fiending to see another one say something that is a lie so they can sink them once and for all. Look at what happened to Dan Rather and CBS Nes when he tried that junk. Rather got fired, and CBS News still has not recovered from the lie. Left wing blog sites, on the other hand, don't have that kind of pressure.

Did you see Ron Paul on Bill O'Reilly's show? Paul turned out to be there to play a game of dodgeball. Bill kept giving him direct questions, and Paul kept side stepping and refusing to give straight answers. Ron Paul is a moron with a one track mind. I seriously question whether he is on Al Qaeda's payroll. His refusal to ackowledge any cause of terrorism other than U.S. involvement in the Middle East makes him a perfectly good sympathizer and spokesman for Al Qaeda. I think he should look for other factors, such as the fact that terrorist organizations are INSANE and EVIL and actually make decisions. Then he could maybe get into the full list of their unrealistic demands, such as the mass Islamization of the western hemisphere, and not just one of them.

Now THAT is a straw man (not to mention a slippery slope)

Here's a link to the debate you mentioned so people can see for themselves if Ron Paul was really skating passed the questions and playing dodgeball.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY

Ron Paul did his best to answer O'Reilly's questions but the man kept interrupting him claiming he was avoiding the questions when he was just trying to tell Bill O'Reilly that he was focused on the wrong people. Anyone can say what Bill O'Reilly said, he might as well have been asking if Ron Paul believed the world is a dangerous place. What Ron Paul was saying is that this country's focus is put on nations that aren't nearly as threatening to us as other ones, or don't require nearly as much attention.

Oh but you're right, the fallacy you used against Mystic was an ad hominem

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Now THAT is a straw man (not to mention a slippery slope)

Here's a link to the debate you mentioned so people can see for themselves if Ron Paul was really skating passed the questions and playing dodgeball.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY

Ron Paul did his best to answer O'Reilly's questions but the man kept interrupting him claiming he was avoiding the questions when he was just trying to tell Bill O'Reilly that he was focused on the wrong people. Anyone can say what Bill O'Reilly said, he might as well have been asking if Ron Paul believed the world is a dangerous place. What Ron Paul was saying is that this country's focus is put on nations that aren't nearly as threatening to us as other ones, or don't require nearly as much attention.

Oh but you're right, the fallacy you used against Mystic was an ad hominem

I didn't use a fallacy with Mystic. I engaged in the silly insult war he wanted to have because he could not counter my point about Fox News. HE committed the ad hominem fallacy. His point was 100% pure ad hominem, so I threw it back at him. An ad hominem used back at a total ad hominem is not fallacious. That's like saying if somebody calls you a booty head and you call him a biscuit face that you have committed a fallacy. Don't be silly. Was I supposed to post my psychological history because, "There's something wrong with you," is a serious debate point? Get real.

Ron Paul did very briefly touch Bill's issue about Iran, but he mostly kept playing the, "But let's talk about this other subject instead," game instead of giving direct responses. Iran is a megaserious matter we have on our hands right now, and Bill was trying to get Ron to talk about what we should do about them. Ron barely did it at all. He just said we shouldn't be in the Middle East at all, even though he voted for the war in Afghanistan. How consistent. What a stable candidate. And Ron also said that what Iran is doing is legitimate. A Ron Paul presidency would be a horrifying nightmare for the entire world. It's a good thing we don't have to realistically worry about such a thing.

You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:

Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia has half the terrorists, so why are we ignoring Saudi Arabia and just focusing on Iran?

Bill O'Reilly was trying to set the stage of the world, stating opinions as facts. He wanted Ron Paul to asnwer yes or no is Iran a threat, but that's a bullshit question because if Ron says no then he can get attacked for an outrageous statement and if he says yes then O'Reilly would just call him a flip flopper. O'Reilly was trying to set the stage as if Paul didn't care about Iran, and that's just not true, he simply has his priorities straight and Iran should not be our top priority.

The biggest megaserious threat to our nation is the fucking plutocracy and the federal reserve, not Iran.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:

Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia...

That's called dodging. Paul could have talked about the specifics of Iran and the full details of how to deal with them and then gone off about Saudi Arabia. Instead, he played the side step game.

Iran supports suicide bomber terrorism on a large scale, and we are their biggest enemy. They are working on nuclear weapons. That is a humongous problem. If Ron Paul does not have the capacity to understand that, then he is not even qualified to be the mayor of a hick town.

The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People. Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People. Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.

The question was this: What should be done about Iran?

If there are bigger issues, which I don't think there are, then he could have brought that up after answering the incredibly important question. The idea of electing somebody who does not take Iran seriously is an absolute nightmare.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did you see Ron Paul on Bill O'Reilly's show? Paul turned out to be there to play a game of dodgeball. Bill kept giving him direct questions, and Paul kept side stepping and refusing to give straight answers. Ron Paul is a moron with a one track mind. I seriously question whether he is on Al Qaeda's payroll. His refusal to ackowledge any cause of terrorism other than U.S. involvement in the Middle East makes him a perfectly good sympathizer and spokesman for Al Qaeda. I think he should look for other factors, such as the fact that terrorist organizations are INSANE and EVIL and actually make decisions. Then he could maybe get into the full list of their unrealistic demands, such as the mass Islamization of the western hemisphere, and not just one of them.

Okay, I will refute one of your points then.

What your "Universal Mind" can't comprehend is that unlike what Bill (trust me I know his show I used to watch it every day) turns every question into "A simply yes or not question" reality is much much different. Ron Paul was not avoiding his questions, the questions have very complicated answers mixed with history, policy and other factors beyond the obvious. Bill O’Reilly loves to make every a simple "yes and no"

"Yes or no, is Iraq safer with Saddam Hussien." And when people are like "Ehh well in a way but not really because you have to..." but that is as far as they get because he will interject. "Yes or no! It's simple!" Which even you should be able to point out as bullshit.

Ron Paul is not a sympathizer to Al Queda, that the fact that you make that statement is an obvious fallacy. The same as when they asked him in the debate "Do you take your marching orders from Al-Qaeda then?" which holds no journalistic or fact checking merit. If you fail to see that then you fail to see where people are pointing out your obvious lack of critical thinking.

No, Ron Paul does NOT take his marching orders from Al-Qaeda. In fact I firmly believe if we followed his initial proposal to simply GO AFTER Al-Qaeda and not get into nation building and Saddam Hussien we wouldn't be in this mess. What does our government do? Instead of going after our enemy they declare war on a tactic, terrorism. That would be like declaring war on submersibles and any country that harbors persons using submersible military tactics. Our enemy was Al-Qaeda, plain and simple. But then we let him run off in Pakistan and shut down the CIA group searching for him. This makes NO SENSE.

And no, Ron Paul has not "forgotten" about 9/11 that is another statement full of fallacies. He is one of the only people looking to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And this can only be acheived through removing our influence in the middle east. Tell me one good reason that benefits the American people that we have our army occupying that part of the world. And if you say defending our life that is bullshit. The reason we were attacked is because we were over there. That pisses some people off so much, people who are supposed to be our allies that they come over here and kill our innocent people. Osama Bin Laden is a fucking lunatic that deserves to be brought to justice, I agree and I am sure Ron Paul would agree. His is not a sympathizer he is intelligently assessing the situation and putting the focus back onto the American people. You do not spread democracy by force, you do not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries (giving billions of dollars of weapons to our allies to use against our enemies in the middle east is NOT HELPING US AT ALL). One of the reasons given fro the 9/11 attacks was our aid to Israel, but what do we do? Give them 30 billion dollars MORE weapons! This is completely mad!

Even our AIDS relief is to fight terrorism and spread democracy in other parts of the world. I honestly do not see where you get your information that refutes proven facts. I don't see how what George Bush said after the attacks dismisses the reasons, that were admitted, of why we were attacked.

Do you think we have the right to do what we are doing around the world? Do you think your tax dollars should be spent to meddle in the affairs of other countries? Imagine if some country did that here? Can you even open your mind enough to consider that what you get from the news (fox or not) may not be entirely true. Maybe because if Bill O'Reilly actually let someone finish a sentence you might get a glimpse of what is true, instead of some loud mouth like him shoving down ideas of how you should think. If you think a supposed "fair and balanced" journalistic network that releases "daily memos" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news#Internal_memos) is a unbiased source of information then you, my friend are living in la la land. But wait, wikipedia is probably too "liberally slanted" for you so you will dismiss that. The world isn't a simple yes or no answer, I hope you open your "Universal Mind" to this. Because I honestly did used to think like you, nobody came up and told me "hey LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!" and I was like "OH YES OF COURSE" I just eventually saw through the bullshit on both sides one day. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative in every meaning of the world. I want the government off my back and off the worlds back. Because when we embark on this stupidity it is only hurting people like you and I, who have absolutely no choice nor anything to do with it. I could care less if Israel got 30 billion dollars of my tax dollars, so why should they? I want true freedom and liberty, I don't want a fucking "free speech zone" and I don't want the main stream media telling people who to vote for. Don't believe me, look at how much time different candidates are allowed to speak in each debate....Ron Paul or not it is bullshit. The frontrunners are automatically based on money and polls, therefore nobody else is given a chance, that isn't democracy that is propaganda. If FOX news backs a certain ideal and then un-factually makes another side look bad, while un-factually makes their side look good, that is propaganda.

"information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement."

When Bill O'Reilly says "everyone who watches The Daily Show is a pot-head" That is propaganda. That is not factual and it used to make one side look good (his) and the other look bad. Just to make a point, he does this politically, not just about fake news shows.

Does any of this make any sense to do? Do you just glaze of factual information such as why we were attacked? Or are you going to mis-read what I said and think I said "Osama Bin Laden was a great man, he was right in what he did" like Fox news so desperately wants to make Ron Paul sound like.

Originally Posted by jaasum

What your "Universal Mind" can't comprehend is that unlike what Bill (trust me I know his show I used to watch it every day) turns every question into "A simply yes or not question" reality is much much different. Ron Paul was not avoiding his questions, the questions have very complicated answers mixed with history, policy and other factors beyond the obvious. Bill O’Reilly loves to make every a simple "yes and no"

My God you have gone from, "Hi, I'm Mr. Friendly," in the Religion forum to showing what you are really about. Why are you so rotten about everything now?

O'Reilly asks yes/no questions because they get to the heart of important issues. "Should we make decision A, or should we not?" Left wing fanatics despise yes/no questions because they greatly minimize their abilities to dodge by babbling.

Originally Posted by jaasum

"Yes or no, is Iraq safer with Saddam Hussien." And when people are like "Ehh well in a way but not really because you have to..." but that is as far as they get because he will interject. "Yes or no! It's simple!" Which even you should be able to point out as bullshit.

Whether Iraq is and will later be safer without Saddam Hussein is an extremely important question. People who don't want to give a yes/no answer to it are people who want to dodge it. Yes, Iraq is safer even now, and Iraq will be much safer in the long run.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Ron Paul is not a sympathizer to Al Queda, that the fact that you make that statement is an obvious fallacy. The same as when they asked him in the debate "Do you take your marching orders from Al-Qaeda then?" which holds no journalistic or fact checking merit. If you fail to see that then you fail to see where people are pointing out your obvious lack of critical thinking.

My critical thinking tells me that I have yet to see Ron Paul give the slightest trace of responsibility to Al Qaeda for their actions. He even said that U.S. presence in the Middle East "CAUSED" 9/11. That might as well be a Bin Laden quote. Does your critical thinking notice the same thing?

Originally Posted by jaasum

No, Ron Paul does NOT take his marching orders from Al-Qaeda. In fact I firmly believe if we followed his initial proposal to simply GO AFTER Al-Qaeda and not get into nation building and Saddam Hussien we wouldn't be in this mess. What does our government do? Instead of going after our enemy they declare war on a tactic, terrorism. That would be like declaring war on submersibles and any country that harbors persons using submersible military tactics. Our enemy was Al-Qaeda, plain and simple. But then we let him run off in Pakistan and shut down the CIA group searching for him. This makes NO SENSE.

We have captured and killed tons of members of Al Qaeda, inculding many of their highest ranking members. What are you talking about? We tried really hard to catch Bin Laden, but he is apparently hiding in Pakistan, and we have national security reasons for not invading Pakistan. Al Qaeda was not our only enemy. There are other terrorist organizations with the same goals, and preventative measures are necesssary. We are also going after governments that could help those organizations get their hands on WMD's. It is not as simple as going after Al Qaeda, which we in fact have been doing. The question about marching orders was a joke meant to illustrate the extent to which Paul agrees with Al Qaeda and promotes their philosophy, however inadvertently.

Originally Posted by jaasum

And no, Ron Paul has not "forgotten" about 9/11 that is another statement full of fallacies. He is one of the only people looking to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And this can only be acheived through removing our influence in the middle east. Tell me one good reason that benefits the American people that we have our army occupying that part of the world. And if you say defending our life that is bullshit. The reason we were attacked is because we were over there. That pisses some people off so much, people who are supposed to be our allies that they come over here and kill our innocent people. Osama Bin Laden is a fucking lunatic that deserves to be brought to justice, I agree and I am sure Ron Paul would agree. His is not a sympathizer he is intelligently assessing the situation and putting the focus back onto the American people. You do not spread democracy by force, you do not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries (giving billions of dollars of weapons to our allies to use against our enemies in the middle east is NOT HELPING US AT ALL). One of the reasons given fro the 9/11 attacks was our aid to Israel, but what do we do? Give them 30 billion dollars MORE weapons! This is completely mad!

The reason for the 9/11 attacks was that Al Qaeda decided to commit them. Everything else you mention can qualify only as influences and Al Qaeda's excuses, if anything. We are in Iraq for many reasons. I am so sick of listing them here. Look up any Iraq thread in Extended Discussion and read my long list of reasons for our presence in Iraq.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Do you think we have the right to do what we are doing around the world? Do you think your tax dollars should be spent to meddle in the affairs of other countries? Imagine if some country did that here? Can you even open your mind enough to consider that what you get from the news (fox or not) may not be entirely true. Maybe because if Bill O'Reilly actually let someone finish a sentence you might get a glimpse of what is true, instead of some loud mouth like him shoving down ideas of how you should think. If you think a supposed "fair and balanced" journalistic network that releases "daily memos" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news#Internal_memos) is a unbiased source of information then you, my friend are living in la la land. But wait, wikipedia is probably too "liberally slanted" for you so you will dismiss that. The world isn't a simple yes or no answer, I hope you open your "Universal Mind" to this. Because I honestly did used to think like you, nobody came up and told me "hey LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!" and I was like "OH YES OF COURSE" I just eventually saw through the bullshit on both sides one day. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative in every meaning of the world. I want the government off my back and off the worlds back. Because when we embark on this stupidity it is only hurting people like you and I, who have absolutely no choice nor anything to do with it. I could care less if Israel got 30 billion dollars of my tax dollars, so why should they? I want true freedom and liberty, I don't want a fucking "free speech zone" and I don't want the main stream media telling people who to vote for. Don't believe me, look at how much time different candidates are allowed to speak in each debate....Ron Paul or not it is bullshit. The frontrunners are automatically based on money and polls, therefore nobody else is given a chance, that isn't democracy that is propaganda. If FOX news backs a certain ideal and then un-factually makes another side look bad, while un-factually makes their side look good, that is propaganda.

If our government ever becomes genocidal and a supporter of suicide bomber terrorist organizations and the citizens cannot do a damn thing about it, I hope somebody does come here and overthrow them. Yes, we have a right and a major need to meddle in the affairs of our enemies. We would be screwed if we didn't. The world would be screwed if we didn't.

Fox News shows the views of all sides. They even have liberals giving their views every segment on the commentary shows. Their straight news just shows the news. I don't know why you keep harping on them any way. They are just one of my many news sources.

Originally Posted by jaasum

"information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement."

When Bill O'Reilly says "everyone who watches The Daily Show is a pot-head" That is propaganda. That is not factual and it used to make one side look good (his) and the other look bad. Just to make a point, he does this politically, not just about fake news shows.

No, it is a joke. I saw that clip. It is amazing how seriously liberals take that joke. But it is true that most of the Daily Show audience, now that the Daily Show is a PROPAGANDA show, is college kids on the left, and of course pot runs rampant with that audience.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Does any of this make any sense to do? Do you just glaze of factual information such as why we were attacked? Or are you going to mis-read what I said and think I said "Osama Bin Laden was a great man, he was right in what he did" like Fox news so desperately wants to make Ron Paul sound like.

Fox News showed the entire clip of Ron Paul's talk of how 9/11 was COMPLETELY America's fault. You are sounding very paranoid and vicious about what you assume I think of what you are saying. I've given major details on my disagreements with your points, so you can relax now.

You seemed like a pretty good guy when I first came across you in the Religion forum. You are really a disappointment.

I take a different tone when it comes to political topics. Because in religion there isn't a simple "yes this is true" "no this is not" I feel it is slightly different in the political realm. And I don't really care to comment anymore in this discussion. I find you are too set in your ways to even try and comprehend (not that I think you can't) what I was trying to say and we will go in loops and loops. About "yes I said this, no I didn't say that" because when I read what you wrote I just keep saying to myself "Hmmm, nooo that is not what I was saying." or "He missed my point" whereas in the religion forms I am much more open and trying to challenge beliefs I find even your attitude to be much more authoritative and un-open.

Originally Posted by jaasum

I take a different tone when it comes to political topics. Because in religion there isn't a simple "yes this is true" "no this is not" I feel it is slightly different in the political realm. And I don't really care to comment anymore in this discussion. I find you are too set in your ways to even try and comprehend (not that I think you can't) what I was trying to say and we will go in loops and loops. About "yes I said this, no I didn't say that" because when I read what you wrote I just keep saying to myself "Hmmm, nooo that is not what I was saying." or "He missed my point" whereas in the religion forms I am much more open and trying to challenge beliefs I find even your attitude to be much more authoritative and un-open.

Set in my ways? I took a lot of time to have an on-point dialogue with you about this, so you are being dishonest once again. I have completely welcomed and invited your detailed responses, so you have no basis for assuming that I wish to shut out what you say. Yet you say that any way. Keep in mind that your rudeness alone, which is the dominant theme in your posts, is completely noneducational, aside from giving me more perspective on how the leftist mind works. You can talk about this stuff without being rude. If it is really peace that you value, show it in your own behavior.

Please re-read that post. I am obviously angry, anger and peace can go hand in hand. I mostly react that way because I sense the same from your posts, could just be my own perception though so forgive me...I'll try to work on it.

And for the recrod, don't say I have a "leftist" mind because I in no way think of myself as "leftist" or "rightist" or any side. My interests are for my country and that of my own life and my fellow person's lives. Calling me a "leftist" is incredibly ignorant and assumptions and it shows the reason I get aggravated from reading your posts. It is the same thing as when this guy comes into my work and walks up to the front office and says "Oh hey you liberals how is it going?" I never once called you a neo-con. I said you were form Mississippi which I apologize for, not apologizing for being from mississippi but for assuming you are a redneck-bush-love just for being from there. So can you accept an apology and maybe not come off as so "I am right!" all the time, because you are only going to get the same back.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

LOL. That's it... everyone else is rude, narcissistic, and uneducated. God forbid if UM is actually ever wrong. There can't possibly be a way that he could just be simply living in delusion sucking on that mass-media teet, even though the only other person on here that ever agrees with him went off and sold his soul to kill people in Iraq for the corporate plutocracy called, America.

Do you really need to wonder why people step back from arguing with you? I'll give you a hint... it's definitely not because of your unparalleled wit and insight.

Oh great, it's the return of... Solskye.

I know YOU kept backing down to my arguments because you couldn't argue with them. I notice that your post above countered absolutely none of my points. That seems to be a trend with you. You should be proud.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Please re-read that post. I am obviously angry, anger and peace can go hand in hand. I mostly react that way because I sense the same from your posts, could just be my own perception though so forgive me...I'll try to work on it.

And for the recrod, don't say I have a "leftist" mind because I in no way think of myself as "leftist" or "rightist" or any side. My interests are for my country and that of my own life and my fellow person's lives. Calling me a "leftist" is incredibly ignorant and assumptions and it shows the reason I get aggravated from reading your posts. It is the same thing as when this guy comes into my work and walks up to the front office and says "Oh hey you liberals how is it going?" I never once called you a neo-con. I said you were form Mississippi which I apologize for, not apologizing for being from mississippi but for assuming you are a redneck-bush-love just for being from there. So can you accept an apology and maybe not come off as so "I am right!" all the time, because you are only going to get the same back.

I do have opinions, and one of them is that at least your views on 9/11 and the Iraq war are leftist. When I debate this stuff, my initial goal is not to say, "Ha ha, I'm right!" I get that way when I am insulted because shit talk becomes part of the game, but not by my initiation. My original goal is to say, "This is how I see it. I want to learn why you think it is wrong." I think angry behavior is unpeaceful, so let's both try to keep it out of our conversation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Set in my ways? I took a lot of time to have an on-point dialogue with you about this, so you are being dishonest once again. I have completely welcomed and invited your detailed responses, so you have no basis for assuming that I wish to shut out what you say. Yet you say that any way. Keep in mind that your rudeness alone, which is the dominant theme in your posts, is completely noneducational, aside from giving me more perspective on how the leftist mind works. You can talk about this stuff without being rude. If it is really peace that you value, show it in your own behavior.

LOL. That's it... everyone else is rude, narcissistic, and uneducated. God forbid if UM is actually ever wrong about something. There can't possibly be a way that he could just be simply living in delusion sucking on that mass-media teet, even though the only other person on here that ever agrees with him went off and sold his soul to kill people in Iraq for the corporate plutocracy called, America.

Do you really need to wonder why people step back and concede from arguing with you? I'll give you a hint... it's definitely not because of your unparalleled wit and insight.

welp, thats a step in the wrong direction

Thanks for taking the baton after I told um he was too ignorant of world affairs to debate me, jaasum. Though his opinions will never change you've definitely set a very convincing argument for all who are undecided about Ron Paul. Um has used pretty much all the worthless mass media talking points against Paul and you've elegantly countered them so well I doubt anyone who reads through this thread could vote for anyone else.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Thanks for taking the baton after I told um he was too ignorant of world affairs to debate me, jaasum. Though his opinions will never change you've definitely set a very convincing argument for all who are undecided about Ron Paul. Um has used pretty much all the worthless mass media talking points against Paul and you've elegantly countered them so well I doubt anyone who reads through this thread could vote for anyone else.

Allright! More SolSkye style nondebate! It is so convincing.

Maybe we should send Jaasum's arguments to the Ron Paul camp so they can read them on the air, and then Ron Paul will win the election. You really are in touch with reality. Thank you for proving it.

Okay, I'm done. And not that doesn't mean you have defeated me, I agree with Omnius and you proved everything I have said about the way you debate with the above post. This is childish to keep talking to you about this. Anyone else care to discuss other points about Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by jaasum

Okay, I'm done. And not that doesn't mean you have defeated me, I agree with Omnius and you proved everything I have said about the way you debate with the above post. This is childish to keep talking to you about this. Anyone else care to discuss other points about Ron Paul?

It is majorly sick of you to throw false accusations at people like that. I have been very on point and inviting of your responses. You are just making terrible shit up, and you seem to have a really bad habit of doing that. It is really unfortunate.