155 replies to this topic

[MichaelW]

acidhead, on 05 December 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

Nothing sucks more than that moment during a debate when you realize you’re wrong.

But here's the clincher: I'm not wrong. And I haven't had anyone conclusively prove otherwise. I have you cracking random comments which don't add anything worthy to the discussion at hand and Yam saying I'm wrong "because Jesus dude and you're always wrong because I say so".

Doesn't really look like a convincing argument doesn't it? Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know what one is. Bit beyond your level, isn't it?

Quote

What would Jesus do?

I dunno. You tell me. You seem to know him better than I do.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

If it did, I would have stopped responding to your posts a long time ago.






Opinions and principles are both personal beliefs.



I don't care about your consistency regarding foreign policy. It's your consistency surrounding Israeli policy and your opinions of it which are questionable. Such as your ideas about what oppression constitute for example. It's only oppression if it's committed by Israel. Same thing goes for self defence. Only justified if it's done by Palestinians.



Then what would you call it? Consistency probably. Saying one thing and then saying something else which is the complete opposite is probably normal for you.



But I am not wrong. That's the point. You personally won't see it because you're so infatuated with Paul and his so-called principles.

Ron Paul LEGISLATES consistently and on principle.   You're confusing principle with nuance, bitterly not allowing someone to say more than one thing about a subject and then calling it "inconsistent".  I call that desperate and unconvincing.

What do you think oppression constitutes?  What do you think I think it does?    You think that having an opinion that's different than the way one legislates makes one inconsistent?   That makes someone even more consistent.

If you're an occupier of someone else's property, you're the bad guy.  Whether that's an individual or a state.  That is consistency.   Your special interest group Israel is no exception.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 05 December 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Ron Paul LEGISLATES consistently and on principle.

Really? So being supportive of gay marriage and then voting for legislation that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is consistent according your whatever ****ed up little world you think you inhabit?

No wonder Ron Paul wasn't elected if all he had for supporters was someone who thinks he's the second coming.  

Quote

I call that desperate and unconvincing.

Funny that. I was just thinking the same about your arguments.

Quote

What do you think oppression constitutes?

Denying the basic rights of a population is essentially what it is.

Quote

What do you think I think it does?

It's only classified as oppression if you pay for it apparently. You said so yourself.

Quote

You think that having an opinion that's different than the way one legislates makes one inconsistent?

Quite. If you say you support something that grants equality to people and then you vote for something that denies said equality, it makes you inconsistent.

Quote

That makes someone even more consistent.

Eh? Just what exactly did the American education system teach you?

Quote

If you're an occupier of someone else's property, you're the bad guy.  Whether that's an individual or a state.  That is consistency.   Your special interest group Israel is no exception.

When did I say Israel was the exception? I was wondering whether or not you would be supportive of withdrawing allAmerican government funding from the Middle East? Now that you've thrown some criteria in the mix, you've inadvertently made Israel the exception.

Edited by MichaelW, 05 December 2012 - 10:27 PM.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 05 December 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Really? So being supportive of gay marriage and then voting for legislation that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is consistent according your whatever ****ed up little world you think you inhabit?

No wonder Ron Paul wasn't elected if all he had for supporters was someone who thinks he's the second coming.  



Funny that. I was just thinking the same about your arguments.



Denying the basic rights of a population is essentially what it is.



It's only classified as oppression if you pay for it apparently. You said so yourself.



Quite. If you say you support something that grants equality to people and then you vote for something that denies said equality, it makes you inconsistent.



Eh? Just what exactly did the American education system teach you?



When did I say Israel was the exception? I was wondering whether or not you would be supportive of withdrawing allAmerican government funding from the Middle East? Now that you've thrown some criteria in the mix, you've inadvertently made Israel the exception.

"You you you you".  It's about me in every reply.

Here's the deal.  Israel cannot occupy anyone.  Nor can anyone else.   That's consistency.  When Israel gets called out for its crimes of oppression nobody on earth has a right to commit.   Israel needs to completely abandon the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and let the two pieces that remain form a sovereign nation per the agreements it signed.

Israel denies the rights of the populations of Palestinians.  Hello?

My arguments haven't even been touched by anything you've said.   If you want to make anyone believe Ron Paul is inconsistent, you have to prove your case.   So far, all you have is some rhetoric about marriage which demonstrated no inconsistency whatsoever.   Ron Paul is solid on marriage like he's the most solid politician in voting record you will ever find (or else find someone else you think is even more consistent than Ron Paul; good luck).   There isn't a "flip flop" in sight regarding Ron Paul on marriage and there never was.   You should concede you were wrong about that, and move on to something you have a chance of being right about.

Provide some evidence already.   Asking Ron Paul questions and getting personal opinions doesn't make him inconsistent.   If you're going to even try to make it believable that he's "inconsistent" by listening to something he says, why don't you listen to why he votes the way he does?   He wants the federal government out of our marriage.   PERIOD.   That stance is bulletproof, consistent, principled and absolute.   Keep flailing; what else can I expect?

Edited by Yamato, 06 December 2012 - 12:22 AM.

[Yamato]

http://www.lewrockwe...ves/102976.html

Now that off-topic myth about Ron Paul's "flip flop" is dead, let's get back on topic please.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 06 December 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

"You you you you".  It's about me in every reply.

Well, you are the person replying to me after all.

Quote

Here's the deal.  Israel cannot occupy anyone.  Nor can anyone else.   That's consistency.  When Israel gets called out for its crimes of oppression nobody on earth has a right to commit.   Israel needs to completely abandon the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and let the two pieces that remain form a sovereign nation per the agreements it signed.

Fine. You're consistent. Your man-love-affair isn't. But entertain me. Would you apply the same consistency to other occupying countries such as Turkey or Morocco?

Quote

Israel denies the rights of the populations of Palestinians. Hello?

So does Lebanon. But is that considered oppression? Or is Israel the only country whose actions are classified as oppression.

Quote

My arguments haven't even been touched by anything you've said.

Interesting you mention that, because your responses of "you're wrong because I say so" haven't really touched mine.

Quote

If you want to make anyone believe Ron Paul is inconsistent, you have to prove your case.

I have. Repeatedly. You just haven't bothered reading it (surprise surprise).

Quote

So far, all you have is some rhetoric about marriage which demonstrated no inconsistency whatsoever.

Rhetoric? So me pointing out and quoting what the man said, including a video that shows him actually saying what he actually said, is "rhetoric"? Sorry, Yam, but I don't let my fanboy attitude to Ron Paul cloud any sort of judgement.

Quote

There isn't a "flip flop" in sight regarding Ron Paul on marriage and there never was.

So openly stating that he'd support gay marriage and then voting for legislation that is against gay marriage isn't a flip-flop and consistent?

Quote

You should concede you were wrong about that, and move on to something you have a chance of being right about.

You should try actually debating and trying to prove me wrong instead of shutting down the discussion. Come on Yam. This is an open invitation to prove me wrong.

Quote

Provide some evidence already.

I have. Go back and have a look for yourself.

Quote

That stance is bulletproof, consistent, principled and absolute.   Keep flailing; what else can I expect?

Depends on whether or not he said he'd support gay marriage in the first place. Which he did.

I provided a Youtube video where he states that he supports any voluntary association of people and they can call it whatever they wanted to. I then provided an article where he says marriage is between a man and a woman and has voted for legislation which would define marriage as that.

For once, Yam, stop holding the collective intelligence of the human race back, look back and what I've posted (not just in reply to you but others) and actually come back with a response that resembles an argument and not some rant of a political fanboy.

[acidhead]

MichaelW, on 05 December 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

But here's the clincher: I'm not wrong. And I haven't had anyone conclusively prove otherwise. I have you cracking random comments which don't add anything worthy to the discussion at hand and Yam saying I'm wrong "because Jesus dude and you're always wrong because I say so".

Doesn't really look like a convincing argument doesn't it? Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know what one is. Bit beyond your level, isn't it?



I dunno. You tell me. You seem to know him better than I do.

You haven't clinched anything but your pud, bud.  Have you noticed that nobody supports your argument.    You're all alone on this one.  You look like a fool.

[MichaelW]

acidhead, on 06 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

You haven't clinched anything but your pud, bud.  Have you noticed that nobody supports your argument. You're all alone on this one.  You look like a fool.

No one's proven me wrong yet. And if I look like a fool, I can't imagine what you idiots look like. The fanboy and the man who lacks the intellectual capacity to form a reason argument. Darwin would be so proud of you two.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 06 December 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

Well, you are the person replying to me after all.



Fine. You're consistent. Your man-love-affair isn't. But entertain me. Would you apply the same consistency to other occupying countries such as Turkey or Morocco?



So does Lebanon. But is that considered oppression? Or is Israel the only country whose actions are classified as oppression.



Interesting you mention that, because your responses of "you're wrong because I say so" haven't really touched mine.



I have. Repeatedly. You just haven't bothered reading it (surprise surprise).



Rhetoric? So me pointing out and quoting what the man said, including a video that shows him actually saying what he actually said, is "rhetoric"? Sorry, Yam, but I don't let my fanboy attitude to Ron Paul cloud any sort of judgement.



So openly stating that he'd support gay marriage and then voting for legislation that is against gay marriage isn't a flip-flop and consistent?



You should try actually debating and trying to prove me wrong instead of shutting down the discussion. Come on Yam. This is an open invitation to prove me wrong.



I have. Go back and have a look for yourself.



Depends on whether or not he said he'd support gay marriage in the first place. Which he did.

I provided a Youtube video where he states that he supports any voluntary association of people and they can call it whatever they wanted to. I then provided an article where he says marriage is between a man and a woman and has voted for legislation which would define marriage as that.

For once, Yam, stop holding the collective intelligence of the human race back, look back and what I've posted (not just in reply to you but others) and actually come back with a response that resembles an argument and not some rant of a political fanboy.

He supports keeping the government out of marriage.   He will not support any further federal treatment of marriage.   Nothing he said changes that fact.  

You don't have an argument.  You have no evidence for your mistakes.  You have baseless opinions masquerading as an "argument", and nasty ones at that.

Actually, everyone has proven you wrong.  If you make an erroneous claim and then want to jam it down our throats, the onus is on you to prove what you said is right.  And you have failed to do that.   Repeating yourself isn't going to help.  Neither is getting nastier and nastier which is your useless M.O.

Again, learn how to be friendly to people and they might listen to you.   Keep acting like this, and you will lose the respect of everyone.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 06 December 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

He supports keeping the government out of marriage.   He will not support any further federal treatment of marriage.   Nothing he said changes that fact.

He also said, quite openly, that he also supports any voluntary association of people.  

Quote

You don't have an argument.

Shutting down the discussion doesn't help your case at all. It makes you look desperate.

Quote

You have no evidence for your mistakes.

I said you should go through the thread again and look at what I have posted. Not my fault simple instructions flummox your teeny tiny brain.

Quote

You have baseless opinions masquerading as an "argument", and nasty ones at that.

LOL. Yamato, the man who thinks atheists and Jews are evil, thinks my opinions of his beloved Ron Paul are "nasty"? Hilarious.

Quote

Actually, everyone has proven you wrong.

Have they? Point out where.

Quote

If you make an erroneous claim and then want to jam it down our throats, the onus is on you to prove what you said is right.

By "us" you mean you? And how am I jamming something down your throat? I'm merely exercising my rights that you Americans need a piece of paper to justify.

Quote

And you have failed to do that.

Really now? I'm still here, unconviced. I asked for an argument Yam, not an attempted shutdown.

Quote

Repeating yourself isn't going to help.

It's the only way I can get my point across to you Yam. Repetition. They say seven times and people memorize it.

Quote

Neither is getting nastier and nastier which is your useless M.O.

My M.O has actually succeeded in the past. So far, you haven't been able to conclusively produce any form of argument than can come anywhere near what I have put forward and you've constantly skipped over questions which I put to you because your "standards" only apply to Israel and not anyone else.

Not my fault I can pick away and what you put without difficulty. Produce something watertight.

Quote

Again, learn how to be friendly to people and they might listen to you.   Keep acting like this, and you will lose the respect of everyone.

Right back at you, Yammy. I do learn from the best at how to be "nasty" to people.

And you still haven't answered my questions about other countries. Is this another one of Yamato's "skirt the hard questions"? You'd make a good politician Yam.

[acidhead]

MichaelW, on 06 December 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

No one's proven me wrong yet. And if I look like a fool, I can't imagine what you idiots look like. The fanboy and the man who lacks the intellectual capacity to form a reason argument. Darwin would be so proud of you two.

my dad can beat up your dad

lol

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 07 December 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

He also said, quite openly, that he also supports any voluntary association of people.  



Shutting down the discussion doesn't help your case at all. It makes you look desperate.



I said you should go through the thread again and look at what I have posted. Not my fault simple instructions flummox your teeny tiny brain.



LOL. Yamato, the man who thinks atheists and Jews are evil, thinks my opinions of his beloved Ron Paul are "nasty"? Hilarious.



Have they? Point out where.



By "us" you mean you? And how am I jamming something down your throat? I'm merely exercising my rights that you Americans need a piece of paper to justify.



Really now? I'm still here, unconviced. I asked for an argument Yam, not an attempted shutdown.



It's the only way I can get my point across to you Yam. Repetition. They say seven times and people memorize it.



My M.O has actually succeeded in the past. So far, you haven't been able to conclusively produce any form of argument than can come anywhere near what I have put forward and you've constantly skipped over questions which I put to you because your "standards" only apply to Israel and not anyone else.

Not my fault I can pick away and what you put without difficulty. Produce something watertight.



Right back at you, Yammy. I do learn from the best at how to be "nasty" to people.

And you still haven't answered my questions about other countries. Is this another one of Yamato's "skirt the hard questions"? You'd make a good politician Yam.

Voluntary association of the people doesn't require federal treatment.  Learn how to differentiate two entirely different and even polar opposite things.

Your self-pruning aside, you've convinced nobody that there's a "flip flop", when a position couldn't be more clear.   You just prevent yourself from understanding a principled and consistent position due to these emotions about yourself that get too carried away.

[Yamato]

acidhead, on 08 December 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

my dad can beat up your dad

lol

I just can't believe someone can mix up voluntarism with using federal power to control people.  I'm sure I speak for you too on that one.

Edited by Yamato, 08 December 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 08 December 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Voluntary association of the people doesn't require federal treatment.

Why not? If people's rights are being denied to them, shouldn't the federal government representing all Americans do something to ensure the rights of said Americans are either protected or upheld? You people are so ready to claim protection or justifications from amendments in your constitution which protect your rights. Why is it you can't vouch for the rights of others?

Or maybe you just think gay people are icky. After all, Ron Paul does so I can't imagine the apple falls far from the tree, figuratively speaking.  

Quote

Your self-pruning aside, you've convinced nobody that there's a "flip flop", when a position couldn't be more clear.

I haven't convinced you. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, you just don't believe that I'm right.

Quote

You just prevent yourself from understanding a principled and consistent position due to these emotions about yourself that get too carried away.

No, what I don't understand is why people support someone who claims to be a principled person who supports the rights of others and then denies people those rights. But that's Republicans for you.

A strange bunch indeed.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 08 December 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Why not? If people's rights are being denied to them, shouldn't the federal government representing all Americans do something to ensure the rights of said Americans are either protected or upheld? You people are so ready to claim protection or justifications from amendments in your constitution which protect your rights. Why is it you can't vouch for the rights of others?

Or maybe you just think gay people are icky. After all, Ron Paul does so I can't imagine the apple falls far from the tree, figuratively speaking.  



I haven't convinced you. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, you just don't believe that I'm right.



No, what I don't understand is why people support someone who claims to be a principled person who supports the rights of others and then denies people those rights. But that's Republicans for you.

A strange bunch indeed.

"Peoples' rights being denied to them" is the opposite of "voluntary association".   Stop spinning desperately for a minute and try to understand this correctly.

The Republicans?   The Republicans hate Ron Paul whenever he's running for office because his consistency doesn't represent their hypocrisy.   Are we a Democrat now?  

You haven't convinced anyone here.   I'm just one person at that.  Try harder, maybe?

Ron Paul is a principled person if there ever was one.   Name a political figure from the US you think is a principled person and let's do a head to head on their voting records.   You haven't produced anything that looks inconsistent about Ron Paul but a lot of poorly constructed opinion turning reality upside down and forcing it down our throats as accurate.  That doesn't cut it.  Bring some real evidence, not comments that Dr. Paul made that you only think made him inconsistent.

Providing actual evidence that Ron Paul is consistent on marriage too (what a tangent this is on the topic of Israel worship) is easy to obtain:

Same Sex Marriage / Civil Rights
Again Ron Paul proclaims to be a Christian so I have to assume that he is against same sex marriage, but he does not vote this way.
Ron Paul voted NO on Constitutional Amendments banning same-sex marriage twice.  In 2004 he voted against HJ RES 106, which “Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.”  In 2006 he once again voted NO on HJ RES 88 which stated the exact same.

http://thesteadycons...-voting-record/

Opinion is no match for his principle, michaelw.  He's probably the most principled statesman we've ever had in our federal government, certainly in my lifetime.  The fact that he even has an opinion, or a system of personal beliefs and values, doesn't mean that he in any case voted against his own principle because of it.   That's what "The Republicans" do; not Ron Paul.