Reply With Quote
but he actually does have black friends...lol
Parker = fake libertarian sheeple tbqh
but he actually does have black friends...lol
How else do you expect me to respond to your idiocy? When people take the time to respond to you like an adult, you run away. Kind of like this.Hadnt insulted you. Glad to see you reveal your chewy y center
Yeah, actually I understand it fully.
No, Lawrence was interrupting him precisely because Ron Paul was NOT answering the questions and he didn't want to hear Paul's unending libertarian spiel.
Furthermore, Lawrence's questions about the "White's Only" signs were entirely legitimate. The right to put up those signs - or as Paul would innocuously call it, "property rights" - is a consequence of the libertarian ideology. Saying that it's "ancient history" ignores and blunts this fact.
You cant enhance freedom by oppressing the rights of those with unpopular views.
Its deep...too deep for your average joe. or scott, evidently. But not to deep for the founders who recognized god-given inalienable rights to free speech and property. (ps inalienable means the govt cant sever)
Thats the nugget you didnt have.
You have my permission to take that with you
Sorry, I see it another way. Paul was never really given the chance to answer and Lawrence kept hammering in before Paul could. Maybe Paul would have NEVER gotten to the answer, but this type of hosting is the kind employed by FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC and even Bill Maher and it's pretty pathetic to watch, unless you are interested in watching a host constantly yell at his guests unless he gets the shills who agree with everything he says.
Diversion from this schooling?
I got a recent promotion and Im doing my best to impress on the job. Havent had any time to get back to that, but I will.
So, I've got Ron Paul lover on one side, trying to bash me with some non-sequitous, incoherent nonsense; and on the other side I've got Ron Paul hater (or maybe just a Lawrence O'Donnell lover?) trying to bash me because I think Lawrence O'Donnell is a prick.You cant enhance freedom by oppressing the rights of those with unpopular views.
Its deep...too deep for your average joe. or scott, evidently. But not to deep for the founders who recognized god-given inalienable rights to free speech and property. (ps inalienable means the govt cant sever)
Thats the nugget you didnt have.
You have my permission to take that with you
When both sides dislike what I'm saying, there is a good chance I'm right where I want to be.
Schooling? You haven't said anything. In fact, all you've done is pretty much agree with me that that particular interview was one of Dr. Paul's lowest moments... and then turn around and tell me that I "don't get it" because of my recognition of it being one of Dr. Paul's lowest moments.
You're doing wonders for his cause. Keep up the good work.
I told you you didnt understand the principles of liberty.
Cons utional Law/Policy isnt that closely related to economics, so its understandable.
Which you based on the fact that I correctly identified that Paul wasn't at his best in that interview (which you essentially agreed with).I told you you didnt understand the principles of liberty.
Great analysis.
If you understood the principles, what I saidwould make perfect sense.You cant enhance freedom by oppressing the rights of those with unpopular views.
to you that wasnon-sequitous, incoherent nonsense
Missed analysis.
You dont get it, because you didnt understand the flaw in the line of questioning. Thats not that hard to grasp, tbf.
It does make perfect sense...
Just not in the context of anything I'm talking about, which was:
1) Lawrence O'Donnell came across as a prick
2) Ron Paul came off as incoherent in the O'Donnell video as a result of O'Donnell being a prick
3) You never want to start off your rebuttal to accusations of being racist with the equivalent of "I have lots of black friends!"
Know what else makes sense? This statement:
Today the sun rose in the east and set in the west.
Makes perfect sense, just has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If YOU understood libertarian principles, you'd see that.
, this is why people treat you like a child: because you act like one.
I believe the VERY FIRST CONTRIBUTION I had to this thread was to point out that the interviewer (you know, the one doing the questioning) came off as a prick.
But you know what, Lawrence O'Donnell isn't running for President of the United States, so it really doesn't matter if he is a prick who asks flawed questions. I can simply choose to never watch his show (a choice I made a long time ago).
I can, however, point out how Dr. Paul did a poor job in that interview.
You are also free to go on some non-sequitous diatribe about "how I don't get it" because I chose to acknowledge that Dr. Paul did a poor job in that interview... and I in turn am free to laugh at how ridiculous you are.
You're a great Ron Paul supporter: insulting, alienating and accusing people who like him and would actually vote for him of "not getting it."
Winning strategy you've got there.
scott your a dumbass sometimes. [came off as a prick] ≠ [line of questioning].
Not even close.
I'm signing off now, but I'll also leave you with this:
You really quite clearly have no clue what my political leanings are, probably because you don't read any non-Ron Paul, non-Chemtrail conspiracy threads here. You should probably should yourself before you go around ascribing philosophies to posters and trying to assail them based on such, lest you look like a fool (again).
feel free to type for days to try and and cover this gaping hole in your logic though.
I try not to be a grammar stickler, but calling someone a dumbass is one of those times when you REALLY want to make sure you have the proper usage of "you're".
In most instances, I would agree.
However, most of the questions were even “yes” or “no” questions but Ron Paul couldn’t even give a straight answer to those without trying to distance himself from his own words and draw ridiculous analogies like comparing the outlawing of discrimination based on race at restaurants to “taking over the bedroom and saying what you’re going to do in the bedroom”.
Please… there’s nothing to suggest he had a good answer for anything but just couldn’t get it out because he was being interrupted.
He was only interrupted after he spewed complete bull . Nothing prickish about that.
While I'm away, educate me again on where the gaping hole in my logic is?
I "don't get it" because I didn't immediately attack Lawrence O'Donnell for asking flawed questions in addition to being a prick and ty interviewer?
Can Ron Paul only do good interviews when he is asked the right questions?
i stand by my statement: you didnt understand O'Donnell's flawed line of questioning.
And I dont think your previous posts change that.
Actually... I don't want to "get it". I'm happy being a sheeple. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
As with most politicians, their supporters do as much or more damage to their campaigns than anything they actually say or do (Herman Cain being a notable exception).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
