My response

oops, did I bump the troll thread off?
my bad

hah the video, its the first time in my life ive seen somebody say something smart after saying "THIS IS AMERICA WE....."

heh I'm trying to think of a clever response but u know I think u got me
I'm stuck

On April 30 2009 01:45 ToTehEastSide wrote: oops, did I bump the troll thread off? my bad

I see some irony in this and your quote about censorship.

Frankly I think it's pretty characteristic of Ron Paul's particular cult that they wouldn't bother to defend his foreign policy, poor status as a communicator, shaky economics, fanatic devotion to the Constitution. The fanatic devotion to the Constitution is particularly interesting because he has a tendency to claim that some of his beliefs like non-interventionism are supported by the Constitution when this is clearly an extrapolation of the Constitution's meaning - and is just the sort of thing he frequently denounces in other policy-makers.

Maybe I should have chosen a different title for my blog thread but in any case I do think Ron Paul sucks. Regardless of whether his heart is in the right place his policies are deluded and the road to hell is paved with good intentions etc.

After all there are a lot of sincere people in the world, and they comprise all the worst and best ones. Sincerity really is nothing more than bedrock for extremism and to some degree fanaticism.

Also, where the hell do you come by all these fucking pictures?

you sir are the delusional one
from what little I have read from you all you do is spout your opinions of things with absolutely no back up or precision.
You in particular I must say more than once I have not completely read your posts as I see it's just a total waste of time because it's primarily flame wars as well as missing the point of things

At least these three posts here are short enough that I read them regardless if I want to or not, so since I have read them I will respond to what I mean within them as it also applies here.

"I see some irony in this and your quote about censorship."
ok and what's the irony?
[edit]
I changed my quote, so just encase you ever do reply and can't remember what my quote was, it was, "Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it." -Mark Twain
[/edit]

"Frankly I think it's pretty characteristic of Ron Paul's particular cult that they wouldn't bother to defend his foreign policy, poor status as a communicator, shaky economics, fanatic devotion to the Constitution"
this is all just a general opinion
where and what are you talking about? where does this apply?
anything in particular or is this just mainly an overall blanket statement you want to make on a whole group of people?

"The fanatic devotion to the Constitution is particularly interesting because he has a tendency to claim that some of his beliefs like non-interventionism are supported by the Constitution are supported by the Constitution when this is clearly an extrapolation of the Constitution's meaning"
I like this statement the best out of all u said. Here you are actually making a point, but Ron Paul and foreign policy is so huge as the subject is often one of his most critical areas that he constantly hits. So again this is really just a very general blanket statement. In order for me to respond appropriately, I must again know what or where you are talking about. I am not going to do your work for you so can you please get more specific.

"- and is just the sort of thing he frequently denounces in other policy-makers"
same as above however I will say one of the main things I see him denounce in terms of non interventionism and in terms of The Constitution is that the USA does not go to war without approval of Congress, is this what you are disagreeing with? That our President should be able to initiate war at will?
This really seems the only thing off the top of my head that I can think of for you that fits.


onto post #2


"Maybe I should have chosen a different title for my blog thread but in any case I do think Ron Paul sucks"
You are totally allowed to have your opinion on the matter but all I saw in your thread was fashion statements. "He's retarded" "it's so 18th century" etc with nothing but your opinions in it. Hence my coming to terms that it is nothing more than a troll thread. I don't really care what your opinion is as much as where and why you do think what you think. Like I have tried to tell k2, if you start posting in that direction maybe we can get the ball rolling

"Regardless of whether his heart is in the right place his policies are deluded and the road to hell is paved with good intentions etc."
What policies are you talking about? fyi Ron Paul is not and has not been the one making policies at all. He is totally against the direction we as a country are going. This seems like you want to coincide Ron Paul with Bush and all neo con republicans and blame him for us being in the middle east or something. Or maybe you are happy with the direction we have and are going, I can't tell.
PLEASE GIVE ME SPECIFICS ALONG WITH YOUR OPINIONS PEOPLE

"After all there are a lot of sincere people in the world, and they comprise all the worst and best ones."
Yes.
Do you realize that as you say Ron Pauls "cult," or "following," that his movement is still actually a minority in terms of direction we are headed.

"Sincerity really is nothing more than bedrock for extremism and to some degree fanaticism."
wow
did you just say that just actually giving a shit in something equals extremism?
talk about warped
So anyone that is sincere about anything is an extremist which therefore could mean they are a terrorist right? Is this what you are implying with the direction of your thoughts??
holy fuck @ the direction we are headed as a nation
I'm scared.

On April 30 2009 10:00 failsafe wrote: Also, where the hell do you come by all these fucking pictures?

I read. I use the internet as a source of information gathering from all sources. It's a wonderful tool really. Going to be a shame once it's controlled by guess who.

Since you didn't bother to read my posts I'm not going to bother to read yours. Instead, I've decided to take advantage of the limited ban features available to me

ok first post

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: I opted to post my rant in my blog instead of in this thread because I'd rather see the UIGEA discussed here. Moreover, from what I know about Ron Paul's position on legalized gambling, I totally agree with his stance and hope that the UIGEA is overturned.

Firstly I'm glad we agree on on the side of politics as far as the ban on poker goes. That is very cool and boy am I glad.

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: Since I"m mentioned here now, I'll make a quick defense of my rant.

Noone attacked you there in that thread.
Ron Paul was brought up in that thread hypocritically by k2o4, not me. I defended against k2's feeble attempt of slandering there by showing him what he is doing.

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: I find it extremely frustrating and disappointing that so many smart people tend to support Ron Paul with an almost religious fervor.

Who and where are you applying this too? I see nothing specific and you call me ignorant so therefore it's not about me and unless u clarify this I will conclude that maybe you are just campaigning against the thought of people in the future listening/supporting Ron Paul completely.

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: I think it's antithetical to Ron Paul's emphasis on the truth for his supporters to uncritically praise Ron Paul's stance on every issue.

See this is where your general assumptions of a whole group of people make you look like a idiot and by now I usually have stopped reading you. You are saying or implying that 100% of his supporters believe Ron Paul 100% no matter what and therefore if I post anything in support of the man I must be a fanatic.

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: Moreover, Ron Paul would be horrified and disgusted by the vague condescension and ad hominem that his supporters turn against his opponents.

Are you implying I have done this? If so where?
Take a look at my Not Yours to Give blog and do a word search
http://www.liquidpoker.net/blog/viewblog.php?id=709929
Search for the mention of Ron Paul, see everywhere he is mentioned and see how he is mentioned. Start to look at all your posts, see how you criticize him. Apply this to what I just quoted of you saying.
I will give you this, everyone is human and therefore a hypocrite in some way or another, but your hypocritical statements are so huge I over and over think to myself as I respond, "I'm wasting my time."
You are farrrrrrrrrrrrrr from the first person to say "Ron Paul sucks" or "Ron Paul is stupid" or "Ron Paul is crazy" etc without anything of substance of where. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Sorry if I don't waste my time on arguing with one

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: Obviously no man of integrity can have much esteem for shit like "OMG, you idiot. Go get educated asaply and come back when you agree with me."

Nice slander. You might find me implying GO GET EDUCATED ASAP AND COME BACK WHEN YOU ARE but not what your twisting here.
imo we would live in a very dull world if what you are saying was the case

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: As for Ron Paul himself, most of my education has come from libertarian economists and Von Mises institute philosophers, so my training biases me in favor of Ron Paul rather than against. For instance, I think most economists would find Ron Paul advocating the gold standard to be on the hilarious side of laughable as most economists believe that a federally manipulated fiat currency is essential to managing what might be called GDP-level variance. I'm not totally deaf to the idea though, and I think it's at least intriguing and worthy of some consideration.

I'm sorry but I have to laugh. The first specifics I see in you having of Ron Paul and it's one where you agree with him, or you find it "intriguing and worthy of some consideration"

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: On the other hand, some of Ron Paul's MAJOR theses such as non-interventionism and his strict adherence to the Constitution are completely misguided and obviously wrong.

ahh good, you have at least a little something here. You say completely misguided and obviously wrong. If what you just said is true coming from you, then you believe we should have invaded Iraq and we should be at "war" in Afghanistan?

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: To argue for modern policy with quotes from George Washington and a 200 year old policy like the Monroe Doctrine is misguided at best and delusional at worst.

This is something politicians of every scope do. They apply history to what they are promoting so the people have something to relate to or often times the point one is trying to make has been said so simply or so well by someone before you that even trying to repeat it differently would be ultimately a lack of efficiency.
Do you think history is important? Do you agree/disagree that if one does not learn from history then one is often doomed to repeat it?
Maybe you do not understand the fundamental arguments. In an educated and advanced society what it boils down to is the role of government in all affairs. From contracts, money, liberty, imports/exports, markets, social issues, anything and everything, you name it. Foreign policy is something that existed in the founding years of this country so right off the bat I can easily see how quotes from our past are brought up in it as it's a big issue today. That being said, I don't know which quote in particular you are talking about so I can't agree with you or Ron Paul until I see it.

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: The world is not a static entity where certain variables can be imagined as constant regardless of evidence to the contrary. And we find that evidence mounting every day: technological advances, human population growth, global environmental phenomena, peak energy concerns, etc.

I don't think I completely get what you are saying here. That might be because I haven't seen the Ron Paul speech that you were referring to the sentence before or something else I'm not sure.

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: I also maintain that Ron Paul is not a good communicator. .

Agreed.
To quote Bill Maher, "If America was smarter, wouldn't you be winning in the polls?"
But just because he can't deliver his point flamboyantly to the mass monkey of idiots that clog our system today does that give any sufficient reason why his points should be ignored or dishonored? Not in my book. Sometimes the best advice I get in a situation is from a kid.

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: While he isn't a complete disaster like Bush, if we juxtapose Ron Paul's spastic antics and diatribes with the cool, collected poise of a politician like Obama I think the issue is pretty much settled

I don't get this. First off what spastic antics or diatribes are you talking about? I'd prefer if you could to show me what your talking about within the same time frame of Obama being in politics. That would hold the most weight.
Also, which issue would be settled? Are you saying you agree with Ron Paul? I thought you said Ron Paul sucks but you keep insinuating an agreement with him

On April 30 2009 11:13 failsafe wrote: Anyway I didn't want to come off as being completely glib or trite so this is the defense of my blog post. I also don't want to try to maintain a running dialogue about Ron Paul because I find Ron Paul as a politician to be an insipid issue.

kool ^^
I'll take to you about it all day long if we can get past the hate.

it should be noted that I am responding as I read what you said
guess I'll go onto the second post

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: You are a completely ridiculous hypocrite of a really disgusting sort. You constantly make these below the belt jabs at everyone who disagrees with you while maintaining a facade of moral superiority.

Not true, I have only given "tit for tat."
I guess it's cool that you think I think I'm morally superior to everyone.

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: Finally you consistently end your inflammatory posts with "and let my massive train of insults be the last word on the subject" or "and this is the internet so fuck you, I don't care." Not to mention your fucking ridiculous pictures that crop up at every opportunity.

ok you got me. I do end gay conversations here that have nothing more than ad-hominems or name calling by jabbing back a little once it has been thrown at me. Yes I am human so yes if someone attacks you by saying "You are a completely ridiculous hypocrite of a really disgusting sort." or somesuch directly then a persons natural tendency is to defend himself, and I do that sometimes.
I challenge u to find where I did this aggressively first and not out of defense. I'll even apologize sincerely if I did. If I didn't then you should apologize to me.
As for the pictures, well a picture says a thousand words.

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: You accuse everyone who disagrees with you of a sort of conspiracy that could ONLY be borne out of spite for you. As if no group of two, three, or more people could POSSIBLY believe that you were wrong.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course people are going to disagree with each other. Particularly me because I quite often and naturally like to take the minorities side and if I do that then there is a great chance I could be wrong somewhere. Besides name calling stuff, where have I accused someone of a conspiracy? Where do you get these assumptions?

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: And even if I don't mention you, your own tendency to rely on ad hominem attacks and your own narcissism extends so far as to believe that when I argue against ideas you support I am actually slandering you.

I don't know where/what you are talking about with this. I only recall three things with me pertaining to you:

1) you jumping in on the the continuation what I precalled a semi-pointless argument that me and Saki was having; and in that thread I didn't read your entire posts in length at all as it wasn't pertinent.
Do you realize that Saki had done as you had done and was trying to label me as well as all Ron Paul supporters as extremist? Just fyi in that... I wanted to see what really prompts that hate within Saki and if you think me agreeing that there are extremists within Ron Paul supporters (as well as anyone powerful) was going to help bring out that hate I think you are mistaken
2)Your "Ron Paul Sucks" blog which I already said I think was nothing but a troll thread. Hence all I ever said was 1 picture. Didn't waste anymore time with it
3) Your posts in the UIEGA thread which I'm responding to now.

So is there another reply to you or something that I am missing? Could be. If not, then again where the fuck are u talking about what you mention in this quote?

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: To be clear, I do believe that you're not very intelligent,

aha! good. this is why I love poker and your right

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: but I wasn't referencing you at any point in my rant against Ron Paul except in passing as one of a greater group of individuals who do themselves and Ron Paul's platform a great disservice by behaving in a patronizing, condescending way.

LOL srry not wasting my time

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: Anyway, every time I see one of your posts my initial reaction is "oh this guy doing something stupid again" which rapidly becomes "what a fucking prick I wish someone would ban his non-contributing retarded ass." Finally I think "Ah well he does try to contribute sometimes.

LOL srry not wasting my time

On April 30 2009 11:29 failsafe wrote: Maybe he's just not capable of realizing that interspersing constructive posts with inflammatory pictures and diatribes makes him an aggregate nuisance."

that's one thought on the matter
srry if pictures bother you
get over it