Rick Reuben wrote:3rd party Ron Paul? Maiolo says no.

1) You forgot all of the "nyah nyah" stuff. If you're going to go down that road, please do it right.

2) There is no "3rd party Ron Paul." You said yourself that he's not going to run as an indie.
And you have the balls to accuse people here of engaging in "fantasy" discussions.

-A

(p)Rick Reuben wrote:I'd like to end this battle, Maiolo-

No you wouldn't, you nutsack. You love this shit. Just look at all the insults you heave at people over the last two pages alone.
If you want to end it, act like a sane person for a few days. I think you'll be amazed at how the level of discourse skyrockets.

Here's a start: sane people don't comb threads looking for quotes that suit their needs. Quotes from almost two years ago in many cases.
I know I, for one, don't have time to engage in that sort of bullshit. I was at band practice tonight, you know hanging out with people and stuff.

BTW, yeah, I used to like reading your posts. Back then you were a little off your rocker, but generally pleasant. Not anymore. If you want context, ready YOUR posts from two years ago and see how much less fucked up as a human you were at that time.

(p)Rick Reuben wrote: all I need to hear from you is one thing: That I should have free speech,

When have I ever said you can't speak freely unless I was saying something like "you shouldn't call people liars because decent people don't do that?"
That's as close as I've ever come, buddy ol' pal.
YOU are the guy who keeps saying if I don't like it, get Steve to ban you, as if I have any control at all over what our host does. None of us do.

(p)Rick Reuben wrote:and that everyone should make their own decision about reading me- and not follow Maiolo's Rules. I don't care what arguments you make against my positions, but as long as you sink to the level of making alliances with clueless bumblers like Nerbly and big_dave against me, you are not worthy of respect.and that everyone should make their own decision about reading me- and not follow Maiolo's Rules. I don't care what arguments you make against my positions,

Clearly you do.

(p)Rick Reuben wrote:but as long as you sink to the level of making alliances with clueless bumblers like Nerbly and big_dave against me, you are not worthy of respect.

You know what's funny? Read what you just wrote:
Some bullshit that you don't need to follow "Maiolo rules," which, I might add, don't exist.
Immediately after that you say you don't care what I do as long as I don't make alliances with Nerbly or Dave.
Hmmm... that sounds like a thinly veiled Rick Rule.

I could give a shit what Nerbly does.
Sometimes he writes some interesting things, most of the time I don't get where he's coming from.

I think Dave is a really fucking smart dude, and he's one of the few people here who can throw you into "Insane Bob" mode, so apparently he knows what he's doing. The smart ones can do that.

I haven't formed an "alliance" with anyone, Notorious OCD, I just happen to agree with some of the stuff that people here are saying. If I happen to share views with someone I'm ganging up on you, huh?

Now I'll let you get back to your "Maiolo says" and "Liberals love" blanket statements.
Good luck with all of that. I'll jump in when I feel like it.

*Have a nice day.

-A

* I don't actually mean this.

Rick Reuben wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:2) There is no "3rd party Ron Paul." You said yourself that he's not going to run as an indie.

I don't speak for Ron Paul- and he's still doing well inside the GOP race. Are you claiming that if it comes down to Rudy, Hillary and a 3rd Party ticket with Paul on it, you will not choose Hillary?

Would never happen. Maybe if youre talking hypothetically, but Paul has said many many times hes not going to run for president if he doesnt get the GOP nomination. Hes going to run again for Congress if he doesn't win.

Rick Reuben wrote:

nihil (actually Bob) wrote: Okay, that makes it easier- make it $50. I'll donate to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, you do your local donation if I'm right.

Done. In fact, I'll do $50 for the Christmas dinners at the shelters and then another $50 after Jan. 1 if there is no attack ( remember, you said that an attack by Israel means that you pay up ).

Fine. But you missed the point. Either you care to help those less privileged or you don't. Yes Bob, it's been long understood that you buy into the classic Republican ruse of Big Government. You misinterpret concentrated power as Big Government. We get it. The republicans love concentrated power (Big Business as you say), something that is not governed. But people that really care about others understand that the government (obviously an uncorrupted government) can easily take care of the poor. The money spent on the current war can easily cover your conservative bullshit predictions about SS, not to mention feed the poor of the world for many many years.

I'm not saying anything new in this thread. Alex and Antero have been way more articulate on this subject. But I have to say that you contradict yourself so much around here that it makes my head hurt. I know you would love to believe that I, and anyone else who responds to you for that matter, obsessively follow you around. But I don't. And I really doubt that anybody does. But if I come across some of your twat-like rantings, I become fascinated. It just blows my mind to know that there are conservative cocks like you out there in the world that really believe that they are the New Liberals and Crusaders for the People.

So which is it? Do you believe in helping the less fortunate? Or do you believe that they are just lazy, money grubbing, do-nothings looking to suck at the government's teat? That is, of course, if we "dinosaur" liberals have our way.

It's simple really: there is enough to go around. That's about as "liberal" as it gets. Everyone in this world deserves to live in comfort. It's possible, but finding ways to make that happen is the real fight, isn't it?

nihil wrote: But people that really care about others understand that the government (obviously an uncorrupted government) can easily take care of the poor.

There's no doubt government money spent well can easily take care of the poor, but the fact is, the government will not. That's what socialists, and status quo liberals fail to take into account. Those arguing for big government are up shit creek when they really look around. All the amount of naive hopefulness, and pleading gets us nowhere. You fail to see big business and big government are like an Orthrus, two heads on the same body.

And there's not one Democrat willing to invest time, effort, and money to see to that a) the poor get what they need and b) our rights aren't violated or destroyed.

Skronk wrote:

And there's not one Democrat willing to invest time, effort, and money to see to that a) the poor get what they need and b) our rights aren't violated or destroyed.

I never said anything about the Democrats. Leave that lame conversation for cable news.

Or the millions of other people on the internet!

But I want nothing to do with it...

Rick Reuben wrote:

nihil wrote: I know you would love to believe that I, and anyone else who responds to you for that matter, obsessively follow you around. But I don't.

seven of nihil's last eight posts, all directly related to me- read his user profile and see.

Hell yeah. Your Twat Factor has been rather high lately.

Rick Reuben wrote:

nihil wrote: But people that really care about others understand that the government (obviously an uncorrupted government) can easily take care of the poor.

Okay. You uncorrupt the government, and then I'll give it all my money. Give me a call as soon as you finish rescuing government from the elites, but keep in mind, I don't plan to live to be 10,000 years old...

It takes time and effort as history has proven. I realize you are in for the quick fix, Bob. But no, it will not happen in your lifetime. So keep on exposing the handful of demons behind the curtain. Let me know how quickly that gets resolved. You know, as history has not proven.

Rick Reuben wrote:

nihil wrote:I never said anything about the Democrats.

Oh really? Who exactly are you contrasting the Republicans to in this quote?

nihil wrote:The republicans love concentrated power (Big Business as you say), something that is not governed.

Doesn't that imply that you think the Democrats don't love concentrated power?

Nope. I was pointing out that you are nothing but a cable news republican.

nihil wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

nihil wrote: But people that really care about others understand that the government (obviously an uncorrupted government) can easily take care of the poor.

Okay. You uncorrupt the government, and then I'll give it all my money. Give me a call as soon as you finish rescuing government from the elites, but keep in mind, I don't plan to live to be 10,000 years old...

It takes time and effort as history has proven. I realize you are in for the quick fix, Bob. But no, it will not happen in your lifetime. So keep on exposing the handful of demons behind the curtain. Let me know how quickly that gets resolved. You know, as history has not proven.

History has proven what exactly? The underclass are still dominated, and forced to serve. Governments are still murdering citizens at home and abroad.