El Protoolio wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:... Sometimes I think Bob misstates his opponents' positions intentionally (i.e. in bad faith), but this time, I thought it was honest (i.e. in good faith)...

What do you think about his honesty now?

As I said before, good faith + time = bad faith

connor wrote:Reagan's policy of "deregulation" has fucked us in so many ways. And it's an example of the government getting "smaller."

Despite his rhetoric of deregulation, Reagan did very little of it.

Rick Reuben wrote:

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say

"It sure is easy for you to say"

El Protoolio wrote:that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice

"that Ron Paul would have been the best choice"

El Protoolio wrote: with the best policies

"with the best choices"

El Protoolio wrote: when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president

"when it will never have to actually be proven by his actions as President."

El Protoolio wrote: since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.

"All you will ever have is is rhetoric."

So said El Protoolio.

No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.

Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

El Protoolio wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:That's fine if he doesn't agree with Paul.

Another lie brought to you by Ricky Bobby.

Rick Reuban wrote:El Protoolio thinks that anti-war and anti-Fed positions need to be "proven" as the best positions by an elected President.

El Protoolio wrote:Enjoy your fantasies boys.

El Protoolio says it is a 'fantasy' to oppose the war. We will only know if it is right to oppose the war by electing an anti-war President. Until then, anti-war and anti-Fed positions are dismissed as fantastical rhetoric.

No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.

Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

El Protoolio wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:That's fine if he doesn't agree with Paul.

Another lie brought to you by Ricky Bobby.

Are you guys still arguing? Just get it over with and have sex with each other already!

nfurnier wrote:

connor wrote:Reagan's policy of "deregulation" has fucked us in so many ways. And it's an example of the government getting "smaller."

Despite his rhetoric of deregulation, Reagan did very little of it.

Sorry, "REAGAN AND HIS HENCHMEN."

Rick Reuben wrote:El Protoolio says that a vote for Ron Paul does not count as an anti-war vote, because only a Ron Paul election would have demonstrated that it was good to select a canddate for his anti-war record.

No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.

Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

Rick Reuban wrote:Simple questions, El Protoolio:

Did Ron Paul have the best policies?

Not in my opinion, no. A couple were fine but most of it is not enough for me to vote for him. So I didn't. I thought not agreeing him was fine? Because you did say

Rick Reuben wrote:That's fine if he doesn't agree with Paul.

but it seems that that was a lie.

Rick Reuban wrote:If so, did those who backed Ron Paul make a wise choice?

For them, sure. For me, no. The difference here is I am not telling everyone how they should vote and what idiots they are if they don't vote my way. You are doing that because you are a colossal bully. Oh and a liar, let's not forget that.

Rick Reuban wrote:If so, why did you sneer at their choice by writing that Paul was the 'easy choice'?

No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.

Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

Rick Reuban wrote:Why not sneer at those who made no choice, like you,...

My choices took themselves out of the race. I voted but not for the primaries. Besides it's nobodies business how or if I vote and it's not my business how or if others vote. It's a private decision and I thought you agreed that we have a right to privacy? Or was that another lie of yours?

Rick Reuban wrote:or sneer at those who chose a corporate candidate?

Because no one else bullying and then lying to everyone about it. You are both. A liar because you say things like

Rick Reuben wrote:That's fine if he doesn't agree with Paul.

which is obviously not true and a bully because you continue to berate people when they simply disagree with Paul. It you weren't a bully you would have dropped it with me pages ago when it was clear what I was saying. Instead it has become clear that you were distorting it so that you could continue lying about me because you are a liar. Liar.

Rick Reuben wrote:But that's not what you said originally. Originally, you said that Paul's anti-war and anti-Fed positions would only be proven correct by his election.

No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.

Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

Rick Reuban wrote:If you were able to use the English language properly, you would have written this:

"We will never know if Ron Paul would have stopped the war and reformed the Federal Reserve, because he will not be elected."

See? Simple and clean and to the point.

I like how I said it. It was simple and clean and to the point. If you weren't such a dishonest bully you would admit that that is what I said.

Rick Reuban wrote:That's what you are claiming to have meant originally. Instead, you wrote some gobbledygook about a Paul vote being 'easy' and 'only rhetoric', because your real intent was not to point out that Ron Paul would not be elected, but to take a cheap shot at Paul supporters.

Aww did my comments hurt your wittle feelings? Good, I was baiting you specifically. My other point was to show that you will never be able to prove for sure what polices Paul would enact as President no matter how vehement you are about it. All you've proven what a liar and bully you are

Rick Reuban wrote:You are embarrassed by the fact that you have retreated from politics into a world of spoiled self-absorbed nihilism, so you lash out at those who choose to stay engaged with politics.

I am engaged and I disagree with Paul. I thought that was fine? Because you did say

Rick Reuben wrote:That's fine if he doesn't agree with Paul.

but that was obviously just a lie. Liar.

This argument is hotter than a steamroom filled with naked Tila Tequilla look-a-likes.

Best post I've read all week:

d865 wrote:For those who are being attacked in this thread:

Consider these words of wisdom. Classic senryu from an ancient era...

But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
Theres nothing at all
But what a fool believes he sees...

Oh, don't stop. I'm almost there...