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

Another lie brought to you by Ricky Bobby.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Well, I tried. Sometimes I think Bob misstates his opponents' positions intentionally

Man, are you thick occasionally:

Only occasionally? Coming from you, I consider that a great compliment!

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.

Linus can't understand what Protoolio wrote, which is this: "Paul's policies cannot be judged as the best policies unless Paul wins the election". Protoolio is unable to judge whether opposition to the war or to the Fed is good or bad unless he sees a President try and end the war or the Fed.

Okay, I see how you're getting that. When you read "policies" in El Protoolio's statement quoted above, you read it to mean the things Paul claims as his policies, which is a fair reading. But based on the context and based on El Protoolio's explanation, it's become clear that when he says "policies," he means the actual policies that would exist and be acted upon in a Paul administration. We can never know if President Paul would (a) try to do what Candidate Paul said, and (b) succeed, unless Paul gets elected. That's all.

Protoolio has even said that's what he means. Do you have a reason to think he's lying?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:Around about 1981 or so. Who was in the White House during that period, Bob?

Who cares? The military-industrial complex and the bankers own the country. You are still living in Oz, blaming wizards labeled 'Democrat' or 'Republican' for puting your country into debt.

How many times do I have to say "look at the chart", dipshit! The trend is obvious. If the sitting president has no effect on the deficit, then how do you explain the obvious 38+ year trend of national debt increasing under Republican presidencies (most dramatically since the Reagan administration) and decreasing under Democratic presidencies?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:Around about 1981 or so. Who was in the White House during that period, Bob?

Who cares? The military-industrial complex and the bankers own the country. You are still living in Oz, blaming wizards labeled 'Democrat' or 'Republican' for puting your country into debt. You probably think Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, too.

Dan Rostenkowski, democrat:

Chairman of ways and means during Reagan years. Good for you to have a look at him, since you still think politicians give orders to the business establishment.

Did anyone notice how fat Dan Rostenkowski got in his later years? I mean, around the time he was indicted on corruption charges?

You still have not offered any proof of your radical claim that we are all the property of a giant corporation.

I understand how a mortgage works but I am not involved in a mortgage because I do not currently own any real estate.

BTW I never said that politicians give orders to the business establishment. The business establishment gives orders to presidents, especially Republican presidents.

Colonel Panic wrote:I never said that politicians give orders to the business establishment. The business establishment gives orders to presidents, regardless of political affiliation.

fyp

Neither of you bozos has explained to me how a Libertarian president would be able to make things any better.

You have ignored or failed to address any of the evidence I have presented or points I have made. This discussion has been completely one-sided, with you guys attacking everyone else, failing to adhere to logic, and making sensationalistic assertions without any verifiable evidence. Therefore, I'm quitting this conversation.

Colonel Panic wrote:Neither of you bozos has explained to me how a Libertarian president would be able to make things any better.

Ron Paul wants to end the Iraq War. There's nothing else to know.

Why even bother voting, Rick?

Colonel Panic wrote:Neither of you bozos has explained to me how a Libertarian president would be able to make things any better.

If Ron Paul were to follow the platform he outlined if elected, civil liberties would be restored, the war would end, and we quite possibly could see an end to the war on drugs, and the prison rate considerably diminish. We would see the states deciding for themselves, and we could see an end to the income tax, and to the IRS. The government would obviously still play a role, so let's not downplay that, or ignore it like you have.