Cool Ron Paul Video...

[jAZ]

Not my guy, but someone with some skill is a fan of Ron Paul's.

<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>

[a1na2]

Cool in whose eyes?

[Adept Havelock]

Pretty damn good editing job. Better than most campaign commercials I've seen.

[BucEyedPea]

OMG it gave me goosebumps and made me cry!

[irishjayhawk]

Pretty good. Did clear up, I guess, the net neutraility issue I had with him. Though I think it's still here. It phrased it as "voting against the regulation of the internet" which we are all in favor of, but which I don't think is the crux of the net neutraility argument.

Still scared by his support of HR300, as I pointed out in my other thread.

[Taco John]

HR 300 is about allowing the states to decide moral issues for themselves, rather than having the federal government decide them for everybody. The way the founders intended. The country is supposed to be a diverse tapestry of soveriegn states... not a homogenization one-size fits all federal conglomerate.

[Taco John]

Here's another favorite of mine... I get choked up at the end when the song sings "lights will guide you home..."

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed>

[a1na2]

:rolleyes:

[recxjake]

Nice video... Ron Paul has added a lot to this race. It is a shame that many just think he is nuts.

[Fishpicker]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q0CCulRHssg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q0CCulRHssg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

this is a pretty cool vid. the music writing, the music playing, the singing, the mixing and the video editing were done by one person.

[Pitt Gorilla]

:rolleyes:Really? That's your reaction to the video? It was well done and laid out Paul's platform very well.

[a1na2]

Really? That's your reaction to the video? It was well done and laid out Paul's platform very well.

Had noting to do with the video.


:rolleyes:

[BucEyedPea]

That video is aweseome Taco....it revs you up!

America was GREAT when America was GOOD!

[irishjayhawk]

HR 300 is about allowing the states to decide moral issues for themselves, rather than having the federal government decide them for everybody. The way the founders intended. The country is supposed to be a diverse tapestry of soveriegn states... not a homogenization one-size fits all federal conglomerate.

Yes, but, I think by that view, we'd still have segregated schools. Hell, we probably wouldn't have had the civil war and the south would have had slavery still.

[Taco John]

Yes, but, I think by that view, we'd still have segregated schools. Hell, we probably wouldn't have had the civil war and the south would have had slavery still.



You're free to believe what you want, no matter how extreme they are.

That's the beauty of Liberty.

[jAZ]

You're free to believe what you want, no matter how extreme they are.

That's the beauty of Liberty.
It's not very extreme to suggest segregation would still exist today in some locales were it left up to more localized decision making. Particularly if a state were to leave the choice to a country or local level.

One outcome of liberty is localized group-think that reflects views of the past more strongly than modern views.

[Taco John]

I think it's extreme to think that we'd still have slavery today under any circumstances. There's no way this nation would put up with slavery for over 200 years.

Nor do I believe that segregated public schools would last indefinitely under any circumstances. I definitely think that these are extreme views that lack vision.

[jAZ]

I think it's extreme to think that we'd still have slavery today under any circumstances. There's no way this nation would put up with slavery for over 200 years.

Nor do I believe that segregated public schools would last indefinitely under any circumstances. I definitely think that these are extreme views that lack vision.
Segregation exists today by practice (if not by law). No doubt in my mind that it would exist by law on a localized level in pockets throughout the country for eternity if permitted.

Slavery? Well, it exists in some form today. If you don't think the practice of indentured servitude exists as one element to illegal immigration, where bad coyotes smuggle people in and keep them working in endless repayment of debt.

[Taco John]

So I went looking for Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson support videos on You Tube, and couldn't find any. huh....

[Taco John]

Segregation exists today by practice (if not by law). No doubt in my mind that it would exist by law on a localized level in pockets throughout the country for eternity if permitted.

I think that there are enough right-thinking taxpayers in this country who would have taken the issue to the Superme court. There's no way in hell that segregation in public schooling would have lasted this long. It's an extreme and extremely ridiculous position that you're taking.



Slavery? Well, it exists in some form today. If you don't think the practice of indentured servitude exists as one element to illegal immigration, where bad coyotes smuggle people in and keep them working in endless repayment of debt.


For that matter, income tax is a form of slavery. But now we're just looking for things to disagree on though, aren't we?

[Taco John]

By the way... I think I found a Rudy support video...

I think?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qxu1Yoi50BY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed>

[jAZ]

I think that there are enough right-thinking taxpayers in this country who would have taken the issue to the Supreme court. There's no way in hell that segregation in public schooling would have lasted this long. It's an extreme and extremely ridiculous position that you're taking.
First, I said nothing that limited my comments to public schools. I'm sure that federal funding could and would be used to limit segregation policies in public schools... just like highway money was used to set drinking ages as the state level. Even without laws banning it.

And while I tend to agree that slavery would be banned in all 50 states... I don't think the same is true about segregation. Particularly in private schools.

And if you were to take the idea of personal liberty beyond the "statewide bans are at least better than federal nationwide bans" level... and states were to leave the decisions up to counties... I think it gets even sketchier.

And if you remove federal funding for public schools... I almost guarantee you that some public school system somewhere in the US would still ban black kids in white schools.

[recxjake]

So I went looking for Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson support videos on You Tube, and couldn't find any. huh....

Man, if videos, and signs voted, Ron Paul would be winning....

But they don't.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xGn_SAJcEro"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xGn_SAJcEro" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

Man, if videos, and signs voted, Ron Paul would be winning....

But they don't.




Nope. But people who see the videos and signs vote. Ron Paul has received more free advertising than any candidate in the history of the United States.

[Adept Havelock]

Nope. But people who see the videos and signs vote.

True. That doesn't mean they vote for the candidate pimped by whatever they may view.

Ron Paul has received more free advertising than any candidate in the history of the United States.

Should I consider this another piece of unsubstantiated hyperbole like your claims the US has the biggest military in the world and that the US Government is the biggest polluter in the world?

Or is it "immaterial" that the former is unproven and the latter two are untrue? :p

[Taco John]

True. That doesn't mean they vote for the candidate pimped by whatever they may view.




I can tell you this, I've turned no less than 10 people on to Ron Paul with one watch of his new hope video. One of them, my boss, who is an ex-Navy seal, was set on Fred Thompson. In 1 watch of the new hope video, he's said that he's dropping Thompson and going for Ron Paul.

"If we haven't won in Iraq by now, it's because we didn't plan to win. That's not how you go to war."

"If he's in favor of getting rid of this ridiculous income tax, he's going to get my vote. I definitely want to learn more about that."

"I can't believe I didn't know about this guy before. I like to think that I'm well connected. I feel a little disoriented seeing this video of this candidate with all that support, and I've never heard of him. I'm shocked. I'm going to do my research on this guy."

[Taco John]

True. That doesn't mean they vote for the candidate pimped by whatever they may view.



By the way... If what you just wrote was true, then why is the conventional wisdom that a candidate will need $100,000,000 dollars in order to compete in this election. Where do you think those dollars are going?

People definitely react to what they view. But one thing that hundred million dollars wont buy any of these candidates is truth or new ideas.

[Adept Havelock]

I can tell you this, I've turned no less than 10 people on to Ron Paul with one watch of his new hope video. One of them, my boss, who is an ex-Navy seal, was set on Fred Thompson. In 1 watch of the new hope video, he's said that he's dropping Thompson and going for Ron Paul.

"If we haven't won in Iraq by now, it's because we didn't plan to win. That's not how you go to war."

"If he's in favor of getting rid of this ridiculous income tax, he's going to get my vote. I definitely want to learn more about that."

"I can't believe I didn't know about this guy before. I like to think that I'm well connected. I feel a little disoriented seeing this video of this candidate with all that support, and I've never heard of him. I'm shocked. I'm going to do my research on this guy."

By the way... If what you just wrote was true, then why is the conventional wisdom that a candidate will need $100,000,000 dollars in order to compete in this election. Where do you think those dollars are going?

People definitely react to what they view. But one thing that hundred million dollars wont buy any of these candidates is truth or new ideas.

I'll take that as an admission that I should dismiss the statement about "more free advertising" with your other unsubstantiated and incorrect absurdities.

Just another glitch in the Demagogue v.4.2 client software I guess.


Thanks.

[Taco John]

I'll take that as an admission that I should dismiss the statement about "more free advertising" with your other unsubstantiated and incorrect absurdities.

Just another glitch in the Demagogue v.4.2 client software I guess.


Thanks.



???

Your constantly tortured logic confuses me. Clearly you undersetsimate the power of the Internet as a marketing vehicle.

[Adept Havelock]

???

Your constantly tortured logic confuses me. Clearly you undersetsimate the power of the Internet as a marketing vehicle.

ROFL

I suppose if I repeatedly made grandiose claims that were incorrect or unsubstantiated, I'd try to deflect from that too.

I hope you have a good mental health professional retained. I suspect you're going to need it to help with severe depression on Nov. 5, 2008 when the vaunted "revolution" goes away in a puff of wind, as have so many before it.

I may be wrong about that, but I seriously doubt it. Frankly, I'll be quite amazed if RP pulls in more electoral votes than Ross Perot or Nader did, as I suspect he won't be the RNC's candidate.

[Taco John]

I suppose if I repeatedly made grandiose claims that were incorrect or unsubstantiated, I'd try to deflect from that too.



You've baffled me. I don't even know what you're trying to say.

[Adept Havelock]

You've baffled me. I don't even know what you're trying to say.

Of course you don't. You're purposefully playing obtuse.

I'll hold your hand and walk you through it since you want to pretend you're Corky.

You've claimed the US Govt. is the biggest polluter in the world.

It isn't.

You've claimed the US military is the biggest military in the world.

It isn't.

You also claim the fact that it wasn't true was "immaterial". :rolleyes:

(I suppose I could dig through the archives and dig up those links and quotes, but I don't think that's really neccessary. If you want to be a complete wanker about it, I will.)

Today you've made yet another unsubstaniated claim that Ron Paul has received "More free advertising than any other candidate in the history of the US", with nothing to back it up.

With repeated untrue claims like that, I'm forced to examine any other claims you make in that light.

It's all hyperbole, which is part and parcel for Demagogue v.4.2. I've seen it from Perot and Nader, and now from some Paulites.

I've seen this same "revolutionary" phenomenon in several election cycles.

Each time I'm told "You're out of touch", "You don't know the modern political dynamics", yet each time I've been right. :)

I suspect the Ron Paul "revolution" will end the same way T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" did.

I may be mistaken, but my past track record leads me to doubt it.




Now, go ahead and pretend you're still baffled.

Well, maybe you still are so I'll spell it out very simply:

If you are FOS on those claims, why should I believe you aren't FOS on others?

Given that, I'm starting to view Ron Paul's candidacy in a similar light to the Christian faith. I.E.: Some very nice (but IMO unrealistic) ideals which I generally support. Unfortunately, the ham-handedness, foolishness, and condescending nature of some of it's supporters only increase my skepticism about the movement.

Granted, I'm a very condescending bastard myself. The difference is I'm not trying to sell someone a candidate.

Yeah, yeah, now I'm just being an uninteresting cynic again. ROFL

[go bowe]

no, not uninteresting at all...

who are you again?

[irishjayhawk]

First, I said nothing that limited my comments to public schools. I'm sure that federal funding could and would be used to limit segregation policies in public schools... just like highway money was used to set drinking ages as the state level. Even without laws banning it.

And while I tend to agree that slavery would be banned in all 50 states... I don't think the same is true about segregation. Particularly in private schools.

And if you were to take the idea of personal liberty beyond the "statewide bans are at least better than federal nationwide bans" level... and states were to leave the decisions up to counties... I think it gets even sketchier.

And if you remove federal funding for public schools... I almost guarantee you that some public school system somewhere in the US would still ban black kids in white schools.

I never said that slavery wouldn't have been outlawed by now. So, I agree with pretty much this entire post.

If, at the time of the civil war, we left issues up to states, we might not have a union, slavery would have prolonged it's "well past welcome" existence, and each state would practically be it's own country.

Now, TJ, is Paul on that side of the fence (letting states decide) on all issues or just morals? Drinking (or is that not a "moral")?

[Taco John]

Of course you don't. You're purposefully playing obtuse.

I'll hold your hand and walk you through it since you want to pretend you're Corky.

You've claimed the US Govt. is the biggest polluter in the world.

It isn't.

You've claimed the US military is the biggest military in the world.

It isn't.

You also claim the fact that it wasn't true was "immaterial". :rolleyes:

(I suppose I could dig through the archives and dig up those links and quotes, but I don't think that's really neccessary. If you want to be a complete wanker about it, I will.)

Today you've made yet another unsubstaniated claim that Ron Paul has received "More free advertising than any other candidate in the history of the US", with nothing to back it up.

With repeated untrue claims like that, I'm forced to examine any other claims you make in that light.

It's all hyperbole, which is part and parcel for Demagogue v.4.2. I've seen it from Perot and Nader, and now from some Paulites.

I've seen this same "revolutionary" phenomenon in several election cycles.

Each time I'm told "You're out of touch", "You don't know the modern political dynamics", yet each time I've been right. :)

I suspect the Ron Paul "revolution" will end the same way T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" did.

I may be mistaken, but my past track record leads me to doubt it.




Now, go ahead and pretend you're still baffled.

Well, maybe you still are so I'll spell it out very simply:

If you are FOS on those claims, why should I believe you aren't FOS on others?

Given that, I'm starting to view Ron Paul's candidacy in a similar light to the Christian faith. I.E.: Some very nice (but IMO unrealistic) ideals which I generally support. Unfortunately, the ham-handedness, foolishness, and condescending nature of some of it's supporters only increase my skepticism about the movement.

Granted, I'm a very condescending bastard myself. The difference is I'm not trying to sell someone a candidate.

Yeah, yeah, now I'm just being an uninteresting cynic again. ROFL


You went through a lot of work to misrepresent and even make up things that you think that I've said. Hope it was worth it!

[Taco John]

Today you've made yet another unsubstaniated claim that Ron Paul has received "More free advertising than any other candidate in the history of the US", with nothing to back it up.



By the way... This claim is most definitely true.

Just go to YouTube. Witness it for yourself. No other candidate has gotten this amount of free advertising.

[irishjayhawk]

By the way... This claim is most definitely true.

Just go to YouTube. Witness it for yourself. No other candidate has gotten this amount of free advertising.

While I might agree, I would put an asterisk on that. I think Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman and FDR would have had a good showing as well. The internet is a pretty big asterisk for advertising.

Now, if you wanna say he's gotten the most free advertising from the last three decades of presidential candidates, it's probably a better gauge.

[Taco John]

I dont personally see it as an asterick at all. I certainly don't minimize the impact that it has in my life. I am much more influenced by the Internet than I am by television. I hardly watch television anymore, and when I do, I skip through the commercials.

[banyon]

You went through a lot of work to misrepresent and even make up things that you think that I've said. Hope it was worth it!

Not really, you said all of those things.

[Adept Havelock]

Not really, you said all of those things.


Of course he did. I may be an a**hole, but I'm no liar.

I am amused he's acting like patteeu is towards Gonzo's statement in the "Did US Congress declare War" thread.

Maybe we are expecting too much hoping for a little intellectual honesty from a Donko fan. :shrug:

[Taco John]

You've misrepresented me on several points there. It must be a glitch in the Completely Rape the Context 4.2 software you're running.

[Taco John]

Also, the US government might not be the biggest polluter in the world, but it is the biggest polluter in the states. And secondly, the US might not have the largest military man-for-man, but man-for-man isn't a relevant measurement in the context of the discussion. Unless you're measuring methane, I suppose.

[Adept Havelock]

You've misrepresented me on several points there. It must be a glitch in the Completely Rape the Context 4.2 software you're running.

You keep claiming I've misrepresented you. All I've done is quoted you.

Perhaps you have something to show how I've misrepresented you or should I just consider that to be yet another in this series of incorrect claims from you?

Also, the US government might not be the biggest polluter in the world, but it is the biggest polluter in the states. And secondly, the US might not have the largest military man-for-man, but man-for-man isn't a relevant measurement in the context of the discussion. Unless you're measuring methane, I suppose.

And the backpedaling begins. Almost as talented as Dre Bly. ROFL

You claimed the US Govt. was the biggest polluter in the world.

-Thanks for admitting you were incorrect.

You claimed the US had the largest military in the world. In terms of manpower, AFV's, Artillery, number of aircraft, we're not AFACIS. We do have the largest Navy. BTW- If you aren't going to use quantities, I fail to see how you can measure anything against anything else. I'm not sure what other form of "Measurement" one could use.

-But again, thanks for admitting you were incorrect.

[Taco John]

Feel free.

[Radar Chief]

You keep claiming I've misrepresented you. All I've done is quoted you.

Perhaps you have something to show how I've misrepresented you or should I just consider that to be yet another incorrect claim?

Yes. :thumb:

[Adept Havelock]

Yes. :thumb:


That's pretty much what I suspected.
You've misrepresented me on several points there. It must be a glitch in the Completely Rape the Context 4.2 software you're running.

TJ, no amount of "context" will make a blatant falsehood true. Keep pretending otherwise if you like. PBJ