PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul vs. Glenn Beck (1 hour cage match)


Taco John
12-18-2007, 03:22 AM
Should be an interesting show today... Glenn Beck has been very critical of Paul, calling him everything from a kook and even insinuating that his supporters are terrorists. A full hour on Glenn Beck has the potential to either give the campaign a shot in the arm (Hu

Here's the build up to this show for anyone interested in the history of this confrontation.

Glenn Beck: Ron Paul is Crazy
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NwXWXByYt5g&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>


Glenn Beck: Ron Paul Supporters - Terrorists?
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xnWlghe8reg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>


Ron Paul Slams Glenn Beck "On occasion he's a demagogue..."
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYSeHMEjRy0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>


Glenn Beck Calls Out Ron Paul - Challenges him to an hour on the show
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rNEgkAshNnI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>


Glenn Beck Announces Paul has Accepted the Challenge
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7hPKChWbbZY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>



Should make for an interesting hour...

Silock
12-18-2007, 06:14 AM
Watching him on Fox and Friends and he looks and sounds like shit.

Chiefnj2
12-18-2007, 08:53 AM
Why would Paul go on the Beck show? It's a lose/lose proposition.

Mr. Kotter
12-18-2007, 09:52 AM
Watching him on Fox and Friends and he looks and sounds like shit.

:spock:

Oh boy, you've done it now....the wrath of Paulistas will SOON be descending on your family and home!!!

:banghead:

May God have mercy on your soul.... :shake:






LMAO

Silock
12-18-2007, 10:18 AM
Eh, I'm still voting for him, but he certainly came off VERY badly there.

Mr. Kotter
12-18-2007, 10:29 AM
Eh, I'm still voting for him, but he certainly came off VERY badly there.

Your "protest" will be noted.

Congratulations!


:shake:

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 10:47 AM
Eh, I'm still voting for him, but he certainly came off VERY badly there.
I agree with you on this.
He needs to practice talking back to those who plan on using him as a punching bag.

Taco John
12-18-2007, 02:08 PM
I actually liked it. It's about the only thing that could be said about Huckabee's constant pandering without having too much of a backlash. Plus, it got him on Drudge for another full news cycle.

Taco John
12-18-2007, 06:09 PM
This thing is going great so far...

Taco John
12-18-2007, 06:59 PM
That was the single best interview that Ron Paul has had.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:00 PM
Is it on now? I can't seem to get it. I thought it was 9 EST

BigMeatballDave
12-18-2007, 07:04 PM
That was the single best interview that Ron Paul has had.I never watch Beck. Where can I view this?

Taco John
12-18-2007, 07:06 PM
Ron Paul Audio will have it up in mp3 form... I'll drop a link once it's available.

I think CNN replays Beck later though...

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:08 PM
Thanks.

Taco John
12-18-2007, 07:13 PM
Glenn Beck told Ron Paul that he wanted to french kiss him... Dr. Paul was pretty uncomfortable with that whole bit...

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:14 PM
LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 07:17 PM
I don't get Beck, I mean 1 month ago he hated him and now he's campaigning for him?

Taco John
12-18-2007, 07:20 PM
He's not campaigning for him yet... But it's my guess that he will endorse him. I could be wrong, but the guess is an educated one...

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 07:22 PM
I thought he just wanted to kiss him?

wazu
12-18-2007, 07:28 PM
It looks like the show is on at 8:00 CST on Headline News.

Hydrae
12-18-2007, 07:31 PM
It looks like the show is on at 8:00 CST on Headline News.


I believe it also shows at 11:00 PM CST as well. I hope so at least, I forgot to set the DVR.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 07:31 PM
Ron Paul interview from last night coming up on Kolbert right now.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 07:34 PM
I don't get Beck, I mean 1 month ago he hated him and now he's campaigning for him?

I don't think he hated him so much as he recognized that many of his supporters are kooks and that some of them might even be dangerous kooks.

BigMeatballDave
12-18-2007, 07:36 PM
I don't think he hated him so much as he recognized that many of his supporters are kooks and that some of them might even be dangerous kooks.No more dangerous than the kook already in office...

wazu
12-18-2007, 07:36 PM
I don't think he hated him so much as he recognized that many of his supporters are kooks and that some of them might even be dangerous kooks.

Cool, then welcome, Glenn, to Ron Paul's gang of kooks.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 07:38 PM
No more dangerous than the kook already in office...

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 08:08 PM
He sounds old and tired, imo. This campaign is taking a toll on the ole boy.

mikeboogie
12-18-2007, 08:47 PM
Glen Beck did a terrible job interviewing Ron Paul. He seemed lost and took 5 min to ask each question. Ron Paul made him look like an idiot. What was up with the consparicy questions???? I think Ron Paul's problem is he is too smart. Usually talks way above peoples heads about economics and such.

talastan
12-18-2007, 08:48 PM
I can say that Ron Paul has grown on me personally after watching this. I believe in a lot of what he has to say, I don't know for sure if he has my vote yet but I'm at least happy to get the time to hear him out. I think that Glenn never really disliked Paul. He has very similar views as Paul. He just didn't like getting the threatening crap that people supposedly representing his views were issuing apparently towards Glenn.

wazu
12-18-2007, 09:31 PM
Wow, Glenn Beck is great! I need to watch that show again sometime. (Meaning another night, not just mindlessly watching the RP interview on one continuous loop. Not all of us are raging psychos, you know.)

wazu
12-18-2007, 09:33 PM
Glen Beck did a terrible job interviewing Ron Paul. He seemed lost and took 5 min to ask each question. Ron Paul made him look like an idiot. What was up with the consparicy questions???? I think Ron Paul's problem is he is too smart. Usually talks way above peoples heads about economics and such.

What show were you watching? Beck did a great job of asking questions and following up while letting Ron Paul take as long as he wanted to answer. If you are a Ron Paul fan, this may have been as close to "perfect" as an interview gets.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 09:51 PM
I thought the interview was great. I was surprised at how good it was. I can't believe it was even on.


I think that Glenn never really disliked Paul. He has very similar views as Paul. He just didn't like getting the threatening crap that people supposedly representing his views were issuing apparently towards Glenn.

I was shocked to hear that people were doing that. Just terrible. I think some of that may have happened after that Horowitz appearance. Still, going that far was uncalled for. Just a message would have been enough. I remember some past campaigns from major candidates that had some rogues operating independently before with some ads.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 09:51 PM
He's not campaigning for him yet... But it's my guess that he will endorse him. I could be wrong, but the guess is an educated one...

What do you mean when you say that your guess is an educated one in this particular case?

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 10:13 PM
I don't think he hated him so much as he recognized that many of his supporters are kooks and that some of them might even be dangerous kooks.

Nothing like losing the ad hominem game ;)

Ultra Peanut
12-18-2007, 10:16 PM
http://i10.tinypic.com/854li11.jpg

jAZ
12-18-2007, 11:00 PM
Via Digg...

The Video...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fZXWW4C2kpE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fZXWW4C2kpE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

banyon
12-18-2007, 11:47 PM
So, he had strong feelings on the Ramos and Campion case, but didn't know who Johnny Sutton is? :spock: (9 mins into video).

KILLER_CLOWN
12-19-2007, 12:00 AM
So, he had strong feelings on the Ramos and Campion case, but didn't know who Johnny Sutton is? :spock: (9 mins into video).

Quick somebody call a cop, I'm surprised he doesn't know every detail about every person who ever existed. Is that presidential material?
Weak sauce there.

banyon
12-19-2007, 12:02 AM
Quick somebody call a cop, I'm surprised he doesn't know every detail about every person who ever existed. Is that presidential material?
Weak sauce there.

Again (for the uninitiated). He had strong feelings, but didn't seem to know much about the case (i.e., who is the prosecutor whose name has been all over the news wire). Probably took too many hits off the world government bong to remember details like this, I guess.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 12:08 AM
I didn't like Beck's insinuation that Islam was taking over the world. I think it just illustrates what I've been gathering over the past few months. The war is against Islam itself. I just don't see how it can't be if blanket statements like these are made all the time.

Mediocre interview.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-19-2007, 12:08 AM
Again (for the uninitiated). He had strong feelings, but didn't seem to know much about the case (i.e., who is the prosecutor whose name has been all over the news wire). Probably took too many hits off the world government bong to remember details like this, I guess.

Oh your right, i know your not nitpicking every little thing and spreading hate for a True Patriot. If this is the *Dirt* on him, i guess he will just have to take it. Is it possible we can pick apart his wardrobe next time he appears in public?

banyon
12-19-2007, 12:09 AM
Oh your right, i know your not nitpicking every little thing and spreading hate for a True Patriot. If this is the *Dirt* on him, i guess he will just have to take it. Is it possible we can pick apart his wardrobe next time he appears in public?


I'm not claiming it is dirt. I'm asking for, you know, an explanation.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-19-2007, 12:18 AM
I'm not claiming it is dirt. I'm asking for, you know, an explanation.

I don't really think it requires one, maybe it slipped his mind. I can't speak for Dr. Paul, but i don't see an issue with it.

banyon
12-19-2007, 12:23 AM
I don't really think it requires one, maybe it slipped his mind. I can't speak for Dr. Paul, but i don't see an issue with it.

Great. I will expect you not to ask any other candidates to explain their positions on issues either then.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-19-2007, 12:32 AM
Great. I will expect you not to ask any other candidates to explain their positions on issues either then.

ouch that hurts, expect away and be disappointed! wahh wahh! ROFL

Taco John
12-19-2007, 01:06 AM
What do you mean when you say that your guess is an educated one in this particular case?



It's based on a lot of things that Beck has said in the past, but most recently, his comments in the following video:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WfZ8ukJA2SM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

Fishpicker
12-19-2007, 01:07 AM
Beck's interview with RP went way better than I expected. Paul seemed very astute and dealt with the questions very well. I'm glad Beck made good on his promise to treat RP fairly.

Taco John
12-19-2007, 01:08 AM
Again (for the uninitiated). He had strong feelings, but didn't seem to know much about the case (i.e., who is the prosecutor whose name has been all over the news wire). Probably took too many hits off the world government bong to remember details like this, I guess.



For my part, I've heard a lot about Ramos and Campeon, but tonight was the first I had heard the name Johnny Sutton...

Taco John
12-19-2007, 01:11 AM
Beck's interview with RP went way better than I expected. Paul seemed very astute and dealt with the questions very well. I'm glad Beck made good on his promise to treat RP fairly.


I had a major Rongasm when he referenced Bastiat... Their guys quote Joe Schmoe with the latest opinion. Our guy quotes philosophers. Haha!

patteeu
12-19-2007, 05:37 AM
Nothing like losing the ad hominem game ;)

Huh?

stevieray
12-19-2007, 06:07 AM
I had a major Rongasm when he referenced Bastiat... Their guys quote Joe Schmoe with the latest opinion. Our guy quotes philosophers. Haha!


come out come out wherever you are...

wazu
12-19-2007, 07:32 AM
So, he had strong feelings on the Ramos and Campion case, but didn't know who Johnny Sutton is? :spock: (9 mins into video).

I'll admit, I have strong feelings about the case, but did not remember the name of the prosecuter either. It's not that I never heard it or read it, but it wasn't a name that I had burned into my brain.

banyon
12-19-2007, 08:48 AM
I'll admit, I have strong feelings about the case, but did not remember the name of the prosecuter either. It's not that I never heard it or read it, but it wasn't a name that I had burned into my brain.

I'll back off and admit that maybe Jonnny Sutton apparently hasn't gained the notoriety that I thought he had.

I guess I've been watching too much Lou Dobbs or something.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 08:49 AM
I see banyon is now posting on the taxpayer's dime.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 08:58 AM
I'll admit, I have strong feelings about the case, but did not remember the name of the prosecuter either. It's not that I never heard it or read it, but it wasn't a name that I had burned into my brain.

It's really a silly and petty focus if ya' ask me. For one, we have committees in our congress precisely because each of them cannot follow the details of every issue. That's why we have committees to study an issue in detail. No different here. Not to mention even Reagan had bloopers, if ya' can consider this a real blooper. BFD!

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 09:00 AM
I had a major Rongasm when he referenced Bastiat...
Loved when he mentioned Bastiat, the real freedom-loving Frenchman.
And last night was the first time I saw Paul say he was libertarian too.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 09:20 AM
I see banyon is now posting on the taxpayer's dime.

Professionals aren't paid an hourly wage. They're paid to get the job done and work as many hours as necessary. I'm sure banyon takes care of business.

wazu
12-19-2007, 09:24 AM
Professionals aren't paid an hourly wage. They're paid to get the job done and work as many hours as necessary. I'm sure banyon takes care of business.

There are lots of professionals who get paid an hourly wage. Although I agree that there is no reason to think Banyon is paid hourly, is at work, and is stealing from the taxpayers just because he posts in a thread on Chiefsplanet.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 09:43 AM
There are lots of professionals who get paid an hourly wage. Although I agree that there is no reason to think Banyon is paid hourly, is at work, and is stealing from the taxpayers just because he posts in a thread on Chiefsplanet.

I stand corrected, although I guess it depends on what one considers a professional. And to clarify, I distinguish between the hourly rates charged by professionals like lawyers to their clients and hourly wages paid to people who punch the clock when they arrive at work and then again when they leave at the end of the workday.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 09:58 AM
Professionals aren't paid an hourly wage. They're paid to get the job done and work as many hours as necessary. I'm sure banyon takes care of business.
That's not the point. Nor is it for you to say. He works for the govt now. They arrive at a certain time and leave at a certain time whether he's salaried or paid by the hour. Unless he posts on a coffee break or during lunch.

There are a lot of private companies who have professionals on their staffs, and it's against company policy. People get fired for it, as they should. But I won't tell a private employer what to do if they don't enforce.

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:00 AM
There are lots of professionals who get paid an hourly wage. Although I agree that there is no reason to think Banyon is paid hourly, is at work, and is stealing from the taxpayers just because he posts in a thread on Chiefsplanet.

Also I am not on the taxpayer's dime (until next year).

And, LOL that someone with more posts per day than me trying to play that lame card. Ridiculous as usual. Glad I don't have to look at it anymore, thanks to CPIggy, though I can't use CPIggy at work.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 10:18 AM
That's not the point. Nor is it for you to say. He works for the govt now. They arrive at a certain time and leave at a certain time whether he's salaried or paid by the hour. Unless he posts on a coffee break or during lunch.

There are a lot of private companies who have professionals on their staffs, and it's against company policy. People get fired for it, as they should. But I won't tell a private employer what to do if they don't enforce.

It's not really for you to say either since you have no relationship with the government he'll eventually be working for. If his employer, whoever they are, has a policy against posting then that's between the two of them AFAIC. I'm just pointing out that he's not really stealing his time from his employer as long as he gets his job done.

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:22 AM
This is Tom C*SH quality petty right here.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 10:25 AM
Huh?

I just always say that whenever someone immediately labels a group kooks without actually having much to back it up with.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 10:29 AM
It's not really for you to say either since you have no relationship with the government he'll eventually be working for.
That's true but it is a free country so I can say it, and am returning his calling me out. And how do I know if they don't get any federal funds?

If his employer, whoever they are, has a policy against posting then that's between the two of them AFAIC. I'm just pointing out that he's not really stealing his time from his employer as long as he gets his job done.
His employers are the taxpayers of his state...and more if they get federal funds.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 10:34 AM
I just always say that whenever someone immediately labels a group kooks without actually having much to back it up with.

Without having much to back it up? I'd imagine that Glenn Beck (or one of his people) has an internet connection and I'm sure ChiefsPlanet isn't the only place on the internet with ample evidence of the kookiness of Ron Paul voters.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 10:48 AM
Without having much to back it up? I'd imagine that Glenn Beck (or one of his people) has an internet connection and I'm sure ChiefsPlanet isn't the only place on the internet with ample evidence of the kookiness of Ron Paul voters.
You do know that some of what Beck got from certain Paul fans, if it's true, was blowback for him suggesting they should be arrested ( before his allegation of threats) and that they embedded with terrorists? Now I still don't think it's right what they did....but let's face it Beck, himself, has advocated genocide ( even if an unintended consequence) of innocent Iraqis and the slaughter of Iranians, the nuking of Mecca and Medina. Classic pot calling kettle black.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 10:56 AM
You do know that some of what Beck got from certain Paul fans, if it's true, was blowback for him suggesting they should be arrested ( before his allegation of threats) and that they embedded with terrorists? Now I still don't think it's right what they did....but let's face it Beck, himself, has advocated genocide ( even if an unintended consequence) of innocent Iraqis and the slaughter of Iranians, the nuking of Mecca and Medina. Classic pot calling kettle black.

What a lovely and timely example. Thanks.

And btw, it's "IN BED WITH" not "EMBEDDED WITH".

talastan
12-19-2007, 01:33 PM
You do know that some of what Beck got from certain Paul fans, if it's true, was blowback for him suggesting they should be arrested ( before his allegation of threats) and that they embedded with terrorists? Now I still don't think it's right what they did....but let's face it Beck, himself, has advocated genocide ( even if an unintended consequence) of innocent Iraqis and the slaughter of Iranians, the nuking of Mecca and Medina. Classic pot calling kettle black.

I've watched Glenn's TV show for about a year and a half and have never heard of anything referencing Glenn advocating genocide. If fact in his "Inside Extremism" special he spoke with and interviewed top Islam clerics and scholars. He has never called for attacking Iran, he believes that we need to use economic pressure on them. He also has repeatedly said that Islam is a peaceful religion and should be taken back by the moderates from the extremists. What specific examples are you siting that he is (intendingly or unintendingly) advocating what you mentioned above? :spock:

banyon
12-19-2007, 01:38 PM
What specific examples are you siting that he is (intendingly or unintendingly) advocating what you mentioned above? :spock:

LOL good luck with that.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-19-2007, 03:52 PM
Ironic Beck is scared of RP supporters, yet he called for the killing of michael moore. LOL

link to the article with video here

http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/12/glenn-beck-fairbut-still-fraud.html

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 04:04 PM
What a lovely and timely example. Thanks.

And btw, it's "IN BED WITH" not "EMBEDDED WITH".
IIRC it was "embedded with"...since I heard it orally, but so what? It creates the same effect.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 04:18 PM
I've watched Glenn's TV show for about a year and a half and have never heard of anything referencing Glenn advocating genocide.
I see you omitted my parenthetical statement which is not saying Glenn advocated genocide exactly. You do know what parenthesis mean?

I was alluding to Beck's support for Iraq and what it resulted in; that he supports more troops there.

If fact in his "Inside Extremism" special he spoke with and interviewed top Islam clerics and scholars. He has never called for attacking Iran, he believes that we need to use economic pressure on them. He also has repeatedly said that Islam is a peaceful religion and should be taken back by the moderates from the extremists. What specific examples are you siting that he is (intendingly or unintendingly) advocating what you mentioned above? :spock:
The show with Horowitz.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016852.html)

I don't watch Beck regularly, but I stopped altogether after that show. He may have said that about Islam, and I seem to recall that but he seemed to still advocate killing Arabs even last night. That's the area he seems to disagree with Paul. I also consider sanctions on Iran as part of a series of steps to some attack later, as it was with Iraq eventually.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 04:42 PM
IIRC it was "embedded with"...since I heard it orally, but so what? It creates the same effect.

You recall incorrectly. He said "in bed" and they mean different things. One is typically used figuratively and the other is typically used literally.

Many Ron Paul supporters are "in bed" with terrorists because they want the same things the terrorists want (e.g. the US military out of the ME). Unless Bilal Hussein is a Ron Paul supporter, I don't know of any Paulistas who have been "embedded" with terrorists.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 04:47 PM
I also consider sanctions on Iran as part of a series of steps to some attack later, as it was with Iraq eventually.

So you not only want to take any kind of military action off the table, but you also want to take sanctions off the table? Wow.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 04:51 PM
Patt-

The reason I don't like the "kook" part you always seem to throw around is easy. And actually, come to think of it, it's not a single reason but a couple:

1) What defines "kook"? Someone who has different views? Where do you draw the line?

2) "Kooks" are usually the people who change the world for the better - or at least for a time. Look at the 60s and 70s. I would imagine (though I wasn't alive and cannot testify) that the "hippie" generation was generally viewed as "kooks". Yet, they inspired change. They protested and showed support in things. Are we to write them off?

3) Sometimes "kooks" can be a good thing. Take, for example, the guy standing in front of the tanks in "Tiananmen square." I'm sure are plenty of people who would say he's a "kook" for doing what he did. Yet it inspires people. To this day, the image is a big deal. China still censors it. Why? Isn't it just a "kook".

4) Every candidate has "kooks" of some sort. Huckabee probably has religious "kooks". Same with Romney. Obama and Clinton probably have their fair share too. So to discriminate on one candidate based on their following - who, by the way, might support someone else if he wasn't running - is lunacy.

I just don't see how you can paint a broad brush of kook without having justification. For example, the 9/11 truthers. Is there any harm in this? Is one of their leaders running for President? Do we really know 100% and I mean 100% that they are FULLY wrong?
No, we don't and we won't. Can we examine evidence and get a good idea? Sure.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 05:06 PM
Patt-

The reason I don't like the "kook" part you always seem to throw around is easy. And actually, come to think of it, it's not a single reason but a couple:

1) What defines "kook"? Someone who has different views? Where do you draw the line?

2) "Kooks" are usually the people who change the world for the better - or at least for a time. Look at the 60s and 70s. I would imagine (though I wasn't alive and cannot testify) that the "hippie" generation was generally viewed as "kooks". Yet, they inspired change. They protested and showed support in things. Are we to write them off?

3) Sometimes "kooks" can be a good thing. Take, for example, the guy standing in front of the tanks in "Tiananmen square." I'm sure are plenty of people who would say he's a "kook" for doing what he did. Yet it inspires people. To this day, the image is a big deal. China still censors it. Why? Isn't it just a "kook".

4) Every candidate has "kooks" of some sort. Huckabee probably has religious "kooks". Same with Romney. Obama and Clinton probably have their fair share too. So to discriminate on one candidate based on their following - who, by the way, might support someone else if he wasn't running - is lunacy.

I just don't see how you can paint a broad brush of kook without having justification. For example, the 9/11 truthers. Is there any harm in this? Is one of their leaders running for President? Do we really know 100% and I mean 100% that they are FULLY wrong?
No, we don't and we won't. Can we examine evidence and get a good idea? Sure.

1. I don't know exactly where to draw the line and I don't think it's necessary to figure that out in advance. If you want to run a few descriptions by me I can tell you whether they are kooks or not.

2. We would have been better off, on balance, without the hippies of the 60's and 70's. They were kooks but many of them grew out of it, thankfully. Unfortunately, much of the damage was already done.

3. I agree that sometimes "kooks" can be good things. I liked Borat. That guy is a kook.

4. Ron Paul has more than his fair share of kooks. Some Ron Paul supporters aren't kooks. Cleveland Bronco seems like a very sensible guy aside from his Bronco fetish. Adam and SBK are a couple of other locals who strikes me as less kooky than the average Ron Paul supporter. There are plenty of others.

I didn't paint with an overly broad brush. I was very clear on the point that not all Ron Paul supporters are kooks, though many of them are. Being a 9/11 truther warrants a rebutable presumption of kookiness.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 05:25 PM
So you not only want to take any kind of military action off the table, but you also want to take sanctions off the table? Wow.
Sanctions, don't work. Did they work with Iraq? No. Who got hurt? The people.
Sanctions are prelude to war. And I've said before we CAN live with a nuclear Iran but I think they're developing for energy still.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 05:29 PM
You recall incorrectly. He said "in bed" and they mean different things. One is typically used figuratively and the other is typically used literally.
What part of my hearing it orally did you not understand?
I'm alluding to things being heard differently orally as opposed to seeing it in writing was all. As to your English lesson, I could care less if one is figuratively or not....the intention is the same: to conjure up some association with terrorists as a typical nc ad hominem smear because they can't fight Paul with facts and logic. See the example below.

Many Ron Paul supporters are "in bed" with terrorists because they want the same things the terrorists want (e.g. the US military out of the ME). Unless Bilal Hussein is a Ron Paul supporter, I don't know of any Paulistas who have been "embedded" with terrorists.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 05:42 PM
What part of my hearing it orally did you not understand?
I'm alluding to things being heard differently orally as opposed to seeing it in writing was all. As to your English lesson, I could care less if one is figuratively or not....the intention is the same: to conjure up some association with terrorists as a typical nc ad hominem smear because they can't fight Paul with facts and logic. See the example below.

I understood that you misheard it orally. "IIRC" stand for "if I recall correctly". You didn't. You recalled incorrectly. I understand your mistake, but it was still a mistake. I'm just correcting it.

And are you trying to tell me that I'm wrong in my belief that many Ron Paul supporters want our military out of the ME, because I think that's pretty well established. If Osama starts snoring, just roll over and give him an elbow in the side. :p

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 06:01 PM
I understood that you misheard it orally. "IIRC" stand for "if I recall correctly". You didn't. You recalled incorrectly. I understand your mistake, but it was still a mistake. I'm just correcting it.
So what. It's still petty and doesn't change the intent.

And are you trying to tell me that I'm wrong in my belief that many Ron Paul supporters want our military out of the ME, because I think that's pretty well established. If Osama starts snoring, just roll over and give him an elbow in the side. :p
No. But you did not say that. You colored your opinion relying on semantic twists, imprecise language and generalities such as being in with the terrorists because we want out of Iraq and Iran, militarily I might add. The language of demogagues. When it's the people in those countries that don't like it and it fueled the insurgency there. When its AQ that doesn't want us to leave.

We support renewing the war on AQ, a specific terrorist group whose targets are American, and not the imprecise language and sweeping generality of "terrorists" that has lead to going after nation-states instead of a group that is not a country. So it's dishonest when you or folks like Beck, and more so that former commie Horowitz ( who has not given up commie agit-prop techniques) twist around our stands to suit your antagonism by making us sound like we're terrorists too. Same with Beck bringing up those threats which have nothing to do with Ron Paul.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 06:58 PM
So what. It's still petty and doesn't change the intent.


No. But you did not say that. You colored your opinion relying on semantic twists, imprecise language and generalities such as being in with the terrorists because we want out of Iraq and Iran, militarily I might add. The language of demogagues. When it's the people in those countries that don't like it and it fueled the insurgency there. When its AQ that doesn't want us to leave.

We support renewing the war on AQ, a specific terrorist group whose targets are American, and not the imprecise language and sweeping generality of "terrorists" that has lead to going after nation-states instead of a group that is not a country. So it's dishonest when you or folks like Beck, and more so that former commie Horowitz ( who has not given up commie agit-prop techniques) twist around our stands to suit your antagonism by making us sound like we're terrorists too. Same with Beck bringing up those threats which have nothing to do with Ron Paul.

It's ironic that you accuse me of imprecise language.

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 06:59 PM
Can you be more precise?

Hog Farmer
12-20-2007, 01:25 PM
He's not campaigning for him yet... But it's my guess that he will endorse him. I could be wrong, but the guess is an educated one...

Nothing you've ever said has sounded educated to me.

wazu
12-20-2007, 11:54 PM
Nothing you've ever said has sounded educated to me.

OOOOHHH!!! MAJOR BURN!!!

Taco John
12-20-2007, 11:55 PM
Nothing you've ever said has sounded educated to me.



This coming from a guy who masturbates pigs for a living...

Taco John
12-20-2007, 11:56 PM
'course, I was dead wrong. Beck has said he's going to endorse Romney...

SBK
12-21-2007, 12:06 AM
This coming from a guy who masturbates pigs for a living...


ROFL

I don't know if that's true or not, but it sure is funny to read.

wazu
12-21-2007, 12:24 AM
'course, I was dead wrong. Beck has said he's going to endorse Romney...

Really?

Fishpicker
12-21-2007, 01:08 AM
1. I don't know exactly where to draw the line and I don't think it's necessary to figure that out in advance. If you want to run a few descriptions by me I can tell you whether they are kooks or not.

2. We would have been better off, on balance, without the hippies of the 60's and 70's. They were kooks but many of them grew out of it, thankfully. Unfortunately, much of the damage was already done.

3. I agree that sometimes "kooks" can be good things. I liked Borat. That guy is a kook.

4. Ron Paul has more than his fair share of kooks. Some Ron Paul supporters aren't kooks. Cleveland Bronco seems like a very sensible guy aside from his Bronco fetish. Adam and SBK are a couple of other locals who strikes me as less kooky than the average Ron Paul supporter. There are plenty of others.

I didn't paint with an overly broad brush. I was very clear on the point that not all Ron Paul supporters are kooks, though many of them are. Being a 9/11 truther warrants a rebutable presumption of kookiness.

hands down, you are the most accusatory non-kook I have ever seen. you just might be the anti-kook.

#1. I trust you when you say that you dont know where to draw the line. why dont you save some time and finger all the kooks you are aware of? you could always expand on that list if you dont get all of them in the first go-round.

#2. Flower power caused damage? was the damage inflicted upon anything tangible? anything real? anything substantial? anything that is still evident?

#3. you have kook confused with mook.

#4. does that mean that the average RP supporter is kooky?

stevieray
12-21-2007, 08:09 AM
#2. Flower power caused damage? was the damage inflicted upon anything tangible? anything real? anything substantial? anything that is still evident?



are you being serious?

Fishpicker
12-21-2007, 12:03 PM
yep. go ahead and enlighten me stevieray. what did flower power damage?

Adept Havelock
12-21-2007, 12:18 PM
#4. does that mean that the average RP supporter is kooky?

If so, will they lend me a comb?

Fishpicker
12-21-2007, 12:25 PM
If so, will they lend me a comb?

don't borrow that comb... it may have kooky kooties

patteeu
12-21-2007, 04:32 PM
hands down, you are the most accusatory non-kook I have ever seen. you just might be the anti-kook.

#1. I trust you when you say that you dont know where to draw the line. why dont you save some time and finger all the kooks you are aware of? you could always expand on that list if you dont get all of them in the first go-round.

#2. Flower power caused damage? was the damage inflicted upon anything tangible? anything real? anything substantial? anything that is still evident?

#3. you have kook confused with mook.

#4. does that mean that the average RP supporter is kooky?

I hope you haven't lost too much sleep worrying that I think you're a kook. I'd really need to know more about you to decide for sure. Being a dedicated Ron Paul for President supporter is a mark against you, but your reasons for being in that camp could be redeeming. I'm afraid I don't know enough about you to pass judgment, but I'm leaning toward "kook" right now simply because you don't understand how "flower power" damaged our country. If you want to describe yourself, your reasons for supporting Paul, and any affiliations you might have with white supremacists, NAMBLA, 9/11 Truthers, or any other group (fringe or otherwise), I can give you a more informed judgment.

As for the "flower power" crowd, among other things, they helped the country grow comfortable with losing wars and they produced the Clintons.

Fishpicker
12-21-2007, 05:17 PM
I hope you haven't lost too much sleep worrying that I think you're a kook. I'd really need to know more about you to decide for sure. Being a dedicated Ron Paul for President supporter is a mark against you, but your reasons for being in that camp could be redeeming. I'm afraid I don't know enough about you to pass judgment, but I'm leaning toward "kook" right now simply because you don't understand how "flower power" damaged our country. If you want to describe yourself, your reasons for supporting Paul, and any affiliations you might have with white supremacists, NAMBLA, 9/11 Truthers, or any other group (fringe or otherwise), I can give you a more informed judgment.

As for the "flower power" crowd, among other things, they helped the country grow comfortable with losing wars and they produced the Clintons.

I'm not worried pat, I just think it's silly how often you post the word kook.

I'll give you the point about the Clintons (never thought about it) anything else?

patteeu
12-21-2007, 05:33 PM
I'll give you the point about the Clintons (never thought about it) anything else?

Good news. That statement leads me to believe you may not be full-on kook. ;)

BucEyedPea
12-21-2007, 05:34 PM
If you want to describe yourself, your reasons for supporting Paul, and any affiliations you might have with white supremacists, NAMBLA, 9/11 Truthers, or any other group (fringe or otherwise), I can give you a more informed judgment.
Please link for me where NAMBLA is supporting Ron Paul.
Oh, btw, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists supported Reagan too, or so I heard.

As for the "flower power" crowd, among other things, they helped the country grow comfortable with losing wars and they produced the Clintons.
War(s)? I think that was one war. Hillary is as former 60's 70's radical too and she's a hawk.

go bowe
12-21-2007, 09:23 PM
I'm not worried pat, I just think it's silly how often you post the word kook.

I'll give you the point about the Clintons (never thought about it) anything else?during a three year period, yale law school graduated both clintons and samuel alito...

so blame it all on them...

patteeu
12-22-2007, 08:18 AM
Please link for me where NAMBLA is supporting Ron Paul.
Oh, btw, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists supported Reagan too, or so I heard.

I don't know whether NAMBLA supports Ron Paul, but if you're associated with NAMBLA, you're a kook.

War(s)? I think that was one war. Hillary is as former 60's 70's radical too and she's a hawk.

Yes, wars. It's kind of like eating Lays chips.

Hillary has done her share to undermine the current war, even if she hasn't been as bad as some. And I suspect that her hawkishness is a political strategy, not a commitment to national defense.