Truth-Bringer

Can't even follow what you're trying to do here.

But the term you used was "filibuster." So you lied, right?

There you don't have it (again). I DIDN'T DISQUALIFY THE SOURCE. I accept its information on the one vote, as I stated in my last post. Once again, you are simply repeating a pointless statement. It's totally invalid.

False, I did not reject the source itself.

Guess what? A source can be right in some areas and wrong in some areas. I think that they're wrong on the earmarking issue, because they're only considering the amendment votes and make no mention of the final votes, which Ron Paul has a 100% record of voting against. That is a huge omission, and it does bring that section of their assessment into question. If they don't record information on the final votes, they're lying by omission.

Again, they're only considering the amendment votes and make no mention of the final votes, which Ron Paul has a 100% record of voting against.

As you said: "Ron Paul voted for an AMENDMENT to the MLK Holiday, which is not the same as the up or down vote for the bill that preceded the amendments portions."

I agree with your statement. Amendment votes are not the same as up or down votes for the bill.

As I said, PROVE IT. An opinion proves nothing. You are repeating an unprovable assertion over and over again. I've already explained myself on this. I did not lie. I only made a mistake.

Appeal to Ridicule.

Not because of Ron Paul. He's voted against every single unbalanced budget.

And Ron Paul votes against all those bills, a 100% record of voting against every single unbalanced budget. Name ANY other member of Congress who has that record. Ron Paul has also voted against every single tax increase. Name ANY other member of Congress who has that record.

From your source,

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

And that's absolutely correct. The earmark issue is a red herring. It's like the stupid campaign reform bill - which hasn't kept a dime from reaching the politicians. CONGRESS WILL STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND TO ITS HEART'S DESIRE. That is the core issue and the issue that needs to be stopped. And the only Congressman really fighting to restore the government to its Constitutional limitations, and add new ones that mean something like a Balanced Budget Amendment, is Ron Paul.

The earmark issue could be debated for a long, long time. Do I really like them? Not really. But there are far bigger problems to address. Earmarks are not the root problem with government spending. As I said, I've admired Jeff Flake's stand against them, but I admire Ron Paul more for his stand against the government's unconstitutional operation as a whole. THAT IS THE KEY ISSUE. If Congress was limited to its Constitutional boundaries, there'd be no earmark problem.

Voting against the final bill is the most important vote of all.

As you said, "Ron Paul voted for an AMENDMENT to the MLK Holiday, which is not the same as the up or down vote for the bill that preceded the amendments portions."

Hillary wants much, much more. She wants to socialize the medical industry and create another entitlement program. She also wants higher spending levels outside of earmarks, which Ron Paul opposes. And Ron Paul will vote against every single one of those earmarks in the final bill, unlike Hillary Clinton who will vote for the final bill every single time. She'll also vote to raise taxes, which Ron Paul will vote against.

Again,

Note the latest major reform to be passed to try and make the process harder is the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Guess who voted in favor of it along with Jeff Flake...that's right: Ron Paul.

ROTFL. Let's see any proof at all for this claim.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

One can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, which I have. By your ridiculous (and selective) standards of proof, one could not prove anything. By the biased standards of proof that you mention here, one could even argue that Bill Clinton did not lie when he said that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. He could argue that he forgot that he got head from her and thus never lied, and you "cannot prove" otherwise.

However, one can see beyond a reasonable doubt that you lied. You lied when you said that you did not see a line of text beneath the header of the blog I showed you. How do we know that? We know that because you copy pasted lines of text beneath that banner into one of your posts. You also lied when you said that you did not know that the blog was libertarian because you copy-pasted 90% of a sentence where the blog owner described his blog as libertarian, but you left out the one word "libertarian" that was in between the sections of the sentence that you copy-pasted. So that's two times on just that one incident where you lied.

I will not talk about your interests, since that would be against the forum rules. I will only talk about what you did, which is within the forum rules.

You read the title caption, which is why you copy-pasted part of it into your post, only the part the suited your pro-Ron Paul argument of course.

If you're going to dismiss a source based upon some characteristic, then it is your obligation to make sure that the source actually has that characteristic. If you dishonestly state that it has some characteristic which it does not, then you deserve to get called on that.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

No, the problem is with Ron Paul for having allowed his newsletter to be a racist cesspool. If he had not allowed that, then he would not have received a reputation as a racist. Ron Paul's handling of the affair was also flawed. If he had come out and denounced the racism as wrong and evil and those people who wrote those articles as a disgrace and ignorant, then that would have really cleared things up and you would even have people like me, who hate Ron Paul supporters, standing up for Ron Paul not being racist. However, Ron Paul didn't really denounce the racism forcefully which had the effect of still leaving his intentions open to interpretation.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Oh, also, Ron Paul taking a donation from the owner of the Neo-Nazi megasite Stormfront.com and not returning the money or giving the money to a charity or Jewish, black, latino, native american, minority establishment, further entrenched the doubts people have about his ideas on race. That was ENTIRELY Ron Paul's fault.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Well that's not a surprise, given the string of dishonest tactics you have used on this thread alone. I've explained very clearly how you changed the meaning of your own phrasing and terminology once I challenged them at the top of post #38.

No, you did again. You used the term "filibuster" in this thread on post # 14, I have used the terms effectively filibuster (post #12) and the same as a filibuster. You've lied again.

Your false statements that the source was liberal was an attempt to invalidate the source on the basis of its perceived ideological standpoint. This attempt of yours was invalidated as the source turned out to be more ideologically supportive of Ron Paul than opposed to it. Your argument was further shown to be hypocritical as you readily used sources that were biased in favor of Ron Paul, while decrying sources that you thought were not in favor of Ron Paul.

True, you did reject the authority of the source. You said: "The Club for Growth is wrong on this one", which you immediately contradicted by accepting the praise it did offer for Ron Paul's other policies.

Your argument is hypocritical, taking credit for the Club for Growth's areas of commendation for Ron Paul but alleging that it's sections that criticize Ron Paul are biased. So far, anyone or anything that presents facts or criticisms about Ron Paul, you have called biased.

The fact that Ron Paul votes against the bills that he jams pork barrel projects into does not make him less of a porker, but just raises questions about his integrity. As Ron Paul's moral integrity was not in question in the Club for Growth piece, it was perfectly appropriate not to discuss that.

Again, Ron Paul stuffing bills with pork barrel projects is a minus in Ron Paul's column, not a plus, so them not mentioning that helps Ron Paul if anything, not hurts him as you falsely allege.

They aren't the same as an up or down vote on the bill, but they can be used to add legislation to a legislative package. Ron Paul apparently did not believe in the anti-pork legislation offered by Jeff Flake, so he voted against them while at the same time proposing $400 million in pork barrel projects for his congressional district in a single year.

I already have. Your reply of "prove it" to my proof is not a defense. You lied multiple times, each time for which I laid out in detail the lie.

Ron Paul certainly contributes to this country's budget deficit with a whopping $400 million list of pork barrel projects in a single year.

I wouldn't WANT Ron Paul's record if I was a conservative or a liberal congress person. It's very questionable if not dishonest to have a record of stuffing bills with pork and then voting against them (when you know they will pass and you will run up the bill for the American tax payers). It's nothing to be proud of.

You have lied once again. Firstly, the source you quote is Ron Paul's spokesman. You make it seem like an editor or officer for the Club for Growth said this, when they did not. The fact that a Ron Paul spokesman defends Ron Paul's seemingly hypocritical actions is not significant. Secondly you are "lying by omission" to quote yourself. You omitted the title of the piece you are quoting, which is: "Ron Paul Loves Pork Projects". Obviously, my source thinks Paul is a porker, and not the contrary as you pretend.

All of this is arguable. However, Ron Paul's request for $400 million in earmarks in a single year is very similar to the amount of earmarks Hillary Clinton has requested.

[quote=Truth-Bringer;177539]
Again,

Note the latest major reform to be passed to try and make the process harder is the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Guess who voted in favor of it along with Jeff Flake...that's right: Ron Paul.

Again, this does not matter considering that Ron Paul is requesting $400 million in pork in a single year. That fact and his voting against anti-pork legislation outweigh his vote for the Transparency Act.

Talk to the shrimp boat captains who benefit from Ron Pauls $10 million pork barrel projects. Just call Ron Paul's office and tell them that it's the US fault for 9/11 and they'll put your right through to congressman Paul.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Truth-Bringer

I am not going to waste any more time listening to your distortions, mischaracterizations, obfuscations and fraudulent attempts to portray my statements as “lies.” It’s absolutely ridiculous. You have lost this debate and now you’re just going the ad nauseum route again.

You admitted after watching Ron Paul talk about race in his own words:

“Alright, that was fairly persuasive. I'd be inclined to give Paul a pass on his racist newsletter.”

You later went on to say:

“I won't say once and for all that Ron Paul is not a racist, but I won't say that he is one either.”

Note that I will allow your clarification, while you disingenuously seek to deny me any clarifications of my statements. And that is dishonest on your part, and it’s another reason why this discussion is pointless.

Anyway, either way, the race issue is done. You’ve admitted you can’t argue it. It’s over.

Then you switched over and started attacking his character on the earmarks issue, and you disingenuously ignored all the positive comments and evidence from your own source, which, after factoring in all the evidence, concluded:

“When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul.”

As I said, they’re wrong on their negative assessment of the earmark amendments, because they did not acknowledge his up and down votes. Again, Ron Paul's record on final votes is 100%. But they didn’t mention that. And that was a flaw in their otherwise very thorough report.

And you admitted that these up and down votes were more important than amendment votes when you said:

"Ron Paul voted for an AMENDMENT to the MLK Holiday, which is not the same as the up or down vote for the bill that preceded the amendments portions."

And you hypocritically will not allow the standard you used on the MLK vote to apply on his earmark votes.

So, it seems like the issue to me is that you clearly just don’t like Ron Paul. You probably don’t like his version of limited government either. So you’re going to continue to attack the man, regardless. Even when you admit you can’t prove something negative about him, as in the race issue, you still continue to bash him over aspects of it.

You can make these wild claims that I lied over and over again. Have at it. Someone can say 2 + 2 =5 over and over again also, but that will never make it true.