Fox News Gets Owned!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

…and he never even answered the question, unless you consider his off-topic rant an answer in the negative.

Yes, yes - exactly. Paul never provided an answer to the question itself.

And, in addition - did you witness his trainwreck on the question related to the US’ reaction to Iran in the Strait of Hormuz?

Never good when the crowd is cackling at you.[/quote]

Why should he have had to answer a stupid question that has nothing to do with the issues. They have done this to him from the beginning. They asked him a dumb question about 9/11 truthers instead of letting him participate in the discussion about the economy – he had to ask permission to answer a real question. Fair and Balanced my Ass.

No other candidate get asked those questions so why Paul? It must be because Faux wants to discredit him.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:

How about a guy able to raise 6 millions dollars in one single day WITHOUT EVEN ORGANISING IT HIMSELF ??

Because the age old maxim is true - a fool and his money are soon parted. Paul’s supporters are too stupid to know better than to throw good money after bad.
[/quote]
hmmm…nothing like an empty idiom to show you have no valid argument…care to prove it?

I know many supporters, including myself, who run intellectual rings around you. I haven’t read one valid argument against Paul or the issues he talks about come from you.

Here’s your chance:

  1. Sound money – believes gold or silver can be the only legal money as provided by the Constitution but would be for amending the constitution to allow for competing currencies. Also believes, long term, the Fed should be abolished.

  2. Foreign Policy – believes that the US does more harm by intervening in the Foreign policy of other sovereign nations and that we should remain neutral, a la Switzerland, Canada, etc., but remain friends and trade and travel with all nations. He believes that when nations trade they share common interests and therefore tend to get along much better than if we act aggressively toward them.

  3. Civil Liberties – believes the government has done more harm to civil liberties in the name of “security” and also believes the USA Patriot Act is the biggest swindle to civil liberties since the draft.

  4. Economic Freedom – believes individuals should be able to spend their own money however they want without government intervention. Believes the war on drugs to be useless and the cause of the poor socio-economic condition of many living in the inner cities.

  5. Taxes – believes the income tax should be abolished and replaced with nothing. Believes the passing of the 16th Amendment was done hastefully when a full session was not present and should be overturned.

  6. National Defense – believes our military involvement in other nations leaves us unprotected in our own country and that we spend too much on foreign wars and not enough on national defense.

  7. Immigration – believe the economic incentives should be removed to deal with immigration. He is not for building a physical border and is against amnesty. Believes that immigration in a free society where there is no economic incentive to live off the government would not be a problem.

…just to name a few.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why should he have had to answer a stupid question that has nothing to do with the issues. They have done this to him from the beginning.[/quote]

The question I was referring to was the handling of the Strait of Hormuz incident - which got presented to the candidates on stage, not just Paul. And, it is, of course, a very important issue. Paul got exposed with his pathetic rant of an answer - and the crowd got a good chuckle out of it.

Here is an idea - if you didn’t see the debate or know what the hell I was talking about, stay quiet and avoid embarrassing yourself.

[quote]They asked him a dumb question about 9/11 truthers instead of letting him participate in the discussion about the economy – he had to ask permission to answer a real question. Fair and Balanced my Ass.

No other candidate get asked those questions so why Paul? It must be because Faux wants to discredit him.[/quote]

Further proof you don’t pay any attention to information outside of your favorite quack website.

Giuliani has been fielding questions about his electability ever since he got into the race over his stance on social issues. Thompson immediately was asked whether he waited too late to have a real shot at winning. The question of Electability - and Paul’s support by the Truthers is a huge part of that - matters. Glad to see Fox finally putting in on the table - shame the moderators didn’t ask about his letters.

Stop trying to project the illusion of Paul being a victim here - your man is done, has been for a while.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

hmmm…nothing like an empty idiom to show you have no valid argument…care to prove it?

I know many supporters, including myself, who run intellectual rings around you. I haven’t read one valid argument against Paul or the issues he talks about come from you.[/quote]

“Run rings around me”, aye? If you actually believed that, Lifticus - you wouldn’t have to keep telling me how brilliant you are. What’s the matter - feeling inadequate? Have to constantly remind me that you are “running rings around me”?

You’re the political equivalent of the kid who keeps posting about his fictional bench press numbers in the bodybuilding section. Sorry “champ” - no one is buying what you are selling.

Does Lifticus ever grow up?

You’re a joke, Lifticus - you preen about these forums, hoping - praying - someone will take you seriously as an “intellectual”. Doesn’t happen. I know it stings.

And, of course, now you are extra-snippy as the Paul candidacy comes to a screeching Flameout. Too bad.

[quote]Here’s your chance:

  1. Sound money – believes gold or silver can be the only legal money as provided by the Constitution but would be for amending the constitution to allow for competing currencies. Also believes, long term, the Fed should be abolished.

  2. Foreign Policy – believes that the US does more harm by intervening in the Foreign policy of other sovereign nations and that we should remain neutral, a la Switzerland, Canada, etc., but remain friends and trade and travel with all nations. He believes that when nations trade they share common interests and therefore tend to get along much better than if we act aggressively toward them.

  3. Civil Liberties – believes the government has done more harm to civil liberties in the name of “security” and also believes the USA Patriot Act is the biggest swindle to civil liberties since the draft.

  4. Economic Freedom – believes individuals should be able to spend their own money however they want without government intervention. Believes the war on drugs to be useless and the cause of the poor socio-economic condition of many living in the inner cities.

  5. Taxes – believes the income tax should be abolished and replaced with nothing. Believes the passing of the 16th Amendment was done hastefully when a full session was not present and should be overturned.

  6. National Defense – believes our military involvement in other nations leaves us unprotected in our own country and that we spend too much on foreign wars and not enough on national defense.

  7. Immigration – believe the economic incentives should be removed to deal with immigration. He is not for building a physical border and is against amnesty. Believes that immigration in a free society where there is no economic incentive to live off the government would not be a problem.

…just to name a few.[/quote]

All you have done here is give me a list from Paul’s platform. That, of course, has nothing to do with my point, which was that Paul was able to raise money like crazy because his legions of stupid, stupid supporters don’t know when to move their money to smarter investments.

Paul is a quack and has never been electable. He never stood a chance. Yet even after sane people realized this, his coffers continued to be replenished. That is just bad economics, Lifticus - it’s throwing good money after bad. Paul has done more damage to the limited government principle than his followers could possibly imagine - by presenting libertarianism as a fruitcake ideology wrapped in Black Helicopter paranoia packaging, honest, smart libertarians will be repairing Paul’s damage done to the ideology for years.

That’s a bad investment.

Of course, why expect you to know any of this?

This would all be fine if you were 12 - since you aren’t, you don’t have an excuse.

As for Paul’s political principles, I took a shot at having a substantive debate on the issues some time ago in one of the forty Paul threads - no takers. Sloth chimed in briefly, but it was headed nowhere. I’d be happy to discuss each of the principles you listed, but what is the point? Paul supporters simply aren’t up for it, and this late in the day, since Paul is all but gone from the race, a better question - who cares?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I know many supporters, including myself, who run intellectual rings around you. I haven’t read one valid argument against Paul or the issues he talks about come from you.


[/quote]

You are deluded.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth chimed in briefly, but it was headed nowhere. [/quote]

I hope it wasn’t something I said…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The question I was referring to was the handling of the Strait of Hormuz incident - which got presented to the candidates on stage, not just Paul. And, it is, of course, a very important issue. Paul got exposed with his pathetic rant of an answer - and the crowd got a good chuckle out of it. [/quote]

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The question I was referring to was the handling of the Strait of Hormuz incident - which got presented to the candidates on stage, not just Paul. And, it is, of course, a very important issue. Paul got exposed with his pathetic rant of an answer - and the crowd got a good chuckle out of it.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

[/quote]

Good link Lixy.

mike

[quote]lixy wrote:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

[/quote]

Lixy, do you have the slightest idea what I am talking about? Well, it’s clear you don’t - given your useless post. I’ll bring you up to speed.

In the debate, the panel of candidates was asked what they would have done in the Strait of Hormuz incident. One after the other, each candidate affirmed the decision to remain cautious and not react with force. Each candidate urged patience and deference to the military personnel at the scene.

Then Paul began his cross-eyed rant about how all the candidates were calling for WWIII on the stage, about how reckless their desires were to use this incident to call for a full-scale war against Iran, and whatever happened to a reasonable foreign policy, and on and on.

The moderator stopped and asked essentially: “what the hell are you talking about? Every candidate up here said the right response here was to be passive.”

At that point, with crowd chuckling, Paul begins sputtering about how he couldn’t hear good and he didn’t get the question and other blather.

Point is - Paul was just arguing against his made up enemies on stage, becoming shrill and defiant while the entire room, including the candidates, is looking at one another wondering just how crazy Ron Paul must really be.

He embarrassed himself. And it was hilarious to watch.

Now, Lixy - details about the incident have nothing - nothing - to do with the issue I raised. It was about Paul’s deranged response. Do try and stop being a useless idiot.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I hope it wasn’t something I said…[/quote]

Heh - far from it. You were the only one willing to have a decent back-and-forth on the substance of Paul’s stances.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[/quote]

Bollocks!

Paul was the only one to resuming dialog with the Iranians. All the others advocated more of the same belligerent crap. For heaven’s sake, the only reason Bush embarked on his ME tour was to further isolate Tehran (and incidentally sell 20 billion Dollars of weapons to one of the most dictatorial regimes – which I should mention, spun Al-Qaeda).

I can clearly remember McCain’s �??I don�??t want to trade with them. All they want to trade is burkas.�?? Let’s not even go into Rudy’s doomsday platform. That is anything but “passive”. Shit, you surround Iran from every front, call them terrorist sponsors, support the MEK, sanction them for trying to acquire civilian nuclear fuel, call for bombing them, and you call that “passive”?

You must live in some alternate reality.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Bollocks!

Paul was the only one to resuming dialog with the Iranians. All the others advocated more of the same belligerent crap. For heaven’s sake, the only reason Bush embarked on his ME tour was to further isolate Tehran (and incidentally sell 20 billion Dollars of weapons to one of the most dictatorial regimes – which I should mention, spun Al-Qaeda).

I can clearly remember McCain’s �??I don�??t want to trade with them. All they want to trade is burkas.�?? Let’s not even go into Rudy’s doomsday platform. That is anything but “passive”. Shit, you surround Iran from every front, call them terrorist sponsors, support the MEK, sanction them for trying to acquire civilian nuclear fuel, call for bombing them, and you call that “passive”?

You must live in some alternate reality.[/quote]

Poor Lixy - when was the last time you got something right?

Paul was screeching how the other candidates were pressing for WWIII - and none of them were. The crowd was laughing at him - kinda like how we laugh at you.

Paul can differ with their policy answers and want a different choice - no one is suggesting he can’t. But his rant wasn’t disagreeing with anyone except one of his crazy made up boogeymen, and the crowd snickered. Everyone in the room was trying to figure out if Paul knew where he was or what debate he was taking place in.

Sorry, Lixy - still coming up short.

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Bollocks!

Paul was the only one to resuming dialog with the Iranians. All the others advocated more of the same belligerent crap. For heaven’s sake, the only reason Bush embarked on his ME tour was to further isolate Tehran (and incidentally sell 20 billion Dollars of weapons to one of the most dictatorial regimes – which I should mention, spun Al-Qaeda).

I can clearly remember McCain’s â¿¿I donâ¿¿t want to trade with them. All they want to trade is burkas.â¿¿ Let’s not even go into Rudy’s doomsday platform. That is anything but “passive”. Shit, you surround Iran from every front, call them terrorist sponsors, support the MEK, sanction them for trying to acquire civilian nuclear fuel, call for bombing them, and you call that “passive”?

You must live in some alternate reality.[/quote]

You have no clue what is being discussed, do you? Go away.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The question I was referring to was the handling of the Strait of Hormuz incident - which got presented to the candidates on stage, not just Paul. And, it is, of course, a very important issue. Paul got exposed with his pathetic rant of an answer - and the crowd got a good chuckle out of it.
[/quote]
I did see it and I remember something about “The gates of hell” coming from Huckabee and “sending them to see 72 Virgins” coming from Thompson. I also remember much more rhetoric about how they would intervene in Iran. That is what Paul was answering. Hume misled and lied about the answers that were given by the others stating that they were saying we should procede with caution – I certainly didn’t hear anyone use that term. Besides this we all know those neocons have a hard-on for war.

What a joke!