Why Ron Paul is a traitorous, libertarian idiot

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Fri, 2011-09-30 21:38

Anwar Awlaki, the U.S. born al Qaeda leader whose writings inspired Muslims, including the U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan of the Fort Hood massacre, to commit terrorist attacks against Americans, has been killed by a CIA drone attack in Yemen. But Ron Paul, that potential savior of America according to some SOLO posters, has already condemned the Obama administration for "assassinating" this man without a trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Forgive the HuffPo link.

The AP article:

Ron Paul: Anwar Al-Awlaki, U.S.-Born Al-Qaeda Cleric, 'Assassinated'

MANCHESTER, N.H.--Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an "assassination." Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.

Anwar al-Awlaki was considered one of the most influential al-Qaida operatives wanted by the United States. U.S. and Yemen officials say he was killed in a U.S. air strike targeting his convoy Friday morning.

Paul made the comments to reporters after a campaign stop Friday at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. He said America's leaders must think hard about "assassinating American citizens without charges."

How can this man be so stupid? Never mind. I know the answer to that.


What's the problem?

Michael Moeller's picture

Are the following questions difficult to answer? They seem pretty easy to answer to me:

"Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?"

Scrutiny

atlascott's picture

No one would survive unscathed if one is to accept your evidence as valid and conclusions as sound. Good thing they are not.

"Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?"

After a lengthy post, this is where you end up? Mischaracterizing the facts and placing the darkest and most rotten spin on possible conclusions? That doesn't even begin to describe your FACTUAL errors in the above paragraph alone.

I may go into this more, because the clear illogic of your position here approaches your self-damning contortions on the video issue.

We will see what my schedule looks like tomorrow.

Schrödinger's Opinion

reed's picture

Michael doesn't claim/believe Ron Paul is a racist.

Factual Correction

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott:

"Well, it would if you were interested in understanding rather than "scoring points.""

There he goes again. Instead of answering arguments, he diverts by questioning my motives. Is it possible for you to get through one post -- just one -- in which you do not create diversionary distractions?

Look, Scott, I read your post many times and here is what you said:

It is his newsletter, so he OUGHT to take ownership of the contents of his newsletter, Michael, whether he wrote them or not. I already wrote that. And he did accept responsibility.

You are so fired up that you are arguing about nothing, here.

You SHOULD be writing about whether these were his words or not, but you are soo amped up by a bruised ego that you arent't seeing straight.

The bold comment is rather bizarre considering I posted at least three times the quotes from 1996 newspapers where Ron Paul admits he wrote the content, and shows knowledge of the racist content. Yet, somehow these basic facts eluded you, which I cannot believe is possible if you read the sources, as you say. Thus, I simply corrected the factual record for you.

Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?

Michael

Misunderstanding

atlascott's picture

Re-read my post before last and it will hopefully clarify why your most recent post is based on a faulty assumption.

Well, it would if you were interested in understanding rather than "scoring points."

Can't Even Get Basic Facts Correct

Michael Moeller's picture

Now it is plain as day why Scott refuses to provide evidence for his accusations. When he does try to offer arguments, like here, he shows he has no idea what he is talking about and tries to divert by patting himself on the back. He doesn't even have the basic facts of the situation correct, even after I quoted Ron Paul multiple times on the issue!

Let's take a look at Scott's, um, "arguments":

It is his newsletter, so he OUGHT to take ownership of the contents of his newsletter, Michael, whether he wrote them or not. I already wrote that. And he did accept responsibility. [...]
You SHOULD be writing about whether these were his words or not, but you are soo amped up by a bruised ego that you arent't seeing straight.

Scott, who leads us to believe he is seeing straight, cannot read the quotes put right in front of him.

By ownership, he claimed that he wrote them. Do you have a serious reading problem like Goode? Let me provide the quotes for you again so you can get your facts straight before you decide to weigh in on a topic (it really helps!!):

Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

AND

Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

AND

Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

He said, in 1996, he wrote them. Please get your facts straight before making a point, otherwise you look foolish. Now how about you try your arguments again, this time use the actual facts where Ron Paul says he wrote the content in 1996, and then later denied knowing who wrote them in 2008. You can do it!

Scott:

"Uh, I found the same sources you did, and I read them. Smearmonger media outlets from the Left and Right are doing their thing. Including CNN."

Well that is interesting, and by interesting I mean Scott is refuting himself. You see, Scott, the 2008 statement you agreed with was taken from CNN, but now you say CNN is unreliable. So which is it -- do you accept what he said on CNN or do you deny it? If you pick the latter, you are flushing your own agreement with Ron Paul's denials down the toilet. If you pick former, then you are flushing down the toilet that these "third party sources" are unreliable. Tough decision for you.

Secondly, on what basis do you conclude that the statements by any of the media outlets are unreliable? Do you have any evidence for it? Nope, you are just asserting that those sources are unreliable because their quoting of Ron Paul's statements shows he lied in 2008 about the authorship of the racist content in his newsletters, as he claimed he wrote at least some of that content in 1996.

Clearly, Scott does not like it when facts conflict with his delusions, so he will call anybody and everybody who gives those facts unreliable. It's an ever-shrinking world he is descending into.

Scott:

"Are you really taking issue with a quote which YOU quoted first? If you did not believe it to be reliable, why did you quote it?"

Where did I take issue with what was in those sources? You are just plain making shit up again. I used the 1996 sources to show he lied in his 2008 statement. I used them both, because they both directly quote Ron Paul. Dude, what is up with your reading ability? It is Goode-esque (read: terrible).

Scott:

"One of the reasons it sounds like a credible quote to me is that the conclusion that Ron Paul is racist or collectivist would fly in the face of everything I know about him, which includes reading all of his books, and paying attention to his media interviews and his other writings and debate appearances."

This is the "I don't want to consider any other evidence about Ron Paul because it will conflict with my delusion of what he is" argument. Pathetic argument, Scott.

And considering you did not know the basic fact that Ron Paul claimed he wrote them in 1996, you might want to stop ask yourself if your knowledge is deficient, because clearly it is. How about you take a deep breath, take a look at the facts I just quoted to you (quotes given at least 3 times on this thread!), and trying arguing again from the actual facts?

All the rest of your balderdash is nothing more than questioning my motives, repeating accusations, yada yada. Yes, we know you can divert from the topic. You've done it over and over again.

Why don't you try a novel approach and first get your facts straight, then stick to arguing about the facts surrounding the newsletters? Ok, Ace? For once, just check the accusations/distractions at the door and try arguing the issue instead of continually committing the logical fallacy of diversion.

Michael

He should take ownership

atlascott's picture

"Ron Paul took ownership of certain statements in those articles in 1996."

Realistically, what he is supposed to do?

It is his newsletter, so he OUGHT to take ownership of the contents of his newsletter, Michael, whether he wrote them or not. I already wrote that. And he did accept responsibility.

You are so fired up that you are arguing about nothing, here.

You SHOULD be writing about whether these were his words or not, but you are soo amped up by a bruised ego that you arent't seeing straight.

"Yep, the multitude of newspapers questioning him on this issue -- and quoting him directly -- in 1996 are "placing spin on the issue". How does Scott know?"

Uh, I found the same sources you did, and I read them. Smearmonger media outlets from the Left and Right are doing their thing. Including CNN.

Are you really taking issue with a quote which YOU quoted first? If you did not believe it to be reliable, why did you quote it?

One of the reasons it sounds like a credible quote to me is that the conclusion that Ron Paul is racist or collectivist would fly in the face of everything I know about him, which includes reading all of his books, and paying attention to his media interviews and his other writings and debate appearances.

For example, if someone quoted you as saying "Sometimes, I get angry when I perceive that I am losing a debate and my ego gets in the way. Then, my reasoning capacity is reduced" then I would be inclined to think the quote has more credibility because it is consistent with what I know about you, at least on this thread.

As another example, if some quoted you as saying "I love...Ron Paul" I would be strongly suspicious of the Moeller Method. It would be more likely that someone was parsing a quote to misrepresent for some agenda. Like you do on this very thread.

Anyway, people judge what they hear based on what they know of the reporting source as well as their knowledge of the beliefs and character of the declarant. It happens every day. It explains why if someone accused your best friend of being a murderer, you would need more evidence, but if someone said that your best friend is a swell person, that would be enough.

I do not trust media's depiction of Ron Paul, and I certainly do not find your careful selection of samples from those sources as reliable, and I certainly do not regard your intellectual approach as either fair, truth seeking or accurate.

Where you see colossal deception, I see a guy who was not clear about whether he wrote the words or not, but took ownership of them since they did appear in his newsletter (as any decent person should), and then denounced the words and ideas behind them. Thoroughly honest and with integrity, much to your chagrin.

Ron Paul: 2, Moeller: 0

Right on Cue

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott fires up the DeSalvo Infamous and Deplorable Excuse-Making Machine.

Scott:

"It is still far from clear whether he actually wrote every article in his newsletter, and my guess would be that he didn't."

Scott's "guess" is that Ron Paul did not write "every article ". Nobody said anything about him writing "every article", but rather the ones with the racist content. Scott is trying to divert.

Ron Paul took ownership of certain statements in those articles in 1996.

Can Scott tell us -- using his best "guess" -- whether Ron Paul wrote those articles he took ownership of in 1996? Does he not believe the 1996 Ron Paul?

Apparently not, because he gloms on to the 2008 statements where Ron Paul feigns ignorance about who wrote the articles. How convenient for Scott! With the sprinkling of his magical pixie dust, he somehow is able to dismiss the 1998 statements and takes the 2008 statements at face value.

Why? Scott says:

"Many of your excerpts are from third party sources already placing spin on the issue, so this is not as clear as you make it out to be."

Yep, the multitude of newspapers questioning him on this issue -- and quoting him directly -- in 1996 are "placing spin on the issue". How does Scott know? Somehow, he just needs to "believe" it is true for it to be true. Evidence need not apply, because those quotes do not fit his narrative so he can hand-wave them away.

But wait, the 2008 statement was reported by "third source source" -- CNN -- so are they also "placing spin on the issue"? No, not for Scott. That statement fits his delusions, so he can't similarly dismiss it by the same standards he dismisses the other statements, you see.

Scott's rationalizations and excuse-making truly boggle the mind.

Michael

Too vague

atlascott's picture

Its too vague, Michael. I am not going to damn him for this.

It is still far from clear whether he actually wrote every article in his newsletter, and my guess would be that he didn't.

He ought to proof-read it more closely. On that much, we can probably agree.

His position makes it seem likely that he did not actual pen all of the contents of the newsletter.

Many of your excerpts are from third party sources already placing spin on the issue, so this is not as clear as you make it out to be.

To me, the most important part of this is:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

He denounces the statements and ideas. He denies uttering the words. He denounces the thoughts.

Utter: to give audible expression to; speak or pronounce.

So, he admits he never spoke them, maybe he wrote them or maybe they were ghost written or maybe he forgot whether he wrote them (we ARE talking about some things going back 19 and 14 years in a regularly published newsletter by a guy who reads and writes a lot, including lots of books). But he denounces them, and that's the important part.

For me, the most poignant piece of this exchange is something you and Goode were chatting about earlier.

Namely, when it comes to attempts to assassinate a public figure by drowning him in mud (for clarity, it is still my position you are engaged in this activity regarding Ron Paul), whether using strategy A, B, or C, or C+ (the Moeller Method), the public figure still ends up in the mud. Which is a shame, but just is as it is.

You think that you are engaged in B. A fair interpretation of this issue, too, shows that this is more Moeller Method (C/C+) with a little bit of A.

I'd love to apply your own standards of proof of "dishonesty" to your life, or to any current politician, because it would be instructive to other readers just how easy yet utterly wrongheaded it is.

Untangling the mess and explaining it is almost always vastly more complicated and time-consuming, and I will not let you have that much of my time, because I am very busy trying to earn a living.

But when you step right into it, I can't help but spare a few moments to point it out.

If the place you are coming from is mean-spirited and angry, you can ALWAYS find nits to pick, foster misunderstanding, and paint a hero with a black brush.

Or you can try to.

The "Moeller Method"

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott:

It wasn't fair when I did it (sarcastically, to demonstrate how silly it is), and it certainly is not when you do it, but is more troubling because YOU are serious about it, nutter. YOU think it is irrefutable evidence.

My quote of Ron Paul is irrefutable evidence to those who can read and understand the plain, English meaning of words (eg., "somebody put those words in my mouth"). But being a True Believer, you simply cannot acknowledge the obvious. Not my problem.

Slicing part of one of my sentences where I claimed the opposite is no less dishonest than saying I use that technique without providing evidence that I actually used the technique. With no shame, you are once again accusing me of doing something without providing any evidence of the alleged conduct, then you have the audacity to call it the "Moeller Method".

Please provide evidence where I used the "Moeller Method". Take one of my quotes and junxtapose it next to Ron Paul's actual quote where it claims the opposite.

Thanks,
Michael

Simple Questions

Michael Moeller's picture

Welp, Scott, it looks like your bosom buddy Goode has left you holding the bag, as he has made his usual exit when asked to provide evidence or answer questions. Thus, I must ask you the following questions:

1. You stated the following about Ron Paul's interview with Hannity:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above. No excuses this time about sending you on "research projects", as I transcribed the interview at the linked post and all you have to do is read it.

Copy and paste, please.

2. Since you claimed Ron Paul did not lie in that interview with Hannity, please tell us who put those words in his mouth and strong-armed into giving those statements. You said this wasn't a lie, so I assume you must have evidence for his claims.

Please link to your evidence.

Thanks,
Michael

Uh, Scott

Michael Moeller's picture

The main point in the articles on Ron Paul's newsletters wasn't whether Ron Paul was a racist, but his lying about who authored the newsletters. Since you seem to have looked into it a little more, how about you address that issue?

When this became an issue during his 1996 Congressional run, here are some quotes of what Ron Paul said:

Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

AND

Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

AND

Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

There's plenty more from a host of newspapers, but you get the point, right? Ron Paul is taking ownership of the comments in 1996. But lo and behold, when asked about it in 2008, here's what Ron Paul said:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

An awful long way from what he said in 1996, don't ya think?

Cue up the Infamous DeSalvo Ron Paul Excuse-Making Machine. Here it comes, no doubt.

Michael

Hard to Defend

atlascott's picture

To my mind, it is hard to defend someone whose newsletter contains statements like Ron Paul's.

We are supposed to be color blind. But how do you operate as color blind when groups of individuals accept primary individual identification based upon membership in a group?

Even if anything Ron Paul wrote is true, it is not a good idea to perpetrate color-based thinking. It is collectivism.

It is unclear to me whether Ron Paul, or a ghost-writer, did the writing. If its his newsletter, he is ultimate responsible for it.

Paul was asked whether he is a racist, and he denied being a racist or a collectivist.

I think that he is neither. I think America and the world are over-sensitized to the issue of race, and that there is a double standard as to what is "politically correct" depending on what color you are. That isn't fair, and it is a bad idea because it prevents open and honest discourse.

Eric Holder, Jeremiah Wright, Obama, Jesse Jackson, etc., are racist because they self-identify primarily on the basis of race, and so they perpetuate racism.

If the prison population is a higher percentage black than represented in the population, this is useful information. If the high school graduation rate is lower than for Asian students, this is useful information. It is sociology and statistical fact, not racism.

How can you deal in reality if political correctness scares you into not thinking and not communicating?

The notion of Ron Paul as a racist is, in my opinion, without sufficient support. I prefer to rely on his direct statements on the issue to excerpts and CNN-parsed and summarized newsletter contents written 19 years ago in Paul's newsletter.

A reasonable position, I think.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

"After all, he says goblins exist while admitting there's no evidence. The important thing for him is simply to assert they do. His version of the Law of Non-Contradiction, like his version of everything else, is divorced from facts. Which means it's no Law at all."

Yep, exactly. He's a total simpleton who is trying to exempt himself from the requirements of evidence, while at the same time exhibiting zero grasp of the nature of evidence. Sadly, Scott has proven the same desire to exempt himself from the requirements of evidence, lest it shatter his Ron Paul True Believerism.

Michael

Again ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I am incredulous. Baade thinks the Law of Non-Contradiction, which states whatever is the case is the case, that something cannot be the case and not be the case simultaneously, requires one to state that something is the case when the evidence is inconclusive or insufficient. Truly, for him, "evidence doesn't come into it." I guess it's the intrinsicist in him. After all, he says goblins exist while admitting there's no evidence. The important thing for him is simply to assert they do. His version of the Law of Non-Contradiction, like his version of everything else, is divorced from facts. Which means it's no Law at all.

Then again, what else would we expect from a trained philosopher?

What a Dummy

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode:

"You have abdicated your mind and evicted yourself from the realm of reality.

Goodbye.

That's awesome, just awesome.

Well, Goode, you forgot to quote the rest of my reasoning. To determine whether something is or is not via the Law of Non-Contradiction, one first needs to gather evidence on the object. Why did you forget that part? Doesn't suit your agenda? Guess not.

This selective quoting to avoid the person's arguments will henceforth be referred to as The Goode Method. I would include evasion under the method, but Scott is giving you a true run for your money, which, in your case, I never thought was possible. I've got plenty more for Scott, so we'll have to wait, um, until all the evidence rolls in.

Do you not acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? Simple yes or no question for you. (See my jury example for extra help in this matter, because you desperately need it.)

Now, Goode previous stated: That's how smear artists operate. No straight answers. Just insinuation and innuendo.

And Goode has refused to answer the following questions, and until he does, it is safe to conclude he is operating as a smear artist.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Fourth time I've asked, BTW.)

Oh yeah, don't forget these:

3. You earlier claimed those statements were "nothing much to see" (see quotes in my previous post). Do you still believe those were not racist statements?

4. Ron Paul in 2008:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Do you consider the above statement by Ron Paul a lie?

(Fifth time I have asked, BTW.)

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Goode: "Here's a free lesson on the Law of Non-Contradiction, Mephitopheles.

And that piece of advice is exactly worth the cost. It does NOT have to be one or the other, dummy.

You have abdicated your mind and evicted yourself from the realm of reality.

Goodbye.

Tsk, Tsk, Goode

Michael Moeller's picture

You are forgetting to answer questions again.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Third time I've asked, BTW.)

Oh yeah, don't forget these:

3. You earlier claimed those statements were "nothing much to see" (see quotes in my previous post). Do you still believe those were not racist statements?

4. Ron Paul in 2008:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Do you consider the above statement by Ron Paul a lie?

(Fourth time I have asked, BTW.)

Still anxiously awaiting,
Michael

Yep, Goode's Plum Stupid

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode: "Here's a free lesson on the Law of Non-Contradiction, Mephitopheles.

And that piece of advice is exactly worth the cost. It does NOT have to be one or the other, dummy. Evidence first has to be gathered to determine whether something is, or is not.

When evidence is presented to a jury, they can conclude that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof. That is, there is not sufficiency of the evidence to conclude he is guilty. This does not necessarily mean, however, they think he is innocent. There could be some proof he is guilty, but not enough to support the charge. Just I said, there could be evidence on both sides, but not enough to support guilty or innocent.

If you are too stupid to get this point, there is not much else I can do to help you.

Actually, let's try this another way. Do you consider the person who made the following statements to be a racist:

"The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer."

One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Another says,

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

So are those racist statements and would you consider that person to be a racist?

Now, how about the following two quotes:

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.
AND
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts [see statements cited above]."

Now, is this person a racist?

Michael

The Law of Non-Contradiction

Richard Goode's picture

Goode: "Do you claim that Ron Paul is a racist? Yes or no?"

And I answered you with the following:

If somebody says today: "I believe in God". Then tomorrow they say: "I don't believe in God". Which do you believe, Goode? In other words, I think there is evidence on both sides, but not sufficient enough to claim either way.

Can you read? Or are you just plain dumb? I bolded it for you this time. Yes, there is such a thing as not enough evidence to make a claim either way.

So ... is that a yes or a no?

Here's a free lesson on the Law of Non-Contradiction, Mephitopheles.

[Objectivism agrees with Aristotle’s formulation of the Law of Non-Contradiction]: These truths hold good for everything that is, and not for some special genus apart from others. And all men use them, because they are true of being qua being . . . . For a principle which everyone must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis . . . . Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.

Either you DO claim that Ron Paul is a racist, or you DON'T claim that Ron Paul is a racist. It's got to be one or the other. Which is it? (Sixth time of asking, BTW.)

Since you asked nicely...

Michael Moeller's picture

And appear to be suffering from severe memory loss after you earlier claimed you "took a good look" at the articles, here are some more quotes for you:

"The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer."

One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Another says,

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

Now, please point out to me in the Hannity transcript where Scott's statement is supported.

Copy and paste, please.

Again, please tell us who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and strong-armed him into making the statements given in the interview.

Anxiously awaiting,
Michael

Goode's Reading Problems

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode: "Do you claim that Ron Paul is a racist? Yes or no?"

And I answered you with the following:

If somebody says today: "I believe in God". Then tomorrow they say: "I don't believe in God". Which do you believe, Goode? In other words, I think there is evidence on both sides, but not sufficient enough to claim either way.

Can you read? Or are you just plain dumb? I bolded it for you this time. Yes, there is such a thing as not enough evidence to make a claim either way.

Goode:

"Ron Paul has made contradictory statements on the issue of racism."

What statements are those? Copy and paste, please.

You know damn what those statements are as I linked to the articles early on this thread. I also provided a direct quote of this one when you claimed the statements were "nothing much to see":

""Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: 'Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.'"

I already pointed that out to you, along with multiple articles with more quotes. Do you have a short memory in addition to being just plain dumb? Here's a tidy example where Ron Paul claims the opposite, and also captures him lying about who wrote the racist content in his newsletters:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

He calls the previous statements he admitted making in 1996 "small-minded thoughts". Which do you believe, Goode? And if they were not racist, why would he attempt to later deny them in 2008 after he copped to them in 1996?

Michael

There you have it...

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode:

"3. When Ron Paul said the following to Hannity, was he lying?

"I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

No.

So Goode doesn't think Ron Paul lied when he claimed "somebody put those words in his mouth", and Ron Paul didn't go out and "volunteer" these statements. Great! Now let's see Goode give us evidence of who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements.

Tell us, Goode, who put those words in his mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

I am sure you have all the evidence right at the finger tips.

Goode:

4. Do you find the following quote from Scott an accurate summation of what Ron Paul said to Hannity:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Yes.

Great! Now, the transcript is here, please point out where this statement is supported in the transcript.

Copy and paste, please.

And you missed two questions:

1. You earlier claimed those statements were "nothing much to see". Do you still believe those were not racist statements?

2. Ron Paul in 2008:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Do you consider the above statement by Ron Paul a lie?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Are the following statements lies?

"I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

That is a 'yes' or 'no' question, and I want a 'yes' or 'no' answer. This will clear everything right up.

The fact that no one else on the World-Wide Web, apart from you, has made the claim that Ron Paul's statements (above) are lies confirms beyond doubt that you are NOT part of an orchestrated smear campaign against Ron Paul.

That clears everything right up.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

3. When Ron Paul said the following to Hannity, was he lying?

"I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

No.

4. Do you find the following quote from Scott an accurate summation of what Ron Paul said to Hannity:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Yes.

ego

Brant Gaede's picture

When T. Rex comes upon Triceratops what you get is what you have--here.

--Brant
ego food

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Ron Paul has made contradictory statements on the issue of racism.

What statements are those? Copy and paste, please.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I asked you a simple yes or no question, and all I get from you is

Ron Paul has made contradictory statements on the issue of racism. I did not seek to haggle over which one is true

Do you claim that Ron Paul is a racist? Yes or no?

Here's Another

Michael Moeller's picture

Free lesson on evidence for you, Ace. There is such a thing as insufficiency of the evidence. Ron Paul has made contradictory statements on the issue of racism. I did not seek to haggle over which one is true, as that was irrelevant to my point that he lied about such statements.

If somebody says today: "I believe in God". Then tomorrow they say: "I don't believe in God". Which do you believe, Goode? In other words, I think there is evidence on both sides, but not sufficient enough to claim either way.

Now your turn:

1. You earlier claimed those statements were "nothing much to see". Do you still believe those were not racist statements?

2. Ron Paul in 2008:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Do you consider the above statement by Ron Paul a lie?

3. When Ron Paul said the following to Hannity, was he lying?

"I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

4. Do you find the following quote from Scott an accurate summation of what Ron Paul said to Hannity:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

I can't wait to get you on record here, particularly with these last two questions.

Toodles!

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

A Video... Is no answer.

I bet you say that to all the boys.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I asked you a simple yes or no question, and all I get from you is

whether or not he is a racist depends on which statement of Ron Paul's you take.

Do you claim that Ron Paul is a racist? Yes or no?

(A is A. Or is it? Depends on which statements of Ayn Rand's you take.)

Um...

Michael Moeller's picture

I didn't answer your question, because you constantly evade questions when put to you, as you are doing now. I have no use for you and your evasions.

But I will answer your question in the desperate hope you will give a straight answer to the question I asked. Ron Paul copped to racist statements in his newsletters in 1996, but said he they were "taken out of context" and "misrepresented" (sound familiar?!?).

You earlier claimed those statements were "nothing much to see". Do you still believe those were not racist statements?

Then he later denied being a racist and denounced racism. Which is true? That's in Ron Paul's mind. He's given statements on both sides of the equation, and whether or not he is a racist depends on which statement of Ron Paul's you take.

My main point, however, was that he lied in 2008 when he claimed:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Do you consider the above statement by Ron Paul a lie?

I'll be awaiting your answer to these questions, as well as an answer to my other question in the previous post. Sorry I sneaked in another couple questions, but you opened the door by bringing the topic up again.

Thanks,
Michael

A Video...

Michael Moeller's picture

Is no answer. State for the record, right here, whether you consider those statements by Ron Paul are lies.

Or do you not believe the what I transcribed and agree with this shit Scott just plain made up:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

I mean, it must be true, he put it in nice BIG letters and everything.

Michael

Smear Artist

Richard Goode's picture

I asked Moeller here, here and here if he claims that Ron Paul is a racist.

It's a simple yes or no question on my part, and simple evasion on Moeller's part.

That's how smear artists operate. No straight answers. Just insinuation and innuendo.

Hot Summer Night

Richard Goode's picture

Ron Paul: Somebody put those words in my mouth
Meatloaf: You took the words right out of my mouth

Smear Artist

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode:

"It's clear enough that Scott was merely demonstrating one of Michael's strategies, the so-called Moeller Method.

I call it Moellerisation of the truth.

Really? Please point out where I did what Scott did; namely, please point out where I left out the part of a quote in which Ron Paul claimed the opposite.

And since you feel compelled to weigh in on Scott's outing of the "truth", I will ask you the same question so we can have you on record. When Ron Paul said the following to Hannity, was he lying?

"I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

Go on, smear-monger. Let's hear your answer. I want you on record as being Scott-blind to what is put right in front of your face. We'll see how much you stand for the truth.

Michael

Yep, Sandi

atlascott's picture

THIS is Americas savior?

He has some good premises, but too many bad ones.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who can speak from proper principles and apply them to reality.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

I'm finding it hard to believe what I'm seeing here, but it's clear enough that ... I am incredulous.

It's clear enough that Scott was merely demonstrating one of Michael's strategies, the so-called Moeller Method.

I call it Moellerisation of the truth.

Oh

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "It wasn't fair when I did it (sarcastically, to demonstrate how silly it is), and it certainly is not when you do it, but is more troubling because YOU are serious about it, nutter. YOU think it is irrefutable evidence.

I am sorry if the demonstration of the Moeller Method confused and upset you."

Except you have one serious problem, I never quoted Ron Paul and sliced out the part where he gave the exact opposite. Please point out where I did that.

In fact, when you disputed what was in the video, I went ahead and transcribed the whole exchange between Ron Paul and Hannity to prove that you had no basis for this:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

In fact, you just made that shit up. Look at the transript, nowhere does he admit the quote. In fact, he says those words were put in his mouth. In fact, nowhere does he "clarify" that "he didn't offer it but was lead into it by the interviewer". You are just making shit up and hoping nobody actually watches the video.

Nice try, though.

Michael

Explanation

atlascott's picture

You evidently weren't bright enough to understand that I was subjecting you to the treatment you have sought to visit upon Ron Paul.

This paragraph

"NOW are you starting to see how ridiculous your outrage is? How ridiculous your approach is amongst those who are beyond the age of, say, 8 years?"

Was the dead giveaway that I was using the same "evidence" you use against Dr. Paul.

It wasn't fair when I did it (sarcastically, to demonstrate how silly it is), and it certainly is not when you do it, but is more troubling because YOU are serious about it, nutter. YOU think it is irrefutable evidence.

I am sorry if the demonstration of the Moeller Method confused and upset you.

So, who is a better candidate than Ron Paul?

Read it again

atlascott's picture

You know me better than to believe that I would argue that is Michael's position.

I don't parse explanations or choose excerpts of quotes like that.

Never have, never will. Have no fear on that count.

I was merely demonstrating my estimation of one of Michael's strategies, here.

I do not appreciate such gamesmanship in derogation of the truth.

As a further clarification, I regard even Ron Paul haters on this site to be better people and more rational than, for example, virtually everyone in Chicago.

Things are heated, but Michael is a bright, but mistaken, fellow willing to compromise things he ought not in the anti-Paul crusade, IMO.

Just calling nonsense for what it is, by demonstrating the Moeller technique in a simpler, more direct way.

Scott

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm finding it hard to believe what I'm seeing here, but it's clear enough that you've tried to turn

Scott earlier had agreed with my analysis of the 10th (see page 1 post from Scott on 2011-10-06 03:28), but claimed that my arguments in regards to Ron Paul were merely "suppositions"

into

my arguments in regards to Ron Paul were merely "suppositions"

I am incredulous.

Here He Goes Again

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott asks:

"Moeller: "my arguments in regards to Ron Paul were merely "suppositions" "

Did you write that? Are those your words?

Those are your own words. Plain English. Right here on this thread. Irrefutable proof that your arguments against Ron Paul are mere suppositions.

Admit it now, or risk losing all credibility."

Hmmm, that's interesting. Here is the post in which I made the statement, except that my actual statement was this:

Scott earlier had agreed with my analysis of the 10th (see page 1 post from Scott on 2011-10-06 03:28), but claimed that my arguments in regards to Ron Paul were merely "suppositions" (see page 1 post from Scott called "Ron Paul and the 10th Amendment") -- even after I provided quotes from a debate and articles.

I was clearly talking about Scott claiming my arguments were "suppositions". And he does so in the named post. Yet, Scott leaves that part out entirely to make it look as if I said my own arguments were "suppositions". I was refuting the idea that my arguments were "suppositions".

This scoundrel tried to exerpt part of my sentence to make it look as if I was claiming the opposite.

Could this cretin be anymore dishonest?

Explain yourself and the dishonest parsing of my sentence. Right here and now.

Michael

Herman Cain on Libya

Sandi's picture

 

Source: "The Washington Post"

Behold

Michael Moeller's picture

The True Believer in all his glory. If you want an example of a True Believer who cannot see the plain, English meaning of words put right in front of his face, you can point to this example:

Scott: "No, Michael. They are not lies, and for precisely for the reasons stated before."

There you have it, folks. When Ron Paul was called out for something he said in an interview and responded that "somebody put those words in his mouth", he was not lying, according to Scott.

When Ron Paul voluntarily offered these statements in an interview, then later claimed that he did not "volunteer" these statements, he was not lying according to Scott.

Does Scott admit he was making shit up when he claimed that Ron Paul said to Hannity that he "was lead into it by the interviewer"? Nope. Does he show from the transcript where Ron Paul defended what he said about Hannity to Hannity? Nope.

Instead, Scott would rather talk about whether he likes hummingbirds or not. Bwhahahaha.

Game. Set. Match.

Michael

True or False

atlascott's picture

Look, scoundrel, this is a yes or no question, all right?

None of your nonsense.

Moeller: "He can throw out as many unsupported charges against me as he wants"

Yes or no, did you write that?

If you did, then WHY do you care whether I level unsupported charges at you?

Those are your own words, right on this very thread, in black and white.

Here's another.

True or false, Michael.

Moeller: "my arguments in regards to Ron Paul were merely "suppositions" "

Did you write that? Are those your words?

Those are your own words. Plain English. Right here on this thread. Irrefutable proof that your arguments against Ron Paul are mere suppositions.

Admit it now, or risk losing all credibility.

NOW are you starting to see how ridiculous your outrage is? How ridiculous your approach is amongst those who are beyond the age of, say, 8 years?

It is REMARKABLE the extent you which you will burn calories to defend the indefensible and vainly attempt to smear the best member of Congress and the most honest and erudite member of Congress.

That's how I know: (1) you have a run-away ego which trumps reality; and (2) you have an agenda regarding Ron Paul that is clear as day. Good luck with that.

Just not while I am around to reveal your true nature.

Asses and Walls

atlascott's picture

"and I will nail his ass to the wall with it"

Someone's ass is nailed to the wall, here, buddy.

You are right that you nailed it to the wall.

You are just confused as to whose posterior has been posted upon the plywood.

Sad

atlascott's picture

No, Michael. They are not lies, and for precisely for the reasons stated before.

Words have context and therein lies their meaning. Your penchant for parsing to the purpose of transmogrifying an explanation into a prevarication is a pathology.

I like birds. Except hummingbirds. I really hate hummingbirds. Other than that, I really love birds.

Moeller's approach:

Here are DeSalvo's EXACT WORDS.

"I like birds."

Moeller's question: "Yes or No - does DeSalvo love hummingbirds?"

I mean, SERIOUSLY. SERIOUSLY?

Disgusted

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "I am bored with it, frankly."

Well, I'm absolutely disgusted. I can't remember the last time somebody has leveled so many accusations without a shred of evidence. Hell, he cannot admit Ron Paul lied when it is put right in front of his damn face, and then turns around and accuses me of "misrepresentation".

I gave Scott plenty of leeway early in this thread when he accused me of "misrepresentations" and such. I figured he would at some point back them up. Well, I've asked him over and over again and he has obstinately refused. He can't be bothered with "research projects" (read: providing evidence), you see.

As a result, I will show him no mercy. I will continue to illustrate that he is a scoundrel who levels unsupported accusations, and I will nail his ass to the wall with it. He's brought his treachery onto the wrong turf, this time.

Michael

Transcript of Ron Paul on Hannity and Scott's Treachery

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "Some of us face it, and enjoy its warm glow on our faces, and the sense of well-being and health it engenders."

Unreal, absolutely unreal. Scott, thus far, has been hiding behind statements Ron Paul allegedly said in the video where he defends his statements, so I took the liberty of typing up the entire exchange. Let's see how my claims hold up, and how Scott's claims hold up, shall we?

First Hannity puts up this quote from Ron Paul's interview in the NJ Ledger

""Q: Do you think radio talk show people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin fear that you’re making them obsolete because your views reveal them as the statists they are?

A [Ron Paul]: I think that if I gain influence it’s an embarrassment to them because they’re not really limited-government people yet they make their livelihood fooling the people into thinking they’re the real leaders of limited government. And when you look at it we find out that they haven’t been. Look at Bush’s eight years. The budget exploded."

Then the exchange goes as follows:

Hannity: "I'm thinking, I agree with you on cutting a trillion. I agree with the Mac-Penny Plan. I thought Republicans spent too much money, and this president is four times worse. Where did that statement come from?"

Paul: "Well, I think somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it because I think in many ways what I've talked about for forty years now, is now becoming pretty conventional. Uh, you know with the monetary policy and the auditing of the Fed and the really cutting [sic], and so I do think, indirectly, I put a lot of pressure on them. But, uh, if you look at it, I didn't go out and volunteer this, but I do think that there hasn't been anybody really leading the charge and saying: Look this is serious, we need to cut. So sometimes I think there are a lotta, uh, and I deal with a lotta so-called conservatives in Washington, and, and, Sean, you know that they are not as conservative as they pretend to be, or we wouldn't be in this mess. "

Hannity: "Ever since I was on radio and TV, I have used government waste -- The Citizens Against Government Waste. I've talked about money that has been mismanaged, misappropriated. I didn't even support prescription drug plans when Republicans were spending too much money -- in the latter years of the Bush years -- when 2006, 7, and 8 came along. I said they're spending too much money as did a lot of conservatives like Mark and Rush, so I think that charge was unfair..."

They then go on to talk about foreign policy.

So Scott claims Ron Paul copped to the statements he made about Hannity. Really? REALLY?

There is the entire transcript of the exchange. Where-oh-where, Scottie my boy, does Ron Paul defend what he said about Hannity to Hannity? It's all right in front of you now.

Secondly, my claim was that Ron Paul lied. The first two bolded statements clearly show he lied, so I am absolutely correct. 100% correct, right there in bold.

Scott previously said in nice BIG letters for everybody: "RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

REALLY? Where does Ron Paul admit the quote? He says somebody put the words in his mouth. Sheesh, talk about "misrepresentation".

Where does he say he was "lead into it by the interviewer"? Scott just made that shit up! Again, where-oh-where, does he tell Hannity that he is a statist or "fooling people into thinking they're [Rush, Hannity, Levin] the real leaders behind limited government"?

He doesn't, he never defends the statement. He simply tells Hannity that somebody put those words in his mouth, then goes on to talk about "so-called conservatives in Washington".

Let's try this simple question one more time for Scott, because he is sorely deficient in reading what is put right in front of his face. Are the following statements lies?

"I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

That is a 'yes' or 'no' question, and I want a 'yes' or 'no' answer. This will clear everything right up.

Michael

Thanks, Richard

atlascott's picture

Much appreciated. Nice to see someone is paying attention to Michael's mistake or delusion or whatever.

I note with some interest that the other readers here, though clearly not fans of Ron Paul, still refuse to sink to Moellerian depths of denying the reality of what is plain on the issue of the video and Michael's fabrications re: same.

Rather than taking this as a sign, Moeller subtly changes his position (which I take to be a bit of an admission on his part) but still cannot look directly at reality, as if it were the sun burning his eyes on a hot noon day.

Some of us face it, and enjoy its warm glow on our faces, and the sense of well-being and health it engenders.

Yeah, you're right

atlascott's picture

There is no politician -- even Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan - who is clean. Politics sucks, and anyone involved in it has to be willing to get into the mud. No one walks out clean.

But there is dirty, and then there is dirty.

I dig Reagan for helping Americans to feel proud of being American, and for drawing the moral lines of the Cold War so clearly. America needed that. But he did lots of crap stuff.

I feel the same way about Ron Paul. Not perfect. Dirty from 30 years of rolling around in the muck stall of politics. But with more honesty and integrity than anyone else, and a good understanding of a lot of what ails America. Unlike the other Republicans who "claim" to understand the need for smaller government, Ron Paul ACTUALLY does. The other pretenders hopped right on the bandwagon after they initially criticized the Tea Party. Now, they want to be engineer of the Tea Party Express.

"...contretemps with M.M. in detail so I can't pass judgment on that..."

Not asking you, or anyone else to do so. I am bored with it, frankly.

James Taggart

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "I will not retract any statement or conclusion I believe is true, even if I have refused your ridiculous research projects you'd have me undertake."

Translation: Scott doesn't need evidence for his accusations. He can't be bothered with researching the facts. He just needs to believe his accusations are true.

Again, if what I have written is as "sloppy" as Scott claims, he should have no trouble correcting the record. None whatsoever. It should not be much of a "research project" in that case. So why is he evading and stalling?

Thus far he has refused to back anything up with evidence, except to deny what is put right in front of his face.

"Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me". James Taggart in the flesh.

Delusional True Believer

Michael Moeller's picture

Let the record show once and for all that Scott has not provided a shred of evidence to back up his accusations. Not one shred of evidence. I've asked him about a zillion times, and he has refused every time, only to come back later and repeat the charges. His refusal to provide evidence -- along with his continued repeating of the charges -- speaks volumes about his level of dishonesty.

Scott: "Are you going to post the whole story or another of your carefully chosen partial depictions?

Yep, I figured your ego could not allow for admission of an obvious error."

Bwhahahahaha!! Ron Paul's lie was put directly in front of Scott's face, and he cannot bring himself to admit it is a lie. Unbelievable. The plain, English meaning of words have no import to Scott -- not when it comes to disrupting the facade he has foisted upon his idol. Scott tries to once again divert by saying Ron Paul spells it out elsewhere.

Ok, we have that Ron Paul blatantly lied when he said this: "I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

Let's make it reeeaaaallllll simple for Scott: is this statement a lie? That is a 'yes' or 'no' question. Let's see if he answers.

Now, the original Q&A was:

"Q: Do you think radio talk show people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin fear that you’re making them obsolete because your views reveal them as the statists they are?

A [Ron Paul]: I think that if I gain influence it’s an embarrassment to them because they’re not really limited-government people yet they make their livelihood fooling the people into thinking they’re the real leaders of limited government. And when you look at it we find out that they haven’t been. Look at Bush’s eight years. The budget exploded."

Will Scott please provide a quote from the video where he cops to this? No, I do not mean "other conservative politicians in Washington", but rather where he challenges Hannity himself on this point. The Pipsqueak Paul doesn't, because he is a coward and will not only deny making the comments, but will try to shift the objects of his attacks to "other conservative politicians in Washington". Paul is nothing more than an opportunist who will trash somebody, and then when he appears on their show, pretend like he never said what he said and divert in every way possible. A slimy scoundrel, like Scott.

But let's see Scott pull some quotes from that video where Ron Paul challenges Hannity himself in lieu of the earlier statements he made about the man. I can't wait for Scott to provide us with these quotes.

And let's not forget Scott's continued evasions in providing evidence for his accusations. He did it here again when I asked him simply if Ron Paul lied when he in 2008 in response to the questions about his newsletters:

""The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Scott evaded this question, and that's Galt knows how many evasions from Scott at this point. He obstinately refuses to provide any evidence and says maybe in the future when and if he chooses to back them up. Nope, as long as Scott "believes" his accusations to be true, he cannot be bothered with providing evidence.

Can you imagine anybody else operating under this premise? That is, throw out as many unsupported charges as possible, then when asked to provide evidence over and over again, refuse to produce a shred of it. I can't believe the level to which Scott has sunk. Instead he offers:

"Are you starting to see why I do not waste my time on your research projects?"

I saw it a long time ago. You cannot defend your accusations with evidence, so you evade and stall, and evade and stall, hoping they will go away. If you had an ounce of integrity, you would provide evidence. Since you have no integrity, you continue to repeat accusations without evidence. That's the sum of it.

Michael

My understanding, Scott

Brant Gaede's picture

is that he did everything he could to sluice Federal dollars into his Congressional district. That makes it either a lack of philosophy or a lack of integrity on a certain level or some kind of combination.

This is no big deal to me in any politician. Even Barry Goldwater supported the Central Arizona Project.

My problem with Ron Paul is defending this country, but he's not going to be nominated as far as I can tell and any Republican who is elected President next year will preside over an epic political disaster as the economy continues to get worse. Doing the right thing will just make it happen faster causing more immediate pain and the Republicans will get kicked out of Washington en masse, maybe for decades; maybe forever.

So far, the best bet is Obama is re-elected. I'm holding my nose.

--Brant
(I have not followed your contretemps with M.M. in detail so I can't pass judgment on that, but it reminds me of adversarial legal arguments in a court of law with ad hominem twists.)

dup

Brant Gaede's picture

dup

Well?

atlascott's picture

Are you going to post the whole story or another of your carefully chosen partial depictions?

Right, why would you change your strategy when it seems to be working so well for you.

Yep, I figured your ego could not allow for admission of an obvious error.

Which lends even more support for the other, inevitable, conclusion: that you have no regard for the truth, and will (mis)interpret everything you see as damning of Paul.

And you did it, right here on the interwebz for all the world to see.

And you did it to yourself. All I had to do was leave you to it.

Are you starting to see why I do not waste my time on your research projects?

Hint: I do not have to. You impeach yourself.

Um, Hellloooooo

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "I am going to help you here. We both agree that Ron Paul used the term "words in my mouth" -- but that's where your brain stopped. That is why it was a rotten misrepresentation on your part."

No, he said: "somebody put those words in my mouth". Who is that somebody? How is this not a lie? Man-oh-man, how expansive is your ability to evade? Truly surreal.

Let me help you here, because you have a very, very serious problem with the plain, English meaning of words. The quote Hannity used from the NJ Ledger was about Levin, Rush, and Hannity being "statists". Hannity says he's never been called that in his career. First Ron Paul does not name Hannity, Levin, or Rush -- the ones specifically named in the interview question -- he tries to divert by talking about "other conservative politicians in Washington who are not as conservative as they claim to be". Not only is he lying about somebody "putting those words in his mouth", he is too much of a coward to call out Hannity specifically and instead blathers about "other conservative politicians in Washington". Wake up, pal, he was talking about Hannity and is being interviewed by Hannity, but tries to dodge in every way possible -- from claiming somebody put those words in his mouth to throwing out boilerplate regarding "other conservative politicians" in Washington.

You also forgot something in your reply. When questioned in 2008 on the content of his newsletters, Ron Paul stated:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Are you going to answer or continue to evade?

Michael

I did

atlascott's picture

"Will Scott ever support those charges with evidence? "

Well, actually, you did it to yourself. I knew you would, eventually.

Rather than admit your error, if it was an error, you deny reality.

Just admit the error regarding your baseless accusations of lying and pandering with respect to the video, and maybe I will go on to your next error, evasion, or misrepresentation. If I feel like it, and when I have time.

I am going to help you here. We both agree that Ron Paul used the term "words in my mouth" -- but that's where your brain stopped. That is why it was a rotten misrepresentation on your part.

Because Paul goes on to restate the contents of the article in a more polite way, which is what you do if you are a gentleman on a show to which your were invited as a guest. He neither lied nor pandered. Just admit that this event does not support your thesis.

It was a scummy maneuver if intentional. If not intentional, then just retract the argument and I will retract calling it a scummy maneuver and as a sign of good faith, I will retract that one bit of evidence as support of your shadow agenda here.

Let's see which is larger: your ego, or your ability to perceive reality and comport with it.

Really, Brant?

atlascott's picture

"While Ron Paul isn't a particularly straight shooter apropos his political career..."

You are entitled to your opinion, but what makes you say this about Paul, especially in comparison to other Washington politicians?

I am always interested in finding out more about politicians especially, because I think that integrity and politics are rather incompatible.

Surreal Part Deux

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott:

"I will not retract any statement or conclusion I believe is true, even if I have refused your ridiculous research projects you'd have me undertake.

You'll just have to deal with it.

Now, are you going to answer any of the questions I have posited here and on the other thread?"

Absolutely surreal. He "believes" his accusations to be true, so he cannot be bothered to provide evidence. He can throw out as many unsupported charges against me as he wants, but as long as in his own mind he believes them to be true, then it is a-okay. Evidence need not apply. I just have "to deal with it".

And he expects me to carry on a debate under such circumstances? Just revisit this thread and ALL THE MATERIAL and substantive arguments I put out there, only to be charged with "misrepresentations" and such. When he couldn't defend any of it, he simply moved on to the next topic, as he is now. No, Scott is not into "research", as long as he believes it is true that's good enough. He, too, should have the epitaph: "Evidence has nothing to do with it!"

Hey...wanna debate some more, he says?!?

Here's the deal, Scott: I am more than happy to answer any question or engage in any debate, but first you have to back these charges up with evidence.

Ball is in your court.

Scott: "If you think that this means I have ceded the argument or the truth, you're dead wrong."

You have, and I proved it.

Bosom Buddies

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode: "I canceled my vote for Cain and gave it to Paul."

Goode here on another thread:

You know what your problem is, Leonid? Funnily enough, it's the same as Ron Paul's.

the problem with Ron Paul is not that he cuts his political philosophy with intellectual strychnine, but that his political philosophy is pure libertarianism, cut with nothing.

The problem is that pure libertarianism is strychnine. I'm 99% libertarian. Call the other 1% whatever you want, but it's the 1% that recognises that libertarianism as a philosophy actually doesn't have the philosophical resources to deal with the Musselman. It's the 1% that says no to giving a free pass to a death cult.

WTFU.

Well, who can expect Goode to hold to his own opinions when he has an axe to grind and wants to get in a dig. Bwhahahaha!

One scoundrel providing cover for another -- ain't it somethin'!

Michael

Surreal

Michael Moeller's picture

I present articles, quotes, videos. Scott presents nothing but accusations backed up with zero evidence, such as "misleading", "misrepresentations", "sloppy", yada yada. Asked one hundred times to back up those accusations with facts, he has continually declined.

Will Scott ever support those charges with evidence? After all, if my analyses are as "sloppy" as he claims, he should have no problem refuting them with evidence. But he can't back up his charges, so he won't. He'll just continue to evade, which is a level of fundamental dishonesty that would make even Goode blush. But since I have asked umpteen times, doesn't hurt to ask again for Scott to pony up all the evidence he can muster. Here are the questions for the millionth time, let's see if Scott can spurn the Chutzpah of the Year Award.

In the meantime, you know you are dealing with a True Believer when you give him a direct quote, and the guy still denies the truth. Absolutely surreal the lengths these True Believers will go to excuse Ron Paul. Let this be a warning to anybody wanting to deal with Scott in debate. Just look at the following, which are direct quotes, not Scott's attempt to explain away the plain meaning of words to fit his narrative:

Hannity quoted Ron Paul from the NJ Ledger, and Ron Paul responded: "I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

This is a direct quote from Ron Paul, and Scott says: "....Ron Paul DID NOT LIE as you accused him". Does Scott have proof that the interview was a fake and somebody put words in his mouth, as Ron Paul claimed? Nope, he just asserts it, like everything else on this thread. This guy is so addled with True Believerism that he cannot come to terms with the plain, English meaning of words and admit that Ron Paul lied. Absolutely surreal the cover these True Believers give Ron Paul.

Let's try another on the Scott, and see if he can come to terms with the plain, English meaning of words, unlike above. Let's see if he will answer instead of evade like usual.

When questioned in 2008 on the content of his newsletters, Ron Paul stated:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Does Scott consider THIS a lie from Ron Paul? Let's see if Scott answers or continues to evade.

Michael

The judge's decision is final

Richard Goode's picture

Let everyone on this site read your accusations, and then watch the video, and see your carefully chosen partial quote, and then, watch the video and see for themselves that Ron Paul DID NOT LIE as you accused him, and DID NOT PANDER but rather, politely restated the gist of the newspaper quote.

We agree -- let everyone watch it and see your sloppy work here, and extrapolate.

I hope they do.

I did. My verdict: DeSalvo 1, Moeller 0.

And, what's more—I never thought I'd do this, but ...—I canceled my vote for Cain and gave it to Paul.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Do you accuse Ron Paul of racism?

Well

Brant Gaede's picture

While Ron Paul isn't a particularly straight shooter apropos his political career and it'd be a mistake if he were President, as opposed to the Secretary of the Treasury, he's the only significant Republican candidate who knows the true economics of the current situation.

I'm afraid we don't want a Republican elected President in 2012. Anyone doing the right thing will be blamed for the necessary pain for which there is no anesthetic available except the man-up truth. The country has to smash; the Reps don't need the blame for that or it's Dems forever, or, it might as well be forever.

I love to see lawyers fight. Serves their egos right.

--Brant
won't see me in court; life's too short--so thanks for this little fun

We agree!

atlascott's picture

We agree, then.

Let everyone on this site read your accusations, and then watch the video, and see your carefully chosen partial quote, and then, watch the video and see for themselves that Ron Paul DID NOT LIE as you accused him, and DID NOT PANDER but rather, politely restated the gist of the newspaper quote.

We agree -- let everyone watch it and see your sloppy work here, and extrapolate.

I hope they do.

And why...

Michael Moeller's picture

Does Scott fill up two posts trying to explain away Ron Paul's response to Hannity instead of quoting him directly like I did? Gee, I wonder.

Ron Paul to Hannity: "I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

Hannity quotes directly and Ron Paul says somebody put those words in his mouth. Scott considers this putting it more "tactfully". I report, you decide.

Oh, be my guest in correcting my alleged errors, Scott. I've asked you umpteen times and all you've given is "later" or unsupported accusations or moved on to another subject. And may you be judged appropriately for such behavior, which is disgraceful.

Michael

Re-confirmation

atlascott's picture

I just watched the video again.

Man, Michael, you are dead, dead wrong on this.

RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!

Thanks for re-hashing it. You have done more here, succinctly, to give readers here a thumbnail sketch of your dishonest approach than all of my posts combined.

Bravo.

You can avoid reality but not its consequences, and the consequence of dishonesty or delusion is that you will eventually be caught, by your own inconsistency.

And here, you have.

You Pick

atlascott's picture

Go ahead and pick any American politician in the media.

I would be able to do the same thing you have tried to do to Ron Paul, but for the reasonable voices of Ross and Sandi and I.

And it wouldn't be fair or in the pursuit of truth and honesty if I did it, either.

So, even if I HAD the time to orchestrate such nonsense, I wouldn't.

Baby Alinsky, trying to make sure he shouts "LIAR" first and loudest and most repeatedly.

I have explained to you -- I have "made" you. I see you have some agenda here.

Every time I have time, I will point out where you are wrong and when you are not being fair, and, yes, where you are being less than honest or merely negligently mistaken.

But only as I have time and when and as I choose.

If you think that this means I have ceded the argument or the truth, you're dead wrong.

I will not retract any statement or conclusion I believe is true, even if I have refused your ridiculous research projects you'd have me undertake.

You'll just have to deal with it.

Now, are you going to answer any of the questions I have posited here and on the other thread?

You're Caught

atlascott's picture

Here's what the idiom means:

put words in (to) someone's mouth
Fig. to interpret what someone said so that the words mean what you want and not what the speaker wanted.

YOUR CLAIM is that RON PAUL was lying and pandering and DENYING that he said:

"I think that if I gain influence it’s an embarrassment to them because they’re not really limited-government people yet they make their livelihood fooling the people into thinking they’re the real leaders of limited government. And when you look at it we find out that they haven’t been. Look at Bush’s eight years. The budget exploded."

...in the video interview.

Instead, what happens is that Ron Paul, when called on it during an interview by one of the very same celebrities is to clarify that he was not out there, fronting the above, but that it came out in the interview. Ron Paul uses the term "putting words in my mouth" to describe this phenomenon - not particularly wanting to go into an issue, but being steered into it by an interviewer.

Then, immediately afterwards in the video, RON PAUL REPEATS WHAT HE SAID IN THE PRINT INTERVIEW, though more tactfully. This utterly destroys your charges that he is pandering or lying. He is being polite, though.

YOU accused him, on this basis, of lying, reversing himself, etc.

In fact, he takes a very uncomfortable situation and handles it honestly and with integrity.

I can see why you are having a hard time identifying honesty and integrity when you see it. You are either out to smear him no matter what, or you are seeing through such clouded lenses that all you see is red.

You're right about True Believers, though, Michael, but only to the extent that you are an exemplar of same.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Do you claim that Ron Paul is a racist?

Chutzpah of the Year Award

Michael Moeller's picture

Check this out: "Situation C: Same statement, and Michael has video of SOMETHING, and excerpts and statements of SOMETHING, which he claims as irrefutable proof of his positions, and upon closer inspection, they are misrepresentations, carefully chosen, but prove nothing. He then challenges all comers to waste their time by reviewing his sources, in toto, simply to discover that he is either lazy in service of his preconceived notions, or outright dishonest."

Absolutely astounding, that. From Ron Paul, I cite articles, quotes from debates, videos, blogs, newspapers, etc., but this creep has the audacity to suggest that I am misrepresenting. All the while, the creep can not at all be bothered to rebut any of it -- not a single thing. No, merely blurting out that all these articles -- including many, many quotes from Ron Paul himself -- are "misrepresentations" is enough for the True Believer. He has proven nothing, and he knows it. All he has offered contrary to the facts I have cited is mindless bauble. You can be damn well sure that the True Believer would have offered contrary facts if he could. But he can't, so he evades like mad.

He doesn't have contrary evidence, so flings a desperate hope and prayer that people will disbelieve their own eyes while he completely evades giving evidence for his charges. Let's once again document the True Believer's dishonesty and evasions -- these facts must be put in evidence once again as a warning to anybody expecting honest debate from Scott:

1. Here Scott said I did not use "accurate inputs" in my dismantling of Ron Paul's foreign policy. I asked him to outline the positions I got wrong, and he says that he rejects that burden (see 2nd sentence in his third section).

Talk about laziness, Scott cannot be bothered to back up his claims of inaccurate "inputs" -- just accept his word for it.

Evasion #1 from Scott's dishonest and dirty bag of tricks.

2. Here Scott says that those against Ron Paul dissolve into "attack dogs" that name-call and smear Ron Paul, even after I asked him to dispute my evidence. Actually, it is Scott dissolving into name-calling, as I had not called him any name up to that point, only Ron Paul. I asked him for a "smear", and, per Scott's M.O., he declined to provide any evidence.

Again, Scott cannot be bothered to provide evidence for alleged "smears".

Evasion #2 from Scott's dishonest and dirty bag of tricks.

3. After I linked to many sources on Ron Paul's character issues, Scott called it "purposely misleading" and "scummy", but once against refused point out what exactly was misleading when asked by both myself and Linz.

Linz and Doug clearly saw Scott's blatant evasion in the matter, but Scott expects people to simply be distracted by his unsupported charges. He does not attempt to refute any of the facts cited in a multitude of articles about Ron Paul and his newsletters, because the True Believer can't refute the facts. He just ignores them in the desperate hope they will go away and nobody will look at the facts.

Evasion #3 from Scott's dishonest and dirty bag of tricks.

4. Not only does the True Believer stoop to dishonest charges of "misrepresentation", he acts like the substance he could not rebut has been refuted. Multiple times, including here (see page 1 post from me entitled "Scott" from 2011-10-06 02:59), I gave explicit quotes regarding Ron Paul's position on the 14th Amendment, and how Ron Paul would allow the states to run roughshod over individual rights via the 10th Amendment. Scott earlier had agreed with my analysis of the 10th (see page 1 post from Scott on 2011-10-06 03:28), but claimed that my arguments in regards to Ron Paul were merely "suppositions" (see page 1 post from Scott called "Ron Paul and the 10th Amendment") -- even after I provided quotes from a debate and articles. I asked Scott to provide evidence to the contrary (see page 1 post from me entitled "Suppositions and such"), and, as usual, he ignored the request for evidence and went on his merry way as if an argument was never made, or that he proved a damn thing.

Evasion #4 from Scott's dishonest and dirty bag of tricks.

After Scott blathered about Ron Paul reducing the size of government, I pointed out how he does not address entitlements in his actual budget -- the biggest deficit-exploding and rights-violating programs in the federal government. Scott offered the laughable excuse that Ron Paul would lose votes by attacking entitlements, thus proving he will support "big government" when the big government policies are offered by Ron Paul. So much for Scott and limited government.

Since Scott cannot prove one single "misrepresentation", the honest thing for him to do would be to retract the charges. But Scott is not honest.

Thus, I would like to welcome everybody to the True Believer's Bottomless Bag of Dishonest and Dirty Tricks.

Michael

Scratch the surface of a...

Michael Moeller's picture

...True Believer and you can see the level of dishonesty to which he will stoop to defend his idol -- no matter the facts to the contrary.

Scott: "...a review of the video you posted and then lied about is about all it takes to discover your agenda, here."

Here's the video.

What Scott claims Ron Paul said: "Dr. Paul ADMITTED that he said what he said. HE DID NOT DENY IT. He didn't pander or reverse himself. Shame on you, Michael."

What Ron Paul actually said in the NJ Ledger interview:

"Q: Do you think radio talk show people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin fear that you’re making them obsolete because your views reveal them as the statists they are?

A [Ron Paul]: I think that if I gain influence it’s an embarrassment to them because they’re not really limited-government people yet they make their livelihood fooling the people into thinking they’re the real leaders of limited government. And when you look at it we find out that they haven’t been. Look at Bush’s eight years. The budget exploded."

And then to Hannity: "I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

Yes, he most certainly DID deny saying that in the interview when he lied by claiming that somebody "put words in his mouth" and he "didn't go out and volunteer this". It's all right there on video, and Scott is being dishonest when he says Ron Paul "admitted" to Hannity what Ron Paul said in the interview. The words were volunteered right from his own mouth.

Like I said, scratch the surface of True Believer and you find a denial even of basic facts caught on video.

Michael

Absolutely eye-popping

atlascott's picture

Absolutely eye-popping, the depth and breadth of Michael's insidious strategies:

"Evidence has nothing to do with it, he says. Let's try this on for size.

Situation A: I say: "Richard Goode beats his wife". No evidence for the statement at all.

Situation B: Same statement, and I have video of him beating his wife, along with testimony from his wife and eye-witnesses."

To which, I add:

Situation C: Same statement, and Michael has video of SOMETHING, and excerpts and statements of SOMETHING, which he claims as irrefutable proof of his positions, and upon closer inspection, they are misrepresentations, carefully chosen, but prove nothing. He then challenges all comers to waste their time by reviewing his sources, in toto, simply to discover that he is either lazy in service of his preconceived notions, or outright dishonest.

Goode has the right of it. Some will accept the mud slinging under scenario A. Some will accept it under Scenario B. And some will accept it under Scenario C.

Except we have seen nothing of Scenario B, here, and plenty of A and C.

Mud-slinging.

Laughable that Michael would object to the suggestion that he is a big-government Objectivist when he criticizes the foreign policy of friendship and free trade in preference to nation-building and occupation - which, by definition, require a larger government. Higher taxes. Bigger bureaucracy. The very things running America into the ground.

Laughable that he is free with calling names but accurate descriptions of his conduct cut him to the quick.

He is happier retreating to baiting Sandi in a Truther debate than offering any alternative candidates or foreign policies. Because there are none within a country mile of Ron Paul, and for precisely the reason Sandi identifies: INTEGRITY.

Witness the multi-front smear, very stategic, attack: attacks on Paul's CHARACTER - which are utterly untenable and factually incorrect (the main point of Michael's clear-as-day LIE about what Paul says as documented in a video cited by Michael) and his POSITIONS via misrepresentations of same based on sound bites.

Then, the demand that opponents review voluminous posts and their sources.

Then, denial when caught in a bald-faced, outright misrepresentation.

Then, name calling.

Then, citation to third parties calling the candidate a "loon" and his supporters as "true-believers" -- a reference which was developed to describe those who cling to a religious view -- which is perfect in its way, since many in the GOP now support Cain, who is, in fact, a real true believer who refers to the Bible when faced with a moral or political challenge.

There is something behind this for Michael. I do not know what it is. But it certainly is not a desire to accurately describe Ron Paul, his character or his positions on issues.

One need not catalog every error or misrepresentation of a writer here to get the gist of their accuracy or a sense of their agenda.

No

atlascott's picture

I already described and rejected the time-wasting in which you are begging me to participate.

I have already told you: NO.

Luckily, a brief exploration of Ron Paul's positions on his site, and a review of the video you posted and then lied about is about all it takes to discover your agenda, here.

It isn't honest understanding, and it isn't good faith.

But where you peddle misrepresentations, I'll poke my head in and let you know: I see you, Michael.

Ross and Sandi see this pretty clearly, too.

Good day, sir!

Michael

Sandi's picture

Please, no more videos (they are excruciatingly stupid)

And yours are not?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Is Ron Paul a racist? (In the pejorative sense of the term.)

Making it easy for you...

Michael Moeller's picture

Here is the post. Now get to it.

In One Indisputable Video...

Michael Moeller's picture

Ron Paul lied, and YOU tried to misrepresent it. Yes, holding to a position in defiance of basic facts makes you a True Believer. Sorry.

Are you ever going to back up your accusations of misrepresentation? Or do you just throw bombs and not care about the fallout? Answer my questions directly, or these leveling of accusations is beyond shameful. Do it now, or stand in judgment for leveling unsupported accusations.

As Moynihan said: you can choose your own opinions, but you cannot choose your own facts.

Michael

The Facts Are the Facts

atlascott's picture

And here they are:

You don't like my pointing out your misrepresentations here, one in an actual, indisputable video, from which you still seek to repair or deny.

You nitpick Paul based on your fractional and/or inaccurate understanding of Paul's positions.

Ergo, I am a true believer. Whatever, pal.

You have yet to present a single candidate whose has even half of Dr. Paul's prodigius intellect, understanding of both history and the Constitution, and his committment to individual liberty.

Sandi and Ross have the absolute right of this, and the GOP hates Paul because he would work to dismantle the big government con.

One point of clarification, though, since you keep repeating the falsehood.

Ron Paul does NOT support tyrranny in any form perpetrated by any government or individual.
This is especially poignant when comparing Paul's views with all other candidates.

You do not get to use straw men as real arguments.

Getting the story wrong...

Marcus's picture

...about the death of Osama bin Laden several times and the mysterious burial.

Playing Golf beforehand.

Calling Netanyahu a liar.

You can imagine that George Bush would have been called an "idiot" and "dishonest" for this stuff.

Whereas Obama gets a free ride from the US press. At least I can't find much on it.

Why?

Osama bin Laden 'was dead in 90 seconds'

A controversial new account of the killing of Osama bin Laden has challenged the official story of the how the al-Qaeda leader died during the raid on his Pakistani hideout in May.

Revealed: How Obama was playing golf until 20 minutes before Navy SEALs began mission to take out Bin Laden

Stayed out on golf course to distance himself if it went wrong, book claims

Sarkozy and Obama's Netanyahu gaffe

Marcus's picture

"The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, described the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, as a "liar" in a private exchange with Barack Obama at last week's G20 summit in Cannes that was inadvertently broadcast to journalists.

"I cannot stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama.

The US president responded by saying: "You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day."

Neither leader apparently realised that microphones that had been attached for a press conference were still switched on, allowing journalists to hear the embarrassing exchange."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

Goode

Michael Moeller's picture

You gave me quite the laugh on that one.

Michael

The nuts and bolts of Man made Global Warming

Sandi's picture

Are also of no concern to me. I am not a scientist. Furthermore this is not a line of research that I have dedicated much time to. But based on the information available which I have sought and read. It is of my opinion that it is utter bullshit.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

The nuts and bolts of 9/11 are of no concern to me.

Evidence has nothing to do with it.

From my research which is extensive

Sandi's picture

I consider 9/11 to be a false flag operation. Period.

The nuts and bolts of 9/11 are of no concern to me. I am not an engineer.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

What I find particularly pernicious about 9-11 Truther conspiracies is that it shifts blame away from those who actually committed the acts, and places blame on the victims. To excuse murderers in that way -- and in such a righteous tone to boot -- is a vicious injustice.

I agree.

Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

Sandi: "Please state what is stupid and back it up with source."

I gave you in my last post basic facts that your video did not get right. How about you get off your arse and start verifying what they are saying is true, instead of mindlessly swallowing it? All you did was respond with some distraction about "corporate media", which is no response at all.

Yes, Sandi, you can easily look on Wikipedia and find that the War Powers Act was enacted in 1973, not after 9-11. Or that Karzai did not work for Unocal. Or you can find out that Haliburton has been awarded the same type of government contracts long before Cheney worked for them (and after Cheney has left the government), thus negating the alleged motivation of Cheney trying to get contracts for Haliburton. They have and can get them without Cheney allegedly masterminding the 9-11 attacks and wars overseas. And this does not even begin to cover the amount of the facts to the contrary of these nutter conspiracy theories. These are nothing but random of facts, along with non-facts, arbitrarily spliced together to reach a pre-determined conclusion, which preys on the gullible by telling them to disbelieve their own eyes.

And your latest video proves absolutely nothing about Cheney's alleged involvement in 9-11. I'm not going to sugarcoat it for you, it is vicious to accuse the vice-president of the US of murdering his own citizens on such a basis, while ignoring the Islamists who actually committed the atrocity.

Now, will you please answer a few questions with your rigorous 4-year "study" of Trutherism? This should be simple for you.

1. Who are the people or groups of people responsible for the attacks of 9-11? List them all, please.

2. What do you make Ron Paul denying being a 9-11 Truther?

Please stop beating around the bush by posting videos from Planet Moonbat and answer the questions.

Michael

I agree Greg

Sandi's picture

But unless the reins of government are removed, said corporations overcome the government (which is very much the case in NZ now).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.