Well I don't know about that, since I never see any of you guys defending the ACLU against Republican attacks, and I've been on message boards for years, but I thought I remembered that Barr at least, had joined the ACLU back when the Patriot Act was first passed.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
bac proven clueless again
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Well I don't know about that, since I never see any of you guys defending the ACLU against Republican attacks, and I've been on message boards for years, but I thought I remembered that Barr at least, had joined the ACLU back when the Patriot Act was first passed.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Are there some libertarians opposed to Paul. Of course. Does not matter. HE'D STILL WIN THE NOMINATION EASILY.
I went to a local LP meeting last week. Want to know what the major business was? How to handle excom elections since all of us were registering Repub until after the election.
I have been involved in LP for over 10 years. Been to two National Conventions, served on Florida excom, chaired local group and ran for office. I think I have a better sense of the pulse than you. You pretend to know what you are talking about, but you don't have the least little clue.
Oh really.
By my calculations, I and many others here have been right about every damn thing we've said about him.
He is not supported by republicans, thus he's only a minor bit player in the nomination process. .. we said that and he will not even reach double digits in the polls .. we said that too. .. among a whole bunch of other truths.
He has NOT won the LP nomination, but somehow in your naive confusion about political argument, you think it's valid to say he COULD win the nomination is the same as he HAS won the nomination. That is seriously dumb sir and it's not validation that you know what you're talking about.
Nor is being in the LP for 10 any validation that you know shit about politics .. and you just proved that by posting that the LP would actually change their rules to accomodate a failure .. of 2.7%.
Beyond the question of Paul, I'm sure there are a great many libertarians who are asking themselves what the fuck are they doing supporting a political party that desperate. I wonder how LP candidates who have been campaigning and running for the nomination up until now feel about handing the nomination to someone who doesn't even want it.
Goddamn man .. are you telling me you are that far removed from common sense you can't see how this hurts your party?
Here's something else many of us here have been right about in spite of all the Ronbot "I don't know shit about politics" whining .. racism is sticking to his ass. C'mon, tell me some more naive whining about "he didn't say that" and "an aide did it" and all the things that prove that you don't know shit about politics. There are lots and lots of measurable ways to determine if racism is sticking to him and if you've been in politics for 10 years you should know how to measure that without my having to tell you.
I'll wait for you to respond with something incredibly naive before I tell you how to do it.
Are you sure that you want to brand your party with all that has been exposed about Ron Paul? .. and before you answer that be mindful that there is a REASON he's at 2.7%.. If you're a serious person you should be able to put away the emotion and deal with this analytically.
You should chill out my friend and try to get smarter instead of trying to prove how clueless anyone else is. That's going to be very difficult for you from where you are today.
I doubt it. I think he collaborates with them on issues pertaining to the patriot act. But, as for being an actual "card carrying" member of the ACLU, I doubt Barr would go that far. Carrying that card for him, would be the equivalent of a vampire carrying a cross. There's a genetic rejection of it.
You are an idiot. He was not only a member, he was an employee.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/15182prs20021125.html
You are an idiot. He was not only a member, he was an employee.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/15182prs20021125.html
I don't see anything in here about him being a card carrying member of the ACLU. Unless I missed it. It says Barr is collaborating with ACLU on privacy issues. Collaborating
Do you realize that people from across the political spectrum "collaborate" with ACLU, on a host of issues? Including prominent rightwingers and wingnuts? JERRY FALWELL has "collaborated" with ACLU on a case about religious freedom in Virginia. Does that make Jerry Falwell as active, card carrying member of ACLU? Of course it doesn't.
You are all about red herrings, strawmen, ad homs and BACkpedalling.
The argument was never about whether he would win the LP nomination without entering it. That's fucking stupid. I stated if he pursued it he would win it easily and you claimed otherwise.
My knowledge of politics is not in dicsussion. My knowledge of LP politics is. And on that matter my activism in the party is completely relevant. Quit trying to change the subject.
As has been pointed out before, Kubby, the leading candidate for LP nomination has already endorsed Paul. So what does that say about how he feels about it?
When proven wrong on these and other matters you again resort to ad homs. You've got nothing of substance, apparently, you are nothing of substance.
The argument was never about whether he would win the LP nomination without entering it. That's fucking stupid. I stated if he pursued it he would win it easily and you claimed otherwise.
My knowledge of politics is not in dicsussion. My knowledge of LP politics is. And on that matter my activism in the party is completely relevant. Quit trying to change the subject.
As has been pointed out before, Kubby, the leading candidate for LP nomination has already endorsed Paul. So what does that say about how he feels about it?
When proven wrong on these and other matters you again resort to ad homs. You've got nothing of substance, apparently, you are nothing of substance.
Yep, just like I said: Barr does NOT agree with ACLU on a whole host of issues, but is willing to "collaborate" with them where the do have common ground: Privacy rights:
A card carrying member of ACLU supports pretty much their entire agenda.
You simply misunderstand what the ACLU does: they collaborate with people from across the political spectrum, regarless of personal ideology, if they have common ground on an issue. ACLU might consult with republican hunters, on an issue pertaining to public lands access. It doesn't mean those republican hunters are "members" of ACLU. ACLU collaborates with fundamentalist christians, in areas of common ground in religious freedom. Those fundamentalist christians would be horrified to be called card carrying members of ACLU.
BOB BARR, on working with ACLU: "Although there are many issues on which the ACLU and I do not see eye to eye, I stand behind its efforts to see constitutional checks and balances restored to this nation's intelligence laws, especially the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as amended by the USA Patriot Act"
A card carrying member of ACLU supports pretty much their entire agenda.
You simply misunderstand what the ACLU does: they collaborate with people from across the political spectrum, regarless of personal ideology, if they have common ground on an issue. ACLU might consult with republican hunters, on an issue pertaining to public lands access. It doesn't mean those republican hunters are "members" of ACLU. ACLU collaborates with fundamentalist christians, in areas of common ground in religious freedom. Those fundamentalist christians would be horrified to be called card carrying members of ACLU.
I don't misunderstand anything. LBJ said something to the effect, "Show me two people that agree on everything and I show you one person doing the thinking." That's true with the ACLU. Barr was employed by them and that shows quite a bit of comfort with their cause.
Further, Barr is more conservative than most LPers. I am not sure he will last in the party that long, because of it. Libertarians have no aversion whatsoever to the ACLU.
My biggest problem with the ACLU is they don't support the full bill of rights, i.e., they are shaky on 2, 9 and 10.
But you and BACkpedal continue to tell us what libertarians think and I will keep showing that you are wrong.
Further, Barr is more conservative than most LPers. I am not sure he will last in the party that long, because of it. Libertarians have no aversion whatsoever to the ACLU.
My biggest problem with the ACLU is they don't support the full bill of rights, i.e., they are shaky on 2, 9 and 10.
But you and BACkpedal continue to tell us what libertarians think and I will keep showing that you are wrong.
I don't misunderstand anything. LBJ said something to the effect, "Show me two people that agree on everything and I show you one person doing the thinking." That's true with the ACLU. Barr was employed by them and that shows quite a bit of comfort with their cause.
Further, Barr is more conservative than most LPers. I am not sure he will last in the party that long, because of it. Libertarians have no aversion whatsoever to the ACLU.
My biggest problem with the ACLU is they don't support the full bill of rights, i.e., they are shaky on 2, 9 and 10.
But you and BACkpedal continue to tell us what libertarians think and I will keep showing that you are wrong.
Is this to me? I am just saying that I never notice you libertarians arguing with republicans about the “commies” at the ACLU. I stipulate that Barr is a member.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You are all about red herrings, strawmen, ad homs and BACkpedalling.
The argument was never about whether he would win the LP nomination without entering it. That's fucking stupid. I stated if he pursued it he would win it easily and you claimed otherwise.
My knowledge of politics is not in dicsussion. My knowledge of LP politics is. And on that matter my activism in the party is completely relevant. Quit trying to change the subject.
As has been pointed out before, Kubby, the leading candidate for LP nomination has already endorsed Paul. So what does that say about how he feels about it?
When proven wrong on these and other matters you again resort to ad homs. You've got nothing of substance, apparently, you are nothing of substance.
Dude,
"red herrings" and "ad hominems" must be driven into the heads of every Paul supporter because every single one of them use it when they run out of argument.
You're arguing an illusion and Paul doesn't want the nomination.
I said it would be difficult for him to win the LP nomination, you said easily .. what's your point? How does that make me clueless when everything I've said about his run is true and everything you've said now brings you to this struggle to find any credibility?
And yes, your knowledge, or lack thereof, about politics is in question.
Dude,
"red herrings" and "ad hominems" must be driven into the heads of every Paul supporter because every single one of them use it when they run out of argument.
Run out of argument, lol. You are EVADING the argument and attempting to change it into something it never was to cover your error. I am not going to follow you on that.
I am sorry if it seems to you that Paul supporters are unusually logical and rational.
You're arguing an illusion and Paul doesn't want the nomination.
I said it would be difficult for him to win the LP nomination, you said easily .. what's your point? How does that make me clueless when everything I've said about his run is true and everything you've said now brings you to this struggle to find any credibility?
Clearly, my point is you are wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. He would win it easily, on the first ballot, by an overwhelming majority. Kubby is the likely candidate right now and he would probably step aside if Paul pursued. The only other known candidate is George Phillies. Phillies has zero personality and never wins much, even within the party.
Whatever, you believe man. You have not been right on anything from my recollection. I am sure you can get some members of your circle jerk committee, but you have no cred beyond that and your attempts here to evade and divert attention do not help you.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Run out of argument, lol. You are EVADING the argument and attempting to change it into something it never was to cover your error. I am not going to follow you on that.
I am sorry if it seems to you that Paul supporters are unusually logical and rational.
Rest assured, you don't have to agree and it doesn't matter what you follow, the idiocy is just way too obvious.
Clearly, my point is you are wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. He would win it easily, on the first ballot, by an overwhelming majority. Kubby is the likely candidate right now and he would probably step aside if Paul pursued. The only other known candidate is George Phillies. Phillies has zero personality and never wins much, even within the party.
Whatever, you believe man. You have not been right on anything from my recollection. I am sure you can get some members of your circle jerk committee, but you have no cred beyond that and your attempts here to evade and divert attention do not help you.
Dude, I can see that you aren't too bright and there are good threads that have a point I can comment in.
Paul won't get to double-digits in the polls .. YEP, I'm right. He's not even in double-digits in his own state. .. Not in your recollection?
Paul won't get close to the republican nomination and will end up nothing more than a minor player .. YEP, I'm right .. Not in your recollection?
Scientific polls have meaning and internet polls and MySpace hits are not credible measures of party support .. Not in your recollection?
This is too dumb and I'm wasting time.
Have fun wallowing in pity and failure
Don't worry about it
Rest assured, you don't have to agree and it doesn't matter what you follow, the idiocy is just way too obvious.
Dude, I can see that you aren't too bright and there are good threads that have a point I can comment in.
More ad homs.
Paul won't get to double-digits in the polls .. YEP, I'm right. He's not even in double-digits in his own state. .. Not in your recollection?
No, I somewhat recall you claiming he would not get to 5%. I guarantee you he will get into double digits in some states (he is in polls in Colorado) and I think it quite likely he will average in double digits.
Paul won't get close to the republican nomination and will end up nothing more than a minor player .. YEP, I'm right .. Not in your recollection?
Who argues he's sure to win?
Scientific polls have meaning and internet polls and MySpace hits are not credible measures of party support .. Not in your recollection?
Who argues this?
This is too dumb and I'm wasting time.
Have fun wallowing in pity and failure
Don't worry about it
Again, nothing but red herrings, ad homs, BACkpedals and strawmen. You are worthless dude.
The discussion in this thread is about your claim that he would find it difficult to win LP nomination if he pursued it. You are wrong on that, and you offer nothing to support your statement. So you instead try to change the subject to your other supposed predictions over Paul supporters.