If Republicans had any guts... Ron Paul!

Rana said:
It must be Damo's new thing, running around calling people liars, the not apologizing.
Click to expand...

Can you show in this thread where I called Zappa a liar?

(And I still believe that Jarod is lying. Hence no apology. After a decade hanging out with him I have learned to distrust his personal anecdotes, he never has "all" the evidence he knows as a lawyer he would need in court.)
 
Rana said:
Funny, I noticed that about you. You lose you cool, real fast.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I find that people insert whatever emotion they want to believe into a post, which one do you think I had there other than light laughter?
 
Damocles said:
Can you show in this thread where I called Zappa a liar?

(And I still believe that Jarod is lying. Hence no apology. After a decade hanging out with him I have learned to distrust his personal anecdotes, he never has "all" the evidence he knows as a lawyer he would need in court.)
Click to expand...

You are calling me a liar based on years of discussions? Cool. Do you have an example of where my personal anecdotes have been missing evidence? In addition this discussion board is not a court of law, 99% of what is posted here is without the evidence needed for a court of law, that does not make the person posting a liar!
 
Jarod said:
You are calling me a liar based on years of discussions? Cool. Do you have an example of where my personal anecdotes have been missing evidence? In addition this discussion board is not a court of law, 99% of what is posted here is without the evidence needed for a court of law, that does not make the person posting a liar!
Click to expand...

Just this last one, in fact. When you are in a court of law and make a claim about three different companies do you really only bring evidence of one and think it is enough?

I realize that this board isn't a "court of law"...

And stop getting all hurty about it. You and others have often said the same about my anecdotes. I'm cool with that. I do say that they are anecdotes to begin with. I simply do not believe that you were rejected by all three major carriers nor that you could not get insurance "at any cost" as you claimed.
 
Actually...

After thinking about it while I drove home. In the past you have extended me the benefit of the doubt often. I will, therefore, do the same.

I'll start a thread about it.
 
Damocles said:
I believe the first anecdote. I haven't said I didn't. I point out his first anecdote said "nothing to do with" not "complicit". He's changing the anecdote to fit the assertion.

Reality:
There is no evidence other than in Zappa's imagination that Ron Paul believes in the conspiracy.

More Reality:
His first anecdote (the true story) didn't show what he asserts Ron Paul to believe.

Still More Reality:
There is zero evidence to support his assertion because Ron Paul doesn't believe what Zappa wants him to believe.

It's not like I think he's going to win the nomination or something, this isn't to "apologize" for "my party" or something. I don't give a rip if he is a "Truther" I just want more evidence than an ever-changing anecdote.
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't give two rat farts about the guy either...I certainly won't be voting for him. All I did was recount a conversation I heard on the radio almost 4 years ago...but once again we find Damo demanding confirmation for something he'd just let slip by if it came from DY or anyone else who hates Obama as he does.

Now...on to his "points"...

Reality: You still can't show me a quote from Ron Paul where he disavows the 9/11 truther group.

More reality: It is only YOUR INTERPRETATION of my first anecdote. You have said yourself you didn't hear it, so how do YOU KNOW what Michael Medved meant? Answer...you don't. Your just playing the contrarian asswipe once again.

Still MORE reality:There is still ZERO evidence to support you claim that Ron Paul DOESN'T believe the 9/11 truthers...

And finally: "Ever changing"...just can't end without some standard-issue Damo condescension, can you?
 
the fix is already in. Paul will not win, despite winning.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/politics/ron-paul-iowa/index.html

GOP political analyst Rich Galen gives Paul a better shot.

"If Paul wins Iowa -- which is possible, trending toward probable -- then both Gingrich and Romney get a pass heading into New Hampshire," Galen said. "Paul's support is about three yards wide and a thousand feet deep. He has worked Iowa hard and his anti-Newt ads ... are having an effect."

Yet Galen also added: "If Paul wins, then whoever comes in second -- assuming its Gingrich or Romney -- will 'win' having beaten the other. So, whoever comes in third under this scenario is the loser."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/15/chris-wallace-iowa-wont-count-if-ron-paul-wins/

Fox News host Chris Wallace doesn’t want Republicans to go wasting their votes on Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign.

Wallace, who is moderating a Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto on Wednesday that a Paul win would “discredit” the Iowa caucuses.

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” Wallace began. “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee.”
 
Damocles said:
Can you show in this thread where I called Zappa a liar?
Click to expand...

Okie dokey...

Damocles said:
You are adding words that didn't exist before.
Click to expand...

Right there...

Damocles said:
Not a personal anecdote that changes with each telling
Click to expand...

And there...of course this will now be the portion of our show where Dr. Disingenuous Damo will now mince words and try and weasel his way out of admitting he called me a liar...but that's what we expect from our Rightie friends suffering from ODS.
 
Damocles said:
Actually...

After thinking about it while I drove home. In the past you have extended me the benefit of the doubt often. I will, therefore, do the same.

I'll start a thread about it.
Click to expand...

I was going to say, I dont think I ever called you a liar. Thanks for posting this. No need to start a thread.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the fix is already in. Paul will not win, despite winning.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/politics/ron-paul-iowa/index.html

GOP political analyst Rich Galen gives Paul a better shot.

"If Paul wins Iowa -- which is possible, trending toward probable -- then both Gingrich and Romney get a pass heading into New Hampshire," Galen said. "Paul's support is about three yards wide and a thousand feet deep. He has worked Iowa hard and his anti-Newt ads ... are having an effect."

Yet Galen also added: "If Paul wins, then whoever comes in second -- assuming its Gingrich or Romney -- will 'win' having beaten the other. So, whoever comes in third under this scenario is the loser."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/15/chris-wallace-iowa-wont-count-if-ron-paul-wins/

Fox News host Chris Wallace doesn’t want Republicans to go wasting their votes on Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign.

Wallace, who is moderating a Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto on Wednesday that a Paul win would “discredit” the Iowa caucuses.

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” Wallace began. “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee.”
Click to expand...

And what's more, the National Review came out against Newt this week in a big way - basically telling the base, this guy is a non-starter.

I said a long time ago, having watched the R primaries for a while, I believed that the money men pick the nominee. And I believe their boy is Mitt.

However, every once in a while there can be an insurrection, and if there is, it's going to be Newt, not Paul. But I still think it's Romney.
 
IM more convensed than ever that its going to be Romney. All of the more conservative canidates are fatally flawed.

Interestingly I am wondering if Romney has a woman problem.

Personally I like the guy, but the women I talk to about him (conservative and liberal) have a real aversion to him.
 
Jarod said:
IM more convensed than ever that its going to be Romney. All of the more conservative canidates are fatally flawed.

Interestingly I am wondering if Romney has a woman problem.

Personally I like the guy, but the women I talk to about him (conservative and liberal) have a real aversion to him.
Click to expand...

I don't see why he would? He seems to have been faithful to his wife, who I also believe has MS? Is that right? That seems to show some decency. One that's sorely lacking among Republican Presidential candidates. And usually Democratic ones too! Though Obama really flummoxed all of them by seemingly being in love with his wife. They are still pissed about that!
 
Darla said:
I don't see why he would? He seems to have been faithful to his wife, who I also believe has MS? Is that right? That seems to show some decency. One that's sorely lacking among Republican Presidential candidates. And usually Democratic ones too! Though Obama really flummoxed all of them by seemingly being in love with his wife. They are still pissed about that!
Click to expand...

I dont see why he would myself, except that Personally from what I know about Mormons, mysanogy seems to be ingrained into the belife structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top