Ron Paul/FP.com Flashback Pop Quiz

uscitizen said:
And you sir are asshole.
Go beat up a poor person on the street.

I did a sincere apology and this is the response it get.
Consume excrement and expire.
Click to expand...

I did not see your apology, prior to posting. I was responding to your own posting asking "Are you dense." If after many post on the matter you are willing to acknowledge that you are the one that is dense, then fine, I will withdraw my comment calling you a dumbass. :)
 
blackascoal said:
Why don't women have dicks seems to sum up your argument.

You should actually do serious study of agressiveness vs intellectualism .. which would you rather have?
Click to expand...

The argument is not aggressiveness versus intellectualism.

Aggressiveness and intellectualism are not necesarily at odds. You're reframing the entire argument, in a dishonest manner.

You are simply brainwashed like most with the anti-male propaganda, designed to destroy our families and weaken our society. You're a female chauvinist sow.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
That is not what I said. I said that her response does not address the points I've offered against your assertions related to Ron Paul and his views about faith.

You have gone to say that Ron Paul believes in using the government to promote his faith, and that is a complete, and I feel dishonest, misreading of the original quote and the further materials you have offered.
Click to expand...

Declaring there is a "war on religion" belies what you are attempting to suggest.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

This is from "War on Religion" by Ron Paul.

It is a serious misread of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. People who think this man a "strict constitutionalist" don't know what they're talking about. He's a strict "Ron Paul interpretation of the constitutionalist", nothing more.

"replete with references to God" .. how many times is God replete/abundantly referenced in the Constitution?

ZERO

Here's a copy of the Constitution posted on his own website. Search and find how many "replete" references to God there are. Don't accuse me of twisting his words when I'm giving you HIS words.

You tell me why he would lie to you and those he knows would not validate substance with rhetoric in such an obvious way?

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution"

The First Amendment .. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

How easy was that to figure out?

He doesn't believe that government should be used to promote religion? .. He voted for school prayer (H.J.RES.78).

For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …..” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games.

His own words .. yet none of that is true. There simply are no laws or court rulings in effect that “ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games.” Children can pray in school. Courthouses can display the Ten Commandments. Citizens can pray before football games. These actions are not only legal, but sanctioned by the federal courts.

Are you aware of his bill HR 4922 which would have emptied all cases pertaining to the first amendment religious establishment clause from the court system and prohibited the federal courts from considering or ruling on any more of them.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.4922:

If passed, Ron Paul’s bill would have removed judicial review from all laws having to do with the use of government resources to proselytize for particular religions. In order to solve a series of fictions that do not correspond with observable fact, current law or Supreme Court rulings, Ron Paul would have removed the only vehicle for religious minorities to check the power of the government to shove the religious agenda of religious majorities down their throats.

Fortunately, like almost everything else he proposes, it went nowhere.

No. I celebrate Chanukah, and that's my right. But we are private citizens and not members of the State. And neither is it wrong for someone else practicing their Christianity, or praising the values of Christianity for providing a positive influence on a free society.
Click to expand...

There is no attack on Christmas and the "state" is not engaged in an attack on christians. That's just bullshit .. and anyone can feel free to parise the value of christianity as others can say they don't believe that shit. This so-called "christian" nation just attacked and mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of innocxent people including women, children, and babies. What he's preaching is bullshit.

[uote]I think Ron Paul would agree with you. And liberty and freedom also means being able to speak and think freely and maintain a free society where people may do that as they wish.[/quote]

I agree with freedom and liberty but people cannot do as they wish. there are responsibilities to living in a modern grown up society. Laws and government exists because Man needs to be governed. WSe have a responsibility to our elderly, our veterans, our children, our society, and the world.

I am in such a position because I am able to appreciate the philosophical context of these statements is one of liberty and non-interference in people's affairs, as opposed to the State favoring one belief system over another. That's why I, even as a non-Christian, am able to look at these remarks and say: Yes, I agree.
Click to expand...

With all due respect I doubt if you're more intellectually or analytically more gifted than anyone else here, including and especially Darla. What we do here is offer our opinions and perspectives, not sage-like guidance to wisdom. I wish no part of Ron Paul's idea of freedom or liberty. If you do, have at it, but again, you are in no position to admonish anyone about knowing.

It seems that if you disagreed with his original statement that you presented as some kind of evidence against him, that your only implied argument is that you believe our morals should come from a public source rather than a private source. I'm required to take such a bad policy seriously when it's proposed and oppose it.
Click to expand...

I believe that morals should come from your parents, your family, and the wisdom of history. Public vs private .. that's semantics used to escaoe dealing with the reality. I haven't said a single word about "public".

The problem for Paul supporters is once you get beyond the idealism there is nothing there. Once you look into Ron Paul, there is nothing there but a frail old man selling snake oil.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The argument is not aggressiveness versus intellectualism.

Aggressiveness and intellectualism are not necesarily at odds. You're reframing the entire argument, in a dishonest manner.

You are simply brainwashed like most with the anti-male propaganda, designed to destroy our families and weaken our society. You're a female chauvinist sow.
Click to expand...

Somewhere deep inside you there's a normal guy wishing to be a normal guy and hold civil respectful conversations like those people with brains do everyday. But you're too cowardly to rely on the normal guy inside you. You resort to asshole-mode to protect your fragile insecurities.

I ain't made at 'cha .. I feel sorry for you.

You never answered my question of how many women do you think there are successfully holding positions of authority that you will never achieve or even have the capacity to attempt.

You didn't answer because that would have required you to look in the mirror and see there ain't nothing special about you my brother. Your psuedo-macho-persona gives you away. It is indicative of a failed life. It says that you may not amount to much .. but at least you have a dick.

Your monument to life .. just another dick.

I ain't mad at 'cha.

Stop making a buffoon of yourself and get in touch with the normal guy inside.
 
blackascoal said:
Somewhere deep inside you there's a normal guy wishing to be a normal guy and hold civil respectful conversations like those people with brains do everyday. But you're too cowardly to rely on the normal guy inside you. You resort to asshole-mode to protect your fragile insecurities.

I ain't made at 'cha .. I feel sorry for you.

You never answered my question of how many women do you think there are successfully holding positions of authority that you will never achieve or even have the capacity to attempt.

You didn't answer because that would have required you to look in the mirror and see there ain't nothing special about you my brother. Your psuedo-macho-persona gives you away. It is indicative of a failed life. It says that you may not amount to much .. but at least you have a dick.

Your monument to life .. just another dick.

I ain't mad at 'cha.

Stop making a buffoon of yourself and get in touch with the normal guy inside.
Click to expand...



Oh, sad, sad blackascoal. You've been sold a bill of irrational goods, and you're clamoring for more.

You are sexist against men. There is nothing wrong with aggression. Women are NOT superior. Aggression is NOT in opposition to intellectuality.

What's true is that our enemies are filling your head with sexist lies denigrating men, because women are docile and compliant, harmony seeking above all else, to the point that they will sell us out rather than having other people mad at them.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
Somewhere deep inside you there's a normal guy wishing to be a normal guy and hold civil respectful conversations like those people with brains do everyday. But you're too cowardly to rely on the normal guy inside you. You resort to asshole-mode to protect your fragile insecurities.

I ain't made at 'cha .. I feel sorry for you.

You never answered my question of how many women do you think there are successfully holding positions of authority that you will never achieve or even have the capacity to attempt.

You didn't answer because that would have required you to look in the mirror and see there ain't nothing special about you my brother. Your psuedo-macho-persona gives you away. It is indicative of a failed life. It says that you may not amount to much .. but at least you have a dick.

Your monument to life .. just another dick.

I ain't mad at 'cha.

Stop making a buffoon of yourself and get in touch with the normal guy inside.
Click to expand...

Dare I say, great post? Screw it...Great post!
 
Darla said:
Dare I say, great post? Screw it...Great post!
Click to expand...

Then you missed this one.


Oh, sad, sad blackascoal. You've been sold a bill of irrational goods, and you're clamoring for more.

You are sexist against men. There is nothing wrong with aggression. Women are NOT superior. Aggression is NOT in opposition to intellectuality.

What's true is that our enemies are filling your head with sexist lies denigrating men, because women are docile and compliant, harmony seeking above all else, to the point that they will sell us out rather than having other people mad at them.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Then you missed this one.


Oh, sad, sad blackascoal. You've been sold a bill of irrational goods, and you're clamoring for more.

You are sexist against men. There is nothing wrong with aggression. Women are NOT superior. Aggression is NOT in opposition to intellectuality.

What's true is that our enemies are filling your head with sexist lies denigrating men, because women are docile and compliant, harmony seeking above all else, to the point that they will sell us out rather than having other people mad at them.
Click to expand...

No she didn't ;)
 
AssHatZombie said:
Oh, sad, sad blackascoal. You've been sold a bill of irrational goods, and you're clamoring for more.

You are sexist against men. There is nothing wrong with aggression. Women are NOT superior. Aggression is NOT in opposition to intellectuality.

What's true is that our enemies are filling your head with sexist lies denigrating men, because women are docile and compliant, harmony seeking above all else, to the point that they will sell us out rather than having other people mad at them.
Click to expand...

Of course, Asshat... there's this big conspiracy to reverse all of the bigotry in the world! They want to make women over men, blacks over whites... I just know it!
 
Darla said:
Dare I say, great post? Screw it...Great post!
Click to expand...

Pardon me, Darla, I'm not sure if I was clear on this subject.

The "Random and pointless Watermark rule of Darla's behaviour" (posted at the top of the thread "A standard day at JPP") only applies if Blackascoal started the thread.

Thankyou for your time :o
 
Watermark said:
Of course, Asshat... there's this big conspiracy to reverse all of the bigotry in the world! They want to make women over men, blacks over whites... I just know it!
Click to expand...


But bigotry reversed is still bigotry, but with the roles of victim and perpetrator reversed. It's STILL WRONG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top