Poll Question: Who would win presidential debate, Ron Paul, or Hillary?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 10:39 PM by Alexander the o.k.
reply to post by ChrisJr03



Are you saying that hillary is more qualified to debate the issues than Ron Paul? Or that she is more believable ?
Based on what I've seen of the repub debates, my guess is that if she even took on the challange (not) he would make a fool of her, or at least show how disingenuous she is.
I would think her cred factor would take a nose dive afterward.
Just m.o.



reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 10:46 PM by totalvigilance
If Bill O'Reilly can decimate RP, Hillary (as big of a crook as she is) can do so as well.

www.peopleforchange.net...

RP=solidly debunked, but this is ATS and people will still cling to him no matter what. Doesn't it bother you guys how much you worship him?

You have my permission to totally flame me.


reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 11:00 PM by totalvigilance
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues



I'll ask again. Does it bother *any* of y'all the level of devotion you give this man? It's downright quasi-religious!



reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 11:02 PM by SEEWHATUDO
Originally posted by totalvigilance
If Bill O'Reilly can decimate RP, Hillary (as big of a crook as she is) can do so as well.

www.peopleforchange.net...

RP=solidly debunked, but this is ATS and people will still cling to him no matter what. Doesn't it bother you guys how much you worship him?

You have my permission to totally flame me.

Okie Dokie!!!

If you are easily swayed by opinionated blogs with all of 2 comments from 2006 then,yes, you are absolutely right Dr. Paul has been solidly debunked.

If Ron Paul was "debunkable"(whatever that means by the way) the mindless mass media wouldnt be ignoring him, they would be shredding him. I am sure that there is some dirt that will eventually come to light but compared to Hillary's rise to the top on stairs made of corpses... well you know what I mean, right?


reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 11:06 PM by Karlhungis
Originally posted by totalvigilance
reply to
post by DeadFlagBlues



I'll ask again. Does it bother *any* of y'all the level of devotion you give this man? It's downright quasi-religious!


Stating that the media has a bias for Hillary over RP, is a quasi-religious devotion? I would say that your blatant dislike of him is a bit over the top. You haven't posted anything that would sway anyone into not liking the guy, other than insulting people for supporting him. So why should anyone listen to you?


reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 11:08 PM by totalvigilance
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO


Yay for bandwagon appeals! "Urg, this blog doesn't have many comments, so it must be wrong, I don't have to address its substantive arguments." Furthermore, has RP significantly changed his positions since 2006? My money says no.

Alright, I admit Hillary is downright evil, a crook, so on and so forth, but at least she doesn't support extreme reactionary viewpoints that could plunge the country into chaos. I would rather have a crook in office who's gonna skim a couple billion off the top rather than a misguided ideologue who's going to wreck the works.

Once again, you have my permission to flame on.


reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 11:15 PM by Karlhungis
reply to post by totalvigilance



I was not aware that it was against the rules. Thanks for keeping me in check.


reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 11:19 PM by totalvigilance
reply to post by Karlhungis



I don't think it's exactly against the rules, but I also don't think it makes the most sense...if you do, however, want to address a point I made that was not directed toward any one specific individual, that would be fine.



reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 11:45 PM by Alexander the o.k.
Originally posted by totalvigilance

Furthermore, has RP significantly changed his positions since 2006? My money says no.


This is exactly what we admire about Dr. Paul. Not the lies you are apparently quite used to hearing. Actually, since about 1988. Not 2006.

Alright, I admit Hillary is downright evil, a crook, so on and so forth, but at least she doesn't support extreme reactionary viewpoints that could plunge the country into chaos.

Well. It's good to hear that you "admit Hillary is downright evil, a crook"... etc.


But, please explain how the Constitution contains "extreme reactionary viewpoints"?
Especially in view of the "Rule By Fiat" that Queen Hillbillary espouses.
Are you saying that a return to the kind of principles outlined in the Constitution are "extreme reactionary viewpoints" ?
Au contraire, mon amie.

I would say that the Rule By Fiat that Queen Hillbillary has already shown a propensity for ( can you say secret Nationalized Healthcare meetings in violation of the Sunshine Laws by an Attorney?) is far more extreme and reactionary than a return to the Constitution. I would also say she is a felon.
I would rather have a crook in office who's gonna skim a couple billion off the top rather than a misguided ideologue who's going to wreck the works.


America’s revolutionaries Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, et al, also kind of "wrecked the works" don't you think?
Sounds a bit like you like the status quo (Fiat rule, Big gov intrusiveness, totalitarianism, shrinking liberties, 1984 scenario, etc ) and more politicians like hillbillary. All quite acceptable to you, no?

You've come to the right place, my friend...


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 12:47 AM by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by totalvigilance



Better him than I. I'm a little more volatile when it comes to discussion...

It is our duty as American citizens to dedicate ourselves to the noble cause of men and women trying to make a change for our country, regardless of who they are. I analyze every aspect of an issue before I support it, and it took me three months to do the same with Ron Paul. I was convinced after only a short period of time, but it is my thought that every politician has a few skeletons in his closet. I looked and looked, and this man has none. I researched the majority of candidates for both sides and their dishonesty and inconsitency only rivaled that of Ron Paul's honesty and integrity. My choice thereafter was an obvious one.

He is the only candidate that I feel represents the true nature of our country. He's proved himself to be open, honest, and consistent in his beliefs and voting record. We don't agree on every single topic, but he's the greatest catalyst for positive reform and direction for our country.

Ron Paul 2008! Ride or die!

[edit on 6-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 04:07 AM by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Alexander the o.k.




Ron Paul is definitely the baby steps to restoration. At least restoring our rights as citizens. That's a start..
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland
  Posted 19 days ago with 8 member flags
Russian cops mistake nationalist rally for gay pride parade
  Posted 17 days ago with 4 member flags
Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags
Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 0 days ago with 4 member flags
The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 13 days ago with 1 member flags