Video: CNN reporter Dana Bash gets "Snowballed" by Ron Paul supporters

page: 6
58
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow

I am quite sure, with all of the side and off topic issues that are brought up, that the intentions of some here are only to throw mud, and not to operate in good faith in search of the truth.


Yes I am pretty sure you are right about that.

My intentions are to either:
1) Actually help them find the truth
or
2) Reveal their true intent on causing dismay and confusion.




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Hey muzzle,
Good luck with the exchange, hope you fare better than I did. Paul supporters are labeled fanatical, but I am reminded of the actual definition when I read her responses.


I never called anyone fanatical.


I am quite sure, with all of the side and off topic issues that are brought up, that the intentions of some here are only to throw mud, and not to operate in good faith in search of the truth.


Examples? Is Ron Paul and the way his fans behave in this thread and video off topic? Please tell me what I wrote that you feel is so distracting and I will fix it. Or you are just blowing smoke.

You acted like a little kid, called names, got angry, and never tried to discuss anything. I called you on it and you insult me.


OKEY DOKEY. Making up stuff like that I called you fanatical, that helpful?


Bash has clearly been outed to a great many people, and we can thank Paul supporters for this.


Outed? As a private employee of a private company?


For that, I am quite proud. That is how we make a difference, IMO.



Because you seem to have no clue why you are a fan of Ron Pauls because he actually wants Dana to have the freedom to do what she does.

Now if only you could have had a conversation without insulting people and making things up about them. How can you not get this yet? Acting like children is not helping.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Littikani
 


Why didn't you reply to my comments?

Hmmm...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


What if they are disinfo agents working for the other candidates and trying to make people dislike RP by just talking a bunch of smack? You never know...


Think about that for a moment. You are telling me that you are here reading this thread full of anti RP disinfo agents and instead of calling any of them on it, you come after me?


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Either way at the top of this page you go on to agree with the first person that attacked me and they did so for no reason.

So what does that make you?
edit on 14-1-2012 by Littikani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash


What if they are disinfo agents working for the other candidates and trying to make people dislike RP by just talking a bunch of smack? You never know...


Think about that for a moment. You are telling me that you are here reading this thread full of anti RP disinfo agents and instead of calling any of them on it, you come after me?


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Either way you go on the next page to agree with the very first one.
So what does that make you?


Ad hominem. Please respond to :



Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash I am worried about corporate elitism and the government utilizing illegitimate authority to steamroll over me and destroy my family over utter bs.
See right here. As far as I cant tell, much of what Ron Paul stands for equates to giving corporations even more power. I have tried to address this and all I ever get in response is called names. So either I am wrong and I should be corrected so that I might change my mind or I am wrong and I am bad person for not just being right already and should stay wrong or I am right. I feel safe I will get an answer soon.
No, corporations will lose power under Paul because right now corporations have 3 major unfair advantages.
1) Massive Govt Subsidies
2) Massive Govt Contracting (military etc)
3) Heavy Govt Regulations (which kill small business competition)

Undermining the corporations here will be a major blow to their power, and their investors may pull out. This would be the reverse of helping corporations, because it would be crippling them. Also, by going back towards a more free market oriented system, small businesses would have less regulations and operating costs, and would be able to compete with large corporations more easily.

So actually you assumed incorrectly.
Corporations fear Paul's platform intensely due to these 3 main reasons. Regulations, Subsidies, and Irresponsible Govt Contracting is what allows corporations to have incredible power like today but when we pull this rug out from under them, their investors will see profits dropping quickly and will pull out, and this could collapse many of these mega-corps.
edit on 14-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
They might be a private company but they do public broadcasts and a public service - which they aren't doing so well.




Is that how you guys are going to twist it? McDonalds does a public service too. So you want business to have liberty and freedom as long as it is the specific types you like?
Go Ron Paul for narrower views of freedom?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Seriously. This has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past crazy to say what you just said.

We all know that Ron Paul wants you to be free to run your business however you want no matter what you sell because he says the free market will fix it. CNN is a #ing cable channel for crying out loud. Anyone watching is paying for it by choice you morons!!!

You are buying something and then complaining that it is not forced to be run how YOU want it run and you support Ron Paul? I know for a fact he does not support that.





How do I trick myself into believing two opposing ideas at the same time?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I debunked the claim that "corporations will gain power" under a Paul administration.

I even explained how that works out and why it makes sense.

Let's talk about the issues, and avoid the ad hominem name calling please.
Thanks.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Littikani

We all know that Ron Paul wants you to be free to run your business however you want no matter what you sell because he says the free market will fix it.


"No matter what you sell"?

Nice absolutist claims.

Show me where he says that?

Are you insinuating that Ron Paul wants businesses to be allowed to sell nuclear weapons to the public?
Debunked.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Littikani
 


I am growing impatient.

Please respond to this post .

Respond to each point I made and explain why you disagree or agree.

Otherwise I am afraid you are clearly avoiding it.
Which will reveal your true intentions here.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
No, corporations will lose power under Paul because right now corporations have 3 major unfair advantages.

1) Massive Govt Subsidies
2) Massive Govt Contracting (military etc)
3) Heavy Govt Regulations (which kill small business competition)

Undermining the corporations here will be a major blow to their power, and their investors may pull out.


The vast majority of those things come through congress, not the president. Can you explain to me exactly how Ron Paul is going to change that?


This would be the reverse of helping corporations, because it would be crippling them.


See what you just did?

You said Ron Paul will do X without explaining realistically how he even could. So your next line is about how great it will be when X gets done.
The next line is supposed to trick me into getting excited about the premise but I have no idea how Ron Paul is going to go about it. He can promise to shower me with kittens too.
Could you elaborate?



Also, by going back towards a more free market oriented system, small businesses would have less regulations and operating costs, and would be able to compete with large corporations more easily.


There is not one fact in the above sentence. There are no details. All I see are buzzwords. That is a huge part of the RP problem. Ron Paul fans seem to think just writing or saying LIBERTY means something. How is Ron Paul going to go back ot a more free market system? You mean back to Jim Crowe or the Robber Barrons? Which free market we going BACK TO and how?

I need details, not buzzwords. How is he going to do this and actually, what is it he is going to do?



So actually you assumed incorrectly. Corporations fear Paul's platform intensely due to these 3 main reasons.


I see no reason presented by you for them to fear him. What I do see is him being ignored as per the level of his influence. How long has he been in Washington and what has he done? How many bills passed? It is called putting your money on the horses that might actually finish the race this time.


Regulations, Subsidies, and Irresponsible Govt Contracting is what allows corporations to have incredible power like today but when we pull this rug out from under them, their investors will see profits dropping quickly and will pull out, and this could collapse many of these mega-corps.


How do regulations on corporations give them more power?
That does not even make any sense.

Thank you for at least being polite. I hope you will understand that your post sounds nice but what it is lacking is the details. I do not want to know if people think Ron Paul wants to do good things. I want to know exactly what those good things are and how he plans to do them, especially when they are so vague or beyond his reach to change anyway.

Thank you in advance for you polite reply to this request.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani
 


Correct the MSM is not required to tell the truth or give equal air time to candidates anymore.

The so called Fairness Doctrine has been repealed so now news agencies can shill for their favorite candidates and ignore or bad-mouth the opposition.

Also terming the activities of many news agencies as "fraud" is somewhat incorrect.
The correct terminology would be "propaganda" or partiality.

Also we have "lying by omission":


Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.


Cronyism also plays an important role :


Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.



Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer.
edit on 14-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)




NONE OF WHICH MATTERS UNLESS YOU WANT RON PAUL TO REGULATE THESE PRIVATE COMPANIES MORE.

Please stop complaining about how a private company does its business within the law, especially a SUBSCRIBER DRIVEN SERVICE (I cannot believe I am typing this out to real functioning human adults) and suggesting you support Ron Paul. What the # do you think CNN is going to be like under his presidency?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow

I am quite sure, with all of the side and off topic issues that are brought up, that the intentions of some here are only to throw mud, and not to operate in good faith in search of the truth.


Yes I am pretty sure you are right about that.

My intentions are to either:
1) Actually help them find the truth
or
2) Reveal their true intent on causing dismay and confusion.


The person you are replying to is the first one to attack me in this thread for no reason and being the perfect example of the "scary Ron Paul fan" and you suggested that people like that are not really RP supporters but disinfo agents.

This post sure looks like you two shaking hands.
Can you explain that leap in logic for me?
Or can we agree he is not a disinfo agent but actually a real Ron Paul fan.

Let your excuses for him attacking me begin I am sure.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Littikani
 


You claimed he was going to allow the corporations to have free reign without explaining how he has the power or mechanisms to do it as well, didn't you?


In order to reign in Govt subsidies, unreasonable contracts, etc; the President can utilize Veto power and prevent specific bills from being passed.

Also by cutting many agencies from the Executive branch it will also cut out large funding mechanisms for the corporations.

For example the Department of Education cuts.
Agencies like this essentially award lucrative contracts to various corporations and overpay for services thus giving them more power than they would have otherwise in a more competitive market paradigm.

Also if we had a President who was not getting us involved in conflicts/wars without the consent of Congress than we would be involved in far less foreign engagements, and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I debunked the claim that "corporations will gain power" under a Paul administration.


No you did not. You asserted such a thing but not debunked anything.


I even explained how that works out and why it makes sense.




No, you actually did not. You wrote out some things that have no facts or details or bearing in reality yet. Can you do that?



Let's talk about the issues, and avoid the ad hominem name calling please.
Thanks.


What name did I call you?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow

I am quite sure, with all of the side and off topic issues that are brought up, that the intentions of some here are only to throw mud, and not to operate in good faith in search of the truth.


Yes I am pretty sure you are right about that.

My intentions are to either:
1) Actually help them find the truth
or
2) Reveal their true intent on causing dismay and confusion.


The person you are replying to is the first one to attack me in this thread for no reason and being the perfect example of the "scary Ron Paul fan" and you suggested that people like that are not really RP supporters but disinfo agents.

This post sure looks like you two shaking hands.
Can you explain that leap in logic for me?
Or can we agree he is not a disinfo agent but actually a real Ron Paul fan.

Let your excuses for him attacking me begin I am sure.


Irrelevant.

I proposed a hypothetical and did not mention any particular members.

But you continue to attempt to label particular members.

I don't care if people attack each other, and you cannot blame me for others conduct.

Nice try at deflection tactics though. Please try another strategy.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani
 


Why didn't you reply to my comments?

Hmmm...


Why did you write this when it is a lie?
Are you really this impatient?
How about you chill the hell out a moment.
Maybe if you keep reading this page and see where I replied to everything up to THIS POST so far you will feel ashamed for going from "I will be polite and help you with Ron Paul" to "Grrrrrrrrrr you dont respond to stuff!"

Yeah I replied to your comments.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash


What if they are disinfo agents working for the other candidates and trying to make people dislike RP by just talking a bunch of smack? You never know...


Think about that for a moment. You are telling me that you are here reading this thread full of anti RP disinfo agents and instead of calling any of them on it, you come after me?


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Either way you go on the next page to agree with the very first one.
So what does that make you?


Ad hominem. Please respond to :



Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash I am worried about corporate elitism and the government utilizing illegitimate authority to steamroll over me and destroy my family over utter bs.
See right here. As far as I cant tell, much of what Ron Paul stands for equates to giving corporations even more power. I have tried to address this and all I ever get in response is called names. So either I am wrong and I should be corrected so that I might change my mind or I am wrong and I am bad person for not just being right already and should stay wrong or I am right. I feel safe I will get an answer soon.
No, corporations will lose power under Paul because right now corporations have 3 major unfair advantages.
1) Massive Govt Subsidies
2) Massive Govt Contracting (military etc)
3) Heavy Govt Regulations (which kill small business competition)

Undermining the corporations here will be a major blow to their power, and their investors may pull out. This would be the reverse of helping corporations, because it would be crippling them. Also, by going back towards a more free market oriented system, small businesses would have less regulations and operating costs, and would be able to compete with large corporations more easily.

So actually you assumed incorrectly.
Corporations fear Paul's platform intensely due to these 3 main reasons. Regulations, Subsidies, and Irresponsible Govt Contracting is what allows corporations to have incredible power like today but when we pull this rug out from under them, their investors will see profits dropping quickly and will pull out, and this could collapse many of these mega-corps.
edit on 14-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


What ad hominem?
Where?
Are you trying to make me look like something I am not?
That seems honest of you.

BTW I already responded to it, a while ago at this point.

You need to chill out.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani
 


Why didn't you reply to my comments?

Hmmm...


Why did you write this when it is a lie?
Are you really this impatient?
How about you chill the hell out a moment.
Maybe if you keep reading this page and see where I replied to everything up to THIS POST so far you will feel ashamed for going from "I will be polite and help you with Ron Paul" to "Grrrrrrrrrr you dont respond to stuff!"

Yeah I replied to your comments.


I said that because you did reply to comments posted after my post and did not respond to my post until after I bugged you several times to do it.

Now why don't you respond to my post about the President's veto power and the Executive power over executive agencies and how that effects corporate power?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Littikani

We all know that Ron Paul wants you to be free to run your business however you want no matter what you sell because he says the free market will fix it.


"No matter what you sell"?

Nice absolutist claims.

Show me where he says that?


OH? So he does plan to regulate some business based on what they sell?
Can you be specific? What products will be on that list and what further regulation of those companies will he enforce?
I would be happy to be corrected.



Are you insinuating that Ron Paul wants businesses to be allowed to sell nuclear weapons to the public?
Debunked.


No because that is not even close to what I wrote.
Where do you see "Ron Paul wants you to be able to sell anything you want?"



Cuz I never wrote or insinuated anything like that.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Littikani

How do regulations on corporations give them more power?
That does not even make any sense.


For example NAFTA regulations are composed of heavy fees and fines.

Only large corporations are able to afford to pay these huge fees and fines.

Smaller businesses cannot afford them, and therefore are not able to compete in the market due to such regulations, and this one of many examples of how regulations are designed to give corporations greater power and influence.



new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join