What's up with the anti-Paul trolls?

reply to post by Praetorius


You'd have to ask St. Patty that.

I'm waiting to have an intelligent conversation. Who are you voting for? Who do you think would be a better choice?

Quoting again to show an example of the common tactic of changing topic.

Who I am voting for is not on topic.

What positions of Paul's do you disagree with?

Oh, so many. How about that I dont think guns should be on school grounds? Or how about I go with Civil Rights are federal issues? Maybe I like that we have a minimum wage?

Oh, heres a big one. Maybe I don't want schools to have the right to discriminate?

Who do you think would be a better choice?

Oh, how nice. You have included a logical fallacy in your argument.

False Dilemma



On the contrary, its very on topic. This thread is about anti-paul trolling. When you enter a group and post inflammatory comments with nothing to back it up, you are trolling

reply to post by Starchild23
Wouldn't we have to say the same thing for Ireland, as he brought the faith there and it was never part of the empire?

Score for me! I win - Paul's not the antichrist Well...probably not, anyway.

Ok, I'm done with your political-eschatological ramblings!

reply to post by android18957392

On the contrary, its very on topic. This thread is about anti-paul trolling. When you enter a group and post inflammatory comments with nothing to back it up, you are trolling

Nope, sorry you are wrong(oh so wrong). Listen well, who i vote for is not on topic. If you insist on changing the topic to suit your agenda, then your as bad as the media.

Deny ignorance? Not so much.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Starchild23

 

Wouldn't we have to say the same thing for Ireland, as he brought the faith there and it was never part of the empire?

Score for me! I win - Paul's not the antichrist

Well...probably not, anyway.

Ok, I'm done with your political-eschatological ramblings!

You have proven nothing... lol. I never asked a specific region. If he is from a country that is Roman in some respect, then it validates the suspicions, but does not confirm them.

Shall we leave it as a fruitless project for the time being?

reply to post by Starchild23
Fair enough. We shall abandon this line of thought for the time being!

*bows to an honorable adversary*

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

And I suppose you see Romney, Santorum or Grinch making more positive changes? Wait, I already know the response to that. "I wouldn't vote for any of them" yet you will expend energy to bash Paul? Once again very fishy.

Anyway, my preference would be no politician whatsoever. Try someone who wasn't trained in politics and doesn't have any greedy sponsors to please, nor any bias in what needs to be done.

Like I said originally, you would bash Paul then say you wouldn't vote for any of them. I'm still waiting to hear which views of Paul's you disagree with so strongly. Id be happy to know you have strong feelings for a reason that exists, and would like to hear why.

At this point I'm thoroughly convinced. History repeats itself. People that bash paul and troll threads cannot disprove his 30 year voting record, and will not provide any factual data about paul's viewpoints. They prefer to argue over wordplay or boil a conversation down to simple arguments.

reply to post by Starchild23


I never said I expect you to vote for Paul, don't twist my words. I simply said that voting for someone because "the other guy sounds too good" is flawed logic, and setting yourself up to fail.

Put simpler, how is America going to get out of the slump it's in if any president that promises to do something about it is called a liar before they have even been given a chance?

Originally posted by android18957392

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

And I suppose you see Romney, Santorum or Grinch making more positive changes? Wait, I already know the response to that. "I wouldn't vote for any of them" yet you will expend energy to bash Paul? Once again very fishy.

Anyway, my preference would be no politician whatsoever. Try someone who wasn't trained in politics and doesn't have any greedy sponsors to please, nor any bias in what needs to be done.

Like I said originally, you would bash Paul then say you wouldn't vote for any of them. I'm still waiting to hear which views of Paul's you disagree with so strongly. Id be happy to know you have strong feelings for a reason that exists, and would like to hear why.

At this point I'm thoroughly convinced. History repeats itself. People that bash paul and troll threads cannot disprove his 30 year voting record, and will not provide any factual data about paul's viewpoints. They prefer to argue over wordplay or boil a conversation down to simple arguments.

Why is my name at the top? Those post you quoted have nothing to do with me.

Look people, what it comes down to is not Ron Paul. People don't back Ron Paul because of the man, i mean that might be part of it, but not really why. People back him because he's the face of a popular movement for freedom and real change.

Whether true or not, what it comes down to is people feel that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for freedom.

reply to post by mossme89


Probably for the same reason that Paul threads have taken over ATS. Political fervor. No difference at all between being rabidly anti-Paul or being rabidly pro-Paul.

Perhaps some are concerned over the level of mania surrounding Ron Paul? We saw what the Obama mania led to. I know its starting to be a bit over the top.

I could also say this thread is "trolling". This is a discussion and debate forum with the emphasis on debate. This place would be pretty boring if it was just people agreeing about how wonderful Ron Paul is, without anything being challenged.

I don't post on these very often, but if I had one thing to say here, it would be what has Ron Paul done? What are his qualifications to unite enough people to get anything done if he wins? Out of all the Bills he has been involved with he only passed one meaningless one and mostly was unable to get a single cosponsor. Is he a person who can unite Congress and the Senate behind his ideas? That concerns me. I wonder if his supporters even know how the government works. Ron Paul is not running for Dictator.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by mossme89

 

I don't trust him. I have never heard of a politician who had so many people rooting for him.

I have: and the"rooting" was followed by a massive Mob chanting: "yes; we can..."

Originally posted by Starchild23

Every politician has just as many people booing him/her as they've had people cheering. And yet...there's so much popularity for this guy. Plus, it looks like he intends to give the government a complete reform. I've said time and again, it brings the Antichrist to mind.

It brings the present administration and it's mob mentality cheering democratic lackeys to mind: "anti-christ " is your word...

Originally posted by Starchild23

I have only met one person who said flat-out that he wont make it to the elections. That's scary.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by mossme89

 

What's up with the anti-Paul trolls?

This is what I hate about ATS. Cant say something that cast Paul in a bad light or your a troll. Every other candidate is open game to talk all kinds of crap about, even if its not true.

Hypocrites.

that is an absolute falsehood... if it is true and can be sourced it will be respected. falsehoods are vehemently dogged, as they should be.

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Dreamer99
reply to post by Starchild23

 

I don't trust him. I have never heard of a politician who had so many people rooting for him.

What you're seeing there is people cheering for the constitution, and liberty. Ron Paul is just the current voice of the people that don't want their Liberties taken from them.

No, what I'm seeing is a POLITICIAN seeing what the people want and agreeing with them so they'll think he's the best man for the job.

All men talk, but not every man walks.

i would agree with your post if not for one thing. Mr Paul has been saying the same thing for 30 years, so it seems to me that people are jumping on the Paul wagon not the other way around.

What's up with the anti-Paul trolls?

I dont see any anti-Paul trolls but I do see pro-Obama supporters whether they know it our not.

reply to post by mossme89


They're either paid to be here, or they just really hate the Constitution and freedom so much that they'll countlessly bash a man who's trying to change things for the better, because their love for the establishment and tyranny is just so strong.

reply to post by Blaine91555


When he said "trolling", he doesn't mean people discussing why they oppose Ron Paul or why they disagree with him on the topic at hand, he means the handful of people who are literally on the first page of every Ron Paul thread trying to make him look bad in whatever ways they can.

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Mescalito

 

Sure thing, friend, and no worries - that's what I'm here for. For a summary from the man himself, I'd suggest checking out a thread of mine linked in my signature, which links to his full "My Plan for a freedom president" that fairly sums up his goals and limitations.

For the quick summary - he wants to restore the government to its constitutional scope and authority/limits (basically shrink it back to the role it was founded to fill), leaving the rest up to the states & people to craft as they see fit; restore privacy to the people and reverse the roles we've grown into (government being afraid of the people so there is liberty, and not people being afraid of the government so that it practices any form of tyranny); stop bad military and foreign policies that make us more likely to be targeted while also being less able to effectively defend ourselves; let the people and states keep more of their own money since big government just keeps getting bigger while becoming less efficient; and restoring more of our former dignity on the world scene by practicing the international policy of our founding fathers: peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

As far as his limitations in office, which he acknowledges, a good part of what he aims for (mainly changing our domestic and financial policies here at home) would require cooperation of Congress. However, there is quite a lot he can do on his own as president - the list I usually run down is:
1) order the troops home, end the wars, stop the involved money from being wasted, and prevent further loss of civilian life and lessen desire for retaliation against the US.
2) revoke all prior overreaching and unconstitutional executive directives.
3) order the DOJ to stop interfering with states' rights regarding their own laws on medi MJ, foods, and the rest.
4) pardon non-violent "offender" victims of the drug war.
5) shrink big government by refusing to fill non-essential position vacancies (attrition).
6) use the bully pulpit of the Executive Office to educate the american people and push for rational change via their representatives
7) restore some dignity to the office finally - no crappy gifts to foreign heads of state that don't even work in their nation, no bowing to foreign leaders, HONESTY AND FRANKNESS WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for a change, no Bush-style embarassments...ugh, bushisms...
8) I suppose it's important to add one of the most obvious powers in vetoing unconstitutional, unhelpful, or stupid legislation as well as unbalanced budgets.

There are probably a few little things I'm missing, but those are the big things that fall primarily to the discretion of the executive branch itself - and they are very significant and needed, at this point.

Let me know if I can provide anything else - take care.

edit on 1/16/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

I am rather tempted to convert now...but like I said, after seeing years of all talk and little action, I'm a bit wary of throwing my hat into the ring when it might go up in flames and take my political dignity with it.

I am always flabbergasted at the types that say these things " I'm a bit wary of throwing my hat into the ring when it might go up in flames and take my political dignity with it.".

By not taking place you are adding to the demise as well. At least when you do place your vote, you can say "Well I tried".

Do you think that by not attempting to pace the person in the seat of power that you have accomplished something? The only thing you accomplish by not participating is stagnation and it is killing America.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Starchild23

 

I am rather tempted to convert now...but like I said, after seeing years of all talk and little action, I'm a bit wary of throwing my hat into the ring when it might go up in flames and take my political dignity with it.

If you wanna talk about "little action" then look no further then Paul. Out of 600+ legislation he sponsored, only 1 passed.

To the people of this thread, this isn't a valid concern.

This does not mean he has taken "little action", to me this looks as if he was taking action but TPTB and the brain washed masses didn't like that action i.e. the MSM told the masses what to think and vote on.

Take a look at some of the bills he tried to pass. Educate yourself. Most of the bills where all about the citizins, the corporations dont like those, specifically when they are posed to loose a profit.

If Ron Paul did nothing else but repeal the patriot act in his 4 year term he will have accomplished more for the people and the republic than the last three presidents before him combined.