|
|
|
|
#1
11-28-2007, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
* I appreciate the directness on the confederate flag question, the fact that all republicans aren't on board with that thing being an insult pretty much answers the earlier question re: why don't blacks vote for us, doesn't it?
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul. * I like the youtube format, even though it's not really the democratization its promoted as (just cause the media screens and filters the questions), I still think the questions come across better, the people convey a real sense of urgency about the issues and they aren't afraid of asking a question on a subject or in a way that would get them in trouble. * debates have a natural flow to them in a number of ways that make debates with too many people on stage and commercial breaks lose power and make everyone taking part look weaker I think. * lol at the stupid live audience * Obama '08! 
|
|
#3
11-28-2007, 11:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] * You guys are wrong about Ron Paul. [/ QUOTE ] Please explain. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#5
11-29-2007, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] * You guys are wrong about Ron Paul. [/ QUOTE ] Please explain. [/ QUOTE ] That was drive-by trolling. [/ QUOTE ] No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric. It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over. Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.
|
|
#6
11-29-2007, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] * You guys are wrong about Ron Paul. [/ QUOTE ] Please explain. [/ QUOTE ] That was drive-by trolling. [/ QUOTE ] No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric. It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over. Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question. [/ QUOTE ] This nation was founded by people who thought along the same lines as RP. To refer to RP's ideas as cynical and unrealistic is to deny history. The ideas that RP supports are the same one that produced the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. You would do well to refrain from your attacks and do some homework.
|
|
#7
11-29-2007, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] That was drive-by trolling. [/ QUOTE ] No it wasn't ... [words] [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that it indeed wasn't. The rest of your post is a product of the same mindset.
|
|
#8
11-29-2007, 12:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That was drive-by trolling. [/ QUOTE ] No it wasn't ... [words] [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that it indeed wasn't. The rest of your post is a product of the same mindset. [/ QUOTE ] wtf stop being such a blatant homer, especially considering the newest good post he just wrote. The word "trolling" is so horribly abused in this forum.
|
|
#9
11-29-2007, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That was drive-by trolling. [/ QUOTE ] No it wasn't ... [words] [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that it indeed wasn't. The rest of your post is a product of the same mindset. [/ QUOTE ] wtf stop being such a blatant homer, especially considering the newest good post he just wrote. The word "trolling" is so horribly abused in this forum. [/ QUOTE ] It's comical to watch though. "Giuliani sucks" "Agree" "Seconded" "I would say he really sucks" "That Romney sure is a moron" "Yep" "Uh huh" "Couldn't agree more" "Ron Paul isn't what you think he is" "TROLL TROLL TROLL"
|
|
#10
11-29-2007, 12:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
wtf stop being such a blatant homer, especially considering the newest good post he just wrote. The word "trolling" is so horribly abused in this forum. [/ QUOTE ] lol. Are you seriously suggesting that a random bullet point of: [ QUOTE ] * You guys are wrong about Ron Paul. [/ QUOTE ] Does not qualify as trolling? You should try to be less of a blatant apologist for anyone who attempts an argument against Ron Paul. You just make yourself look bad if you try to defend things that are not defensible. I couldn't mind any less if he made a fair criticism (which yes, he eventually did attempt). But it doesn't change the fact that his first post was indeed trolling, at least as far as I understand the term to mean. You actually disagree? Or was that just a random attack on me cause you like to aimlessly defend people who oppose "the home team"? FWIW, I rarely use the word "Troll." I think I've done it twice, ever, and one of those times I admitted I was wrong and that it was a stupid accusation 5 minutes later. I think it's a weird term and using it isn't really my style. But, I was just agreeing with whoever first mentioned it that it clearly was "drive by trolling" (which, adds a mildly funny twist to the allegation). And I don't really appreciate your trying to turn my acknowledgment of this into something personal (i.e. "stop being a blatant homer").
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
