Would Ron Paul suffacte Barack Obama in a debate?

Oh ok, I'll try to be as inclusive as I can. I read politics from around the world, and one thing does relate to another, especially when it comes to money. But I'll try to remember when I'm talking with you, its just the US. k?

Oh, and it was a singular central bank, which I am sure would also be a central currency as well, but that's just my speculation, I mean it just makes good business sense if its going to be one bank. You still following me, or did I lose ya?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS264245887020111024

 

try to focus, we were discussing politics in the usa

yea, i stop at the outer boundary of reality, there won't be any international central bank in my or your lifetimes

 

Me too. Even if it wasn't in a Presidential debate. Just a debate in general. I'm sure Paul would gladly debate Obama, but Obama is frightened of Paul. So it will never happen.

 

and even if ron paul went into his usual nut case rant, then had a seizure and dropped dead on stage, you'd declare him the winner

 

You addressed the message by attacking the messenger. If you posted anything other than that I did not see it.

 

there was no attack, what i posted was an accurate characterization of mises, his statement and the circumstances

 

Commenting on Mises character does not address his statement.

 

i addressed the statement, whether you like what i said or not

 

You addressed the statment by commenting on Mises supposed political leanings.

This has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of his words.

Hitler could say "the sky is blue". Just because Hitler is a Nazi does not mean the sky is not blue.

 

that's not relevant to what i wrote

 

HAHAHAHA um a youtube video, which may or may not have been doctored, which may or may not even be real....is not proof.

Anymore so than citing wikipedia which can be altered by anyone with a net connection is.

I find it amazing that firstly liberals attempt to make such dismissive claims as "propaganda", and then argue that the burden of "proof" to disprove a negative rests upon everyone else. Instead of themselves, who've made the negative argument in the first place.

And then, especially when the video is, well lets just say unflattering to Barack Obama or that hag he's married too. These same liberals are among the first to tell everyone else about how some youtube video is not proof. An argument we've all seen leftists attempt to make around here time and time again over the many years I've been around here.

Yet when the liberals and their claims are challenged, when they are told put up your proof, they themselves are also among the first to attempt to throw such youtube video's up as "proof" of their claims as well.

One guess's that's just some more of that good o'l liberal leftist hypocrisy we've all come to know so well.

Try to find some proof again dujac, when you again think you have some, come tell us all about it.

Oh and if we wish to discuss Hitler leftists, there are far more historical paralells between the policies and things Obama has called for, and the Nazi regime. Than at any other time in American History.

Such as Obama's call for a national police force which answers only to him....or Obama's attempts at legislating by fiat and executive order even being held in contempt of court in one instance of doing so....or how about Obama's attempts at using the force and power of government to force citizens to buy goods products and services from other private citizens,,,,or how about Obama's attempts at using the force and power of government to intimidate, and silence political opponents as well as dissidents....or Obama's refusal to uphold the law, and ensure the right of this nation's citizens to vote, without coercion or intimidation....

Gee imagine that, now why'd I know we suddenly wouldn't want too discuss those paralells.

 

Dujac, you seriously need to wake up...not everyone watches Alex Jones..and even those who do, most likely found the man by researching the issues that face us today...you can call it propaganda all you want to, but it's not going to change the facts...open your eyes instead of your mouth.....me thinks you argue simply to argue.

 

face it, alex jones has been lying to you

 

Of course it is.

Hitler could make an economic comment. Just because you do not agree with his politics does not make his comment wrong.

Your response to Mises comment was to comment on Mises politics.

 

the comment i made correctly addressed the essence of mises' philosophy

 

How does this statement address the essence of mises philosophy ?

It is completely disingenuous to claim the opinion above on "some" of mises work address the statement below:

 

that's not the statement i'm referring to

 

Enlighten me then.

 

it's there, look it up

 

There is not point in looking for something that does not exist.

 

you're wrong again, see post #226

 

Here is the quote you are supposed to responding to:

This is your response #226.

As you will note your response talks about his race, history and politics which is ad hominum as these things are irrelevent to the truth or falsity of his comment.

You do not address the substance of his comment.

 

you don't really understand mises, do you?

 

Ron Paul is a clumsy debater.He debates like a professor.Nixon coulda
wiped the floor with him.J.F.K. would Own him.
In fact,he doesn't debate as much as question.That is not a winning tact
in a debate.He likes to use phrases like ... " well y'know what I would do
is " then the blah blah blah.Now take Lady Bachmann she uses the tact,
" As President what I would do IS ".Which right off the bat,gains an
upper hand.But one shouldn't use that tact too often.
Should a good Debater Lie or cheat.Yes,because that is exactly how J.F.K.
beat Nixon in their Big Debate and got Tricky Dick's upper lip in a sweat.
J.F.K. had classified Info about *Cuba,where both candidates took an oath
to not discuss and he went {J.F.K.} and did.Thereby forcing Nixon into
a corner.Should Nixon respond and give away a classified secret,and
besting J.F.K. at his own game,or remain silent/change the answer so as not
to put the Country at risk.J.F.K. put the country at risk by divulging in a
Debate highly classified info about Cuba.He caused Nixon to sweat abnormally
actually J.F.K. made sure the room's lighting was close and baked the
candidates.So yes,Lying and or cheating in a debate can not only be
highly rewarding but can actually destroy a candidate as J.F.K. proved
with Nixon.




* J.F.K. used info from a briefing just the week prior that the CIA
gave Congress.He welched on a pledge to not use.J.F.K. broke National Security in
that debate,but he scored big,leaving Nixon look like a sweaty loser.

 

I find it laughable some of the same people who stood AGAINST the McCain war machine experience now want to use that as an asset for the Paul Campaign.
They want that military $$$$ donations,,they want that military vote and support..and they use Paul's military record as some sort of litmus test for leadership ?
Fine..
Show us his military leadership..show us his combat ribbons..his decorations..his bravery under fire..his courage by example.
If Libertarians couldn't support a McCain because of his military experience and leadership qualities..they can hardly use Paul's as some sort of leadership in excellence as it goes to being right on National defense policies.

PAUL only led $$$ by THOSE IN THE MILITARY WISHING TO DONATE..and that means nothing compared to the real votes he might receive.

Paul finished a distant 3rd in Minnesota.. Behind Romney and McCain.
He lost the military vet vote by a large %% in my district.