I didn't like the link for Ron Paul... But I liked the link in your signature about making money, just signed up for that one
I support Ron Paul because he's more insane than me - and makes me look good. Actually I agree with his views on a smaller federal government, the abolishment of the illegal income tax law in the constitution that was not ratified correctly due to Ohio's mismanagement of the vote and a retroactive judgment by a court, his policy on a real border solution, and the fact that I agree with him 4/5ths of the time. 80% aint bad folks.
That depends a lot on what the 20% is. Let's say that you agreed with a candidate on 90% of everything, but he believed that the government must force every woman to become pregnant at the age of 14 to ensure national growth. Wouldn't that be a wee bit of a problem.
Nice strawman argument. Agreeing with 80% dosent mean that the other 20% is stupidly evil. The good thing with Ron Paul is that he states exactly what he stands for and follows through with his voting record. In a day and age where candidates really say nothing concrete, and flip anyways, he is a refreshing change. Any of the other candidates will have to answer sometime to the corporate money that is paying for their campaign. This may or may not follow along with your ideals, and may or may not break promises. Lets be real for a moment, money buys a president. Look at Hilary, she is the front runner of the "democratic" party and nobody really likes her or cares for her policies. She is however the most funded of the candidates.
akula, that wasn't a straw man argument. Quoting Wikipedia, "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." Now, go back and actually READ my post this time and tell me if I made any representations at all about Jackuul's position. Are you ESL?
Hey tool; reading wikipedias limited definition of a strawman argument does increase your limited understanding of what a strawman argument is. Your comment of "are you ESL?" is an ignorant statement to further your ignorant position. Now go try and do more research on a strawman argument so you don't look like such a idiot.
akula: That was a completely moronic post. You clearly have no idea what a straw man argument is. You made an ignorant accusation and you got called on it -- then you threw a temper tantrum because you got caught. What a baby!
Actually I called you on getting your definition from wikipedia which only has a limited definition. You do understand what limited is don't you? Since you typed this: "Are you ESL?" you may not have a grasp on the English language, so I have to make sure.
I say you just get over yourself. It is not my fault that you have a limited understanding of something and rely on wikipedia to give you a definition to use that is as limited as your own understanding. Of course you can always fall back on calling me a baby like in previous threads......oh wait you did that already here.
Words have meaning, phrases have meaning. Communication occurs when people use words and phrases with pre-negotiated meanings. When you ignore the agreed upon meanings of words and phrases, you make effective communication impossible. "Strawman argument" is not a phrase which you made up yourself. It has a meaning which is larger than you -- which predates your very existence. You cannot give a term your own personal meaning and then expect to engage in any sort of effective communication. You are acting like a baby. The word "baby" has a meaning which matches your behavior. Therefore, I use the word "baby" to describe you. It would not be sensible to describe you with a word that less accurately portrayed your behavior -- and it would not be honest to do so.
Well maybe you need to dive a little deeper into the meaning of a strawman argument then the limited one that someone put up on wikipedia. There are whole books and papers that dissect strawman arguments and you have come up with one that is extremely limited in its scope. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the amount of people that do rely on a quick google search for their information here. Especially one that resorts to a completely ignorant argument of words and meanings to describe a logical fallacy premise. The words "straw" and "man" have meaning you could get from any dictionary but they have no relevancy here. The definition of the fallacy and explanation of it could never be summed up fully by a one line dictionary entry. And since we are on words here lets discuss one for you. As in 'imbecile'. As in your use of asking "Are you ESL?" or "Are you English as a second language?" Which is exactly how a somebody with a slight retardation may speak.....or 'imbecile'.
You continue to babble when you should be admitting that you had -- and probably still have -- no idea of what a straw man argument is. Instead of being such a baby, you should just learn your lesson and move on. You are embarrassing only yourself. You are most likely the only person here who does not know what a straw man argument is -- and everyone who does understand what a straw man argument is will be laughing at you when they read this thread.
See here is the point that you missed here real man of genius.... Your argument is not with Jackuul it is direct relationship to Ron Paul and thus on the position I put forth by starting this thread. Yes it is a reply to Jackuul 80% agreement, but it is against the character of Ron Paul. I would say at this point "but you knew that already" because it seems like a common style to play dumb here for as long as possible. But with you ("Are you ESL")I really think you may have been genuinely confused.
Ron Paul was on Digg alot recently, and I was wondering who the heck he was. Thanks for the post! Now I know.
If you can't address what I have posted then just quit posting. The name calling and accusations are getting old. But thanks for the constant bumps........ Ron Paul for 2008.