Club for Growth Endorses Bill Richardson

I am well read enough to have more sources and information on many topics than you do.

What's the matter? Your Commodore 64 doesn't play YouTube videos?

 

Ah damnit, it's those lizard people again.

I'm not subscribed to the secret lizard people channel where they beam "the magic truth" into my brain.

I have to read and analyze for myself.

Yep. That's it. I'm still looking for a flash player for my Osborne.

 

And yet you're unable to discover the truth about the CfG and their partisan attack tactics.

Oh well. At least the truth is out there for people who would like to know more about Earl's position on the 527 being a group of right wing politicos.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=club4growth


-

 

Hey gorilla, you learned to read yet?

 

I'm replying to your posts, aren't I?

I really thought you had so much more game than this Will. I was under the impression that although terribly narcissistic and misguided, you were very intelligent. Oh well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

 

I'm still waiting for you to step up to the plate.

Am I going to have to wait for northpointaiki to get back before I get a decent opponent to spar with?

You have failed to read the document(s) which were the central point of this thread. Instead, you attempt to derail the conversation into something you saw on TV during the commercial breaks of X-Files.

Did you ever notice that this was a thread about Bill Richardson? No... You blathered on about Mike Huckabee like you couldn't even read the thread topic.

Honestly, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. It won't hurt you. Not even a little bit.

 

You might as well wait. I didn't realize there are two of us who clean your clock, and frankly I'm starting to get bored with it. Give someone else a turn.

 

northpointaiki makes intelligent arguments. He can read and does read.

You're should not compare yourself positively to a person with those qualities.

 

I agree. He is a wonderful fellow, and I consider him a friend.

And you should not purport to be capable of writing intelligently.

 

My posts speak for themselves, as (unfortunately for you) do yours.

 

Thank you for making my point. Btw, you can have the last word. At this point, Bill "Amnesty" Richardson is no longer a fiscal candidate worth considering.

I would like to reiterate on the way out though, that anyone who supports CfG financially, or supports them organizationally has been terribly misled.

 

Because freedom is bad and Ron Paul is good. Free trade is bad and Ron Paul is good. Mike Huckabee is bad and Ron Paul is good. Other people are bad and Ron Paul is good. Free market economics is bad and Ron Paul is good.

Really, this is all because The Club for Good published a paper revealing the dark lies underneath Ron Paul's supposed support for libertarian economics -- and anyone who speaks the truth about Ron Paul must be punished.

Would you like another glass of Kool-Aide?

 

Well, I agree with Mike Huckabee and other people (some) are bad.

As far as the rest, Ron Paul endorses freedom, free trade, and free market economics.

Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with the CfG analysis on Ron Paul, except the idea that being too principled is a negative. Overall it was very well done.

Sure, want me to get you some humble pie while I'm in the kitchen?

 

Sure he does, out of one side of his mouth.

It's like me endorsing sobriety. There's a lot less practicing than preaching.

So you agree that he gets a 29% score on fiscal responsibility?

No thanks, it seems like you're starving for it.

 

Ad Hominem.

It wasn't on Fiscal responsibility. It was on their ludicrous RePork scale. But I can live with that. They gave him high marks in 2006.

Other than that, as mentioned, I agree with the analysis except for their idea that being too principled is a negative.

Of course the very last sentence has been addressed by Paul's platform of transitional programs, which are exactly what the Club for Growth is criticizing him for a lack of. This is likely because the article is somewhat dated and working off his congressional record not his presidential platform.

 

Incorrect. Ron Paul isn't making an argument here.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
​

The REPork Scale is a scale of fiscal responsibility.

Yes, before he decided that he needed to buy votes for his upcoming campaign.

Not "too principled." That's doublespeak. Here's what they really said.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.


Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.

​

It is surprisingly how much Mr. Unchangeable has contorted himself in the process of this campaign.

For a guy who wants the world to believe he is "too principled", he seems fairly comfortable with throwing his principles out the window in order to gain power.

 

Actually, it's only a scale of spending. Not of fiscal responsibility. Fiscal policy includes spending, revenue and debt management.

Straw man.

Thank you for quoting, what I quoted. It's this kind of redundancy that will allow us to survive Y2K and other technological failures.

And it's not doublespeak. They specifically state that he is ideologically for perfection, rather than compromise for pro-growth. I would call that being too principled.

Actually, he is very principled. He recognizes that the executive does not have unitary power under the Constitution, so he will have to work with the Congress to affect change. This is a legal and correct position.

And his transitional programs consist of cutting spending in the most politically acceptable and useful order possible, without compromising the people dependent on the welfare state until the government and economy have been turned around. It's not unprincipled to have an order, or a plan of attack. Paul has never advocated cutting every government department and program on the first day of his Presidency. Just for taking a paycut when the government was trimmed down to size.

 

It does not appear that you know what that term means either.

I am not making a Straw Man argument. I am directly accusing Ron Paul of using his position of influence over taxpayer funds to buy votes for his upcoming campaign.

Here's the Wikipedia definition of "straw man":

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
​

As you can see, there isn't enough relation between what I typed and what a straw man argument really is to even make a meaningful comparison. It's like apples and flashlights.

 

No, you posted an informal fallacy. Thanks.

 

That's a ridiculously weak argument. He spent like a drunken sailor. Not his money, but taxpayer money. He got a 29%. Have you ever received a 29% grade on anything?

I must be old and blind. Please point to me where the Club For Growth used the word "principled" or the phrase "too principled" to refer to Ron Paul.

So your argument for electing Ron Paul is that, due to the rule of law, he won't be able to break anything anyway? In that case, we might as well elect Rosie O'Donnell!