that's typical of deadcode though, it's to be expected.


regarding my question about ron paul and the separation of church and state i wasn't be facetious i was being serious. according to das's link and thraxle's youtube clip it's evident he is against the separation of church and state as it currently exists. and he would be perfectly fine with states introducing blue laws like the barring of atheists from public office.

i just want to know how ron paul supporters reconcile that with their notion that ron paul is for/wants to protect individual liberty.

furthermore you act as though the constitution is some sort of holy document to be held to a dogmatic adherence. it's not, it's a document that has evolved over time and has changed with the nation and for the nation.

i think colbert puts it in a more amusing and articulate fashion than i could: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405559/january-09-2012/indecision-2012---new-hampshire-gop-debates---moderate-extremes

if you're going to base everything you do on an antiquated basis/interpretation of law under the pretenses of conservation where do you ultimately draw the line? and do you really intend to stand in the way of progress?

it's an interesting dichotomy and most greatly personified by the rivalry between Sparta and Athens. And we all know how that ended.


Last thing, gangster, unfortunately you and i see how dead responds to arguments and take it for what it is - usually logical fallacy enveloped in ad hominem or strawman. not saying deadcode doesn't give his positions much thought or that he doesn't occasionally make good points, i'd suggest the contrary - he deliberates a lot about these issues and he is a pragmatist. the unfortunate bit here is that the responses you see him give here are actually what goes through his head and how he internally dismisses opposing arguments.

he's not using ad hominem or strawmanning arguments because he wants to persuade anyone - rather it's because that's actually what and why he thinks something.

it makes debating him a challenge but he's a good guy and eventually you can come to see eye to eye with him on issues.

to dead: you're not the only one guilty of doing that, it's human nature to think like that and most of us are guilty of it to one extent or another, the key to achieving prowess is of course recognizing when you are guilty of logical fallacy

{{ He claims that he has witnessed the slide in media bias since the removal of the Fairness Doctrine. }}

I might add that witnessing the slide in media bias does not preclude one has been around to see decades of it. I have. In spite of that I would never whip out that card. The visible slide in "recent" years is enough to offer damn near anyone a gauge on it. Simple fact is perhaps Veta has researched or reviewed enough historical examples offering him a decent perspective of such a slide since the removal of the fairness doctrine. Maybe he has, maybe hasn't. I don't know and more importantly... either do you. Your argument fails man. It's simply bad form period and you refuse to own up to it. Granted my usage of ad hom on occasion when I feel it necessary to deliver a point could be equally identified as fallacy in debate. But unlike yourself I would step up to the plate and own up to it....

dickwad

also lol at Coffee Klatch. that perfectly personifies k8dice

i'd say dead is closer to an ideologue http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm

heh... okay, been awhile for me. I'm a little rusty :) Rarely does any one person fit one particular characterization exactly. All of of us represent more of mixed bag of em all with a strong propensity towards one of them. However, yea Ideologue, forgot about him. Think you nailed it.. :p

really wish...

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/centurion.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/klaxon.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/xenophobe.htm

would join in....

hours of fun :)

Gangster: "chump"

Gangster: "dickwad"

Have fun; talking to yourself.

You forgot "douche".

few years ago I swore myself off of net based political forums/debate... and while I still believe it's because very little if anything at all tangible will ever come of it, I realize now what it is primarily that brings me back....

it's the lulz

So apparently Ron Paul is an antidisestablismentarian on the state level.