Is Phatscotty a Republican?

[Night Strike]

phatman would have you believe Ron Paul was not responsible for a news letter called"The Ron Paul Newsletter" that does not make sense to anyone. Ron Paul and his son by what They have said both would choose to not support Civil rights legislation.

Why do people know what Ron Paul was involved in publishing 30+ years ago yet we know nothing about what Obama was involved in editing 30 or so years ago?

[Symmetry]

phatman would have you believe Ron Paul was not responsible for a news letter called"The Ron Paul Newsletter" that does not make sense to anyone. Ron Paul and his son by what They have said both would choose to not support Civil rights legislation.

Why do people know what Ron Paul was involved in publishing 30+ years ago yet we know nothing about what Obama was involved in editing 30 or so years ago?

Erm, it was the The Ron Paul Investment Letter, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Political Report, so yeah he was involved.

If you're going for the false equivalency argument, Obama was an editor for the Harvard Law Review, widely available, though subscription might be needed,

[Night Strike]

phatman would have you believe Ron Paul was not responsible for a news letter called"The Ron Paul Newsletter" that does not make sense to anyone. Ron Paul and his son by what They have said both would choose to not support Civil rights legislation.

Why do people know what Ron Paul was involved in publishing 30+ years ago yet we know nothing about what Obama was involved in editing 30 or so years ago?

Erm, it was the The Ron Paul Investment Letter, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Political Report, so yeah he was involved.

If you're going for the false equivalency argument, Obama was an editor for the Harvard Law Review, widely available, though subscription might be needed,

If it's so widely available, why has not one issue that he was involved in editing been made known?

[Symmetry]

phatman would have you believe Ron Paul was not responsible for a news letter called"The Ron Paul Newsletter" that does not make sense to anyone. Ron Paul and his son by what They have said both would choose to not support Civil rights legislation.

Why do people know what Ron Paul was involved in publishing 30+ years ago yet we know nothing about what Obama was involved in editing 30 or so years ago?

Erm, it was the The Ron Paul Investment Letter, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Political Report, so yeah he was involved.

If you're going for the false equivalency argument, Obama was an editor for the Harvard Law Review, widely available, though subscription might be needed,

If it's so widely available, why has not one issue that he was involved in editing been made known?

They are all available. Likely there's just nothing there. I'm not sure what you expect to find.

What's your take on Paul's letters that he was using to build his libertarian base?

[thegreekdog]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

You think I would report you or something?

That's okay. All my life there has been confusion as to exactly where I stand, but like I have said repeatedly, I am a registered independent who is fiscally concerned, and the fiscal concern is growing more and more and time goes by. Independents do not always act a certain way, which is why it is hard for some people who think because I go to the right on one issue, I am chained to the right on every issue. Anyhoo...

2012 - I voted for Romney, specifically against Obama
2008 - Ron Paul
2004 - Ralp Nader

I have never, EVER supported the Iraq war. I was against it even before it started, even when Keith Olberman and Hillary Clitnon were for it. Being against the Iraq war was probably the #1 reason I was demonized as a Liberal from the years 2001-2006.

I supported the Afghanistan actions, but was hoping we would clean house, get the terrorists, and get out. I would have preferred to leave after about 6 months.

I don't think I supported any kind of military presence overseas. Of course each situation is different, and I'm not a pacifist, but my first votes I could cast were for Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, and their position on the military was a heavy reason for my support, that is that the military is far too stretched out and intervenes way too much in other countries. I am for the strongest of strong defenses, as to me that is the most important function of government, and I think there is a lot of difference between a strong defense and a large military that outspends the rest of the world combined.

I don't know exactly what the federal bonus is, but I can tell you if it costs money that we don't have, I am very likely against it unless there is a specific good and legitimate reason for it's existence.

Federal credit for RnD, I am not dead set against it, but I would much rather prefer the tax system we have were not in place in order for there to be deductions in the first place.

I am not in favor of making abortion illegal.

I think it's important to have an official language. That is not to say that no other language can be spoken, but when it comes to government forms, yes I think they should be in English. We should provide translators and forms written in other languages upon request. However I have not heard a lot of arguments against this or put a lot of thought into it, so I would be open to listen and possibly be persuaded upon discovery of previously unknown details/situations.

I believe burning the flag is a form of free speech, and making it illegal would infringe on the first amendment.

I have a problem with the way your last question is asked. As of right now, gay marriage is not recognized by a majority of states, so I think it's incorrect to ask if I support making it illegal, as that is the way it mostly is. But to skip the re-asking, I can tolerate whichever way the voters decide, so long as the voters get a chance to decide. That is to say, if the voters decide not to change the definition of marriage, I support that. Likewise, if the voters decide to change the definition of marriage, I support that too. The marriage issue is mostly one of process to me, and overall I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Based on the responses in this thread, I dub Phatscotty a fiscal conservative and a social moderate with certain right-wing tendencies.

In any event, I agree with BvP and some of what Woodruff posted. If Phatscotty was a true Libertarian (which he's not, and never claimed to be), he would not have difficulty answering the questions posed by BBS or me. I also think he doesn't like to admit when he's wrong or when he shows inconsistencies, instead either ignoring the question by not responding at all, ignoring the question by responding to the post but not the question, responding in video form, or accusing the questioner of being mean/unfair/biased/angry/trolling/baiting. Politically, He reminds me of a Ted Cruz type Republican - a true fiscal conservative with a Christian Coalition build. In other words, he reminds me of a fairly typical Tea Party member.

[Lootifer]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

It's called the Tea Party.

Not true.

Any entity that has the goal of working towards a trustworthy transparent governement should be politically agnostic.

[thegreekdog]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

It's called the Tea Party.

Not true.

Any entity that has the goal of working towards a trustworthy transparent governement should be politically agnostic.

I would like to see how the Tea Party works when a Republican is in the White House, but Phatscotty is sort of right. The president promised transparency in his first run and has not delivered. I would not normally criticize him for not being transparent (given the lack of transparency from most presidencies recently) except he specifically promised it as something that differentiated him from Bush (and therefore McCain)/

[Lootifer]

Oh dont get me wrong, Tea Party is nearly what PS claims it to be, and I would support it if it was, as I say, more politically agnostic.

Completely agree with your issue with Obama. Unfortunately for you however there is no real vote for tranparency/lack or corruption. From my perspective both side are as bad as each other.

[waauw]

Oh dont get me wrong, Tea Party is nearly what PS claims it to be, and I would support it if it was, as I say, more politically agnostic.

Completely agree with your issue with Obama. Unfortunately for you however there is no real vote for tranparency/lack or corruption. From my perspective both side are as bad as each other.

Maybe the first thing that should happen in america is politicians and political parties should not be allowed to receive such huge donations from corporations(especially Wall Street).

In my country and in many european countries it is against the law for a politician or political party to receive donations.
The only way they get campaigning money here is from subsidies by the government or from party membershipfee's which are the same for every member.

[thegreekdog]

Oh dont get me wrong, Tea Party is nearly what PS claims it to be, and I would support it if it was, as I say, more politically agnostic.

Completely agree with your issue with Obama. Unfortunately for you however there is no real vote for tranparency/lack or corruption. From my perspective both side are as bad as each other.

Maybe the first thing that should happen in america is politicians and political parties should not be allowed to receive such huge donations from corporations(especially Wall Street).

In my country and in many european countries it is against the law for a politician or political party to receive donations.
The only way they get campaigning money here is from subsidies by the government or from party membershipfee's which are the same for every member.

Really? That's a really easy answer. BBS - how do we get that done here?

[Phatscotty]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

You think I would report you or something?

That's okay. All my life there has been confusion as to exactly where I stand, but like I have said repeatedly, I am a registered independent who is fiscally concerned, and the fiscal concern is growing more and more and time goes by. Independents do not always act a certain way, which is why it is hard for some people who think because I go to the right on one issue, I am chained to the right on every issue. Anyhoo...

2012 - I voted for Romney, specifically against Obama
2008 - Ron Paul
2004 - Ralp Nader

I have never, EVER supported the Iraq war. I was against it even before it started, even when Keith Olberman and Hillary Clitnon were for it. Being against the Iraq war was probably the #1 reason I was demonized as a Liberal from the years 2001-2006.

I supported the Afghanistan actions, but was hoping we would clean house, get the terrorists, and get out. I would have preferred to leave after about 6 months.

I don't think I supported any kind of military presence overseas. Of course each situation is different, and I'm not a pacifist, but my first votes I could cast were for Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, and their position on the military was a heavy reason for my support, that is that the military is far too stretched out and intervenes way too much in other countries. I am for the strongest of strong defenses, as to me that is the most important function of government, and I think there is a lot of difference between a strong defense and a large military that outspends the rest of the world combined.

I don't know exactly what the federal bonus is, but I can tell you if it costs money that we don't have, I am very likely against it unless there is a specific good and legitimate reason for it's existence.

Federal credit for RnD, I am not dead set against it, but I would much rather prefer the tax system we have were not in place in order for there to be deductions in the first place.

I am not in favor of making abortion illegal.

I think it's important to have an official language. That is not to say that no other language can be spoken, but when it comes to government forms, yes I think they should be in English. We should provide translators and forms written in other languages upon request. However I have not heard a lot of arguments against this or put a lot of thought into it, so I would be open to listen and possibly be persuaded upon discovery of previously unknown details/situations.

I believe burning the flag is a form of free speech, and making it illegal would infringe on the first amendment.

I have a problem with the way your last question is asked. As of right now, gay marriage is not recognized by a majority of states, so I think it's incorrect to ask if I support making it illegal, as that is the way it mostly is. But to skip the re-asking, I can tolerate whichever way the voters decide, so long as the voters get a chance to decide. That is to say, if the voters decide not to change the definition of marriage, I support that. Likewise, if the voters decide to change the definition of marriage, I support that too. The marriage issue is mostly one of process to me, and overall I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Based on the responses in this thread, I dub Phatscotty a fiscal conservative and a social moderate with certain right-wing tendencies.

In any event, I agree with BvP and some of what Woodruff posted. If Phatscotty was a true Libertarian (which he's not, and never claimed to be), he would not have difficulty answering the questions posed by BBS or me. I also think he doesn't like to admit when he's wrong or when he shows inconsistencies, instead either ignoring the question by not responding at all, ignoring the question by responding to the post but not the question, responding in video form, or accusing the questioner of being mean/unfair/biased/angry/trolling/baiting. Politically, He reminds me of a Ted Cruz type Republican - a true fiscal conservative with a Christian Coalition build. In other words, he reminds me of a fairly typical Tea Party member.

Are you certain the questions I "ignored" are legit questions? If you accuse me of ignoring trolls, hey, totally guilty! If not, please point out any or all questions you feel I have not answered, and I will answer them.

That's what I don't get. I don't mind answering questions at all. Many times when you think I am dodging a question, I am just moving the discussion back on topic. And if you are trying to accuse me of not addressing something, I would bet that in 99% of cases it was because I asked X a question, and Y comes in and takes it in a totally different direction and even can purposefully derail the topic. Sometimes questioners are trolling, sometimes they are angry.

I like the Tea Party, so you can call me that. I don't know what you guys are going to do when I start ripping Republicans or agreeing with Liberals. (of course that won't happen as much when they aren't in power). As for what "other" people think about me, I have been called a Liberal twice as long in my life as I have been called a Republican or anything on the right, and in both cases, on the extreme left or the fringe right. Sometimes, it's everyone else too.

and if you truly put me around Ted Cruz, than I am highly honored!

[Woodruff]

Oh dont get me wrong, Tea Party is nearly what PS claims it to be, and I would support it if it was, as I say, more politically agnostic.

Completely agree with your issue with Obama. Unfortunately for you however there is no real vote for tranparency/lack or corruption. From my perspective both side are as bad as each other.

Maybe the first thing that should happen in america is politicians and political parties should not be allowed to receive such huge donations from corporations(especially Wall Street).

In my country and in many european countries it is against the law for a politician or political party to receive donations.
The only way they get campaigning money here is from subsidies by the government or from party membershipfee's which are the same for every member.

Really? That's a really easy answer. BBS - how do we get that done here?

As I'm sure you know with the leading question to BBS, we get there by having our Congress vote for it. Fat chance of that happening, of course. That being said, it really is the answer in my opinion, as well.

[Woodruff]

Are you certain the questions I "ignored" are legit questions?

Certainly.

If you accuse me of ignoring trolls, hey, totally guilty!

You like to use the accusation of "troll!" as an excuse to ignore legitimate questions.

If not, please point out any or all questions you feel I have not answered, and I will answer them.

We've been through that song and dance before. Many times, in fact. Questions have been re-asked when you made just this same claim. Fascinatingly enough, they were also un-answered.

That's what I don't get. I don't mind answering questions at all.

The evidence shows the lie.

Many times when you think I am dodging a question, I am just moving the discussion back on topic.

The evidence shows the lie.

And if you are trying to accuse me of not addressing something, I would bet that in 99% of cases it was because I asked X a question, and Y comes in and takes it in a totally different direction and even can purposefully derail the topic. Sometimes questioners are trolling, sometimes they are angry.

The evidence shows the lie.

[thegreekdog]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

You think I would report you or something?

That's okay. All my life there has been confusion as to exactly where I stand, but like I have said repeatedly, I am a registered independent who is fiscally concerned, and the fiscal concern is growing more and more and time goes by. Independents do not always act a certain way, which is why it is hard for some people who think because I go to the right on one issue, I am chained to the right on every issue. Anyhoo...

2012 - I voted for Romney, specifically against Obama
2008 - Ron Paul
2004 - Ralp Nader

I have never, EVER supported the Iraq war. I was against it even before it started, even when Keith Olberman and Hillary Clitnon were for it. Being against the Iraq war was probably the #1 reason I was demonized as a Liberal from the years 2001-2006.

I supported the Afghanistan actions, but was hoping we would clean house, get the terrorists, and get out. I would have preferred to leave after about 6 months.

I don't think I supported any kind of military presence overseas. Of course each situation is different, and I'm not a pacifist, but my first votes I could cast were for Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, and their position on the military was a heavy reason for my support, that is that the military is far too stretched out and intervenes way too much in other countries. I am for the strongest of strong defenses, as to me that is the most important function of government, and I think there is a lot of difference between a strong defense and a large military that outspends the rest of the world combined.

I don't know exactly what the federal bonus is, but I can tell you if it costs money that we don't have, I am very likely against it unless there is a specific good and legitimate reason for it's existence.

Federal credit for RnD, I am not dead set against it, but I would much rather prefer the tax system we have were not in place in order for there to be deductions in the first place.

I am not in favor of making abortion illegal.

I think it's important to have an official language. That is not to say that no other language can be spoken, but when it comes to government forms, yes I think they should be in English. We should provide translators and forms written in other languages upon request. However I have not heard a lot of arguments against this or put a lot of thought into it, so I would be open to listen and possibly be persuaded upon discovery of previously unknown details/situations.

I believe burning the flag is a form of free speech, and making it illegal would infringe on the first amendment.

I have a problem with the way your last question is asked. As of right now, gay marriage is not recognized by a majority of states, so I think it's incorrect to ask if I support making it illegal, as that is the way it mostly is. But to skip the re-asking, I can tolerate whichever way the voters decide, so long as the voters get a chance to decide. That is to say, if the voters decide not to change the definition of marriage, I support that. Likewise, if the voters decide to change the definition of marriage, I support that too. The marriage issue is mostly one of process to me, and overall I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Based on the responses in this thread, I dub Phatscotty a fiscal conservative and a social moderate with certain right-wing tendencies.

In any event, I agree with BvP and some of what Woodruff posted. If Phatscotty was a true Libertarian (which he's not, and never claimed to be), he would not have difficulty answering the questions posed by BBS or me. I also think he doesn't like to admit when he's wrong or when he shows inconsistencies, instead either ignoring the question by not responding at all, ignoring the question by responding to the post but not the question, responding in video form, or accusing the questioner of being mean/unfair/biased/angry/trolling/baiting. Politically, He reminds me of a Ted Cruz type Republican - a true fiscal conservative with a Christian Coalition build. In other words, he reminds me of a fairly typical Tea Party member.

Are you certain the questions I "ignored" are legit questions? If you accuse me of ignoring trolls, hey, totally guilty! If not, please point out any or all questions you feel I have not answered, and I will answer them.

That's what I don't get. I don't mind answering questions at all. Many times when you think I am dodging a question, I am just moving the discussion back on topic. And if you are trying to accuse me of not addressing something, I would bet that in 99% of cases it was because I asked X a question, and Y comes in and takes it in a totally different direction and even can purposefully derail the topic. Sometimes questioners are trolling, sometimes they are angry.

I like the Tea Party, so you can call me that. I don't know what you guys are going to do when I start ripping Republicans or agreeing with Liberals. (of course that won't happen as much when they aren't in power). As for what "other" people think about me, I have been called a Liberal twice as long in my life as I have been called a Republican or anything on the right, and in both cases, on the extreme left or the fringe right. Sometimes, it's everyone else too.

and if you truly put me around Ted Cruz, than I am highly honored!

None of that was a criticism really, other than your discussion style. But we'll work on that.

[Woodruff]

Phatscotty's motto for America: "E Pluribus Fuckem"

[BigBallinStalin]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

We tried that. It doesn't work and takes hours of efforts to get PS to remain consistent, so that he reveals his inconsistencies in typed form.

[Phatscotty]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

We tried that. It doesn't work and takes hours of efforts to get PS to remain consistent, so that he reveals his inconsistencies in typed form.

So are you going to start pointing this out 5 times a day now too? Because you are on your way to taking hours of effort to do so.

You could foe me. I don't need another stalker

[BigBallinStalin]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

You think I would report you or something?

That's okay. All my life there has been confusion as to exactly where I stand, but like I have said repeatedly, I am a registered independent who is fiscally concerned, and the fiscal concern is growing more and more and time goes by. Independents do not always act a certain way, which is why it is hard for some people who think because I go to the right on one issue, I am chained to the right on every issue. Anyhoo...

2012 - I voted for Romney, specifically against Obama
2008 - Ron Paul
2004 - Ralp Nader

I have never, EVER supported the Iraq war. I was against it even before it started, even when Keith Olberman and Hillary Clitnon were for it. Being against the Iraq war was probably the #1 reason I was demonized as a Liberal from the years 2001-2006.

I supported the Afghanistan actions, but was hoping we would clean house, get the terrorists, and get out. I would have preferred to leave after about 6 months.

I don't think I supported any kind of military presence overseas. Of course each situation is different, and I'm not a pacifist, but my first votes I could cast were for Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, and their position on the military was a heavy reason for my support, that is that the military is far too stretched out and intervenes way too much in other countries. I am for the strongest of strong defenses, as to me that is the most important function of government, and I think there is a lot of difference between a strong defense and a large military that outspends the rest of the world combined.

I don't know exactly what the federal bonus is, but I can tell you if it costs money that we don't have, I am very likely against it unless there is a specific good and legitimate reason for it's existence.

Federal credit for RnD, I am not dead set against it, but I would much rather prefer the tax system we have were not in place in order for there to be deductions in the first place.

I am not in favor of making abortion illegal.

I think it's important to have an official language. That is not to say that no other language can be spoken, but when it comes to government forms, yes I think they should be in English. We should provide translators and forms written in other languages upon request. However I have not heard a lot of arguments against this or put a lot of thought into it, so I would be open to listen and possibly be persuaded upon discovery of previously unknown details/situations.

I believe burning the flag is a form of free speech, and making it illegal would infringe on the first amendment.

I have a problem with the way your last question is asked. As of right now, gay marriage is not recognized by a majority of states, so I think it's incorrect to ask if I support making it illegal, as that is the way it mostly is. But to skip the re-asking, I can tolerate whichever way the voters decide, so long as the voters get a chance to decide. That is to say, if the voters decide not to change the definition of marriage, I support that. Likewise, if the voters decide to change the definition of marriage, I support that too. The marriage issue is mostly one of process to me, and overall I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Based on the responses in this thread, I dub Phatscotty a fiscal conservative and a social moderate with certain right-wing tendencies.

So be it!

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh dont get me wrong, Tea Party is nearly what PS claims it to be, and I would support it if it was, as I say, more politically agnostic.

Completely agree with your issue with Obama. Unfortunately for you however there is no real vote for tranparency/lack or corruption. From my perspective both side are as bad as each other.

Maybe the first thing that should happen in america is politicians and political parties should not be allowed to receive such huge donations from corporations(especially Wall Street).

In my country and in many european countries it is against the law for a politician or political party to receive donations.
The only way they get campaigning money here is from subsidies by the government or from party membershipfee's which are the same for every member.

Really? That's a really easy answer. BBS - how do we get that done here?

Get done what exactly?

It's not like rent-seeking is nonexistent/not influential in "many European countries" (whichever those are specifically, we might find out).

[BigBallinStalin]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

We tried that. It doesn't work and takes hours of efforts to get PS to remain consistent, so that he reveals his inconsistencies in typed form.

So are you going to start pointing this out 5 times a day now too? Because you are on your way to taking hours of effort to do so.

You could foe me. I don't need another stalker

I wasn't responding to you, so I don't see how your response is relevant.

[thegreekdog]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

We tried that. It doesn't work and takes hours of efforts to get PS to remain consistent, so that he reveals his inconsistencies in typed form.

I think his inconsistencies have already been revealed in typed form. If I had the time, I could prove that. And perhaps I will!

Actually, I did that in the Benghazi thread, now that I think about it. He started the thread with a Ron Paul critique of Democratic and Republican foreign policy. Four pages later, Phatscotty was critizing Democrats, doing the same thing that Ron Paul dinged the Republicans for in the critique that Phatscotty quoted on page one.

[Phatscotty]

So what...it's okay to criticize Democrats.

[BigBallinStalin]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

We tried that. It doesn't work and takes hours of efforts to get PS to remain consistent, so that he reveals his inconsistencies in typed form.

I think his inconsistencies have already been revealed in typed form. If I had the time, I could prove that. And perhaps I will!

Actually, I did that in the Benghazi thread, now that I think about it. He started the thread with a Ron Paul critique of Democratic and Republican foreign policy. Four pages later, Phatscotty was critizing Democrats, doing the same thing that Ron Paul dinged the Republicans for in the critique that Phatscotty quoted on page one.

Hey, that was easy, but let's not expect PS to be honest here.

Right, j9b? What's your opinion about giving PS the "benefit of the doubt"?

[Woodruff]

So what...it's okay to criticize Democrats.

I am quite certain that not a single person in these fora has suggested it's not okay to criticize Democrats. So why the distraction?

I'm starting to form a hypothesis. Phatscotty is, in fact, Glen Beck. Yep, that's right. He is Glen Beck.

His conspiracy theories, his VIDEOS (for God's sake), his personality in the fora, his unwillingness to be pinned down on positions...it's like Glen Beck all around.

Ok, so what are the arguments AGAINST this idea. Because since it has occurred to me, I can't find any.

[kentington]

So what...it's okay to criticize Democrats.

I am quite certain that not a single person in these fora has suggested it's not okay to criticize Democrats. So why the distraction?

I disagree. Just as there are "Republicans" on this forum who denounce criticism against them, there are "Democrats" who do the same. In some of these cases they are defending their side's side. Rather than defending an issue or the issue's sake. This ends with people bringing up other faults from the opposing side. All of this detracts from the actual topic.