Is Phatscotty a Republican?

[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 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.

I don't think even PLAYER (who is, I believe, by far the most strident Democrat in these fora) would suggest that it's not okay to criticize Democrats. She may fight the criticism in certain areas, and she CERTAINLY will "bring up other faults from the opposing side", but I don't believe those two things equate to suggesting that criticizing Democrats is not okay. For that matter, I can't think of any Republicans in these fora who would suggest that it's not okay to criticize Republicans (even Phatscotty and Night Strike).

[john9blue]

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"?

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

[Woodruff]

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"?

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

You were close there. Re-read what thegreekdog said and then what you said.

[Symmetry]

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"?

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

Wasn't Ron Paul a Republican candidate in the primaries? Have I missed something?

[john9blue]

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

You were close there. Re-read what you said.

so you're under the impression that any criticism of democrats is implicit support of republicans?

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

Wasn't Ron Paul a Republican candidate in the primaries? Have I missed something?

ron paul disagrees with most republicans on a few key issues (namely foreign policy)

he ran as a republican, but last year made it perfectly clear that the party is beyond saving (at least by one man)

[Symmetry]

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

You were close there. Re-read what you said.

so you're under the impression that any criticism of democrats is implicit support of republicans?

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

Wasn't Ron Paul a Republican candidate in the primaries? Have I missed something?

ron paul disagrees with most republicans on a few key issues (namely foreign policy)

That doesn't really change much. The man made a run at becoming the Republican president of the United States. He's Republican.

[Woodruff]

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

You were close there. Re-read what you said.

so you're under the impression that any criticism of democrats is implicit support of republicans?

You're not really any closer. Try to read them both again, perhaps.

[john9blue]

That doesn't really change much. The man made a run at becoming the Republican president of the United States. He's Republican.

so you think people can be characterized by the letter next to their name, and not their actual beliefs?

i wish my political worldview was so naively simplistic.

[john9blue]

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

You were close there. Re-read what you said.

so you're under the impression that any criticism of democrats is implicit support of republicans?

You're not really any closer. Try to read them both again, perhaps.

how do you honestly expect me to guess what kind of bullshit your irrational mind has spewed out tonight?

do you think that my observation that scotty usually criticizes democrats means that he must agree with republicans? why would it?

i'm fascinated by woody logic and would like to learn more. the real-world rules of logic and critical thinking can get boring. please teach me your method instead!

[Woodruff]

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

You were close there. Re-read what you said.

so you're under the impression that any criticism of democrats is implicit support of republicans?

You're not really any closer. Try to read them both again, perhaps.

how do you honestly expect me to guess what kind of bullshit your irrational mind has spewed out tonight?

It's not mine - it's thegreekdog's assertion. I simply happen to understand it.

do you think that my observation that scotty usually criticizes democrats means that he must agree with republicans? why would it?

You already tried that one. That was your previous guess. I guess you didn't want to re-read them?

i'm fascinated by woody logic and would like to learn more. the real-world rules of logic and critical thinking can get boring. please teach me your method instead!

It's called reading comprehension combined with the tiniest of inferences. I'm quite certain it's not beyond you, but you're so busy kissing Phatscotty's ass that you've blinded yourself to it. Hell, thegreekdog laid it out pretty damn clearly.

[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"?

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

Now, your response may be true, but the history of PS goes beyond that claim.

RE: the questions and the link for it:

"
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."

So, yeah, we've done that, and it doesn't really matter. I know you enjoy being the contrarian, but in defense of PS it is a lost cause.

[Symmetry]

That doesn't really change much. The man made a run at becoming the Republican president of the United States. He's Republican.

so you think people can be characterized by the letter next to their name, and not their actual beliefs?

i wish my political worldview was so naively simplistic.

Can I identify him as a member of a party when he runs for the highest political office as a member of that political party?

[john9blue]

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

Now, your response may be true, but the history of PS goes beyond that claim.

RE: the questions and the link for it:

"
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."

So, yeah, we've done that, and it doesn't really matter. I know you enjoy being the contrarian, but in defense of PS it is a lost cause.

i know PS strays from the libertarian ideology more often than we'd like (i think i called him a "republican that tries to be a libertarian" in another thread) but he's better than most people in this forum, and i think he gets a disproportionate amount of hate, so it doesn't bother me all that much.

Can I identify him as a member of a party when he runs for the highest political office as a member of that political party?

sure, but liking the politics of a single member of a group doesn't mean that you advocate for the policies of the group as a whole, especially when you have a "maverick" like paul who disagrees with most of them. you can say that he likes a republican, but not republicans as a whole (although he probably likes them better than democrats)

[Woodruff]

i know PS strays from the libertarian ideology more often than we'd like (i think i called him a "republican that tries to be a libertarian" in another thread) but he's better than most people in this forum, and i think he gets a disproportionate amount of hate, so it doesn't bother me all that much.

Better at what? Obfuscation? Tap-dancing? Avoidance? Videos?

Well...yeah, he's better at videos than most people in this forum. I'll give him that.

sure, but liking the politics of a single member of a group doesn't mean that you advocate for the policies of the group as a whole, especially when you have a "maverick" like paul who disagrees with most of them. you can say that he likes a republican, but not republicans as a whole (although he probably likes them better than democrats)

This was actually my biggest hangup about Ron Paul (I feel like I can't just call him "Paul" like I do with "Bush" and "Obama"...damn last first names)...if he had run as an independent, which if what you say is true (and I do think it is), he would have done more to further his actual cause than by using the method he did, in my opinion.

[Symmetry]

Can I identify him as a member of a party when he runs for the highest political office as a member of that political party?

sure, but liking the politics of a single member of a group doesn't mean that you advocate for the policies of the group as a whole, especially when you have a "maverick" like paul who disagrees with most of them. you can say that he likes a republican, but not republicans as a whole (although he probably likes them better than democrats)

Look, the man ran to be the head of the Republicans, your equivocation over whether he's a RINO doesn't really matter.

[john9blue]

sure, but liking the politics of a single member of a group doesn't mean that you advocate for the policies of the group as a whole, especially when you have a "maverick" like paul who disagrees with most of them. you can say that he likes a republican, but not republicans as a whole (although he probably likes them better than democrats)

This was actually my biggest hangup about Ron Paul (I feel like I can't just call him "Paul" like I do with "Bush" and "Obama"...damn last first names)...if he had run as an independent, which if what you say is true (and I do think it is), he would have done more to further his actual cause than by using the method he did, in my opinion.

he ran as an independent in '88 and it didn't go so well.

he probably figured in '08 and '12 that it's better to change the party from within.

[Woodruff]

sure, but liking the politics of a single member of a group doesn't mean that you advocate for the policies of the group as a whole, especially when you have a "maverick" like paul who disagrees with most of them. you can say that he likes a republican, but not republicans as a whole (although he probably likes them better than democrats)

This was actually my biggest hangup about Ron Paul (I feel like I can't just call him "Paul" like I do with "Bush" and "Obama"...damn last first names)...if he had run as an independent, which if what you say is true (and I do think it is), he would have done more to further his actual cause than by using the method he did, in my opinion.

he ran as an independent in '88 and it didn't go so well.

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

[john9blue]

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

his support in 2012 was due to his publicity in 2008, and that in turn was due largely to his presence in the 2008 republican debates.

[Woodruff]

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

his support in 2012 was due to his publicity in 2008, and that in turn was due largely to his presence in the 2008 republican debates.

Yes. That doesn't at all change my point.

[Symmetry]

sure, but liking the politics of a single member of a group doesn't mean that you advocate for the policies of the group as a whole, especially when you have a "maverick" like paul who disagrees with most of them. you can say that he likes a republican, but not republicans as a whole (although he probably likes them better than democrats)

This was actually my biggest hangup about Ron Paul (I feel like I can't just call him "Paul" like I do with "Bush" and "Obama"...damn last first names)...if he had run as an independent, which if what you say is true (and I do think it is), he would have done more to further his actual cause than by using the method he did, in my opinion.

he ran as an independent in '88 and it didn't go so well.

he probably figured in '08 and '12 that it's better to change the party from within.

So, Republican...

[john9blue]

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

his support in 2012 was due to his publicity in 2008, and that in turn was due largely to his presence in the 2008 republican debates.

Yes. That doesn't at all change my point.

if running as a republican gives you more exposure and a larger following, then how the hell does running as an independent do more to further your cause?

[Symmetry]

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

his support in 2012 was due to his publicity in 2008, and that in turn was due largely to his presence in the 2008 republican debates.

Yes. That doesn't at all change my point.

if running as a republican gives you more exposure and a larger following, then how the hell does running as an independent do more to further your cause?

He made a fair bit of money from his chumps.

[john9blue]

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

his support in 2012 was due to his publicity in 2008, and that in turn was due largely to his presence in the 2008 republican debates.

Yes. That doesn't at all change my point.

if running as a republican gives you more exposure and a larger following, then how the hell does running as an independent do more to further your cause?

He made a fair bit of money from his chumps.

this is the guy who was going to cut his salary to $39K if he was elected president.

stupid? troll? or just your everyday fag? i can never tell with you, sym.

[Symmetry]

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

his support in 2012 was due to his publicity in 2008, and that in turn was due largely to his presence in the 2008 republican debates.

Yes. That doesn't at all change my point.

if running as a republican gives you more exposure and a larger following, then how the hell does running as an independent do more to further your cause?

He made a fair bit of money from his chumps.

this is the guy who was going to cut his salary to $39K if he was elected president.

stupid? troll? or just your everyday fag? i can never tell with you, sym.

As always, thanks for the homophobia. You'l fit right in with the people Ron Paul wanted donations from:

"...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."[182]

"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!" (February 1990: "The Coming Race War")[180]

"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." (October 1992: "Blast 'Em?")[180]

“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.” (June 1990: "Newsletter")[188]

“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.” (December 1991: "Mr. Johnson's Magic")[181]

“[T]he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [people with AIDS] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act;" and “[W]e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers [AIDS patients].” (November 1993: "AIDSophilia")[181]

Thanks J9, you've found the gold standard of politicians to support.

[john9blue]

i would assume that ron paul wants donations from everybody...

also: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fag

step off the harley son