• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa

Top Cat said:
So you're okay with him taking donations from fringe or radical groups?
Click to expand...

Why would I be bothered that fringe or radical groups have decided to endorse him? Is that any indication that he holds those beliefs? No.
Fringe and Radical groups can still support people who do not fully share their core beliefs..... if nobody else does either....they have to pick someone.
 
Top Cat said:
An apposition leaves itself open to interpretation. And in this case, the reader needs to delve into the article for complete clarification. The content of which is relevant to the title and the salient point of the article itself. Hardly an anomaly in journalism.
Click to expand...

However.... if you have to read the article to find out the title is bull****......That, in my opinion, is the standard for "misleading".

Thanks for playing.
 
Caine said:
You've been explained why the title is misleading...... You have plainly denied it without backing up the reason for your denial.
Click to expand...

Well then, using your twisted logic, my language must be misleading. Seriously, do you always go in circles?
 
Top Cat said:
Well then, using your twisted logic, my language must be misleading. Seriously, do you always go in circles?
Click to expand...

Im not going in circles..... You're being hardheaded.....

How about you finally respond to the question Ive been asking for two pages of posts now.

How is it NOT misleading?
 
Caine said:
However.... if you have to read the article to find out the title is bull****......That, in my opinion, is the standard for "misleading".

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

And of course it isn't. But hey, the show Really Bad Analogy is looking for players.
 
Top Cat said:
And of course it isn't. But hey, the show Really Bad Analogy is looking for players.
Click to expand...

And you couldn't be acting MORE like a genuine American politician by avoiding the simple question that you STILL have refused to address.

You keep trying to misdirect, instead of answering the question.

I'll be waiting... (and no, im not going to drop it just because you ignore it).
 
Top Cat said:
An apposition leaves itself open to interpretation. And in this case, the reader needs to delve into the article for complete clarification. The content of which is relevant to the title and the salient point of the article itself. Hardly an anomaly in journalism.
Click to expand...

Don't pretend that you're a journalist and understand APA requirements. The purpose of the colon in a title is to separate that title from its subtitle. The "sub" in "subtitle" should indicate to you the relationship between what's to the left of the colon and what's to the right of it.
 
Caine said:
Im not going in circles..... You're being hardheaded.....

How about you finally respond to the question Ive been asking for two pages of posts now.

How is it NOT misleading?
Click to expand...

The title is misleading; it insinuates that Ron Paul favors the DP for gays.
 
nota bene said:
The title is misleading; it insinuates that Ron Paul favors the DP for gays.
Click to expand...

Exactly, as been pointed out by at a minimum of 4 (maybe more) posters in this thread.

However, Top Cat insists it is not... but he does not provide a solid explanation for his reasoning other than "Its not"
 
Caine said:
Exactly, as been pointed out by at a minimum of 4 (maybe more) posters in this thread.

However, Top Cat insists it is not... but he does not provide a solid explanation for his reasoning other than "Its not"
Click to expand...

Pretext of the thread is just so transparently bogus. There's really no getting around the obvious, though.
 
Caine said:
And you couldn't be acting MORE like a genuine American politician by avoiding the simple question that you STILL have refused to address.

You keep trying to misdirect, instead of answering the question..
Click to expand...

I have answered it several times. You don't like the answer. You don't agree with it. Oh well.

Do you always do the circle back? Really, it gets old after the first lap.
 
Top Cat said:
I have answered it several times. You don't like the answer. You don't agree with it. Oh well.

Do you always do the circle back? Really, it gets old after the first lap.
Click to expand...

You have not provided an explanation to why you hold your opinion.......not once.... let alone several times.

Can you show where you have done it... SEVERAL TIMES?
 
Top Cat said:
No it does not.
Click to expand...

Top Cat said:
I have maintained all along the salient point to this is that Paul appears to have sold out. Look at my comment on the OP. I do not believe he thinks gays deserve the death penalty. But there are consequences when you take money and political support from folks whose agenda is radical. One would think he quickly denounce any association. Don't you?
Click to expand...

Top Cat said:
Quite well. thanks for asking.

You tell me where the title suggests that Paul wants gays to die. It doesn't. It really is that simple. there now. Can you keep up?
Click to expand...

Top Cat said:
Two different sentences. How can you not see that?
Click to expand...

Top Cat said:
An apposition leaves itself open to interpretation. And in this case, the reader needs to delve into the article for complete clarification. The content of which is relevant to the title and the salient point of the article itself. Hardly an anomaly in journalism.
Click to expand...

Top Cat said:
Well then, using your twisted logic, my language must be misleading. Seriously, do you always go in circles?
Click to expand...

Top Cat said:
And of course it isn't. But hey, the show Really Bad Analogy is looking for players.
Click to expand...

Top Cat said:
I have answered it several times. You don't like the answer. You don't agree with it. Oh well.

Do you always do the circle back? Really, it gets old after the first lap.
Click to expand...

All of your responses to the topic of the article's title......

Tell me sir.... Which one is the explanation?

The bold one was your best attempt at defending your statement.... but it was you skirting around the question.

The underline was an accidental admission that the title is in fact misleading, in not so direct words....
 
Caine said:
You have not provided an explanation to why you hold your opinion.......not once.... let alone several times.

Can you show where you have done it... SEVERAL TIMES?
Click to expand...

Let me say it the way you apparently need to hear it. Go back and read Or need I use all caps and colored text?
 
Top Cat said:
Let me say it the way you apparently need to hear it. Go back and read Or need I use all caps and colored text?
Click to expand...

I just went back and read.... and I want you to point out which quote I listed above was your explanation.... because it doesn't exist...
 
Caine said:
I just went back and read.... and I want you to point out which quote I listed above was your explanation.... because it doesn't exist...
Click to expand...

It is all right there.
 
Top Cat said:
It is all right there.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

Alot of ad homs......but not explanation.... can you point to it?

This is getting ridiculously time consuming. You want me to just give up and go away, but I refuse.....
 
Caine said:
:rofl:

Alot of ad homs......but not explanation.... can you point to it?

This is getting ridiculously time consuming. You want me to just give up and go away, but I refuse.....
Click to expand...

LOL, Have fun.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Back to the topic, people.
 
Guilt by association was a stupid, hackish tactic with Reverend Wright and Obama, and it's a stupid, hackish tactic in this case with Ron Paul. IMO... pay no attention.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Guilt by association was a stupid, hackish tactic with Reverend Wright and Obama, and it's a stupid, hackish tactic in this case with Ron Paul. IMO... pay no attention.
Click to expand...

Actually, in that it was fair to point out that Obama chose to associate with Wright(I took alot of heat from liberals for this stance 4 years ago), it is also fair to point out that Paul and his campaign chose to advertise their association with this guy. While that fact that most of the people who will defend Paul on this had the completely different position on Wright is amusing, the reality is you can tell things about a person from who you choose to associate with. Paul has gay issues with his old newsletter and now this. Part of a pattern? Possible.
 
Paul is a hack, a dangerous hack that could prove to be worse than Obama, if that is even possible.
 
Apparently it is getting his attention.

The Ron Paul campaign appears to have removed a press release touting the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a Nebraska pastor who has called for instituting the death penalty against homosexuals.

As TPM reported on Wednesday, Paul’s Iowa chair Drew Ivers praised the fundamentalist leader in a campaign release in which he specifically credited Kayser with “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.”

As of this evening, however, the press release has been removed from the Ron Paul for President website, apparently in response to the earlier article. The content of the release is still available, however, as blogger Doug Mataconis recorded the text and posted a screenshot on his website.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul Campaign Scrubs Radical Anti-Gay Pastor From Website | TPM2012
 
This is FUN...its like 6 degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon. SO...A Paul supporter is supported by someone who supports someone who at one point made a disparaging comment about gays. Which makes Paul guilty of making disparaging comments about gays.

Hmmm...what was the OPs (and others) positions on tying Obama to idiotic comments by his preacher of 20 years. Or...how many degrees of separation are the from Obama and an individual who was a member of a group that advocated for the violent overthrow of the Government...

Guilt by association of association of association...
 
VanceMack said:
This is FUN...its like 6 degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon. SO...A Paul supporter is supported by someone who supports someone who at one point made a disparaging comment about gays. Which makes Paul guilty of making disparaging comments about gays.

Hmmm...what was the OPs (and others) positions on tying Obama to idiotic comments by his preacher of 20 years. Or...how many degrees of separation are the from Obama and an individual who was a member of a group that advocated for the violent overthrow of the Government...

Guilt by association of association of association...
Click to expand...

NO though. Paul actively trumpeted the support and endorsement from this guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom