• 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!

Wingnuts Unite: Ron Paul Joins Michelle Bachmann in Weirdest Town Hall Ever

Zyphlin said:
As far as Bachmann I honestly don't know enough about her to try and figure out why she'd agree to a town hall with Paul, nor why she complimented him. That said I don't see it as a sell out or a bad thing for Paul. Ultimately, it is another elected official. If they were taking questions specifically on an issue they both agree with, alright. If its about stuff they disagreed with then perhaps it'd make for a lively town hall where both sides are giving their views.
Click to expand...

My problem is that Bachmann all of a sudden is rejecting statism and now signing Dr Paul's tune. Whos to say that people like her if elected will pull a full 180.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Of course, then we can discuss exactly what powers are granted by the "general welfare" clause, or the militia clause of the second amendment... It's not all black and white, that's why we have a court
Click to expand...

Well, what do YOU think the General Welfare Clause entitles the government to do and why?
 
Zyphlin said:
This is the problem with the "r3volution". So many of them act like complete elitist jerks when it comes to Ron Paul issues.

Red makes an assertion that the title was fitting, thus pointing to the fact they believe Paul's a wing nut.

Fine, okay, I don't agree but lets see.

The Reasonable and non elitist jerk response would be, oh I don't know, how about asking "Why do you believe he's a wing nut". Obviously, there's a number of things that could be the root cause, lets see what it may be. Then, I can possibly actually debate them or point out issues that they are confused about, thus potentially turning their opinion around.
Click to expand...

So, when someone makes a flippant and asinine remark a "reasonable" person is obligated to indulge them? Right, okay...
 
Ethereal said:
So, when someone makes a flippant and asinine remark a "reasonable" person is obligated to indulge them? Right, okay...
Click to expand...

It depends. If they are making fun of Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters, then yes. If they are for Ron Paul, then no. The latter requires that you write a post to said poster explaining in the most elitist, condescending, and smug manner possible how they are being elitist, condescending, and smug.
 
Ethereal said:
So, when someone makes a flippant and asinine remark a "reasonable" person is obligated to indulge them? Right, okay...
Click to expand...

Depends. Do you want to know why I think Paul is a wingnut? If so, ask, if not, then no. I am pretty indifferent. You can actually probably guess the reasons based on my beliefs I have expressed on this board.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Depends. Do you want to know why I think Paul is a wingnut? If so, ask, if not, then no. I am pretty indifferent. You can actually probably guess the reasons based on my beliefs I have expressed on this board.
Click to expand...

What specific policy-based arguments do you have in favor of Ron Paul's "wing-nut" status? I'm all ears.
 
Coronado said:
Whereas the rank and file of the two major parties are enlightened and open minded, accepting of all comers. Not one of them would ever characterize one from outside of their group as a terrorist, racist, unpatriotic, or anything of the sort.

Wish us wingnuts could learn from them.

[/extreme sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Very nice, throwing out a red herring. We're discussing Ron Paul supporters, do you really have no other argument?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Very nice, throwing out a red herring. We're discussing Ron Paul supporters, do you really have no other argument?
Click to expand...
Simply telling you to cut your own grass before complaining about mine.

As for these unnamed Ron Paul supporters, I really don't give a **** what they do. I don't answer to them, nor do they answer to me. I'm not sure why you care, especially since there's more than enough "wingnut" Democrats to keep you busy (assuming you had the desire to look, of course), other than that it gives you a chance to make an intellectually lazy guilt-by-association argument.
 
Coronado said:
Simply telling you to cut your own grass before complaining about mine.

As for these unnamed Ron Paul supporters, I really don't give a **** what they do. I don't answer to them, nor do they answer to me. I'm not sure why you care, especially since there's more than enough "wingnut" Democrats to keep you busy (assuming you had the desire to look, of course), other than that it gives you a chance to make an intellectually lazy guilt-by-association argument.
Click to expand...

I'm just explaining why it seems to me that Ron Paul supporters get such a bad rap.
 
Ethereal said:
What specific policy-based arguments do you have in favor of Ron Paul's "wing-nut" status? I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Using the source linked above(since I got it still open):

Voted against Extending Federal Emergency Unemployment Benefits.

Voted against funding for both Iraq and Afghanistan

Voted against needle exchange programs

Voted against improvements to student loan programs

Voted for impeachment of Clinton

voted against a bill to authorize $1.01 billion for the 2009 fiscal year to rebuild structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System and to require states to devise plans for the replacement of such bridges.

Voted against GI Bill expansion

Voted against Establishment of the Office of Congressional Ethics

Voted for the Secure Fence act

Voted against the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

Voted for An amendment to prohibit any funds to be used by the FDA for the testing, development, or approval (including approval of production, manufacturing, or distribution) of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion

Voted against stem cell research

voted yes to to adopt an amendment that would ban federal funding in the District of Columbia for couples who want to adopt a child but are not related by blood or marriage.

Voted yes to adopt an amendment that gives states the option to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings or on public property.

Voted against VA and HUD funding

Sponsored the 2005 version of Sanctity of Life Act

I can go on into his comments and positions if you really want.
 
None of that seems to me to be "wingnut". It appears more to me that you've decided to label dissent with "wingnut". You disagree with Paul, and thus you've labeled him a "wingnut". But nothing you posted is anything I would say qualifies as "wingnut".
 
Ikari said:
None of that seems to me to be "wingnut". It appears more to me that you've decided to label dissent with "wingnut". You disagree with Paul, and thus you've labeled him a "wingnut". But nothing you posted is anything I would say qualifies as "wingnut".
Click to expand...

We define wingnut differently. Of course you as a Libertarian is not going to see alot of that as nutty. Just voting against GI bill expansion and VA funding are things I consider extreme far out wingnutery.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
We define wingnut differently. Of course you as a Libertarian is not going to see alot of that as nutty. Just voting against GI bill expansion and VA funding are things I consider extreme far out wingnutery.
Click to expand...

I don't know how. And I think it incredibly unfair to throw out labels that don't apply. Those are political opinions by which you're going to say someone is a "wingnut" and by extension all those whom support the platform. You're free to say as you like of course, but I think there is definitely cause to dismiss your opinion on this case based on personal bias.
 
Ikari said:
I don't know how. And I think it incredibly unfair to throw out labels that don't apply. Those are political opinions by which you're going to say someone is a "wingnut" and by extension all those whom support the platform. You're free to say as you like of course, but I think there is definitely cause to dismiss your opinion on this case based on personal bias.
Click to expand...

All political opinion is based on personal bias.
 
Redress said:
All political opinion is based on personal bias.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Political opinion can be based on logic, research, and philosophy. Calling people "wingnuts" is done along personal bias. Someone can say "hey I think blah is a good program". Doesn't necessarily make them a wingnut. There can be good reasons why one chooses that path. I don't call Obama a wingnut, but I can guarantee that his voting record is nothing close to what I could ever agree with. You're throwing out terms which draw into question someone's mental integrity without any proof of such integrity being in question. That's personal bias, not something based in fact. Just because people disagree with others doesn't make them a "wingnut". That's merely a dismissive term by those who don't want to bother with and/or can't debate.
 
Ikari said:
Not necessarily. Political opinion can be based on logic, research, and philosophy. Calling people "wingnuts" is done along personal bias. Someone can say "hey I think blah is a good program". Doesn't necessarily make them a wingnut. There can be good reasons why one chooses that path. I don't call Obama a wingnut, but I can guarantee that his voting record is nothing close to what I could ever agree with. You're throwing out terms which draw into question someone's mental integrity without any proof of such integrity being in question. That's personal bias, not something based in fact. Just because people disagree with others doesn't make them a "wingnut". That's merely a dismissive term by those who don't want to bother with and/or can't debate.
Click to expand...

First, I base my political beliefs on logic, research and philosophy. It is still personal bias. Given the same information on an issue, we would probably arrive at different conclusions based on logic and philosophy.

Second, my belief that Paul is a wingnut is based on more than his voting record.

Third, the term comes from the thread title.

Fourth, I am only dismissing Ron Paul, no one else.
 
That's fine. But I guess we're going to disagree that fundamental disagreements in philosophy = wingnuttery.
 
Redress said:
In this context, political extremism.
Click to expand...

Kind of a floppy term. I'm sure then by your own context you yourself are a wingnut.
 
Ikari said:
Kind of a floppy term. I'm sure then by your own context you yourself are a wingnut.
Click to expand...

It is a floppy term, and no, I do not think I am an extremist. I am well to the left, but not to the outskirts of the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom