• 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.

ROFL! Ron Paul supporters chase down Sean Hannity in the street!

ARealConservative said:
hmm.

a video of people chanting fox sucks while running through the streets.

You would think someone was in real danger or something.

Or that a person's son slashed a dogs throat.

Or that we plan on staying in Iraq for 100 years.

Or that freedom means authority.

ps nobody thinks it's funny when their own groin is hit.
Click to expand...

P.S. They can find it funny after the pain subsides. I can think of two painful groin stories of my own from college that I routinely tell because people get a kick out of it and because in hindsight it is funny.

Ah, but that's right, people disagree with you so you have to change the topic, throw out a few typical buzz words and statements to distract, and go right back into the standard Ron Paul talking points.

yes, yes, i want authoritative freedom. Yep.

Glad to know this thread has got to the point now where there's not even a point to continue going to it as there's no even useful conversation going on about the actual topic to be had anymore it seems.
 
ARealConservative said:
You want me to lie?

I did enjoy watching it.

I also enjoy funniest home videos where a guy gets hit in the groin. As a Paul supporter, should I distance myself from AFHV
Click to expand...

Something tells me that your enjoyment for the Sean Hannity video has nothing to do with your enjoyment of watching random filmed accidents.

I do appreciate your honesty though.
 
Zyphlin said:
P.S. They can find it funny after the pain subsides. I can think of two painful groin stories of my own from college that I routinely tell because people get a kick out of it and because in hindsight it is funny.

Ah, but that's right, people disagree with you so you have to change the topic, throw out a few typical buzz words and statements to distract, and go right back into the standard Ron Paul talking points.

yes, yes, i want authoritative freedom. Yep.

Glad to know this thread has got to the point now where there's not even a point to continue going to it as there's no even useful conversation going on about the actual topic to be had anymore it seems.
Click to expand...


I'm not changing the topic at all. I'm putting the topic in perspective.

Nobody was hurt in that film. I watched a video knowing that it didn't end in death, or even in voilence.

So you are going way overboard IMO.
 
Glad to know this thread has got to the point now where there's not even a point to continue going to it as there's no even useful conversation going on about the actual topic to be had anymore it seems.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting it was useful before? Ron Paul has extreme positions relative to other candidates, and will therefore logically attract more extreme supporters. Idiots waving signs in the street is hardly representative of Ron Paul's campaign.

And not that I condone what these idiots were doing, but really, trying to "assault" him with snowballs? It should be clear to anyone who watched the video that if they were actually trying to cause him bodily harm that they had every opportunity to do so.

Obviously they were just trying to provoke a reaction, wave their little banners and pat themselves on the back for "making a positive difference." Hardly anything sinister or illegal, just stupid.
 
It's a sad state of affairs when the political compass of our founding fathers is considered "extreme".
 
Panache said:
Are you suggesting it was useful before? Ron Paul has extreme positions relative to other candidates, and will therefore logically attract more extreme supporters. Idiots waving signs in the street is hardly representative of Ron Paul's campaign.

And not that I condone what these idiots were doing, but really, trying to "assault" him with snowballs? It should be clear to anyone who watched the video that if they were actually trying to cause him bodily harm that they had every opportunity to do so.

Obviously they were just trying to provoke a reaction, wave their little banners and pat themselves on the back for "making a positive difference." Hardly anything sinister or illegal, just stupid.
Click to expand...

It was useful in so far as it was conversation about Ron Paul supporters chasing down Sean Hannity. Not Mike Huckabee's son. Not the war in iraq.

Frankly, I would never consider someone that threw snow balls at a person as "assulting" them. That being said, I believe by a strict application of the law that it can be construed that way. It was included in there simply to highlight the absurdaty of comparison to some guy getting a ball thrown into his crotch by mistake.

No one would've had a problem with this video if they were waving their banners, or even yelling "Fox News sucks". When you get to the point where you're chasing the guy down, that changes things.

And yes, he will attract extreme supporters. Which has been the basis of what I've been saying this entire time. The two points I've been repeatedly making:

1) That acts like this reinforce the public stereotype that Ron Paul and his supporters are crazy

2) That due to the nature of Ron Paul's position he seems to bring out a disproportional amount of extremists both to his side and against him.

I completely acknowledge that Ron Paul or his campaign didn't personally put these guys up to this. I've acknowledged that Ron Paul would not put his followers up to creating fake websites to smear candidates and manipulate people. I don't think Ron Paul would be in favor of symbols putting Fox New's picture over a swastika. That doesn't change that these are things being done by some in his "grass roots" movement.
 
new coup for you said:
I think I have to support Ron Paul for the Republican canidacy.

I want to watch the right tear itself apart.
Click to expand...

Give the dems 4 years in office. Then the left will be tearing itself apart. Especially if Obama wins the nomination.
 
Yeah, the "party agendas".

The Democratic party is totally decentralized and consists of a huge number of competing and not necessarily like minded interests.

it's why we keep losing.

we don't have "an agenda". we have lots and lots of little agendas.

Unlike the Republicans who have the agenda of Jesus and Rich People. It makes for a more effective political organization to have such rigid goals.
 
new coup for you said:
Yeah, the "party agendas".

The Democratic party is totally decentralized and consists of a huge number of competing and not necessarily like minded interests.

it's why we keep losing.

we don't have "an agenda". we have lots and lots of little agendas.

Unlike the Republicans who have the agenda of Jesus and Rich People. It makes for a more effective political organization to have such rigid goals.
Click to expand...

Yep, because the Republicans all follow under one little nice grouping.

Social Republicans that aren't or are minorly religious but like to keep "traditional american values"

Social Republicans that are heavily religious and want their religious values in place.

Fiscal Republicans that want reduction in taxes and spending

Extreme Fiscal Republicans that want a drastic reduction in the amount of government spending and services

Pro-active military Republicans that believe that we should use our military to strike at enemies before they strike at us and spread democracy.

Strong Millitary reactionary Republicans that want strong militaristic strength but a non-invasive foreign policy with it.

Anti-illegal immigration Republicans that want to be extreme tough on immigration through illegal means

Soft Illegal immigration Republicans that see the influx as an economic and corporate boon and want easier ways for them to get in.

Upper Class Republicans that believe that focusing on major corporations will help all those under it.

Middle Class/Small Buisness Republicans that believe that less regulations and government interferance will aid the small business owners.

just to start going into a few branching agenda's.

But yes, all republicans just love jesus and rich folks
 
there may be many kinds of Republicans when they need votes but when they make policy there is only two: the corporate interests and the Evangelical interests
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom