wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 7:34 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Then I am suggesting you are out in right field somewhere. There also were
quotes in there that indicated he thought he would vote for Paul.

What you do, Dan, is you ignore the total issue and focus on some nit you
can pick. You do it constantly. It looks like your entire objective is to
find something to argue with, most of the time.

Saying one would vote for someone if there was not an
alternate is not what I would call support.

Then how about the other statements? Why have you ignored them?

To me support is actually
recommending someone as a good candidate. Not saying someone is the
least objectionable candidate.

Why have you ignored the other statements?

in your collection of quotes, I did not perceive any enthusiasm for
Ron Paul.

Dan

I ignored the other statements because I am not motivated enough to
comment on each statement. if I had commented on each statement,
would you have been convinced that Gunner really was not a
enthusiastic supporter? I doubt it.

Why would you try to convince me? I know the situation, John, who made the
original statement, knows the situation. And so does nearly everyone else.
They don't need me, nor you, to convince them of the kernal or truth in
John's original wisecrack. They either agree with it, or not, and no
abbreviated (there were many more, which I skipped), off-the-cuff collection
of NG quotes is going to influence anyone either way.

Gunner has, at various times, called himself a libertarian, a Republican, a
Republitarian, and God knows what else. He doesn't have a political
position. He has an attitude. When Ron Paul is perceived as being
anti-progressive or anti-liberal, Gunner says favorable things about him. In
another situation, he may say less positive things about him.

Forget your "logic." This isn't about logic. This is about posturing, as
nearly everyone here knows perfectly well. Gunner postures. Most of the
self-styled conservative libertarians here posture. They don't examine
policy ideas, they just go with the attitudinal issues, and they're based
largely on some appealing myths and a strong antipathy toward almost
everything about government and institutions of all sorts.

And to me, I did not ignore the total issue. Gunner said he was not a
Ron Paul supporter. You pulled up some quotes that indicated he MIGHT
vote for Ron Paul. And my comment was that there is a difference
between supporting a candidate and voting for a candidate.

Gunner has expressed his support for Ron Paul's ideas: ""I like Ron Paul.
And I like his message..."I like Ron Paul. I like where the Libertarian
party is going..." What more do you need, Dan? Did that just blow by you the
first time?

You're just doing your casuistry routine again, and it rings hollow.

I voted
for a tea party candidate recently. Not because I thought she was
good, but because I thought the opponent was worse. I certainly did
not support her. Did not give any money, did not knock on doors, did
not have a meeting at my house endorsing her.

Did you like her message? Did you like where she is going? Gunner does,
about Ron Paul.


Do you really think saying that he would vote for Ron Paul since there
was no way to vote for "none of the above" indicates support? Well
apparently you do. Either that or you just have to have the last word.

That's what *you're* doing, because the quoted statements by Gunner that
address what you're talking about are the very ones you've ignored.

Have it your way, as usual. Again, no one is going to be "convinced" by any
of this. Gunner's angry reaction to John's original statement just begged
for a little exposure about what it is -- an attitude, with little substance
behind it but a lot of bluster.

--
Ed Huntress

"A libertarian is just an anarchist with a mortgage." -- "Eric" from Oregon