"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

A soccer mom who quit her day job, as governor -- just up and quits,
wrote a worthless book and runs around in a bus looking and sounding
like an idiot ...

Sounds like the perfect platform to put the criminal obama in office for
second term, doesn't it?

Yup.

RON PAUL in 2012 ... there simply isn't any other choice!


Unfortunately, the liberal media are saturated with the likes of Palin the
Ditz, Romney the closet socialist, or Bachman the closet Nazi.

Every time somebody says, "Ron Paul is a nut case," I challenge them - I
ask a couple of questions:
"Which 'plank' of the Libertarian Party Platform do you consider 'nuts?'"
http://www.lp.org/platform
and, "What part of upholding, supporting, and defending the Constitution
of the United States do you consider to be crazy?"

I haven't gotten an answer from any of them yet.

You haven't asked me. I'll be glad to document Ron's nutty ideas, if you
want. Have you read his books?

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 7, 8:40*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"I think Ron Paul will get my vote this year, as they still havent put in
the "None of the Above" choice.

"Gunner"


You call the above statement support?

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 8:40 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"I think Ron Paul will get my vote this year, as they still havent put in
the "None of the Above" choice.

"Gunner"


You call the above statement support?

Dan

Yup. What do you call it?

And are you suggesting that the total collection of quotes doesn't indicate
support? Because, if you aren't, then you're just picking nits to the
exclusion of the point -- as usual. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 7, 6:37*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yup. What do you call it?

And are you suggesting that the total collection of quotes doesn't indicate
support? Because, if you aren't, then you're just picking nits to the
exclusion of the point -- as usual. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I am suggesting the total collection of quotes does not indicate
support. Saying one would vote for someone if there was not an
alternate is not what I would call support. To me support is actually
recommending someone as a good candidate. Not saying someone is the
least objectionable candidate.

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


Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yup. What do you call it?

And are you suggesting that the total collection of quotes doesn't
indicate
support? Because, if you aren't, then you're just picking nits to the
exclusion of the point -- as usual. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I am suggesting the total collection of quotes does not indicate
support.

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

Dan

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

" wrote:

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?

In English it means Ron Paul is the only candidate he would vote for.

BTW what do you think of Ron Paul's solution for the Debt ceiling?

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...ederal-reserve

On Jul 7, 11:04*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

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.


Ed Huntress



if everyone knows Gunner postures, then why do you bother to comment
on it?

And it may not be about logic, but I still try to use a little.

Dan

On Jul 8, 6:47*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
" wrote:
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? *

In English it means Ron Paul is the only candidate he would vote for.

BTW what do you think of Ron Paul's solution for the Debt ceiling?

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...-ceiling-feder...

In English I think support indicates more than merely voting for a
candidate. Support to me means actually doing something to help a
candidate.

I have no opinion on Ron Paul's solution for the Deby ceiling. Have
not read it, am not interested in reading it.

Dan

" wrote:

On Jul 8, 6:47 am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
" wrote:
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?

In English it means Ron Paul is the only candidate he would vote for.

BTW what do you think of Ron Paul's solution for the Debt ceiling?

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...-ceiling-feder...

In English I think support indicates more than merely voting for a
candidate. Support to me means actually doing something to help a
candidate.

You seem to be implying that what the voter does in
the voting booth literally doesn't count for anything

Could be true I suppose

On Jul 8, 8:19Â*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

In English I think support indicates more than merely voting for a
candidate. Â*Support to me means actually doing something to help a
candidate.

You seem to be implying that what the voter does in
the voting booth Â*literally doesn't count for anything

Could be true I suppose

No. I am saying that I think support means doing something to help a
candidate campaign. Voting in important, but someone who votes but
does nothing else to help a candidate is not someone I would call one
of the candidates supporters.

First definition found on the internet. Look at number 3. " over a
period of time. "

"sup·port [ sə páwrt ]

1. keep something or somebody stable: to keep something or somebody
upright or in place, or prevent something or somebody from falling
2. bear weight: to be strong enough to hold a particular object or
weight in place without breaking or giving way
3. sustain somebody financially: to provide somebody with money and
the other necessities of life over a period of time"

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 11:04 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

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.


Ed Huntress



if everyone knows Gunner postures, then why do you bother to comment
on it?

For the reason I stated before, which you snipped off.

--
Ed Huntress


And it may not be about logic, but I still try to use a little.

Dan

On Jul 8, 9:06*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


if everyone knows Gunner postures, then why do you bother to comment
on it?

For the reason I stated before, which you snipped off.

--
Ed Huntress

I missed your reason and can not find it in rereading your post.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 8, 9:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


if everyone knows Gunner postures, then why do you bother to comment
on it?

For the reason I stated before, which you snipped off.

--
Ed Huntress

I missed your reason and can not find it in rereading your post.

Dan

That's a shame.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 8, 9:36*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

For the reason I stated before, which you snipped off.

--
Ed Huntress

I missed your reason and can not find it in rereading your post.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

That's a shame.

--
Ed Huntress

I was looking for something that resembled a reason.

Dan

On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:06:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 7, 8:40*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"I think Ron Paul will get my vote this year, as they still havent put in
the "None of the Above" choice.

"Gunner"


You call the above statement support?

Dan

Looks like humor to me. But then...Fast Eddie isnt known for having any
sort of sense of humor..or much sense......

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.