More shifty dealings regarding RNC delegates

[themadscientist]

So the RNC rules committee has ruled that rules don't have to be followed. Interesting. Does Paul scare the Romney people that much?

http://www.fox19.com/story/19300162/rea ... -own-rules

Going into the General election, were I Obama, I would definitely call attention to the underhanded tactic used in the selection of Romney as the candidate and ask the American people if they could trust a party that doesn't even act honorably amongst itself.

[Bubba1]

I'm waiting to read "Its gotta be 'dem @#$%& liberals' fault" but there are no liberals there to blame.

I chuckled while watching the video, mildly surprised that it was FoxNews reporting it. But while it seems what they did was unfair and unethical, I don't believe the RNC Rules Committee broke any laws, just their own rules. I'm curious what the impacted delegates will do. Do they stick with the party that screwed them over? Do they stop fundraising? Do they sue? Do they leave the party? As far as the DNC, I'll bet they don't pounce on it to avoid having their own behind the scenes practices scrutinized in response. Gotta love politics during election years.

[themadscientist]

I think it is more important to watch what people do when the "don't have to" do things. It lets you know what they really think. I see a party that is willing to screw over its own membership to twist the process the way they want it. Imagine what they would do to the rest of us.

I get really pissed at the Libertarian party for being a bunch of hand moisturizing wussies. They need me running the show over there. You have a real conservative base over there that is struggling to find an excuse to stick with a party that has marginalized them for years and is now slapping in the face outright. A savvy political operator could cultivate that into an exodus of dissatisfied GOP veterans to including sitting lawmakers over to the Libertarians.

That would provide a nucleus of recognized names that would lend more credibility to the party moving it up from the joke it is now. There are a lot of centrist Democrats who are getting beat down on the other side of the coin as that party spins harder to the left every cycle. A successful GOP raid would get those folks thinking that perhaps they didn't have to put up with the crap their party has been giving them either and jump ship.

The influx of medium right and medium left people into the party would also pull the platform away from the hard Libertarian ideas closer to a centrist position which would make it appeal to a larger base. I expect the two big parties would respond by trying to strip rebel members of their committee ships and any other thing they could think of, but it would only show what they were really about. You get a dozen sitting congressmen united into a third party presence bringing with them the national stage and the advantages of incumbency coupled with a consistent and reasonable platform and you have the makings of real change in Washington.

The GOP has laid the groundwork, but I fear the Libertarians are too polyannish to recognize the opportunity and make a move.

[IBCoupe]

With the underhanded way Paul supporters operated during the primaries, I can't bring myself to care about how the Republican Party treats them in return.

"Yeah, we know our guy doesn't have support within the party, but we're gonna get ourselves a disproportionate delegate count and then ... profit!"

[themadscientist]

So the ends justify the means, can't say it surprises me to hear you say that, counsellor.


I belive the legal precedent was the landmark Timmy -vs- Lakeridge Preschool case where the defense "he started it" was upheld.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not a registered Republican, so I have no dog in that fight. I'm not saying I support them, I'm simply saying: I have literally no sympathy to share with the Paulites.

[themadscientist]

It's not about sympathy. It's about a poison process. I don't care if it's a candidate I don't like getting shafted, it's wrong.

[IBCoupe]

And, again, when the candidate being poisoned had his own bottle of Rat-X in his hand, you're gonna have to forgive me if I don't give a hoot.

[themadscientist]

Demonstrate this activity you speak of.

[IBCoupe]

Well, Google produces this:

In Colorado on Saturday morning, video correspondent Kelly Maher videotaped a meeting of the Denver County Republican Assembly. When a group of Ron Paul-pledged delegates arrived, she told The Daily Caller, things got crazy — and Coloradans may have caught a sneak peek of Republican events to come later this year.

Maher told TheDC on Thursday that trouble was likely, and that she would be rolling video.

“The Ron Paul chair here went around the GOP chair and committed $900 worth of security from the Denver Police,” she warned. “And now they’re sending out strategy emails on how to ‘shanghai’ the assembly.”

And shanghai they did. The meeting, Maher said afterward, “descended into madness” when Paul’s supporters “started screaming from the floor.”

Maher told The Denver Post after the meeting that “the Ron Paul people showed up with an alternate set of rules and calendar for the day.”

“[One woman] was standing at the mic and kept demanding to be recognized. She kept calling ‘point of order,’ and that was the first yelling. Once the rules were adopted, the Ron Paul people demanded they be read aloud.”

“So [chairman] Danny [Stroud] called up [secretary] Brett [Moore] to read them, which made everyone flip out again because he did it in his ‘fast reader’ voice (he used to be the reader for the state House.)”

“If what we saw at the Denver County assembly is a harbinger of what we’re going to see at state and national levels,” Maher concluded, “definitely keep one eye on the news.”

UPDATE: Denver County GOP chairman Danny Stroud sent TheDC a statement about Saturday’s meeting, saying among other things that “we can never let passion trounce on the rights of others. Unfortunately, that was exactly what was attempted at the Denver GOP Assembly. A small, loud group attempted to hijack the assembly and trample on the rights of those who took time out of their busy lives to participate in the political process.”

And this:

Luap Nor has got a plan, folks. If the Republican nomination goes to a brokered convention, the Ron Paul cultists plan to flood the nominating floor with Paul delegates. This is their only way to win the Presidential nomination, and they are dead serious in their intent to steal the Presidency, whether you like it or not.

I even asked one of the Paul supporters( a neighbor of mine that I happen to like a lot) who he would vote for (as a delegate) if the nomination went to someone like Romney. He told me straight up that he would NOT vote for the nominee, no matter who it was. He also told me that if they(the Paulbots) didn’t win enough delegates to win, then Ron Paul would run as third party.

So the next time you hear Ron Paul tell the media that he has no intention of running third party, you need to be aware that he is lying.

This convention dragged on for 8 hours yesterday, because the Paulbots slowed down the procedure with motions, amendments and screams of “point of order!” They have every intention of voting as many Ron Paul supporters into delegate positions as they can, and I’m guessing that they are doing this across the country. These people are very well organized, and we should no longer ignore them as the crazy cultists they appear to be, because the fact is, they mean business.

But I was thinking of this:

While the Republican nomination race is focused on the ongoing battle between frontrunners Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the Ron Paul campaign is waging an under-the-radar "delegate strategy" that could make the libertarian-leaning Texan the surprise kingmaker of the race.

In states that have already voted via a caucus system – rather than a straight primary ballot – Ron Paul supporters are conducting an intensively organised ground effort aimed at securing as many convention delegate slots as possible, often in numbers that far outweigh the number of actual votes that Paul got in the ballot.

If successful, it means Paul's campaign could arrive at the August Tampa convention at the head of an army of delegates far larger than the proportion of votes that it won during the nomination contest.

It could also increase the chances of a contested convention – where no candidate has enough delegates to declare the winner – as well as give Paul much greater ability to inject his beliefs into the Republicans' 2012 policy platform.

The strategy is based on the fact the GOP race is in fact a "delegate contest" despite an overwhelming focus by the media and most campaigns on "winning" individual states by coming top of the popular vote. But in reality, each state, weighted proportionally by population, sends a number of delegates to Tampa where a nominee is then chosen.

[themadscientist]

They are operating within the rules. You can choose not to like their attitudes, but I see no obvious breach of the rules there. There is a difference between being rude and pushy and tossing out the very rules your committee established.

Your second link is polluted with prejudicial name-calling that reveals the writer's lack of objectivity. What is "under the radar" about the "delegate strategy?" Paul has been clear from the beginning about his strategy and delegates are how this thing works. It's like listening to Gore supporters whine in 2000 about him winning the popular vote. That's not how it works.

[IBCoupe]

They are operating within the rules. You can choose not to like their attitudes, but I see no obvious breach of the rules there. There is a difference between being rude and pushy and tossing out the very rules your committee established.

Your second link is polluted with prejudicial name-calling that reveals the writer's lack of objectivity. What is "under the radar" about the "delegate strategy?" Paul has been clear from the beginning about his strategy and delegates are how this thing works. It's like listening to Gore supporters whine in 2000 about him winning the popular vote. That's not how it works.

Oh, of course! Sleazy behavior is always excusable when there's no rule against it, right? Your response would be funny if it weren't so painfully predictable. Ron Paul's behavior here defeats the purpose of a proportional delegation award in the first place. I don't care if the Republicans didn't pass a rule against him; he's getting his just deserts, and I'm tickled pink at the whole thing.

If he doesn't like the way the Republican Party interprets its own rules, there's a door he's welcome to walk through.

[themadscientist]

I make no excuses for the sleazy behavior of others. That's what lawyers do.

You affix a willingness to accept such behavior that I have not uttered. Nice try and yes, very predictable. My outrage is rules violations by the rules committee whose job it is to enforce the rules THEY MADE. Impolitic behavior is another issue and I would come down on the side of better behavior, a stance the candidate has taken as well. Unlike you, I do not play fast and loose with the rules simply because I disapprove of behavior that may be improper socially, but in violation of no rules I can see. Right is right, wrong is wrong.

Crack open one of your law books and find us a precedent for the rule of law being negotiable in cases of "the defendant was an ***hole."

[themadscientist]

Seems I'm not the only one who sees the backlash from this behavior. Cmon, it's Huff Post. That means it meets Howies metric for fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-tri ... _ref=false

Oh yeah RNC. How's that feel, you corrupt f***?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... delegates/

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will enter the GOP convention next week with more delegates after a deal was reached avoiding a potentially embarrassing standoff with Mitt Romney.

The compromise settled a dispute over delegates from Louisiana.

“Paul will be awarded 17 of the state’s 46 delegates in the compromise,” Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton told ABC News in an email. “The rest of the state’s delegates are expected to support Mitt Romney, the party’s presumptive nominee.”

In addition, the RNC will seat an additional Paul delegate from Massachusetts.

[IBCoupe]

You affix a willingness to accept such behavior that I have not uttered. Nice try and yes, very predictable. My outrage is rules violations by the rules committee whose job it is to enforce the rules THEY MADE. Impolitic behavior is another issue and I would come down on the side of better behavior, a stance the candidate has taken as well.

A truly compelling speech, if ever I read one. I'd be totally convinced if I didn't already know you to be a Paulbot.

Unlike you, I do not play fast and loose with the rules simply because I disapprove of behavior that may be improper socially, but in violation of no rules I can see. Right is right, wrong is wrong.

They're not my rules. I told you: I have no dog in this fight. Ron Paul is free to not be a Republican, but he sure didn't seem to mind it when he was gaming the system, under the rules as interpreted by the RNC, last spring. Right may be right, and wrong may be wrong, but it's worthy of note that "failing to violate a rule" does not tell you which is which.

If you remove your partisan blinders and go back over the thread, you'll notice that I never once defended the RNC. I literally do not care, except to the extent that I am amused by the whole affair. Ron Paul's behavior made him a scumbag in my eyes. That I watch with glee as other scumbags screw him over doesn't mean I like the other scumbags any more than I like Ron Paul. Continue to be outraged at a violation of rules if you must, but don't expect me to start caring any time soon.

You mistake the internal ongoings of the RNC for a legal matter, me for a partisan, and schadenfreude for defense. Try approaching this with a little more objectivity, and maybe you'll stop looking so silly.

[themadscientist]

I have no partisan blinders except my personal ethical expectations of candidates and institutions. "Paulbot," that's cute. Unsubstantiated, unproven and immaterial to the discussion at hand, but still cute. You get a pinch on the cheek.

Ron Paul has operated within the rules. Some of his supporters have also operated within the rules, but with less composure. Violating rules is violating rules. Not violating rules is not violating rules. That you don't care about violating rules doesn't surprise me. I've come to expect it from you. It should serve you well in your chosen profession and politics for that matter. I encourage your candidacy, but work on your argumentation because in its current form it's ineffective.

[IBCoupe]

I have no partisan blinders except my personal ethical expectations of candidates and institutions. "Paulbot," that's cute. Unsubstantiated, unproven and immaterial to the discussion at hand, but still cute. You get a pinch on the cheek.

Unsubstantiated only because I don't care to go back and C&P the diatribe you posted in the "Who are you going to vote for" thread. The TL;DR of your comment there was "RON PAUL." And it's not immaterial to the discussion at hand, because the only way you could mistake my glee at Paul's suffering for a defense of the RNC is if you think I'm taking a side against you in your petty fight.

On the other hand, there's no reason to think that my chosen profession has anything to do with the arguments I'm making, which would be evident by the clear understanding of a few simple facts:
1. I am not a lawyer.
2. The Republican National Committee is not paying me.
3. I am not, as you note, making legal arguments.

If either you or I were making legal arguments (which, again, we're not), we'd be talking about contract law, and whether the RNC Rules Committee was the proper body of the RNC to be determining the meaning of the rules, and if they were, whether there was any bylaw or whatnot that allowed for the questioning of their determinations. I very much doubt that Ron Paul would win that argument, too, but it's okay because we're not making legal arguments. You're saying that the RNC has treated Ron Paul like a bunch of jerks would, and I'm saying, "What goes around comes around."

But somehow, I'm supposed to tailor my arguments in some other way, because... well, because you simply don't like the way I'm doing it now.

Ron Paul has operated within the rules. Some of his supporters have also operated within the rules, but with less composure. Violating rules is violating rules. Not violating rules is not violating rules. That you don't care about violating rules doesn't surprise me. I've come to expect it from you. It should serve you well in your chosen profession and politics for that matter. I encourage your candidacy, but work on your argumentation because in its current form it's ineffective.

I thought we pretty clearly established that right is right and wrong is wrong and that breaking the rules is breaking the rules and not breaking the rules is not breaking the rules. I thought I've made pretty clear that what you're failing to do is to paint the line from one set of inane statements to the other. Let me know when you work up the courage to try.

'Til then, know that "Ron Paul didn't break any rules" is completely underwhelming. I told you his behavior was scummy (read: "wrong") in spite of the fact that it was within the rules. That's what "gaming the system" means. You can pretend like I'm the guy failing to move this conversation forward, but I'm still waiting on you to actually respond to the things I wrote - not just reply to them.

[themadscientist]

Yeah look at the paulbot arguing for the process just because it suits “his guy.” Wait, this doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t fit the paradigm, system error, BS argument revealed, what to do now?

BS. She has her rights, she can run as long as she wants. If Obama wants the nomination he will have to fight for it. Democrats of course have a difficult time understanding the concept of "earning" something through struggle and hard work. They are the party of handouts so it doesn't suprise me that they would expect Hillary to just give up. I hate Hillary Clinton but at least I have respect for her mettle. Obama is a con man about an inch deep and I am enjoying watching Hillary's spunk render his facade increasingly threadbare. Go Hillary! (I never thought I would say that )

Source: post3630793.html?hilit=clinton#p3630793

Not a lawyer, but you are a "big deal" right?



I never said you represented the RNC, just that their behavior doesn't seem to matter to you which you continue to reiterate.

Tit for tat seems to be adequate justification to you for discarding rules of the game after the fact and I am granting you the "tat" since you have nothing but childish arguments that what his supporters have done is somehow "wrong." If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule. It didn't, let it go. This is grown up time and if their behavior hurts your feelings that's entirely your problem. It is germaine to nothing here.

Rules mean something guy. They are RULES. They are not subject to moods or nebulous feelings of righteous indignation.

You move nothing. You don't care, remember? Stick with that.

[themadscientist]

It continues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 22985.html

The Republican National Committee Rules Committee considered a motion to change the number of states a candidate needs to nominate him from the floor from five to 10.

John Ryder, an RNC committeeman from Tennessee, proposed the threshold change from five states to 10 to nominate a candidate from the floor. But Morton Blackwell, a committeeman from Virginia, rose and spoke vigorously in opposition to the measure.

Ryder agreed to change the number back to five states, but the amendment passed with one change intact: delegates must indicate in writing at least one hour before the vote who they intend to nominate.

I am amused at how scary this little soft-spoken man appears to be to the Republican power brokers. You are being watched.

[IBCoupe]

Yeah look at the paulbot arguing for the process just because it suits “his guy.” Wait, this doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t fit the paradigm, system error, BS argument revealed, what to do now?

What? Of course it does. This is advantageous to the guy whose ideals you adore, and like just about every other Paulbot, you'll do whatever you can to advance them.

BS. She has her rights, she can run as long as she wants. If Obama wants the nomination he will have to fight for it. Democrats of course have a difficult time understanding the concept of "earning" something through struggle and hard work. They are the party of handouts so it doesn't suprise me that they would expect Hillary to just give up. I hate Hillary Clinton but at least I have respect for her mettle. Obama is a con man about an inch deep and I am enjoying watching Hillary's spunk render his facade increasingly threadbare. Go Hillary! (I never thought I would say that )

Source: post3630793.html?hilit=clinton#p3630793

Congratulations. You weren't forced to contradict yourself.

Not a lawyer, but you are a "big deal" right?

Never seen Anchorman then? Seriously, are you arguing down this obnoxious track because of a joke embedded in my signature? Is that really what's going on?

Let me clue you in: it's a quote iterated by Will Ferrell, who plays the main character of the movie, and it's meant to be ironic - he's a guy who reads off a teleprompter for a living (to a fault) and is a swingin' seventies minor celebrity in San Diego, California. The entire movie is him as a joke. Other iterations of that signature involved other quotes from the movie, including references to "many leather-bound books," and an apartment that smelled of "rich mahogany." He's saying it to try and pick up a woman who is utterly unimpressed with his status as a local evening news anchor.

Let me be more explicit: that signature is me lightheartedly employing self-depricating humor. I attend a law school that isn't known outside of New England, and is only really respected within Connecticut itself, because every other Connecticut law student that works outside the State came from Yale. We feed nonprofits and public organizations, because it's a State school, and you don't have a huge debt burden to feed when you graduate. God help the idiots over at Quinnipiac Law, who come from a school with a lower reputation and double the cost.

How insecure do you have to be in order to gear your entire argument in this thread against something I didn't actually ever appeal to? Honestly, you brought it up.

I never said you represented the RNC, just that their behavior doesn't seem to matter to you which you continue to reiterate.

Tit for tat seems to be adequate justification to you for discarding rules of the game after the fact and I am granting you the "tat" since you have nothing but childish arguments that what his supporters have done is somehow "wrong."

Because it doesn't. I don't care how sleazily they treat other sleazeballs. Let me know when someone who doesn't deserve it gets pissed on, and maybe you'll recruit me to your crusade.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

That's how I know you're a Paulbot. If I written, "It didn't violate a rule, and so it couldn't possibly have been wrong," you and everyone else here would have pounced. There is not a person on this planet who gets away with that excuse, and if you're honest, you'll admit that you'd never let anyone get away with it either. The only reason you're saying it now is because it's your guy on the line.

Go ahead and be an advocate, but don't tell me that I'm doing something wrong by not signing onto your bull.

You move nothing. You don't care, remember? Stick with that.

I am moving the conversation. You said "he RNC is breaking the rules." I said, "*YAWN* Serves Ron Paul right." You said "The RNC is breaking the rules." It hasn't moved very far, I'll grant you, but that's only because your lazy tochus can't come up with something you haven't already said, in response.

[themadscientist]

What? Of course it does. This is advantageous to the guy whose ideals you adore, and like just about every other Paulbot, you'll do whatever you can to advance them..

You mean Hillary Clinton? I know she wears pants suits, but I don't think she's a guy. Do whatever I can to advance her ideals? Really. that's funny.

Congratulations. You weren't forced to contradict yourself..

Forced? You can't force me to do anything. I am consistent because I am consistent, not because of external influence. Since you have already explained your merit-based belief in maintaining the rules I am not surprized that confuses you. It's called character.

Never seen Anchorman then? Seriously, are you arguing down this obnoxious track because of a joke embedded in my signature? Is that really what's going on?

Are you not attending UConn Law? If you are, what do you study, cake decorating?
I've seen Anchorman, I own the DVD and if you want a steak you will eat that cat poop.

Let me clue you in: it's a quote iterated by Will Ferrell, who plays the main character of the movie, and it's meant to be ironic - he's a guy who reads off a teleprompter for a living (to a fault) and is a swingin' seventies minor celebrity in San Diego, California. The entire movie is him as a joke. Other iterations of that signature involved other quotes from the movie, including references to "many leather-bound books," and an apartment that smelled of "rich mahogany." He's saying it to try and pick up a woman who is utterly unimpressed with his status as a local evening news anchor.

Let me be more explicit: that signature is me lightheartedly employing self-depricating humor. I attend a law school that isn't known outside of New England, and is only really respected within Connecticut itself, because every other Connecticut law student that works outside the State came from Yale. We feed nonprofits and public organizations, because it's a State school, and you don't have a huge debt burden to feed when you graduate. God help the idiots over at Quinnipiac Law, who come from a school with a lower reputation and double the cost.

How insecure do you have to be in order to gear your entire argument in this thread against something I didn't actually ever appeal to? Honestly, you brought it up

Objection, dumbass premise. Yeah, that's me, all insecure and s***. Go with that line of crossexamination councellor. It's only badgering the witness if your silly BS pisses him off.

Because it doesn't. I don't care how sleazily they treat other sleazeballs. Let me know when someone who doesn't deserve it gets pissed on, and maybe you'll recruit me to your crusade.

So essentially, I have characterized your stance correctly.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

That's how I know you're a Paulbot. If I written, "It didn't violate a rule, and so it couldn't possibly have been wrong," you and everyone else here would have pounced. There is not a person on this planet who gets away with that excuse, and if you're honest, you'll admit that you'd never let anyone get away with it either. The only reason you're saying it now is because it's your guy on the line.

Your assertion has ZERO supporting facts. I can't speak for others and I agree with you, truly, that some would have done that. I don't make excuses for "my guys" I have already pulled evidence to that effect from the last election cycle and one need only look at my Gary Johnson thread to see my consistentcy. I not only advocated for that candidate I shared the damaging facts about his campaign. Nobody brought that to the table, I did. I am catching hell from my Libertarian freinds for it too. They are trying to excuse it as a necessary evil. I don't roll that way. You can say it all you want, but take a look at the evidence list councellor, where's your proof?

Go ahead and be an advocate, but don't tell me that I'm doing something wrong by not signing onto your bull..

I advocate for adhereing to the rules. The only bull here is your attempt to cast me as a partisan flip flopper. You have nothing to substantiate that so if you smell s*** sheck your drawers buddy.

I am moving the conversation. You said "he RNC is breaking the rules." I said, "*YAWN* Serves Ron Paul right." You said "The RNC is breaking the rules." It hasn't moved very far, I'll grant you, but that's only because your lazy tochus can't come up with something you haven't already said, in response.

We are not really discussing anything. I think the rules matter. You think they only matter if the victim meets your criteria for "right" behavior. I would say you are as consistent as I within the context of your beliefs. We are just never going to agree because we have fundamental differences in our characters.

[IBCoupe]

Objection, dumbass premise. Yeah, that's me, all insecure and s***.

Why else bring it up? I've laid out a pretty good explanation for why you're being a dumbass in claiming that it's my signature that prompted your argument. Well, let's reiterate that: it's my signature that prompted your argument! MY SIGNATURE. THE THING THAT ATTACHES ONCE PER PAGE. IN ADDITION TO THE NUMBER OF MILES I'VE PUT ON MY CAR. What's more, is that you're familiar with the quote embedded within the signature! You know the movie! You know its meaning!

Tell me: what makes you not pathetic?

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

I've got this bookmarked, now. How long do you think it'll take for an issue to pop up in the news where you take the side against someone who acted completely within the limits of the law?

WELFARE QUEENS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
CORRUPT POLITICIANS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
...
EXECUTION OF UGANDAN GAYS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
EXTERMINATION OF GERMAN JEWS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

It's one thing to protest, "I'm not a flip-flopper," but you really overreached on that ideological whopper.

We are not really discussing anything. I think the rules matter. You think they only matter if the victim meets your criteria for "right" behavior. I would say you are as consistent as I within the context of your beliefs. We are just never going to agree because we have fundamental differences in our characters.

Of course not. It's not a discussion where you do nothing but reiterate your original post and attack my character.

[IBCoupe]

Screw it; if you're going to focus so much on my signature, I might as well make it something relevant to the discussion.

[themadscientist]

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

I've got this bookmarked, now. How long do you think it'll take for an issue to pop up in the news where you take the side against someone who acted completely within the limits of the law?

And I quoted this so you can't ninja edit it later.

First, I don't expect you to admit it, and this is really not to win any argument because I truly think both you and I are being consistent to our ideals, but are never going to agree and that's alright, but read what you just wrote, really read it.

You seem to really be invested in trying to tear me down. Why do you think that is? It really has nothing to do with me. For example, I find your stance repugnant, but I am not obsessed with moving you from it. I would like to change your thinking, but we both know that's not going to happen.

I'm thinking about lunch right now, multitasking, that's how little I care about your personal opinion. You, however, post what you just posted. That is not the behavior of someone who shares that cool detachment. THAT is very interesting to me. I love watching people's behavior and trying to deduce what particular network of neurons, what life experience, what prejudice, what mental scar is at the root of what I just saw and yes, i count time looking in the mirror.

I speculate that that last post demonstates a fundamental need to find some duality, some inconsistency in me. Why? Because you know deep down in that place that you don't let anybody see, you know where I am at is a higher position than yours and it eats at you. Rather than make an effort to own that and seek to elevate your thinking to a place closer to what you think it should be you would rather try to pull me down closer to make yourself feel better about you. It's a bell curve approach and incidentally the main problem in politics where we often are expected to choose from "the lesser of two evils."

Don't do that, it's hollow and even if you could do it it wouldn't feel as nice as bringing yourself up, not up to what I think is right, but what you think is right. As potentially caustic as the above may seem I truly and I mean truly am not trying to provoke you or act superior to you and I would never presume to sit in judgment of anyone. I'm no saint. I do truly see what I just described in your last post, though.

We can disagree. That's fine. We can duel and spar, I like to; it makes me a better debater and tempers my beliefs in the fire of criticism. We have to be able to realize, though, when we are at an impasse. I think the two of us have stated pretty clearly where we are at. While I disagree stongly with you, I can see why you feel the same. It's all good.

[IBCoupe]

And I quoted this so you can't ninja edit it later.

Cool beans. As you can tell, I didn't delete anything. And I played totally by the rules.

You seem to really be invested in trying to tear me down. Why do you think that is? It really has nothing to do with me. For example, I find your stance repugnant, but I am not obsessed with moving you from it. I would like to change your thinking, but we both know that's not going to happen.

It's totally about you. I'm in eight other threads right now, and you're the only person going back and forth with me like this.

I don't find your stance to be repugnant; I find it dishonest. I don't think you honestly believe that "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." I don't think anybody believes that. I think that's a kind of moral relativism that doesn't exist. I think you're lying, and you're antagonizing me, and I think it's worth making that clear.

I didn't expect to win you over, because I know your politics. You exist in two roles: you adhere to policies that have a tenuous relationship to empirical data, and you love to play the agent provocateur. But that only works as long as people don't notice that you're doing it. The entire time, I've been calling you out on your s***, and in response, you turned it up to eleven and deflected to my educational choices. It's something that I wouldn't have called you on, had you not tried this latest game: playing the SHOCKED combatant at the travesties committed by the other side, when really, you know I'm right. You made a booboo, and now you're deflecting away from that, too.

And there's the third edit. And the fourth. Fifth: I'm documenting this, now, as I pin you back down to the silly things you've said and done. You ridiculed my education and have assumed that I believe the "ends justify the means," when there's actually a lot more to it. I'd explain it, but that'd just feed your trollishness. Instead, I'll continue to hold you to the argument we were having:

If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

Because you know deep down in that place that you don't let anybody see, you know where I am at is a higher position than yours and it eats at you.

Cute. But you know the problem with this? You're not nearly as opaque as you think you are.

I do truly see what I just described in your last post, though.

You see what you want to see; I post in waves. I write my first thoughts out, and then I add to it. If there's no response, I assume you're not there yet, and I think of more things to write. I'm doing it right now. This is my second edit. I'll likely come back for a third. It's cute how high your opinion of yourself is, and how superior you think your arguments are, but in defense of your position, you wrote:

"IF IT WERE TRULY WRONG, IT WOULD HAVE VIOLATED A RULE."

I've seen you pull this psychoanalysis nonsense with others, and I'm not impressed. It's just more deflection.

[themadscientist]

Objection, dumbass premise. Yeah, that's me, all insecure and s***.

Why else bring it up? I've laid out a pretty good explanation for why you're being a dumbass in claiming that it's my signature that prompted your argument. Well, let's reiterate that: it's my signature that prompted your argument! MY SIGNATURE. THE THING THAT ATTACHES ONCE PER PAGE. IN ADDITION TO THE NUMBER OF MILES I'VE PUT ON MY CAR. What's more, is that you're familiar with the quote embedded within the signature! You know the movie! You know its meaning!

Tell me: what makes you not pathetic?

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

I've got this bookmarked, now. How long do you think it'll take for an issue to pop up in the news where you take the side against someone who acted completely within the limits of the law?

WELFARE QUEENS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
CORRUPT POLITICIANS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
...
EXECUTION OF UGANDAN GAYS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
EXTERMINATION OF GERMAN JEWS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
It's one thing to protest, "I'm not a flip-flopper," but you really overreached on that ideological whopper.

We are not really discussing anything. I think the rules matter. You think they only matter if the victim meets your criteria for "right" behavior. I would say you are as consistent as I within the context of your beliefs. We are just never going to agree because we have fundamental differences in our characters.

Of course not. It's not a discussion where you do nothing but reiterate your original post and attack my character.

Haha, ok, there is!

I have a theory of political rhetoric. I call it the Nazi factor. It's where the opponent is so taxed and desperate they start throwing wild punches, the missed haymaker being a comparison of a person or idea to Hitler or the Nazis.

Congradulations

[IBCoupe]

That's not your political theory; it's called "Godwin's Law," and I was fully aware of it while I did it. I do like that you ignored EVERYTHING ELSE so that you could hide behind yet another deflection. Five: There's no comparison to the Nazis, and if you weren't so obsessed with making this into a game, you'd clearly see that the comparison was to your justification of something as "not wrong" because it was within the established rules. I didn't call you a Nazi; I said you didn't see anything wrong with what the Nazis did.

If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

It's your comment, not mine. Killing Jews in Hitler's Germany was as legal as killing gays in today's Uganda. And that's perfectly fine, right? Because Ron Paul deserves to be heard. In my sixth edit, I underlined that.

Tell me again how you're not pathetic. Please; I so enjoyed it the last time. Tell me about your DVD collection. And how you totally weren't oblivious to the idiocy of your personal jabs.

That's an edit, by the way. Two. Three.

Four: I'm gonna predict that the next thing you do is whine about how personal I'm getting. Come on, prove me wrong.

[themadscientist]

So Ron paul following the rules and demanding what he has earned is the equivalent of killing Jews. Hyperbole much?

Haha. Your crys are delicious. You're the one that's getting all butthurt and tense. Why would I stop? I think Subway sounds good for lunch, subway club on parmesean oregano with jalapenos, black pepper, more parmesean and more oregano. 6 INCHES! Not 7, not 5, SIX! The rules will be adhered to! We do open ourselves to being compared to Ugandan death squads over our stand on sandwich portions though.

[IBCoupe]

So Ron paul following the rules and demanding what he has earned is the equivalent of killing Jews. Hyperbole much?

Still not getting it, hm? CAPTAIN, OUR DEFLECTOR SHIELDS CAN'T TAKE MUCH MORE OF IT! Read that in a Scottish accent, and it'll sound better.

If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule.

I'm not even copying and pasting it. I just know it by heart, now.

Haha. Your crys are delicious. You're the one that's getting all butthurt and tense. Why would I stop? I think Subway sounds good for lunch, subway club on parmesean oregano with jalapenos, black pepper, more parmesean and more oregano. 6 INCHES! Not 7, not 5, SIX! The rules will be adhered to! We do open ourselves to being compared to Ugandan death squads over our stand on sandwich portions though.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS6fZIJcM2s[/youtube]

But totally, poor RON PAUL; gamed the system and they changed the rules on him! I'm gonna cry myself to sleep tonight thinking all about him. That's an edit.

[themadscientist]

If you know it by heart you on the first rung to elevating yourself up the ladder to a higher level of thinking. Don't slip and fall now down your slippery slope.