The Osborn Challenge

[Easy90]

I posted a short opinion in the thread concerning Karl Rove and his new association with Fox news as follows:

"I agree that people need to become informed....particularly if they vote. However, it seems to me that Paul supporters who think they are enlightened and informed, are actually the biggest bunch of wacky loons on the planet. They think "being informed" means you swallow wild conspiracy theories and generally agree with the philosophy of anarchy. Wouldn't you agree?"

I was challenged by Osborn F. etc...with these words:

"I would love to debate each and every facet of the claim you make, in detail, at any time you and I can match online activity. Feel free to start a thread. (Consider this an open challenge, which you may take up when you feel froggy)" :thumbsup:
Okie dokie.
Here's an offering that supports my contention that Paul supporters are a conglomeration of loons...and that his appeal (4% nationally) is primarily from nut cases...this is a good example of his support base: Mash Here: Why we should support Ron Paul (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why-we-should-support-ron-388565.html)
Your turn Osborn...:nana:

[Easy90]

Man I hate it when a challenge goes wanting.

[Muser]

Knowing what I know of Osborn, I've yet to see him shrug off a gauntlet. Prepare yourself.

[Easy90]

OK..thanks...I will prepare for an onslaught of reasoned rebuttal... LOL! Or, not.

[PatrickHenry]

I think he's been real busy lately.

But I know he responds to a challenge with gusto.

Give him a little time.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy90 said:
Man I hate it when a challenge goes wanting.

Well, as has been said, I have been busy lately. Today is my fathers and my birthday, so I won't be posting much today or tomorrow most likely. (fair warning)

(thanks for the vouch of integrity Muser and Patrick)

Easy90 said:
Okie dokie.
Here's an offering that supports my contention that Paul supporters are a conglomeration of loons...and that his appeal (4% nationally) is primarily from nut cases...this is a good example of his support base: Mash Here: Why we should support Ron Paul
Your turn Osborn...

Ok, lets analyze your contention first.

Your contention is that "Paul supporters" are a "conglomeration of loons".

Well, you obviously enjoy painting with a broad brush, and seem comfortable with vague, misleading, pigeonhole positions as long as they are not directed toward you or yours.

So, am I to assume from your broad brush painting of the characterization of Paul supporters, you would accept the same regarding the rest of the candidates? By "contending" on the basis you do, the character of Pauls supporters, am I also to assume that you can prove that no other candidates have racial, corrupt, criminal, illegal or supporters who are ethicly bereft, or race supremecists championing them, only Paul?

Since you think a minute group of supporters define ALL candidates supporters, I am sure you will have no problem explaining the various financial supporter issues with the other candidates?

Perhaps Hillary and ALL of her supporters should be defined by the character of Mehmet Celebi, Jorge Cabrera, Ng Lap Seng and Norman Hsu who have donated large amounts to her campaign?

Perhaps Obama and ALL of his supporters should be defined by the character of Jesse Jackson, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Raila Odinga whom he is associated with and have supported his campaign?

Perhaps McCain and ALL of his supporters should be defined by the character of Henry Kissinger, Barry J. Flynn, Charles H. Keating, Rudy Giulianni or Fred Thompson?

Perhaps Huckabee and ALL of his supporters should be defined by the character of the evangelical community, Jennings Osborne, Dr. Wesley Kluck, Ed Rollins, Steve Hotze, Rick Scarborough?

Since you are attempting to smear ALL of particular candidates supporters with the "association theory", perhaps you should explain the associations for each candidate I listed above, or just the candidate of your choice?(assuming they are still in the race)

Now, I assumed you were going to bring reason, solid researched argument, and facts to debate. I think I was wrong to assume such by the type of argument you are presenting, but time will tell.

I have given you the type of reply you deserve, based on the quality (or lack of quality in this case) of the "contention" you made.

Would you care to carry on? If so, please do.

If the above reply didn't substantially address your issue with Paul, please bring to the table some reasoned, articulate, factual debate and not just slander and liable, and you will receive a much more thorough and factually assembled reply.

Also, please answer these questions for me.

1) Who are you supporting for President in 2008?
2) Why are you supporting that person?
3) Other than the "race bait", do you have any issues with Ron Paul, if so, please bullet point the issue and why you disagree?


I surely hope you intend to bring more substantive debate, and well thought out arguments for your next reply. :love:

(hint: pack a lunch!)

[DANG]

Happy Birthday Os!![hr]Same day as Dad? Now THATS cool.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thanks Dang, and yes, same day. Makes it easier for me to remember his birthday..... ;)

[brien]

Hey happy birthday there OS...I hope this fella here is preparing for the Osborn Cyclone, because if he isn't, he is going to literally be blown away...:dizzy:

:madlaugh:

[Muser]

Happy birthday, Os!

http://www.fileupyours.com/files/153415/x-beer.gif I raise a toast in your honor. :cool:

[BoogyMan]

Happy b-day Osborn. May your day be pleasant and your cares be few.

[Osborn F. Enready]

You guys rock, thanks again for the Happy B-Day wishes.

[lily]

.....................

[Grizz]

Os, have a good one and a high five to your dad, too.

Back to business. In general, I agree with Easy90 for the simple fact that Ron Paul is, at heart, a true-blue Libertarian and, IMO, they're all a bunch of crackpots whose interests lie in self and d**n everybody else. My studies of the Libertarian philosophy and goals have led me to this conclusion. Their goofy ideas of governance don't even qualify as a good way to run a suburban civic association, let alone an elected government at any level. I'll be happy to expound if you like. Especially the part about how the Libertarian party supports child molesters (it is, or used to be, in their platform).

[Osborn F. Enready]

Grizz said:
Os, have a good one and a high five to your dad, too.

Thank you.

Grizz said:
Back to business. In general, I agree with Easy90 for the simple fact that Ron Paul is, at heart, a true-blue Libertarian and, IMO, they're all a bunch of crackpots whose interests lie in self and d**n everybody else.

I would love to debate the differences and where you and I differ, but, without knowing why you have such perception, I can't. Your short summation of Libertarians (collectively) is still a label, and only applies to those who match the label, correct?

If you want to debate the Libertarian platform, I am all for that in a thread appropriate for the topic.

Finally, simply chiming in that you agree with easy90 really doesn't say much, since I completely pointed out how his "allegation" was grounded in generalization, smearing by "association" and overall, not much of substance at all.

If you disagree with what I said, why not say why YOU disagree?

Grizz said:
My studies of the Libertarian philosophy and goals have led me to this conclusion. Their goofy ideas of governance don't even qualify as a good way to run a suburban civic association, let alone an elected government at any level.

Well, I and several other millions of people disagree. I can live with reasoned, objective disagreement based on substance. I have trouble accepting blind faith, gut feelings and unsubstantiated claims.

Having a good factual debate may benefit both of us on the topic, but before that can happen, mutual respect must be observed, and insults without substance don't make that much easier to accomplish.

Grizz said:
I'll be happy to expound if you like. Especially the part about how the Libertarian party supports child molesters (it is, or used to be, in their platform).

I think I know more about the Libertarian Party then you forgot, but if you want to start a thread, feel free and I will participate when I get time.

Now, how about back on topic?

[brien]

IMO, they're all a bunch of crackpots whose interests lie in self and d**n everybody else.

Now here is an intelligent statement above on the LP. A Pullitzer Prize winner eh?:madlaugh:

These people who pretend to know the Libertarian Party are afraid to debate us Libertarians here. They would rather make ad hom attacks than debate substance. They may learn something Os, and that is the one thing around here that seems to be in short supply; learning.


Grizz quote: below.
Especially the part about how the Libertarian party supports child molesters (it is, or used to be, in their platform).



Sir, this statement above is an outright lie. You have no evidence to support it. Your irresponsible phony statements are only exceeded by your obvious penchant for cotton headed radical rhetoric. You should try this link to LEARN who supports the NAMBLA types:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGEwN2NhNWIxMzgzZWVjMGUxOWRkNzFiYjY3ZWZjYWI

From the link:

An inconvenient truth for Democrats is that they are strongly supported by organizations like the ACLU, which consistently argues that age of consent laws need to be dramatically reduced so that what Mr. Foley was attempting to do would be legal. Democrats are also supported by homosexual advocacy groups that routinely give organizations like NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, positions in “gay rights” parades, where they proclaim such slogans as “sex by eight or it’s too late.”

While I don't always agree with the ACLU, they are necessary in a free and open Democratic Republic.

But the reality is that Nancy Pelosi marches in Gay Pride Parades in proximity to NAMBLA members:

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/8226

The American Spectator reported that in a 2001 “gay pride” parade in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi was just three spots in the parade from radical gay advocate Harry Hay, who avidly spoke in favor of sex with teens and fiercely advocated for NAMBLA’s inclusion in gay-pride parades. Did Pelosi ever protest NAMBLA’s presence in parades?

So we really see that it is influential Democrats who are more associated with NAMBLA than Libertarians. And once again, we Libertarians get painted with the stink of a major party embarassment. Give me a break.[hr]Os wrote:

Well, I and several other millions of people disagree. I can live with reasoned, objective disagreement based on substance. I have trouble accepting blind faith, gut feelings and unsubstantiated claims.

Trouble accepting them OS??? I reject their disingenuous mendacity. People embarrass themelves with lies, distortions, and banal cotton head rhetoric. We Libertarians have to put up with nonsense like this while the two major parties get a free pass as I succinctly showed above. But we will continue to fight these types, it is just too bad we have to get down in the slimey gutter with them to beat them.

Put you bib waders on there OS, the stink, the slime, and the vitriol is, as we have seen, rising high.:fight:

[lily]

An inconvenient truth for Democrats is that they are strongly supported by organizations like the ACLU, which consistently argues that age of consent laws need to be dramatically reduced so that what Mr. Foley was attempting to do would be legal. Democrats are also supported by homosexual advocacy groups that routinely give organizations like NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, positions in “gay rights” parades, where they proclaim such slogans as “sex by eight or it’s too late.”

So let me get this straight........the ACLU stick up for civil rights, the Democrats are supported by Homosexual groups......which I can understand, since the Republicans refuse to give them any rights......and somehow this is wrong?.......as for donations......I don't want to start the debate up again about Paul getting donations from stromfront.


The American Spectator reported that in a 2001 “gay pride” parade in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi was just three spots in the parade from radical gay advocate Harry Hay, who avidly spoke in favor of sex with teens and fiercely advocated for NAMBLA’s inclusion in gay-pride parades. Did Pelosi ever protest NAMBLA’s presence in parades?

OMG.........Pelosi was at a Gay Pride parade and was 3 spots away from someone who spoke about about pedophilia?

Treason! Impeach her........come on, brien......your grasping at straws here.

[Troubadour]

my contention that Paul supporters are a conglomeration of loons...and that his appeal (4% nationally) is primarily from nut cases


Ron Paul supporters are naive and dogmatically anti-government, but the "loons" and "nut cases" are primarily in Huckabee's flock. Meanwhile the remainder of the Republican party flounders to find someone as evil and stupid as George W. Bush to satisfy their greed and lust for power. It's been fun watching this Republican primary (sadly, almost over), as idiots have fought with morons, and lunatics have fought with sociopaths. One candidate wants to start an American Inquisition, the other wants Bush's empire to last a thousand years (hmm, where have we heard "thousand-year empire" before?). Well, they're a right bunch of swamp creatures in that Party, but they surely are entertaining. I'm sure I speak for all Americans when I say we'll miss the GOP's kind words and inspiring leadership. :madlaugh:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Troubador said:
Ron Paul supporters are naive and dogmatically anti-government,

Do you have any substance for this?!? No, just your subjective BS.

Troubador said:
but the "loons" and "nut cases" are primarily in Huckabee's flock. Meanwhile the remainder of the Republican party flounders to find someone as evil and stupid as George W. Bush to satisfy their greed and lust for power.

I would love to see what makes Republicans and Democrats different in their greed for lust and power. Care to offer any SUBSTANCE?

Troubador said:
It's been fun watching this Republican primary (sadly, almost over), as idiots have fought with morons, and lunatics have fought with sociopaths.

Is this Andrew Dice Clay writing your material?

Troubador said:
One candidate wants to start an American Inquisition, the other wants Bush's empire to last a thousand years (hmm, where have we heard "thousand-year empire" before?). Well, they're a right bunch of swamp creatures in that Party, but they surely are entertaining.

So its strictly a party thing for you, right? No examples of the same "traditions" in the Democratic party? :ecstatic: :madlaugh:

Troubador said:
I'm sure I speak for all Americans when I say we'll miss the GOP's kind words and inspiring leadership.

I think you have trouble speaking for yourself, and thats all you have the right to speak for, so why try for more? :innocent:

[Easy90]

Also, please answer these questions for me.

1) Who are you supporting for President in 2008?
2) Why are you supporting that person?
3) Other than the "race bait", do you have any issues with Ron Paul, if so, please bullet point the issue and why you disagree?


I surely hope you intend to bring more substantive debate, and well thought out arguments for your next reply. Love

(hint: pack a lunch!)

Osborn

Happy Birthday!

I had all but forgotten about your challenge...

I don't support any of the three democrat (Clinton, Obama, McCain) or one "Republican" (Rev Huckabee) in the race. but thanks for asking. Ultimately, I will likely vote against the worst from the choice available in November.

As for the rest of your rant...you seem upset because I posted a link to one of Paul's supporters. Your retort seems to center on the contention that all the others still in the race have there weird supporters too. Yep...they do, but none quite so well articulate their positions as being closest to their candidates core belief system.

Actually, I wholly agree with some of Paul's rhetoric. Some of it is absolutely on the mark, but some is just plain loony....My main contention is that most of the support in his 4% comes from some of the looniest of the loony in the US. Mouth-foaming conspiracy theory tinfoil hat wearers...racists...drug heads...anti-war weirdos...tax protesters...you name it...they seem to gravitate towards the guy... That, and the fact that he hasn't a chance in hell of getting any significant vote count makes it odd that people are as loyal (as you seem) to the guy.

Wouldn't you agree? :thumbsup:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy90 said:
I don't support any of the three democrat (Clinton, Obama, McCain) or one "Republican" (Rev Huckabee) in the race. but thanks for asking. Ultimately, I will likely vote against the worst from the choice available in November.

You mean you will vote for a lesser evil, or a perceived greater evil....?

Easy90 said:
As for the rest of your rant...you seem upset because I posted a link to one of Paul's supporters.

You didn't read much. I clarified my position well.

Easy90 said:
Your retort seems to center on the contention that all the others still in the race have there weird supporters too. Yep...they do, but none quite so well articulate their positions as being closest to their candidates core belief system.

Have you met Ron Paul, had any long in depth conversations with him? Do you know his family? If not, how would you know a thing about his "core belief system"?

I think you seem to be presumptious and pompous, and are comfortable speaking "off the cuff" with no information at all to support what falls from your mouth, but hey, thats just my perception, so far.

easy90 said:
Actually, I wholly agree with some of Paul's rhetoric. Some of it is absolutely on the mark, but some is just plain loony....

Maybe you could elaborate on what you agree with, and what you don't?

easy90 said:
My main contention is that most of the support in his 4% comes from some of the looniest of the loony in the US. Mouth-foaming conspiracy theory tinfoil hat wearers...racists...drug heads...anti-war weirdos...tax protesters...you name it...they seem to gravitate towards the guy...

Wouldn't you agree?

Well, lets see.

I believe in a bi-partisan conspiracy to take over and retain bi-partisan power at all costs, but I don't wear or own any tinfoil hats.
(and I only have 175 years of history to prove it....)
I am anti-racist.
I am pro drug-decriminalization and legalization.(as if this was a role for government)
I am an ex-service member who is anti-interventionist, which some simple people interpret as "anti-war".(Is anyone really pro-war, and if so, you can bet they have never served.)
I am an avid income tax protestor, states rights advocate, and individual rights champion. (but hey, its all about the Constitution, you remember that right, printed on hemp paper and all.....)

Do I agree, yes, American citizens who respect and support individual rights, the Constitution and the original intent of the United States government do flock to Ron Paul, and I don't think he would have it any other way, nor would I.

:thumbsup: