Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
First, I've no issue with semantics. You said I asked a question. I didn't. The you said I posted a bill. I didn't.
|
I'm glad that a few posts later, you're finally over it.
Quote:
|
Stop stalling and understand that you're mentally flailing about because your idiotic positions are being systematically dismantled with incredible ease.
|
I'm not stalling at all. Seriously, where have I stalled? You couldn't dismantle a plastic pen if your life depended on it, and you haven't dismantled anything here, either, so stop complementing yourself.
Quote:
Second, I've already said that changes need to be made to our system of capital punishment. "Broken"? I think that could be debated, but changes definitely need to be made.
Of course, that something Ron Paul hasn't said...
|
So you automatically assume the worst about him?
Quote:
He's never said he opposes a "broken system".
|
It's rather clear that he was discussing the system currently in effect, given that he pointed out the problems currently in existence, Steve.
Quote:
He also didn't say that he opposes the death penalty for cases of shoplifting, or that he supports it in
in cases of speeding.
|
So what? Did you assume that he does?
You seem to be assuming the worst about him in other instances.
Quote:
|
Since he hasn't spoken out about those specific positions, should we assume he's taking them?
|
You're the one making the leaps to conclusion here, Steve. I already told you, that given what he said while discussing the death penalty (he mentioned CURRENT problems with it), the only thing you can conclude with a degree of safety is that he is discussing the system currently in effect. That would be the broken one.
Quote:
|
Of course not, because that would be fucking retarded, much like it's fucking retarded to assume, as you have, that he opposes a "broken system" (which he has not said), instead of assuming he opposes the federal death penalty (which he has said)...
|
So what system did you think he was discussing if not the one currently in effect, Steve?
Quote:
He's said he's against the death penalty. That's a pretty clear statement, and one which intelligent people have no problem comprehending...
|
So why are you having so much trouble? Oh wait, you answered my question.
Quote:
Then one should be able to assume that it if he thought it should be kept, but "fixed", he would've said that, too.
|
Stop making leaps to conclusion, Steve. He discussed the current system and told you what problem he had with it. He mentioned current problems with it.
Quote:
But he didn't.
He's anti-death penalty. That cannot be disputed...
|
Anti-WHAT death penalty? As I have pointed out countless times to you, he appears to be against our current broken system, according to what he said. Why do you assume he opposes it out of principle rather than out of the way it has been implemented? ESPECIALLY AFTER HE FUCKING TOLD YOU THE REASON?!
Quote:
I'm posting bullshit?
You say I asked a question. Then you said I posted a bill. You call it "semantics", and I call it "Slon's Ignorance On Parade".
|
Oh, I see. So you still aren't over your semantics bullshit. Come on, Steve. Give real debating a try, rather than sticking to your little semantics arguments.
Quote:
I provided clear evidence that Ron Paul is firmly against the death penalty. Instead of accepting that, you try to spin it around and read something into it that he never said.
"Bullshit", indeed...
|
Uh, what? He specifically said what he disliked about the death penalty: the way it is assigned. Yet you appear to assume he dislikes it out of principle? Is that it?