I will continue to point out the silliness in your posts.

And I'm not going anywhere...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Uh, you lost the debate. The only silly posts are your own.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Why? Because you say so?

You effectively ended the debate when you accused me of being a liar.

The onus is on you...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

No, because you dodged all of my arguments. Try to keep up, Steve.No, YOU ended the debate when you stated dodging ALL of my arguments.Uh, I didn't hold a gun to your head, Steve. You posted a dishonest comment and I called you on it. If you want to end the debate because you don't like being called what you are, that is your problem.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

And what is that?

Prove that I was dishonest. Otherwise, be reported for baiting.

Again.

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I already did, Steve.

What is wrong with Ron Paul?

Perhaps if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed it.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

You've done nothing but prove I haven't answered your question. Nothing more...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You failed to answer a question that asked you to back up a claim that you made, one that is relevant to the topic.

What is wrong with Ron Paul?

AKA a dodge.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Well, George Bush and his father both had executive experience and look where that got us?

At least Ron Paul doesn't have the experience of voting for a completely stupid war that was unnecessary from the get go. Ron Paul understands the world much better than Bush could ever hope to. Listening to Paul you get the sense he's a reader and an independent thinker, precisely what America needs right now. No more inexperience, no more religious hacks, no more big gov't fatcats.

Perhaps.

But that doesn't mean I've been dishonest about it. That just means I'm not answering you because it's fun to watch you as your panties get all knotted up.

Like I've said before, Slon, you amuse me.

Amuse me some more...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I know I've aid this a number of times, but it never really seems to sink into those really thick skulls.

Ron Paul isn't running against George Bush. Your continued attempt, and the attempts of all the Ron Paul fans out there, to compare him to Bush is what will spell certain defeat for him.

Start comparing him to the other people who are actually running for President, and not to the failed policies of George Bush, and you might have a snowball's chance in Hell of seeing him elected.

Emphasis, by the way, on the word "might"...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Hello? Knock knock? Anyone in there? That's not the reason I accused of being dishonest. The reason is that you then said you didn't dodge:

I'm hardly dodging the issue.

To recap:

1. You dodged, as proven here:
What is wrong with Ron Paul?

2. Then you made the claim that you didn't: I'm hardly dodging the issue.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Ron Paul and his supporters have been comparing him to the entire broken system, if you haven't already noticed. The entire Republican field is fighting to be Bush-Redux with more warmongering. Giuliani has just talked about a military buildup against Russia! As long as Republicans live in denial about their original and core values, they will lose next year's election soundly.

Ron Paul would add a tremendous dynamic to the Presidential race because he did not support the war at any time. If he were to run against Hillary Clinton he could claim to have never voted for the war; never increased taxes; never voted for the Patriot Act; didn't vote for sanctions on Iran, which makes them even more of a threat as it hurts their citizens and they look to stronger leadership against the west because of it.

Hillary was in the gov't when it doubled the debt, while Paul has never voted to increase spending.

His record is principled and flawless while her's is questionable. Tell me this: How does Paul lose to Hillary? He takes the south, he takes the swing states that are thick with Independents. He keeps the White House for the Republican Party while rejuvenating the party and rejecting the failed neo-con strategies.

The only thing wrong with Ron Paul, to date, is a party that remains in denial.

Ron Paul is an economy destroying Libertarian.

Ron Paul, " All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them."

Ron Paul will hasten the race to the bottom and totally anhilate American jobs.

Look what he says, "Its no biggie that another countries have tariffs against the US, lets lower our tariffs to zero anyways." If you want to totally destroy the US economy, elect Libertarians.

Boo hoo! I guess lazy and incompetent American workers will have to compete with foreigners. How sad! You haven't actually shown how that will "destroy the US economy." With protectionism, the lazy and incompetent have jobs, yes, but prices also go up. Without it, prices go down, and perhaps Americans will actually work competitively rather than having the government practically forcing employers to hire retards. The worst that can happen is jobs will go down and the right man for the job (the foreigner) will get it.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.