only the corporate whores are mostly

Okay, then the QUESTION you posted. Happy?That is an assumption made by the people who run that site. It's really impossible to tell whether he outright opposes killing people or if he simply opposes our current broken death penalty. I pointed out that it could be the latter because that is how it is run today.Right, it doesn't specify, so you can't really know for certain.Depends on the evidence you present. IMO, I've not really researched the guy too much.You've not shown either to be true.In other words, you are making totally unsubstantiated, pulled-out-of-the-ass assumptions. Not surprising.

__________________
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.

Um, I didn't post a question.

You wanna' go ahead and just stop making yourself look silly, or do you intend to continue?

Perhaps you'll accept what Ron Paul has to say about his position:

Ron Paul: "I Am Now Opposed To The Federal Death Penalty"

The topic doesn't come up until the very end; I think he addresses it at tim -0:29.

You'll notice he says nothing of a "broken" system. He does allude to it being carried out unfairly (which could be debated), but says nothing about rectifying that so that it's carried out more fairly. Only an idiot would listen to what he says and reach the conclusion that he's still open to the idea, and only an idiot would try to spin what he said to mean anything other than he opposes the death penalty...

Your hero seems to think Bin Laden is a terrorist: Ron Paul on Bin Laden

"We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden..."

That you're unaware of his terrorist activities is mind-boggling...

I've had no need to. You've done quite a sufficient job already...

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




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

Fine, the SUPPOSEDLY PARAPHRASED LINE to which you linked. Look, I understand that the only thing you have the capacity to argue is semantics, but I don't particularly care about those at the moment, so stop stalling and understand that the current death penalty system is broken. So, from the line to which you linked, it cannot be concluded that Paul opposes any and all death penalties.He lists out the problems with it and says he opposes it. Certainly sounds like he opposes the broken death penalty, given his description of the problems with it. It's not like he said he opposes it because he doesn't think anyone should ever be killed. I pointed this out to you a while ago.Like I said, nowhere did he say he opposes the death penalty out of principle (that killing someone for a crime is wrong). So even if he has no problem with the way it is carried out, he opposes the way it is assigned.If he opposed the death penalty out of principle, he would have said so. Instead, he gave an alternate reason, one dealing with the way it is used and assigned.And?Right. Capture him and try him if possible, kill him if he resists arrest.Face it, Steve. You are posting bullshit that you are pulling out of your ass and when asked to substantiate it, you make meaningless, silly little comebacks like the one above.

__________________
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.

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.

Stop stalling and understand that you're mentally flailing about because your idiotic positions are being systematically dismantled with incredible ease.

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...

He's never said he opposes a "broken system". 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. Since he hasn't spoken out about those specific positions, should we assume he's taking them?

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)...

He's said he's against the death penalty. That's a pretty clear statement, and one which intelligent people have no problem comprehending...

Then one should be able to assume that it if he thought it should be kept, but "fixed", he would've said that, too.

But he didn't.

He's anti-death penalty. That cannot be disputed...

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".

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...

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




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

I'm glad that a few posts later, you're finally over it.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.So you automatically assume the worst about him?It's rather clear that he was discussing the system currently in effect, given that he pointed out the problems currently in existence, Steve.So what? Did you assume that he does? You seem to be assuming the worst about him in other instances.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.So what system did you think he was discussing if not the one currently in effect, Steve? So why are you having so much trouble? Oh wait, you answered my question.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.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?!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.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?

__________________
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.

Have I said he opposes it out of principle?

I don't think I have.

The main point to me is that he opposes it. If it needs to be fixed, then fix it, don't shit-can it.

Yet, that's exactly his position...

Well, that's an ignorant conclusion on your part, then.

If he's opposed to it only because of how it's carried out or how it's applied, then he should say he wants to fix it. But, by saying he's against it because of how it's applied, and then following that with "I am against the federal death penalty", it's pretty fucking clear that he has no desire to "fix" anything.

Then again, he won't be the next President, so it's no big deal. What he's demonstrated, though, is his unwillingness and inability to fix problems.

That's hardly a quality I want in a President...

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




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

Then you agree with me that he opposes the broken system, correct?So you think we should be offing people left and right with a broken system in the meantime? It's not like you can take make a bill that forces people to be honest and to know the truth about criminal allegations.If you want him to say that, then why not send him a letter about it rather than making assumptions on the Internet?You don't know that, Steve. It's possible he is against it while it is fucked up.Okay, so which President do you think is going to pass a bill that ensures all death-related sentences are correct? Or are you saying we need to keep killing people even though the system is fucked up?

__________________
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.

No.

Once again, you are incorrect.

I've said he opposes the death penalty. Nothing more.

I disagree with that position...

The only person I'm aware of, who's said the system is "broken", is you.

Thus, it's unworthy of consideration...

I don't need him to say it. If he wants people to vote for him, though, he should be more forthcoming than he has been...

It's the only logical conclusion that can be reached. Why should I assume he wants to fix it?

He's pointed out what he believes is wrong with it. I can respect that. He's too chickenshit to say he wants to fix it. I can't respect that...

We're discussing Ron Paul; no one else.

Paul's position is one I disagree with...

There are certainly instances; the majority of them I believe, where the death penalty is righfully applied. That should continue. However, those can't continue if someone is completely incapable of addressing, with solutions, the problems that do exist in the system...

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




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

Really? What about what Ron Paul said about it? What about when you said "Second, I've already said that changes need to be made to our system of capital punishment."?What people? I see YOU complaining about it, and since you don't need him to say it, who the hell needs him to say it in order to vote for him?The only logical conclusion to the statement that something is broken is that he doesn't want to fix it?Why do you assume fear is the reason he didn't say it? Furthermore, did it ever cross your mind that perhaps his specifying only the FEDERAL death penalty, that he wants to simply give that power to the states?Then what theoretical bill would you have RP pass to fix what I mentioned?So should we or should we not be offing people left and right with a broken system?

__________________
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.

What about it?

I agree that changes need to happen. I do not want to do away with it in lieu of fixing it, though. Clearly, Ron Paul does...

A candidate should be clear on his positions. I believe Ron Paul has been clear on this one: He doesn't like how the death penalty is applied and, instead of trying to rectify that, he's willing to just get rid of it...

Not at all. In fact if something is broken, it should be fixed. Ron Paul deosn't seem at all interested in fixing whatever may be wrong with the death penalty. This is obvious in that his position is that he's against the death penalty...

Because nothing else explains it...

Great; let me hear him say it...

If I were running for President, I might have some ideas on that. What I believe, though, is that simply getting rid of it isn't the way to go...

First, we're not "offing people left and right". Second, plenty of people; the majority, I think, are quite deserving of the death penalty. We should not deny them that which they've earned...

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




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

1) He introduces himself as the "champion of the constitution", yet he wants to repeal the 14th amendment right of people born in the USA to be a citizen. Because of that position I think he is a racist bigot. It's not too hard to figure out who he is targeting with that salvo at the Constitution.

2) He has approximately zero experience as an executive, yet he wants to hold the most important executive position in the country. I think it's a little bit late for an old dog like him to be learning new tricks.

3) Most of his supporters are extremely annoying, and most of his critics are extremely annoying.

4) Voted to impeach Clinton

5) He will not win.

But to be fair, we should not only look at the "what is wrong with Ron Paul". We also need to weigh in "what is right with Ron Paul" too.

1) He's against the war on drugs, somthing he could end on the federal level on day one in office.

2) Recognizes the right to life.

3) Vehemently anti-socialist.

4) He's not Rudy Giulianni

5) He advocates smaller government.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.