The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters)

behindpolitics ^

[Allegra]

Have you ever read the whole interview where this sentence came from? Here is what he said right after that:

As a matter of fact, I have that speech bookmarked from some time ago when the Paulbots were using select pieces of it as support for their bizarre beliefs. (Many of them go on to say that Reagan was a failed president...)

They twist and distort to get a point across, just like the media does. I've had them deliberately misinterpret my words or take things blatantly out of context to support whatever venom it is they're trying to spew at non-cultists.

Sort of like crowing and celebrating over meaningless straw polls because they had enough Paulbots to successfully spam them.

[Allegra]

Yes, a lot of them simply aren’t changing their bong water very often.

[ejonesie22]

“We’re trying to save the planet man!”

“Got any Skittles?”

“What was I saying dude?”

[KevinDavis]

The funny thing was in 08 Paul and his followers claimed he was the next Ronald Reagan.. Never mind that Ron Paul left the GOP cause of Ronald Reagan..

[tacticalogic]

I find it curious he singles Ron Paul out for special treatment, when there are many examples of congressmen with objectively much more egregious records of sponsoring, voting for, and earmarking pork spending for their districts, for things the federal government was never authorized to spend money on in the first place.

Do you think you can get that straight?

[ejonesie22]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17648053536

Somethings write themselves...

[so_real]

What congress voted on was the defense bill, what some of the money went for was studying Bay area shrimp. You have to admit, that is outrageous, don't you?

"Outrageous" is a kinder description than I would have offered :-)

[ejonesie22]

[Allegra]

LOL - 43 whole members!

[tacticalogic]

I see you'v read the rule book:

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

[ejonesie22]

No, no ridicule, just humorous frustration at some one who keeps arguing the same irrational point.

However being accused of using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals by a Paulbot is ironic to the point of hilarity...

Allegra, freepmail me the next time I actual engage a Paulbot with reason and remind me I am temporally insane...

[ejonesie22]

Well they would more but between drug busts and the fact many are to stoned to find the join button...

[tacticalogic]

No, no ridicule, just humorous frustration at some one who keeps arguing the same irrational point.

What's irrational about wondering why someone exhibits a curiously selective sense of outrage?

In politics, failing to wonder about it when it's evident would be the irrational act.

[Allegra]

Paulbots always argue in a circular manner and personal insults are their primary weapon.

They cannot tolerate the concept of anyone not worshiping Ron Paul and I rarely meet one who doesn’t think he or she is far intellectually superior to everyone around them.

Trying to talk logic to a Paulbot is an exercise in futility.

[ejonesie22]

Yeah, I know. And they wonder why they get a bad rap around here..

Go figure.

[ejonesie22]

Ok.

[tacticalogic]

And it would be irrational not to recognize the little sidebar conversations as being straight out of the Delphi method.

[ejonesie22]

Ok.

[all the best]

You are right, right and right. You got my point exactly.