"Ron Paul is the closest candidate the Republican Party has to Ronald Reagan."
I have addressed statements like this in the past, but none that went to this extreme. When you say outrageous things like that on this website, you have to be prepared to justify them.
My counter point (post 176) was that Ronald Reagan was directly opposed to many of the things Ron Paul believes in. I am prepared to justify that opinion, but see no need to, as it is commonly accepted on this website. I asked you again to substantiate your opion. You refused to do so, and suggested the proof was somewhere in a book (which you presumably haven't read).
Next I selected you best defense: An out-of-context quote that appeared in Reason Magazine in 1975. The problem with this quote, is it doesn't mean what libertarians want it to believe. I have debunked it before, and I debunked it again in post 189. Do you even READ the things that get posted to you? This started a seperate conversation about this quote on this thread, with several other posters showing why the thread had zero to do with Reagan embracing or endorsing libertarianism.
Meanwhile, you and I went back and forth for ten posts, with you demanding I read an entire book and locate a part that might legitimatize your original stupid point. I continued to suggest you pick one point (persumably the best one) that might validate you. You refused to do so, bizarrely implying at one point that this would constitute a favor to me. If it was the work of typing a sentence or two, one can't help wondering how refusing five or six time could be less. At some point it became obvious that you were uble to produce an example, possibly because you hadn't actually READ the book (have you?).
This takes us back to the post I am responding to (post 236), where you suggest that the basis for "Ronald Reagan, closet Libertarian" is located on some loser's home page. In other words, you directed me back to post 227, where I guy says he has a link to (wait for it...) the 1975 Reason Magazine interview with Ronald Reagan. Yes, the same one that I warned you not to bother with initially, and that was debunked by FReepers on this very thread. The same one where Reagan himself said in the next paragraph "Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians,"
Why you guys continually fall into the trap of using that quote on this website, I have no idea. I suppose its because you have so little to work with. Reagan never said anything like this again. He was running a primary challenge to a sitting president when he said it. And he was saying it in the days before the internet, to a magazine read only by libertarians.
Meanwhile, as president, Reagan authorized a huge military build up, fought little undeclared wars all over the place, fired the striking aircraft controllers, hammered pornographers, fought against prostitution and abortion, and... what was that last one? Oh yeah, invented the Federal War on Drugs as we know it today. I'm ok with all of those things, because I'm a Conservatve, not a Libertarian.
Before responding to that last part, be sure to give me one example from your book that proves Ron Paul is the closest candidate the Republican Party has to Ronald Reagan. If you won't type one sentence to defend your moronic point, I will assume you never understood the book in the first place.
It occurs to me that as much fun as slapfighting in Free Republic is, it’s not accomplishing much,
Ask yourself this simple question: Which of us is more able to speak to undecided and independent voters to get them to vote our way? After all, you’ve made it clear you apply an remarkably narrow ideological purity test before accepting like-minded people as your allies.
And as much fun as you’re having preaching to the choir, your debate style will never convince undecided and independent voters.
That’s fine if all *you* want to accomplish is to preach to the choir. But *I* aspire to rather more.