Is Phatscotty a Republican?

[Symmetry]

i would assume that ron paul wants donations from everybody...

also: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fag

step off the harley son

Yeah dude, as if a Ron Paul supporter uses "fag" to suggest I have a motorbike. Your meaning was clear.

[Woodruff]

Due to the vastly changing conditions, his support in 2012 was tremendously different than it was in 1988. If he wasn't aware of the difference in his support levels, then perhaps it's good that he didn't win the nomination.

his support in 2012 was due to his publicity in 2008, and that in turn was due largely to his presence in the 2008 republican debates.

Yes. That doesn't at all change my point.

if running as a republican gives you more exposure and a larger following, then how the hell does running as an independent do more to further your cause?

By 2012, Ron Paul didn't need the exposure...he had a large, rabid and vocal following. By running as an independent, he is able to more effectively bring in those who might not have voted for him otherwise (Democrats primarily, but also some Independents). His gathering amongst Republicans wouldn't shrink at all with a move to independency, but his gatherings would grow in other facets.

[Woodruff]

i would assume that ron paul wants donations from everybody...

also: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fag

step off the harley son

That may very well be the dumbest attempt at claiming you meant something other than what was clear to everyone.

[john9blue]

i would assume that ron paul wants donations from everybody...

also: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fag

step off the harley son

Yeah dude, as if a Ron Paul supporter uses "fag" to suggest I have a motorbike. Your meaning was clear.

sym, if there's anything i've learned from your posts, it's that words have one meaning and one meaning only, and that any suggestion of any alternative meanings is an indication of a lesser intellect.

so, if you won't accept the definition of the world's foremost collaborative dictionary, then i'm not sure if you can be helped.

[john9blue]

By 2012, Ron Paul didn't need the exposure...he had a large, rabid and vocal following. By running as an independent, he is able to more effectively bring in those who might not have voted for him otherwise (Democrats primarily, but also some Independents). His gathering amongst Republicans wouldn't shrink at all with a move to independency, but his gatherings would grow in other facets.

if he runs as an independent, he won't win the presidency, 100% guaranteed, and you know that. so what does he have to lose by going for a long-shot attempt within the republican party? he did great in some of the early polls.

also, i disagree that his gathering amongst republicans wouldn't shrink at all. you underestimate the impact of a televised debate appearance, because you spend a lot of time online and probably heard about ron paul 10 times more than the average american. if his goal is to spread his ideas (which i think it was), rather than make a long shot for the presidency, then running as a republican was definitely the right choice.

[Symmetry]

stupid? troll? or just your everyday fag? i can never tell with you, sym.

i'm not sure if you can be helped.

I don't think I need to be "helped", sweetie.

[john9blue]

i used to wonder whether you were a troll or not. i now think you honestly believe a lot of the things you say, but are more prone to trolling than most people. that's a nasty combination to have and it's why a lot of people don't take you seriously and troll you back, myself included. food for thought

[Symmetry]

i used to wonder whether you were a troll or not. i now think you honestly believe a lot of the things you say, but are more prone to trolling than most people. that's a nasty combination to have and it's why a lot of people don't take you seriously and troll you back, myself included. food for thought

Is this a good time to ask why you got banned? It seems like you think we're having A MOMENT.

[Iliad]

this is the guy who was going to cut his salary to $39K if he was elected president.

stupid? troll? or just your everyday fag? i can never tell with you, sym.

I guess you can add casual homophobia to your impressive resume.

[thegreekdog]

What the f*ck?

Ron Paul
Symmetry - Being a member of a political party does not mean you cannot also criticize that political party. Your insistence on labels defining a person is disappointing. More disappointing is your continued insistence that a person's message is defined by the type of human being that person is.
J9B - Ron Paul is a Republican. He ran as a Republican mutliple times, he was a Republican when he was in Congress.

Phatscotty
J9B - It's in the Benghazi thread. Do you really need links? I explained the issue in this thread and in the Benghazi thread. Here is the link to that thread. It's on the second page today, maybe that's why you had difficulty finding it.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=190620

Phatscotty posts something from Ron Paul that indicates Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for Benghazi. Phatscotty indicates we should listen to Ron Paul on this issue. Three pages later, he attacks the Democrats for precisely what the Republicans have done in prior administrations and prior years and does precisely what Ron Paul says Republicans shouldn't do (without being massive hypocrits.

I have yet to read a single post by Phatscotty that criticizes the Republicans for anything related to foreign policy and/or Benghazi. Phatscotty does not criticize Republicans for anything. Given what he criticizes Democrats for and what he supposedly stands for, I find this infruriatingly hypocritical. Another example is in the Second Rate Citizens thread. In that thread we have a discussion regarding the voting rights of ex-convicts. Phatscotty and Juan Bottom both appear to support the idea that ex-convicts should be allowed to vote (and perhaps in some cases and not in others). Neither of them appears to understand that our status quo is the result of the Democrats and Republicans, because neither of those fine individuals criticizes either party.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=190066

If you would like, I will continue to find examples, but if you pay attention to current threads, you'll get a good flavor of what I'm talking about. Ignore the back and forth between Phatscotty and ooge or Woodruff or whomever. Instead, think about what Phatscotty types and compare it to the Republican stance on the same issue, the Democratic stance on the same issue.

[Woodruff]

also, i disagree that his gathering amongst republicans wouldn't shrink at all. you underestimate the impact of a televised debate appearance, because you spend a lot of time online and probably heard about ron paul 10 times more than the average american. if his goal is to spread his ideas (which i think it was), rather than make a long shot for the presidency, then running as a republican was definitely the right choice.

By running as a Republican, he eliminated much of the possibility of gathering Democrats who would otherwise have voted for him (out of extreme disappointment with Obama, if nothing else). It would have shown them that he was going to be able to extricate him from being dependent on the Republican machine as President. This was a common thought-process among Democrats.

[BigBallinStalin]

i know PS strays from the libertarian ideology more often than we'd like (i think i called him a "republican that tries to be a libertarian" in another thread) but he's better than most people in this forum, and i think he gets a disproportionate amount of hate, so it doesn't bother me all that much.

Better at what? Obfuscation? Tap-dancing? Avoidance? Videos?

Well...yeah, he's better at videos than most people in this forum. I'll give him that.

sure, but liking the politics of a single member of a group doesn't mean that you advocate for the policies of the group as a whole, especially when you have a "maverick" like paul who disagrees with most of them. you can say that he likes a republican, but not republicans as a whole (although he probably likes them better than democrats)

This was actually my biggest hangup about Ron Paul (I feel like I can't just call him "Paul" like I do with "Bush" and "Obama"...damn last first names)...if he had run as an independent, which if what you say is true (and I do think it is), he would have done more to further his actual cause than by using the method he did, in my opinion.

Maybe, but by running as a Repub., he got access to more cameras and debates among those Repubs, thus increasing 'the word'. I don't think the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party would have gotten more attention by having RP run as an independent or LP.

[Symmetry]

Ron Paul
Symmetry - Being a member of a political party does not mean you cannot also criticize that political party.

I was not under the impression that that was the case, indeed, I directly mocked the idea of RINO earlier in the thread.

Your insistence on labels defining a person is disappointing.

Ron Paul is a Republican. He ran as a Republican mutliple times, he was a Republican when he was in Congress

I'm not sure what you were trying to go for, but I probably agree with one of you.

More disappointing is your continued insistence that a person's message is defined by the type of human being that person is.

I don't know if this is too deep in meaning for me to understand, or too shallow to be anything other than vacuously facile.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, well first, you are correct that Ron Paul is a Republican (j9b is incorrect).

Second, and probably more importantly, in your mind a person with bad morals or a bad reputation automatically has unintelligent or poor ideas. I'm sure there is a debate term for that style of debate but you do it all the time. For example, you seem to indicate that because Ron Paul's newsletter was racist, that means Ron Paul's ideas about the economy and government are invalid or that people who support those ideas are racist. I think that's what's facile here, don't you?

[Symmetry]

Okay, well first, you are correct that Ron Paul is a Republican (j9b is incorrect).

Second, and probably more importantly, in your mind a person with bad morals or a bad reputation automatically has unintelligent or poor ideas. I'm sure there is a debate term for that style of debate but you do it all the time. For example, you seem to indicate that because Ron Paul's newsletter was racist, that means Ron Paul's ideas about the economy and government are invalid or that people who support those ideas are racist. I think that's what's facile here, don't you?

"you seem to indicate", really? It doesn't even look like you think I'm thinking that.

[Phatscotty]

What the f*ck?

Ron Paul
Symmetry - Being a member of a political party does not mean you cannot also criticize that political party. Your insistence on labels defining a person is disappointing. More disappointing is your continued insistence that a person's message is defined by the type of human being that person is.
J9B - Ron Paul is a Republican. He ran as a Republican mutliple times, he was a Republican when he was in Congress.

Phatscotty
J9B - It's in the Benghazi thread. Do you really need links? I explained the issue in this thread and in the Benghazi thread. Here is the link to that thread. It's on the second page today, maybe that's why you had difficulty finding it.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=190620

Phatscotty posts something from Ron Paul that indicates Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for Benghazi. Phatscotty indicates we should listen to Ron Paul on this issue. Three pages later, he attacks the Democrats for precisely what the Republicans have done in prior administrations and prior years and does precisely what Ron Paul says Republicans shouldn't do (without being massive hypocrits.

I have yet to read a single post by Phatscotty that criticizes the Republicans for anything related to foreign policy and/or Benghazi. Phatscotty does not criticize Republicans for anything. Given what he criticizes Democrats for and what he supposedly stands for, I find this infruriatingly hypocritical. Another example is in the Second Rate Citizens thread. In that thread we have a discussion regarding the voting rights of ex-convicts. Phatscotty and Juan Bottom both appear to support the idea that ex-convicts should be allowed to vote (and perhaps in some cases and not in others). Neither of them appears to understand that our status quo is the result of the Democrats and Republicans, because neither of those fine individuals criticizes either party.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=190066

If you would like, I will continue to find examples, but if you pay attention to current threads, you'll get a good flavor of what I'm talking about. Ignore the back and forth between Phatscotty and ooge or Woodruff or whomever. Instead, think about what Phatscotty types and compare it to the Republican stance on the same issue, the Democratic stance on the same issue.

I disagreed with a bit of what Ron Paul wrote. I think Ron Paul was trying to appeal to all people and try to come off non-political. So you see you can't really chain me to every word I shared from Ron Paul, but the general message, sure. I don't remember exactly what I said about convicts voting, I'm pretty sure I said as I believe now, that it would be nice of convicts could be forgiven and have some rights restored, but I don't think we shouldn't take the right to vote away from a convect either.

I criticized Republicans for years, even longer than I have criticized Democrats. I like to criticize both, but for the last time, I will "reveal" the secret, that when Democrats are running things, they are going to get criticized more than Republicans, and I will concede that Republicans have started to clean house, and have a lot more honest representation on issues closer to those which I care most about from Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jason Chaffitz etc. So there is about 30% of Republicans that I think are doing a fabulous job, and therefor it goes without saying I'm not going to criticize those I think are doing a good job as much as those who are doing a crappier job, of course, in my opinion.

[Dukasaur]

link to the posts in question? i saw scotty criticizing obama and democrats (as usual) but i don't think he was supporting republicans.

You were close there. Re-read what you said.

so you're under the impression that any criticism of democrats is implicit support of republicans?

You're not really any closer. Try to read them both again, perhaps.

how do you honestly expect me to guess what kind of bullshit your irrational mind has spewed out tonight?

It's not bullshit. It's there in plain black and white if you would bother to read it.

Here's Phatscotty, quoting Ron Paul, whom he pretends to agree with (key sentence in red):Subject: Benghazi

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.

(...)

The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

http://www.the-free-foundation.org/tst5-13-2013.html

And 3 pages later, here is Phatscotty, professional Republican schill, doing EXACTLY what Paul warned about, which is trying to draw attention to the "talking points" scandal to distract attention from the fact that the interventionist policies embraced by EQUALLY by BOTH slug parties are the real problem:
Subject: Benghazi

Obama will be impeached. Maybe he can survive it, but that won't matter.

It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!

Can't change history, or the lies the Obama administration has been telling.

Official White House statement, 4 days after terrorist attack in Benghazi

[Woodruff]

I criticized Republicans for years, even longer than I have criticized Democrats.

Yeah, yeah...and I was a Siamese cat for years, even longer than I was in the military. I just wasn't a Siamese cat on ConquerClub EVER, so there is no way for me to actually substantiate that pure fact for you. We've heard that song and dance before.

I like to criticize both

Apparently not. At least, not in a number of YEARS in discussing all kinds of political things here.

but for the last time, I will "reveal" the secret, that when Democrats are running things, they are going to get criticized more than Republicans, and I will concede that Republicans have started to clean house, and have a lot more honest representation on issues closer to those which I care most about from Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jason Chaffitz etc. So there is about 30% of Republicans that I think are doing a fabulous job, and therefor it goes without saying I'm not going to criticize those I think are doing a good job as much as those who are doing a crappier job, of course, in my opinion.

That doesn't really account for the other 70% though. They just happen to be on the "right side" though, eh?

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, well first, you are correct that Ron Paul is a Republican (j9b is incorrect).

Second, and probably more importantly, in your mind a person with bad morals or a bad reputation automatically has unintelligent or poor ideas. I'm sure there is a debate term for that style of debate but you do it all the time. For example, you seem to indicate that because Ron Paul's newsletter was racist, that means Ron Paul's ideas about the economy and government are invalid or that people who support those ideas are racist. I think that's what's facile here, don't you?

Yes, it is, but let me troll a little to make myself feel better.

Sym, it's okay. It's not your fault.

[john9blue]

Okay, well first, you are correct that Ron Paul is a Republican (j9b is incorrect).

i'm not arguing that paul isn't a member of the republican party. did i ever say he wasn't a republican? i'm arguing that he's a RINO, and symmetry doesn't understand the concept of a RINO, which makes this debate difficult for me.

i take the words that you put in my mouth, and spit them at your feet, good sir!

Second, and probably more importantly, in your mind a person with bad morals or a bad reputation automatically has unintelligent or poor ideas. I'm sure there is a debate term for that style of debate but you do it all the time. For example, you seem to indicate that because Ron Paul's newsletter was racist, that means Ron Paul's ideas about the economy and government are invalid or that people who support those ideas are racist. I think that's what's facile here, don't you?

but you don't understand... jefferson had SEX with his SLAVE! don't you realize what this means? the constitution doesn't matter anymore...

By running as a Republican, he eliminated much of the possibility of gathering Democrats who would otherwise have voted for him (out of extreme disappointment with Obama, if nothing else). It would have shown them that he was going to be able to extricate him from being dependent on the Republican machine as President. This was a common thought-process among Democrats.

really? are there any people in this forum who would have voted for paul as an independent, but not as a republican? where is your evidence?

i think that most of the disillusioned obama voters stayed home last election, or voted for another 3rd party like johnson or stein.

[john9blue]

how do you honestly expect me to guess what kind of bullshit your irrational mind has spewed out tonight?

It's not bullshit. It's there in plain black and white if you would bother to read it.

Here's Phatscotty, quoting Ron Paul, whom he pretends to agree with (key sentence in red):Subject: Benghazi

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.

(...)

The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

http://www.the-free-foundation.org/tst5-13-2013.html

And 3 pages later, here is Phatscotty, professional Republican schill, doing EXACTLY what Paul warned about, which is trying to draw attention to the "talking points" scandal to distract attention from the fact that the interventionist policies embraced by EQUALLY by BOTH slug parties are the real problem:
Subject: Benghazi

Obama will be impeached. Maybe he can survive it, but that won't matter.

It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!

Can't change history, or the lies the Obama administration has been telling.

Official White House statement, 4 days after terrorist attack in Benghazi

good post, this is what i was looking for. it looks to me like scotty got too caught up in his dislike for democrats.

although i must ask you to not color important text red after telling me that it will be in black and white. very misleading...

[Woodruff]

By running as a Republican, he eliminated much of the possibility of gathering Democrats who would otherwise have voted for him (out of extreme disappointment with Obama, if nothing else). It would have shown them that he was going to be able to extricate him from being dependent on the Republican machine as President. This was a common thought-process among Democrats.

really? are there any people in this forum who would have voted for paul as an independent, but not as a republican? where is your evidence?
i think that most of the disillusioned obama voters stayed home last election, or voted for another 3rd party like johnson or stein.

I know you think that last statement is a contradiction of what I said, but it isn't at all.

[notyou2]

OK, I got this answer in another thread:

Is Phatscotty a Republican?

PS Please respond soon, I need this answer for another thread.

It depends. I view myself as a conservative when it comes to politics (or republican) but I definitely don't agree with all that he says so I think hes his own breed to be honest. He's definitely not straight line republican.

[Night Strike]

i'm not arguing that paul isn't a member of the republican party. did i ever say he wasn't a republican? i'm arguing that he's a RINO, and symmetry doesn't understand the concept of a RINO, which makes this debate difficult for me.

At least he's not the same type of RINO as Lindsey Graham or John McCain or Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins or a number of other worthless Senators (and representatives).

[Phatscotty]

how do you honestly expect me to guess what kind of bullshit your irrational mind has spewed out tonight?

It's not bullshit. It's there in plain black and white if you would bother to read it.

Here's Phatscotty, quoting Ron Paul, whom he pretends to agree with (key sentence in red):Subject: Benghazi

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.

(...)

The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

http://www.the-free-foundation.org/tst5-13-2013.html

And 3 pages later, here is Phatscotty, professional Republican schill, doing EXACTLY what Paul warned about, which is trying to draw attention to the "talking points" scandal to distract attention from the fact that the interventionist policies embraced by EQUALLY by BOTH slug parties are the real problem:
Subject: Benghazi

Obama will be impeached. Maybe he can survive it, but that won't matter.

It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!

Can't change history, or the lies the Obama administration has been telling.

Official White House statement, 4 days after terrorist attack in Benghazi

good post, this is what i was looking for. it looks to me like scotty got too caught up in his dislike for democrats.

although i must ask you to not color important text red after telling me that it will be in black and white. very misleading...

the impeachment post was targeted specifically to a poster, based on what that poster said. Other acceptable answers: I was trolled

as for the specific part in red, that is the specific part I said earlier I didn't agree with. Like I also said earlier, Obama gave orders to strike Libya without Congressional approval. Like I asked earlier, which Republicans are those?????? Is Ron Paul talking about his Republican son Ran Paul? Like I said, Obama did not ask Congress. If someone can please tell me which Republicans "supported" the intervention in Libya, I will call them a bad name, in public, so that you can feel better. Deal?

Truth is, There is something to be said about the response to Benghazi (the youtube boogyman video).
Truth is, I don't care what party a person is in when it comes to unloading a steaming pile of bullshit

I agree with Ron Paul's overall message about interventionalism, as you know. If you think the overall point of Paul's post was to tell people to give the Democrats a break, or let Obama off the hook for his lying, or saying we should just accept lies, then I think you missed the point, at least according to me (the one who shared it)

The result of interventionalism is one thing, how the investigation plays out of a weapon smuggling cover up as a result of post-intervention Libyan geopolitics perpetrated by Obama is another.

This is a cover up, and Obama kept the truth from the American people, not only because it's against the law and could lead to impeachment (not likely at all, only possible), but also so he could keep the truth from the American people and get re-elected
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p3900460