Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, waste our time coming up with "real policy positions ..." concerning Ron Paul?

Um, because David Niewart's opinions are not those of god, whether they are about Paul or anyone else. What any "expert's" opinion of Person X may be is of great deal less importance that what Person X actually says and does. Unless smear and propaganda are what one is interested in -- about whoever is involved.

Whatever he says and does, the neo-Nazis seem to dig it.

Re: Ron Paul Just Won the Aug. 5 Des Moines Debate

Yes! This is for the History books!

Thank you Stormfront for publicizing this victory!

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-just-won-aug-409024.html

Your political choices are always of interest to the rest of us. If you like 'em, we know he's a clunker.

Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, waste our time coming up with "real policy positions ..." concerning Ron Paul?

Um, because David Niewart's opinions are not those of god, whether they are about Paul or anyone else. What any "expert's" opinion of Person X may be is of great deal less importance that what Person X actually says and does. Unless smear and propaganda are what one is interested in -- about whoever is involved.

First off Mona, nice cut of what I wrote to remove any context, but I guess context isn't important whenever one doesn't see any reason to trust informed, educated critics of something or someone they are infatuated with. I'm not implying you are with regard to Ron Paul! Merely that I read your first sentence as totally dismissive of critics - period.

Unless, if I'm understanding you correctly, one really, really, really knows what Person "X" says and does in order to make said opinion valid?

For a lawyer, you don't think much of experts, do you?

From my perspective, a person needs to know how to separate the chaff from the wheat. Whether dealing with a salesperson or a politician or a movie critic or etc, etc, etc.

My innate bullshit detector tells me David Niewart is one of the good guys. He lays out clearly and concisely the case that Ron Paul is an extremist in many areas and we should be way of his charms.

'nuf said for me ...

My innate bullshit detector tells me David Niewart is one of the good guys. He lays out clearly and concisely the case that Ron Paul is an extremist in many areas and we should be way of his charms.

'nuf said for me ...

So, some guy you admire says Ron Paul is icky, and it doesn't matter a shred what Paul really says or does? David Niewert has written some things I find valuable, but he isn't the Almighty. He has his biases like anyone else does.

Exactly what is the full panoply of Ron Paul's positions that you find so ghastly: or is your only answer "cuz Dave Niewert sez so"?

And I would point out, no court has ruled Dave Niewert competent as an "expert" to declare word one about Ron Paul, so your non sequitur about my views on expert witnesses is just that.

What are the positions Paul holds that you find dangerous to America?

Yes, and as the racists pointed out for years, the Stalinist, Communist Party USA approved of abolishing Jim Crow and of civil rights for blacks. The racists were therefore right, because those who backed a murderous totalitarian took the moral position in that instance.

Lew Rockwell loves Glenn. So Glenn Greenwald is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Prunes:

Thanks for the info on mailinator. I am no longer "anonymous."

Anyway:

The real-world power and influence of fundie Muslims is greatly over-exaggerated in our media. You can verify this fact for yourself by learning about other countries.

Gee, would the five foreign countries I've lived in (and 29 others I've spent time in) count? Several of them are even predominantly Muslim: Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.

You are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to die in a terrorist attack.

So I'll stay in my aluminium boat in the middle of the lake in a lightning storm. What are the odds, after all?

Further, Hussein and bin Laden hated each other, despite what Bush said to the contrary.

If you were more widely traveled and well-read, you'd know an old Arab proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a well-worn canard of the loony left that Saddam and bin Laden would never have cooperated to defeat a common enemy. Remember, even though there's little evidence that they teamed up for 9/11 itself, they were in contact with each other and had made preliminary feelers towards cooperation.

And Saddam had attacked us, or perhaps you forget all those missle launches at American and British aircraft, or the assination plot against George H.W. Bush.

the US itself still funds, arms, and protects terrorists. Just google "Luis Posada Carriles", and you will see exactly what I'm saying

Gee, would that be the same Carriles that the US Justice Department urged be kept in jail because he was a terrorist? Remember, one Texas judge who ruled that the evidence against him was insufficient is not the same as US policy.

Try again, please.

(Subject is a play on Mony Mony by "Tommy James & the Shondells" and not some sort of snarky comment)

Exactly what is the full panoply of Ron Paul's positions that you find so ghastly: or is your only answer "cuz Dave Niewert sez so"?

First off, I can't tell if your "cuz" and "sez" are implying something about my intelligence or lack thereof - akin to Homer Simpson's .. 'Duh ..." If so, knock it the hell off. In a previous thread you gave me grief for taking at face value certain comments that were made about you. I apologized, and I meant it. Now, if you want to throw my own snarkiness and sarcasm back at me that I use when conversing with Bucky that's entirely up to you. IMO Bucky isn't too rational on these forums. I'll be happy to engage you rationally (as best I can any way :-) if you'd like, but if you want to get all bitchy with me then we should just pass by one another like two ships in the night.

'k ?

And I would point out, no court has ruled Dave Niewert competent as an "expert" to declare word one about Ron Paul, so your non sequitur about my views on expert witnesses is just that.

You used the term expert in your response to me concerning Dave Niewert not me. In a previous thread you argued pretty strongly that you don't think very highly of experts, at least how they are presented in the legal realm. My use of a "?" was questioning whether that was coloring your view of the info I posted from DN's site. Nothing more.

What are the positions Paul holds that you find dangerous to America?

I stated the following, never alluding even remotely to any specific positions that Ron Paul holds that are "dangerous to America ..." His positions weren't relevant to my post, only Dave Niewart's critical and logical (IMO) opinions of him.

My innate bullshit detector tells me David Niewart is one of the good guys. He lays out clearly and concisely the case that Ron Paul is an extremist in many areas and we should be way of his charms.

Since you find this statement seemingly so repellent, why don't you visit the link I listed and address the points Dave makes about RP being an extremist? I believe the onus is on you, not me.

Am I using Dave's site and analysis as cover? Sure, but I never presented it any differently.