<p>The if is very important here and it is not enough to just have liberty. You also have to have the power to maintain liberty if you have it or to get liberty if you dont yet have it.</p>
<p>In the United States the power of the vote is very important; this is why the left wing passed the Voting Rights Act 1965 over the objections of the right wing. </p>
<p>Please one of the RP fans look up how RP voted on the extension of the Voting Rights Act I dont know but I bet a yellow dog he voted against it.</p>
<p>From post 300 . I very much don’t appreciate your tone.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think your says you tone is nicer than my thank you tone .
Now what about the issues. Do you agree with the two points I made in post 299?</p>
<p>“Do you honestly think your “says you” tone is nicer than my “thank you” tone….
Now what about the issues. Do you agree with the two points I made in post 299?”</p>
<p>I already disagreed with you. There was no tone with the “says you” it happens to be something that I say in my real life.</p>
<p>How can you possibly presume to know what ‘all’ people of good will would agree on? Are you implying that anyone who disagrees with you is ‘not of good will?’</p>
<p>Our country would be a lot better off if there had been a massive outcry after that fateful decision.</p>
<p>What I meant by each person having liberty is that they are able to maintain that liberty. That goes without saying.</p>
<p>Look, tommy, you seem to be looking for details to argue. So you don’t agree with RP. OK, fine, lots of people don’t. But it’s counterproductive to nitpick this or that issue - no single candidate is perfectly exemplary on ALL issues (though RP is the closest to exemplary I’ve ever seen). And, we need both the right and the left, over time, to balance things out - we need to swing conservative when values need protecting (like right now - we need to get our liberties back that bush stole) and we need to swing liberal when things need changing (the end to slavery, the civil rights movement and women voting are all examples of liberal causes - things needed changing). The values of conservative/liberal have switched at times over the years and have not always been identified with the same party.</p>
<p>Right now, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a strong stance on correcting the mistake of the Iraq war. He is also our best hope for restoring our economy, before the whole house of cards collapses. He seems to have the best grasp of economic and foreign policy, he’s intent upon restoring our Constitutional rights, he wants to make friends with the rest of world instead of bullying them like bush has done, he wants to protect our borders instead of spreading our military too thin by building an empire we can’t possibly maintain (and isn’t Constitutional anyway and is just p***ing everyone off), he has always voted according to his principles and can’t be accused of ‘flip-flopping’ or of being bought off by lobbyists the way nearly all the other candidates (in both parties) have been, he walks his talk - demonstrated by his refusal to participate in the lucrative pension plan offered to him, he wants to work on eventually eliminating the private world bankers who are actually running this country, thereby eliminating the main source of corruption, and return our nation to the gold standard, he is a champion of free enterprise and working people rather than pandering to the rich, he believes that war should be declared and then only if deemed necessary by the Congress, he points out that never before in the history of our country have we ever attacked another nation who had not attacked us, he is not afraid to speak up for truth and integrity in the face of opposition, rather than arrogantly refusing to negotiate as our current occupant of the white house does, he is not a member of the CFR like nearly all the other candidates…gosh, what is there to dislike?</p>
<p>"he points out that never before in the history of our country have we ever attacked another nation who had not attacked us, "</p>
<p>If he says that then he needs to go take a history class - or at least read some newspapers. Let’s see, in his lifetime there’s at least Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, the Balkans, the Gulf War, and Iraq - not to mention Germany and Italy. There’s also the various other attacks of the Clinton administration on Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan.</p>
<p>I took offence at Zoosermoms comment when she wrote to/or about me saying Says you.</p>
<p>She now says There was no tone with the “says you” it happens to be something that I say in my real life.</p>
<p>Ill try to be less sensitive to perceived rudeness from Zoosermom in the future, now that I she has explained what she considers polite comments on her part.</p>
<p>"I took offence at Zoosermom’s comment when she wrote to/or about me saying……”Says you.”</p>
<p>She now says “There was no tone with the “says you” it happens to be something that I say in my real life.”</p>
<p>I’ll try to be less sensitive to perceived rudeness from Zoosermom in the future, now that I she has explained what she considers polite comments on her part."</p>
<p>Don’t perceive anything about me. I find your posts so generally beyond the pale that I’ve actually reported one, which I’ve never done before. I’ve noticed in the last several days at least three posters bring your posting style politely to your attention. Consider it.</p>
<p>Lealdragon in post 305 you say He (Ron Paul) is also our best hope for restoring our economy, before the whole house of cards collapses. He seems to have the best grasp of economic .policy</p>
<p>In the past Ron Paul (RP) has called for the return to the gold standard, do you know if returning to the gold standard is still part of RPs economic policy position?</p>
<p>“I find your posts so generally beyond the pale”</p>
<p>Says You"</p>
<p>Yep I did. You actually quoted me, so there’s proof. Just as there’s proof of what I said you did. I don’t know where you’re from, but in my neck of NYC, people actually do say “says you” conversationally. I do it all the time. I also tend to be a polite although imperfect poster. As I said, several posters, including an old-time, well-respected poster, have called your style to your attention in the last few days. Perhaps something is going on in your life or you just don’t realize, but as a courteous member of the same online community, perhaps you could re-assess.</p>
<p>If I may, I would very much like to ask a question of you, however I don’t want to impose on you time or kindness. However, if I may ask the question, what did you mean when you said, You actually quoted me, so there’s proof, proof of what?</p>
<p>Tommybill, you posted in 312 the following ““I find your posts so generally beyond the pale”
Says You”</p>
<p>You quoted me saying “I find your posts so generally beyond the pale” and responded “says you.” In the next post I agreed that I had said it and that the quote you put down proved it.</p>
<p>I asked my hubby, who is a history buff, and he said that in all the cases you cited, there was always some pretext for war - usually an attack on one of our allies.</p>
<p>Ron Paul was referring to a blatant, unprovoked invasion by the US as being without precedent until Iraq.</p>
<p>Tommybill, here ya go. It wasn’t that difficult to look up this definition of “align” and hopefully put this to rest. At this point you’re simply grasping at straws as many sensationalists tend to do when put on the spot. </p>
<p>I’d like to point out line number six. Everything I said before stands. Now quit picking on people and stop trying to turn this into a partisan issue. That is stupid behavior. </p>