Fail Quotes

[AnCap Dave]

OK, good point. But it does seem a bit like going to the special class to find dumb opinions.

Fair enough I suppose.

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]UxPoURzProE[/yt]

I like Ron and everything, but this campaign ad is terrible.

His add is basically, "Look at me, I hung out with Ronald Regan, oh and Rick Perry was buddies with Al Gore so he's a meanie head"

It also gives the same failed impression Republicans usually give that Regan was this pinnacle of libertarian views when we know that his presidency was anything but. All around, very sloppy, but I suppose it serves the purpose of getting votes, I still think it is a failure if we're going with sheer legitimacy.

[Ibrahim90]

Maybe the fail should go to you guys for taking anything a pro wrestler says seriously to begin with...

I don't. doesn't mean I can't take potshots at him.

it's not like he has any "excuse" for evangelizing, like Kirk Cameron does. it's annoying when I get all these self-righteous family members (Christian or otherwise) of mine-don't need some random guy doing it.

@ D: just saw that a few minutes ago. I'm pretty annoyed at it too. not so much the Reagan association (annoying as it is), but the attack ad within-at least it feels that way. I dunno, Mr. Perry's a dumb- and a murderer, but just reviewing his positions should be sufficient, not just pointing out his association with Al Gore. That means nothing, and may even backfire, since some people are still ignorant enough to think Gore is worth a crap.

[MrBogosity]

He's not looking to get the votes of liberals, libertarians, or independents at this time, remember. He's going for the Republican nomination and needs to appeal to its conservative base.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

It does still leave a bad taste in the mouth.  That kind of "Gotta be a devil to fight a devil" thing which is a very dangerous road to go down.

Tis why I say Ron Paul's integrity is wasted on politics.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

Ron Paul got as far as he had because of showing what was behind the curtain, but now it looks like he is making his own wizard with this ad. As others have said, trying to associate himself with Reagan promotes an already false idea Reagan was libertarian.

[Travis Retriever]

Christ, as if I needed yet another reason to be convinced that political action cannot work.

[MrBogosity]

Facebook friend in red, me in blue:

Funny that Ron is so "offended" by a lie that abortions are taxpayer funded but I haven't heard him upset by the FACT that atheist's tax monies are going to churches due to Faith-based Initiatives started by Bush and continued by Oblahblah. Ever heard of separation of church and state, Paul? That should be simple stuff, even for you.

Geez, is it too much to ask for people to actually READ what Ron Paul has said about faith-based initiatives before posting screeds like this? On June 13, 2001, Ron Paul stood up in Congress and told them NOT to fund faith-based initiatives. He said the same thing again in an article posted to RonPaul.com on February 19, 2009. Procon.org lists Paul under "Should federal funds be given to faith-based (religious) organizations and initiatives?" as Con.

Ron Paul IS against taxpayer-funding of faith-based initiatives and has said so clearly. Knock off the dogmatism, people!

2001? That's a long time ago. I want to know what he says NOW, he should be OUTRAGED. I'm not buying it, Shane. Not one bit. (1 person liked that)

I guess you missed the reference from 2009? VERY selective there.

Yeah, I don't like his reasoning at all. He's upset that religious orgs. can't discriminate anymore when they get funding. "With the stroke of a pen, religious charities might not be able to take into consideration a job applicant's faith, sexual orientation or lifestyle if they wish to remain eligible for that taxpayer money that was so enticing a few years ago. Similarly, if FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is passed, will Catholic Church hospitals be forced to offer abortion services to retain their federal funding? Can they remain solvent without it? "

(Notice that we've just jumped from "He's in favor of it" to "I don't like his reasoning for being against it" without ANY kind of retraction.)

2009 also isn't 2011 BTW

Nice quote-mining. He also said: "Money is the Trojan horse that government uses to infiltrate and infect organizations. Funding that, on the outset, is designed to strengthen and support, will bureaucratize and regulate in the end. It is sad to see charities now having reason to focus on lobbying, regulatory compliance and paper pushing to get and retain money taken by force, rather than beefing up private, voluntary fundraising activities."

And what, he's just supposed to re-state his long-held positions on everything every few months just to satisfy you? Come on! How are you in ANY way being rational here?

Shane, go try your bull on other people, not my wall. You're not going to get anywhere with your "Ron Paul is great" nonsense here. We see right through him and his son.

(Note: I haven't once said "Ron Paul is great" here. I've pointed out--with evidence--that she was wrong when she said Paul supports taxpayer funding of faith-based initiatives.)

Also: "If religious organizations receive taxpayer monies, they will have an incentive to make obedience to the dictates of federal bureaucrats their number-one priority...people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations will assume they 'gave at the (tax) office' and thus will reduce their level of private giving. Thus, religious charities will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support."

What, me using actual quotes and going with what he actually said is bull, and you ascribing positions to him he did not take (taxpayer funding of faith-based initiatives) without even CHECKING isn't???

Once again, we see people who skeptical in many other matters turning it all off when it comes to politics.

I posted a quote of his, too. You called it quote "mining", remember? LOL If he was so upset about taxpayer funded faith-based initiatives he'd be TALKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW. He's not.

Yes, we certainly do Shane.

He's spoken against it in Congress every time it's come up, and voted against it. What more do you want him to do? Why should he REPEAT a LONG-HELD position RIGHT NOW just because you want him to?

Ummm....maybe because it's important?

At this point, the only thing I know to do is drop the subject.

[AnCap Dave]

Yeesh, that was almost painful to read. James Randi is right when he says that they don't just want what they believe to be true, they need it to be true and any counter argument is treated as a personal attack because they feel legitimately threatened when you provide counter evidence for their claims.

[MrBogosity]

Okay, so I did come up with one more response:

Really? It's important? So, $140 million in faith-based initiatives is more important than TRILLIONS spent on foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia, as well as keeping a military presence in well over 100 countries, costing American lives and spawning anti-American sentiments that terrorists can use to recruit?

$140 million in faith-based initiatives is more important than tens of billions spent on a failed War on Drugs that ultimately funds terrorism, increases border crime, as well as domestic crime--especially in inner cities, and results in the United States having the largest per capita prison population in the world?

$140 million in faith-based initiatives is more important than an out-of-control monetary policy which impoverishes the poor and middle class to enrich cronies and threaten the financial solvency of the US as well as the stability of the dollar?

Interesting priorities you have there...

[AnCap Dave]

Okay, so I did come up with one more response:

Really? It's important? So, $140 million in faith-based initiatives is more important than TRILLIONS spent on foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia, as well as keeping a military presence in well over 100 countries, costing American lives and spawning anti-American sentiments that terrorists can use to recruit?

$140 million in faith-based initiatives is more important than tens of billions spent on a failed War on Drugs that ultimately funds terrorism, increases border crime, as well as domestic crime--especially in inner cities, and results in the United States having the largest per capita prison population in the world?

$140 million in faith-based initiatives is more important than an out-of-control monetary policy which impoverishes the poor and middle class to enrich cronies and threaten the financial solvency of the US as well as the stability of the dollar?

Interesting priorities you have there...

Sounds like typical statheism to me.

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]7txRVx_Ya5k[/yt]

Ugh, when he isn't spouting stupid internet memes he's spewing the flawed, not based in reality, assumption that taxing the rich will save the universe from bankruptcy.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

It's like that old fable where the two bears keep complaining that the other's piece of cheese is bigger so the fox would take a bite of each in turn until they both wind up with none.

[Ibrahim90]

well, here's one silly comment from YT: it was under one of my subscription's (representativepress) vids regarding 9/11:

"always liked most of your videos but your views on 9/11 are just ridiculous.I will unsubscribe.This video and all your 9/11 stuff makes you sound like a complete idiot.You cherrypick and ignore hundreds of anomolies and then have some emotional hate of people who want to ask questions. You do realize that history is full of proven false flag events previously labelled as conspiracies?? Pathetic and disappointing.Since you never bring up Mossad's involvement, you must be a shill. BYE!!!!"

another one, but by another user:

"WHY DID THE PENTHOUSE ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING FALL FIRST THEN??­???­??? HOW DID ALL THE CORE COLUMNS FAIL ALL AT ONCE SO THE BUILDING WOULD FALL IN ON ITSELF????PLEASE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, CAUSE THAT BUILDING WAS TAKEN OUT WITH EXPLOSIVES OR ADVANCED WEAPONRY."

and the list goes on. to quote Shane himself: "some people just want to shift the blame away from those 19 mass-murdering scumbags".

agree or not with Tom Murphy (the owner of that channel), you have to give him credit: he goes through a lot of comments like this, while trying to show the facts about 9/11.

and for the record, the video:

[YT]_7rj5UQvlWw&list=PL605641003DE05216&feature=plpp[/YT]

[AnCap Dave]

John Bradshaw Layfield, former pro wrestler, now writes for Fox Business.

You want to talk about failure....wow.

What's wrong with calling Social Security a ponzi scheme? It is, imo. We rely on a pyramid scheme to pay for it. It has helped eradicate poverty among elderly-acknowledging it is a ponzi scheme doesn't mean it doesn't do something good. It needs reform to continue to exist and arguing about what it is currently or should be called takes away from efforts to reform it.

He also got a facebook comment claiming that it isn't a Ponzi scheme and the person posted this diagram.