Opinion of John Sidney "The Big Mac" McCain III

[Deldem]

Horrible person. I doubt if he is really conservative. Nominating him instead of Romney or Huckabee killed Republicans in 2008.

lol. If the GOP nominated a different candidate in 2008, they would have lost by double-digits instead of by 7%. McCain was the best shot they had.

No.

McCain was the weakest candidate the Republicans had. The GOP was set up to fail by design.

What makes you say that? McCain was polling the best against Obama and Hillary, Romney trailed by 10 points, and Huckabee trailed by a number that was so large I can't remember. McCain seemed like the only one who could appeal to independents out of the major contenders (Besides Giuliani, which was at the expense of the base), was most qualified in the foreign policy field, and was the most experienced to be President. I fail to see how he was the weakest candidate, especially considering people like Gilmore, Tancredo, and Hunter being in the race.

An old neocon "moderate" was not what the American people wanted.

Libertas, I fail to see your reasoning in saying McCain was the weakest candidate.

Well, it's not like the American people wanted any other of the GOP contenders any more than they wanted McCain, so your point is moot.

Americans wanted change, not a warmongering clone of Bush.

You talk like there's a Republican in that race that wasn't "warmongering" or a neocon...

You talk like there wasn't a Republican in that race who wasn't warmongering or neocon.

Ron Paul was not "in the race" no matter how much you stretch the definition. You might as well say Cynthia McKinney was a contender for President.

Ron Paul was very much in the race for the Republican nomination. Cynthia McKinney was not a major party candidate.

Ron Paul wasn't a major party candidate, either. Ron Paul wasn't even a minor party candidate in 2008.

He did run for the Republican nomination in 2008.

But Paul didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He also believes a lot of crazy things, like that banning sodomy is constitutional, or that the income tax is not. Oh, and he's against paper money, that thing we use literally every day, and have loved, for 100 years. And perhaps even more disgustingly, he, to this day, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, that thing that ended the legal disenfranchisement and oppression of minorities all throughout our nation, allowing for a more fair and democratic nation.

Get a clue. You're clearly delusional.

Explain how I'm delusional. I have articulated not one, not two, not three, but FOUR things that most people would find utterly horrific about Ron Paul.

You, on the other hand, will probably now just declare victory since you can't prove your point, and cannot accept when you are even questioned on your opinion.

So I'll play by your rules. If you cannot disprove what I am saying, using evidence that you provide that is NOT from a biased source or a source with little credibility, then you clearly lost. Odds are, you won't respond to this with anything substantial, because like every other time you just waltz into a thread and promote baseless claims, you will have little to no sort of argument to defend your beliefs, and like every other time, you'll just attack me and conveniently ignore every point I made that conflicts with your logical fallacies that you pull out of thin air in order to promote your unbelievably silly non-points.

Oh wait, I suggested that you provide proof- that definitely doesn't exist within your rules. To really use your rules, I would just say that I won, simply because I said so.

The burden of proof in this case is on you. You can't just claim that what you say is true because you say so and I'm a "librul" and must be wrong since it doesn't fit in with your beliefs, you must at least provide some shred of credible evidence in order to successfully defend your beliefs.

Uh, no. You made up a bunch of lies; the burden of proof is on you to prove them to be true. Good luck with that.

I'll prove them to your satisfaction then.

You can't seriously tell me he could win 1. Given his positions and 2. That he could get out of the primary.

Now let's get on with Ron Paul's out-there beliefs. These are all, incidentally, coming from his mouth or his pen.
1. Paul thinks banning sodomy is constitutional:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
2. Paul thinks income tax is unconstitutional and 3. Paul is against paper money:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/ron_paul_speaks_out.htm
(Note I don't really like the source, but it should be accurate, seeing as it is a transcript of the speech)
4. Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

All my points I made in my previous posts stand. I'd like a legitimate response to my earlier comments, not like the time-waster you just had me do when you literally could just type the points in Google and see them to be true. Please, enlighten me how I'm wrong when I'm using the words of the man himself.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Horrible person. I doubt if he is really conservative. Nominating him instead of Romney or Huckabee killed Republicans in 2008.

lol. If the GOP nominated a different candidate in 2008, they would have lost by double-digits instead of by 7%. McCain was the best shot they had.

No.

McCain was the weakest candidate the Republicans had. The GOP was set up to fail by design.

What makes you say that? McCain was polling the best against Obama and Hillary, Romney trailed by 10 points, and Huckabee trailed by a number that was so large I can't remember. McCain seemed like the only one who could appeal to independents out of the major contenders (Besides Giuliani, which was at the expense of the base), was most qualified in the foreign policy field, and was the most experienced to be President. I fail to see how he was the weakest candidate, especially considering people like Gilmore, Tancredo, and Hunter being in the race.

An old neocon "moderate" was not what the American people wanted.

Libertas, I fail to see your reasoning in saying McCain was the weakest candidate.

Well, it's not like the American people wanted any other of the GOP contenders any more than they wanted McCain, so your point is moot.

Americans wanted change, not a warmongering clone of Bush.

You talk like there's a Republican in that race that wasn't "warmongering" or a neocon...

You talk like there wasn't a Republican in that race who wasn't warmongering or neocon.

Ron Paul was not "in the race" no matter how much you stretch the definition. You might as well say Cynthia McKinney was a contender for President.

Ron Paul was very much in the race for the Republican nomination. Cynthia McKinney was not a major party candidate.

Ron Paul wasn't a major party candidate, either. Ron Paul wasn't even a minor party candidate in 2008.

He did run for the Republican nomination in 2008.

But Paul didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He also believes a lot of crazy things, like that banning sodomy is constitutional, or that the income tax is not. Oh, and he's against paper money, that thing we use literally every day, and have loved, for 100 years. And perhaps even more disgustingly, he, to this day, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, that thing that ended the legal disenfranchisement and oppression of minorities all throughout our nation, allowing for a more fair and democratic nation.

Get a clue. You're clearly delusional.

Explain how I'm delusional. I have articulated not one, not two, not three, but FOUR things that most people would find utterly horrific about Ron Paul.

You, on the other hand, will probably now just declare victory since you can't prove your point, and cannot accept when you are even questioned on your opinion.

So I'll play by your rules. If you cannot disprove what I am saying, using evidence that you provide that is NOT from a biased source or a source with little credibility, then you clearly lost. Odds are, you won't respond to this with anything substantial, because like every other time you just waltz into a thread and promote baseless claims, you will have little to no sort of argument to defend your beliefs, and like every other time, you'll just attack me and conveniently ignore every point I made that conflicts with your logical fallacies that you pull out of thin air in order to promote your unbelievably silly non-points.

Oh wait, I suggested that you provide proof- that definitely doesn't exist within your rules. To really use your rules, I would just say that I won, simply because I said so.

The burden of proof in this case is on you. You can't just claim that what you say is true because you say so and I'm a "librul" and must be wrong since it doesn't fit in with your beliefs, you must at least provide some shred of credible evidence in order to successfully defend your beliefs.

Uh, no. You made up a bunch of lies; the burden of proof is on you to prove them to be true. Good luck with that.

I'll prove them to your satisfaction then.

You can't seriously tell me he could win 1. Given his positions and 2. That he could get out of the primary.

Now let's get on with Ron Paul's out-there beliefs. These are all, incidentally, coming from his mouth or his pen.
1. Paul thinks banning sodomy is constitutional:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
2. Paul thinks income tax is unconstitutional and 3. Paul is against paper money:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/ron_paul_speaks_out.htm
(Note I don't really like the source, but it should be accurate, seeing as it is a transcript of the speech)
4. Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

All my points I made in my previous posts stand. I'd like a legitimate response to my earlier comments, not like the time-waster you just had me do when you literally could just type the points in Google and see them to be true. Please, enlighten me how I'm wrong when I'm using the words of the man himself.

1. Paul didn't say that banning sodomy is constitutional; he said pretty clearly that a state setting such a policy is beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution.

2. I don't see anywhere where Paul says the income tax is "unconstitutional."

3. Paul is not against paper money; that is a ridiculous and baseless charge.

4. Paul was not in Congress in 1964, nor is he opposed to civil rights. Voting against renewing the bill decades later was largely a symbolic gesture to publicly register the concerns he outlined in that article.


But I know I am wasting my time. You are clearly a partisan hack who thinks of everything in terms of black-and-white, incapable of detecting nuance and of thinking critically about issues beyond simplistic talking points.

[Deldem]

Horrible person. I doubt if he is really conservative. Nominating him instead of Romney or Huckabee killed Republicans in 2008.

lol. If the GOP nominated a different candidate in 2008, they would have lost by double-digits instead of by 7%. McCain was the best shot they had.

No.

McCain was the weakest candidate the Republicans had. The GOP was set up to fail by design.

What makes you say that? McCain was polling the best against Obama and Hillary, Romney trailed by 10 points, and Huckabee trailed by a number that was so large I can't remember. McCain seemed like the only one who could appeal to independents out of the major contenders (Besides Giuliani, which was at the expense of the base), was most qualified in the foreign policy field, and was the most experienced to be President. I fail to see how he was the weakest candidate, especially considering people like Gilmore, Tancredo, and Hunter being in the race.

An old neocon "moderate" was not what the American people wanted.

Libertas, I fail to see your reasoning in saying McCain was the weakest candidate.

Well, it's not like the American people wanted any other of the GOP contenders any more than they wanted McCain, so your point is moot.

Americans wanted change, not a warmongering clone of Bush.

You talk like there's a Republican in that race that wasn't "warmongering" or a neocon...

You talk like there wasn't a Republican in that race who wasn't warmongering or neocon.

Ron Paul was not "in the race" no matter how much you stretch the definition. You might as well say Cynthia McKinney was a contender for President.

Ron Paul was very much in the race for the Republican nomination. Cynthia McKinney was not a major party candidate.

Ron Paul wasn't a major party candidate, either. Ron Paul wasn't even a minor party candidate in 2008.

He did run for the Republican nomination in 2008.

But Paul didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He also believes a lot of crazy things, like that banning sodomy is constitutional, or that the income tax is not. Oh, and he's against paper money, that thing we use literally every day, and have loved, for 100 years. And perhaps even more disgustingly, he, to this day, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, that thing that ended the legal disenfranchisement and oppression of minorities all throughout our nation, allowing for a more fair and democratic nation.

Get a clue. You're clearly delusional.

Explain how I'm delusional. I have articulated not one, not two, not three, but FOUR things that most people would find utterly horrific about Ron Paul.

You, on the other hand, will probably now just declare victory since you can't prove your point, and cannot accept when you are even questioned on your opinion.

So I'll play by your rules. If you cannot disprove what I am saying, using evidence that you provide that is NOT from a biased source or a source with little credibility, then you clearly lost. Odds are, you won't respond to this with anything substantial, because like every other time you just waltz into a thread and promote baseless claims, you will have little to no sort of argument to defend your beliefs, and like every other time, you'll just attack me and conveniently ignore every point I made that conflicts with your logical fallacies that you pull out of thin air in order to promote your unbelievably silly non-points.

Oh wait, I suggested that you provide proof- that definitely doesn't exist within your rules. To really use your rules, I would just say that I won, simply because I said so.

The burden of proof in this case is on you. You can't just claim that what you say is true because you say so and I'm a "librul" and must be wrong since it doesn't fit in with your beliefs, you must at least provide some shred of credible evidence in order to successfully defend your beliefs.

Uh, no. You made up a bunch of lies; the burden of proof is on you to prove them to be true. Good luck with that.

I'll prove them to your satisfaction then.

You can't seriously tell me he could win 1. Given his positions and 2. That he could get out of the primary.

Now let's get on with Ron Paul's out-there beliefs. These are all, incidentally, coming from his mouth or his pen.
1. Paul thinks banning sodomy is constitutional:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
2. Paul thinks income tax is unconstitutional and 3. Paul is against paper money:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/ron_paul_speaks_out.htm
(Note I don't really like the source, but it should be accurate, seeing as it is a transcript of the speech)
4. Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

All my points I made in my previous posts stand. I'd like a legitimate response to my earlier comments, not like the time-waster you just had me do when you literally could just type the points in Google and see them to be true. Please, enlighten me how I'm wrong when I'm using the words of the man himself.

1. Paul didn't say that banning sodomy is constitutional; he said pretty clearly that a state setting such a policy is beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution.

2. I don't see anywhere where Paul says the income tax is "unconstitutional."

3. Paul is not against paper money; that is a ridiculous and baseless charge.

4. Paul was not in Congress in 1964, nor is he opposed to civil rights. Voting against renewing the bill decades later was largely a symbolic gesture to publicly register the concerns he outlined in that article.


But I know I am wasting my time. You are clearly a partisan hack who thinks of everything in terms of black-and-white, incapable of detecting nuance and of thinking critically about issues beyond simplistic talking points.

You clearly did not read that second link.

On sodomy- Pray tell, what does this quote mean then?
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."
Sounds like he is saying that the law was constitutional. Saying that sentence is code for being a bigot- kind of like "state's rights", which were a 1970s code for segregation.

On money- "The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, not notes redeemable in them."
Gee, he couldn't be referring to paper money there, could he?

On Income Tax- The title of said speech was, "The Federal income tax is  UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
I don't think it could be more clear.

On Civil Rights- The title of the speech he gave was, "The Trouble With Forced Integration"
Gee, wasn't that the main reason to have the civil rights act?

I'm absolutely not a partisan hack- I, for example, am fairly moderate on economics, and have been critical of the Dems before (for example, on NASA funding recently and affirmative action for quite awhile). I just happen to be a reasonable person, so like any normal person, I don't respect Ron Paul or his crazy screwed-up philosophy.

Oh, and I totally forgot his favorite legislative tactic- isn't he somebody who will constantly insert stuff into bills that ultimately pass, and then vote against so he can take credit for being against things?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You clearly did not read that second link.

I read all the links and I am well-familiar with Paul's views.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying something is not in violation of the U.S. Constitution doesn't mean he agrees with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That source is dubious and Paul's actual fiscal programme has never included the abolition of paper money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, because jesus-is-savior.com speaks on behalf of Ron Paul...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, are you capable of reading and comprehending anything beyond little simplistic soundbites?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, you're definitely hackish, and intellectually lazy as well. Something to work on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

[Deldem]

You clearly did not read that second link.

I read all the links and I am well-familiar with Paul's views.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying something is not in violation of the U.S. Constitution doesn't mean he agrees with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That source is dubious and Paul's actual fiscal programme has never included the abolition of paper money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, because jesus-is-savior.com speaks on behalf of Ron Paul...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, are you capable of reading and comprehending anything beyond little simplistic soundbites?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, you're definitely hackish, and intellectually lazy as well. Something to work on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

1. Alright, I'll not talk about this longer. I'm just saying that this, in the South, is generally how people hide their bigotry. Plus, even if it was just a constitutional concern, there's no way that this isn't covered under "equal rights".

2 & 3. That website had a transcript of the speech. It's not dubious, he said it. In fact, that web page actually links to his website, and also a website with many Paul speeches and columns. If it was untrue, he would have asked the site to take it down (and considering it was one of the top Google results, somebody on his staff has probably seen it)

4. Well, why would he choose to title it that way then? Look, I'm from the South, I know how segregationists talk in code, and this certainly is something that racists say here. Now, maybe Paul isn't a racist, but it would be a startling coincidence in this case if he was not. However, he could just be pandering to those in his district- they are certainly the type who would eat this stuff up.

5. Just because you disagree with my assessments here does not mean that I'm intellectually lazy. Many people, GOP members included, do not like Ron Paul- I'm hardly in the minority here. And it's not that I'm blanket against conservatives- there are some that I historically have respected, though disagreed with (most notably, Barry Goldwater, the founder of the conservative movement, or George Will, who generally has well thought out columns. I even used to respect John McCain, until he sold out.)

6. I might be confusing him with someone else, so I'll retract that statement, until I have time to look into it further. It is, alas, something that is all too common of people in the minority party- just look at all those touting stimulus money while at the same time saying the stimulus failed.

[Coburn In 2012]

HP all around.

[MK]

Overrated as a pilot (  was shot down because he didn't follow orders)

subpar as a senator.


HP in my book.  Then again anybody who opposes the Ryan white care act is a HP.