Debate

[njandrewg]

Thank you for providing evidence - too few people do on these boards. Regarding the evidence, I can't say that Peden's move is uncommon. Usually the first $100K or so comes from their the candidate or their closest associates/friends. Still, I don't consider this revelation enough to classify him a non-candidate. The media should be grilling the campaign on their fundraising this last month to clarify.

true, but then you don't go around saying "haha I raised 185K to Ron Paul's 60K, its an obvious show that Ron Paul is a loser"

 

[Nathan Hale]

Nathan Hale is an obvious Pedenbot, seriously dude, your guy is losing by like 40%, he has raised only about 25K and the rest was donated by himself and his family. Those 2 newspapers you tout have always endorsed Ron Paul challengers. They especially like to endorse Democratic challengers.

First off, asshole (since we're name calling), I've been on these boards since early in the presidential race, and I'm a Ron Paul fan all the way. I don't support Peden, I just support an open and honest debate in every race in this country.

The guy has lied about Paul's positions. Lied about his fundraising. Lied about his poll #s. Seriously I wouldn't bother debating such a scumbag either.

The only way to clear up these lies is with a debate. Otherwise it's just he said-she said newspaper back and forth.

Debate is the dumbest thing an incumbent can do is because that gives name recognition to the other guy. People know Ron Paul, they don't know Peden.

And I've already said on these boards that debate is not good strategy.

Everyone knows Paul's position, so he has no reason to debate a new guy who is mudslinging and lying about his positions.

If it's all mudslinging and lying then a debate should clear things up.

And you wanting Paul to waste time debating that Peden loser shows exactly what kind of supporter you are.

I'm a support of open and honest debates. Whether it hurts our guy or helps our guy, the discussion is the higher priority.

And morals have nothing to do with politics, if Peden ran an honest campaign, then sure the moral thing might have been to debate him, but he hasn't.

You're right, morality has nothing to do with politics. As such, many politicians are like Peden. But that doesn't mean that it's not morally superior to have the debate.

I mean look at this:

Nathan Hale is a racist, pedophile and a cannibal. Oh and he likes getting knotted by dogs. Now lets debate...oh wait you don't want to debate someone who says you hate Black people, have sex with children, eat people and have anal sex with dogs? Why not? Don't you think the moral thing would be to debate?

Actually, I would debate if those were the accusations. In fact, I'd be more likely to debate if you espoused falsehoods that I could easily put down.

 

[Nathan Hale]

true, but then you don't go around saying "haha I raised 185K to Ron Paul's 60K, its an obvious show that Ron Paul is a loser"

And I personally wouldn't. Peden's a politician. He's no worse than most other politicians, who do equally immoral things.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

You're right.

But excuses don't make what Ron Paul is doing any less wrong.

What side are you on again? I keep forgetting....

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

A sign of weakness? Talk to any political strategist -

That seems to be your best come back, do you simply write the words "political strategist" to feel important?

 

[Nathan Hale]

That seems to be your best come back, do you simply write the words "political strategist" to feel important?

No, I write the words political strategist because I am one, and I know many others. So I talk to them a lot, and thus, I have the perspective to offer admonitions like "talk to any political strategist...".