Kmarion wrote:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
You still don't get it. It's not about me respecting him. It's about his double talk.
Slow down and read. You'll have a better chance at comprehending it.
Fine then. Since I am so stupid and you are so smart, why don't you spell it out for the stupid people, so that we can actually understand what you are saying?
Ease up. I didn't call you stupid. The problem I have is when he takes a strong stand on certain principles and then ignores them. This is not a Ron Paul exclusive, but it seems his followers are willing to ignore these things. He claims to be against racism yet he takes (and keeps) money from white supremest groups. He is adamant about needing a deceleration of war for invasion yet he didn't seem to mind voting for action in Afghanistan without one.
It's kinda like you lecturing me about taking words with strict interpretation and then replying with the exact quote from wikipedia.
I was bringing up the quote from Wikipedia in order to satisfy you, since you seemed to think that was so important. I never said it was against my principals to define words; I simply did not express any excitement over it. AS to the rest of your post, please refer to this:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
First of all, I would like to see where he said that he believes in a strict non-interventionist policy. Second, just because someone agrees with an ideology doesn't mean that they apply it to every situation, in the strictest possible manner(I think you can come up with plenty of examples of this). The greatest leaders in history are not the ideological, inflexible nutcases, but the pragmatic, reasonable people who used their good sense. Would you really have respected him more if he had voted against the invasion of Afghanistan?
I would appreciate it if we could stay on topic and you coud answer my questions/requests, as I have answered yours.