It is obvious that I've won this debate. I'm tired of arguing with a fool, so I'll let you argue with yourself for the rest of this thread.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qxOwHutnXNA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
No, it's obvious that not only did YOU lose it, you're a liar. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3381790#post3381790
I see, so you have no evidence to support your claim and instead defer to Jack Nicholson, who btw was playing someone with extreme obsessive compulsive disorder and anti social behavior. This character is your beacon of truth? I doubt you see the irony.
What I see is, you're too unread and intellectually dishonest for this conversation. There's a legitimate debate as to where to draw the line and slippery slopes but it's not worth having with a rock head who refuses to acknowledge reality.
So says the guy unwilling to support his assertions. Who defines reality...you? Also, if Syria was hunting dissidents in your neighborhood and they accidentally blew up your house, would you do anything about it?
Unwilling to prove to you that al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant? Next time your mommy changes your diaper ask her to show you how to use google. You probably won't believe the videos of al-Awlaki implicating himself either so maybe you should write Ron Paul and ask him to get them taken down.
You want me to prove your assertion for you? Sorry, that's not how debate works. You make the claim you back up said claim. Can you?
Hmm interesting thread Really this is not nice not to let candidate to participate in debates because you think that his ideas are wrong. For me its big issue, everyone should have same opportunity... On the other hand that's probably means that Ron Paul is on the right track One question, anyone from anti Ron Paul side could explain whats so wrong about his views? No war, freedom to choose and less government and taxes is bad?