[quote=markmax33]
No you are just being ignorant, if you agreed with the conclusion you wouldn’t have attacked in that manner earlier and been so condescending. I make very logical arguments. It is Ron Paul’s bill 100% he’s been trying to pass for 30 years:
You attack because you don’t have a logical counter-argument and you are the only one on the blog that thinks that way.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”[/quote]
You really need to take a class in logic. My response only became condescending when I pointed out the errors in your arguments and you continued to make the same mistakes. Only then did my absolute disdain for your stupid arguments lead to my condescension.
Go hunt for the congressional record that shows that Ron Paul sponsored the amendment that resulted in the fed audit. Or easier, go read the link YOU provided, to Paul’s own site where he acknowledges “The altered Sanders amendment passed the Senate on May 11, 2010 by a unanimous 96-0 vote” and not the Grayson-Paul version he co-sponsored in the house. (He gives a good excuse, but bottom line it was NOT his version that passed.)
Markmax, here’s the difference between you and me. You’re an idealogue with a manichean thought process. You’re a believer, and any evidence in conflict with the belief, you reject, dismiss or ignore. And worse, you treat all criticism as the enemy of your truth, regardless of how benign.
My world is not so black and white. I have no emotional ties to my opinions. I don’t see absolutism, purity or consistency as virtues. I’m not bound by ideologies. I don’t believe or believe in anything. I research and evidence leads to conclusions, not beliefs. End of story. If you have evidence that is better than mine, I win. Because I end up smarter. Unfortunately, I doubt that’s going to happen in this conversation.
