Ron Paul's view upon Eric Snowden issue

[earlycuyler]

Oh, and this is that paultarded thinking again. How bout you prove he did not give it to them ? Oh, you can't. Guess that makes you an irrelevant dullard.

You're a serious dumbfuck.

Negative proof - RationalWiki

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

Wait for it..........

 

[J.E.D]

Ya. It was either that, or melt down. Its all the tard knows.

He was definitely on the verge of paultard meltdown. He had to slink away before he embarrassed himself even more than he already had.

Ya, and the rep/PM comments are golden to. The butt hurt is flowing fo sho.

Yeah he just butthurt all over my inbox with his whiny neg rep comment

 

[National Socialist]

Hint: Ron Paul is not on the national stage.

Dr Paul has done more since he retired than he was able to do when he was a congressman. He stays relevant because he is relevant. He is the 2nd American Revolutions Paul Revere.

He's run his mouth to the accoladres of a bunch of silly guys on the internet who live in mom's basement. So what? In 30 years in the House he failed to sponsor any significant legislation.

Lol...lets see here

Well over 5 million votes in 3 presidential runs including primaries
that was while he was a congressman since he has retired

Wrote a new book
Launched Ron Paul homeschooling curriculum
Launched Ron Paul Channel
Launched Ron Paul institute
Continues to speak at college across the nation

So continue your butt hurtedness...Its funny as hell. Oh and NO RP supporter I know of lives in his moms basement...I live in a house with my wife and 3 kids. You are just pissed because your pal Perry is a bumbling fumbling moronic idiot who couldn't tie his shoes without a fucking blue print. It must be horrible Dr Paul never hoisted more stupid laws on us what will we ever do!

 

[earlycuyler]

Ya, typical of the Paul worshiper. They say X and that's how it is because Paul says so in a meme, but if you say, well, why can't it be Z ? At that point they critique your spelling and syntax, they insult your intellect, and in the end, they resort to calling you a poopi head snott face and then run away. What fags. No wonder the guy went down so fast (thank God) in the primary.

 

[National Socialist]

Lions of Liberty

 

[earlycuyler]

Dr Paul has done more since he retired than he was able to do when he was a congressman. He stays relevant because he is relevant. He is the 2nd American Revolutions Paul Revere.

He's run his mouth to the accoladres of a bunch of silly guys on the internet who live in mom's basement. So what? In 30 years in the House he failed to sponsor any significant legislation.

Lol...lets see here

Well over 5 million votes in 3 presidential runs including primaries
that was while he was a congressman since he has retired

Wrote a new book
Launched Ron Paul homeschooling curriculum
Launched Ron Paul Channel
Launched Ron Paul institute
Continues to speak at college across the nation

So continue your butt hurtedness...Its funny as hell. Oh and NO RP supporter I know of lives in his moms basement...I live in a house with my wife and 3 kids. You are just pissed because your pal Perry is a bumbling fumbling moronic idiot who couldn't tie his shoes without a fucking blue print. It must be horrible Dr Paul never hoisted more stupid laws on us what will we ever do!

Ahm, Perry got elected every time he ran. Paul quit when he knew he would be challenged. If a tard like Perry can pull it off every time, yet Paul quits when he gets challenged ? Fag. Big time

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He was definitely on the verge of paultard meltdown. He had to slink away before he embarrassed himself even more than he already had.

Ya, and the rep/PM comments are golden to. The butt hurt is flowing fo sho.

Yeah he just butthurt all over my inbox with his whiny neg rep comment

Speaking of whining...

It's like a logical fallacy stew with you and your intellectucally bankrupt buddy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ya, typical of the Paul worshiper. They say X and that's how it is because Paul says so in a meme, but if you say, well, why can't it be Z ? At that point they critique your spelling and syntax, they insult your intellect, and in the end, they resort to calling you a poopi head snott face and then run away. What fags. No wonder the guy went down so fast (thank God) in the primary.

You're a serious dumbfuck.

Negative proof - RationalWiki

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

Wait for it..........

 

[earlycuyler]

Ya, typical of the Paul worshiper. They say X and that's how it is because Paul says so in a meme, but if you say, well, why can't it be Z ? At that point they critique your spelling and syntax, they insult your intellect, and in the end, they resort to calling you a poopi head snott face and then run away. What fags. No wonder the guy went down so fast (thank God) in the primary.

Wait for it..........

Soon. The paultard can't stop coming back. Its a prelude to a melt down. He already did some, but the good stuff is coming.

 

[Wry Catcher]

See Graphic:

Well that's a ridiculous comment by Rep. Paul.

While sharing with the American People he also shared it with our friends and foes alike.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ya, typical of the Paul worshiper. They say X and that's how it is because Paul says so in a meme, but if you say, well, why can't it be Z ? At that point they critique your spelling and syntax, they insult your intellect, and in the end, they resort to calling you a poopi head snott face and then run away. What fags. No wonder the guy went down so fast (thank God) in the primary.

Wait for it..........

Soon. The paultard can't stop coming back. Its a prelude to a melt down. He already did some, but the good stuff is coming.

You'll notice this isn't a debate anymore, dullard. Now Im just making fun of you for being intellectually bankrupt. But please, continue entertaining me.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

See Graphic:

Well that's a ridiculous comment by Rep. Paul.

While sharing with the American People he also shared it with our friends and foes alike.

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

 

[earlycuyler]

Soon. The paultard can't stop coming back. Its a prelude to a melt down. He already did some, but the good stuff is coming.

You'll notice this isn't a debate anymore, dullard. Now Im just making fun of you for being intellectually bankrupt. But please, continue entertaining me.

Try your best, but you have not debated crap. You are intellectual milk toast.your ilk can only handle Google memes and facebook statements. You bring nothing so far but memes and shit from facebook. You are about one of the weakest paultards on USMB.

 

[Wry Catcher]

See Graphic:

Well that's a ridiculous comment by Rep. Paul.

While sharing with the American People he also shared it with our friends and foes alike.

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

Nice spin, silly, but the best you've got I suspect.

[When did Ron Paul leave the H. of Rep.?]

Hey, what did the Patriot Act allow? I've never read it, but it seems it gave the Gov't (NSA and other Gov't agencies)s a good deal of power to 'investigate' us citizens. Being stripped searched, patted down and X-Rayed seems pretty damn intrusive to me. So what was illegal in what was done?

Oh, and BTW, how many citizens have been sent to the "GULAG" during the Bush or Obama Administrations?

Final question: What if Bush had "listened" in and arrested 19 terrorists in Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001? Would you not be claiming him as a hero?

 

[earlycuyler]

See Graphic:

Well that's a ridiculous comment by Rep. Paul.

While sharing with the American People he also shared it with our friends and foes alike.

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[2]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Now you are saying since the NSA broke the law Snowden did not

You are a hoot !

 

[RKMBrown]

Well that's a ridiculous comment by Rep. Paul.

While sharing with the American People he also shared it with our friends and foes alike.

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[2]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Now you are saying since the NSA broke the law Snowden did not

You are a hoot !

The founders of this nation were outlaws. Go figure.

 

[earlycuyler]

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[2]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Now you are saying since the NSA broke the law Snowden did not

You are a hoot !

The founders of this nation were outlaws. Go figure.

Only for awhile. I linked three cases of whistle blowing done right. In all 3 cases no one felt the need to run to an enemy of this country and spill the beans.

 

[RKMBrown]

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[2]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Now you are saying since the NSA broke the law Snowden did not

You are a hoot !

The founders of this nation were outlaws. Go figure.

Only for awhile. I linked three cases of whistle blowing done right. In all 3 cases no one felt the need to run to an enemy of this country and spill the beans.

Your three examples are not valid.

Daniel Ellsberg was 1971. (before the un-patriot act.)

Gary Webb Dark Alliance story was 1996. (before the un-patriot act.) Then after the 1996 outing of the CIA... in 2004 when he went after them again... he supposedly shot himself in the head "twice."

Jesselyn Radack - is the head of the whistle blower organization. She blew the whistle on one minor issue about one unlawful act by one FBI agent and an attempted coverup regarding whether the interrogated guy was mirandized. Hardly qualifies as an example.

 

[earlycuyler]

The founders of this nation were outlaws. Go figure.

Only for awhile. I linked three cases of whistle blowing done right. In all 3 cases no one felt the need to run to an enemy of this country and spill the beans.

Your three examples are not valid.

Daniel Ellsberg was 1971. (before the un-patriot act.)

Gary Webb Dark Alliance story was 1996. (before the un-patriot act.) Then after the 1996 outing of the CIA... in 2004 when he went after them again... he supposedly shot himself in the head "twice."



Jesselyn Radack - is the head of the whistle blower organization. She blew the whistle on one minor issue about one unlawful act by one FBI agent and an attempted coverup regarding whether the interrogated guy was mirandized. Hardly qualifies as an example.

And he was not endorsed by Ron Paul. Its fully valid. Snowden is nothing but a traitor who thought he was going to be taken under the wing of his communist brothers, instead, they took his bag of candy and booted his ass. After he saw that he was not the hero he hoped to be, and realizing that he will be snatched off a buss in some third world shit hole, he latched on to the Paultards and followers of the fat one. Dude is a punk. Nothing more.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He's not a representative, first off. Second, Snowden revealed the information to the american public. The media is responsible for how they disseminate information. Otherwise, he didnt reveal anything to our "foes". Sounds like the NSA shouldnt have been conducting criminal behavior and the problem would have been avoided.

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[2]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Now you are saying since the NSA broke the law Snowden did not

You are a hoot !

The founders of this nation were outlaws. Go figure.

The founders had reasons, the right wing radicals do not. Consider these words by a founder:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security