Anybody know the names of those who twisted Ron Paul’s arm to convince him to get in back in early 2007?

“Gordon is a Dick”?

You need to have three serious conversations with yo mamma.

1. Knowing something about what you yap about.

2. Manners.

3. That name!

There’s a serious problem over on your edge of the gene pool.

0

Regardless, thats why I’m saying it may be out of the hands of the rank and file

Hacker, go steal from someone else, you trailer trash sack of shit.

...LOL!..You money dummies tend to spew lots of THEORIES as to WHAT “MONEY” IS USED FOR, etc…not WHAT “IT” IS etc…in reality..

“money”..’de facto,’ today, “IS” LARGELY nothing more or less than some goddamned numbers in some computers indicating that some bankster made a fraudulent ‘loan’ to someone sometime..(absent even more fraud!)..it’s ‘monetized debt,’ ‘evidence of debt,’ ‘credit’ etc..

..btw, you obvious republicrat money ignoramusses might note ART 1 SEC. 8 clause 5 whereby coining ‘money’ is mentioned along with ..’fix[ing] the Standard of Weights and Measures’

..indicating a few things..one of which is that ‘the founders’ thought of ‘money’ as a ‘measure of value’ not just a ‘medium for exchange’ as you blustered..

...but please, Nap, PLEASE explain-SOMEWHAT PRECISELY-how “money” would ORIGINATE/get ‘issued’/etc. in Napdom..it seems this gets at the root of it..btw, your failure to get specific here is indicative of your cluelessness, phony baloney ‘economic’ (mis)understanding$..etc..

(i tried to get ‘the nolan’ to get specific about the origination/issuance etc. of ‘money’ on another thread but although he may not understand ‘money’ very well he appears smart enough to avoid CLARK, who would/will rather quickly expose him as a novice/mere theorist as to ‘money’..) ;o)

..btw, that quote was bryan’s..the fallacy of reification is evident..but you do understand YOU do it too, right? (as we most/all do)..

Yes. I feel that this is very unfortunate.

Been a long time since you read Robert’s? Skipped Chapter 20, did you?

0

Red herring. I didn’t imply anything.

0

As always, nice try.

We can discuss the propriety of particular uses of executive session all day long. If you like, however, I’ll go ahead and stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the executive session in question was properly entered into.

The fact remains that executive session only imposes confidentiality on the content of the executive session. Not facts related to the executive session. Not facts discussed in the executive session. Just the actual content of the executive session itself. The Badnarik 2006 campaign did not occur in an executive session of the LNC. Therefore, no confidentiality requirement on discussion of the Badnarik 2006 campaign arises as a result of an executive session of the LNC.

Like I said, if you don’t want to discuss the Badnarik 2006 campaign, don’t discuss the Badnarik 2006 campaign. But don’t pretend you can’t discuss the Badnarik 2006 campaign, especially inline with implying dishonesty on the part of others, unless you want me to bill you for a new irony meter.

Not exactly.

I reminded you that Richardson misrepresented the FEC numbers in the campaign. That was a comment about him, not about the campaign. I didn’t talk about the campaign. I was merely using a refence point to question Richardson’s ethics and accuracy.

It was you who then shifted to the campaign, and made allegations that you can’t and won’t even try to substantiate. That’s when I reminded you that I am bound by my agreement with the LNC and attempted to focus your tangent onto the quality of your presumptions.

If you think I brought up the campaign for discussion beyond Richardson’s misrepresentations of FEC reports, which representations have already been debunked on this very blog and don’t require further discussion, then that’s you failing miserably at discernment.

Getting rude and making further accusations doesn’t save your case.

BTW, perhaps you can explain how it is that you deny the LNC’s authority to make its own rules using accepted prepublished methods and to implement its functional rules according to its procedural rules?

Whence comes your power to declare their action illegitimate when the very grammar of your declaration proclaims that you don’t actually know enough to even speak to the issue: “Even if the executive session was legitimate—and it doesn’t sound like it was….”

While you’re figuring out the libertarian rationalization for that one, let me help you by expanding a bit on my admonition that you rebut yourself.

When you say, “...the only thing protected by [executive session] is the content of the session itself…,” you are clearly agreeing that if it was discussed there, it’s privileged (legitimacy challenges aside). Since you don’t know what was discussed there, you don’t know that any relevant thing you are calling “the facts” wasn’t discussed, thus leaving no substantive facts “...which are facts independent of the LNC having discussed them in said session.”

If there are none, then there’s nothing available for discussion. No bluster will change that. Think of it as a fact.

0

Let it go? Hey, I’m not the one who brought it up—you are.

If you’re not interested in discussing it, don’t discuss it. Just don’t try to blow this “I can’t discuss it here because I discussed it there” smoke up people’s asses after bringing it up yourself. That’s adding definite insult to perceived injury.

Aren’t you doing that of which you complain?

0

Let it go. You rebut yourself.

0