Clarification on the Commnent Policy

Wow, the Rosa Parks article has recently sparked a lot more comments than normal, in a much shorter range of time. For the record, comments are moderated. When I first started this site, I figured that I could either open myself up to the spambots, or I could take a firm line against them. So here are a few guidelines:

1. Don't post spam. "Ron Paul has never voted for this, Ron Paul has never voted for that." Trust me, we've already seen it. The problem is, we aren't very impressed.
2. Don't make arguments that have already been addressed. "But Ron Paul volunteered to donate his own money!" If you can't show the courtesy of reading the article, then don't expect the courtesy of getting published. On the other hand, if you make a good argument, then chances are that I'll publish it. Because if you make that argument here, then you can make it somewhere else, and I'll want my readers to know how to address it.
   
3. Don't try to change the subject. The purpose of the post is nailing Paultards on concrete issue that's easy to test and verify, and which should be fairly painless to concede to. When you attempt to change the subject, you only prove my point.

You can claim that it's a minor issue, but if it were so minor, then you should either be willing to concede to the argument, or ignore it. Yesterday's post on Paultards drinking Fiji was a lot more minor than this one, but I didn't see any of you Paultards commenting on that one. It seems like I've managed to strike a nerve here, "nailed" you where it hurts, and now you're trying to run off to Iraq or somewhere else where you think you can maintain the moral high ground. Personally, I think that the fact that Ron Paul wants to completely revamp the US Economy when he doesn't even understand the basic workings of the US Mint is pretty damn important.

Update: And sure enough, the Paultards are still responding with things that have already been refuted in the FAQ ("They can't use my tax dollars to fund the medal, dammit!") or attempting to change the subject to Iraq. Funny how Iraq seems to be only worth bringing up on this post, and not on one of the dozens of other postings to this site. You guys must be really desperate to change the subject. Again, if it's such a minor point, then it shouldn't be hard for you to concede.

For the record, here's my stance on Iraq:

• I was protesting the war from the start, and you guys still suck.
• Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke are also the war in Iraq, but I'm not voting for them either. Why? Simple. Because they're batshit crazy.
• The entire purpose of the thread was to see if Paultards could be nailed down to something concrete and specific. If you want to discuss Iraq, then give us an actual exit strategy. Oh wait -- you guys don't have one. You want to bring troops out just as recklessly as Bush brought them in. Only, you guys seem to think that Ron Paul will have a magic wand, and that he'll bring everyone home just by having them click their ruby slippers.
  
• Ron Paul's promises to take us out of Iraq is only meaningful if I had any faith that he could actually follow through on it. Ron Paul couldn't even follow through on his promise to contribute a token $100 donation to the Rosa Parks medal by purchasing a replica, and he's rich. Why should I believe that Ron Paul could succeed in immediate withdrawal?
• The democrats have a policy of phased withdrawal for the vast majority of troops, based on the maximum number of brigades that we would be able to pull out per month, with a small number of troops remaining to protect the U.S. embassy. Somehow, the Paultards have distorted that position into being "pro-war."
• Listening to Paultards saying that that all the democrats are "pro-war" because they live in a reality is stupid. It's like listening to someone insist that if you don't believe scientology can cure AIDS, then that means that you're "pro-AIDS" as a result.