Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Peter Joseph, Jul 21, 2011.
Even my puppet vote means nothing now. The ballot box is broken. uke:
Paul wins majority of delegates from Maine GOP
15 delegates for Ron Paul, 6 more to elect and Romney's dickheads are trying to stuff the ballot with duplicate names to Ron Paul delegates, but that's pretty bland compared to all they did trying to rig the election yesterday
^I think shit like that is staged.
The first underwear bomber was staged, so that one probably was too.
Comments about Ron Paul from someone I know on another board: Thoughts?
Ron Paul is anti-policy, anti-complexity, anti-intellectual, anti-thinking.
Is monetary policy hard for you to understand? Don't like those Fed Chairmen using fancy words? Paul favors the gold standard.
Does foreign policy make you uncomfortable with all it's messy compromises? Paul will pull us out of the UN and oppose any war.
Education policy hard to grasp? Does it need too much learning about psychology and social problems? Well, Paul will rid you of that: everything will be handled by local school boards, common folks like you. Hard to figure out why we are protecting some strange looking fish, instead of building factories? Paul will get rid of environmental laws. Everything is easy if you let the locals handle it.
Does it bother you that the Supreme Court makes decisions that aren't easy to understand if you just take a half hour to read the Constitution? Paul will take care of that. He's a boneheaded literalist.
Paul is politics for people who don't want to take the time to understand politics, but want to sound like they are principled and informed. Nothing he supports has any chance of happening, but at least it's better than thinking, compromising, and implementing policy.
So not accepting the status quo is "anti-thinking"? I think the only charge that may stick here is "anti-complexity", and that's with a an asterisk. All that is asked is that the complexity be transparent and justified. The beginning of a chain of ad homs.
More ad homs. Monetary policy is easy to understand. I suppose the poster never watched CSPAN, etc. where Ron Paul has Bernanke squirming under direct questioning. Also, RP actually supports free market currencies, a little bit different from a gold standard (actually a lot-of-bit, but that's a discussion in itself)
Messy compromises? More like bloody mess.
Everyone is local to someone else. That means local people "just like you" have occupied the "ivory towers" overlooking the plunging rankings of the US educational output since the DoEducation was created.
Evironmental laws are another animal that can't be answered in a sentence.
More ad homs
Ad homs, appeal to status quo, etc. May as well levy the same charge at people who oppose mass murder or dictators. They just don't "understand". They're all concerned about ethics and morals and pointless bullshit like that. Not like they can change anything anyway.
The entire post reminds me of a particular mod on a forum I frequent as well.
lol Hey Dak, here is another one you're going to love:
Taxes are part of the social contract. It is your legal obligation to pay taxes. Only in that way can the needs decided upon by the voters be met. Only in that way can the rule of law be served. Only in that way can we have any certainty that the roads will be built on time, the military will be funded, etc.
It isn't a business. It isn't a charity. It is a legal obligation. If I think there should be a stop sign at the corner near my house, it isn't an answer to say that I am free to slow down or stop there myself. If I say that I think insider trading should be outlawed, it isn't enough for me to abstain from insider trading myself. When someone from the 1% says they want more taxes on the wealthy, it isn't any different than someone from the 99% saying the same thing. It is an opinion on law and public policy; not something that practically can be met by personal voluntary effort, or should.
Whether I want to pay more or less taxes, or I think you should pay more or less taxes, isn't relevant to the discussion, except so far as it motivates our vote. This is stunningly obvious.
To make it a little MORE obvious, in case this is too abstract: what if people started paying a few billion more in taxes voluntarily? Do the people who paid the extra get to decide how to spend it? If they do, they end up with unfair influence. If they don't, then they are going to be less likely to send in those free billions. Should the Congress budget on the basis that people are going to voluntarily pay more in taxes? If so, then what happens when they don't?
Or consider it from a self-interest standpoint. I have an extra $10,000 to pump into the political system. Should I send in a check to the IRS, and have it go to to a priority I don't want, and have it potentially be so small as to make no difference? Or should I give it to a political candidate, who will implement the policy preferences I want, including my desires about taxation?
What fucking koolaid is this guy on? (That's an ad hom)
"We have to abrogate the rule of law to save the rule of law."
This guy has the cart so far in front of the horse I don't think he knows what a horse looks like. (Wheeee more ad homs)
So Rand Paul endorsed Romney and I imagine that he died a little bit inside as a result of it. I was pretty blown by it, but I can't say that I didn't have the feeling that it was coming. I guess we'll see what becomes of this and why he did it within the coming months. Hopefully Rand doesn't think that he can walk the statist rope and come out unscathed.
I had already seen the writing on the wall about Rand. He had already made some notable statist moves as Senator, and his rhetoric was concerning as well. This was the final confirmation needed. He is a politician. Most likely soured on the constant marginalization of the family while growing up in DC. He used his father's limited coattails to get him into office and now that Ron is done in politics, he is jumping wherever the GOP says jump.
The condescending comments he made on Hannity about Ron's supporters (and on Hannity of all shows) certainly didn't help. The guy is just another neo-con.