Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by Equ1noxevery time you post you just prove to every person reading this thread just how stupid you are, please carry on

I am fully aware of the fact that common sense and a scientific mind on here perceives one to be stupid and brainwashed by the major fringe elements on this site. Thankfully, the opposite is true in real life and the majority of those posting here are considered to be the stupid and brainwashed ones.

You are talking to people that LOVE a man they never met and believe he is the savior of our world all while not one of them can explain what he has done or will do that is so great. Brainwashed is a nice way of putting it from what I can see.

Welcome to the cult of Ron Paul.

Originally posted by GigatronixNational defense is a different concept than war. And yes there are some sick people that also happen to be very smart. But I wouldn't expect you to know any of this, being so far removed from actual reality.

National defense is fueled by war. If you get a pacifist as president who promises to end all wars, then all you'll have is some expensive weapons collecting dust in some military hangar. This, in turn, could lead pacifist politicians to justify slashing the budget for DoD.

The fact you couldn't make such a simple connection just goes to show that you are truly lacking in critical thinking.

Originally posted by wagnificent
Question for the anti-Ron Paul crowd: if Ron Paul is so ridiculous and has such a slim chance of being elected, then how has he managed to have a political career since the 70's, which is long before many ATSers (including me) were even born?

So what? There are many crooks in the democrat party that have been in Washington just as long. Does that mean anything? In all actuality, doesn't that go against the conspiracy loons who claim RP is "against the establishment"? If he's been working for the so-called "TPTB" for so long, how can you conspiracy theorists trust him so much?

Also, what is his track on job creation? Absolutely 0. Every other candidate at least has some experience in job creation, while RP doesn't have any. This election is about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Most rational conservative voters are even putting aside social issues for this election and focusing the most on the candidate with the strongest track record in job creation, and RP ranks among the lowest if not the lowest among the GOP candidates in that respect. RP is going to lose terribly, and I'm going to take great glee and laugh once you conspiracy theorists claim "TPTB" had the nomination set up from the beginning and there was no real vote.

Originally posted by GigatronixNational defense is fueled by extremist idiots around the world waving their guns and bombs at us. It is fueled by people that don;t know how to resolve anything without violence. As long as we have people around the corner with their guns at the ready, there will always be a need for defense. We defend ourselves from people seeking to make war against us. We need defense to discourage people like you from picking a fight because you need more money in your pocket.

That is hopelessly naive. It would be great if all international strife could be solved through diplomacy and words, but that just isn't in our nature. War is always inevitable, no matter how far we have come as a civilization. There will always be people seeking to take over our country and control us, that is why we need to keep spending for DoD intact and know they can't mess with us unless they would like their entire nation to be in ruins and their cities to be in fire.

If you think the pacifist isolationism espoused by RP is so great, then what about Pearl Harbour? Did isolationism and complete neutrality cause other countries to stop from attacking us?

If you pacifists had you way with our country, we would have been completely invaded and conquered by a tyrannical government a long time ago.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Diablos
Nope, second year college student. Nice assumption. All of my classmates, friends, engineering and physics professors and TA's believe this guy is crazy. If Ron Paul wins the presidency, I'll be out of a job by the time I graduate thanks to his strong belief in "free-trade" and all of the manufacturing jobs have been outsourced.

Ron Paul is only supported by hippies and the uneducated.

How much do you get paid to troll this utter crap? It is enough to make up for selling your soul to Corporatism?

Newt Gingrich told him this. You mean it's not true

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by GigatronixNational defense is fueled by extremist idiots around the world waving their guns and bombs at us. It is fueled by people that don;t know how to resolve anything without violence. As long as we have people around the corner with their guns at the ready, there will always be a need for defense. We defend ourselves from people seeking to make war against us. We need defense to discourage people like you from picking a fight because you need more money in your pocket.

That is hopelessly naive. It would be great if all international strife could be solved through diplomacy and words, but that just isn't in our nature. War is always inevitable, no matter how far we have come as a civilization. There will always be people seeking to take over our country and control us, that is why we need to keep spending for DoD intact and know they can't mess with us unless they would like their entire nation to be in ruins and their cities to be in fire.

If you think the pacifist isolationism espoused by RP is so great, then what about Pearl Harbour? Did isolationism and complete neutrality cause other countries to stop from attacking us?

If you pacifists had you way with our country, we would have been completely invaded and conquered by a tyrannical government a long time ago.

It is not naive, it is the hope that someday people will figure out that waging war is not in their best interests, but it is the best interest of people looking to make money. If we all succumb to the status quo, then yes war is inevitable. But if we realize that the people pushing for war do so out of greed, and that what the people want outweighs what the corporations and politicians want, we might slowly turn the tide.

I never said cut DoD, in fact I said we need defense. I also never said I believed in a pacifist isolationist foreign policy. You assume that because I am disagreeing with you that I am a ron paul fanboy. I am not. I like the guy and think he has some good ideas, but I am not here to defend ron paul, I am here to call out bad reasoning, which is why I am talking to you.

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by AacesFinally, "vast material and resource gains". This may actually be your strongest argument. However, I think you forget one of your lessons from preschool, SHARING. As I believe I've well proven to anyone with two functioning hemispheres, war is counter-productive to the survival and perfection of the human genome. So, if we decided to form a world government and distribute resources as needed, we wouldn't need to WASTE resources on the perfection and manufacturing of your beloved war devices.

Did you just implicitly call a world government a good thing? I cannot take you seriously after that, and I'm sure most here would agree. Everyone here who supports Ron Paul is against the extreme leftist liberal idea of a "world government", and the majority of people would never tolerate such a fascist regime and would quickly overthrow it.

edit on 15-1-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)

Diablos, you have once again displayed a pure ignorance to the art of argument. You have failed to debate the actual issue, which was whether or not war was beneficial. I hate to embarrass you in front of your friends, but seeing as you have once again left me with no intelligent points to debate, I will spend my reply further educating you.
Firstly, I will break down your argument to show the number of logical fallacies you have displayed, and then I will actually humor you by debating your off-topic reply. Firstly, "I cannot take you seriously after that, and I'm sure most would agree." All of my points previous to the one you found fault with were based on sound logic and a scientific mindset. So rather than concede defeat, which would've been the honorable thing to do, you found the part of my argument that you thought was weakest (when I get around to debating it, I will prove how you are sorely mistaken, and have actually encountered a very strong link in my chain of logic and reason). This is known as composing a "straw man". The second fallacy you have committed is known as "appeal to authority", as in "Everyone here who supports Ron Paul..." You have made yourself an authority among of the personal beliefs of people in this thread, whom if you've taken the time to read, actually don't seem to agree with you very much.
And once again, you stray further and further from the issue. This fallacy is known as a "red herring". Which the actual issue is that you are INCORRECT in your statement that war benefits mankind. Even the point that you did respond to, you failed to debate the actual issue, which was sharing resources rather than killing each other. Instead you chose to make the issue about a "world government" and stipulated my entire argument was wrong based on what is once again, a composition of your own opinions. This is known as the "false dilemma". You have stated that my claim is false, without citing any forms of evidence, and that therefore, your claim is still true.

Now, here is where you REALLY slip up, "no one would tolerate such a fascist regime". Why does a united world government have to be a fascist regime? Only because you feel it helps your argument. People on this site do not hate world government. It inherently is actually a good idea. You have made the logical failure of connecting the NWO, as it would be called, with any attempt at a globalized government. As a matter of fact, I believe quite a number of threads on this forum display a trending towards the belief that this year will bring a coming ascension into a 4th density Christ consciousness that will bring us all together in unity as the human race, rather than divided nations. This would call for the formation of a benevolent world government, which if it truly was a world government that unified, united, and drove prosperity for all in a fair, just manner, could not be a bad thing. It is not the system of government itself that is corrupt, rather those people who abuse their powers to control and deceive. As the world government that I was talking about was not only purely hypothetical, but focused on sharing and distributing resources equally, I think we can both safely, and quite joyously, come to the conclusion that I was speaking of a BENEVOLENT world government. You know, that whole idealistic view of government where it serves and unifies the people, rather than becoming a total abuse of power. Your stipulation of any and all forms of world government as a feared fascist regime is a very weak straw man.

Now, are you actually going to return to the ACTUAL issue, or would you like to further debate the semantics of a hypothetical government, created to prove a point that you completely ignored. Oh wait. I forgot, you can't debate me because I was actually right, and you didn't really have anything to say. I know my Darwanism, little boy, tread carefully.

Originally posted by Diablos
No one takes that senile old man seriously. I am beginning to think he doesn't even take himself seriously, and his run is just a big joke at this point. Romney will obviously be the nominee.

I can no longer take you seriously.

Originally posted by AacesFirstly, I will break down your argument to show the number of logical fallacies you have displayed, and then I will actually humor you by debating your off-topic reply. Firstly, "I cannot take you seriously after that, and I'm sure most would agree." All of my points previous to the one you found fault with were based on sound logic and a scientific mindset. So rather than concede defeat, which would've been the honorable thing to do, you found the part of my argument that you thought was weakest (when I get around to debating it, I will prove how you are sorely mistaken, and have actually encountered a very strong link in my chain of logic and reason). This is known as composing a "straw man". The second fallacy you have committed is known as "appeal to authority", as in "Everyone here who supports Ron Paul..." You have made yourself an authority among of the personal beliefs of people in this thread, whom if you've taken the time to read, actually don't seem to agree with you very much.

It is clearly evident you don't know what a "logical fallacy" even is as you called my argument first a strawman and then a red-herring. My assumption was based on the fact that RP's followers are libertarians, and the libertarian ideology is among strongly opposed to the notion of a one-world government. No, such a notion is only popular among commies and fascists, such as yourself.

Originally posted by AacesAnd once again, you stray further and further from the issue. This fallacy is known as a "red herring". Which the actual issue is that you are INCORRECT in your statement that war benefits mankind. Even the point that you did respond to, you failed to debate the actual issue, which was sharing resources rather than killing each other. Instead you chose to make the issue about a "world government" and stipulated my entire argument was wrong based on what is once again, a composition of your own opinions. This is known as the "false dilemma". You have stated that my claim is false, without citing any forms of evidence, and that therefore, your claim is still true.

Nice try at trying to sound intelligent but sticking your foot in your mouth in the process. There is no "scientific evidence" that a world government is inherently better to our current nation states. For starters, it has never been tested in the laboratory or is there existing data that suggests it. But, since the burden of proof is on you, please provide scientific evidence that a world government is good. Until then, I'm going to prefer not forfeiting the sovereignty of my country.

Originally posted by AacesNow, here is where you REALLY slip up, "no one would tolerate such a fascist regime". Why does a united world government have to be a fascist regime? Only because you feel it helps your argument.

For starters, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no possible way that bureaucrats can remain saints when they have control of the entire world, and it has been proven time and time again that the more centralized government gets, the less transparent it becomes.

Originally posted by AacesPeople on this site do not hate world government. It inherently is actually a good idea. You have made the logical failure of connecting the NWO, as it would be called, with any attempt at a globalized government.

Do you realize what site you are on? The people on this site constantly scream of the coming of a world government and are possibly the strongest opponents of the idea, and I actually agree with them in principle (not that there is going to be a world government anytime soon, or at all).

Originally posted by AacesAs a matter of fact, I believe quite a number of threads on this forum display a trending towards the belief that this year will bring a coming ascension into a 4th density Christ consciousness that will bring us all together in unity as the human race, rather than divided nations.

Yes, religious lunatics, not the majority of people on here who have proclaimed if a world government was ever imposed they would fight it to the death, and I would definitely join them in that fight if it were to ever come.

Originally posted by AacesThis would call for the formation of a benevolent world government, which if it truly was a world government that unified, united, and drove prosperity for all in a fair, just manner, could not be a bad thing. It is not the system of government itself that is corrupt, rather those people who abuse their powers to control and deceive.

Yeah, and let’s just grab hands and sing kumbaya and stop all international conflict immediately based on the leftist ideology that it is for the “betterment of mankind”. LOL, are you even in touch with reality? Do you really think the majority of the people of the world will let go of all of their prejudi

Just to make a point: For those who have been either attacking me or arguing with me: How many of you agree with Aaces that a world government is inherently better than our current nation/states and that a world government can fairly redistribute resources to mankind?