Is the GOP finally taking Ron Paul seriously ?

reply to post by Littikani
I'm not going to feed fail trolls. If you really want to persist and encourage me to illustrate how ridiculous your statements are, I will oblige just because I enjoy blowing dumb arguments out of the water. However, I advise that you quit while you're behind, lest I embarrass you in front of all these people.

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.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Welcome to the Club of Baseless Assumptions and Absurd Generalizations.

I'm sure they're glad to have you.

reply to post by Diablos


Diablo, My biggest issue with your statements about the DOD creating jobs is that the annual tax revenue spent by the US government on defense contractors is much greater than the annual payrolls or net inventories of these same contractors. You claim that the defense industry is a benefit because of the jobs created, yet it seems we are actually paying more in taxes than what we are getting back in payroll expenses for the year and estimated annual inventory purchases. (I included estimated annual inventory purchases based on your argument that the DOD can't outsource jobs overseas, so this money would therefore stay in the US. I estimated this figure based on the average of 6 annual inventory turns). This data was pulled directly from the financial statements of the corporations mentioned and US gov federal procurement reports so I'm sure you can come to the same conclusions I have, that the taxpayers have lost $41billion in 2010 for the 4 companies I reviewed. By the way, I didn't get info for Boeing because of the commercial sector and difficulty in breaking down defense figures vs commercial. If anyone cares to add to the data I've put together, please do so.

On a side note, I believe it is critical to understand why you have certain beliefs and ensure you understand the data in order to back up your claims. I apologize for making this assumption, but it seems to me that you receive most of your information from main stream media. Even if main stream media is the socially accepted norm for obtaining information, we all have to understand that main stream media pushes their biases just as much as anyone else pushes their opinions on this site. Because of that, we really have to question everything and understand facts.

FYI, I really think you should do some research on the federal reserve system and fiat currency. You may find that many of the problems we are seeing currently in the economy are due to the fed (a private company) having the ability to print money every time Congress raises the debt ceiling, therefore increasing inflation of the USD.

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 Gigatronix
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

Welcome to the Club of Baseless Assumptions and Absurd Generalizations.

I'm sure they're glad to have you.

No baseless assumptions here. Just pure ASSESSMENTS of what is being presented.
Anything percieved as an absurd generalization should be a lesson to you all. See where the absurdity comes from.
You say I generalize but I can quote every person from these Ron Paul threads and post a wall of quotes to prove my point. All you can do is sit there and say "nu uh!!!!" Well let's see where that get's you. Probably the same place telling people to go vote for Romney will get you.

And yes, I am glad to have him.

reply to post by Diablos

National 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.

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 Gigatronix
reply to post by Littikani

 

I'm not going to feed fail trolls.

Good, keep up the name calling while claiming the moral high ground. It is just fantdamntastic let me tell ya.
Calling people trolls seems really clever and intelligent I guess if you are 11. Glad you got off on the right foot.

If you really want to persist and encourage me to illustrate how ridiculous your statements are, I will oblige just because I enjoy blowing dumb arguments out of the water.

Yes I do. Believe it or not, I am interested in learning something about Ron Paul. Since not a one of you wants to share I can only learn about his fans. Let's see what you got. I believe a good portion of you think keywords and half truths will get the man into office. I am guessing that comes from a culture that is used to voting 1000 times for their favorite karaoke singer on fox.

However, I advise that you quit while you're behind, lest I embarrass you in front of all these people.

Go for it.

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

Welcome to the Club of Baseless Assumptions and Absurd Generalizations.

I'm sure they're glad to have you.

No baseless assumptions here. Just pure ASSESSMENTS of what is being presented.
Anything percieved as an absurd generalization should be a lesson to you all. See where the absurdity comes from.
You say I generalize but I can quote every person from these Ron Paul threads and post a wall of quotes to prove my point. All you can do is sit there and say "nu uh!!!!" Well let's see where that get's you. Probably the same place telling people to go vote for Romney will get you.

And yes, I am glad to have him.

Let's be conservative and say that Ron Paul has 1 million supporters. Have you talked to 500,001 of them? Nope didn't think so, therefore you can't make a blanket statement about the majority of Ron Paul supporters. If you want to say "some" ron paul supporters are brainwashed idiots with nothing of substance to support their fanboyism, I will agree with you. But to sit here and label ALL ron paul supporters based on limited experience is asinine. Simply make the distinction that "some" supporters do dumb things, and I will have no beef with your statements. But keep making childish and naive leaps of reason and I will continue to call you out on it.

reply to post by Littikani

Calling people trolls seems really clever and intelligent I guess if you are 11. Glad you got off on the right foot.

Wow, dude. Did you see the thread that talks about how to identify disinfo agents? The one that links to the site where the 25 techniques are explained?

Might wanna check it out....and, no, I'm not going to post the link to that thread for you.
But.... Wow.

reply to post by Littikani


I called you a troll because after a brief look at your posting history all I see is generalizations, assumptions, and name calling. This is what trolls do, say stupid things to fire people up.

You wnat to learn about Ron Paul do you? Go to different news sites, RPs own website, and maybe check out a youtube video of him actually saying stuff. Saying that you want to learn but ron paul supporters aren't sharing is just plain dumb. To say that in the absence of input from his supporters, you'll form an opinion based on the character of his supporters, is just stupid. I really hope you aren't voting with a strategy like that.

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.

reply to post by Littikani


You say that you are interested in learning more about Ron Paul...I am directing you to a place you can do that.

www.issues2000.org...


I am curious...are you a supporter of Mitt Romney?

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?