26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

Came across this article today and I had to share it. This is in my opinion, really breaking things down into a simplistic way that just makes sense. I will give you just one sample, because this one alone made me laugh out loud.

(14) If someone has a drug problem, prison rape is the best solution I can think of.

It is a very simplistic way to view the issues of drug law, but I think it gets the point across very well.

Weather people like it or not, things in this Country have to change and they have to change now. It is time to stop thinking in terms of 4 years, 8 years, and start thinking about what this Country will be like for our Grandchildren, well after we are gone. We just can not continue down this path and expect any good to come from it.

26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

reply to post by MrWendal


Nice straw man. Now I am definitely 100% not voting for Paul.

This is very typical of the pro-Paul crowd these days.

I like most of what the man has to say, but his followers scare me to death, and they are the reason i wont vote for him. I have NEVER seen a following deify a politician like this.

lol put your fingers in your ears. lalalala I'M NOT LISTENING!

Funny article.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Yeah, we are scary libertarian minded folk. We will leave you the hell alone and ask you to do the same.
Pretty scary concept.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Yeah, we are scary libertarian minded folk. We will leave you the hell alone and ask you to do the same.
Pretty scary concept.

im not looking to derail this thread, so i wont engage here. I do think most Paul supporters need to learn what a real libertarian is.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Nice straw man. Now I am definitely 100% not voting for Paul.

Who you vote for is up to you. If you would like to comment on the article and what about the article you find to be a straw man argument, I would love to hear it. I posted this for discussion.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is very typical of the pro-Paul crowd these days.

I like most of what the man has to say, but his followers scare me to death, and they are the reason i wont vote for him. I have NEVER seen a following deify a politician like this.

I love it when people say this. It is such a foolish comment to me. When you cast a vote, are you voting for the people who support the Candidate or are you voting for the Candidate? I can understand how some Paul supporters freak out other people. They can be loud, hard headed, unwilling to listen to reason and a great big pain in the arse, but you can also find that in any group of any type. You can find the same type of Individual in groups that support Obama, which we saw a lot of a few years back during the general election, even right here on ATS. The last time I checked, when Obama won the election, his supporters didn't run the Country, they didn't make Policy, and interestingly enough a lot of them have disappeared over time.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

im not looking to derail this thread, so i wont engage here. I do think most Paul supporters need to learn what a real libertarian is.

By all means, derail this farce of a thread. They come right out and insult others with poorly constructed straw man arguments and we are expected to respect that?

As far as I am concerned anyone who stars or flags this thread can sit on a tac.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is very typical of the pro-Paul crowd these days.

I like most of what the man has to say, but his followers scare me to death, and they are the reason i wont vote for him. I have NEVER seen a following deify a politician like this.

One word - Obama

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

im not looking to derail this thread, so i wont engage here. I do think most Paul supporters need to learn what a real libertarian is.

By all means, derail this farce of a thread. They come right out and insult others with poorly constructed straw man arguments and we are expected to respect that?

As far as I am concerned anyone who stars or flags this thread can sit on a tac.

Who is "They"?

You are reacting as if I and other members wrote this article. Well, we didn't.

Someone else wrote it, I posted it. Obviously you dislike the article, so explain to us what is it that you dislike so much? What part of the article do you think is a Straw Man argument in regards to Paul's policies? I would love to hear your opinion and discuss it.

14 was sadistically funny.

(19) Indefinite detention for U.S. citizens seems like nothing to be worried about, especially since our political class is so trustworthy that it could never abuse such a power.

(20) Following up on (19), I believe Thomas Jefferson was just being paranoid when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

(26) I have not been exploited enough by the cozy relationship between large financial firms and the U.S. government, and I would like to see it continue.

Wow some people are getting so serious, I looked at this like a top 10 from Letterman

reply to post by MrWendal

Who you vote for is up to you. If you would like to comment on the article and what about the article you find to be a straw man argument, I would love to hear it. I posted this for discussion.

That whole article is full of non-sequitors and logical fallacies. All it takes is a little critical thinking to find them.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

That whole article is full of non-sequitors and logical fallacies. All it takes is a little critical thinking to find them.

Well by all means, explain it and break it down for us simpletons.

reply to post by MrWendal

Well by all means, explain it and break it down for us simpletons.

You expect me to do your thinking for you? Okay.

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

Right, so the only choice for "freedom" is Paul, right? False Dilemma.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

So its a good idea to vote for someone who you disagree with simply because they think something should be cut? WRONG

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

Outright lie.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

Outright lie. Plenty of politicians say stuff we don't want to hear that is the truth. Paul does not have a monopoly on this.


There, first four are clearly fallacious or lies. I am not going through all 26 simply to sit and be ignored by those who circle jerk over Paul.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by MrWendal

 

...I am not going through all 26 simply to sit and be ignored by those who circle jerk over Paul.

LOL- man I got to keep coming back for more of this comedy!

reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

I am not going through all 26 simply to sit and be ignored by those who circle jerk over Paul.

Thanks for making your position somewhat clear. I feel as tho this thread is making you very unhappy. I think you should make some Obama threads. Maybe even 1 that makes fun of Paul supporters. GET IT OUT MAN IT'S OK!!!

reply to post by captaintyinknots

I do think most Paul supporters need to learn what a real libertarian is.

When I first registered as a Libertarian, years ago, it didn't take me too long at all to conclude that the worst thing that could ever happen to the Libertarian Party was that it gain political power. Power corrupts. If the Libertarian Party were to gain political power, the next logical strategy would be to protect and maintain that power, even expand it. Libertarians could not do such a thing without first sacrificing the principles they adhere to. Sacrifice is insane.

Of course, Ron Paul is not in the Libertarian Party, and is instead a long time Republican attempting to infuse Libertarian principles into his own party. Then, naturally, there are the self proclaimed "libertarians" who know little of the platforms of the Libertarian Party and seek to distinguish themselves from that party either by refusing to be clear on what they mean by libertarian, or actually having a clear idea of what they mean by libertarian.

The live and let live motto is a nice simplistic explanation of libertarian attitudes in general, but the reality is that this motto encompasses many topics that remain sources of heated debate. Taxes are quite naturally odious to a libertarian, but just as odious as taxes may be, the sweet smell of rationalism tends to be easily recognized by the libertarian as well. Libertarians are not advocating no government, and because of this the rationally minded ones understand that some taxes are necessary. The problem most libertarians are confronted with often is even when uttering a phrase such as "some taxation", the tax advocates and big government sycophants get all apoplectic threatening to have a seizure immediately if it isn't acknowledged that we need to tax the crap out of - at the very least the rich - in order to have "economic justice".

These tax advocates may nod their heads approvingly when hearing utterances such as "live and let live" as long as these utterances remain comfortably ambiguous in their meanings, but dare to suggest that taxation is being used to violate peoples right to earn a living, and suddenly these tax advocates have a different idea of what "live and let live" means and the debate gets heated.

Of course, I would like to believe the genuine libertarians are individualists first. As such, these people may support Ron Paul's campaign, but these libertarians are likely not the campaign junkies who support Ron Paul. Campaign junkies are a different breed altogether, and their love for the bureaucracies of elections is stronger than any political ideology they may harbor.

There seems to be many Ron Paul supporters who are under the impression that a Ron Paul election will some how magically fix the corrupt system that We the People have allowed to sink into corruption and decay. It is an appearance, and may or may not be indicative of an actual thought that all they have to do is vote for Ron Paul, get him elected and then their job is done.

Genuine libertarians know better.

Originally posted by calnorak

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by MrWendal

 

...I am not going through all 26 simply to sit and be ignored by those who circle jerk over Paul.

LOL- man I got to keep coming back for more of this comedy!

That's what I say to myself when I watch a Ron Paul speech.

Originally posted by Wookiep

I am not going through all 26 simply to sit and be ignored by those who circle jerk over Paul.

Thanks for making your position somewhat clear. I feel as tho this thread is making you very unhappy. I think you should make some Obama threads. Maybe even 1 that makes fun of Paul supporters. GET IT OUT MAN IT'S OK!!!

edit on 8-2-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

See what I mean? You cant even make an argument so you result to emoticons and CAPS LOCK.

(12) Even though I lost half my retirement portfolio when the economy crashed from the sugar high the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates put it on, I would like to vote for someone who is not really interested in the Federal Reserve.

That's like saying "You robbed me, took my home, stole my retirement but I want it to keep happening"

(19) Indefinite detention for U.S. citizens seems like nothing to be worried about, especially since our political class is so trustworthy that it could never abuse such a power.

abuse power, I thought that was part of the job description for political figures

(20) Following up on (19), I believe Thomas Jefferson was just being paranoid when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

I wonder if he was being paranoid when he said " I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Crazy Thomas Jefferson and all his anti bank quotes wanting to give the people power over the greedy banks, after all being homeless can't be all that bad

*Note, sarcasm included in the above post"