TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Ron Paul Supporters
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker And I'm sorry, but I don't believe you've made a single rational argument and have yet to abandon your consistent use of logical fallacy. It appears we are at an impasse.

C'mon man. Just one name!

I'll even help start this (even though it was already a point made in the very first post). Ron Paul would eliminate wasteful government spending by getting rid of the Department of Education.

Ok, now your turn. Name another candidate that has a plan or way of removing government waste and tell us their idea.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT C'mon man. Just one name!

Not the point. The point is that logical argument is anathema to you.

Re: FAO: Ron Paul Supporters

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Where is your messiah now you fucking FREAKS. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencei...-in.html?ref=hp

FUCK YEAH! TEAR IT ALL DOWN!

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Not the point. The point is that logical argument is anathema to you.

What did you mean when you responded with "only?" when I said that Ron Paul is the only person who seems in favor of getting rid of wasteful spending? Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

I just want to point out that you haven't made any argument either. You just keep trying to point out that I'm not making an argument, which I never claimed to do in the first place. I was just making an observation. There is a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT ...government spending by getting rid of the Department of Education.

Your ignorance is more expensive than education ever will be.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT What did you mean when you responded with "only?" when I said that Ron Paul is the only person who seems in favor of getting rid of wasteful spending? Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

I mean the argument, itself, is hyperbolic.










Should I start quoting Christopher Lasch on education or do you think you can follow?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I mean the argument, itself, is hyperbolic. Should I start quoting Christopher Lasch on education or do you think you can follow?

Really, I wasn't exaggerating. But since you seem to think I am, I'm interested in who else you think falls into the same category that I put Paul in. You still haven't given us a name.

YEAH EDDIE, WHERE'S THE NAME?

Just one other candidate.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Really, I wasn't exaggerating. But since you seem to think I am, I'm interested in who else you think falls into the same category that I put Paul in. You still haven't given us a name.

I'm going to be very frank with you. Here's one point that you absolutely shouldn't miss. If Ron Paul ever won, dismantling every thing he says he'll dismantle, this country will descend into third-world status faster than you can read an Ayn Rand novel. Finding a candidate who says he'll do more? Probably impossible. Comes close?

Romney and Cain. Why? Romney, widely promoted as a business owner, made his wealth in acquiring companies, dismantling them, and then selling them. Every company he purchased has gone out of business after he sold them. Cain's Flat Tax deal is almost as much of a fucking joke as what poor, deluded Paul has planned. Additionally, every single one of them has promised, in some form or another, dismantling next to everything, in some form or another.


Here's the point, in case you missed it: No matter who you elect president from the whole panel of Right Wing contenders, this country is abso-fucking-lutely fucked as fucked can fucking fuck a motherfucking fuck-nut ******.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I'm going to be very frank with you. Here's one point that you absolutely shouldn't miss. If Ron Paul ever won, dismantling every thing he says he'll dismantle, this country will descend into third-world status faster than you can read an Ayn Rand novel. Finding a candidate who says he'll do more? Probably impossible. Comes close?

I disagree but won't go into that here.

quote:

Romney and Cain.

Wow! Two candidates! See? That wasn't hard.

quote:

Why? Romney, widely promoted as a business owner, made his wealth in acquiring companies, dismantling them, and then selling them. Every company he purchased has gone out of business after he sold them. Cain's Flat Tax deal is almost as much of a fucking joke as what poor, deluded Paul has planned. Additionally, every single one of them has promised, in some form or another, dismantling next to everything, in some form or another.

Again, I disagree with you on some things here but I'm not getting into it in this thread.

Thanks for finally addressing the question. It took you a little while but that is ok. I think you may have thought I was trapping you into something.

Someone should try and put together a computer simulation to see how good or bad his ideas would turn out, if he was ever elected.

He does want change, but for some people it is to much change in the wrong direction.

I know some people who will vote for him, seeing he wants to audit / end the FED, kill off the TSA and plus stop the US being the police of the planet.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I disagree but won't go into that here. Wow! Two candidates! See? That wasn't hard. Again, I disagree with you on some things here but I'm not getting into it in this thread. Thanks for finally addressing the question. It took you a little while but that is ok. I think you may have thought I was trapping you into something.

Trapping me into something? Don't be daft.

It was a stupid question and you've still ducked my observations about how you carefully avoid using arguments that aren't intellectually bankrupt. It's very simple. Your arguments have no legitimacy. Even if you took out the patently obvious hyperbole and false-choices of the ones I've taken issue with, they're still incredibly feeble.

You, like a lot of people, have this notion that Ron Paul will get elected and everything will be fine. What you fail to grasp is that, in essence, Ron Paul's theories on deregulation have already been tested and that's precisely why the country is in the condition that it's in. It is not due to over-regulation. More to the point, before deregulation occurred, things were financially stabilized.

His line of bullshit has been tested and, if the test is measured in terms of efficacy, the result has been the feckless opposite of efficacious. Industry proponents of deregulation promised a market that would regulate itself out of necessity. What happened is that companies engaged in predation on a mass scale.

If what has been promised was ever going to happen, it should have happened, by now. More than enough time has passed to have a pretty good window onto what happens when industry becomes deregulated. If anything good was ever going to come of it being wholly deregulated, the current "partial" deregulation should have proved that. Very simply put, partial deregulation has proven the opposite.

i'm waiting for a candidate to start taxing sex. each time it's done will cost someone 1$. microchip implants to create a digital tally. fuck, we'd be thriving.

the exotic latex/bondage shit at 2.5-3$ a pop. helps overpopulating too

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Trapping me into something? Don't be daft. It was a stupid question and you've still ducked my observations about how you carefully avoid using arguments that aren't intellectually bankrupt. It's very simple. Your arguments have no legitimacy. Even if you took out the patently obvious hyperbole and false-choices of the ones I've taken issue with, they're still incredibly feeble.

Like I said, I never made an argument. It was an observation.

quote:

You, like a lot of people, have this notion that Ron Paul will get elected and everything will be fine.

No I don't. To be honest, I won't even be voting.

quote:

What you fail to grasp is that, in essence, Ron Paul's theories on deregulation have already been tested and that's precisely why the country is in the condition that it's in. It is not due to over-regulation. More to the point, before deregulation occurred, things were financially stabilized. His line of bullshit has been tested and, if the test is measured in terms of efficacy, the result has been the feckless opposite of efficacious. Industry proponents of deregulation promised a market that would regulate itself out of necessity. What happened is that companies engaged in predation on a mass scale. If what has been promised was ever going to happen, it should have happened, by now. More than enough time has passed to have a pretty good window onto what happens when industry becomes deregulated. If anything good was ever going to come of it being wholly deregulated, the current "partial" deregulation should have proved that. Very simply put, partial deregulation has proven the opposite.

We disagree here but I won't be arguing about it in this thread.

Oh no! Going back to the horse-and-buggy days of 2006 levels of federal spending would be a disaster. Old people would all die and robber barons would eat our babies.

I for one an looking forward to continuing America's long traditions of corporate subsidies and unconstitutional wars. The department of education is doing a fabulous job and should continue operations, and we can't have crazy Ron Paul going around hemming and hawing on the constitutionality of things like the Patriot Act, the Drug War, and the TSA when we're so close to winning the War on Terror. And I certainly don't feel comfortable with someone who believes the US is unjustified in having nearly a thousand military bases in nearly 150 countries; having twice the combined military budget of the rest of the world is a small price to pay for freedom, security, and the American Way Of Life.

Things like energy, housing, and commerce are far too important and complex to be left to private individuals and organizations acting in their own self interest; if the federal government had never invented language, no one would know how to communicate with anybody else.

And everyone knows that if the government isn't spending that 1 trillion dollars it cuts, then it will go straight to the coffers of rich people who will sit on it and the economy will never recover. If anything, we should be building more tanks, hiring more public workers, sending more money overseas to foreign aid as to increase GDP. A return of 1 trillion dollars over 3 years into the hands of private individuals won't lead to any increased consumption, personal savings, personal debts paid off, or increased hiring by small and mid-level businesses.

America is much better off in the hands of a politician who isn't afraid to keep kicking the can down the road on entitlements; we're only a few generations away from medicare consuming 1/3 of GDP, that's plenty of time. Inflation will always be there to cover any shortfalls.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Oh no! Going back to the horse-and-buggy days of 2006 levels of federal spending would be a disaster. Old people would all die and robber barons would eat our babies. I for one an looking forward to continuing America's long traditions of corporate subsidies and unconstitutional wars. The department of education is doing a fabulous job and should continue operations, and we can't have crazy Ron Paul going around hemming and hawing on the constitutionality of things like the Patriot Act, the Drug War, and the TSA when we're so close to winning the War on Terror. And I certainly don't feel comfortable with someone who believes the US is unjustified in having nearly a thousand military bases in nearly 150 countries; having twice the combined military budget of the rest of the world is a small price to pay for freedom, security, and the American Way Of Life. Things like energy, housing, and commerce are far too important and complex to be left to private individuals and organizations acting in their own self interest; if the federal government had never invented language, no one would know how to communicate with anybody else. And everyone knows that if the government isn't spending that 1 trillion dollars it cuts, then it will go straight to the coffers of rich people who will sit on it and the economy will never recover. If anything, we should be building more tanks, hiring more public workers, sending more money overseas to foreign aid as to increase GDP. A return of 1 trillion dollars over 3 years into the hands of private individuals won't lead to any increased consumption, personal savings, personal debts paid off, or increased hiring by small and mid-level businesses. America is much better off in the hands of a politician who isn't afraid to keep kicking the can down the road on entitlements; we're only a few generations away from medicare consuming 1/3 of GDP, that's plenty of time. Inflation will always be there to cover any shortfalls.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Oh no! Going back to the horse-and-buggy days of 2006 levels of federal spending would be a disaster.

How about those rolling black-outs in California from '00-'01?

is TranceArmstrong insinuating that there's been a massive increase in spending since 2006? on what exactly?

Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN is TranceArmstrong insinuating that there's been a massive increase in spending since 2006? on what exactly?

http://www.propublica.org/special/t...ist-of-spending
http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout
http://www.usaspending.gov/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
http://nationalpriorities.org/en/resources/federal-budget-101/charts/

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN is TranceArmstrong insinuating that there's been a massive increase in spending since 2006? on what exactly?

2006 is as far back as the narrative mythology goes. On January 1, 2012, that will change to 2007. Something about five years being the maximum historical retention the average Ron Paul voter is capable of holding.






Still, better than Herman Cain's 3 year window.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT http://www.propublica.org/special/t...ist-of-spending http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout http://www.usaspending.gov/ http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ http://nationalpriorities.org/en/re...get-101/charts/

from the second to last link

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...Sp_F0xF0fF0sF0l

where's this massive increase?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker 2006 is as far back as the narrative mythology goes. On January 1, 2012, that will change to 2007. Something about five years being the maximum historical retention the average Ron Paul voter is capable of holding. Still, better than Herman Cain's 3 year window.

haha yeah, probably. i've already shown on this forum repeatedly that the massive increase in deficit spending is due to tax cuts (and the wars) and not some spend-a-thon on "socialist" government entitlements.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN from the second to last link http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...Sp_F0xF0fF0sF0l where's this massive increase?

I suppose you are right; really, what's the difference between 1 trillion and 2 trillion anymore?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.