|
why wasn't ron paul elected? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
because your education amounts to sheer ignorance - whatever the tv and newspapers feed you and pumps into public consciousness. your inability to construct any sort of argument other than your limp dismissive "so dumb" replies, is plainly down to lack of the facts or willingness to learn. |
again, i learned about all "your" stupid topics years before you ever joined TA. you literally haven't made a single claim i haven't heard before. you're just regurgitating poorly-understood nonsense you've read on some ty website(s). i know more about ALL these topics than you do, kid.
now, go back to ing your sister. |
|
|
| rubez |
i was on TA since its inception just about, maybe not under this username, but when they were hosting tunes for download.
so am i to understand from that, that you believe the reasons for going to war with afghanistan and iraq? (the easiest for you to digest) do you even know what the reasons were?!
and what's with the "kid", i'm your ing dad! :stongue: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
and what's with the "kid", i'm ing your dad! :stongue: |
no, that's your sister you're thinking of. |
|
|
| rubez |
| again, diversion tactics. off bill o'reilly, go play elsewhere. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| We all know that politicians are corrupt, that US foreign policy is hypocritical and self-interested and the reasons all countries give for waging war are ideological pretexts designed to attain the acquiescence of the public. We know that Islamic terrorism against the West has been aggravated by Western involvement in the Middle East, we know that drone attacks kill civilians which causes recriminations and we know there were no WMDs. We know all this and we know a lot about it than you do. And you're still wrong about income tax. |
|
|
| rubez |
"We know all this and we know a lot about it than you do."
you are talking out of your exit hole. all you know is how to generalise broadly what i have touched on.
i said there was no law to allow the US to collect income tax, which is true. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| We've shown it to you. You completely ignored it. |
|
|
| rubez |
that's like pointing to a maths answer without showing the working, if the sum was corrupt.
the weight of the matter is such, if a court ruled in the "deniers" favour, the country would ing implode.
the courts are as corrupt as anything else in america. you're another one who thinks they know better than ron paul. you don't. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
that's like pointing to a maths answer without showing the working, if the sum was corrupt.
the weight of the matter is such, if a court ruled in the "deniers" favour, the country would ing implode.
the courts are as corrupt as anything else in america. you're another one who thinks they know better than ron paul. you don't. |
Tell me... have you covered all your apartment windows with tinfoil? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| We showed you the working as well. But as I said, your circular logic means there is literally no answer we can give to you which you will accept. Any conclusion in favour of the government will always be corrupt, the facts always twisted, the judgement always unreliable. And consequently any argument against the government, no matter how fallacious, misguided or ill-researched will always be correct because the evidence against it can always be discounted by default. This is what separates the conspiracy theorist from someone with intelligent judgement – the inability to separate the plausible from the ridiculous. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
 |
|
|
|
|
