Ron Paul’s phony populism

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#165
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#165
http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/why-does-anyone-like-ron-paul/

Why does anyone like Ron Paul?
December 11, 2011 by ashleyfmiller
I’ve been trying to understand why smart people I know support Ron Paul and I just can’t get my head around it. I get the sense that maybe the Ron Paul People I know just don’t realize what Ron Paul’s all about. That or they just don’t care.

The Ron Paul People I know are almost all straight, single, relatively young, non-religious, white men. Available demographics suggest that this is an accurate picture; there are others in Ron Paul’s camp, but it’s basically youngish white men.

They do not consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans. Some of them hate the idea of rules, many of them hate the idea of having their money taken away in taxes, but none of them are stupid or without the resources to learn more about their candidate. And none seem to care about any of Ron Paul’s policies outside of cutting spending, regulations, and taxes.

Every Ron Paul Person I know comes out of the woodwork any time anything negative is said about the guy, no matter how true the statement and no matter how much that individual disagrees with Ron Paul’s position or behavior. I get the sense that libertarians are so excited to have someone on the national stage that they don’t want to see anything problematic with the guy, but he’s transparently a bad deal.

So, why are these people supporting a crazy, racist Christian fundamentalist?

Why People Love Ron Paul:
He believes in reduced military spending
Less taxes, less rules, less government
He wants to end the “War on Drugs”
He is “philosophically consistent”
That last one seems to be big — people seem to think that Ron Paul offers a coherent philosophy to deal with politics and that’s why they like him.

He’s very consistent on the whole taxes idea — he wants to get rid of the income tax, which apparently makes us all the property of the government, and his voting record shows this. I can see the appeal, even if I totally disagree.

Ron Paul is Anti-Free Market:
But if we take this libertarian personal freedom thing to its logical conclusion, Paul would also be all for open borders and a completely open labor markets, right? Yeah, but not so much — he’s very anti open borders.

The toughest part of showing any compassion or tolerance to the illegal immigrants … is the tremendous encouragement it gives for more immigrants to come illegally and avoid the wait and the bureaucracy.

So, bureaucracy good when it keeps the brown people out? Taxing the insanely rich is slavery! Letting foreign people work in America should be illegal!

He voted for building a fence on the Mexican border, reporting illegal aliens who go to hospitals, and for banning student visas from “terrorist nations”. He’s all about reducing the military and allowing the free market, except when it comes to this for some reason.

Oh, it’s also great that he wants to get rid of the fed, I love this. You know who made the fed what it is today? A guy named Alan Greenspan. You know, Alan Greenspan, the most famous and powerful libertarian ever to work in the US government. He was a disciple of Ayn Rand and was part of the inner circle of her cult. Alan Greenspan almost single-handedly caused this recession. By all means, let’s fix the fed, but let us also acknowledge it was a libertarian that got us here!


Ron Paul Doesn’t Support Minorities:
He thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you know that whole equality thing, was a violation of people’s rights and wouldn’t have forced anyone to lift the Jim Crow laws. He called MLKJr day “hate whitey day”. According to Ron Paul supporters, this is OK because he wants to legalize drugs and end the death penalty, both of which would disproportionately go to help black men.

I don’t even want to go into all of the sketchy things that he’s said, I’ll just offer you this link and be done with it. Suffice to say, the guy’s said some unkind things about minorities.

On top of this, he wants English to be the official language of the US and thinks government shouldn’t offer services in any other language. How’s that for federal bureaucratic overhead?

A lot of people respect his position on gay marriage, which is that it shouldn’t be the federal government’s business even though he personally is opposed to it. It may not be the federal government’s business, but he’s certainly voted to enshrine homophobic behavior in federal law. He voted against including “sexual orientation” as a protected class in ENDA, meaning he thinks it’s OK to fire people for being gay, and he voted to ban gay adoptions in DC.

Ron Paul is Against Church/State Separation:
Ron Paul has a 17% rating with the AU, meaning he almost never votes in favor of a bill that would be promoting the separation of church and state.

The guy is crazy fundamentalist, no lie. It informs most of his political positions, including right to life stuff that I’ll address in a minute. But it also includes something that maybe some of my libertarian friends agree with. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians in DC willing to say anything negative about Zionism or Israel, and I know a lot of libertarians think that we shouldn’t be Israel’s protector anymore. But do you know why he doesn’t support Israel?

Despite the fact that many Fundies, known as Premillenialists, support Israel because their end-time theology tells them that it is necessary for the return of Jesus, Christian Reconstructionists like Paul have a different view, basically that the Israeli government isn’t the right one for the end of days and the right sort of Christians are now the chosen people of Revelations.

“I think of the Israeli government as different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli government doesn’t happen to be reflecting God’s views. Some of them are atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support… And there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so narrowly defined as only the Jews — that maybe there’s a broader definition of that.”

He and Sarah Palin can get into a fight over whose Christian end of days attitude towards Israel is the right one!

He often gets accused of being anti-Semitic because he’s anti-Zionism, and he may well be, but his position on Israel is all about religion. He’s generally isolationist anyway, so it works with the rest of his shtick.

And, while his faith isn’t his number one talking point, he sure does have a statement of faith on his website and includes a reference to it in his debates.

And, despite the fact that he thinks the education department should be dismantled, he also thinks that public funds should pay for private Christian educations and supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer. Again, not a libertarian stance at all.


Ron Paul is Rabidly Anti-Choice and Anti-Science:
This goes hand in hand with the crazy religious stuff, it’s all related.

This man, who is a doctor, does not believe in evolution.



This man, who is a doctor, believes that life begins at conception.



He has a somewhat complex view on abortion in that he believes that it, like murder, should be tried and controlled at the state level, not the federal one. That said, he has voted repeatedly for national bills that promote the pro-life cause and introduced a bill that would say that life begins at conception.

He voted not to authorize embryonic stem cell research multiple times. He has a 0% by NARAL, meaning he votes 100% against abortion rights. He voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage. Voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available and to provide funding for abstinence only education.

He cosponsored a bill to take funds from a needy family benefit program to go to support non-governmental groups that counsel people not to have abortions.

Again, how is this not federal interference?

Ron Paul Helps Billionaires Not the Poor
This section, I know, is where a lot of libertarians are going to agree with his votes, but I have to say I think they don’t reflect well on him.

He is completely against environmental regulation and trying to find alternative energy sources. Despite his claims that he’d rather have unions control the market than a minimum wage, he voted for legalizing union busting more than once. Despite his supposed belief in the free market, he voted to ban shareholders from weighing in on executives’ compensation. Extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, expanded them, and undermined Social Security by changing the standards.

Voted against the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act to feed children and voted against a measure to ensure children had health insurance.Voted yes on a measure to prevent federally funded laborers to be paid the prevailing wage of the area, so that people making less than a living wage could be reduced even further into poverty!

Ron Paul is a Hypocrite
He is completely inconsistent, not just philosophically as a libertarian, but also on very specific issues like federal funding to local areas. Which brings us to his response to Katrina. You’d think someone who was so waffley about his own philosophical convictions when it comes to women’s rights and immigrants would be willing to waffle a little to save lives, after all he’s all sanctity of life, right?

Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?

But at least his congressional district in Texas doesn’t rely on tons of federal funding, right? Oh, no, it’s one of the top in Texas. Federal government using money to save people’s lives is apparently not OK, but him earmarking funds for his district is cool. More important than Katrina victims? Removing a sunken ship from a harbor and sending a few million dollars to Texan shrimp fishermen.



Ron Paul is a Little Nuts
But of course, my favorite part about Ron Paul is that he thinks the executive branch shouldn’t have very much power. The problem with that is that if you elect Ron Paul, he can’t do anything without violating his own philosophy because he would be the executive branch of the federal government. Ron Paul just doesn’t make sense for anyone.

He thinks we should go back to the gold standard, which I think is pretty crazy, but that’s hardly the only place he goes a bit weird. On The Daily Show he said the following, I guess suggesting that he’s for regulations after he’s against them:

The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn’t enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can’t do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher.

And then there’s this:

I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove–perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.

If people know this about Ron Paul and still want to vote for him, that’s obviously their choice, but I can’t help but feel like the only way you could vote for him would be in ignorance or denial of these facts.
Click to expand...
 
ColdBlooded

ColdBlooded

Sicc OG
#167
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#167
CaseyJones said:
He spoke out against it, which is more than a handful of anyone did. Stop being petty, you know what's going on...
Click to expand...
Either he is this champion of our rights that will stop at nothing to protect them or he is not. He didn't bother to vote in the most recent vote on this issue. That would indicate that he is not.

Either you are ok with him choosing to campaign over voting to protect your rights or you're not. You seem to be ok with that.

If you keep telling us the reason we need to support this guy is because he will protect our rights as individual citizens, but then we see evidence of him not doing that, why would we believe the other things about him that you say? Seems we should not.

If Ron Paul was not like other politicians, as you claim, would he not pause from campaigning for a day to cast an important vote? Seems he won't. Maybe he's more like the rest than you claim.

This is a simple, current, important example of the man's record. Either we should be ok with it or not. Either we should see it as an example of his priorities or not. Either you can claim to be concerned about our rights and the constitution and blah blah blah ron paul blah blah blah or not.

Seems like a lot of hypocrisy going down here. And if there is this level of hypocrisy over something tangible (not a promise or a hypothetical, but something he can do in his current job to prove his worthiness) why should we not expect the same level if not more hypocrisy on the intangibles/the things he promises to do/the hypothetical situations in which he may be in as president/etc?
 
CaseyJones

CaseyJones

Sicc OG
#168
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
#168
ColdBlooded said:
Ron Paul’s phony populism
The libertarian presidential candidate is a true friend of the 1 percent
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/singleton/

To me, the epiphany of the most dreadful presidential campaign in history took place in Keene, New Hampshire, last week, when a Ron Paul town meeting was interrupted by some Occupy Wall Street hecklers.

“Let me address that for a minute,” the Republican presidential candidate said, “because if you listen carefully, I’m very much involved with the 99. I’ve been condemning that 1 percent because they’ve been ripping us off –” He was interrupted again, this time by cheers, almost drowning him out.

After the usual chants of “We are the 99 percent” and “There are criminals on Wall Street who walk free,” Paul quickly took back the audience, not that he had ever lost it. “Do you feel better?” he asked, to laughter.

“We need to sort that out, but the people on Wall Street got the bailouts, and you guys got stuck with the bills, and I think that’s where the problem is.”

It was a masterful performance. Ron Paul — fraudulent populist, friend of the oligarchy, sworn enemy of every social program since Theodore Roosevelt — had won the day, again.

Why shouldn’t he? Frauds win, whether they are in finance or politics. Bernie Madoff proved that, and so did Ronald Reagan. The success of the Ron Paul campaign with young voters, which David Sirota pointed out in Salon Monday, is but the latest example of how Americans can be persuaded to support the most reactionary politicians in America when they’re suitably manipulated, even if they aren’t reactionary and, sometimes, even when they identify themselves as progressive.

There’s little doubt that aspects of his message are both appealing and sincere. There is a definite “yay factor” in some of his oratory, and his denunciations of Dick Cheney are the kind of thing that gets yays on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”

Paul has been consistent in opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in opposing American military adventures in general. He has staked out a lonely position as the only presidential candidate to oppose aid to Israel (until Rick Perry more or less aped him on that), and his distinctly non-aggressive posture on Iran is indistinguishable from that of dovish Democrats like Dennis Kucinich.

So there’s no question that there’s a lot to like in Paul’s foreign policy positions, if you’re leaning to the left. The problem is that Paul is less of a 21st century dove than he is a throwback to the isolationism of the early to mid-20th century, in which fear of foreign entanglements was embraced by the hard right — with all that came with it. Paul emerges from that mold as about as far right as they come, further right than Ronald Reagan ever was, more of an enemy of the poor and middle class, and an even warmer friend of the ultra-wealthy. A Ron Paul America would make the Reagan Revolution look like the New Deal.

Paul’s own oratory tends to deemphasize his reactionary stance on social issues, or to sugarcoat it. But his program is now laid out in black-and-white. Last month, the Paul campaign set forth the details of what it grandiloquently called a “Plan to Restore America.” It has received surprisingly little attention, given Paul’s surging popularity.

This is not a plan for the 99 percent. It is about as much of a 1 percent-oriented ideological meat cleaver as you can find anywhere in the annals of politics. Paul would take an ax to the federal budget, hacking off $1 trillion in the first year alone, ripping and cutting and deenacting and deregulating so as to ostensibly return America to “its former constitutionally limited, smaller-government and less-burdensome place.”

“Return” implies that America would be taken back to a starting place, though it’s not clear where that would be. What I do know is that there is definitely an undercurrent to his slash-and-burn philosophy, a strong whiff of Ayn Rand — the Russian-born philosopher-novelist, atheist and advocate of individuality, rational self-interest and selfishness. Paul is, in fact, the closest of all the GOP candidates to carrying out the anti-government policies Rand advocated.

To be sure, there are aspects of this budget plan that hardcore Randers would not like. It leaves in far too many nonessential government functions, such as allowing the continued existence of the Department of Health and Human Services. But, from the Randian perspective, Paul is definitely moving in the right direction. His “restore” plan embraces the kind of deprivation that Rand’s Objectivist philosophy would impose on America, and would enact a fundamental change in the role of government that the radical right cherishes.

After spelling out the good stuff from the leftist perspective — a 15 percent Defense Department spending cut ending all funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — the hard charge backward commences:

•No more aid to education. Goodbye, Department of Education.
•No more government-subsidized housing. Goodbye, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
•No more energy programs. Goodbye, Department of Energy.
•No more programs to promote commerce and technology. Goodbye, Department of Commerce.
•*No more national parks. Goodbye, Department of the Interior.
His opposition to the very existence of the Federal Reserve — he wrote a book titled “End the Fed” — is straight out of Rand, as is his promotion of the gold standard.

Paul would not reform the abysmally flawed and underfunded Securities and Exchange Commission, he would eliminate it. The only agency of the federal government that stands between the public and greedy bankers and crooked corporations would be gone. He is philosophically opposed to it, as he is to Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, the reform measures enacted after Enron and the 2008 financial crisis, respectively. His Reformed America would no longer discomfit Wall Street with the latter’s restrictions on banks or annoy corporate executives with Sarb-Ox’s ethics and fair-disclosure rules.

And this is but the beginning of the shower of blessings that would rain down upon the very richest Americans. He would end the income tax, thereby making the United States the ultimate onshore tax haven. The message to both the Street and corporate America would be a kind of hyper-Reaganesque “Go to town, guys.” With income, estate and gift taxes eliminated and the top corporate tax rate lowered to 15 percent (and not a word about cutting corporate tax loopholes), a kind of perma-plutonomy would come to exist in the land — to the extent that there isn’t one already.

The guts of Paul’s grand scheme, where its rubber hits the road, is in the all-important theme of cutting programs that benefit the poor and middle class. Despite all its window-dressing and spin, the heart of every libertarian plan for this country is a kind of mammoth subtraction: making deep cuts in programs benefiting millions of Americans, out of a belief that such programs are morally wrong. Restoring America is a moral statement, an enshrinement of the Randian belief that aid to one facet of the population (the poor) is really “looting” of resources from other facets of the population (the wealthy).

So when you see in this plan a $645 billion cut in Medicaid over four years, what you are seeing is an expression of the philosophy that Medicaid itself is wrong, that it should not exist because it is not the function of society to provide healthcare for the poor. If they get sick, tough. While Paul does not go the full Randian route by entirely eliminating this program, he goes a long way to establish the principle that as a general proposition, as a moral question, we simply should not have this program.

Ayn Rand believed that there is no such thing as a “public,” and that the public was a collection of individuals, each having no obligation to the other. So when you read through this budget, and see the deep cuts in food stamps and child nutrition, what you are seeing is an expression of a philosophy that is at odds with the Judeo-Christian system of morality embraced by most Americans.

That, fundamentally, is what the deficit debate is all about, from the perspective of Ron Paul and the radical right. It’s not about getting the red ink out of the government but using the government’s fiscal travails as a pretext to change the very purpose of government. So yes, he opposed the Wall Street bailouts, as Rand no doubt would have, and that also is “yay”-worthy to many people. But if you buy that, if you buy Ron Paul, you have to buy the rest of his belief system: his opposition to securities regulation, his opposition to consumer protection, his belief that the markets can defend Americans from the depredations of big business.

What I’ve just described is many things, but it is the very antithesis of the values of Occupy Wall Street, which is based on opposition to the prerogatives of the top 1 percent at the expense of the 99 percent. Yet rather than forthrightly oppose OWS, which would at least be intellectually honest, Paul has sought instead to co-opt it, con it, calling it a “healthy movement” at one appearance, and seeking to link it with his “end the Fed” agenda. In Keene he went one step further by declaring himself as being in league with the 99 percent and against the 1 percent.

That’s about as far from the truth as it possibly could be. The only question is, how long is Paul going to be allowed to get away with his faux-populist con job? I agree with his backers in this sense: He is less of a fringe candidate than he is sometimes portrayed in the media. His positions are increasingly infecting mainstream Republican politics, and it’s scary.

No, strike that. His positions are scary only if you know what they actually are, and not how he spins them.

Gary Weiss is an investigative journalist and the author of "Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul," to be published by St. Martin's Press in February 2012
Click to expand...
[video=youtube;NB_PolQW-N4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB_PolQW-N4[/video]
 
Mr. Nice Guy

Mr. Nice Guy

Sicc OG
#169
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#169
ThaG said:
They do not consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans. Some of them hate the idea of rules, many of them hate the idea of having their money taken away in taxes, but none of them are stupid or without the resources to learn more about their candidate. And none seem to care about any of Ron Paul’s policies outside of cutting spending, regulations, and taxes.
Click to expand...

Frankly I would never vote for RP because I totally disagree with his views on the environment.

Having said that, why is it so difficult to understand that people support him because they agree with many of the things he stands for, but not necessarily all of them? Did all the people who voted for Obama agree with all his ideologies? This is a very simple cost benefit analysis and supporters of RP believe that the benefits outweigh the costs - just like almost everyone else does when they support a candidate with whom they agree on many issues, but not necessarily all of them. Wow, that was easy.
 
CaseyJones

CaseyJones

Sicc OG
#170
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
#170
Mr. Nice Guy said:
Frankly I would never vote for RP because I totally disagree with his views on the environment.

Having said that, why is it so difficult to understand that people support him because they agree with many of the things he stands for, but not necessarily all of them? Did all the people who voted for Obama agree with all his ideologies? This is a very simple cost benefit analysis and supporters of RP believe that the benefits outweigh the costs - just like almost everyone else does when they support a candidate with whom they agree on many issues, but not necessarily all of them. Wow, that was easy.
Click to expand...

See this, guys? This is objectivity.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#171
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#171
Mr. Nice Guy said:
Frankly I would never vote for RP because I totally disagree with his views on the environment.

Having said that, why is it so difficult to understand that people support him because they agree with many of the things he stands for, but not necessarily all of them? Did all the people who voted for Obama agree with all his ideologies? This is a very simple cost benefit analysis and supporters of RP believe that the benefits outweigh the costs - just like almost everyone else does when they support a candidate with whom they agree on many issues, but not necessarily all of them. Wow, that was easy.
Click to expand...
You're not saying anything new. Even I agree with some of his positions. The problem, the one that we have been harping on for 9 pages here and for 8 in the previous thread is that many of the things he openly proposes will directly hurt the same people who think that those thing will help them. And it doesn't really get a lot more absurd than that
 
Mr. Nice Guy

Mr. Nice Guy

Sicc OG
#172
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#172
ThaG said:
You're not saying anything new. Even I agree with some of his positions. The problem, the one that we have been harping on for 9 pages here and for 8 in the previous thread is that many of the things he openly proposes will directly hurt the same people who think that those thing will help them. And it doesn't really get a lot more absurd than that
Click to expand...

I know I am not saying anything new, that is why it's so absurd that people are still asking the same question since the answer is and has been the same.

People vote for RP because they believe the benefits to outweigh the costs. You believe the costs to outweigh the benefits which is why you don't support him.

Your harping over the last 8 or 9 pages has been nothing if not redundant and a bit elitist because I don't believe you are in a position to do a cost benefit analysis for anyone but yourself, being that it is a fairly subjective endeavor.

I would vote for a candidate who supported policies that would negatively impact me if I believed they were correct - which ironically is exactly what you advocate being done in supporting someone who would reverse our infinite growth model. Why can't people who support RP be making the same sacrifice for what they consider to be the right decision, even if you consider their "right" to be "wrong"?
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#173
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#173
Mr. Nice Guy said:
I know I am not saying anything new, that is why it's so absurd that people are still asking the same question since the answer is and has been the same.

People vote for RP because they believe the benefits to outweigh the costs. You believe the costs to outweigh the benefits which is why you don't support him.

Your harping over the last 8 or 9 pages has been nothing if not redundant and a bit elitist because I don't believe you are in a position to do a cost benefit analysis for anyone but yourself, being that it is a fairly subjective endeavor.

I would vote for a candidate who supported policies that would negatively impact me if I believed they were correct - which ironically is exactly what you advocate being done in supporting someone who would reverse our infinite growth model. Why can't people who support RP be making the same sacrifice for what they consider to be the right decision, even if you consider their "right" to be "wrong"?
Click to expand...
That's not the case and you know it very well - the only reason they vote for Ron Paul is because they think their life will get better. The kind of enlightenment you are talking about (the willingness to sacrifice short-term comfort in the name of doing the right thing) is simply nowhere to be found in real life
 
SFC I-Side

SFC I-Side

Sicc OG
#174
Dec 12, 2006
4,207
635
113
36
#174
@ Mr Nice Guy its not that I cant respect you for not agreeing with him on said issues or issue but my bottom line is that the things he wants immediately in his version of FDR's famous first 100 days so to speak is so drastically important to the well being of this country my life your life and if u choose to have children, their lives, so that being said any disagreements you have with the man should be tabeled and your ass should be voting for RP unless you see someone else on that stage. Im not saying your saying this specifically but if the options are protect more wildlife or wetlands or lowered the corporate tax rate so we can have capital move back to this country to create jobs, the birds gotta wait, the hunger statistics in this country for kids is a tragedy and embarrassment
 
CaseyJones

CaseyJones

Sicc OG
#175
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
#175
ThaG said:
That's not the case and you know it very well - the only reason they vote for Ron Paul is because they think their life will get better. The kind of enlightenment you are talking about (the willingness to sacrifice short-term comfort in the name of doing the right thing) is simply nowhere to be found in real life
Click to expand...
Blahaha!

Ron Paul in his medical practice refused medicaid and treated the poor for free! Not only is it all around you, but Ron Paul has applied that very principle to his own life and business.

Your failure of an argument is reaching a crescendo.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#176
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#176
SFC I-Side said:
@ Mr Nice Guy its not that I cant respect you for not agreeing with him on said issues or issue but my bottom line is that the things he wants immediately in his version of FDR's famous first 100 days so to speak is so drastically important to the well being of this country my life your life and if u choose to have children, their lives, so that being said any disagreements you have with the man should be tabeled and your ass should be voting for RP unless you see someone else on that stage. Im not saying your saying this specifically but if the options are protect more wildlife or wetlands or lowered the corporate tax rate so we can have capital move back to this country to create jobs, the birds gotta wait, the hunger statistics in this country for kids is a tragedy and embarrassment
Click to expand...
Will you ever realize the stupidity of what you just said? The above is the equivalent of selling the wiring and plumbing of your house for scrap metal and burning the furniture and the window frames to keep warm...
 
Mr. Nice Guy

Mr. Nice Guy

Sicc OG
#177
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#177
SFC I-Side said:
@ Mr Nice Guy its not that I cant respect you for not agreeing with him on said issues or issue but my bottom line is that the things he wants immediately in his version of FDR's famous first 100 days so to speak is so drastically important to the well being of this country my life your life and if u choose to have children, their lives, so that being said any disagreements you have with the man should be tabeled and your ass should be voting for RP unless you see someone else on that stage. Im not saying your saying this specifically but if the options are protect more wildlife or wetlands or lowered the corporate tax rate so we can have capital move back to this country to create jobs, the birds gotta wait, the hunger statistics in this country for kids is a tragedy and embarrassment
Click to expand...
I would choose to protect wildlife over lower corporate tax rate in hopes of job creation faster than I just typed this sentence.
 
Mr. Nice Guy

Mr. Nice Guy

Sicc OG
#178
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#178
ThaG said:
That's not the case and you know it very well - the only reason they vote for Ron Paul is because they think their life will get better. The kind of enlightenment you are talking about (the willingness to sacrifice short-term comfort in the name of doing the right thing) is simply nowhere to be found in real life
Click to expand...

So what are you doing in your support of abandoning our infinite growth model? Are you motivated by the belief that your life would be better if the US operated within a sustainable model?
 
SFC I-Side

SFC I-Side

Sicc OG
#180
Dec 12, 2006
4,207
635
113
36
#180
ThaG said:
Will you ever realize the stupidity of what you just said? The above is the equivalent of selling the wiring and plumbing of your house for scrap metal and burning the furniture and the window frames to keep warm...
Click to expand...
people are starvin on the street unemployment is continuing to go up and the housing market hasnt hit rock bottom yet and u guys wanna save the egrets, great
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom