Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Ron Paul Is Only Here For One Reason

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 11:01 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (8708)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

He is here because he thinks there might be enough discontent out there that if he captures the far-left vote as well as the radical-right vote he might win as an Independent The moment he has used the left wing voters he will throw them to the dogs. Count on it. You might as well just vote for Adolf Hitler.



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

The main problem I have with Ron Paul obviously isn't his opposition to our massive global military footprint, his opposition to laws like indefinite detention, or (we can fairly assume I think) likely opposition to proposed legislation like SOPA ... all things I agree with. It is his belief in Austrian economics, an economic theory that has been thoroughly discredited by the empirical evidence. In fact, I don't even view Austrian economics as a valid economic theory, I think it's just poor philosophy.

[-] 1 points by 903w (24) 12 years ago

Link to empirical evidence discrediting Austrian economics?

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

You know, every time I do this, Austrians simply weasel out and disavow yet another principle they formerly held (sort of like religious apologists).

Praxeology is the axiomatic principle underlying the Austrian school. All human action is purposeful (a statement that could only be made before the advent of modern biochemistry). I mean, purposefulness implies conscious decision making. Fight or flight, an adrenaline response to acute stress, high brain dopamine levels leads to erroneous pattern detection (and even paranoia/psychosis if it's really high).

Is every action purposeful? When I point to these facts, Austrian's will weasel out by saying something like it doesn't necessarily have to be rational, or even completely deliberated, they've adjusted their argument to the science, and will now tend to say things like purpose is merely a momentary goal, even if the action can be reduced to an impulse, where consciousness isn't really implicated.

What bullshit. What they're really saying is the same thing Aristotle said, everything has a cause (well, except presumably the first cause).

Even the economic calculation argument (by far the Austrian schools best contribution to economics) presumes too much. I mean, what if we do invent a quantum computer, we learn to master something like game theory, giving a centralized planner the ability to manage the economy better than it could manage itself (i.e. under free market principles)?

You guys are barking up the wrong tree, what we should be asking is if we gained this technological ability, would it be desirable? For me, I believe it would contravene the principle of human liberty (and so it would not be desirable). You know, we don't need speculative, sophistic gibberish to justify liberty, historical arguments are more than adequate (and I believe decisive).

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

right on! most of the rest of the theories have big holes in them also - here is max neef - MANFRED MAX-NEEF: First of all, we need cultured economists again, who know the history, where they come from, how the ideas originated, who did what, and so on and so on; second, an economics now that understands itself very clearly as a subsystem of a larger system that is finite, the biosphere, hence economic growth as an impossibility; and third, a system that understands that it cannot function without the seriousness of ecosystems. And economists know nothing about ecosystems. They don’t know nothing about thermodynamics, you know, nothing about biodiversity or anything. I mean, they are totally ignorant in that respect. And I don’t see what harm it would do, you know, to an economist to know that if the bees would disappear, he would disappear as well, because there wouldn’t be food anymore. But he doesn’t know that, you know, that we depend absolutely from nature. But for these economists we have, nature is a subsystem of the economy. I mean, it’s absolutely crazy.

And then, in addition, you know, bring consumption closer to production. I live in the south of Chile, in the deep south. And that area is a fantastic area, you know, in milk products and what have you. Top. Technologically, like the maximum, you know? I was, a few months ago, in a hotel, and there in the south, for breakfast, and there are these little butter things, you know? I get one, and it’s butter from New Zealand. I mean, if that isn’t crazy, you know? And why? Because economists don’t know how to calculate really costs, you know? To bring butter from 20,000 kilometers to a place where you make the best butter, under the argument that it was cheaper, is a colossal stupidity, because they don’t take into consideration what is the impact of 20,000 kilometers of transport? What is the impact on the environment of that transportation, you know, and all those things? And in addition, I mean, it’s cheaper because it’s subsidized. So it’s clearly a case in which the prices never tell the truth. It’s all tricks, you know? And those tricks do colossal harms. And if you bring consumption closer to production, you will eat better, you will have better food, you know, and everything. You will know where it comes from. You may even know the person who produces it. You humanize this thing, you know? But the way the economists practice today is totally dehumanized.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

There's a lot of very complicated issues being discussed today, and I think economics isn't exactly a mature science at this point (sort of like psychology), but there are certainly many lessons we can glean from history (and there's some very good contemporary research out there as well). We know laws like Glass Steagall worked remarkably (we don't need a PhD in economics to understand this obvious fact). Also, very good research indicates that extreme wealth disparity is not only bad for a society, but even the wealthy are worse off (in terms of health, lifespan, and many other measures of quality of life).

Then we get into the debates over local production versus national/global manufacturing and food production (and here it becomes more complicated).

From a thermodynamic perspective, large scale/automated manufacturing and food production uses less energy per unit produced. The analogous principle in economics is "economies of scale" (which approaches this question from an efficiency/cost perspective). So this is a very challenging problem. There are certainly benefits to local manufacturing/food production (but unfortunately less energy consumption isn't one of them, notwithstanding the common perception that it is). I've read some good research by physicists, who examined this question from a thermodynamic perspective (it's been a while, so I don't have a link handy, but I'll try to find some). So local versus national/global is a challenging issue. This doesn't mean we don't need trade reform, it doesn't mean we shouldn't change our behavior (for example, cattle is among the least environmentally friendly sources of food imaginable). Nevertheless, the science needs to be part of what informs our opinions.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

i agree - local is clearly the way to go - it will be forced on us soon i am afraid - have you read about the transition movement? resource scarcity maybe on us before we know it. just watch commodity prices skyrocket if europe gets it's act together - we are running out of all the things we build our society on - have you seen grantham's "time to wake up investors" very good and very frightening - peak oil type stuff from an old time investor/money manager. and how about this from chomsky - CHOMSKY: It goes back to the writing of the Constitution. They were pretty explicit. Madison saw a "danger" in democracy that was quite real and he responded to it. In fact, the "problem" was noticed a long time earlier. It's clear in Aristotle's Politics, the sort of founding book of political theory -- which is a very careful and thoughtful analysis of the notion of democracy. Aristotle recognizes that, for him, that democracy had to be a welfare state; it had to use public revenues to insure lasting prosperity for all and to insure equality. That goes right through the Enlightenment. Madison recognized that, if the overwhelming majority is poor, and if the democracy is a functioning one, then they'll use their electoral power to serve their own interest rather than the common good of all. Aristotle's solution was, "OK, eliminate poverty." Madison faced the same problem but his solution was the opposite: "Eliminate democracy."

QUESTION: Madison actually expected more of the rich, didn't he?

CHOMSKY: Madison was sort of pre-capitalist. He was a person of the Enlightenment, kind of like Adam Smith. And his picture of what the wealthy would do with their power was very different from what they did do. He thought they would be enlightened gentlemen, benevolent philosophers and so on. By the early 1790s, he was already very upset, and he was deploring the depravity of the times. He saw people becoming the tools and tyrants of government, as he put it. They were using state power for their own ends. That's not the way it was supposed to work. But the opposition had already been pushed back by then. Although there were radical democratic elements, they were pretty much marginalized pretty fast.

QUESTION: We really see that happening across history, don't we?

CHOMSKY: It's a battle right through history. It's not just the United States, of course. It was the same struggle in the English Revolution, which came before the revolution in the United States, and in every popular struggle since. And it's going on right in front of our eyes today. It's a never-ending struggle.

[-] 1 points by iRevolution (54) from Fayetteville, NC 12 years ago

Nonesense, Austrians predicted the past financial collapses, an economic theory that had no validity couldn't do that.

You SHOULD be saying those thigns about the Keynsisans....

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Ahhh ... I always love a chance to pillage Austrian giber-nomics. Actually, Roubini predicted the 2008 collapse just before Peter Schiff predicted it (I think Schiff must be a Roubini fan). Even worse, most of Schiff's predictions throughout his career, have been wrong.

[-] 1 points by iRevolution (54) from Fayetteville, NC 12 years ago

Peter Schiff was writing a book about it in 2005 & was on CNBC & Fox & other business networks getting laughed at by Keynsians. Ron Paul predicted it in 2003 on the house floor, Mark Thornton, Frank Shostak, Stefan Karlsson, Robert Wenzel, Hans F. Sennholz, All predicted it, All Austrians.

But what were the Keynsians doing? Well, let's look at one of the head Keynsians, Paul Krugman. Krugman wrote 9 articles prior to the collapse, calling for even lower interest rates, as well as explicitly advocating for a housing bubble.

Austrians understand that financial bubble's, recessions & depressions, are created by excessive bank credit & market distorting policy's from the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates to low to low which creates speculative market bubbles & depleted savings.

Austrians also understand the Fed created the Depression in 1929 with a strong retraction in the money supply. And please, if that's gibber-nomics, please do give you YOUR business cycle theory...



[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Actually, Austrians don't understand a damn thing "real" economists don't already understand. Bubbles have always been with us (and to my friends on the left who think we can completely smooth out the business cycle, I'm afraid that's probably wishful thinking).

If you rewind the clock, and look at our economic history (prior to the depression, and particularly during the "free banking era" you'll find financial panics were much more frequent and much more severe). Here's a good article that sums up our economic history fairly well:


Pay close attention to the size, scale, and frequency of recessions during the free banking era, and then do the same examination with respect to recessions after 1949 (at which point we had regulations like Glass Steagall in place).

I've been down this road many times, I've read plenty of articles by Krugman (where he clarifies his earlier remarks, and states he never endorsed the idea of a real estate bubble). Ron Paul has no academic training in economics (not even undergrad training as far as I know), and Peter Schiff doesn't have a graduate degree in anything. These clowns read one book, Road to Serfdom, and probably some of the gibberish on the Mises' web site (by Rothbard and his progeny, Lew Rockwell).


[-] 0 points by iRevolution (54) from Fayetteville, NC 12 years ago

What you don't seem to understand is that the Fed has to power to create the business cycle. And your link just helps me further prove my arguments.

Those depressions & recessions were created by the first & second bank of the united states. When the central banks were about to lose there charters, they would threaten to cause depressions, and always followed up on this promise.

Nicholas Biddle - The President of the 2nd bank of the United States threatened a depression if the banks charter were not renewed.

"This worthy president (Referring to Andrew Jackson) thinking that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is Mistaken." - Nicholas Biddle

Then, in a fit of honesty, Biddle admited the Bank was going to make money scarce to force congress to restore the bank.

"Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to the restoration of the bank currency and the re-charter of the bank."

Biddle intended to use the money contraction power of the bank, to cause a massive depression until America gave in. This has happened time & time again in U.S history.

Biddle then made good on his treat. The bank sharply contracted the money supply, thus, a panic & a deep depression. Then Biddle blamed Jackson for the crash. His plan worked, wages sagged, prices plummeted, unemployment was rampant, business went bankrupt.

The Nation blasted Andrew Jackson, But a miracle happened, the governor of Pennsylvania stepped out & blasted the bank & Biddle was caught in public bragging about the market crash. The Tide Shifted, The House of Representatives Voted 134 to 182 against rechartering the bank.

Shortly there after, Jackson paid off the national debt in full.

"In the 1830s, U.S. President Andrew Jackson fought to end the Second Bank of the United States. Following the Bank War, the Second Bank lost its charter in 1836. From 1837 to 1862, there was no national presence in banking, but still plenty of state and even local regulation, such as laws against branch banking which prevented diversification."

"In this period (Free Banking Period), only state-chartered banks existed. They could issue bank notes against specie (gold and silver coins) and the states heavily regulated their own reserve requirements, interest rates for loans and deposits, the necessary capital ratio etc. These banks had existed from 1781, in parallel with the Banks of the United States."

No recession in this era was not caused by a contraction in the money supply.

"During the free banking era, some local banks took over the functions of a central bank."

Contractions & additions to the money supply: (Remember, the banks have the power of the central bank.)

1832-37 + 61
1837-43 - 58
1843-48 + 102 1848-49 - 11
1849-54 + 109
1854-55 - 12
1855-57 + 18
1857-58 - 23
1858-61 + 35

All the bubbles of that era, caused by Central Banking.

The Regulations are meaningless is a private profiteering group has a monopoly over money, the Federal Reserve has caused all the bubbles & depressions in the last 100 years & the central banks did years prior to that.

Paul Krugman is full of it, because I have 9 articles where he completely misses it. The perception is that you have to go to Harvard to understand Economics, and you don't, Harvard just teaches Keynsians stuff anyway, you can understand true economics by reading a few books by Mises & Rothbard better then you could by sitting doing & talking with any Keynsian.

In 1970, President Nixon declared "Were all Keynsians now". Not anymore, nobody is buying your deficit financing, more tax's, more borrowing, more debt, more economic planning, more monetary manipulation bullcrap anymore.

Were getting closer to the day we can say: WERE ALL AUSTRIANS NOW.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Hey guess what ... almost all of the recessions you've listed occurred during the FREE BANKING ERA (thank you :))!

[-] 1 points by iRevolution (54) from Fayetteville, NC 12 years ago

False. The free banking era was not free at all anyway, it's misnamed. And plus the recessions I mention happened during the Charters of the 1st & Second banks of the united states. We have never had a true "Free Banking Era", Free banking would be No Central Bank & the monetary authority's in the hand's of the people as the constitution wanted, and no fractional reserve lending. And reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, Then there would be competition in banking, rather then monopoly's. They ALL Wanted Glass-Steagall repealed back in the 90's. There are those regulation that kill us, Like penalties on businesses for hiring to many people, then there are those good ones like Glass-Steagall.

During the so called "free banking era" which was not free at all, the central banking powers were handed over... to other banks. That's not a free banking era, that's just setting up for disaster. No Central Bank, and you don't have this problem.

So to clarify, That depression was caused during the charter of the 2nd bank of the U.S & the others were due to the banks having central banking authority.

(Thank you for proving you are clueless in understanding true free market economics, May I recommend you go to a local Library?)

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Well, the term "free banking era" refers to the period where we had no central or national bank (interpret it how you like). Anyway, if you agree that Glass Steagall was good regulation, then that's a good start.

BTW, do you have any academic training in economics? What crawled up your ass that deludes you into thinking you know the first thing about this subject? Let me guess, you went to the "Mises website academy" of dumbasses who couldn't handle calculus?

[-] 1 points by iRevolution (54) from Fayetteville, NC 12 years ago

I contend we did have central banks, just not a national one. But yea I like Glass Steagall, And I'm an over regulation hawk to, But I love G-S.

Anyway, I study economics yes. What crawled into my rump & up to my brain was Wisdom, Knowledge & understanding. But it's a misconception that you have to go to some big business school or sit down with an "Acclaimed Economist" to understand economics.

Anybody can understand true economics, it's not some complicated thing, it's really simple actually. I thought My 5 year old cousin an understanding of supply & demand & the circular flow of the economy. So, If your speaking wisdom, I don't care where you got it from, The Library, reading, video's, then your legitimate, if your speaking nonsense, you don't understand at all.

But where do you get knowledge? How do you learn? Going to school isn't how kids get potty trained & learn to talk, they learn threw example, and absorbing information in there early years. So maybe I do read & listen to Mises lectures, but the thing is, It's correct & full of wisdom...

I can learn more by going to my Library & checking out Economic's in one lesson & a Ron Paul book then I could by sitting down for a few hours with Paul Krugman or any other Keynsian.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I have mentioned this many times when in discussions with the RP/libe(R)tarians.

To me it's also the hidden agendas behind why they want to do these things.

In their minds, they can not separate them from Austrian economics, it is central to their view.

That aim, is the agenda.............

To agree with them in discussion on a single point, ie: indefinite detention, will bring forth a flood of the rest of the agenda..

There are points like that, on which I wholeheartedly agree, but the rest of the agenda, and the reasoning behind it are to me, unpalatable.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Indeed .... and I couldn't have said it better!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago


I tried to keep it clear and invective free.

It's not always easy on a forum such as this.

As much as I enjoy arguing with them, it's sometimes important to remember that, they, like me are the 99%.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Indeed ... but there's an awkward stubbornness among Austrian thinkers, which isn't willing to interact with the empirical evidence in an intellectually honest way. It gives me the impression that they're either a bunch of idiots, or a completely brainwashed cult (I guess one implies the other ... but anyway).

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Yes ! Finally, one sane individual emerges !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

R.P. has been around long enough that he certainly isn't fooling me with his sudden lip-service to a few left-wing causes. I remember when his guys were beating anti-war demonstrators with clubs. That's history, anybody can find it - probably on wikipedia.

[-] 2 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 12 years ago

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMENNNNNNNNNNNN. Please try to use logical thinking and hop off ron paul. He is a 1%.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

It beats me. I just can't Understand what the guy is doing lurking around this forum. I can see that he might be there to split the right-wing of the Repubs, but what the heck is he doing hanging around here?

[-] 2 points by reckoning (53) 12 years ago

Socialist Obama bot detected!!

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

You'll still get Adolf no matter who you vote for..The system requires it..

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Exactly, so how do we change that?

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

When people (working class) realize that they are getting screwed and their BS ideologies mean nothing..Then things will change..They'll revolt...We aren't there yet..

Hopefully we can do this before there is an Adolf Hitler and martial law. People just don't want to believe that they are really just well educated peasants..They'll have to get over that.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Very well put.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

Thank You Mr. King.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

I voted for him last time around, i dont care about the two parties, each are corrupt, but this time ill vote republican cause ron paul is running again. I havent voted the crooked two party system since ross perot, the prophet who predicted all this, and american idiots didnt even support him. so let them lie in the bed that they made I say.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 12 years ago

wow, me too......

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

Did you see the Republican debate last night? He said Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of his heroes. Convenient timing and disingenuous, I think.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Martin Luther King wasn't his hero at the time. Some of us still remember. He's full of shit.

[-] -1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

It is ludicrous of RP's minions to think that people who support a social justice movement like OWS would ever support a compassionless bunch of greedy thugs like RP and his libertarian supporters.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 12 years ago

Lets see someone else serious about peace and freedom then. I'd drop my support of Paul faster than you could blink. Why do you think people on the far left are supporting Paul? There is no frickin' alternative if you value those things.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Jill Stein.

Mr. P is a (R)epelican.

Jill, is not.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 12 years ago

You have a good a point if world peace is something you want to see in 2050 or beyond... but I should have added "... and stands a realistic chance of being elected." That's the appeal of Paul, any republican candidate has close to a 50% of beating Obama... probably more.

There is really something to be said about voting your conscience, but I guess the question is does the world really have that long? At least I agree with him on half the issues, which is substantially higher than usual.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Mr. P. is a (R)epelican.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Are you a (R)epelican too?

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 12 years ago

Believe me I have nothing but contempt for republicans generally... (I would say hate, but I don't believe you should hate people) I like war even less, incessant incarcerations for non-violent offenses, and police states about the same.

On the other hand, I firmly believe we have an obligation to assist those less fortunate than we are, not turn them out into the streets while sipping champagne and driving overpriced BMWs... (and I should add no-one making over $1,000,000 a year should be complaining about getting taxed at 90% on every dollar above that... you already have plenty).

But given the choice to see 50% of what I want to see or 0%... life isn't perfect.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

If you firmly believe in that obligation, Mr. P is not your man.

The (R)epelicans are not your party.

War, supposes an opposing army/military.

To that end, we have not been at war since Viet Nam.

We are performing regime change/nation building, for the military industrial complex.

At least one foreign corporation, Haliburton, is reaping a fortune.

Mr. P, doesn't understand this.

He never speaks of it in these terms.

Mr. P, is (R)epelican.

An Ayn Rand (R)epelican at that.

He is not what he appears to be.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I Don't understand it. It gives me the creeps.

[-] -1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

I understand libertarians which is why I don't like it. they are not trying to enlist supporters. they are here simply to disrupt, distract and destroy something that they perceive is the antithesis of their philosophy. It is their liberty to use any underhanded means to destroy that which they cannot control and dominate.

Libertarians suck shit!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Straight to the heart of the matter.

[-] -1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

I'd avoid the reference to Hitler simply because comparing people to Hitler, the Nazis, etc. (except actual white supremacists and neo-Nazis) doesn't reflect well on you, but your premise is right. I don't trust Ron Paul any further than I can spit for reasons I've outlined on this forum a number of times, and the willingness of the far left to jump on his bandwagon is rather ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I think we should remember that there were a lot of people in America that did support Hitler. He was a living man, an historical figure, and a lot of pro-corporate people did back him here, including Prescott Bush and JFK's father. It is simply not an exaggeration to equate R.P.s politics with those of Hitler. R.P. has used physical force in the past to push his ultra-right-wing views. He did it in the sixties, attacking anti-war demonstrators with clubs. Please don't think that it can't happen here, because it can.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

People need to research Hitler's S.A.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Damn Right they do! That wasn't a negative dystopia that happened in some alternate universe folks.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

If he decides to pull a Beer Hall Putsch of his own when the nomination doesn't work out for him then we would have to shut him down hard. I'm hoping that the American people are smart enough to see scapegoating, fearmongering, and conspiracy theories for what they are, and I'm hoping that the volume of those things I'm seeing on here is more a function of the Internet than an actual reflection of where the populace stands at this point...

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I just recieved an interesting view of why R.P. is still in this thing from zendog. I finally understand this. It's to split the right wing party vote, so that the corporate paleface Mit the Nit can get the nomination. Wow, don't know how that one got by me?

Thanks for the comment

[-] 0 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 12 years ago

You might wanna do some better research on the facts before you go making statements like these. All the stuff ron paul talks about has been proven to exist. Wake up brother before you get left behind.



[-] -1 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

references to hitler, nazi,ss, or fascist is perfectly suited for discussing the conservatives, libertarians, and right wing hacks.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

I don't like them, I have little or no respect for many of the policies that they advocate, and I don't trust any of them farther than I can spit when it comes to actually putting them in power. I personally prefer to avoid hyperbole (however well-deserved it may be) because then it becomes easy to dismiss me as a hyper-partisan idiot rather than actually talk policy (and in turn reveal what you actually want to do with this country, which is something I feel everyone needs to see).


[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

That would be a reductio ad hitlerum logical fallacy. If you want to build a strong case against others, you should use proper arguments. Using logical fallacies is killing your own position before counter-arguments have a chance to.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

drowning in your own political correctness like most of ows. stop giving these people validity by acting like there are two sides to the story bullshit there is only one truth. stop acting like there is equal validity in both points of view. they are all fascists prove otherwise.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

If you're going to argue a point, don't commit debate suicide by using well known logical fallacies. If there is truth behind what you say, then you can use proper arguments and it will be uncovered.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

where is the fallacy? they are fascists. the fallacy is people like you who can not simply state truth. i don't need to argue the point when i am right.

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Saying someone is a fascist and comparing someone to hitler are too different things. Read up on reductio ad hitlerum. It's a well known logical fallacy. Everyone who debates should know it.

i don't need to argue the point when i am right.

Then why are you using this forum for debating?

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

hitler was a fascist period and so are conservatives/libertarians and i think you may be a politically correct hack.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

A banana is a fruit. An apple is a fruit. Does that mean that a banana is an apple? No, that's faulty three point logic.

Like I said, read up on logical fallacies, especially reductio ad hitlerum.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

i know what i fucking logical fallacy is it is the world you live in you conformist hack.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Ad hominem in a run-on sentence.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

oh wait this is grammar school thats right i thought it was an internet chat forum man i was wrong. choke on a cock politically correct conformist hack.

[-] -3 points by TheHygiologyPost (-8) 12 years ago

Ron Paul could win the Nobel Peace Prize if elected President according to a recent article in The Hygiology Post (www.hygiologypost.com). The analysis was based upon an approach that is apparently familiar in law : relying on predictable outcome as evidence for intent.

The name of the article dated 12-27-11 is : "Erich Fromm, Noam Chomsky, And Ron Paul : Each Have An Estimated Relatively High Level Of Intuition And Are Champions Of Peace Who, Like Mahatma Gandhi, Have Not Won A Nobel Prize"

Which 2012 Presidential Candidate, if elected, do you would be most likely to win the Nobel Peace Prize and why ?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

This is absurd on so many levels it boggles the mind, which is the objective, of course. Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of whining a prize from the Wisconsin Cheeseman. There are so many logical flaws in this comment that it could be used in a college course as an example of how to poison the well of rational debate.

Ah, he must be a follower of Ron Paul. Now it makes sense, because that's what Ron Paul is best at.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

He took a dive in New Hampshire - most of the candidates were there ahead of the debates - he went home.

He doesn't even intend to win election. He is just there to soak up votes - most likely from the right, but quite possibly from among us in significant numbers as well.

Consider carefully this forum post and my response.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Why the hell do you think he's courting the left? It's weird. It gives me the creeps.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I've seen posts around here drawing similarities between anarchists and libertarians, and he claims to have an anti-war stance.

Ultimately he is still a free market proponent - and as we see, the free market isn't free at all. It costs most of us a great deal to support it.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Yeah, I just can't imagine he thinks he can pick up enough votes around here to make it worth his while. Damn, the guy's way to the right of Romney. Seems like he's trauling, ot trolling, the wrong ocean.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

Not if the whole point is to place the executive office into the hands of repelicans by diluting the left's support of the President.

It's divide and conquer - a tactic they have used with some success in the past.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

No, I wouldn't understand the "divide and conquer" thing. I really needed you to explain that to me.

I think partly he's just hijacking this forum because it's so busy in comparison to anything he can achieve himself. Probably also to give the impression his movement has a lot more vocal followers than it actually has. Also it's free communication, and they might pick up a few undecideds while they're at it. It's pretty bottom feeding stuff and smacks to me of desperstion.

I'd watch the presumption of other people's ignorance. Not a valuable trait in a "would be" politician.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Welcome to the wonderful world of Karl Roves, multi pronged marketing/PR.

It got Bush elected........................TWICE!

The lib(R)tarians have played the 'crank bait' for over three months now.

Furiously trolling this lake of a political forum.

Make no mistake, Mr. P. is very definitely a (R)epelikan.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

It got Bush elected........................TWICE!

That is in fact not the case. Bush was appointed by the court in 2000.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Agreed, but without Karls machine, the vote would not have been anywhere near as close.

Getting the vote close to 50/50, is the aim. It's where the cheaters play.

BTW, I sure you and I agree, that was a decidedly 'conse(R)vative' court.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

the fuckers

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Wow, I wasn't aware of that! Interesting! Things start to become clear now. Thank you.