You failed to answer my question of why we care, or how his service is a negative.

Other points? You don't have any. You're raging that he didn't serve on the front lines. Nobody cares.

You're just making things up and crying about them. So what that he didn't serve on the front lines? So what that his donors may claim to be military or student when they're not.

Nothing you mention, even if your guesses and the guesses of the angry bloggers you link are entirely correct, makes him even as bad as, let alone worse than, any other Republicrats.

You're right. He's far worse than corporate-whore socialist war-monger Republicans because he's a politician who doesn't necessarily get the military support he claims and wasn't in combat.

So he wasn't on the front lines. Most service members weren't. It takes a lot of support staff to wage war. Are cooks (who are weapon-trained) on vessels which are not attacked not service members, because they got lucky and weren't on the front lines? You're arguing that the doctors to pilots aren't service members, as if his job wasn't important or necessary.

"Any soldier who checks his milhistory would mock him. He ain't a soldier, and in our minds he ain't a vet."

What front-line experience do you have to make these claims? Who are you to tell us that soldiers do not consider non-combat personnel "vets"? If they get lucky and they aren't sent to/near the front-lines, they never served? And why does it matter how specifically we define "vet"? Ron Paul hasn't claimed to have fought in war-zones or on front-lines, so what's the relevance of reminding us that he didn't?

It's all well and good that you don't want to give him credit for front-line experience he doesn't have. But it's indisputable that he has more military experience than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum put together. How is his lack of front-line experience a legitimate attack on Ron Paul? This still leaves him with more military service than all of your beloved Republicrats combined. Why does this make us hate Ron Paul, again?

You failed to respond to some of the points I would make in previous threads.

You failed to provide any backing for your statements here, even when I questioned your basis for specific ones in this thread.

This is getting really boring, with you immediately conceding my every point.

Because he specialized in gynecology later, he could have been an air force/national guard doctor for 5 years? Is there any legitimacy to your claim? What's it based on? You think gynecology and delivering babies is funny, so you wrote about it in a post? Why should we care?

You claim a discrepancy between his "supposed" donations and his "supposed" supporters and actual votes received. Based on what figures? How is his getting 10x the military contributions of other candidates a bad thing? What poll shows him not getting many military votes? What is your basis for the claim that the "vast majority" stay away from him?

You're just making vague accusations because you've openly stated that you have no defense of your conservatism against libertarian ideals. You don't even try to argue your positions. You've stated 0 basis for any of your claims here.

Rage rage rage. He doesn't think the federal government should be the bedroom police. Rage rage rage. He doesn't support sending our young men off to die. Rage rage rage. He votes against things that my beloved Republicans vote for. Must use vague accusations to pretend this is WORSE than voting for those bills.

Sure, he's a dirty politician. But you hate him because he's LESS dirty than your beloved bedroom police war-monger corporate whore sheep-herder masters. So you use vague insults and rage about him.

lol Simon.

And yes, Noir. He's not as bat-shit crazy with alien/robot conspiracy theories, but Einstein similarly completely ignores arguments against him.

I shall ignore you both! Bloody wankers.

END THE FED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqe8bs9O8iM
(John Schaffer speaks for God.)

I don't dispute that they're bright guys in banking. I dispute that they act in the best interest of the country, not themselves. A small increase in inflation rate as a result of their actions doesn't hurt them if their actions enrich themselves more than that rate.

I understand the macroeconomic justification you've offered, but I have principled objections to such meddling. As you point out that the microeconomic effects are spurious, I don't like erring on the side of benefiting debtors and harming savers so much.

Thanks for the explanation. I really don't know much [anything] of macroeconomics. *eyes the book on the fed he still hasn't gotten to* I'm gonna get back to you... eventually. I meant to reply sooner when I saw the John Schaffer video a while ago; but, alas, I was significantly intoxicated at the time. I'll remember to attack you when I get to Griffin's book. tongue

In the meantime, end the fed! Buy gold! Support bringing gold back as legal tender!

Ignore! Ignore! Ignore!

1,783

(98 replies, posted in Politics)

"All I am doing is showing that progressive corporate tax system that taxes corporations equitably to level the playing field for where they set up shop is necessary...."

No, you're not.

Whaa whaa whaa.

1,784

(12 replies, posted in General)

Oh my god it's all true.

Face it, you're abusing narcotics. And it's awesome.

1,785

(6 replies, posted in General)

Why can't you click the link?

I swear you were just asking what the Chinese government withholds from you....

CHINESE GOVERNMENT! OPPRESSION! INFORMATION SUPPRESSION! FORCED ABORTIONS! 100 MILLION PROSTITUTES! WORLD WAR 3! CAPITALIST REVOLUTION! PEOPLE'S _REPUBLIC_!

Totally gonna teach you not to live in a communist state. And it'll be too late when you learn!

1,786

(35 replies, posted in Politics)

Whar Do I Sine Up!?

1,787

(24 replies, posted in Politics)

It's a habit I picked up from--I think--Rammstein's "Amerika." It's the spelling I tend to use when discussing anything American that's culturally/morally/intellectually perverse/bankrupt.

It's the spelling I tend to use for America as it [often] is, as opposed to the principles upon which it was founded/used to stand for/should stand for.

The song references people being controlled--and not only unknowingly. It presents freedom as a facade, being mocked. It makes references to imperialism/international meddling. It's about a lot of things wrong with America. I just accidentally spelled that with a K. tongue

1,788

(98 replies, posted in Politics)

That's not what irony means. Look it up.

Thank you for conceding that you cannot respond to my common-sense questions. You never did respond to many. An admission is nice.

You said "The total bailouts..." in response to my saying the free market functions just fine. Because bailouts are free markets in action? That's not even a response to what I said. How is that not trolling? That's retarded.

"I am not a communist."

This statement just makes you a communist and a liar. As I have previously explained and you didn't respond to--because I was clearly correct--you're a communist. You took no issue with the explanation.

Followed by claims that I support bailouts and corruption. lulz troll. You're right, I'm often vague and unclear about my position on this forum... Oh, wait. That's you. Troll.

Again, how is that not trolling? I've objected to bailouts, cronyism, and corruption--both in general and specifcally--about a million times on this forum. You'd have to be literally retarded to accuse me of supporting bailouts. In any industry. Under any circumstance. Ever. Or you'd have to be a troll. Which is it?

"Is it acceptable that the VAST MAJORITY of human beings, each of whom, when opportunity is available to them, has the capacity for such incredible creativity and cooperative accomplishment for such endeavors as this...."

Which misses the point--as you usually do--that government attempts to systemize measuring human potential and ration whatever (because that's the only purpose of trying to measure it) in light of this information are inevitably faulty, inefficient, and unjust.

"I contend it is unacceptable that anyone who is capable of doing more than a push-button contribution to human civilization shouldn't have the opportunity to do so."

This is just vague nonsense. Again, are you trolling? Because I literally couldn't be much more clear about how paramount I believe freedom is to mankind. Can't you read? Because if you can, you must be trolling.

"I do not want control over others. "

You do realize that massive taxes on "the rich" is controlling them: It's forcibly stealing from them. The same goes for corporate taxes, which you've advocated be near 100%. The same goes for massive government control of wealth and income distribution. All of these things you openly support.

You should ignore me. You're a coward afraid to even respond to arguments. You're clearly here for virtual masturbation, happy to post a bunch of alien robot conspiracy theories but unwilling to address anything but peripheral information to the topics you bring up. Look at what you posted in this thread. It's absolutely ridiculous. When this was pointed out to you, you just ranted vaguely about other topics. You never even responded to having your point be shown to be absolutely insane (not to mention communist, just fyi).

You've pretty much always ignored me. You never touch the points I make, just rant about irrelevant straw-man arguments nobody made which mean nothing. Your "last post" to me "ever" is the same thing.

Why post on a forum when you're afraid of discussion and debate? You've literally never had a half-coherent dialogue with me because you always ignore literally 90+% of what I've said.

Oh, wait. I disagree with you that we should have faith that the rich have robot technology from aliens capable of doing 100% of labor for us. And all of your statements are based on similar fantasy. We can talk no more of them than we can the aliens and self-replicating robots. I could debunk them with obvious facts, but you'd have to ignore that. You'd better ignore me. I'm not role-playing by the forum rules. I think I should be banned for violation of this role-playing forum's rules.

1,789

(24 replies, posted in Politics)

?

People in general are stupid.

But everyone pointing out that Amerikans, specifically, are stupid are usually blind to the fact that most people in their country are stupid too. Maybe because they're stupid. tongue

1,790

(24 replies, posted in Politics)

Then we have a much bigger problem than who's elected president, and he's an irresponsible jackass for contributing to it rather than fighting it. That's what we learn from his theme: He doesn't like us, he thinks we're stupid, and he wants power and money at our expense.

1,791

(35 replies, posted in Politics)

Converting? I saw him arguing for freedom, which can empirically be shown to result in more production and standard of living.

I missed the part where this was somehow closer than previously ("converting") to your position that there should be bedroom police and others to prevent you from doing things with your own body.

1,792

(24 replies, posted in Politics)

It's a good choice for advertising to morons. It's not a good choice to have any part of the politics and philosophy of free men who _should_ be intelligent and _should_ be educated.

1,793

(98 replies, posted in Politics)

The free market is functioning fine. Our problems are the result of communists like you getting in the way of free markets.

Like what evil imbeciles do with faulty measures meant to "determine the percentage of human potential..." as if this is possible or somehow useful.

The control you desire over others is evil. Now I don't want to bend any forum rules, but imagine if you were stupid too! Oh God, the harm you'd do.

1,794

(24 replies, posted in Politics)

That depends on what your definition of is is.

1,795

(15 replies, posted in Roleplay)

I've seen Mad Max, Poley. You're not safe!

1,796

(15 replies, posted in Roleplay)

We'll be fine. Robot technology (from aliens) currently kept secret by the elite will be stolen. We'll all live in a utopia where we never have to work for anything and we'll have everything we want. The end.

1,797

(24 replies, posted in Politics)

No, it's not.

1,798

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

Nevermind the fact that the only people who know aren't telling anybody.

Nevermind that Einstein thinks he can learn from CHINA lol

1,799

(2 replies, posted in Politics)

People with less money usually spend more. It's not only possible, it happens. On LSD.

1,800

(5 replies, posted in Politics)

No, the rich spend less on average than welfare queens...

DEE DEE DEE