FoC's Ron Paul Shitheap: Patel Melts the Internets starting on pg. 24

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Who pays the judges? Who builds the courthouses? Who builds the jails where people stay while awaiting trial? Who ensures that the system is fair? Who pays the people who ensure that the system is fair? Who resolves disputes?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Whoa whoa whoa. I think I found the core problem here. I think there is a misunderstanding. Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of every Tax.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Also, Im not saying the federal government should be completely powerless either.

[Gay Boy]

I still cant get over a few posts back FoC basically stating that govt. funded education has not ever done anything good.

[Gay Boy]

Whoa whoa whoa. I think I found the core problem here. I think there is a misunderstanding. Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of every Tax.

you listed taxes earlier that you deemed un-needed THAT PAID FOR ROADS

[FlameOfCallandor]

I still cant get over a few posts back FoC basically stating that govt. funded education has not ever done anything good.

Department of education does not equal public education.

You fail.

[Gay Boy]

I still cant get over a few posts back FoC basically stating that govt. funded education has not ever done anything good.

Department of education does not equal public education.

You fail.

if you think we axe the dept. of education that our public education system will go on fine and dandy as is then you are clueless.

[FlameOfCallandor]

you listed taxes earlier that you deemed un-needed THAT PAID FOR ROADS

I was posting them to show just how many taxes we pay. Over 1/3 over our income goes to pay taxes. Income Tax doesnt even pay for anything. It goes to pay the interest on the national debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day

Year — TFD — Percentage Tax Burden
1900 — 22-Jan — 5.90%
1910 — 19-Jan — 5.02%
1920 — 13-Feb — 11.96%
1930 — 12-Feb — 11.61%
1940 — 7-Mar — 17.98%
1950 — 01-Apr — 24.87%
1960 — 12-Apr — 27.88%
1970 — 20-Apr — 29.90%
1980 — 22-Apr — 30.68%
1990 — 23-Apr — 30.80%
2000 — 5-May — 33.98%
2001 — 1-May — 33.01%
2002 — 21-Apr — 30.27%
2003 — 18-Apr — 29.51%
2004 — 19-Apr — 29.69%
2005 — 26-Apr — 31.53%
2006 — 28-Apr — 32.29%
2007 — 30-Apr — 32.69%

[FlameOfCallandor]

if you think we axe the dept. of education that our public education system will go on fine and dandy as is then you are clueless.

You never answer my questions from earlier gay boy.

Tell me one thing that the department of education even does? Then tell me what they have done that actually is any good.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Things I learned from the previous post:

- FoC believes 32.69% is "over 1/3" because he is not good at maths.
- FoC can not perceive any differences between Western Civilization as it stood in 1900 and as it stands in 2007.
- FoC thinks that if we stop paying income tax we can also stop paying the interest on the national debt.

How are those numbers even calculated? You do know there are different tax brackets, right? Or have you ever had a real job?

[brawndolicious]

foc, have you even had a job that made you pay 30% of your income?

and have you read henry david thoreau's essay civil disobedience?  is there anything in it that you disagree with?

[Human Snorenado]

Guys, guys, guys.  I kept trying to tell you- it's useless to try and talk with it.  You can own it over and over and over and over again and it doesn't even notice.  FoC is basically a Boonga Boonga game that anyone can win at, but the game KEEPS THINKING IT IS UNBEATEN. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

Guys, guys, guys.  I kept trying to tell you- it's useless to try and talk with it.  You can own it over and over and over and over again and it doesn't even notice.  FoC is basically a Boonga Boonga game that anyone can win at, but the game KEEPS THINKING IT IS UNBEATEN. 

Git R Done!

[FlameOfCallandor]

and have you read henry david thoreau's essay civil disobedience?  is there anything in it that you disagree with?

Freshman year i did. And there is nothing I disagree with. What is your point?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Pate, you said earlier that you dont trust other people, correct?

The difference between FoC and me is FoC believes that people are intelligent enough to govern themselves, while I believe that people are intelligent enough to support Ron Paul.

Here is my core value. I think that the person that knows how to govern themselves best is themselves. You think the government knows what is better for us. But guess who runs the government. It's other people, you you probably don't trust. Why not have a system with as little government as possible while still keeping peace and tranquility? Why do we need behemoth bureaucracies to run our lives? Do we really need a department of Education in Washington? All these offices just create busywork that costs more and more money every year.

I just believe that I know what is best for me and you know what is best for you. We can both be happy that way.

[Gay Boy]

I will bring up this argument till you get it.

The public does NOT always know best. The public if given the choice as  referendum ala gay marriage almost certainly would reject civil rights for minorities back in the 60's in the south.

The national government knew what was better than what the majority of texas knew and so forth.

[Van Cruncheon]

what is best for any given individual almost always involves stuff that is not the best for everyone else

i do not enjoy the tyranny of determined individualists when i participate in a society

[FlameOfCallandor]

Penn from Penn and Teller supports Ron Paul?  
http://www.pennfans.net/view/Video_Archive/Penn_and_Teller_Videos/Penn_Jillette_Interviewed_by_Glenn_Beck/

[Van Cruncheon]

yes, because he's a big-L Libertarian crackpot, shokku

[FlameOfCallandor]

what is best for any given individual almost always involves stuff that is not the best for everyone else

i do not enjoy the tyranny of determined individualists when i participate in a society

Tyranny of the majority is the basic concept that sometimes the majority might be wrong.  The third reich and racism are two glaring examples taken from recent history.  It was a major issue for the founding fathers of the US and is still a real possibility.  The mass mentality can be particularly frightening because once people as a whole are headed in a particular direction, there is an incredible amount of inertia that can be very hard to redirect.


I think thew past 8 years have shown that the tyranny of the majority is a very real threat to real democracy that requires educated well informed voters.

[Van Cruncheon]

yet ironically ron paul needs a majority of electoral votes to tyrannize us

the world isn't binary, foc; although if you're suggesting that ron paul's libertarian shenanigans are as much extremist nonsense as fascism, then i agree

that requires educated well informed voters.

that rules out you and the rest of ron paul's cultists, fo sho

[FlameOfCallandor]

the world isn't binary, foc; although if you're suggesting that ron paul's libertarian shenigans are as much extremist nonsense as fascism, then i agree

What about the libertarian view do you not agree with?

[FlameOfCallandor]

that rules out you and the rest of ron paul's cultists, fo sho

 :elf

[Van Cruncheon]

that most are capable of governing themselves without injuring the rights of others? if i'm going to sacrifice many of my "freedoms" -- as i must, if i wish to participate in any human society -- i'm not going to do so on the altar of hapless individualist idealism, but rather under a properly pragmatic structure that seeks to compensate for human selfishness, rather than elevate it

[Human Snorenado]

FoC, after Ron Paul loses out of the GOP primaries, please please please keep your unthinking regurgitation of the Libertarian batshit insane-o talking points up.  I would hate for you to lose focus the next time you see a shiny object or something.

[Mandark]

Usually I get annoyed by libertarians who keep reciting the same script of Hayek, Friedman, Jefferson, and Nozick.  Right now though, I'm dying for FoC to drop one of those names.

Read a book!

[youtube=425,350]rN2VqFPNS8w[/youtube]

[brawndolicious]

Freshman year i did. And there is nothing I disagree with. What is your point?

are you willing to give up all your wordly possessions if ron paul doesn't get elected?

oh and the writer's of the constitution probably had the biggest influence from the essay Common Sense, which is batshit insane dogma.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Read a book!

[youtube=425,350]rN2VqFPNS8w[/youtube]

I love that video.

I read all the time. I just ordered some books from amazon

[FlameOfCallandor]

if i'm going to sacrifice many of my "freedoms" -- as i must, if i wish to participate in any human society -- i'm not going to do so on the altar of hapless individualist idealism, but rather under a properly pragmatic structure that seeks to compensate for human selfishness, rather than elevate it

You don't have to sacrifice freedoms to participate in human society. You do have to sacrifice basic rights given to us after thousands years of society to live in fascism.

[Van Cruncheon]

dp

[Van Cruncheon]

again, dolt, rejecting ron paul does not mean embracing fascism, although it DOES almost certainly mean embracing the foolishness of idealism

[Mandark]

Some of us don't agree with Paul's idea of rights, or his idea of what can infringe upon them.

I don't think there is an absolute right to private property and private contract that is equally or more important than the rights to life, free speech, etc.  I don't feel like the FDA is oppressing me when they prevent me from buying rotten meat at a market price.

Also, my freedom can be hampered by things other than a government.  Primarily, any instance where a single person or group controls a lot of capital, or access to capital.  So I don't mind the gummint stepping in and telling employers to keep up with safety regulations, not hire children, etc.

[FlameOfCallandor]

again, dolt, where are we living in fascism

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authority

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[3][4] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[5]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.
As such, the law could be extended to U.S. citizens and held if left unchecked.

"HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech that allows those in power to criminally penalize anything they considered to be particularly effective in terms of galvanizing an opposition that might conceivably in some sense disrupt or destabilized the status quo, so it's to keep everything in that nice sanitized arena that I was just talking about where you're actually a collateral functionary of the state by participating."

erhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.

There are plenty of example.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I went to my first Ron Paul meet up last night. I had alot of fun. there were about 25 people there from all ages. I was probably the youngest and I think there was only one other college student. The guy that was heading up the meeting was a tall thing guy who teaches Kung Fu for a living. He has a tattoo on his arm that said "We the People" 
There was beer and soda for all. We talked about how to get out the vote to each precinct and to research the voting history of them.

It was surpassingly coherent. The conversation never trailed off into 9/11 land. And I only heard Alex Jones once.

Also, if anyone knows austin and knows Leslie. He is a famous crossdresser that everyone knows in this town. He showed up to greet Giuliani.
[youtube=425,350]DUpIBPvzaDw[/youtube]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I like how there's all these coherent arguments and discussion on one side and FoC posting smileys and youtube videos on the other side.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I like how there's all these coherent arguments and discussion on one side and FoC posting smileys and youtube videos on the other side.

Your posts are usually 2 sentences. Mine are more most of the time.

Nice try.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Pick your poison:
(Image removed from quote.)

Where can I get this Rudy picture but larger?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Too bad none of those sentences are about what other people are saying, you nimrod's son.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Too bad none of those sentences are about what other people are saying, you nimrod's son.

Thats because the only shit that you guys post is stuff like "OMG dont talk to It. It's a dumbass HUR HUR"

Drinky is the only one that tries to post arguments and he even prefaces everything with an insult.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Look at all these internet nerds supporting Ron Paul.
 

[youtube=425,350]BSnuexdIAYE[/youtube]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139241-pg,1/article.html

Spam the Vote: Ron Paul Spam Surfs into Inboxes
This batch is not from the campaign, but security firms warn that this may be just the first wave.

Spam supporting presidential hopeful Ron Paul filled inboxes this week as zombie computers spewed thousands of messages to recipients, according to spam experts. The spam supporting Paul was sent using the same illegal spam methods used to distribute masculinity enhancement products and pump-and-dump penny stock schemes.

Experts suggest getting used to it. They expect that during this election cycle things are going to get ugly as campaigns, spammers, unruly supporters, and even rival camps use blogs, inboxes, YouTube videos, and search engines to spam the vote.

In this case, the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee vigorously denies sending the spam, approving its distribution, or having any ties to its senders. Security experts analyzing the deluge agree the official organization is likely not the source.

Security experts contacted report seeing this week waves of identical spam that supports candidate Paul. In each instance, the spam was sent using a botnet, which is a network of hijacked consumer or commercial PCs that are often used surreptitiously by hackers to send spam.

"We suspect an overzealous and well-intentioned Ron Paul supporter sent these messages," says Jesse Benton, spokesperson for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee. Benton suggests the spam may have been sent by someone interested in discrediting Paul by associating his campaign with spamming.

Accusations that supporters of Paul are using spammy tactics to promote the candidate don't stop with e-mail. The suspicious point out that Paul garners a disproportionate amount of support online (as measured by Web-based polls, mentions in blogs, and frequency of Web searches conducted by users related to "Ron Paul") compared to voter interest polls conducted offline. That fact may suggest Paul's online supporters are stuffing the virtual ballot by voting early and often at political polling Web sites.

[FlameOfCallandor]

That article was debunked. It was written by Rudy's campaign.

Also, who is wining all the straw polls and giving money? I want a spam bot that can make over $5 million for me. Do the bots put on clothes and vote in the straw polls? It doesn't make much sense.
Why is it inconceivable that he would have so much support?

[Van Cruncheon]

it's not inconceivable that he might have a great deal of support; but in this case, the internet is amplifying the voices of the few beyond the support indicated by real-world polling.

[Human Snorenado]

I think we should make FoC a deal- if Ron Paul finishes 3rd or better in any primary or caucus, he can have his townie leper status removed.  But if Paul fails to do that, he gets permabanned.  And all dupe accounts permabanned too.

[Van Cruncheon]

to be perfectly honest, i would take paul over rudy or romney or thompson inna heartbeat. however, to the same point, i'd probably take fucking l. ron hubbard over those three, as well. thankfully, i have an iq over 80 and am not expected to vote republican.

[Van Cruncheon]

also, to properly bifurcate this "candidiate only popular among internet addicts" nonsense along party lines, why don't we have a WE JOHN EDWARDS political spam thread!

'cuz i john edwards

i would let him poke my perky bottom if he promised to tax all incomes over $250K at 50% and repeal all taxes for incomes below $40K (note: i did not do the math. i am making a point.)

[Human Snorenado]

I love how up until 3 or 4 months ago FoC spent all his time trying to convince us he wasn't a conservative redneck racist inbred shitkicker from Texas and that he actually voted for Democrats.  Now he's a Ron Paul true believer.   

Funny, I too have massive political manlust for John Edwards.  He's like a hillbilly Kennedy.  Hell, I think even Mandark likes him.

[Van Cruncheon]

an edwards versus paul ticket would actually be interesting, because the debates might actually consider political ideology rather than WHO DUN GO KILL DEM BROWNSKINS AFORE DEY KILL US and WHO LUV DAT DERE JESUS MORE and AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA!

on the other hand, ron paul's base is about politically comprehending and nuanced as a bag of tacks -- do there ever speak in anything other than extremes? look at foc's reductionist and largely binary poli-babble -- so expecting something more than TAXATION IS TYRANNY from their side of the court is probably rather hopelessly idealistic of me

[Van Cruncheon]

i think what irks me about the more avid paulites i've encountered is that cult-think "bububububut it's all so simple!" spiel that invariably comes out of their maws, like canto and verse from a libertarian bible i've thankfully never read.

"it's all so simple, doug! if we stop taxing folks, they'll have more money to spend!"

"it's all so simple, doug! if we abolish national education, private schools will step in and pay teachers better wages, and students will have a choice!"

"it's all so simple, doug! corporations will not make decisions that hurt their bottom line -- that's how the market works!"

"it's all so simple, doug! if we kill bureaucracy at the root, we won't need as many taxes!"

"it's all so simple, doug! we can eliminate so much corruption if we just trust the constitution!"

if you can't spot why ALL of these statements are patently stupid and idealistic, or can't see the RELIGION inherent in all of them -- and i'll be glad to help you with your weird inverted political myopia -- then DROP THE FUCKING CUP OF KOOL-AID AND TRY PARTICIPATING IN THE REAL WORLD

[Phoenix Dark]

i think what irks me about the more avid paulites i've encountered is that cult-think "bububububut it's all so simple!" spiel that invariably comes out of their maws, like canto and verse from a libertarian bible i've thankfully never read.

"it's all so simple, doug! if we stop taxing folks, they'll have more money to spend!"

"it's all so simple, doug! if we abolish national education, private schools will step in and pay teachers better wages, and students will have a choice!"

"it's all so simple, doug! corporations will not make decisions that hurt their bottom line -- that's how the market works!"

"it's all so simple, doug! if we kill bureaucracy at the root, we won't need as many taxes!"

"it's all so simple, doug! we can eliminate so much corruption if we just trust the constitution!"

if you can't spot why ALL of these statements are patently stupid and idealistic, or can't see the RELIGION inherent in all of them -- and i'll be glad to help you with your weird inverted political myopia -- then DROP THE FUCKING CUP OF KOOL-AID AND TRY PARTICIPATING IN THE REAL WORLD

why do you hate the constitution? oh that's right, you aren't a libertarian 

[Fragamemnon]

if you can't spot why ALL of these statements are patently stupid and idealistic, or can't see the RELIGION inherent in all of them -- and i'll be glad to help you with your weird inverted political myopia -- then DROP THE FUCKING CUP OF KOOL-AID AND TRY PARTICIPATING IN THE REAL WORLD

That's my huge beef with libertarians-they don't really work in scenarios even vaguely resembling reality. Their arguments are scarily repetitive and dogmatic, and remind me a lot of interactions with fundies and nintendo fans, also demographics I would not shed a tear for if they were scoured from the planet.

Count me in the Edwards camp-he's the guy most likely to bring up American democracy and government to the high standards set by Europeans, and do so in a way that this country will reward actual work more and acculumated wealth less.

[Mandark]

Edwards is my boy.  I already wasted one primary vote on him, and I'll likely do it again.

Say, since libertarianism relies on the wisdom of crowds and the rational decision making of individuals, how come there are no libertarian governments?

I think it's safe to say that the market has rejected libertarianism.

[APF]

Wait, a PC World article was planted by Rudy's campaign?  Huh?

[captainbiotch]

creative, but completely missing the mark, mandark.

Libertarianism in action doesn't rely on rational decision making any more than socialism does.  It allows people exercise their rationality or face the consequences.  It is called personal responsibility, and libertarianism is the view that all people are free to practice or not practice it to their hearts content, as long as the consequences of their actions fall upon them.  Of course, to a socialist all personal decisions have a social impact, and therefore are rightfully legislated against.  Libertarianism respect all people as imperfect creatures that make mistakes and are free to do what they believe is right and makes them happy.  That is the fundamental difference.

You don't seem able to seperate libertarianism and anarchism in your mind.  And I believe this has to do with not being able to recognize the difference between a conflict of interest and a compulsed sacrifice.  And this stems from a lack of respect of human beings as individuals with varying viewpoints and values.

[Van Cruncheon]

that's very idealistic of you

[Mandark]

Libertarianism as an abstract concept might not have much to do with individual rationality, the superiority of the market to central planning, etc.  But a vast, vast majority of libertarians make practical arguments based on Hayek, Friedman, etc.

The ones who are willing to say "Oh sure, it'll be shitty for a lot of people, but it'll be their FAULT!" are few and far between.

[Van Cruncheon]

very few actions taken by an individual can be demonstrated as wholly independent of society's influences; in fact, i'd argue that the idea that any person is "free" in the sense that they are NOT constrained by society and the morality it fosters among its component individuals is pretty damn disrespectful to the whole notion of "freedom" and the price it suggests

[APF]

Aah, this reminds me of something Rudy was excoriated for saying, re: personal freedoms.

[captainbiotch]

Very true mandark, but most libertarians, like most ANYTHING, aren't really worth talking to.  I really believe much of the apathy, irrationality, and irresponsibility of todays society stems from the fact, that no matter what dumb shit we do, the government will bail us out.  Someone else will take the fall, or more realistically, we'll all take the fall, a fraction of a penny at a time.  I think if we are to side with morals, these people need some tough fuckin' love.  If we are to side with practicality, we should just kill off all the dumbs and poors and arabs and replace them with robots.  Socialism is a pretty little compromise between them both.  But if we keep going at the rate we are going, tyranny is the only conclusion I can envision.  LEFT vs RIGHT is nothing more than a congame to disenfranchise people and make them hate politics, so the brainwashed and dogmatic can keep the powerful in power.  No one is going to be around to defend rationality when theres no need for it anymore.  That is the logical conclusion of socialism.  Of wealth equality.  Of no man or woman left behind, no matter how stupid and useless they are.  If people can leech, they will, that is a simple fact of life.  If people can choose between the easy nonthinking path and the hard path they will choose the easy every time. There isn't going to be any moderation or any reasoning when you have politicians appealling to the mob and a mob that can't reason.  Eventually the system will bankrupt itself.

As for independence from societies influence, the human mind has the potential to create thought and values independently of such things.  We don't all have the ability.  But should we treat everyone as sheep, or everyone as individuals?

I wouldn't say I'm idealistic, I believe I'm very realistic about the future and people in general.  Human nature is flawed, and whatever course of action we take is going to be flawed.  But what is right is right, regardless of any of that.  

I'm possibly rambling, I haven't slept and I'm on cold medicine.  Thats the general idea though.

[Van Cruncheon]

you go, r. lee ermey

remind me to shed tears when private pyle exercises his freedom to shoot you in the toilet stall