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

[captainbiotch]

pointless and funny, I'll remember that for our next discussion.

[Van Cruncheon]

srsly, though, your argument boils down to "nobody has the answers, but everyone needs a boot in the ass." then you posit a false dichotomy where society must either be treated as "sheep" or  as individuals -- why not treat them like sheep when appropriate, and as individuals when appropriate? blanket social policies are why i trust neither commies nor libertarians. personally, i think we're largely on the right track even as we fuck up the details grossly, and treat folks like sheep when we need to respect their personal freedoms (wiretapping; suspension of habeus corpus), and like individuals when they need to be treated like sheep (religion's intrusion into legislation; bad corporate behavior; the environment).

[Mandark]

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.

That right there is your libertarian-conservative fusion, folks.

People deserve to be punished for "irresponsible" behavior.  If someone makes bad decisions, or doesn't stockpile enough money to weather some bad luck, it's their own fault, and suffering will either teach them a valuable lesson or weed them out.

When the local religious moralists get outraged over a condom giveaway, it's because teenage/college sex is bad, and unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease are good, because they serve as disincentives.  Not saying the good captain here believes that, but it's merely a difference of what behavior he considers rational and responsible.

In that school of thought, misery isn't a bug.  It's a feature.

[Van Cruncheon]

yeah, it's the self-righteousness of the conservatarian that gets in the way of legitimate political progress. why should people face the most dire of consequences for bad decision-making? the ONLY reason someone would argue for the "right" to complete and abject failure is because they believe that they themselves are too "smart" to ever be in such a position.

i, of course, believe otherwise: that i and everyone else are so largely flawed and short-sighted that we will INEVITABLY find ourselves in a dire situation, either through our own mistakes and hubris or through a conflation of events beyond our control, and that in most situations we have the "right" to fall into merely a nasty gritty safety net rather than straight onto the spikes.

the social darwinism angle is NOT grounded in ANY observable fact -- in fact, societies exist to provide a broader safety net for its members. throughout history, the very notion of friends and neighbors has NOT been to validate your presence or position but to be a network of folks that will bail your ass out when your human nature inevitably leads you into folly. government arises to codify this support system, even as it is also invariably corrupted and converted to bureaucracy -- which is the point at which our BRAINS are supposed to take over from our SELFISH INSTINCTS.

"tough love" is hubris, plain and simple. no man or society is fit to pass that sort of judgment, and human nature dictates that we intervene rather than watch in smug amusement as some junkie or idiot stumble off life's precipice. to condemn without understanding is to play the role of an ignorant god, and it doesn't get more arrogant than that!

[captainbiotch]

I don't see the false dichotomy personally, based upon my view of what a free individual is, where they are left to their own devices cept where they forcefully impact others.  Anything besides that is taking a viewpoint that people have to be compulsed to certain behaviors.  

As for your reasons for people needing to be treated like sheep, I wish you'd expound upon them.  I don't see how taking care of the environment is antithetical to libertarianism? or fraudulent corporate behavior.  Also I don't understand what you're trying to imply by "religion's intrusion into legislation".  Are you saying because many people are religious they should be treated like sheep?

"weed them out"?  Seriously, no one dies of hunger or exposure that don't choose to.  Charities of caring individuals, compulsed by no one, will take care of them.  As for healthcare, theres a finite amount of resources we have to throw at the problem, no matter what system you adopt.  That arguement also boils down to what people should be forced to do.

As for your condom example, there are different moral viewpoints on the matter, and those different moral viewpoints can support their different approaches. EXCEPT WHERE you mix the government into it, be it in government funded schools, or government funded protection programs, where ALL people are forced to support these things whether they are compatible with their beliefs or not.  That is where it becomes a matter of public debate.  When it becomes a matter of force, we have to hear from the religionists.  And the ultralibs.  And all matters of irrational people in between. 

As for social darwinism, friends and neighbors have a choice.  citizens socially codified do not.  you still seem to skip over that detail.  is it a necessary progression of society to move away from having friends and family and neighbors?

[captainbiotch]

I'm talking merely about money prole, you're talking about love.  You can love and help someone without throwing money down the hole that is their problems.  Government can't divy out love, either. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

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.

Deal. But I dont have any dupe accounts that arent already banned.

If he wins the general election can I be a mod?

[FlameOfCallandor]

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.   

I have never voted republican in my life. Always democrat and the occasional libertarian. But now there are issues that are way more important than politics.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Look at all the internet nerds.
[youtube=425,350]mGY-pNQ5aWA[/youtube]

[Gay Boy]

Dude FoC you are 100% going to be banned.

You made a deal with me to be banned/leave if Paul gets under 10% in Iowa as well. With this bet and my bet the chances of you of remaining at EB past Jan/Feb are almost none.

[Phoenix Dark]

Tricked by the caucus system 

[FlameOfCallandor]

Dude FoC you are 100% going to be banned.

You made a deal with me to be banned/leave if Paul gets under 10% in Iowa as well. With this bet and my bet the chances of you of remaining at EB past Jan/Feb are almost none.

We'll see.

Make sure this is a perma ban if I lose.

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/U.S._Army_Five_million_acres_needed_1103.html

As the U.S. military budget balloons, so does the Armed Services’ need to train its soldiers. In fact, some military planners foresee a need for 5 million more acres for training facilities by 2011
The government is appealing to the patriotism of the community, but the landowners are skeptical of the appeals to national security.

So here begins the United States Army taking away citizens land in the name of national security.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Price_of_Iraq_war_10_1102.html

When President Bush's emergency supplemental funding request is granted by Congress in the coming weeks, the cost of the Iraq War will reach ten times its original projected cost of $50-60 billion, CNN reports.

Wake up people.

[APF]

Shouldn't a social safety net be one that allows you to get back on your own two feet, and not a crutch to be wielded in lieu of regaining your own mobility?

[Fresh Prince]

Is there an actual 'libertarian' government in power, anywhere?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Is there an actual 'libertarian' government in power, anywhere?

We had one for a long time.

[APF]

I can't even conceive of a situation in which a real Libertarian government could ever realistically get elected.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

The Iraq war is a corrupt, pointless, and expensive war. Some of us knew this were preaching this even back before it was fashionable. But what does that have to do with Ron Paul?

[FlameOfCallandor]

The Iraq war is a corrupt, pointless, and expensive war. Some of us knew this were preaching this even back before it was fashionable.

Including me.

But what does that have to do with Ron Paul?

Dr. Paul has made it the very first thing he would do if elected. He is the only candidate that didnt vote for the war. Denounces pre-emptive strikes, and voted against the patriot act.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

when did he become a doctor

[FlameOfCallandor]

when did he become a doctor

"Paul decided to pursue a career in medicine instead and was accepted to Duke University School of Medicine, where he received his Doctor of Medicine degree in 1961.
Paul's medical training was interrupted shortly after his graduation from Duke, when he was drafted into the U.S. Air Force during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He remained in the military during the early years of the Vietnam War. He served active duty as a flight surgeon, 1963–1965, attending to the ear, nose, and throat problems of pilots in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey."

Are you going to ignore what i said in the last post?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Taking over the medical practice of a retiring doctor in Lake Jackson, Texas, he was busy as the only ob/gyn doctor in Brazoria County, saying, "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery." Paul did not accept Medicare and Medicaid payments as a physician; instead, he worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients; he says of these patients, "I just took care of them."

An honest politician who practices what he preaches. Even if you disagree with his ides you can at least admit that.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Are you going to ignore what i said in the last post?

Yes, because I don't see a correlation between "wake up" and "vote for Ron Paul." I've been awake for years, thank you, and I'm awake enough to know that there's no sense supporting a fringe candidate who won't get 3% of the vote in any primaries and will be a forgotten footnote come next fall.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

When I was in college I supported Nader. :'(

[close]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Taking over the medical practice of a retiring doctor in Lake Jackson, Texas, he was busy as the only ob/gyn doctor in Brazoria County, saying, "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery." Paul did not accept Medicare and Medicaid payments as a physician; instead, he worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients; he says of these patients, "I just took care of them."

An honest politician who practices what he preaches. Even if you disagree with his ides you can at least admit that.

So instead of accepting Medicaid, he forced poor patients to pay him directly? What a champ!

[FlameOfCallandor]

So instead of accepting Medicaid, he forced poor patients to pay him directly? What a champ!

He worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans
He worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans
He worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans
He worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans
He worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans
He worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans

[FlameOfCallandor]

Yes, because I don't see a correlation between "wake up" and "vote for Ron Paul." I've been awake for years, thank you, and I'm awake enough to know that there's no sense supporting a fringe candidate who won't get 3% of the vote in any primaries and will be a forgotten footnote come next fall.

Respond to this.

Dr. Paul has made it the very first thing he would do if elected. He is the only candidate that didnt vote for the war. Denounces pre-emptive strikes, and voted against the patriot act.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Respond to this.

Dr. Paul has made it the very first thing he would do if elected. He is the only candidate that didnt vote for the war. Denounces pre-emptive strikes, and voted against the patriot act.

That's just a series of vacuous statements. There's nothing to respond to. But I'll try.

Dr. Paul has made it the very first thing he would do if elected.

I find it facetious that you've started referring him to "Dr. Paul," as if his medical background has anything to do with politics. I'm fairly opposed to the "Dr." honorific in general, however. I am absolutely opposed to the Iraq war and consider it an illegal and immoral war, but I also know that stopping a war is a lot like stopping a runaway freight train. You can't just pull everyone out and call it a day. Well, you can, but then you get Afghanistan and we all saw how THAT worked out. I also rank candidates stances on environmental and social issues over how they'll deal with the war--though I don't want any warmongers (like Guiliani).

He is the only candidate that didnt vote for the war.

Good for him, but given the political atmosphere of the time I'm not going to count that either for or against him (or the other candidates). It was a stupid vote for a stupid war but it's not like voting against it would have stopped it (even if a majority of Congress had voted against it.)

Denounces pre-emptive strikes,

Great, but he's not the only candidate with that stance.

and voted against the Patriot Act.

Good for him. The Patriot Act is expected to be overturned (or at least significant parts not renewed) in the next meeting.

In summary: Ron Paul sounds like a wonderful idealist. I don't want an idealist in a position of power. I want a realist, because I live in reality.

[Van Cruncheon]

reality-based community ftw

[Gay Boy]

Are you going to ignore what i said in the last post?

Yes, because I don't see a correlation between "wake up" and "vote for Ron Paul." I've been awake for years, thank you, and I'm awake enough to know that there's no sense supporting a fringe candidate who won't get 3% of the vote in any primaries and will be a forgotten footnote come next fall.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

When I was in college I supported Nader. :'(

[close]

FoC will grow up and look back 5 years from now and laugh at how he he supported a fringe candidate. Hopefully. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC will grow up and look back 5 years from now and laugh at how he he supported a fringe candidate. Hopefully. 

And if he wins?

[Fresh Prince]

And if he wins?

Fail in his Libertarian paradise in 50 years time.

For some reason I think there is a island off the coast of Africa, inhabitated by rich libertarians or did I read this in a book? 

[FlameOfCallandor]

I find it facetious that you've started referring him to "Dr. Paul," as if his medical background has anything to do with politics. I'm fairly opposed to the "Dr." honorific in general, however.

So you are opposed to it, whoopty-fucking-do.

I am absolutely opposed to the Iraq war and consider it an illegal and immoral war, but I also know that stopping a war is a lot like stopping a runaway freight train. You can't just pull everyone out and call it a day. Well, you can, but then you get Afghanistan and we all saw how THAT worked out.

Vietnam says hello.

Good for him, but given the political atmosphere of the time I'm not going to count that either for or against him (or the other candidates). It was a stupid vote for a stupid war but it's not like voting against it would have stopped it (even if a majority of Congress had voted against it.)

Yes lets not give him any credit for foresight. I think a majority vote against it would have changed things drastically. It would have sent a clear message to the president. Unfortunately all the other politicians had their dicks up their ass trying to seem "patriotic"

Great, but he's not the only candidate with that stance.

Who else? Kucninich?  

Good for him. The Patriot Act is expected to be overturned (or at least significant parts not renewed) in the next meeting.

Agian you are not giving him credit for being caught up in the "OMG 'Merica Patriot business" You are basically saying that it was a bad law but it probably wont stay so whatever.  

Ron Paul sounds like a wonderful idealist. I don't want an idealist in a position of power. I want a realist, because I live in reality.

What candidate is this?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

The "realist" candidate is "whatever Democratic candidate our fucked up electoral process spits up"

[Howard Alan Treesong]

If Ron Paul is our next president I will fly to whichever part of Texas you live in to apologize for making fun of you all these months. And take you out to such a nice dinner that it will replace that $30 steak you once had.

But I was young, once, and I supported a ridiculous fringe candiate, and you know what? Supporting Nader in 2000 is the reason Bush has been our president for the past 8 years. Nader's big line in 2000 was that the Democrats and Republicans were interchangeable--"tweedledee and tweedledum"--and that there were no differences between them. I think the neocons have shown that lie up. So instead of lapping up rhetoric about making a difference, I'm going to take the necessary steps to make an actual difference. In reality. Where we live.

[FlameOfCallandor]

The "realist" candidate is "whatever Democratic candidate our fucked up electoral process spits up"

No matter what they stand for.

Patel I think you beleive in what Paul stands for but cant bring yourself to support him for whatever reason.

Watch this speech from 2002 and tell me what you disagree with.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&hl=en

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Patel I think you beleive in what Paul stands for but cant bring yourself to support him for whatever reason.

The "whatever reason" is:

1) Ron Paul is not getting the Democratic nomination
2) Ron Paul is not a viable third-party candidate
3) Ron Paul is not the next POTUS

I agree with many of his viewpoints, sure. But supporting him would be a waste of time. You are wasting your time.

[Gay Boy]

As of yesterday it is exactly 2 months until the Iowa caucus. Get going ron paul! You've gone from 0 to 2% in 8 months, just 2 more months to shoot that up by about 40%!

[FlameOfCallandor]

1) Ron Paul is not getting the Democratic nomination
2) Ron Paul is not a viable third-party candidate
3) Ron Paul is not the next POTUS

1)Would you vote for a democratic candidate if you disagreed with everything he/she stood for? Should you put the issues about the party?
2)Its a goof thing he isnt running as a third party candidate then.
3)Says who?

I agree with many of his viewpoints, sure. But supporting him would be a waste of time. You are wasting your time.

As opposed to anime and video games? 

[FlameOfCallandor]

As of yesterday it is exactly 2 months until the Iowa caucus. Get going ron paul! You've gone from 0 to 2% in 8 months, just 2 more months to shoot that up by about 40%!

He doesnt have to get #1 in Iowa

[Van Cruncheon]

what ron paul needs is a shot of joe trippi

which reminds me of a thread i need to make

[Van Cruncheon]

1) Ron Paul is not getting the Democratic nomination
2) Ron Paul is not a viable third-party candidate
3) Ron Paul is not the next POTUS

1)Would you vote for a democratic candidate if you disagreed with everything he/she stood for? Should you put the issues about the party?
2)Its a goof thing he isnt running as a third party candidate then.
3)Says who?

1. no. hence, i will probably not vote for hilary either.
2. he might as well be michael badnarik or lyndon larouche -- two other well-spoken libertarian crackpots who never made a significant dent in american politics. ron paul's only difference is that he's more mealy-mouthed than badnarik, and slightly less insane than larouche. paul calls himself a republican, yet he embraces little of the party platform -- he's a libertarian in spirit moreso than he is even a republican in name only.
3. says the folks who decide these things: a) america's political elite; and b) the press.

oh, it's CUTE how you believe in pure democracy! admittedly, it's a huge step up from your cluelessness about the middle east and islam; god bless the hour your narrow little brain switched gears from reactionary dogma to libertarian idealism!

[FlameOfCallandor]

I find it facetious that you've started referring him to "Dr. Paul," as if his medical background has anything to do with politics. I'm fairly opposed to the "Dr." honorific in general, however

I was thinking. Dr. Paul is the only medical doctor candidate. That gives him a huge edge on healthcare, imo.

[Van Cruncheon]

kinda like how dr. santorum has an advantage in the abortion debate and the terry schiavo case, amirite?

(evilbore fun fact: i couldn't recall rick santorum's name, so i googled msn live search'd "dan savage semen and shit." first hit was rick santorum. thanks, internet!)

[APF]

Uh, Paul wasn't the only candidate not to vote for the Iraq war...

[brawndolicious]

^maybe he's talking about representatives only?  I can't remember what any representative voted for.

I know Barbara Boxer didn't vote for the war.

[Mandark]

kinda like how dr. santorum has an advantage in the abortion debate and the terry schiavo case, amirite?

(evilbore fun fact: i couldn't recall rick santorum's name, so i googled msn live search'd "dan savage semen and shit." first hit was rick santorum. thanks, internet!)

Remember when Dr. Bill Frist diagnosed Schiavo as still having brain function based on the highlight reel her parents put together?  Good times!

[APF]

^maybe he's talking about representatives only?  I can't remember what any representative voted for.

I know Barbara Boxer didn't vote for the war.

Neither did Chewspinich.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Uh, Paul wasn't the only candidate not to vote for the Iraq war...

Are they running for president?

[Mandark]

Uh, Paul wasn't the only candidate not to vote for the Iraq war...

Are they running for president?

Yes.

Hence the word "candidate".

[Gay Boy]

Obama did not support the war when it began nor did Kuchinichchchchhc

[FlameOfCallandor]

Obama did not support the war when it began nor did Kuchinichchchchhc

This is true, I wouldn't have such a problem voting for them. Especially if it was Rudy vs. Obama.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.

[Human Snorenado]

I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.

I would also like to point out that Ron Paul would say that it is not the Government's job to make sure children's toys don't have poisonous lead paint on them.  THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I would also like to point out that Ron Paul would say that it is not the Government's job to make sure children's toys don't have poisonous lead paint on them.  THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING.

Is it the federal governments job to make sure toys are safe?
Right now it is and they are doing a pretty fucking lousy job. 

[Mandark]

I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.

Bill Richardson

[FlameOfCallandor]

I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.

Bill Richardson

Who?

[Human Snorenado]

I would also like to point out that Ron Paul would say that it is not the Government's job to make sure children's toys don't have poisonous lead paint on them.  THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING.

Is it the federal governments job to make sure toys are safe?
Right now it is and they are doing a pretty fucking lousy job. 

I'm failing to understand the gist of your argument.  Let me see if this is what you're saying:  "A massively underfunded and understaffed agency run by a woman who is resisting attempts to strengthen it is unable to regulate rogue companies from providing toxic toys for toddlers.  The obvious solution is to completely eliminate the agency and let those companies police themselves!"

I mean, I know you're stupid..... but are you really THAT stupid?

[Mandark]

Who?

You're just a font of knowledge, aren't you?

[Human Snorenado]

I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.

Bill Richardson

Who?

Just a guy that has double the support of Ron Paul, that's who.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I'm failing to understand the gist of your argument.  Let me see if this is what you're saying:  "A massively underfunded and understaffed agency run by a woman who is resisting attempts to strengthen it is unable to regulate rogue companies from providing toxic toys for toddlers.  The obvious solution is to completely eliminate the agency and let those companies police themselves!"

Sounds like the agency is ineffective and wasting money even existing.

Lets throw more money at the problem.