Are you going to vote

Yes
Total votes: 25 (78%)
No, I like complaining
Total votes: 7 (22%)
Total votes: 32

Who s is going to vote tomorrow s primary?

201
Rick Reuben wrote:
El Protoolio wrote: what I said was Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. This is true.

What an idiot. If you restrict your votes to only candidates who are likely to prove they are right by winning office, then guess what? You are eliminating any candidates with unpopular ideas, which is just what the system wants.


Except that I'm not doing that. You are saying I am doing that but I am not doing that. You are a liar. I am eliminating Paul as a candidate for me because I don't like his views on most things. If I liked anyone I liked Kucinich and now he's out of it so I don't get to vote for him.

Rick Reuben wrote:You vote on positions, not on electability. Electability is not under your personal control, but your personal political views are.


That's right and my personal views tell me that regardless of what Paul thinks about the war I still don't like his other views. I thought that was ok, no? Because didn't you say

Rick Reuben wrote:That's fine if he doesn't agree with Paul.
?

Why yes, you did say that! So what's the problem here?

Who s is going to vote tomorrow s primary?

202
Colonel Panic wrote:Libertarianism is Anarchism for rich people. A Libertarian government


Care to rephrase? :D

Colonel Panic wrote:Libertarianism is Anarchism for rich people. A Libertarian government would set up the perfect conditions for the wealthiest few percent of the population to assume total control of everything and Western society would devolve back to something closely resembling feudalism, within mere decades.


You don't believe a big government system, would set up the exact same situation where control rests in the hands of the few? Look around at the current situation, where libertarianism is non existent in this country, and tell me how control is not rested in the hands of the few?
Marsupialized wrote:I want a piano made out of jello.
It's the only way I'll be able to achieve the sound I hear in my head.

Who s is going to vote tomorrow s primary?

203
Rick Reuben wrote:But that's not what he said. He called a Paul vote 'easy' because Protoolio thinks that the only votes that are validated are the votes for candidates who win.
el protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.


No I said it's easy for you to say what Paul would have done as President when there will never be a chance to see if he would. Just like it's easy to say what any candidate with no chance would have done. I think Kucinich would have been the best choice for me but I will never know for sure because he will never be President.

I am not saying your vote is easy or that you are not voting with what your conscience tells you, it is just easy to tell the rest of us what would be with a Paul Presidency because we will never know what that Presidency would have been like.

Just like I can tell you what I would do if I won $500,000,000 except that we won't know for sure if that is what I would do since I will probably never win $500,000,000.

Rick Reuban wrote:Dopey Protoolio thinks that we can't decide if an anti-war voter who chooses Paul for his anti-war record has made a good choice unless the candidate is actually elected.


No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.


Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

Rick Reuban wrote:An anti-war vote is a good vote, whether it is cast for a winning candidate or a losing candidate. Dopey PT thinks that an anti-war vote needs to be 'proven' as good by a victorious candidate.


No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.


Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

Rick Reuban wrote:Read what the quitter said- it's right there above. EPT: "It is easy to say Paul is the best choice because only a Paul election proves that he was right".


No I didn't say that at all. You said I said it but I didn't say it. You are a liar. What I said was

El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.


Which means Paul supporters will never be able to prove that Paul would actually end the war or dismantle the Fed because Paul will never be President. Which is true.

Rick Reuban wrote:What a dope. An anti-war vote is right, on its own merits. It does not need to be verified as good by Paul's election.


Which is why I would have voted for Kucinich but he dropped out so I didn't. Kucinich is also trying to impeach Cheney which is something I support and would have voted for him on.

Who s is going to vote tomorrow s primary?

204
Rick Reuben wrote:Colonel Shitbrain, thinking that the Republicans created the deficit, and that the Democrats fought them tooth and nail every step of the way:

I never said the Democrats fought them every step of the way, but the Democrats did pose significant resistance on several occasions. Several times throughout the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations, Federal government shutdowns occurred as a result of the Democratic Congress refusing to sign off on an exhorbitant budget bill offered by the Republican White House. In fact, the same thing happened twice during the Clinton administration, for the opposite reason, when Clinton offered a balanced budget, the Republicans (led by Newt Gingrich, as part of his infamous "Contract On America) refused to sign off on it, causing the government to shut down nonessential services for several business days.

Colonel Panic wrote:Total fiscal irresponsibility, mostly on the part of Republican administrations, is the cause of the "vat of red ink".
:lol: [/quote]

Look at the chart I posted, smartass:
Image

It's the SAME CHART, with the administrations delineated and labeled.

Where does the biggest leap in US debt occur? And following that, during which administration does it turn around? Then where does it resume its sharp incline? Now go back and look at every Republican administration since the 1960s. Do you see any kind of a trend there? Are you really so thick that you can't even recognize it when it's represented in plain, graphical format?

Rick Reuben wrote:Colonel, do you know when the USA became a debtor nation to itself? I do. Do you know what caused it? I do. Do you think that the military-industrial complex created by FDR had anything to do with it?
Image

Do you know when the US became a debtor nation to foreign creditors? I do.
Image

Interesting. Soon after the central bankers took over the monetary system and imploded the economy from 1929-1939, the US suddenly turned its country over to the greatest debt-producing machine ever created: perpetual wartime economies.

Those charts you posted don't show that. The first one is the same one I posted earlier with the presidential terms outlined, which you didn't even bother to look at. The second one shows only the period from 1970-2004. There's no mention whatsoever of the period of 1929-1939. And anyway, what does it show? That the US was largely in control of its own financial assets until the beginning of the Reagan administration, that foreign interests began taking over the US economy right in the middle of Reagan's second term, and have been increasing ever since. That doesn't prove your point either. It actually gives credence to my point, that the Republicans are in the business of selling off our country from underneath us.

Look at the chart I posted labeled with the presidents. There's the pattern. Just open your eyes and look. You can't help but see it. During which administrations does the upward trend start, and during which ones does it stop or reverse? You do know how to read a chronological bar chart, don't you?

I am not saying that the Democrats are our saviors, or that they're not part of the problem, but they're certainly preferable over the Republicans. Maybe if they grew some fuckin' balls they might actually be a viable alternative. But if you want to find your "ruling elites", you need look no further than the GOP and their supporters.

The Libertarians are even worse with their lassiez faire capitalism bullshit. That's what Reagan's "voodoo economics" was all about, and look where it got us.

BTW, the US is not a debtor to itself, it's a debtor to private interests owned by particular US citizens. Big difference there. In other words, the taxes paid to the government by each and every one of us are in a large part beholden to wealthy government contractors. Now I'll give you two guesses which political party is the biggest proponent of that economic shift? (Hint: Which party has, for the past 5 years or so, been pushing the process of privatizing the US military, the most lucrative of all government sources of contract business?)
Last edited by Colonel Panic_Archive on Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Who s is going to vote tomorrow s primary?

206
El Protoolio wrote:It sure is easy for some of you to say that your rich white christian male savior Ron Paul would have been the best choice with the best policies when it will never have to be actually proven by his actions as president since he will obviously not ever be president. All you will ever have is his rhetoric.


Yep, you're right. So we'll have to wait and see what your rich black christian male savior will do. Or perhaps your rich white christian female. I don't know...the choices just vary so much.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Who s is going to vote tomorrow s primary?

209
Rick Reuben wrote:
Colonel Panic wrote:I never said the Democrats fought them every step of the way, but the Democrats did pose significant resistance on several occasions.
Good luck with your studies of dialectics. Your laughable attempt to throw responsibility for the deficit onto one party is preposterous. The US government is a corporation, and the corporation sucks more from the peoples' pockets every year.
Image

Again, when did that huge deficit really get started? Around about 1981 or so. Who was in the White House during that period, Bob?

Despite the requests of myself and many others in this community, you still have produced absolutely zero credible evidence of your terrifying accusation that we Americans are all merely the property of a huge, covert corporation.

You also not explained to me how you square this radical belief (some might say "insane" but I'll stop short at "radical") with your faith in libertarianism. How is the complete deregulation of the capitalist market system going to save us from the evil omnipotent Elites?

I could understand you shilling for LaRouche or something, but Libertarianism?
Last edited by Colonel Panic_Archive on Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests