Skronk wrote:It's hard to take him seriously when he obviously recognizes an upper class, but still put elite in quotations.
Because you're using "elite" in a specific way that doesn't really have much connection to the proper use of the word. That is why I use the obnoxious speech-marks, to bring attention to when I am using your definition instead of the definition. (which is the OED definition, not fuckin' websters for fuck sake).
Upper class means upper class.
You are talking about elites, but failing to recognise where that description might be accurate. Ron Paul is the son of a wealthy business owner, privately educated, given all the advantages of wealth and upper class life. He is a member of a profession which if not elitist, is openly exclusionist.
His campaign focus is on monterian policy, and his propaganda is entirely centered on his ability to gain a vast amount of money in donations. Which is merely gerrymandering for the internet age. Wing-nuts draping their disposable income about like limp cocks.
Yeah, being a doctor is up there with the Bilderbergs.
Do you not recognise advantages and inherited wealth when you see it? Do they need a Jewish suffix to their surnames for you to recognise?
At least try to see the point about Stockholm syndrome here, even if you disagree: you loathe one variety of Old White Guy exclusionism, but embrace another variety of it. And Rick seemed to get almost dew-eyed with admiration about this revolting old koot's college record.
As I've said before, particulary about this upcoming election, the candidates are on the table. Who do you cast your vote for, the bought democrats with a shady record, or a libertarian in the republican party with a consistent record, and campaign money collected from average people? Hmm. Tough call.
I am not American, I do not have to choose. I would choose the democrats, because they are not Republicans and they are less likely to legislate that the poor and the sick are responsible for their own misfortune and thus undeserving of public health.
Paul's consistant record is of wing-nut xenophobia, callousness and libertarianism. Fuck him, he is wrong about almost everything. Even his two most agreeable points, drug legislations and withdrawal from Iraq exist because of callousness and xenophobia. i.e. he doesn't care about where drugs come from and he doesn't care about people in other nations.
unarmedman wrote:I wouldn't waste time on big_dave anymore. He's just throwing out random sentences, smarmy garbage remarks without any backing.
And I tried to reply to you respectfully, because you definitely seem like one of the more level headed libertarians on the board. But thank you for giving me the satisfaction of knowing that libertarians like yourself are wasting time and money supporting Ron Paul for a position he cannot possibly gain. Good riddance to that time and money, as it will now set about generating more self-defeating paranoia and hilarious webpages.