Weren't you complaining about internet bullying a few pages back?

Being told to 'fuck off' isn't my idea of a worthwhile argument.

It definitely has its place.

Cranius wrote:I know, I know, it must be all very confusing and maddening for you. But's going to be okay, it's just the end of American Exceptionalism....not the end of the world.

Woah, wait a minute...I just caught this little gem.

So Ron Paul wants the U.S. out of Iraq, out of the middle east entirely. He doesn't want to give tax incentives to other nations to trade with us OR bomb the nations that don't. He is for free and fair trade. He doesn't believe the United States government has authority to legislate morality or restrict the rights of its citizens.

And you're saying he is the candidate of American Exceptionalism...how...?

Paul's nationalist attitude to illegal immigrants and those in other nations is exceptionalism in action, if not intention.

Yeah, that and the recourse to the historical intention of the Constitution.

Big dave, aside from arguing, once again, on something as ridiculous as common language, you really don't see our political as a show, do you? You can rail against Ron Paul all you would like, that's not the point and I couldn't care less, but to get hot under the collar and talk as if our (Americans) other candidates would be more beneficial, is plain naive. These people are exactly the same. Privileged, wealthy, opportunist, and willing to lie their way into any office with the smallest bit of prestige.

You scoff at the notion of an elite, from the upper class, that is able to guide and set the course for a nations wellbeing through finances. That doesn't bother me, either. What bothers me is you wholly expect a grand plan for the lower class to come from these same exact fucking people. You're trying to build something better, while never taking a close look.

I obviously recognize the advantages of inherited wealth, but at the same, and it's in italics for you, if we are to presume that positive change can happen through their politics, then we make due with their candidates. We have limited options. Throw your coin wherever, democrat or republican, they are not looking out for us.

You can glibly go on and on, argue for whatever paper thin idea you'd like, but at the end of the day, you accept things as the way they are, politically speaking. You can point a finger toward those evil white old motherfuckers, but you happily stop there. You can never get beyond the superficialities, or draw line directly to where it matters.

Skronk wrote:Big dave, aside from arguing, once again, on something as ridiculous as common language, you really don't see our political as a show, do you? You can rail against Ron Paul all you would like, that's not the point and I couldn't care less, but to get hot under the collar and talk as if our (Americans) other candidates would be more beneficial, is plain naive. These people are exactly the same. Privileged, wealthy, opportunist, and willing to lie their way into any office with the smallest bit of prestige.

I'm into semiology and linguistics. It is not ridiculous that our first port of call with politicized language is to ask how it functions and what effect it has. I am, as they say, hot to trot.

I am not saying that other candidates do not represent degrees of success through exclusionism, but that Ron Paul does too. For him it is part of his image and his political force.

You scoff at the notion of an elite, from the upper class, that is able to guide and set the course for a nations wellbeing through finances. That doesn't bother me, either. What bothers me is you wholly expect a grand plan for the lower class to come from these same exact fucking people.

I do not. I do not expect a grand plan.

For me the question is not so much "why are some people successful?", but "why do some people seek success, what is success anyway?". The answer to materialism isn't how to get materials for all, but what governs it in the first place.

You're trying to build something better, while never taking a close look.

Sez the guy who chastised me for wanting to discuss our means of discourse.

You can glibly go on and on, argue for whatever paper thin idea you'd like, but at the end of the day, you accept things as the way they are, politically speaking. You can point a finger toward those evil white old motherfuckers, but you happily stop there. You can never get beyond the superficialities, or draw line directly to where it matters.

Where does that line matter? That is scarily conservative rhetoric. I feel like you are condemning me for nothing more than (percieved) relativism.

Shrinks could probably tell you a lot about personality types that set up extreme dichotomies, where both sides looking almost identical to an outside observer.

Actually yes, its part of the Hegelian dialectical system US two party politics runs on. The only way to control the people is to divide them.

To the outsider its a fucking joke. A Dog and Pony show. Whats even worse is those who would rather rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic defending the status quo as they squander their last true chance of remaining afloat...

Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by
constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy
the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to
ridicule, contempt and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize
power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government
extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices,
inflation and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital
industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient
attitude on the part of government towards such disorders. By specious
argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty,
sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the
registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view that
confiscating them would leave the population defenseless."

Lenin on "How to Attack the West"" 1921

As for the assertion that Ron Paul is somehow part of the "elite", I think that depends on the context. Certainly intellectually and morally but definitely not in the same way the other candidates are 'elite'. Knob gobblers.

Its membership list is a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly a century. It should not be surprising that most presidential candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do not advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as "liberals" and "conservatives" to control all aspects of the debate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with several members in the race from both sides of the aisle:

Democrat CFR Candidates:

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Chris Dodd

Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates:

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Fred Thompson


The mainstream media's self-proclaimed "top tier" candidates are united in their CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in plain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is the only "top tier" candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

Argyreia Nervosa wrote:

Shrinks could probably tell you a lot about personality types that set up extreme dichotomies, where both sides looking almost identical to an outside observer.

Actually yes, its part of the Hegelian dialectical system US two party politics runs on. The only way to control the people is to divide them.

To the outsider its a fucking joke. A Dog and Pony show. Whats even worse is those who would rather rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic defending the status quo as they squander the last true chance of keeping staying afloat...

Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by
constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy
the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to
ridicule, contempt and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize
power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government
extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices,
inflation and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital
industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient
attitude on the part of government towards such disorders. By specious
argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty,
sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the
registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view that
confiscating them would leave the population defenseless."

Lenin on "How to Attack the West"" 1921

As for the assertion that Ron Paul is somehow part of the "elite", I think that depends on the context. Certainly intellectually and morally but definitely not in the same way the other candidates are 'elite'. Knob gobblers.

Its membership list is a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly a century. It should not be surprising that most presidential candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do not advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as "liberals" and "conservatives" to control all aspects of the debate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with several members in the race from both sides of the aisle:

Democrat CFR Candidates:

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Chris Dodd

Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates:

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Fred Thompson


The mainstream media's self-proclaimed "top tier" candidates are united in their CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in plain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is the only "top tier" candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg