The point is that, in acting reasonable, one comes across as reasonable. If the other person is actually unreasonable the contrast is sharper and more obvious.

Johnny C wrote:The point is that, in acting reasonable, one comes across as reasonable.

"Government is failure"
- W.C. Williams

The problem is even worse than Hansen alleges ("there is always going to be an element of self-interest driving someone looking for public office"). From what I understand, and I haven't witnessed anything to make me think differently, people at the levels of government we're talking about aren't just a bit self-interested, they are sociopaths. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, it doesn't matter. Once they start circulating in that atmosphere, they are surely miles away from what any of us would consider "reasonable", though most of the time they understand the value of coming across as reasonable.

I can't find the will to support any of these clowns. But I've never believed that line about not criticizing something unless I've got a better idea. The process of dismantling an argument idea persona whatever is enough. If Clocker Bob finds it reasonable to shout "fire! fuckheads!" in a crowded theater that is on fire, are you going to say he is coming across as unreasonable? - Why does he have to call us all a nasty name? Those people in the front row wouldn't stop talking. They don't want to leave until Bruce Willis takes off his shirt. That doesn't mean we all deserve such abuse! - Meanwhile the movie house burns a little more.
If you haven't noticed, this country is being turned into a gulag. Fascists are in control. I can use that term. Anyone can, when it applies.
"Fascists put Jews gypsies etc in concentration camps! I don't see any concentration camps here."
In 1924 when Mussolini called himself a Fascist, Italy had no concentration camps, either.

reasonable saint, 1987; " . . . often people want to give us washing machines, but that is not doing God's work." - Mother Theresa

Nina wrote:If Clocker Bob finds it reasonable to shout "fire! fuckheads!" in a crowded theater that is on fire, are you going to say he is coming across as unreasonable?

You're going off of the assumption that the theatre is on fire in the first place, and Rick's the only one to notice. Maybe he mistook some popcorn steam for the smoke of a raging inferno?

Rick Reuben wrote:

whitney wrote:Will you vote to stop the killing or not? It’s as simple as that.

Holy "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," Batman!

The implication is, "Will you vote Ron Paul, or will you let the murder continue?" There are options besides Ron Paul.

Look. I hate pointing out logical fallacies in arguments. It's tedious and I can never remember the proper name for a given fallacy without some cross-referencing. In the future could you just double-check arguments you present for problems like this and just filter them out yourself?

Rick,

I don't hate America. I don't believe in the war on terror. Saying that someone has never wavered in their opinion is fair but it doesn't invalidate those who acknowledge that they fucked up - like Edwards, for example. Your faith in Paul is based on a borderline-irrational hatred of bankers and the belief that Paul shares this exact hatred. "Factually incorrect" is fascinating since I've been bringing up links to support the majority of my positions in this thread.

I think that covers it.

Johnny C wrote:borderline-irrational hatred of bankers

Borderline-irrational? His hatred of bankers is not irrational! What are you talking about?

Nina wrote:

Johnny C wrote:borderline-irrational hatred of bankers

Borderline-irrational? His hatred of bankers is not irrational! What are you talking about?

His hatred of bankers is logical and rational. It cannot, however, be described as a rational hatred: it leads to him treating wild speculations with the weight of reality, violently contradictory political standpoints (see this thread), outrageous attacks on any who fall from lockstep agreement with the aforementioned speculations, and is also clearly linked to paranoid persecution fantasies and delusions of grandeur.

I guess what I'm saying is that his hatred of bankers is rational, but he isn't.

Okay, I've done a little bit of reading round this fella and read through the vitriol to see the different sides here.

As far as I can see it Rick is for Ron Paul cause he is the only one who is against the banking system as it stands (and against the war but that's secondary). Rick doesn't agree with many of Ron's other policies but doesn't think they are relevant when weighed against the removal of the evil of the fiat currency system - which Rick sees as the fundamental cause of all our current global problems - not just the economy but right through war to famine, exploitation and global warming. I'm inclined to agree though don't *necessarily* agree that it is entirely manipulated by a controlling body in a vast conspiracy.

However, with regards Ron I think Rick you are running a risk that could be leveled towards leftist supporters of the Iraq War. The leftist supporters of the war justify their support by saying Saddam was a real fucker so getting rid of him was a good thing. The problem is this didn't consider the actual motivations for the war (which all of us - save Galanter - can agree was primarily for oil). You can very rarely separate the action from the motivation to my mind. How a thing plays out is determined largely by the actual intention - hence the catastrophic mess in Iraq now.

This equates in my mind to Ron's wish to reform the monetary system. It sounds like a good idea - a great idea. Sure somebody should be doing it. But why is he doing it? Why trust this person to solve the problem? Why trust someone whose views in certain areas are pretty abhorrent (not to mention dangerous)?
You might say it doesn't matter who does it as long as it is done' - but that is exactly what those supporters of the war thought. 'Anything has to be better than Saddam', 'you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs' etc

On saying all of that I wonder, Rick, if you really think Ron can actually win the Presidency? Or are you offering your support to try and keep the issue of monetary reform in the public political arena for as long as possible (in fact I think you might even have said that's what you are doing(?)). Let's face it - it is possibly the single most important issue in the world - given how much it effects - but it is hardly ever discussed anywhere in the mainstream. On that account keeping him this fella in the public eye has value.

If I was an American however I think I'd be concerned if I saw him as a serious contender for the White House.

It's just a tragic shame to my eyes that more aren't willing to speak out on some of the fundamental issues that affect us all - as Ron does at least seem to be. I mean is anyone else - at all - in this campaign suggesting reform of the monetary system?