Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

If I actually believed that there was a political solution to the problems of the world and that the process of voting wasn't a mass ritual of collective servitude, I would be far more concerned with Paul's connections to the Rockefeller-funded Council for National Policy and the John Birch Society than a spurious connection to a pathetic fringe group of marginalized, frustrated white supremacists.

When I think of a true Libertarian, I think of Thomas Paine and the Quakers, not some used-up, frail politician who plays the political game while doing his best to convince his followers otherwise. Or a guy who accuses "Washington insiders" of taking corporate money while receiving millions of dollars from big pharma, big banks, big insurance, big alcohol, and Wall Street over the course of his career. So now we have the lesser of three evils, as opposed to two. Whoop-de-frickin' doo.

Thomas Paine on Social Security:
"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right."

He also had a lot of forward thinking ideas that some here today would label as being socialist. I just love the historical revisionism on this board where Thomas Paine - one of the biggest advocates for the poor and needy - was a Libertarian. LOL.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Thomas Paine on Social Security:
"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right."

He also had a lot of forward thinking ideas that some here today would label as being socialist. I just love the historical revisionism on this board where Thomas Paine - one of the biggest advocates for the poor and needy - was a Libertarian. LOL.

So Libertarians are inherently not forward thinking or advocates of the needy?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by CadBane

So Libertarians are inherently not forward thinking or advocates of the needy?

Usually they recommend 1800's style economics (laissez faire capitalism), and a good portion of their prescriptions is to get rid of social programs for the poor. So yes.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Usually they recommend 1800's style economics (laissez faire capitalism), and a good portion of their prescriptions is to get rid of social programs for the poor. So yes.

That's horribly false logic. Not that you care.

The economic policies and alleviation of government involvement are in order to help the poor, long-term.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by CadBane

That's horribly false logic. Not that you care.

The economic policies and alleviation of government involvement are in order to help the poor, long-term.

How does getting rid of Medicaid and other health care programs - like SCHIP for poor children - help the poor long term? That makes absolutely no sense. That is extremely deluded.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Thomas Paine on Social Security:
"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right."

He also had a lot of forward thinking ideas that some here today would label as being socialist. I just love the historical revisionism on this board where Thomas Paine - one of the biggest advocates for the poor and needy - was a Libertarian. LOL.

I find it both ironic and tragic that you are pressing about someone marginalizing people based on race, yet you seem to see fit to do it ad nauseum in just about every post you toss out.

The modern political term 'Libertarian' is a far cry from what a Libertarian used to be. I would think that someone as clever as you seem to think you are would know that, but I guess not.

All I really read from you is a cascade of strawmen and rhetoric that seems geared for a feedback loop of confrontation... and, not surprisingly, that's what you're getting.

I don't affiliate myself with any political party, whatsoever, but I'm sure that that won't stop you from forming an opinion about my motives for posting what I did. You're playing the part of the 5-year-old who complains about getting stung by bees after he just bashed their hive in triumphantly.

But hey, what do I know. Clearly you seem to think this approach is working for you, so have at it.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

I find it both ironic and tragic that you are pressing about someone marginalizing people based on race, yet you seem to see fit to do it ad nauseum in just about every post you toss out.

When have I marginalized someone because of their race on this thread?

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by SeanL

When have I marginalized someone because of their race on this thread?

You have marginalized people who have views that differ from yours. Pot, meet kettle. You lumped me in with other people even though you completely misunderstood my post. Marginalizing someone because of race is no different than marginalizing someone because of their political views. In other words, you're a hypocrite, which, thankfully for you, is not a marginal position these days.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

You have marginalized people who have views that differ from yours.

No you said I marginalized people because of their race. Now you are backtracking.

Secondly, I am one person on a sleepy forum. How exactly was I able to successfully marginalize you and with what group of people were you marginalized from?

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Marginalizing someone because of race is no different than marginalizing someone because of their political views.

Ron Paul is a modern day Martin Luther King. LOL.

If you do and say stupid things then you marginalize yourself.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by SeanL

No you said I marginalized people because of their race. Now you are backtracking.

Secondly, I am one person on a sleepy forum. How exactly was I able to successfully marginalize you and with what group of people were you marginalized from?



Ron Paul is a modern day Martin Luther King. LOL.

If you do and say stupid things then you marginalize yourself.

You chose to read it that way, but that was clearly not my point at all, being that you haven't made any racist statements in this thread. I can see why you would read it that way, being that you seem to be bent on incessantly hijacking this thread in order to bolster your own belief system while lumping anyone who posts here into nice, convenient categories that make you sleep better at night, but the world doesn't work that way.

You have taken issue with Ron Paul and some his supporters for racist ideology. Racism marginalizes a group of people based upon race. You marginalize people based upon political ideology, but, to you, that's somehow noble. The hypocrisy of that dynamic is clearly lost on you.

mar·gin·al·ize (märj-n-lz)
tr.v. mar·gin·al·ized, mar·gin·al·iz·ing, mar·gin·al·iz·es
To relegate or confine to a lower or outer limit or edge, as of social standing.

The bold part of your comment is an example of this:

Straw Man Fallacy

Explanation:

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

You chose to read it that way, but that was clearly not my point at all, being that you haven't made any racist statements in this thread. I can see why you would read it that way, being that you seem to be bent on incessantly hijacking this thread in order to bolster your own belief system while lumping anyone who posts here into nice, convenient categories that make you sleep better at night, but the world doesn't work that way.

I read it the way you wrote it. If that is not what you meant then learn to write what you mean. Or at least stand up for your positions and don't backtrack.

Originally Posted by ribosoma

You have taken issue with Ron Paul and some his supporters for racist ideology. Racism marginalizes a group of people based upon race. You marginalize people based upon political ideology, but, to you, that's somehow noble. The hypocrisy of that dynamic is clearly lost on you.

Clearly the people who criticize Paul are the equivalent of racists. After all he is a modern day Martin Luther King.