I find your challenges to my credibility purely laughable when your own analysis of my argument was so dishonest. If my argument were so weak I should think someone of even your mental caliber would have been able to honestly and accurately refute it.
Your reply didn't address my argument. If Paul was this dream candidate of big money, like you purport, then they would MAKE him a good investment. How many overhyped bad movies have you seen? How do you think GW got into office?
Because Ron Paul is not a candidate that can be sold. His views are too extreme and he is too easily smeared. In essence, he is the Republican equivalent of Kucinich. He does not appeal to any major base, the Republicans won't be interested, the Dems won't be interested, and independents won't be interested. People don't care about Ron Paul, he doesn't get ratings so the media has interest in hyping him. He had the third most money of any Republican candidate and still can't even break 3%. What more can they do to hype him?
Same thing again. Did you even read what I posted? You completely ignored what I said and went off on some tired rhetoric. Free markets, you want us to believe, are total anarchy, but you refuse to even recognize the massive amount of strong government controls and protection that come with this very same free market. I've already made this argument several times in this thread, you have ignored it each and every time, and that act of doing so has shot your credibility to hell.
I did read what you said - it was more of your usual ignorance of history and economics; not to mention your diverting from what is actually at issue here. You went off an a tangent about copyrights and patents even though Ron Paul has not advocated removing them. You spouted rhetoric about government courts as if Ron Paul's free market policies would prevent them from doing so. Your post was a massive red herring that had absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul, his policies, or, really anything else but your own ridiculous interpretation of what constitutes a Free Market; not the kind of Free Market Ron Paul advocates. Perhaps if you did something to explain to me how patents, the courts, and so forth are under any kind of threat from Paul, you'd look a little less loony when spouting off about how the Corporations don't like him because he is a threat to them.
So what you're saying is that socialism cannot be accurately be defined as a "socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation"?? That that statement is just a McCarthyism?
If one limited it to that, and that alone, yes, that would be a fair assessment - though the purposes clause is a bit disingenuous. However, contrary to your dishonesty, that was not the full definition posted. The definition posted specifically listed the state, which is not accurate.
To sum up what Abraxas seems to be saying though, it seems that big business (or big money, he can't seem to decide)
Certainly I have decided. See, if you could comprehend more nuance than a pop-up book, you might note I use big money when I refer to all moneyed interests in Washington. You might also notice that when I use big business and the like, I am referring to the largest component of big money. You seem to be under the impression I use the two interchangeably, or your attempts to restore any credibility in the audience depends on you making others believe it; in either case though, it is mistaken.
is the greatest dominating power in Washington, and that they eagerly want a candidate just like Ron Paul, one who will bring us back to a free market system of strict government protection of big money's property which will make their rule absolute
Is this the best lie you could come up with on my position? Are you Tony Snow by any chance? No, my argument is they want a president who will relax government regulations on corporations, allowing them to continue to buy pork from congress. In other words, they want market restrictions removed ala free market but want to keep using government money for pork. Ron Paul is the best candidate with which to do this. I have been fairly straightforward in this position, I'm sorry it was too difficult for you to follow.
apparently like it once was right before TR), but they need government to be powerless for this to occur even though that would make government powerless to defend their property
Where did I say anything about government powerlessness? Oh, right, I didn't. One more transparent lie from you. Again, I'm sorry if you can't figure out how one candidate can both lower market regulations while still handing over pork by the bucket full at the same time.
and, for some reason, this dream candidate of these great powers has so little support that he would be a "bad investment" even though they make billions of dollars pushing people into bad products all the time.
He has the third most money of any republican candidate and can't even break the margin of error in national polls. If you can't figure out why he is a bad investment with that alone in mind, that sounds like a personal problem.
Seems kinda strange if you ask me. Wouldn't you agree?
It does, yes. How anybody could possibly draw this from my post and yet still have the intelligence to operate a keyboard is beyond baffling.
In the meantime, it appears that socialism is NOT a system advocating community control of distribution of wealth, and that such claims are just McCarthy propaganda. Fascinating!
Not really. Changing the definition part way through, away from the one I objected to and to a modified version tends to have this effect; this effect being you not accurately representing my argument.
Come back when you have a coherent reality-based argument. Your claim of a relevant degree might be a little more credible if you didn't read like some teenaged-interpretation of some Chomsky delusion of doublethink.
I have a coherent reality based argument, thank you. However, my advanced knowledge stems from something you might not have had access to. Let me fetch you a link that might help you better comprehend where I am coming from:
Here.
Or, if that doesn't do it for you, perhaps you and TLC can get together sometime and misrepresent each other's positions.