Ron Paul and the Media

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Vic, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I am not claiming corporate power is absolute, nor am I claiming the government has no power. What I am saying is that in Washington, money is power and so the lobbying coming from corporate lobbies, religious lobbies, single issue lobbies (PETA), unions lobbies, and yes, government lobbies, all fall under big money in my view. It is this money and the interactions of money that turn the wheels in Washington.
Perhaps, but then your notion about Paul is fundamentally wrong. He isn't favoring one (or a few) of these groups over the others. He favors NONE of them. You're not seeing big business and big money rally to his cause, now are you? Hell no, they're pretending he doesn't exist. Which takes us back to what I said earlier, that big business (like every other big money group) likes government involvement when it favors them (and vice versa, is against it when it doesn't favor them). The whole "big business loves completely free and unregulated markets" rhetoric is fsckin' nonsense. It's regulation and compliance that raises market barriers sufficiently high enough to keep competition at bay. It's government laws that protect their patents, copyrights, and properties. It's government courts that they sue their competitors in. They just want their cake and eat it too like everyone else.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I do not use the word Socialist as a "bogeyman" to scare people. It is what it is. If it is federal government controlled it is socialist. Plain and simple.

Wikipedia Socialism

socialistic refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage 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. This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
With all respect, Wikipedia is the wrong place to go for an accurate definition of socio-economic systems. Wikipedia is useful for getting your bearings to some degree, but it is not somewhere one should rely on for medical advice, for the definitive source on scientific theory, nor the definitive source on government and economic philosophies. Never forget Wikipedia is the culmination of millions of people, most of whom are no more knowledgeable than you or I on topics. Honestly I'd say most of them are less educated than you or I. Many people refer to any kind of government control of wealth to be socialism, however, that is not a historic definition nor a definition political theorists will use.
Uhh... oddly enough, it was PC Surgeon's strict interpretation of socialism as any kind of government control of wealth that was somewhat flawed (not wrong per se though, it's just not that black and white, plain and simple).

OTOH, the wikipedia passage that you slammed is completely fair and accurate in its description of socialism. I suggest both of you read it again.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Secondly, all of the lobbying that corporations are doing has only done because it has been EFFECTIVE. Pork-filled bills have been passing in record numbers because no president (democrat or republican) has had the courage to veto this garbage. You know Paul will be different.. Every industry...big oil...big pharma...whatever, will soon realize their lobbying efforts are pointless with a man like Paul in the White House...because he will certainly VETO each and every bill that involves a direct transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations, or any other special interest group.
No, he won't. Why? Because congress will couple them with bills he cannot afford to veto, and if he did, they would get the override. Who could possibly object to the twenty billion in pork attached in riders to the bill that opens the treasury to pay the wages of our soldiers? How can one possibly veto the earmarks for useless crap in the middle of nowhere when the only way it doesn't get passed is if you veto funding for children, children with diseases? Contrary to popular belief (and the mountain of evidence growing ever larger), congress is not stupid. They will submit their pork on the back of necessary bills and if they are vetoed, they will override.


Yeah he would veto. We call him Dr No in Texas for a reason. His voting record is extremely consistent.

And if it's something he couldn't afford to veto, ie looks bad to the public, he would explain bluntly exactly what congress was trying to bundle in the bill to the public.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Perhaps, but then your notion about Paul is fundamentally wrong. He isn't favoring one (or a few) of these groups over the others. He favors NONE of them. You're not seeing big business and big money rally to his cause, now are you? Hell no, they're pretending he doesn't exist.
For all intents and purposes he doesn't exist. He has no support and so would be a bad investment. He doesn't play with the Republican base, the Democrats won't vote for him; the odds of him winning are lower than they were for Perot. The fact nobody investing in him does not imply they do not like his platform.
Which takes us back to what I said earlier, that big business (like every other big money group) likes government involvement when it favors them (and vice versa, is against it when it doesn't favor them). The whole "big business loves completely free and unregulated markets" rhetoric is fsckin' nonsense. It's regulation and compliance that raises market barriers sufficiently high enough to keep competition at bay. It's government laws that protect their patents, copyrights, and properties. It's government courts that they sue their competitors in. They just want their cake and eat it too like everyone else.
I sincerely doubt anyone is going to repeal their patents or copyrights or properties - not even Ron Paul. The free market is what the truly large businesses want, that way they can return to a state of affairs circa 1900 where their rule was absolute, the government was powerless, where competition never has a chance to take off. Without a strong government to enforce fair play, the large companies would not have to play fair and at every point in history where we've seen a disjointed workforce, a weak government, and an open market, corporations and abuse of consumers and workers has flourished. The rich got richer and the poor stayed poor, the perfect situation for big money.

Uhh... oddly enough, it was PC Surgeon's strict interpretation of socialism as any kind of government control of wealth that was somewhat flawed (not wrong per se though, it's just not that black and white, plain and simple).

OTOH, the wikipedia passage that you slammed is completely fair and accurate in its description of socialism. I suggest both of you read it again.
No, it isn't. Most of my Bachelor's degree was spent on comparative socio-economic models that have existed throughout human history and those that have only existed in human conception. Sufficed to say, in no historical context is that definition of socialism correct and really that train of thought traces straight back to McCarthy propaganda rather than any accurate interpretation of the ideology. While it is often used in the context, it is not used anymore accurately than when people refer to the scientific word "theory" to mean guess.

Yeah he would veto. We call him Dr No in Texas for a reason. His voting record is extremely consistent.

And if it's something he couldn't afford to veto, ie looks bad to the public, he would explain bluntly exactly what congress was trying to bundle in the bill to the public.

Congress gets their pork projects exposed all the time. All of them are public record. The thing is nobody cares enough to do anything about it. If one set of shills gets voted out for pork spending, the next set going in will be bought by the same guys who owned the first group. Further, considering the media is one of the special interests who likes having influence in Washington, what makes you think they will paint Ron Paul's position in anything other than the worst possible light? They will bring on his opponents, they will point out his vetoing aid for orphans with diseases, and they will smear the crap out of him for everything he vetoed along with the pork.

And then they will override the veto and get their pork anyway.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Sorry for the delay in replying, I was out of town a couple of days.

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Perhaps, but then your notion about Paul is fundamentally wrong. He isn't favoring one (or a few) of these groups over the others. He favors NONE of them. You're not seeing big business and big money rally to his cause, now are you? Hell no, they're pretending he doesn't exist.
For all intents and purposes he doesn't exist. He has no support and so would be a bad investment. He doesn't play with the Republican base, the Democrats won't vote for him; the odds of him winning are lower than they were for Perot. The fact nobody investing in him does not imply they do not like his platform.
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?

Which takes us back to what I said earlier, that big business (like every other big money group) likes government involvement when it favors them (and vice versa, is against it when it doesn't favor them). The whole "big business loves completely free and unregulated markets" rhetoric is fsckin' nonsense. It's regulation and compliance that raises market barriers sufficiently high enough to keep competition at bay. It's government laws that protect their patents, copyrights, and properties. It's government courts that they sue their competitors in. They just want their cake and eat it too like everyone else.
I sincerely doubt anyone is going to repeal their patents or copyrights or properties - not even Ron Paul. The free market is what the truly large businesses want, that way they can return to a state of affairs circa 1900 where their rule was absolute, the government was powerless, where competition never has a chance to take off. Without a strong government to enforce fair play, the large companies would not have to play fair and at every point in history where we've seen a disjointed workforce, a weak government, and an open market, corporations and abuse of consumers and workers has flourished. The rich got richer and the poor stayed poor, the perfect situation for big money.
[/quote]
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.

Uhh... oddly enough, it was PC Surgeon's strict interpretation of socialism as any kind of government control of wealth that was somewhat flawed (not wrong per se though, it's just not that black and white, plain and simple).

OTOH, the wikipedia passage that you slammed is completely fair and accurate in its description of socialism. I suggest both of you read it again.
No, it isn't. Most of my Bachelor's degree was spent on comparative socio-economic models that have existed throughout human history and those that have only existed in human conception. Sufficed to say, in no historical context is that definition of socialism correct and really that train of thought traces straight back to McCarthy propaganda rather than any accurate interpretation of the ideology. While it is often used in the context, it is not used anymore accurately than when people refer to the scientific word "theory" to mean guess.
[/quote]
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?


To sum up what Abraxas seems to be saying though, it seems that big business (or big money, he can't seem to decide) 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 (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 and the currency system that their wealth is based on 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. Seems kinda strange if you ask me. Wouldn't you agree? 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!

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. :roll:
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
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.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Well, I see you're full of it and backpedaling like mad with personal attacks. That happens sometimes when you nest quotes to piecemeal someone else's argument only to find out that you completely missed the big picture.

Oh BTW, because you clearly can't follow along, I have never said that the patent office or court systems are under threat from Paul. I asked you to explain how these powerful government institutions represent the picture you draw of "free" markets. I already went through this in some detail, which you ignored, so saying "Huh?" now in an insulting tone doesn't make you look very smart.
Nor did I change that definition of socialism, that was quoted many times over from the first time you said it was wrong. And in that same vein, if you're going to call me a liar and deny saying things that I have quoted back to you, and at the time make claims of "advanced knowledge" when you clearly can't even follow your own arguments, then I'm gonna give you the rightful label of troll and ignore you from here on out.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Well, I see you're full of it and backpedaling like mad with personal attacks. That happens sometimes when you nest quotes to piecemeal someone else's argument only to find out that you completely missed the big picture.
Nope, no backpedaling. Though often those who like to backpedal refuse to quote the source material. My position is what it has always been, Ron Paul is good for corporations because he cannot stop pork and will push to lose restrictions on the market. This has always been my position and you spinning like a dalmatian after its own tail doesn't change it.

Oh, and before I forget, it is truly laughable you would go after anyone else for personal attacks. Would you like me to point out all of yours before I even made one?
Oh BTW, because you clearly can't follow along, I have never said that the patent office or court systems are under threat from Paul. I asked you to explain how these powerful government institutions represent the picture you draw of "free" markets.
It is irrelevant. My position on the free market and what it looks like is not at issue. This thread is about Ron Paul and why he isn't a media darling. You bringing in things you now admit have nothing to do with the topic at hand only serves to underline how weak your argument is.
I already went through this in some detail, which you ignored, so saying "Huh?" now in an insulting tone doesn't make you look very smart.
Yes, we did go through it. Unless it is relevant to why the media doesn't pick up on Ron Paul, it is a red herring. Red herrings tend to be a sign of a weak argument.
Nor did I change that definition of socialism, that was quoted many times over from the first time you said it was wrong.

socialistic refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage 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. This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
The above is what was originally posted, what I objected to. This is what you posted:

"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"

Really, now you are going to have the gal to insult the intelligence of everyone in this thread by claiming those two are the same thing? You are a liar, Vic. You changed the definition from the one I objected to and then accused me of denying it. Please stop trying to pretend otherwise.
And in that same vein, if you're going to call me a liar and deny saying things that I have quoted back to you, and at the time make claims of "advanced knowledge" when you clearly can't even follow your own arguments, then I'm gonna give you the rightful label of troll and ignore you from here on out.
My claim to advanced knowledge linked to hooked on phonics Vic, it was a suggestion you learn basic English before trying to debate.

Throughout this thread you have brought in irrelevant information, in no way relevant to the topic of Ron Paul; you changed the definition and then lied about it, you started personal attacks and then acted indignant when they were returned to you; in other words Vic, it is pretty obvious who in this thread was trolling and it wasn't me. I shall accept your concession and hope your ignoring me extends to all threads and not merely this one.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Well, I see you're full of it and backpedaling like mad with personal attacks. That happens sometimes when you nest quotes to piecemeal someone else's argument only to find out that you completely missed the big picture.
Nope, no backpedaling. Though often those who like to backpedal refuse to quote the source material. My position is what it has always been, Ron Paul is good for corporations because he cannot stop pork and will push to lose restrictions on the market. This has always been my position and you spinning like a dalmatian after its own tail doesn't change it.

Oh, and before I forget, it is truly laughable you would go after anyone else for personal attacks. Would you like me to point out all of yours before I even made one?
Oh BTW, because you clearly can't follow along, I have never said that the patent office or court systems are under threat from Paul. I asked you to explain how these powerful government institutions represent the picture you draw of "free" markets.
It is irrelevant. My position on the free market and what it looks like is not at issue. This thread is about Ron Paul and why he isn't a media darling. You bringing in things you now admit have nothing to do with the topic at hand only serves to underline how weak your argument is.
I already went through this in some detail, which you ignored, so saying "Huh?" now in an insulting tone doesn't make you look very smart.
Yes, we did go through it. Unless it is relevant to why the media doesn't pick up on Ron Paul, it is a red herring. Red herrings tend to be a sign of a weak argument.
Nor did I change that definition of socialism, that was quoted many times over from the first time you said it was wrong.

socialistic refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage 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. This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
The above is what was originally posted, what I objected to. This is what you posted:

"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"

Really, now you are going to have the gal to insult the intelligence of everyone in this thread by claiming those two are the same thing? You are a liar, Vic. You changed the definition from the one I objected to and then accused me of denying it. Please stop trying to pretend otherwise.
And in that same vein, if you're going to call me a liar and deny saying things that I have quoted back to you, and at the time make claims of "advanced knowledge" when you clearly can't even follow your own arguments, then I'm gonna give you the rightful label of troll and ignore you from here on out.
My claim to advanced knowledge linked to hooked on phonics Vic, it was a suggestion you learn basic English before trying to debate.

Throughout this thread you have brought in irrelevant information, in no way relevant to the topic of Ron Paul; you changed the definition and then lied about it, you started personal attacks and then acted indignant when they were returned to you; in other words Vic, it is pretty obvious who in this thread was trolling and it wasn't me. I shall accept your concession and hope your ignoring me extends to all threads and not merely this one.

Just gonna quote this bit of hilarity for posterity's sake.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic

Nor did I change that definition of socialism, that was quoted many times over from the first time you said it was wrong.

socialistic refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage 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. This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
The above is what was originally posted, what I objected to. This is what you posted:

"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"

Really, now you are going to have the gal to insult the intelligence of everyone in this thread by claiming those two are the same thing? You are a liar, Vic. You changed the definition from the one I objected to and then accused me of denying it. Please stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Just gonna quote this bit of hilarity for posterity's sake.
Interesting definitions of, well, definitions there.

For example:

Definition Cat:

Quadrupedal mammal commonly domesticated as a house pet. They are known for catching mice.

Definition Cat:

Quadrupedal mammal commonly domesticated as a house pet. They are known for catching mice. They are Expert MIG pilots, capable of doing a barrel roll at over 12 Gs. However, this is unnecessary as when a cat flaps really hard it can take flight unassisted and is fully capable of firing death rays out of its nose. It is widely believe this was the method they used to assassinate president Coolio during the 1847 Martian Riots.

So, since the second definition contains the first which is mostly accurate, the whole thing must be correct? Again Vic, Hooked on Phonics might give you a better understanding of English.

Also, you done ignoring me already? Damn, just when I was starting to enjoy it.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to bold it. When you have a wrong definition with one correct line the whole thing only becomes right if you bold the accurate definition while leaving everything wrong unbolded.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic

Nor did I change that definition of socialism, that was quoted many times over from the first time you said it was wrong.

socialistic refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage 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. This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
The above is what was originally posted, what I objected to. This is what you posted:

"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"

Really, now you are going to have the gal to insult the intelligence of everyone in this thread by claiming those two are the same thing? You are a liar, Vic. You changed the definition from the one I objected to and then accused me of denying it. Please stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Just gonna quote this bit of hilarity for posterity's sake.
Interesting definitions of, well, definitions there.

For example:

Definition Cat:

Quadrupedal mammal commonly domesticated as a house pet. They are known for catching mice.

Definition Cat:

Quadrupedal mammal commonly domesticated as a house pet. They are known for catching mice. They are Expert MIG pilots, capable of doing a barrel roll at over 12 Gs. However, this is unnecessary as when a cat flaps really hard it can take flight unassisted and is fully capable of firing death rays out of its nose. It is widely believe this was the method they used to assassinate president Coolio during the 1847 Martian Riots.

So, since the second definition contains the first which is mostly accurate, the whole thing must be correct? Again Vic, Hooked on Phonics might give you a better understanding of English.

Also, you done ignoring me already? Damn, just when I was starting to enjoy it.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to bold it. When you have a wrong definition with one correct line the whole thing only becomes right if you bold the accurate definition while leaving everything wrong unbolded.

Ah... so what you're saying is that this line is true as definition of socialism:
"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. "

But this line as a description of socialism is the equivalent of saying that cats fire death rays out of their nose:
"This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production."

:laugh:

I don't think I've seen this level of self-pwnage on P&N since dmcowen674 asserted that HFCS replaced pectin as a sweetener.

Don't give yourself a stroke struggling to reply. And remember, this is a WRITTEN discussion, not a verbal one. You can't just backpedal and pretend a page later that something you posted never happened. There are people here who pay very close attention to what's posted here, and they don't need me to go back and quote all your contradictions for them, they can see just fine for themselves.
 

ScottMac

Moderator<br>Networking<br>Elite member
Mar 19, 2001
5,471
2
0
This thread is a perfect example:

Even when the topic IS about Ron Paul, everyone is talking about everything EXCEPT Ron , uh, what's his name?

The man (that would be Ron Paul, for the nitpickers in the crowd) couldn't win a one ticket lottery.

Vote for Mickey Mouse, he'll get more votes by write-in than RP will get from a ballot.



 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
So what, this is two posts and two PMs now you've sent after stating you weren't talking to me anymore? I do like how you so readily point to others and their previous posts yet seem to have so much trouble following your own.

Originally posted by: Vic

Ah... so what you're saying is that this line is true as definition of socialism:
"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. "

But this line as a description of socialism is the equivalent of saying that cats fire death rays out of their nose:
"This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production."

:laugh:
In the same way that all the excess information in both those examples is wrong and thus results in the definition as a whole being wrong, yes. In the same way that saying "1+1=3" and "Martin Luther King Jr. was a terrorist" are both factually incorrect, in their own different ways, so too are statements like "cats fire death rays" and "socialism involves the state distributing wealth". The fact they are not wrong in quite the same way does not make either of them more right.

Simply put, for the members of the audience (all 4 of you) baffled by what Vic is trying to do here, he is trying to claim my analogy was laughable on the basis his true statement was padded with information that was merely factually wrong, where as my true statement was padded with information that was deliberately nonsensical. He wants to assert that since one was mistaken information and the other was complete nonsense, the former must be more accurate than the latter and so he is right. He further makes this point by inserting a smiley, thus showing his wit and how intelligent he is due to his mastery of the smiley panel.

I thought an analogy that obvious as to how taking a correct definition and tacking on incorrect information might give you some clue to as how someone could accept part of a definition as true but then reject the version lengthened with incorrect information. Clearly I overestimated you. I hope the rest of our audience can follow along more easily than you.

Let's try again:

1+1=2

is to:

31+1=27

as:

"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"

is to:

socialistic refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage 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. This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.

Tacking on additional information to a correct statement can make the statement wrong, Vic. Have you truly not figured this out by now?

I don't think I've seen this level of self-pwnage on P&N since dmcowen674 asserted that HFCS replaced pectin as a sweetener.
Don't worry Vic, I'm sure you'll do better next time. You certainly couldn't do any worse.
Don't give yourself a stroke struggling to reply. And remember, this is a WRITTEN discussion, not a verbal one. You can't just backpedal and pretend a page later that something you posted never happened. There are people here who pay very close attention to what's posted here, and they don't need me to go back and quote all your contradictions for them, they can see just fine for themselves.

Translation = "I know you didn't say any of the things I accused you of saying, but if I admit that it will become even more clear to everyone that not only am I a liar, I am a fool. However, seeing as how I must save face, I will pretend you said those things over and over again, hoping that by appealing to this mythical crowd of thread watchers, that people will be too lazy to verify Abraxas said any of the things I accused him of. I need an excuse as to why I can't quote the things I accused him of saying, so I'll just say I don't need to because said watchers know it already. With any luck, people will forget about how stupid all my posts were and forget I said I would ignore him two posts ago and instead blindly believe my tripe only on my say so, even though I am a demonstrated liar."

Well Vic, it seems we understand each other perfectly. Or, at least, I understand you. Shouldn't you be off terrorizing people trying to cross a bridge somewhere?

EDIT: For that matter, do you really believe more than a handful of people care enough to keep up with this pissing match? I'd wager for the most part it is just you and me here, no people paying very close attention, no crowd of adoring fans just over the horizon; just you and me. Naturally I could be mistaken, but if you're carrying on your ludicrous charade to play to the audience, you're wasting your time as there is scarcely an audience to play to.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: bamacre
LoL, just ran across this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcbfobiHTCE
Ummm wow... and we all thought the Dean scream was a little bit strange

???

uh... ok? wtf are you talking about?

He just hates Paul because he's blowing the whistle on the party.

How could that be? Everyone knows that Big Business loves an anti-war/pro-legalization candidate!! Someone like Ron Paul is the perfect shill for their master plan to enslave the human race.

;)
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: bamacre
LoL, just ran across this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcbfobiHTCE
Ummm wow... and we all thought the Dean scream was a little bit strange

???

uh... ok? wtf are you talking about?

He just hates Paul because he's blowing the whistle on the party.

How could that be? Everyone knows that Big Business loves an anti-war/pro-legalization candidate!! Someone like Ron Paul is the perfect shill for their master plan to enslave the human race.

;)

Absolutely. Especially when they have people who rant about big business when nobody is talking about big business and believe that a single word being correct in a paragraph makes the whole thing true who are also in his corner. The wealthy and the incoherent, when combined, have a long history of winning presidential bids.

Honestly Vic, with people like you in his army of defenders, I can't fathom why he has absolutely no support off the internet. Your compelling arguments about things never said, refusal to stick to the argument at hand, and redefining words at random to support your position must readily sway all those who doubt Ron Paul is the right man for the job. Wait, I know, Ron Paul does have massive support, he just hides it in the same place you keep your invisible army of thread monitors.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
You know, I really like Paul. I mean, he's got no shot at winning the R nomination, but damn, it's nice to see a man who not only has good stances on domestic and foreign policies, but sticks by them. He's been saying the same stuff for decades, and he's been right all along.

But I think it's great that what needs to be said is being said, even if only a small number of people are in support of it. At least many others are listening, and that's really the first step.

Really though, I think a lot of his supporters are, at least initially, due to the war in Iraq and our failed foreign policy, grouped together with the low support of and overall frustration with the two parties, again, due to mostly the war in Iraq. But those ears are also getting a new perspective on a good domestic policy as well, and that is certainly a good thing too.

I would not be surprised at all to see that most of his supporters are younger people, not so much because of the internet, but because it's probably been a smaller amount of time since they've actually read the constitution compared to their parents. :D
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I think what you said is certainly part of it bamacre, I think another important factor in the support on the internet in political circles has been the ongoing talk about civil rights being infringed upon. On the internet, in places like P&N, a day doesn't go by where there isn't an active threat talking about warrantless wiretaps or the USA PATRIOT Act or the like and a consistent message throughout those threads is the danger of big government. I think this produces, in some people, a tendency to look for the voice that is talking about the smallest possible government, in this case, Ron Paul. You saw something similar with Badnarik in the last election. This time, as the candidate is in one of the mainstream parties, it generates excitement in those who would otherwise be inclined to side with the Libertarian party candidate as well as some of those more ideologically aligned with the Libertarians but historically Republican and unwilling to go third party. Due to his affiliation with the Republicans, people of this nature think Ron Paul has a chance of winning where as third party candidates do not.