Ron Paul and the Media

Page 5 - 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: Genx87
Vic, ill give it a shot with my first reply in this thread, which also happens to be the first overall. You can replace media networks and a few other key words and apply it to big business.
Well yeah, Big Business owns the media and IS the media. They sell propaganda for a profit all day every day and call it the History Channel. :)
If Ron Paul was their darling, they'd be running glowing biographies of him on the Biography Channel just like a VH1 Behind the Music episode conveniently aired right before a new album release.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
I agree Vic, the best thing you can do is just stop trying to reply. As they say, the first step to filling a hole is to stop digging.

Interesting analysis. Because I know what socialists believe they stand for, I must be an idiot. Which set of power elites do I support? Which set of power elites am I useful to?

I have a theory, that being you have no idea what you are talking about and so are desperately grasping at straws to anger me. You are hoping if you shotgun enough you will eventually hit some sensitive spot and in my rage your bruised ego will be healed. Hate to break it to you Vic, that doesn't work on me. There is nothing you can say that will fill me with anything but amusement.

No, the point is that it's a stupid utopist belief. Unless you would like to point out to me any socialism in history that ever voluntary decentralized its strong central government. Good luck with that. Kim Jong-il sends you his love. :)
That's nice Vic, but when did I say anything more than I understood it? I never said I believed it, I never said I thought it was the best socio-economic system, I just said I knew what it was. How does that in any way reflect on me?

And in your usual pattern, you're attributing your own emotions back onto me. Notice that my posts are calm and lacking in ego.
LMAO - No, but seriously. You sound like a hysterical Meth addict who believes he'll get his next fix if he can just hang on for one more post.
Notice how I ask questions and present arguments in a reasoned manner. Notice how I address your arguments (when you actually make one).
See above. You've done nothing but lie, misrepresent my arguments, and show that you live so far outside reality you receive your mail there.
OTOH, you might want to pay attention to your ranting, spouting, bitter rhetoric and nonsense. Notice how you keep making unsubstantiated claims about my character, how you're somehow "winning" this argument, and how you keep avoiding arguments except to split hairs (yeah, we all know how adding words could change a definition... duh! The point was those specific words for that specific definition, which you avoided over and over again).
I already agreed those specific words for that specific definition were mostly accurate, it was all the other crap, when added to the definition, that made it inaccurate. Your refusal to acknowledge this, and acknowledge you trimmed the quote you posted, only speaks to your complete lack of character.
The fact is obvious to everyone what happened here. You made a stupid ideological-based argument, didn't expect to get called on it, but did and by me. Now you're butthurt and are just trying to get the last word out of immaturity. It's painfully transparent. And because I actually enjoy being a total dick to pompous people like yourself who think you're somehow entitled to not get called out when your ideology is totally out of sync with reality, I'm not gonna let you have that.
You don't even know what my ideology is. So far you think I'm either a Democrat, a Republican, a Socialist, a Utopist, and we haven't even finished this debate. To accuse me of making an ideologically based argument when you can't even figure out what ideology I hold makes you all the more laughable.

Another irony is you accuse me of trying to get the last word, four of your posts after claiming you were going to ignore. If you weren't yourself determined to have the last word, you would have stopped posting the moment you said you were ignoring me. But you haven't instead, you made it blatantly obvious you are an angry child whose ego depends on you getting in the last shot. You feel compelled to respond to anything addressed to you, even after you staked your credibility on the premise you wouldn't reply to them.

Now.... please answer the question, and try to refrain from your usual personal attacks, straw men, and ideological rhetoric. Why does Big Business happen to love this anti-war/pro-legalization candidate?
For the eighth time, because he will deregulate the market while simultaneously being too impotent to stop corporate pork from going out. This gives them the best of both worlds.
And please, don't bring up the fact that he doesn't accept corporate donations as proof again, that only further reinforces the fact that he is principled and cannot be bought.
That was only in address to your moronic parroting on and on about how his coffers are not full of big business money was proof big business didn't want him to get elected.
And don't bring up these extremist deregulation/privatization nonsense either.
Right, don't bring up any evidence that hurts your already mangled argument.
I have already scuttled that sh!t beyond belief (your response that "Wal-Mart wouldn't have to pay for them. There would be companies that will purchase roadways and charge a toll on them and make money that way" was good times BTW, and let's not even get into the "no parent would be content to refuse to educate their child" although it did make me wonder which planet you happen to live on).
Funny, none of that had anything to do with Ron Paul but instead extremists in the LP. Another strawman from Vic? SHOCKER!
Is it really this hard to get you to address these contentions of yours without getting truly uninspired ad homs back from you like you're fighting "an unarmed man in a battle of wits"? Or "hooked on phonics" when you're the one with the rambling headache-inducing mediocre writing skills here?
Exceptional writing skills often look mediocre when faced with an unintelligent reader.

Perhaps if you would address what I actually said instead of creating laughably bad strawmen a blind man in a dark room could see through, my replies would make more sense to you.
Ron Paul doesn't need to accept corporate donations to get corporate support (they could just set up their own PACs for him whether he likes it or not), and yet he's not getting any despite your claims that they should love him. So what are they? Stupid? Answer the question. And no, the fact that he's unelectable is not an answer either.
Yes it is. You being too stupid to see it, again, I will reiterate the fact is he has the THIRD MOST MONEY OF ANY REPUBLICAN and still CANNOT BREAK THE MARGIN OF ERROR. Did you catch that this time? Throwing money at him doesn't do any good. He's unelectable for the same reasons the LP never caught on, he appeals to none of the bases. Money spent on Ron Paul is money wasted.
Big Business has enough money, power, and resources that they could make him electable just as easily as they get a bad movie to turn a profit on opening night.
No, they can't; if there was a group dedicated to releasing all the crap in a movie before it came out and doing so for months in advance, those movies wouldn't score well on opening night. So it is with Ron Paul, when faced with an opponent, in particular when he has an R next to his name, he looks like a loon. It is far safer for big business to spend the money they set aside for Politicians with a shot of winning then spending several times as much just to get people to know who Ron Paul is.

Further, there is also the matter of cost benefit analysis. How much money it costs to polish a turd to a degree where they are electable vs. the amount they are going to get back. Their degree of control may be lesser if Romney or Clinton wins, however, the amount of money spend as opposed to returns will be lesser.
And BTW, I can't be a troll just because you disagree with me. It don't work that way.


No, you're a troll because you lie, you engage in insults, you refuse to debate what is actually said, you routinely strawman, you send harassing PMs, most of your debate tactics come straight out of the troll handbook (when faced with a post you cannot refute, claim it is too ridiculous to be worth your time, for example), you engage in poisoning the well fallacies by comparing me to other disliked users; yeah, all in all, you are a useless, worthless, thoughtless, senseless two bit troll.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
I'm a hysterical meth addict who engages in insults... :(

/runs away crying...

;)

:laugh:

Further, there is also the matter of cost benefit analysis. How much money it costs to polish a turd to a degree where they are electable vs. the amount they are going to get back.

Dude, who the fsck has been in office the past 7 years? Clearly they got enough high-end lipstick to make any pig look good. Quit thinking so much of yourself and your stupid ideology. Try to remember that it was being a powerless peon that made you suck that sh!t up in the first place, now grasp it as reality as opposed to concept.

Their degree of control may be lesser if Romney or Clinton wins, however, the amount of money spend as opposed to returns will be lesser.
Compared to Paul? Crack is bad mmmkay? You're basically saying that a principled outsider (with the nickname of "Dr. No") would be more controllable to Big Money than 2 of the biggest sell-outs there are. No one is this stupid.

BTW, I can ignore or not however I want. I gave you a shot to drop it, you refused. Your tough luck.


Exceptional writing skills often look mediocre when faced with an unintelligent reader.
The hallmark post of any troll. Thanks. Try to keep it relevant, eh?
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm a hysterical meth addict who engages in insults... :(

/runs away crying...

;)

:laugh:

Further, there is also the matter of cost benefit analysis. How much money it costs to polish a turd to a degree where they are electable vs. the amount they are going to get back.

Dude, who the fsck has been in office the past 7 years? Clearly they got enough high-end lipstick to make any pig look good. Quit thinking so much of yourself and your stupid ideology. Try to remember that it was being a powerless peon that made you suck that sh!t up in the first place, now grasp it as reality as opposed to concept.
Who did they make look good? Bush? Bush never looked good, he just didn't look as wooden as Gore or as indecisive as Kerry. Everybody thought Bush sucked except about a core of 25%, they just thought the Dems would be worse.

Also, again, you don't even know what my ideology is, unless I am a Democratic Utopist Socialist Republican so you attacking it only makes you look stupid.
Their degree of control may be lesser if Romney or Clinton wins, however, the amount of money spend as opposed to returns will be lesser.
Compared to Paul? Crack is bad mmmkay?

So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?

If I'm not mistaken, Abraxas, it is my understanding from your posts that Ron Paul would be better for 'big business" or "big money". :confused:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?


Further, there is also the matter of cost benefit analysis. How much money it costs to polish a turd to a degree where they are electable vs. the amount they are going to get back. Their degree of control may be lesser if Romney or Clinton wins, however, the amount of money spend as opposed to returns will be lesser.
No, it's because your doublethink is ludicrous and clearly ideologically driven. Get it straight. You can't have it both ways. Romney and Clinton aren't more electable (a propaganda word of null value), they're more bought and sold. The degree of control is linked directly to that. Get your utopist nonsense out of your head. If Romney or Clinton pass UHC, it won't be for the good of the people, but because the interests who bought their elections told them to do it (and why not? UHC would be the latest and greatest externality of all for them).
Basic economics, Oh Ivory Tower fantasist. Profit = revenues minus cost. You can either increase revenues or lower costs, both create the same result. And externalities are by far the best way to lower costs. Make someone else pay for it. That's what you miss and in a big way.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?

If I'm not mistaken, Abraxas, it is my understanding from your posts that Ron Paul would be better for 'big business" or "big money". :confused:

He gives them more overall power, if elected, however, considering the vast difficulty in getting him elected, and the vast sums of money that would have to be spent to do it, the small amount of power gained by having Ron Paul in office is offset by the massive sums of cash they have to spend to do it and the fact, statistically speaking, he has roughly the same chances of winning as Zombie Lenin.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?

If I'm not mistaken, Abraxas, it is my understanding from your posts that Ron Paul would be better for 'big business" or "big money". :confused:

He gives them more overall power, if elected, however, considering the vast difficulty in getting him elected, and the vast sums of money that would have to be spent to do it, the small amount of power gained by having Ron Paul in office is offset by the massive sums of cash they have to spend to do it and the fact, statistically speaking, he has roughly the same chances of winning as Zombie Lenin.

That he gives them more power is something you keep saying but you haven't proved in any way. In the meantime, I have scuttled it. Over and over and over again. So just repeating that tired rhetoric doesn't make you right. Yeah, an anti-war pro-legalization candidate gives Big Money more power. Why... GE, Lockheed, the Media, and Big Government just can't wait for the end of these stupid wars, both in Iraq and on our streets. OMG how did I not see this before?

:roll:
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?


Further, there is also the matter of cost benefit analysis. How much money it costs to polish a turd to a degree where they are electable vs. the amount they are going to get back. Their degree of control may be lesser if Romney or Clinton wins, however, the amount of money spend as opposed to returns will be lesser.
No, it's because your doublethink is ludicrous and clearly ideologically driven.

Also, again, you don't even know what my ideology is, unless I am a Democratic Utopist Socialist Republican East Coast Liberal (Ivory Tower) so you attacking it only makes you look stupid.

Get it straight. You can't have it both ways. Romney and Clinton aren't more electable (a propaganda word of null value), they're more bought and sold.
They're both.
The degree of control is linked directly to that.
No, it isn't. One can use congress to get around any specific issues one has with the president. A president, however, who pushes for deregulation, is good for them and congress can be controlled to make up the slack.
Get your utopist nonsense out of your head.
Also, again, you don't even know what my ideology is, unless I am a Democratic Utopist Socialist Republican East Coast Liberal (Ivory Tower) so you attacking it only makes you look stupid.
If Romney or Clinton pass UHC, it won't be for the good of the people, but because the interests who bought their elections told them to do it (and why not? UHC would be the latest and greatest externality of all for them).
Your point being?
Basic economics, Oh Ivory Tower fantasist. Profit = revenues minus cost. You can either increase revenues or lower costs, both create the same result. And externalities are by far the best way to lower costs. Make someone else pay for it. That's what you miss and in a big way.
No, it isn't, because, as I have explained, nine times now, they will continue to make congress pay for it because Paul will be too impotent to stop pork spending. You seem to think that just because everything is privatized they wouldn't find ways to make the government pay for it. That is an incredibly naive view, even for you Vic.

That he gives them more power is something you keep saying but you haven't proved in any way. In the meantime, I have scuttled it. Over and over and over again. So just repeating that tired rhetoric doesn't make you right. Yeah, an anti-war pro-legalization candidate gives Big Money more power. Why... GE, Lockheed, the Media, and Big Government just can't wait for the end of these stupid wars, both in Iraq and on our streets. OMG how did I not see this before?
God you are dumb. Hillary Clinton is anti-war too. Lockheed Martin gives her plenty of money. Maybe because they will still have their contracts regardless if an anti-war president is elected?

You haven't scuttled anything. You haven't even actually addressed 2/5 of my arguments, all you do is strawman or demonstrate you can't read English.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Yaknow what I hate about the buzz word of "deregulation"?? It implies that corporations are above the law. That's why I feel contempt for the deluded who abuse the word like it means something. If you or I, as individuals, break the law, we will be punished as criminals, and that punishment will likely be severe. If Big Corporation breaks the law though, they are merely out of compliance with regulation, and get slapped with a tiny fine. And people like you would have us believe that changing that is a BAD thing, while deluding yourself that you're anti-corporate at the same time.


Hillary Clinton is anti-war too.

*tears of laughter*

Ever looked at her voting record?
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow what I hate about the buzz word of "deregulation"?? It implies that corporations are above the law. That's why I feel contempt for the deluded who abuse the word like it means something. If you or I, as individuals, break the law, we will be punished as criminals, and that punishment will likely be severe. If Big Corporation breaks the law though, they are merely out of compliance with regulation, and get slapped with a tiny fine. And people like you would have us believe that changing that is a BAD thing, while deluding yourself that you're anti-corporate at the same time.
Then they are misusing it. Deregulation as I am using it refers to reducing the number of laws regulating corporate conduct. Removing safety standards for consumer goods and employees. Eliminating minimum wage laws. Things of that nature. Seeing as how you clearly aren't talking about that while I am, I'll chalk that up to more issues with your reading comprehension.

Hillary Clinton is anti-war too.

*tears of laughter*

Ever looked at her voting record?
I have, yes. She voted for it before she voted against it. What of it?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow what I hate about the buzz word of "deregulation"?? It implies that corporations are above the law. That's why I feel contempt for the deluded who abuse the word like it means something. If you or I, as individuals, break the law, we will be punished as criminals, and that punishment will likely be severe. If Big Corporation breaks the law though, they are merely out of compliance with regulation, and get slapped with a tiny fine. And people like you would have us believe that changing that is a BAD thing, while deluding yourself that you're anti-corporate at the same time.
Then they are misusing it. Deregulation as I am using it refers to reducing the number of laws regulating corporate conduct. Removing safety standards for consumer goods and employees. Eliminating minimum wage laws. Things of that nature. Seeing as how you clearly aren't talking about that while I am, I'll chalk that up to more issues with your reading comprehension.
It's your reading comprehension, not mine. Trust me, this has already been gone over a dozen and more times in this thread, you're just finally catching on.
For example, megacorps love minimum wage laws. Maybe not the amount, but the existence of them gives them carte blanche so long as they comply to the minimum. It's small business that finds minimum wage burdensome.

Hillary Clinton is anti-war too.

*tears of laughter*

Ever looked at her voting record?
I have, yes. She voted for it before she voted against it. What of it?
[/quote]

And then voted for it again. That's what of it. Ah what's the use... like any good socialist, you'll worship at your particular altar of cult of personality, and condemn any and all heretics as hating The People. So old, so tired.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow what I hate about the buzz word of "deregulation"?? It implies that corporations are above the law. That's why I feel contempt for the deluded who abuse the word like it means something. If you or I, as individuals, break the law, we will be punished as criminals, and that punishment will likely be severe. If Big Corporation breaks the law though, they are merely out of compliance with regulation, and get slapped with a tiny fine. And people like you would have us believe that changing that is a BAD thing, while deluding yourself that you're anti-corporate at the same time.
Then they are misusing it. Deregulation as I am using it refers to reducing the number of laws regulating corporate conduct. Removing safety standards for consumer goods and employees. Eliminating minimum wage laws. Things of that nature. Seeing as how you clearly aren't talking about that while I am, I'll chalk that up to more issues with your reading comprehension.
It's your reading comprehension, not mine. Trust me, this has already been gone over a dozen and more times in this thread, you're just finally catching on.
I don't trust you, you're a proven liar. You were lying then and you're lying now. You've never touched on any of this that I didn't immediately refute.
For example, megacorps love minimum wage laws. Maybe not the amount, but the existence of them gives them carte blanche so long as they comply to the minimum. It's small business that finds minimum wage burdensome.
There you go. Think on that for a bit.
Hillary Clinton is anti-war too.

*tears of laughter*

Ever looked at her voting record?
I have, yes. She voted for it before she voted against it. What of it?

And then voted for it again. That's what of it. Ah what's the use... like any good socialist, you'll worship at your particular altar of cult of personality, and condemn any and all heretics as hating The People. So old, so tired.

When did I say I was a socialist? I didn't, you say? Well, not "you" say, as you lie with every post, but I digress. Again you strain your already thin credibility by trying to assign ideologies, thus far I am Democratic Utopist Socialist Republican East Coast Liberal in your world when I have never once said I agree with any of those ideologies. Generally when people do this, they have absolutely no logic or intelligence in their own argument and so must engage in guilt by association fallacies by pigeonholing them into one category and blaming that individual for everything anyone in that category has ever done.

I suspect, Vic, this is why I am so frustrating to you and why you are having so much trouble keeping your temper in check, I am not as easy to pigeonhole and dismiss as others. You have no idea what I am, though Democratic Utopist Socialist Republican East Coast Liberal is hilarious, and so you keep groping in the dark hoping desperately I will say something that will pin me to one ideology or another. Good luck with that.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?


Further, there is also the matter of cost benefit analysis. How much money it costs to polish a turd to a degree where they are electable vs. the amount they are going to get back. Their degree of control may be lesser if Romney or Clinton wins, however, the amount of money spend as opposed to returns will be lesser.
No, it's because your doublethink is ludicrous and clearly ideologically driven. Get it straight. You can't have it both ways. Romney and Clinton aren't more electable (a propaganda word of null value), they're more bought and sold. The degree of control is linked directly to that. Get your utopist nonsense out of your head. If Romney or Clinton pass UHC, it won't be for the good of the people, but because the interests who bought their elections told them to do it (and why not? UHC would be the latest and greatest externality of all for them).
Basic economics, Oh Ivory Tower fantasist. Profit = revenues minus cost. You can either increase revenues or lower costs, both create the same result. And externalities are by far the best way to lower costs. Make someone else pay for it. That's what you miss and in a big way.


This is one of the funniest things that the left overlooks when clamoring for their UHC. On one hand you have them crying about the big corps and how they screw the little guy. Then they push for a system that offloads the cost from the big corps to the little guy and call it compassionate while patting themselves on the back.

And they have the nerve to call people with an opposing ideology sheeple? Can we say played by the very people they supposedly hate?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Abraxas
So the ratio of returns to expenses will be greater if Paul is elected? Seeing as how this is what you just implied, that or you implied, again, basic English is hard, then why don't you explain to us why he isn't the darling of big business?
Umm... are you this lost? I'm the one arguing that Paul wouldn't be a good investment for Big Business (which is why they're not investing, remember?) That he is the darling of big business is your contention. That he isn't is something I've already addressed a dozen-plus times over. Hey, I hear GE is specifically hiring pot smoking war protesters for their fighter jet engine assembly line, you better sign up.
I said big business would get more for their money endorsing Romney or Hillary than they would for endorsing Paul.

You said that analysis was induced by crack.

Evidently then, you disagree and believe they would get more for their money by endorsing Paul than they would Hillary or Romney. Or are you just having trouble reading again?

If I'm not mistaken, Abraxas, it is my understanding from your posts that Ron Paul would be better for 'big business" or "big money". :confused:

He gives them more overall power, if elected, however, considering the vast difficulty in getting him elected, and the vast sums of money that would have to be spent to do it, the small amount of power gained by having Ron Paul in office is offset by the massive sums of cash they have to spend to do it and the fact, statistically speaking, he has roughly the same chances of winning as Zombie Lenin.

How? Big business wants the govt to create barriers of entry, to funnel public dollars into their coffers, and create legislation favorable to their needs. An open market libertarian like Ron Paul is everything Big Business doesnt want because he would work on ways to keep the markets more open, shrink the govt, and open barriers of entry.

There seems to be a common misconception that big business is pro open markets and pro-business friendly. Big business is typically joined at the hip with big govt and both work together to consolidate power for both entities, in the process destroying the markets in one way or the other.