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.