Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it beyond the scope though? The info is a simple Google search away. Sure it would take a lot of time to compose ideas and find supporting evidence, but would you rather read a dozens threads of circular arguments started by the same person or one really good thread that has information supported by links that we could all constructively discuss and learn from?
No, I can't say a decent discussion on the topic is w/o merit just sounded like you were asking for something beyond what you would find on a forum of this kind.
I most certainly am all for reasonable subject related topics.
You did forget the blanket, "I'm just going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that Ron Paul doesn't exist. That's what all the smart political pundits say to do and I trust them. And I most certainly won't actually find out what Ron Paul is standing for! That would be 'dangerous.' "
Why waste the time refuting point-by-point when it is going to return to the same tired circular arguments?
Your comment could also be applied to Paul supporters, who make wild accusations or generalizations yet never have any supporting evidence to back up those claims. I would love to see a Paul supporter write a list of reasons why they felt the Federal Reserve should be dismantled, in detail, indicating that they understood the breadth and scope of the Federal Reserve and how we would handle the complex logistics of a transition to a new entity that would handle our monetary policy both domestically and internationally. I would love to see them list the pros and cons. It would be a heck of a lot more constructive and interesting of a conversation than the stupid talking points that get repeated over and over ad nauseam.
If you are really interested in knowing about the Federal Reserve, instead of automatically rejecting the idea of eliminating it only because Paul supports it, then watch this.
After you watch it, then I'll be glad to discuss or answer any questions that you may have. If you would rather read a book, I can give some recommendations too.
There was no point, was merely giggling at how Casper described your behavior almost perfectly before you even posted. You saw someone who dared to not be a Ron Paul devotee and launched perfectly into the standard script of ridiculous accusatory questions... "are you against America's founding?" It doesn't get any better than that.
I'm honestly not sure what to make of this, is it a real question or just a (granted well deserved) jab? Is there some judgement on the wisdom of senior citizens? Either way I'm in my early 40s, recently started get a few gray hairs in the pathetic non-beard I sometimes get too lazy to shave. My knees also crack if I stand up too fast.
Then you're not much older than me. However, your anti-Paul stance makes you seem like you're 65.
Well you were right,I really didn't wonder....I did find it funny though that he didn't deny beating his girlfriend but merely stated that "this isn't about me"
I didn't respond to it because it's absolutely absurd. By the way, I'm married.
What I don't understand about non-Paul supporters is their view on things. This is because non-Paul supporters rarely ever articulate their positions, let alone explain, justify or rationalize them.
For instance, I am against American imperialism, interventionism and bloodlust, which includes undeclared wars that fuel the US military industrial complex and bury our fragile economy in massive debt to our sworn enemies, not to forget the thousands of lives lost in the process. My position is based on my understanding of the overreaching of Roman military expansionism and the subsequent collapse of their empire, the implosion of the USSR due to extreme militarization, which included the invasion of the Middle East in way that is uncomfortably similar to what the US is doing today, the horrible consequences of deficit spending for military purposes and the resulting hyperinflation such as that experienced by Germany prior to WWII, and the known consequences of blowback resulting from foreign occupation, of which the dangers extend decades beyond the initial invasion. Further, my position is buttressed by the fact that it is akin to the wisdom of many great American minds. The founding fathers warned of international interventionism and imperialism and set forth a Constitution that would ensure that was no abuse of this power. They reached this conclusion based on the failings of the imperial nations of their time. Political thinkers like William Graham Sumner wrote about the same topic over a century ago in warning about America's war with Spain. For these reasons, I believe it is not America's job to police the world, nor am I happy about paying for it.
The problem is, when I ask a Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Obama supporter why they favor a candidate who advocates for American interventionism and a warfare state, they just get mad and defensive and resort to calling me names for supporting Paul. I hear the same few attacks from them over and over again. "Tinfoil hat" this, "extremist" that. I really wish we could have an honest debate on these topics. I'd genuinely appreciate a person who supports one of the other candidates to actually defend their positions using facts, history, the Constitution, and anecdotal evidence that would suggest their position is better. Unfortunately, I never get that.
Given those things, how am I to take the non-Paul supporters seriously? Either they cannot articulate their positions and provide justification for them, or they have not thought about the issues seriously enough to even give an answer. Whatever the case, I will continue to provide evidence that supports my positions and advocate for my candidate because he understands things in a way that makes sense to me.
Then you're not much older than me. However, your anti-Paul stance makes you seem like you're 65.
I can see that. Refuting movingpain's ridiculous position that not supporting Paul means I believe prison rape is the best solution to a drug problem, sounds like something an old geezer would think.
It goes the other direction too, your inclination to stick to an extremely narrow script when posting about your hero and lack of dynamic thinking even when the thread is pointing out the hilarity of those who do so makes you seem like you're 12.
"The Creature From Jeckyl Island" by G Edward Griffin and "End the Fed" by Ron Paul are two books to read for anyone that is genuinely interested in discussions on The Federal Reserve. I would recommend a book in support of The Fed, but I've been unable to find one written yet.
What I don't understand about non-Paul supporters is their view on things. This is because non-Paul supporters rarely ever articulate their positions, let alone explain, justify or rationalize them.
For instance, I am against American imperialism, interventionism and bloodlust, which includes undeclared wars that fuel the US military industrial complex and bury our fragile economy in massive debt to our sworn enemies, not to forget the thousands of lives lost in the process. My position is based on my understanding of the overreaching of Roman military expansionism and the subsequent collapse of their empire, the implosion of the USSR due to extreme militarization, which included the invasion of the Middle East in way that is uncomfortably similar to what the US is doing today, the horrible consequences of deficit spending for military purposes and the resulting hyperinflation such as that experienced by Germany prior to WWII, and the known consequences of blowback resulting from foreign occupation, of which the dangers extend decades beyond the initial invasion. Further, my position is buttressed by the fact that it is akin to the wisdom of many great American minds. The founding fathers warned of international interventionism and imperialism and set forth a Constitution that would ensure that was no abuse of this power. They reached this conclusion based on the failings of the imperial nations of their time. Political thinkers like William Graham Sumner wrote about the same topic over a century ago in warning about America's war with Spain. For these reasons, I believe it is not America's job to police the world, nor am I happy about paying for it.
The problem is, when I ask a Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Obama supporter why they favor a candidate who advocates for American interventionism and a warfare state, they just get mad and defensive and resort to calling me names for supporting Paul. I hear the same few attacks from them over and over again. "Tinfoil hat" this, "extremist" that. I really wish we could have an honest debate on these topics. I'd genuinely appreciate a person who supports one of the other candidates to actually defend their positions using facts, history, the Constitution, and anecdotal evidence that would suggest their position is better. Unfortunately, I never get that.
Given those things, how am I to take the non-Paul supporters seriously? Either they cannot articulate their positions and provide justification for them, or they have not thought about the issues seriously enough to even give an answer. Whatever the case, I will continue to provide evidence that supports my positions and advocate for my candidate because he understands things in a way that makes sense to me.
Outstanding!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did find it funny though that he didn't deny beating his girlfriend but merely stated that "this isn't about me"
