____________________ Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately; except on holidays and weekends.
In your misrepresentative bait and swtitch "wait" means "six days"--in rationing it means months, years, or never. This is not waiting for an appointment, this is being told you cannot have the treatment you need.
no, i said that to see a doctor in a non emergency, canadians and americans wait 6 days on average.
i showed studies that say that waiting for certain procedures is dangerous, while for others, it causes negligible effects, and for still others it depends almost entirely on the condition of the patient.
additionally i showed a study that suggests that because canada does such a shitty job of keeping track of actual wait times, most studies that purport to show these huge wait times are based on...nothing, really. that is evidence of the fact that canada needs serious work in some regards, but also that studies regarding canadian wait times are probably not representative of reality.
Yes, we have already established that I know the definitions of words, and you copy/paste them. My point is, that like you, healthcare rationers have funny ways of defining words so that the surgery that a patient and their doctor would deem to be of an urgent or emergent nature, is to some goverment bureaucrat "elective" because the guy's brain tumor isn't carrying a saber while riding a rabid doberman.
i'm not disagreeing that waiting is sometimes detrimental, just that it is always detrimental. and in fact, it isn't.
Good. You wait as long as you like, but stop attempting to assert some bullshit right to make others wait for their healthcare. How about that?
i suggest that some people wait, you suggest that some people not have it. i don't think either argument is perfect.
The only "drawbacks" I can parse from you is that under a free market healthcare system, patients and doctors make the treatement decisions (not decided by you or those like you), the costs of healthcare services will be market controlled (rather than controlled by you or those like you), more money (rather than political access to you or people like you) will buy a patient better healthcare, and people will be expected to pay their own bills (rather than other people paying your bills).
i've admitted several times that there are drawbacks to my proposition.
Perhaps you still need to do some more work.
perhaps you would like to gloss over the fact that i offered you three sources. all of which purport to offer controls and estimates to counter exactly what you posted from wikipedia. all three sources are very close to one another. do you suggest collusion, or a socialist conspiracy? do you suggest that there are no correct figures that are properly representative, or that you can find none?
it's easy for you to snipe at my figures, since you provide few of your own.
Which would prove that you missed the point AGAIN. What's wrong with you?
perhaps it's a point with no relevance. his point is that a sick person needed drugs, drugs that needed to be approved by a government agency, and that person died in the meantime. we have a government agency that approves drugs in america in the same way (that is to say, not allowing experimental drugs to be used on patients in most cases). i know that libertarians have a bug up their ass about this.
so i think it's a shitty point he makes, because i disagree that releasing drugs into the market and letting the FREE MARKET sort it out is the right thing to do.
if this isn't his point, then his point is fucking obtuse and he ought to try writing a better article.
I'm tired of your patent misrepresentations nocal, like the suggestion in this, "do you just believe in 100% of this website's assertions because it has "free market" in the title?" and more importanly the way you blast over important bits of points that make the point, and parts of definitions that actually make the definition, so now I take a little joy in fact-checking you; because apparently it's just not enough for you that you're wrong on principle, but you must also be wrong on each and every point--so wrong, that you have to present the opposing argument wrong just to appear a little right.
laugh-ola. my misrepresentation, which was characterized in the form of a question. that i was genuinely asking. like where you ask me, "what's wrong with you?" you mean like that, where you imply something is wrong with me, and debase me without making an argument?
i didn't blast over important bits, you silly goose. i admitted that several of his points were correct. in fact, i did it twice, and i even admitted a third point was correct on my second time around. i even included a link to a chart that proved i was wrong. what more do you want?
several of his points are idiotic and specifically there either because he is misleading people or doesn't understand science, and when i questioned them, you got all butt hurt, as though i needed to accept EVERY POINT. you dismiss figures from the CIA and UNICEF, but some dude writing in a blog with a clearly stated agenda, you don't bother thinking about the finer points of his argument?
what is wrong with you?
Well, that settles that then--you're the one that claimed access to emergency treatment was THE most important thing, and now you got it so STFU.
it doesn't need to bankrupt people.
See what I mean? Misrepresentation nocal. You're full of shit.
point me to a place that says that Chile did great and kept using Friedman's FREE MARKET principles without simply dismissing me offhand, and i'll read it, and if you're right in your assertion, i'll admit it.
____________________ Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately; except on holidays and weekends.
hmm so ron paul wouldn't abolish the IRS? (this was a retarded idea no matter what, because some taxes would still be levied and collected by an agency, so it was just a ron paul talking point [but ron paul is such a straight shooter he doesn't have talking points!])
The health nannies insist that many dietary supplements are untested and unproven, and therefore dangerous. But the track record for FDA-approved drugs hardly inspires confidence. In fact, far more Americans have died using approved pharmaceuticals than supplements. Not every dietary supplement performs as claimed, but neither does every FDA drug.
haha. well fucking duh. FDA approved drugs are nearly always treating something more serious than are supplements. FDA approved drugs are also FDA approved specifically because they actually have to effect a person, whereas you can market ANYTHING as a supplement, whether or not it has any effect.
additionally, he tries to claim that the FDA lulls people into thinking drugs are safe. true, but OTC drugs kill people for a similar reason: it's OTC, so how dangerous could it be? thousands of people die every year from overdoses of aspirin, and almost no one argues that doctors should prescribe it.
he also believes that the Codex Alimentarius would make getting vitamins impossible without a prescription, which is patently false. it would merely require that vitamins have some kind of standard dosage IF america adopted it in the same way that the EU did, which is not even likely. vitamins in a high dosage are dangerous, just like aspirin, so this wouldn't be a big deal even if it did happen, which it won't.
the only person who has ever talked to me about the codex alimentarius in the same way was this completely insane middle aged woman who didn't understand it, so i think i see a pattern.
this is demonstrably untrue, as americans pay more in taxes and out of pocket than any other nation. is ron paul lying, or does he not do his research?
this is an excuse bandied about by xenophobics. the terrorists of 9/11 were in america with visas (whether or not they outstayed the duration of the visas is not the issue). none of them entered america illegally. however, people don't really know that, so it's easy to say it's about "terrorists" than "mexicans."
he does address the issue about the visas and the 9/11 hijackers here, which means he does know they didn't enter the country illegally, so i think he's using the above quote in a disingenuous way.
H.R. 3216 would authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal, naming private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to fight against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas.
do we want the president authorizing Blackwater to kill people of nebulous status (ie "terrorist")?
H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers. Pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.
i understand that in israel they do this (so i've heard, anyway) and they seem to have no problems with flights. however, is it wise to check the shit out of passengers, have them take their shoes off, throw away their nail clippers...and then put a gun on the plane?
racism is natural, as is forming any group. people will form groups arbitrarily where none really exist. it's been proven through experiments that forming two arbitrary groups and having them compete good-naturedly leads to strong dislike of the "other" group.
as long as people look different, there will be racism, but ron paul wouldn't know anything about that kind of book learnin'.
what in the fuck? "yeah man i'm white. you're white too? fuck, i didn't even notice before the census. rad, let's group together and get our piece of the federal pie." that only makes sense in the land of ron paul, where everything is a fucking conspiracy.
this was like 10 minutes on his site before i got really bored of reading how liberty solves everything
also, ayn rand is fucking retarded
EDIT:
On 2008-02-01 at 13:05:52, nocal asked to smell your dick
some MORE quotes? i'm starting to wonder if we will ever see the end of these.
As to why he wouldn't release his entire body of work to the media, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.
yeah ron paul, your acerbic wit and nuanced humor is just over our heads. like when you're ironically racist, haha, i love that shit.
excuse list, in chronological order:
-based on "statistics"
-twisted his words, took things "out of context"
-political smear campaign
-people don't understand his academia
-he didn't write the bad shit
-he didn't know of the bad shit
-he rarely read the shit
-he was an absentee publisher, with no time to read several pages per month; he "can't be racist" because he "doesn't see people in groups, but as individuals" (yes he really does say that, see bottom of post for video)
hm let's take a look at the hilarious refutations! "taken out of context" (most hilarious of all. "“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.” how the fuck is that out of context? would that be acceptable in context?) "debunked" (i'm starting to wonder if a single ron paul supporter understands that word) "smear job" (why "smear" a political non-entity? in the real world, ron paul is barely on the radar. no one tried to "bury" nader. we all know by now that huckabee is easy to smear, and obama has admitted to cocaine use, and hillary...well...) "already addressed" (oh cool it's been addressed guys forget it now) "these are facts" (this one is just scary, really)
let's see how ron paul's views in the newsletters measure up to his legislative record:
from the newsletters, re: MLK
"He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all states."
well, i posted a link earlier to ron paul's legislation regarding private schools not being penalized for any sort of discrimination. oh yeah, and ron paul also wants to get rid of public schooling. funny how that would work, don't you think?
also voted against the civil rights act, against giving rosa parks a symbolic medal, the money for which would have come from the mint public enterprise fund and not tax money (but voted for giving medals to cold war soldiers who saw no combat, which would have been paid for by the state department), and voted against making MLK day a holiday.
from the newsletters, re: homosex
all kinds of hateful shit
ron paul wants the states to be able to ban gay marriage. it's funny though, he doesn't introduce legislation wherein only the states can decide how any person gets married. he only is concerned with gay marriage...that's funny too, don't you think?
also voted against gays being able to adopt. however maybe ron paul doesn't want straight couples to adopt, in which case, he is not bigoted and just being consistent.
here is what a poster on Metafilter says re: ghostwriting (the poster works as a ghostwriter) (sorry, i can't find the link):
I am not, as it happens, a professional who has also been active in politics. One of my jobs, however, is to ghostwrite a newsletter for a professional who is active in politics. And I am telling you, Ron Paul's story is not credible.
I actually bought it when it was just one article making the rounds. Sure, that can happen. I kind of rolled my eyes at the Unnamed Republican Staffer aspect of it, but I could believe it. The guy at the top where I work doesn't read every single article. I could put in something crazy and he might never know.
But for three decades?
Here is what Paul is asking us to believe:
- Not only did he exercise no editorial control over any of the content, despite it being put out in his name, sometimes with his signature on it, for decades, but ...
- He did not then even bother to ask about some of the important political views of the people he was asking to write a political newsletter, in his name, for decades, and ...
- He was never even sent them, or simply threw them away without glancing over the content, for decades, and ...
- It never occurred to him in thirty years that this might be a bad idea.
Basically we have to buy that some associates of Ron Paul, whose political views he was not very familiar with, went to a Congressman and said, "Hey, we want to publish a newsletter under your name," and he said, "Sure, whatever you think will appeal to my constituents, relative strangers I trust," and never changed his mind about this, read it, or heard any feedback about it that would cause him to take a look at it, over a period spanning decades, through what had to be multiple changes in personnel, format, and title.
This is not how that works. That is NEVER how that works. I work for such a newsletter, and that is NOT HOW THESE THINGS WORK.
This is, frankly, a lie. If it is, somehow, not a lie, it is an act of such monumental idiocy, that, yes, this is a big enough deal that I think it means he is not capable of running the country.
he says, because libertarians do not see people as groups, but as individuals
I am probably getting the most number of black votes and black supporters, and that has to be undermined
he says, so...he does see black people as a demographic group? And on top of that, he believes that this is a political conspiracy, what a shocker!
Ron Paul on CNN, Pt. 2
I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, who would protect the minority from these vicious drug laws
I am the most anti-racist because I don't see people in collective groups
is he Steven fucking Colbert? "I am not racist, for I do not see colors. You tell me you're black, and I believe you, but I don't see it."
he also charges that he can't be racist because their next fundraising day is on MLK day (which he neglects to mention that he voted against having in the first fucking place)
Did you read these newsletters, congressman?
Not back then, there might have been times I would
he also charges that because there is no audio clip of him saying anything like this, he is not racist. 20 years of newsletters, and the best he can do is "well you don't have me on video."
Maybe this is part of the anti-Ron Paul deal, knock down Ron Paul, because he's gaining ground with the blacks
A philosophy that is so entirely dependent on love of the self can't help but be plagued by hatred of the other.
Would you consider him to be a member of a racist congregation?
Of course, you know that the follow up questions will be if Ron Paul himself attends this same church, as well as his family, would you then consider him to be a member of a racist congregation? Would such membership, in your opinion, constitute evidence that Ron Paul is a racist?
I doubt you'll actually answer. You have not demonstrated the intellectual courage or integrity it takes to do so. Instead, you'll mince around like a fairy on a string; misrepresenting facts, and newspeaking your way around realities.
Would you consider him to be a member of a racist congregation?
Of course, you know that the follow up questions will be if Ron Paul himself attends this same church, as well as his family, would you then consider him to be a member of a racist congregation? Would such membership, in your opinion, constitute evidence that Ron Paul is a racist?
I doubt you'll actually answer. You have not demonstrated the intellectual courage or integrity it takes to do so. Instead, you'll mince around like a fairy on a string; misrepresenting facts, and newspeaking your way around realities.
Jesus H. Christ on a fucking pogo stick!
LOki: you're doing exactly what you're accusing nocal of! He's talking about RP's disingenuous excuses, not about racism, per se. But instead of meeting his challenge and actually trying to explain
what RP meant by accepting responsibility for these newsletter, and then later denying he even read them...
or explaining how he could allow these "small-minded" newsletters to be published under his name for years...
...instead, you ignore these things and try to turn it into a debate about racism. So who's really misrepresenting?
You say nocal has no intellectual courage or integrity because he has not demonstrated it. But can you demonstrate that he hasn't? Or that you have? It looks to me like he's gone out of his way to provide context to show why he holds his opinions. Whereas, your arguments tend to devolve into mere name-calling.
____________________ To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
Would you consider him to be a member of a racist congregation?
Of course, you know that the follow up questions will be if Ron Paul himself attends this same church, as well as his family, would you then consider him to be a member of a racist congregation? Would such membership, in your opinion, constitute evidence that Ron Paul is a racist?
I doubt you'll actually answer. You have not demonstrated the intellectual courage or integrity it takes to do so. Instead, you'll mince around like a fairy on a string; misrepresenting facts, and newspeaking your way around realities.
well, you didn't read the link, so there's a shocker. if you had, you would have seen that it wasn't all repeats. i guess it wasn't enough that i included a quote directly below the link, a BRAND NEW excuse that i haven't presented before in this thread.
i like your argument though. it's "intellectually courageous" and it has "integrity."
however, i've already answered it, and you paid no attention to my answer.
other people are racist. minorities can be racist, and in fact, often are. perhaps Barack Obama is a racist, although i think your "argument" to that effect is stupid and shows a clear failure to understand what it is to be a minority. Huckabee, considering all the insane shit he believes, is probably a racist, and assuredly a homophobe. obama has a couple of long, detailed autobiographies. in them, he admits to hard drug use, having an estranged brother, and a whole bunch of other shit. i've mentioned this before. i've swarmed several links about the crazy shit that huckabee believes (and how many negative links about ron paul have i swarmed?)
if you want to discuss the shitty attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and legislation of the other candidates, i'll join in with you in doing so if you create a thread. it can be a thread about individuals, or it can be a big catch all thread where we just discuss all the stupid candidates.
however, i thought this one was about ron paul. and really, if your only argument is "he's not as racist as someone else," well, that argument blows.
Would you consider him to be a member of a racist congregation?
Of course, you know that the follow up questions will be if Ron Paul himself attends this same church, as well as his family, would you then consider him to be a member of a racist congregation? Would such membership, in your opinion, constitute evidence that Ron Paul is a racist?
I doubt you'll actually answer. You have not demonstrated the intellectual courage or integrity it takes to do so. Instead, you'll mince around like a fairy on a string; misrepresenting facts, and newspeaking your way around realities.
well, you didn't read the link, so there's a shocker. if you had, you would have seen that it wasn't all repeats. i guess it wasn't enough that i included a quote directly below the link, a BRAND NEW excuse that i haven't presented before in this thread.
i like your argument though. it's "intellectually courageous" and it has "integrity."
however, i've already answered it, and you paid no attention to my answer.
other people are racist. minorities can be racist, and in fact, often are. perhaps Barack Obama is a racist, although i think your "argument" to that effect is stupid and shows a clear failure to understand what it is to be a minority. Huckabee, considering all the insane shit he believes, is probably a racist, and assuredly a homophobe. obama has a couple of long, detailed autobiographies. in them, he admits to hard drug use, having an estranged brother, and a whole bunch of other shit. i've mentioned this before. i've swarmed several links about the crazy shit that huckabee believes (and how many negative links about ron paul have i swarmed?)
if you want to discuss the shitty attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and legislation of the other candidates, i'll join in with you in doing so if you create a thread. it can be a thread about individuals, or it can be a big catch all thread where we just discuss all the stupid candidates.
however, i thought this one was about ron paul. and really, if your only argument is "he's not as racist as someone else," well, that argument blows.
The U.K.-based Daily Telegraph reports on the growing sentiment to limit health care for both old people and those with unhealthy lifestyles. A survey of doctors is not the same as government policy, of course, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants to identify patient “responsibilities” — which is being interpreted as a step toward policies that will penalize those who drink, smoke, and eat too much:
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives. Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone. …About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
…Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations. Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade. Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services. One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Investor’s Business Daily comments on this controversy, noting that the denial of health care is a risk once government is in charge of the health care system. Moreover, the editorial explains that government-paid health care actually worsens problems such as obesity because people do not bear the cost when they behave recklessly. Of course, they will bear very steep costs if the government now cuts off health care, but this is an example of using one misguided government policy to try to fix the problems caused by another misguided government policy. Wouldn’t it be preferable to just fix the underlying problem by shifting to a free-market system?
The London Telegraph is reporting that the doctors believe “smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations.” Perhaps the doctors are following the lead of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the British agency that provides guidance on public health. In 2005, NICE proposed that the National Health Service use age as a measurement of a patient’s worthiness for treatment.
…For Britons, health care rationing isn’t just a threat. It’s a reality. The Telegraph says roughly one in 10 hospitals — usually those with financial problems — now deny some surgery to smokers and the obese. On a moral level, the doctors have a point: Taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize care for those who make poor choices and then expect others to pay for their mistakes. But that’s exactly what universal health care does, and that’s one of its primary flaws. It promises people that they’ll be cared for no matter what they do to themselves. When the consequences of bad behavior are eliminated, there’s a strong incentive to behave badly.
…Proponents of forcing government health care on Americans want voters to believe that none of this can happen here under their plan. But they can’t guarantee it. All that can be known for sure is that the U.S. will follow the same path as Britain. Bureaucrats will ration care, and those who provide it will become civil servants whose performance will more closely resemble that of DMV employees than caring professionals.
i think i've answered the question satisfactorily. it's a fucking stupid question designed to make a point. if your point is "barack obama is racist," then have your point. barack obama, and his entire family, are racists, and they hate white people. his entire congregation is racist against white people. I DON'T CARE ABOUT BARACK OBAMA. i don't really like him as a nominee, i wouldn't vote for him for president. do you think i would, or something?
if your point is that neither barack obama nor ron paul are racist, then i'm not even sure why you need to bring barack obama into it.
you're just arguing two things that aren't equivalent. you can't substitute "slavery" with "wage slavery" unless you have a painfully impossible view of slavery. which, if your past arguments are any indication, you do.
again, you are making that tired old white entitled male argument that black people say "nigger" and they have their own history month.
nocal:
i think i've answered the question satisfactorily.
You haven't. You have clearly avoided answering the question.
nocal:
it's a fucking stupid question
It's not. It's brilliant, actually, in it's capacity to draw out your cowardice and lack of integrity.
nocal:
designed to make a point.
This much, at least is true.
nocal:
if your point is "barack obama is racist," then have your point.
It's not.
nocal:
barack obama, and his entire family, are racists, and they hate white people. his entire congregation is racist against white people.
This is what you think?
nocal:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT BARACK OBAMA.
Too busy caring about Ron Paul is suppose?
nocal:
i don't really like him as a nominee, i wouldn't vote for him for president. do you think i would, or something?
Because he's a racist, or because you're a racist?
nocal:
if your point is that neither barack obama nor ron paul are racist, then i'm not even sure why you need to bring barack obama into it.
I didn't. You did. Big time. I just wanted you to answer a question that actually had nothing to do with Barak Obama--provided you had some sense of intellectual integrity, and courge in that integrity. It almost looked like you might--you just don't.
nocal:
again, you are making that tired old white entitled male argument that black people say "nigger" and they have their own history month.
I am not. This is also what I mean by your lack of integrity.
LOki: you're doing exactly what you're accusing nocal of! He's talking about RP's disingenuous excuses, not about racism, per se. But instead of meeting his challenge and actually trying to explain
what RP meant by accepting responsibility for these newsletter, and then later denying he even read them...
or explaining how he could allow these "small-minded" newsletters to be published under his name for years...
...instead, you ignore these things and try to turn it into a debate about racism. So who's really misrepresenting?
First, I would actually challenge you to reread nocal's post. The links he provided reference the exact same newsletters, published during the exact same time period, as the shit nocal previosly submitted with the Kirchick hitpiece--it's the exact same batch of shit, jwalker; and it's old hat.
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary."
Secondly, Ron Paul has addressed those news letters.
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."
They do not represent his beliefs--there, it's done.
But here, I'm a generous fellow, have at another with nocal's sentiments. While this guy and nocal circle-jerk over their fertile imaginings of Ron Paul in a Nazi uniform writing racially insensitive articles, note that these same imaginitive powerhouses cannot fathom the notion that perhaps while Ron Paul was busy being a doctor and/ or Congressman he might have thought he had better things to do than keep track of what went out on some crappy Ditto machine mass mailer put out by people he thought he should have been able to trust. It's more entertaining for thoughtless fucks like these to imagine Ron Paul burning crosses on front lawns, than to imagine him trusting and committed to trust, and perhaps bit of a victim of that trust. It's more entertaining for me too, but I can't buy it when it's inconsistent with his stated philosophy, policy, and platform.
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism."
You might prefer the circus side show of watching someone being thrown under the bus for political benefit; it's apparent that Ron Paul isn't going to attempt to gain "political distance" from those newsletters, that so clearly have his name on them, in the same manner that every shit-stain politician previous to him would. Taking moral responsibility means that, unlike perhaps some wishful others, Ron Paul accepts that you can't un-ring a bell, and those newsletters can't be un-written--yet if he didn't write them, he doesn't have to claim he did, and if those writngs don't reflect his beliefs, he doesn't have to claim they do.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
In the end, taking moral responsibility simply does not obligate Ron Paul to feeding your bloodlust for the spectacle of destroying those who did write those letters. It is certanly not wrong that the responsible party(s) be punished for misrepresntation, if that's what happened; still, it's cetainly not right to feed the shit breathing parasites either.
jwalker:
You say nocal has no intellectual courage or integrity because he has not demonstrated it.
I say he has failed to demonstrate intellectual courage because he continues to mince like a sissy around a question he knows will likely pin him as a senseless hypocrit. I'm not withholding my conclusion forever.
His lack of intellectual integrity has been demonstrated with his staw-manesqe bait and switch point diversions, and bullshit new-speak defining of terms to validate his points, and invalidate the points of others.
jwalker:
But can you demonstrate that he hasn't? Or that you have? It looks to me like he's gone out of his way to provide context to show why he holds his opinions. Whereas, your arguments tend to devolve into mere name-calling.
Yeah, jawalker, I can. And I have; I have been--now the name calling is so that I can have fun while doing it. Douche.
They do not represent his beliefs--there, it's done.
yet his legislation has a peculiar way of hatin' on the gays, states-rights-wise, but not the regular heteros. (i thought libertarians liked civil liberties?)
and he doesn't like the idea that schools have to accept students regardless of color.
and he admires the shit out of rosa parks and MLK...but he doesn't want them to have medals or holidays.
he defends the writings...then he doesn't...then he says he doesn't even know about them!
you believe him because he says they aren't his views? that's weird. do you believe hillary or huckabee or obama when they lie to your face?
and again: he never takes moral responsibility for what was written. he takes moral responsibility "for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name." which is as semantic a game as any politician would play.
I say he has failed to demonstrate intellectual courage because he continues to mince like a sissy around a question he knows will likely pin him as a senseless hypocrit. I'm not withholding my conclusion forever.
His lack of intellectual integrity has been demonstrated with his staw-manesqe bait and switch point diversions, and bullshit new-speak defining of terms to validate his points, and invalidate the points of others.
lol. i answered the (non)question. i would say that he is a racist if your switcheroo were in any way accurate (it isn't). so therefore i would say that obama is a racist. is this what you're getting at? if so, then i agree. i said that before. now that i've agreed that obama is racist, do you not know where to go with your argument? what does that prove? i don't care about barack obama.
every time i concede to one of your roundabout obtuse non-questions, every time i concede a point to one of your moron free market apologists, it isn't enough. why not? your point isn't clear, and you have yet to clarify it. are you being an intellectual coward?
racism should really be the least of your worries. he'll suggest legislation that he thinks he's exempt from (term limits), he'll suggest things he'll never do (abolish the IRS), and he'll tell you what he thinks you want to hear. this one just does it in the way you like it.
nocal: yet his legislation has a peculiar way of hatin' on the gays, states-rights-wise, but not the regular heteros. (i thought libertarians liked civil liberties?)
I haven't seen this state legislation that he's introduced.
nocal: and he doesn't like the idea that schools have to accept students regardless of color.
Misrepresented. Doesn't think the Federal Government in general, and the IRS in particular should control enrollment of Private Schools, and use their own racist notions as justifactions to protect the government monopoly on education.
nocal: and he admires the shit out of rosa parks and MLK...but he doesn't want them to have medals or holidays.
Misrepresented. I think I read that he actually voted for the MLK holiday. As far as medals are concerned, he also was agianst awarding medals to Ronald and Nancy Regan--on the basis that such expenditures are not constitutional. He did suggest that, at least for the Reagan medals, that eveyone who was willing to spend other people's money for the things, pitch in $100 of their own to do it anyway. No takers. He's not against the medals nocal, he's agianst stealing from you to give them out.
nocal:you believe him because he says they aren't his views? that's weird. do you believe hillary or huckabee or obama when they lie to your face?
I would, if their words were consistent with their actions, and I do when they are.
This consistency appears to happen more often with Ron Paul than it does with the rest of them.
nocal:
and again: he never takes moral responsibility for what was written. he takes moral responsibility "for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name." which is as semantic a game as any politician would play.
Well, what do you actually want? You want the bloodbath, don't you? You're going to continue to cry, and stamp your little foot util you get it, won't you?
nocal:
LOki:
I say he has failed to demonstrate intellectual courage because he continues to mince like a sissy around a question he knows will likely pin him as a senseless hypocrit. I'm not withholding my conclusion forever.
His lack of intellectual integrity has been demonstrated with his staw-manesqe bait and switch point diversions, and bullshit new-speak defining of terms to validate his points, and invalidate the points of others.
lol. i answered the (non)question.
You did not.
nocal:
i would say that he is a racist if your switcheroo were in any way accurate (it isn't).
It's accurate in some way. It's about time you manned up.
nocal:
so therefore i would say that obama is a racist. is this what you're getting at?
I suppose. Establishing that you think Obama is a racist was never the point. It's just weird that you're so sure it was. The hyperlinks in the question were meaningless to the question asked--unless you were going to assert that Ron Paul is a racist under those conditions and Barak Obama is not. Considering that you think Obama is a racist, the answer to the question posed is simply, "Yes"--just "Yes." All your evasive fairy dancing around it was not neccessary.
nocal:
if so, then i agree.
With what? That you think Obama is a racist? I would hope so. You seem to think everyone is a racist. Particularly those who know what the term "race" means--those filthy fuckers.
nocal:
i said that before. now that i've agreed that obama is racist, do you not know where to go with your argument?
I've not made an argument, you douche; I asked a question, I'm gathering some data, I'm apparently getting to some point you're pretty uncomfortable with. It's curious.
nocal:
what does that prove?
It seems to prove that you don't care that Barak Obama is clearly a racist, but you do care that Ron Paul pretty much seems to be one--as far as you're concerned. There seems to be something else besides racism bothering you.
Your bitch with Ron Paul has never been about racism. You hope to keep this racism fire alight, because you are uncomfortable arguing the real issue you have with Ron Paul's politics.
I'm interested in this real problem you have, and not the strawmen you'd rather conjure up.
nocal:
i don't care about barack obama.
Is that because you think he's a racist, or is it because you're a racist?
nocal:
every time i concede to one of your roundabout obtuse non-questions, every time i concede a point to one of your moron free market apologists, it isn't enough.
I haven't asked "roundabout obtuse non-questions", and you haven't conceded shit. What do you think you're playing at pal?
nocal:
why not? your point isn't clear, and you have yet to clarify it. are you being an intellectual coward?
Oh. The turn-about pivoting on your fanciful vignette. Quaint.
nocal:
racism should really be the least of your worries.
Right. It certainly isn't one of yours. LOL.
nocal:
he'll suggest legislation that he thinks he's exempt from (term limits),
Grossly misrepresented, again.
nocal:
he'll suggest things he'll never do (abolish the IRS),
Misrepresented.
nocal:
and he'll tell you what he thinks you want to hear.
His success rides on having his finger on the pulse of LOki. LOLsome.
nocal:
this one just does it in the way you like it.
Here's the telling question for you nocal: What's so bad about what I like?
I haven't seen this state legislation that he's introduced.
i linked it before. he thinks states should be able to ban gay marriage. he didn't introduce legislation that says that states can decide who gets married and how, only that they can ban gay marriage.
he also thinks that states can decide if adults can buttfuck in their bedroom. maybe next he'll decide that states can choose whether or not people can bear arms, eh loki?
Misrepresented. I think I read that he actually voted for the MLK holiday. As far as medals are concerned, he also was agianst awarding medals to Ronald and Nancy Regan--on the basis that such expenditures are not constitutional. He did suggest that, at least for the Reagan medals, that eveyone who was willing to spend other people's money for the things, pitch in $100 of their own to do it anyway. No takers. He's not against the medals nocal, he's agianst stealing from you to give them out.
as for the MLK holiday, 2 seconds of googling would show you're wrong (sorry about the source, but it has a photo copy of a newspaper clipping at least)
the rosa parks medal, as i said before, would have come from the mint public works fund. it would not be funded by taxpayers.
he voted for giving medals to soldiers who "served" in the cold war, funded by taxpayers.
funny how that works.
Well, what do you actually want? You want the bloodbath, don't you? You're going to continue to cry, and stamp your little foot util you get it, won't you?
lol. you think i misrepresent everything, but you're fudging a big distinction in order to further your argument. of course, rather than admit the distinction, you just imply i'm a baby (all because i won't let him get away with his non-apology)
You did not.
if you read my previous post, i pretty much wrote the exact same thing.
there was no "fairy dancing" around the point, it's just silly.
Your bitch with Ron Paul has never been about racism. You hope to keep this racism fire alight, because you are uncomfortable arguing the real issue you have with Ron Paul's politics.
what are my politics that i cling so dearly to that i would defame a perfect man with baseless accusations? since i've swarmed a few huckabee articles, am i afraid of his politics too? or is it that i think ron paul is a racist or else surrounds himself with racists or else is incompetent in his oversight, and is therefore worthy of scorn?
Is that because you think he's a racist, or is it because you're a racist?
it could be that, as i said several times previously, it has nothing to do with this thread. if you want to start a big long thread about obama, i'll chime in with whatever i think his personal and professional failings are, if you want.
and you haven't conceded shit
i have, and i continue to. if i thought you would read it, i might go through the thread and make a list of where i've conceded being wrong. i'm not above admitting i'm wrong in the face of compelling evidence.
Grossly misrepresented, again.
how is it misrepresented, other than you saying it is? he insists term limits are important, sponsors legislation to that effect...and then serves 10 terms.
how is that anything other than hypocritical? oh i get it it's because he has to serve until he imposes term limits, that makes sense, he's above the rules he imposes
in any case it's a talking point. there would still be taxes, collected by an agency. maybe they'd be called "The IRS" but maybe they'd be called "Not The IRS". is that really the important part?
Here's the telling question for you nocal: What's so bad about what I like?
no, the question for you is: why do you trust this douche? he shares some of your views, i guess, but he's as full of shit as anyone.
in the end, it doesn't matter if i call ron paul a jew baby eating child rapist. he won't be elected. but how much of his actual legislation have i criticized? did you think that maybe i like some of the ideas, but think that he won't follow through with them, because he's a hypocritical politician?
Actually, I've just today propped my fuking eyelids open with some toothpicks long enough to figure out who holds what position and why.
Or at least, I get the gist of probably the last page, and you know what? One or both of you is probably being kind of a douchypants, but hey lookit that, you're not just masturbating recycled durpfilth onto the carpet by quietly linking youtubes, so carry on actually discussing something... even if it is whether the shape of the other one's navel lacks or exceeds sufficient levels of sass.
Also, where the fuck has uart been?
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
I'm quite comfortable with my own sentiments, thank you.
LOki:
They do not represent his beliefs--there, it's done.
Not for me, it isn't. I'd like to know why he attempted to justify the newsletters in the 96 campaign, yet disavow them in the current one.
Look, I would like to believe you. I really would. But I don't see how to reconcile these positions. I mean, if he were to say something like...
I'm just stating the what everyone knows to be true: there's more crime in poorer black communities than less poor white ones. But I'm not interested in correcting the balance, because that means being unfair in the other direction. Instead, I believe that everyone should be treated equally, just like the contitution says.
...then I could at least respect his principles even if I didn't agree with his methods.
And I understand that the nature of this story being rehashed during an important political campaign might make it look like RP has some dirt in his back yard, even though a reasonable explanation wa forthcoming. But he hasn't offered a reasonable explanation as to how something like that could continue for so long - over a decade from my understanding - without anyone at all bringing it to his attention. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.
If I've said anything here you think is unreasonable, then fuck you puss. Otherwise, I'm afraid I still need convincing that he is not complicit.
____________________ To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
I think Uncle Pauly did better in this debate than in most others....of course it's the one nobody watched.
It's almost ironic being a black invite debate.
Also, to touch on some of those 'negative' or 'rascist' comments that were printed in Paulsnax newsletter under his name, weather he knew or wrote them or not I don't care really.
Is it wrong of me to agree with half of them? 'Cause I do.
____________________ "Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
LOki:
I haven't seen this state legislation that he's introduced.
i linked it before. he thinks states should be able to ban gay marriage. he didn't introduce legislation that says that states can decide who gets married and how, only that they can ban gay marriage.
he also thinks that states can decide if adults can buttfuck in their bedroom. maybe next he'll decide that states can choose whether or not people can bear arms, eh loki?
I'm pretty sure you've linked to no state legislation Ron Paul has introduced. None.
nocal:
LOki:
Misrepresented. I think I read that he actually voted for the MLK holiday. As far as medals are concerned, he also was agianst awarding medals to Ronald and Nancy Regan--on the basis that such expenditures are not constitutional. He did suggest that, at least for the Reagan medals, that eveyone who was willing to spend other people's money for the things, pitch in $100 of their own to do it anyway. No takers. He's not against the medals nocal, he's agianst stealing from you to give them out.
as for the MLK holiday, 2 seconds of googling would show you're wrong (sorry about the source, but it has a photo copy of a newspaper clipping at least)
Aren't you the fucking retard. One second looking at your little newspaper clip, and you'd have to wonder how in the whole fucking world, could we be observing a Federal MLK Holiday if it was defeated in 1979? Maybe it's because this LOki is NOT wrong, and the MKL Holiday resolution was passed in 1983 when Ron Paul voted FOR it.
nocal:
the rosa parks medal, as i said before, would have come from the mint public works fund. it would not be funded by taxpayers.
You may have said this, but you're clearly full of shit.
During Debate on HR 573 "Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
