Ron Paul,The man America needs for President.

[Awoon]

Vote for someone you dont know, that way you dont know whose.......you!

 

[Revoltingest]

What is the larger point?

See post #2.

Vote for someone you dont know....

Might be an improvement.

 

[Magic Man]

See post #2.

Ah, then it is very relevant to that point, since most people don't want that stuff, which was my entire point. I don't want a lot of that stuff, but Ron Paul still isn't the guy for me. Many people are in the same boat.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Ron Paul still isn't the guy for me. Many people are in the same boat.

I predict for 2012: Voters will support continual war & economic decline.

 

[Magic Man]

I predict for 2012: Voters will support continual war & economic decline.

I predict they'll support candidates who are unlikely to get out of our foreign wars. I also predict that they will not support the continued wars.

Let's use an example:

There is a bill that will end poverty altogether. A side-agenda of the bill is to start a war in Iran. I'm probably going to support the bill, but that doesn't mean I support a war with Iran.

My point was that every candidate has advantages and disadvantages. Paul has some advantages. I would love to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't want to do it at the cost of minimum wage, income tax and several other very important things. Besides, a vote for Paul is also a vote for continued economic decline as much or more than any other candidate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I predict they'll support candidates who are unlikely to get out of our foreign wars. I also predict that they will not support the continued wars.

Such contradictory thinking suggests that I should invest in Northrop-Grumman stock.

 

[Magic Man]

Such contradictory thinking suggests that I should invest in Northrop-Grumman stock.

Such intentional incomprehension of what others are saying suggests you're a lost cause.

 

[Awoon]

I predict for 2012: Voters will support continual war & economic decline.

We have to support war and military actions. Look at how many more would be unemployed if the soldiers came home.

The military has the only entitlements that is off the table.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have to support war and military actions. Look at how many more would be unemployed if the soldiers came home.
The military has the only entitlements that is off the table.

Alas, there are people who actually buy into such wrong-headed thinking.

Such intentional incomprehension of what others are saying suggests you're a lost cause.

Perhaps I understand your posts even better than you do...
....or perhaps you took offense because you misunderstood that I was attributing contradictory thinking to the voters, rather than you.

War is too acceptable for many, especially when waged by the guy they elected.

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps I understand your posts even better than you do...

Anything's possible, but I'm not betting a piece of my dogs' food on it.

....or perhaps you took offense because you misunderstood that I was attributing contradictory thinking to the voters, rather than you.

War is too acceptable for many, especially when waged by the guy they elected.

I didn't take offense. I'm trying to correct a misconception. Voting for someone who is going to continue the wars over someone who is not going to continue the wars doesn't mean you support the wars. It means that you felt that overall the candidate you voted for was the best candidate.

Candidate A supports making all abortions illegal, getting rid of minimum wage, raising taxes on everyone just to increase the salaries of Congress and the president, and making it legal to discriminate against gay people in all ways. But he also supports getting out of the wars we're in immediately.

Candidate B supports measures that are sure to get the economy back on track, has a plan to fix Social Security and Medicare to be solvent, will give gay people equal rights across the board, and has a legitimate plan to reduce poverty. But he will most likely stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By voting for candidate B, a person is not supporting the wars, but is saying that it's worth it to stay in the wars to get all of that other stuff, rather than get out of the wars but have to deal with all of the crap candidate A wants to put in place. It's the lesser of two evils.

I think the majority of Americans wants to get out of the wars, but things like the economy and other issues might be more important to them.

 

[Spirited]

Low taxes require reduced spending. What do you want to sacrifice?

How about Chrysler -.-'

 

[Revoltingest]

Anything's possible, but I'm not betting a piece of my dogs' food on it.
I didn't take offense. I'm trying to correct a misconception. Voting for someone who is going to continue the wars over someone who is not going to continue the wars doesn't mean you support the wars. It means that you felt that overall the candidate you voted for was the best candidate.
Candidate A supports making all abortions illegal, getting rid of minimum wage, raising taxes on everyone just to increase the salaries of Congress and the president, and making it legal to discriminate against gay people in all ways. But he also supports getting out of the wars we're in immediately.
Candidate B supports measures that are sure to get the economy back on track, has a plan to fix Social Security and Medicare to be solvent, will give gay people equal rights across the board, and has a legitimate plan to reduce poverty. But he will most likely stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By voting for candidate B, a person is not supporting the wars, but is saying that it's worth it to stay in the wars to get all of that other stuff, rather than get out of the wars but have to deal with all of the crap candidate A wants to put in place. It's the lesser of two evils.
I think the majority of Americans wants to get out of the wars, but things like the economy and other issues might be more important to them.

The net effect is to continue the wars (which also exacerbates economic woe).
Complicated reasons & compromises don't change that.

 

[Magic Man]

The net effect is to continue the wars (which also exacerbates economic woe).
Complicated reasons & compromises don't change that.

As I said, it's not much use talking to you, if you're going to intentionally miss the point, but I'll try anyway. Voting for a candidate who will most likely continue the wars is not supporting the wars. You could want the wars to end, but vote for someone who probably won't end them. I want the wars to end, but not at the cost of some of the other things Paul wants.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I said, it's not much use talking to you...

You could give up, eh? But in the spirit of your response, I'll give you my constructive criticism. (I live to serve. I'm here to help.)
I diagnose that you're unable to see my point that Democrats continue to support war mongerers because it makes you so uncomfortable.
You seek absolution by listing reasons why people who oppose war will continue supporting politicians who wage it. But those reasons are
rendered moot by the fact that wars continue without much opposition, especially by whomever belongs to the president's political party.

 

[Magic Man]

You could give up, eh? But in the spirit of your response, I'll give you my constructive criticism. (I live to serve. I'm here to help.)
I diagnose that you're unable to see my point that Democrats continue to support war mongerers because it makes you so uncomfortable.
You seek absolution by listing reasons why people who oppose war will continue supporting politicians who wage it. But those reasons are
rendered moot by the fact that wars continue without much opposition, especially by whoever belongs to the president's political party.

I hope you don't mind. I fixed the last part of your post grammatically.

I'll try it again. Most Americans want to end the wars. 60% of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan, for instance.

So, clearly, people do want to end the wars, which goes against your assertion that they want to continue the wars. Voting for someone other than Ron Paul does not mean one supports the wars. It means one does not support Paul's total package as much as someone else's total package.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope you don't mind. I fixed the last part of your post grammatically.

Didn't notice a change.....for once.

I'll try it again. Most Americans want to end the wars. 60% of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan, for instance.
So, clearly, people do want to end the wars, which goes against your assertion that they want to continue the wars.

Here is where you er. I didn't & don't say "they want to continue the wars".
You should re-read what I actually said about the effect, which is different from a want.

Now that that misconception is fixed, we may move on. What a relief!

 

[Magic Man]

Didn't notice a change.....for once.

Here is where you er. I didn't & don't say "they want to continue the wars".
You should re-read what I actually said about the effect, which is different from a want.

You're right. You said "like", not "want":

He's the right man for some of us.
But most people like deadly & expensive foreign entanglements, bigger & more intrusive government, empty platitudes, pandering, dishonesty & bail-outs for losers.
They'll favor one of the big two.

Of course that changes everything...:sarcastic

Now that that misconception is fixed, we may move on. What a relief!

I sure hope we can move on after you finally fix your misconception.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're right. You said "like", not "want":
Of course that changes everything...:sarcastic
I sure hope we can move on after you finally fix your misconception.

You should understand that "foreign entanglements" is broader than "war", & not a euphemism for it. Most voters actually like many of what I would
call "foreign entanglements", eg, gifts, some police action, loans, favorable trade deals. But even when they don't "like" costly & deadly wars, they'll still
vote for candidates who wage them, & continue to support them with little criticism of the war. For partisan reasons, they tolerate war more than suits me.

 

[Magic Man]

You should understand that "foreign entanglements" is broader than "war", & not a euphemism for it. Most voters actually like many of what I would call "foreign entanglements", eg, gifts, some police action, loans, favorable trade deals.

"Gifts"? What are you talking about? So, what you're saying is you're not OK with favorable trade deals?

How do you know most voters like those things?

But even when they don't "like" costly & deadly wars, they'll still
vote for candidates who wage them, & continue to support them with little criticism of the war. For partisan reasons, they tolerate war more than suits me.

No, not necessarily for partisan reasons. This is what I'm trying to explain to you. Getting out of the wars might be by far your highest priority, and you might be willing to sacrifice everything for that one thing, but others might have different priorities. That doesn't mean they support or like the wars, though. And it's not even based on partisanship many times. For me, it's certainly not. That's why I explained that I like Paul for some of his stances like against the wars, but as a whole I can't support him because of all the other things I don't like.

My whole point has been that voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean you're for specific things like the wars or platitudes, etc. It just means one of two things:

1) You realize an independent like Paul has no chance at all of winning, so you choose the lesser of the big two evils.
2) You don't like Paul as a whole compared to someone else.

We're not just voting on one particular issue at a time.

 

[Spirited]

Neither of you are going to back down, though, I mostly agree with Revolt for what it's worth to the two of you.

My whole point has been that voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean you're for specific things like the wars or platitudes, etc. It just means one of two things:

1) You realize an independent like Paul has no chance at all of winning, so you choose the lesser of the big two evils.
2) You don't like Paul as a whole compared to someone else.

We're not just voting on one particular issue at a time.

America seemed to think that being black was a big enough reason to elect Obama or are we going to pretend that there were other reasons for a record number of black voters to come to the polls with the most racially biased favoritism of a political party in recorded history? As sad as it is, more often than not, people vote on one or two ethical issues that they hold dear to their hearts. The average citizen doesn't know any more about balancing the budget than they do about balancing their checkbooks. The war has become such a non-intrusive backdrop to our society that many Americans don't even think about it all that often.

I honestly like Paul for a plethora of reasons and would have voted for him in '08 had it not been for a desperate sense of needing to prevent Obama from taking office and doing exactly what he has done. I'm tired of the government teaching individuals and even large corporations to be irresponsible. I'm tired of politicians blowing our tax dollars like a hooker on Friday night. Most of all, I'm tired of the constant flow of Liberal propaganda in the media. It's like someone ate a burrito laced with laxative and happens to own every broadcasting station and newspaper in the nation.

I want the government to get it's hands off of my genitals and go learn how to do basic arithmetic.