Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

[Alphawolf55]

Replacing the EPA with litigation is stupid. One, it's incredibly difficult at times to prove who did the damages (since there are so many polluters). Two, it assumes that what is damaged can be replaced with money always (which is quite often not true with the environment) and THree, it does nothing to stop long term problems like Global Warming, since what is one going to due? Sue on future damages? (Plus from what I remember, the artics aren't even owned by anyone)

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

You do realize every single "apologist" has been making repeated comparison to Obama's policies? Ron Paul is kind of a shitty candidate when directly compared to progressive ideals.

Obama's policies are already destroying the rule of law, any pretenses of private/public sector separation, and blahblah you already know this and DXIII types faster than me.

Also saying Ron Paul's crazier things will be obstructed is perfectly valid if we look at Obama's entire presidency

Plus, he also ignored what I wrote about what Paul would like to replace the EPA with. In any case, being an actual libertarian, I actually agree with most of what Ron Paul says. I just don't feel like arguing the points about some of his more radical views. I'd likely be relatively happy if a liberal like Dennis Kucinich were to run again, though, since, like DXIII says, he's one of the few dedicated to ending the wars and torture. I'd be content to stop talks of gradually doing away with a bunch of departments if we libertarians and the left were to be able to get together on war, torture, and executive power.

Not to mention you'd need to get a class action suit going to get anywhere against a companies legal team. Additionally the damage is already done by the time you are able to take action so while you might "make them pay" you've still got fucking cancer or your kid is still malformed, or all the trees around your house are dead or etc, etc, etc.

[Alphawolf55]

#2 is bad. The money isn't about replacing things, but rather producing a disincentive to do that activity in the first place via threats of lawsuits.

It's the same way taxes affect the market. By placing a tax on, say CO2 emissions, you aren't paying for cleanup. But, it does give a big negative on their balance sheet that companies will want to avoid to maximize their profits.

So, as long as the alternatives cost less than the tax, it will herd them toward those alternatives (which may a whole variety of strategies; the incentive is simply to avoid the cost, and it doesn't care how you do it. It might be technological innovation, it might be switching manufacturing methods, or it might be legal manipulations of tax loopholes, but hopefully, you draft the law that the only loopholes still work toward the desirable end goal.)


Replace "tax" with "threat of lawsuit", and the equation doesn't change, as far as the companies are concerned.

You're half right, you're just thinking things on one side of the issue when it comes to litigation. Replacement is a big issue. We allow people to drive with the expectation that if they cause damages, they can be sued and fined. This acts a deterrent but one of the reasons why we allow this is because in most cases if a person goes against the disincentive any property damage they cause to a victim can usually be replaced (the exception of killing the victim, which is why more dangerous activities are outright banned when driving). The environment though, cannot be replaced often and that should be considered.

Additionally the idea that suing can act as a disincentive is flawed by itself, since claimed damages can often be smaller then profit of abuse.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

#2 is bad. The money isn't about replacing things, but rather producing a disincentive to do that activity in the first place via threats of lawsuits.

It's the same way taxes affect the market. By placing a tax on, say CO2 emissions, you aren't paying for cleanup. But, it does give a big negative on their balance sheet that companies will want to avoid to maximize their profits.

So, as long as the alternatives cost less than the tax, it will herd them toward those alternatives (which may a whole variety of strategies; the incentive is simply to avoid the cost, and it doesn't care how you do it. It might be technological innovation, it might be switching manufacturing methods, or it might be legal manipulations of tax loopholes, but hopefully, you draft the law that the only loopholes still work toward the desirable end goal.)


Replace "tax" with "threat of lawsuit", and the equation doesn't change, as far as the companies are concerned.

You're half right, you're just thinking things on one side of the issue when it comes to litigation. Replacement is a big issue. We allow people to drive with the expectation that if they cause damages, they can be sued and fined. This acts a deterrent but one of the reasons why we allow this is because in most cases if a person goes against the disincentive any property damage they cause to a victim can usually be replaced (the exception of killing the victim, which is why more dangerous activities are outright banned when driving). The environment though, cannot be replaced often and that should be considered.

Additionally the idea that suing can act as a disincentive is flawed by itself, since claimed damages can often be smaller then profit of abuse.

This also assumes that your suit is successful. Companies might just get away with fucking with your shit and not give two fucks about disincentive. There's all sorts of hijinks you could pull if you knew a suit was on it's way. Say your mining raw materials, (trees, coal, gold etc) and the supply is exhausted. O noes! Environments fucked, chemicals have caused cancer and miscarriages, lets sue! Whoops! Looks like the company dissolved. Guess you can't sue us now. Fuck employees. And good luck trying to go after individual execs.

[Terralthra]

A significant fraction of Libertarians are in favor of eliminating Limited Liability Corporations. Whether Ron Paul personally agrees with those (or about corporate personhood, an equally grave issue, for me), is not information I can find right now.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

A significant fraction of Libertarians are in favor of eliminating Limited Liability Corporations. Whether Ron Paul personally agrees with those (or about corporate personhood, an equally grave issue, for me), is not information I can find right now.

Well that could solve one part of the problem at least in that instance. Still doesn't fix how what you'd do for foreign companies.

[Alphawolf55]

Yet he is against any campaign finance reform. Also corporate personhood by itself isn't a huge issue, it's when combining it with the idea that they're people that makes it a huge issue.

[Terralthra]

A significant fraction of Libertarians are in favor of eliminating Limited Liability Corporations. Whether Ron Paul personally agrees with those (or about corporate personhood, an equally grave issue, for me), is not information I can find right now.

Well that could solve one part of the problem at least in that instance. Still doesn't fix how what you'd do for foreign companies.

If they pollute here, you can sue them here (under laws regarding "significant contact" for tort conditions). If they don't pollute here, and you're just trying to sue them for general "global warming" activities...well, our current system doesn't appear to be very good at keeping foreign companies from polluting abroad either, so it's hardly a fair criticism.

[Terralthra]

Yet he is against any campaign finance reform. Also corporate personhood by itself isn't a huge issue, it's when combining it with the idea that they're people that makes it a huge issue.

Corporate personhood is the idea that "they're people." Are you illiterate?

[bobalot]

#2 is bad. The money isn't about replacing things, but rather producing a disincentive to do that activity in the first place via threats of lawsuits.

It's the same way taxes affect the market. By placing a tax on, say CO2 emissions, you aren't paying for cleanup. But, it does give a big negative on their balance sheet that companies will want to avoid to maximize their profits.

So, as long as the alternatives cost less than the tax, it will herd them toward those alternatives (which may a whole variety of strategies; the incentive is simply to avoid the cost, and it doesn't care how you do it. It might be technological innovation, it might be switching manufacturing methods, or it might be legal manipulations of tax loopholes, but hopefully, you draft the law that the only loopholes still work toward the desirable end goal.)


Replace "tax" with "threat of lawsuit", and the equation doesn't change, as far as the companies are concerned.

Rubbish. While not perfect, making the polluter pay for their pollution is far superior than some airy-fairy "LOL, we can just sue them if it hurts people!" approach.

In a lawsuit, you have asymmetries of economic power. How can one person realistically sue a multi-billion dollar corporation and win? Many people would be put off at the start by the disparity.
In a lawsuit, by the time the effects of damaging actions are evident, the company may not even exist.
In many instances, the Taxpayer foots the bill. For example, before the advent of Environmental protection regulation, most private firms in Sydney's outer Industrial regions simply dumped their industrial refuse on their land. Decades later, these toxins are seeping into other peoples properties. The offending companies no longer exist. In many cases these environmental problems have been cleaned up at great cost to the taxpayer.

Where as a Tax or Cap & Trade Scheme, the organisation that creates pollution is directly billed for the cost. Not perfect, but far superior to relying on the threat of lawsuits, which there is a good chance that the polluting company will never have to pay for their actions.

[Alphawolf55]

Corporate Personhood wasn't suppose to be they're people, but distinct entities among themselves. It being in a person in the idea that it's debts and profits are it's own, it's criminal activities are its own (with the exception of major players in the organization). That's a different idea, then considering themselves literally people.

[Panzersharkcat]

Yet he is against any campaign finance reform.

Well, right or wrong, he considers it a freedom of speech issue. I cannot find any info on whether he supports LLCs or not, either. I'll try looking in his books later, though. Hound me if I forget.

[Alphawolf55]

Yet he is against any campaign finance reform.

Well, right or wrong, he considers it a freedom of speech issue. I cannot find any info on whether he supports LLCs or not, either. I'll try looking in his books later, though. Hound me if I forget.

Yes but if the goal is to show you're against corporatism, being against campaign finance reform, and being for against the 17th amendment are bad ways to show it.

[Terralthra]

Corporate Personhood wasn't suppose to be they're people, but distinct entities among themselves. It being in a person in the idea that it's debts and profits are it's own, it's criminal activities are its own (with the exception of major players in the organization). That's a different idea, then considering themselves literally people.

The idea that corporations are entities which can take on debt, enter contracts, etc., is corporate personhood, but do you not understand that once you say "corporations are person for x, y, and z responsibilities and rights of persons under the law," it naturally follows that every other right and responsibility accorded to persons are up for debate?

[Alphawolf55]

Corporate Personhood wasn't suppose to be they're people, but distinct entities among themselves. It being in a person in the idea that it's debts and profits are it's own, it's criminal activities are its own (with the exception of major players in the organization). That's a different idea, then considering themselves literally people.

The idea that corporations are entities which can take on debt, enter contracts, etc., is corporate personhood, but do you not understand that once you say "corporations are person for x, y, and z responsibilities and rights of persons under the law," it naturally follows that every other right and responsibility accorded to persons are up for debate?

I understand how the debate can come up, doesn't mean I agree with the logic behind the conclusion.

[bobalot]

The nice thing about decentralized power is moving to another state is an option; you can vote with your feet. Movement between the states is still easy.

Ah, ok, so you're alright with forcing people to flee their home state so long as there's mob rule. Are you fucking retarded?

I find it hard to believe that Destructionator XIII has no idea that moving can simply be too expensive or not feasible for many people.

What's your point?

My point is, your response to a hugely damaging aspect of Ron Paul's ideology is "LOLZ, you are being persecuted and no longer have the protection of the Supreme Court! LOLZ JUST GO TO ANOTHER STATE! HUR HUR HUR" while pretending to not know how difficult/infeasible this is for many people.

Why the hell would any progressive support this bullshit? Seriously?

Ron Paul Drone: Hey! Let's constraint the Supreme Court from protecting minorities from regressive State laws! If they don't like it, they can just leave at great cost to themselves!

Progressive: HOLY SHIT! That sounds awesome! It's just like how racists used "States Rights" as an excuse to keep shitting all over blacks during the 1960's! Let's return to that for homosexuals, women and anybody who's not Christian! FUCK YEAH.

[bobalot]

I don't understand how a progressive can support murder, torture, perpetual war, worldwide destruction, MURDER, indefinite detention, unrestricted spying, and oh yeah WAR AND MURDER.

Maybe the dead people don't count because they have brown skin? Or listen to the wrong kind of music? Or whatever you thought was the reason to do it.

Regardless though, it's a trade off. That's what you have to realize instead of dismissing him when only talking about his negatives in isolation.

But it's bed time, so we can talk about the court and your annoying lies about pretending ignorance tomorrow.

You know what? I'm tired of you throwing out non-sequiturs, shifting the goalposts in this thread and not even addressing individual criticisms of the sainted Ron Paul.

Where exactly did I offer support for "support murder, torture, perpetual war"?

[Simon_Jester]

I find it hard to believe that Destructionator XIII has no idea that moving can simply be too expensive or not feasible for many people.

He knows, he's just trolling- making almost self-parodic arguments and refusing to admit that he's doing so, in order to get a response. At least some of the other people here seem to be serious.

---

Frankly the economic argument is silly as Obama already approves of austerity measures, SS and medicare cuts, no financial regulations, and so on and so forth. Dismantling of federal departments IS valid as it is a thing the President could actually do without too much interference from congress.

It is valid in the sense of "he could do that," but it is not valid in the sense of "it would be incredibly stupid."

What are you even talking about here? The point is that Obama's economic policy is also awful and will just make things worse. Ron Paul's main downside is his excessive state's rights position. And even that would have benefits, such as ending the federal War on Drugs.

No, that's only one of his downsides. One of his other downsides is that given the power to do so, he'd dismantle or neuter the federal agencies responsible for ensuring the quality of our air, water, food, and medicine, the education of our children, and God knows what else.

He could do that, in the sense of "it is a thing the President could actually do without too much interference from Congress." But why would I want him to do such a thing? It would be folly to do that.

Why should I elect a man who promises to commit acts of such folly?

Ron Paul is: antiwar, anti-indefinite detention, anti-Drug War (this counts as like 20 issues really), anti-National Security State (also broad), and whole bunch of other things liberals like to think they care about.

If the War on Drugs counts as twenty issues, so does the continued existence of the EPA... which Ron Paul wants to get rid of.

Why should I elect a man who promises to commit acts of such folly? I am far from convinced that he could possibly do more good than harm; you are grossly underestimating the harm that he would do.

Your scenario is a massive simplification. The amount of Democrats who voted for Nader is the same as the Republicans who did. Nader being a Democratic spoiler is just a myth. His voters were also filled with numerous independents and first time voters. If Nader was removed from the race, Bush would have still won.

You can't just say "oh well if a few decided to vote for Gore it would be totally different!" because then a few would have also decided to vote for Bush.

Did anyone actually do a poll to determine the second preference of the candidates? "You who voted Nader, if Nader were not running, would you have voted for Bush, or Gore, instead?"

If not, then it's something of a moot point- although certainly most of the causes that offer good reasons for voting for Nader would have been far better served had George Bush never entered the Oval Office.

It doesn't matter unless you consider averting disaster to be good. Which I do, and apparently you don't.

Could you just start calling me an ignorant fucker or something because your smug douche routine is a little annoying.

I don't think you're ignorant, I think you don't share my priorities. You don't think keeping the EPA around is important, you don't think having the federal government capable of borrowing money in a recession is important, you don't think federal enforcement of civil rights statutes is important, and so on.

At least, that's what I think you must be thinking, if you want me to vote for Ron Paul.

Since I don't share your priorities, I'm not just going to mindlessly vote Paul because Paul promises that while he's busy wrecking the whole country, he'll also take the troops home from Afghanistan. Because I expect that he'd be bringing them home into the middle of the biggest round of civil unrest and national chaos since the 19th century.

2.) Following from 1.) it is my personal belief that every left leaning person needs both to vote and not vote Democrat. Also not Republican but that's kinda obvious. I am personally voting Green but socialist or whatever is fine too.

I think a few people in this thread share this opinion or lean towards it? And that is a major point of discussion in the thread? Maybe?

What opinion? That's not even grammatical. "Every left leaning person needs both to vote and not vote Democrat." What is that?

Man I thought we were going to be polite here but sure feel free to take cheap shots at grammar.

How is that a cheap shot? What you said didn't make any damn sense. We have grammar for a reason- it keeps us from talking gibberish.

Well if by "small harm" you mean daily deaths of innocent civilians in drone attacks, countless wars (currently 6), caring about the rule of law, and, you know, war crimes and stuff like that.

I can respect the view that Obama is the lesser evil. However it is wrong and frankly morally repugnant to say that Obama's downsides are "minor" compared to Paul's.

I disagree, because I think the consequences of a Ron Paul administration (presumably backed by a Republican congress) would be far worse, than you believe.

I think that because Ron Paul said so- only he doesn't think it would be a bad thing to abolish the Department of Education and the EPA... but then, just because someone else thinks gargling battery acid would be a great idea doesn't mean I'm going to vote to put the country on a battery acid diet.

Alyrium you seem to know a lot about this subject so I'd like your opinion: what stopped Bush from rampaging through the federal government like your say Paul will? Bush's rhetoric and the GOP consensus doesn't seem that different than Paul's deregulation ideas and its not like Bush exercised restraint.

Speaking for myself and not for Alyrium, the difference is that the Republican party is more radical now than it was in 2000, that Bush didn't actually want to abolish (for instance) the Department of Education. So far as I know, he never said he'd do any such thing, and he didn't. He did other, more subtle things to weaken those agencies, but he didn't outright destroy them, and as far as I know he didn't want to.

Ron Paul tells me again and again that he does want to destroy federal agencies responsible for keeping me safe from all kinds of state-political and private economic disaster.

If I take his word for it, I would never vote for him because it would be like taking a hike with someone who likes to go shouting and lighting off fireworks in the middle of avalanche country.

If I don't take his word for it, he's clearly lying about wanting to destroy the EPA and DoE to get political support... in which case how do I know he isn't also lying about wanting to end the War on Drugs or the War on Terror or whatever other things you tell me I should want to vote for him about?

---

Well, as far as pollution goes, if Ron Paul had his way, he'd likely replace it with a system as detailed by Rothbard in Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. It's been a year and a half since I last read this so the TL;DR version* from what I remember is that air pollution, and by extension other types of pollution, would be considered property damage of those affected and the victims have every right to sue the pants off of the perpetrators. That was how it used to be done until corporations and the government got rid of those protections as a way to "promote industrialization."

It didn't work. Pollution was a massive problem, limited only by the scale of industrialization, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. To take just one example, no number of lawsuits stopped the air in cities like London from becoming unbreatheable with smog; that took regulation.

The problem is that pollution is by definition a nebulous thing. Corporations can hire their own shills to pretend the damage isn't significant, they can muddy the waters greatly in court, and they have deep enough pockets to keep a lawsuit tied up for years while ultimately negotiating the settlement down to pocket change compared to the damage they've done.

Don't believe me? Look at what happened with the oil spill in the Gulf and what BP's doing to avoid needing to pay for the cleanup and damage to the local economy.

link, link, link, link.

Ultimately, fear of lawsuits will not- did not- keep industrial concerns from polluting. And it is absolutely useless for dealing with pollution that doesn't come from a single point source, like agricultural runoff that kills fisheries, or choking smog from millions of automobiles.

As far as the FDA goes, I will have to get back to you on that as I can't find the article about how many drugs the FDA refused to approve even though they could have saved lives and were proven in other countries.

Compared to how much utter crap they banned? Remember what medicine looked like before the FDA- remember the phrase "snake oil salesman?"

Yea, decentralized government certainly isn't without it's faults!

Yeah, I agree. Still, when you're dealing with something as dangerous as political power, it tends to be that the more decentralized, the better. Better that some people be able to escape than not at all.

I disagree.

Panzersharkcat, one of the things that is often missed about power is that it comes in multiple layers. Throughout history, we have often seen cases where people play one layer of power against another to preserve their freedom. In ancient and medieval times, when the local nobles and rich landowners committed a crime against a peasant, the only recourse was often to go over his head to the king. Today, when state governments vote to segregate the schools or throw homosexuals in jail, or when corporations engage in predatory lending and blatant violations like robo-signing, who does the average citizen go to?

Relying on the courts to sort it all out with civil suits sounds to me like a recipe for choking the courts with lawsuits that the relatively poor plaintiffs will ultimately have to abandon because they can't keep paying top-flight lawyers to besiege a powerful interest.

I'd much rather stick to regulation.

[SirNitram]

I assumed, for a fraction of a second, you are capable of distinguishing between a direct, scathing statement judging his actions and an Ad Hominem. I see I was mistaken, and you are blazingly incompotent.

[...]

Even so, that's pro-life, not anti-woman. I'm sure you believe they are exactly the same thing, that everyone who says "babies have a right to life" actually mean "women are my sex slaves", but that's simply not accurate. Besides, even if that is really what he means, the laws wouldn't actually lead to that! That's why actual policies are more important than painting someone's character in a negative light.

Ah, the old 'I'm giving a FETUS human rights, but really, I'm not a giant woman-hater.' You are so infantile it's mildly surprising. Once a Fetus have a Right To Live, the woman loses control over her own body whenever she might be pregnant. It is not a peice of angry rhetoric, it's a plain fact. Whenever a woman might be pregnant, it would therefore be murder to engage in activities which endanger the fetus, whether it is there or merely was a chance. Reckless Endangerment, child.

His positions here are, by the way, consistent with his general belief in decentralized power: the bill he introduced are worded is about removing Federal bans, so states can do it all themselves, not outright banning abortion, or contraceptives. For instance, you talk about the We The People Act, which would, whether by design or side effect, nullify Griswold vs Connecticut for BIRTH CONTROL lol.

Oh good. He's consistent in being a raving lunatic who hates everyone but while males. Consistancy only is a positive when you're consistant about positive things, not throwing people to the States mercy, easily supplanted by radical politics. And of course you go allcaps on Birth Control, as if you're too stupid to grok for a second that, yes, there are "pro-life" factions trying to ban them. But perhaps that's too complicated for your pitiful mind, as your entire retort to the listing I gave was 'I'm too dumb to understand why anti-choicers are overriding women's rights'.

But, here's a fun fact: the law that struck down was never really enforced anyway, and that was over a century ago. Times have changed since then toward more sexual freedom. Do we really need the federal courts to protect liberty in these cases?

Yes. Because as much as ignorant little monkeys like you think it's all in the past, those icky days, we still have an entire political party which considers opposition to Roe v. Wade a litmus test, and we still have terrorists trying to force us back with bombs.

Note: the partial birth abortion bill he voted for since he felt it was the best option in the current situation; he compromised, and discussed at some length his reservations about several things in the bill. A president who compromises is often a good thing.

So how many people are okay if it's Ron Paul's indirect actions? From industries abusing lack of an EPA, or from an economic crash from his precious-metal looney-tunes, or from women dying for the sake of not getting an abortion?

I'm willing to place a bet that the damage done by all that is less than the damage done by unrestricted, perpetual war.

It's a good thing we're not in 40k, then!

War is kinda a big deal to me, I'll admit. It's up there with universal health care as very important issues. While I do care about the environment, about sexual equality, and other things, if I had to pick between them and peace, I'd probably take the peace.

So in exchange for peace you'll sacrifice women, a livable world, and not living in a economic crash. All for precious peace. I find your position, stated right here in your own words, contemplible and disgusting. Fuck the gays, you've got your peace. Disgusting little maggot.

1868, Gitlow v. New York establishes the Federal Bill Of Rights applies to states. Arizona begins it's constitutional convention 1910. Bzzzzt.

Actually, that case only talked about some first amendment issues (which is, if you ask me, the amendment that really shouldn't apply to the states! It says "Congress shall make no law...", not "The right of the people [...] shall not be violated" like the 4th amendment, for example).

But anyway, each provision was incorporated one at a time over the years.

Then list dates with references, instead of asserting. In shorter terms: I don't beleive what you say

[/quote]

Supremacy Clause, immigration is Federal jurisdiction, not States. Again, you fail.

I wasn't talking about immigration. That discussion was about a local sheriff violating the rights of the accused. He might be racist, but it's not like the eighth amendment (nor article 2, section 15 of the constitution of arizona, which is identical btw) says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.... well, unless it's some fucking Mexican, then who gives a shit."[/quote][/quote]

And if there is no political will in the state, fuckit, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? Peace above everything else! Peace before rights!

You've asserted baldly, aped the anti-choice excuses about women, clung to consistancy whatever it is he's consistant about, and continue to throw out non-sequitors of 'perpetual, unrestrained war' and such. And then, to justify it all to yourself, you proudly proclaim anything is better than war.

[SirNitram]

I don't understand how a progressive can support murder, torture, perpetual war, worldwide destruction, MURDER, indefinite detention, unrestricted spying, and oh yeah WAR AND MURDER.

Maybe the dead people don't count because they have brown skin? Or listen to the wrong kind of music? Or whatever you thought was the reason to do it.

Regardless though, it's a trade off. That's what you have to realize instead of dismissing him when only talking about his negatives in isolation.

But it's bed time, so we can talk about the court and your annoying lies about pretending ignorance tomorrow.

As I suspect I'm included in this blanket throwing of hyperbole, there's a simple answer. I'm not a Progressive. I'm a Liberal. I'm about equality, science, a better world than I left it, and real rights for people. I don't throw anyone under the bus, even to secure myself peace. Sometimes I have to put up with a state performing an assassination(Oh, I'm sorry, you'd prefer me going murder MURDER MURDER MURDER), wars that last 11 years(Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to say 'perpetual' war, aren't I? Silly goose, me staying within reality! Oh yes, also I should be allcapsing that constantly and repeating myself, like it makes me look like a looney tune?), and the abuses of power.

Ron Paul was weighed.. And found wanting. You're upset about that, because your slimy little core is a coward. Anything but war.

[Uraniun235]

So in exchange for peace you'll sacrifice women, a livable world, and not living in a economic crash. All for precious peace. I find your position, stated right here in your own words, contemplible and disgusting. Fuck the gays, you've got your peace. Disgusting little maggot.

As I suspect I'm included in this blanket throwing of hyperbole, there's a simple answer. I'm not a Progressive. I'm a Liberal. I'm about equality, science, a better world than I left it, and real rights for people. I don't throw anyone under the bus, even to secure myself peace. Sometimes I have to put up with a state performing an assassination(Oh, I'm sorry, you'd prefer me going murder MURDER MURDER MURDER), wars that last 11 years(Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to say 'perpetual' war, aren't I? Silly goose, me staying within reality! Oh yes, also I should be allcapsing that constantly and repeating myself, like it makes me look like a looney tune?), and the abuses of power.

Ron Paul was weighed.. And found wanting. You're upset about that, because your slimy little core is a coward. Anything but war.

How many people would you be willing to sacrifice for those things you treasure so dearly, Nitram? How many Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanians, Iranians, Koreans... how many lives would it take for you to change your mind? What atrocity inflicted on the other is too great for you to stomach in the name of your own pet causes? It must be so god damn easy when you and yours won't be behind the crosshairs. How very noble of you to judge them expendable.

The sheer disregard you've exhibited for the inherent value of human life is appalling; from your recent posts I can only assume that you have fully assimilated into the American culture and perspective. What an utter tragedy that you assimilated some of the very worst aspects of it.

[Ralin]

So in exchange for peace you'll sacrifice women, a livable world, and not living in a economic crash. All for precious peace. I find your position, stated right here in your own words, contemplible and disgusting. Fuck the gays, you've got your peace. Disgusting little maggot.

...

I don't throw anyone under the bus, even to secure myself peace.

Oh, you're willing to throw people under the bus, you little shit. You're willing to accept wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people rather than admit you were wrong to drink the Obama Kool-Aid. Wake up, idiot, he doesn't give a damn about you and this entire damned forum is laughing at the way you suck his cock-drippings.

[bobalot]

So in exchange for peace you'll sacrifice women, a livable world, and not living in a economic crash. All for precious peace. I find your position, stated right here in your own words, contemplible and disgusting. Fuck the gays, you've got your peace. Disgusting little maggot.

...

I don't throw anyone under the bus, even to secure myself peace.

Oh, you're willing to throw people under the bus, you little shit. You're willing to accept wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people rather than admit you were wrong to drink the Obama Kool-Aid. Wake up, idiot, he doesn't give a damn about you and this entire damned forum is laughing at the way you suck his cock-drippings.

Why is it that any criticism of Ron Paul gets his deranged fans to post bullshit about Obama.

Ron Paul Drone: [Confronted with evidence that their candidate holds extremely retarded views that, if implemented, could seriously screw the lives of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens] HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!

[Ralin]

Why is it that any criticism of Ron Paul gets his deranged fans to post bullshit about Obama.

Ron Paul Drone: [Confronted with evidence that their candidate holds extremely retarded views] HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!

Ron Paul is not my hero and I don't plan to vote for him (or anyone else for that matter). Just disgusted by Nitram's Obama apologist crap. And still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we've actually reached the point where he may well be the least of all evils.

[bobalot]

Why is it that any criticism of Ron Paul gets his deranged fans to post bullshit about Obama.

Ron Paul Drone: [Confronted with evidence that their candidate holds extremely retarded views] HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!

Ron Paul is not my hero and I don't plan to vote for him (or anyone else for that matter). Just disgusted by Nitram's Obama apologist crap. And still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we've actually reached the point where he may well be the least of all evils.

Please post where he has been apologising for Obama's actions (and no, claiming out that he relatively better candidate than Ron Paul and providing his reasoning why doesn't count).

As for the sainted Ron Paul, here is some text of a bill he introduced (H.R.7955)

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

I know Ron Paul fans will quickly come out to claim that this isn't homophobia, but Ron Paul's belief that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in such matters. That maybe plausible until you consider that it particularly targets homosexuals and the clause allows for Federal funds for organisations that promote the idea that homosexuality is not acceptable as a "life style"*

*On top of that, we can also gather that Ron Paul thinks that homosexuality is a "lifestyle". What a fucking douche.