Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitutional
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may rail against Social Security insolvency in the public eye, but that hasn't stopped him from accepting the government checks.
The libertarian-leaning Republican and former presidential candidate admitted Wednesday that he accepts Social Security checks just minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program, in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn't to cut," he said.
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein then asked Paul, "A bit of a personal question -- Are you on Social Security? Do you get social security checks?"
Paul admitted he does, stating, "[It's] just as I use the post office, I use government highways, I use the banks, I use the federal reserve system. But that doesn't mean that you can't work to remove this in the same way on Social Security."
Paul also said he still pays more into Social Security than he gets in his checks.
Paul is outspoken about the need to end government programs like the Federal Reserve and the departments of energy and education. But he said he would not eliminate programs like Social Security and Medicare, despite his belief that the programs are unconstitutional. He planned to allow citizens under the age of 25 to opt out of the system in order to save their own money for retirement, if elected to the presidency.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...17.html
His hypocrisy is not that interesting. There are a lot of worse things about RP than his hypocrisy.
What exactly is hypocritical about this? He was forced to pay into a system he finds unconstitutional, so it's "hypocritical" to accept when some of that money is offered back? This isn't money that the government is taking out of it's own pocket and giving away out of kindness or philanthropy... it's *our* (including Paul's) money that *we* (including Paul) paid into the system.
"Paul also said he still pays more into Social Security than he gets in his checks."
I'm don't think people should go around mugging other people. So if someone sticks a gun in my face and takes my wallet and car keys, and then offers me back $20 for cab fare to get home, I guess accepting would make me a hypocrite, and instead I'm supposed to say, "No, sir, I do not believe in benefiting from armed robbery."
Does not compute.
<<What exactly is hypocritical about this?
Simple, he is taking advantage of a program that he deems unconstitutional, it is the very definition of hypocrisy regardless of the fact that he payed in to it.
<<This isn't money that the government is taking out of it's own pocket and giving away out of kindness or philanthropy
Exactly, which makes Paul's opposition to the program even more bewildering.
<<I'm don't think people should go around mugging other people
Since when is "I'm don't think" proper english? Just a thought being that you have taken it upon yourself to police others spelling and grammar.
<<So if someone sticks a gun in my face and takes my wallet and car keys, and then offers me back $20 for cab fare to get home
Sorry bud, but social security is not on par with highway robbery. It is in fact a very successful program that has done a lot for millions of people, which is why it is highly popular.
<< so it's "hypocritical" to accept when some of that money is offered back? >>
No, you have it backwards.
The hypocrisy is not in the government *offering* SS bennies. It's in Mr. King Bull Libertarian TAKING THE MONEY and in so doing turning himself into one more do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do wingnut that the GOP attracts in droves.
I swear Paulist libertarianism has to be the phoniest political doctrine in US history, even worse than the bombs-and-Jesus wing of the GOP. It's like they expect all the rest of us to give them government money in order to make sure no one else gets government money. Ever. For our own good.
I think Ron Paul is dishonest for even accepting his Congressional paycheck. Why does some elderly spoiled brat need a government salary in order to promote the idea of *no* government salary? He's even more hypocritical than some Maoist with university tenure!
>>No, you have it backwards.
>>The hypocrisy is not in the government *offering* SS bennies. It's in Mr. King Bull Libertarian TAKING THE MONEY and in so doing turning himself into one more do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do wingnut that the GOP attracts in droves.
Um... don't see how I had it "backwards." You basically just substituted the word "taking" where I used the word "accepting."
And again... still don't see the hypocrisy... it's money that *he paid* into SS. So because he doesn't find the program constitutional, he's just supposed to let them keep his money?
>>It's like they expect all the rest of us to give them government money in order to make sure no one else gets government money.
It's not "government money." It's *his* money. He paid into it. There's no "rest of us" about it. You keep saying "government money..." where do you think the "government" gets its money?
How about this: All these entitled little collectivists that expect all the rest of us to give them OUR money in order to make sure no one else gets to keep their own money. Ever. For our own good.
Y'know, Mr. "Star," I find it odd and unfortunate that while you justly criticize Obama and the limp, pandering apologetics of the "go along to get along" mindset and corruption of the state (which I often find to be well put), you're ultimately placing a lot of faith in some other as-yet-unnamed (or as yet non-existent) administration and form of statism. The problem is that while many of these types of programs sound very well and good at a superficial glance, ultimately they must be administered by a corrupt system that is doing it not out of altruism, but out of a cynical ploy to enrich itself and its own cronies and perpetuate its own parasitic existence.
>>I think Ron Paul is dishonest for even accepting his Congressional paycheck. Why does some elderly spoiled brat need a government salary in order to promote the idea of *no* government salary?
Um okay? Don't believe I've ever seen Paul advocate for no government salaries, but if you've got something that says otherwise, feel free to share. And he's consistently stated that he won't be accepting his government pension, but I guess we'll just have to wait for him to retire to see if he follows through on that one.
>>Simple, he is taking advantage of a program that he deems unconstitutional, it is the very definition of hypocrisy regardless of the fact that he payed in to it.
Wrong. You're suggesting that to not be hypocritical, he would allow the government to just take his money and let them keep it.
I guess if you're going to make it a choice between being a victim of government theft or of being labeled a "hypocrite," I'll gladly let such "hypocrisy" slide.
>>Exactly, which makes Paul's opposition to the program even more bewildering.
That doesn't make a damn lick of sense.
>>Since when is "I'm don't think" proper english? Just a thought being that you have taken it upon yourself to police others spelling and grammar.
Typos are not the same thing as bad spelling (recall that I actually defended Andrew's typo in a previous thread), and if I was out to police spelling and grammar, I'd be reaming Elo almost every single time he posts. It just amuses me when some individuals go to such lengths to give a false impression of intellectualism, and they can't even properly spell the fancy words (and sometimes the not-so-fancy words).
>><<So if someone sticks a gun in my face and takes my wallet and car keys, and then offers me back $20 for cab fare to get home
>>Sorry bud, but social security is not on par with highway robbery. It is in fact a very successful program that has done a lot for millions of people, which is why it is highly popular.
Except in a sense, it is. You are *forced* to pay into it under threat of prison for tax evasion. And when they come to take you to prison, they come with guns. One could say that Robin Hood's exploits "did a lot" for people. That doesn't mean it's not highway robbery.
And, of course, as is your wont, you once again do your selective quoting to avoid the entire point of the statement(s).
<< You basically just substituted the word "taking" where I used the word "accepting." >>
Correct!
Paul both "took" and "accepted" that which he's telling OTHER people to refuse! What's all his talk about getting young people to "opt out" of SS but yet another hypocritical round of "I've got mine, Jack"?
Btw, he "paid into" the system with money he got from a government he allegedly serves but openly holds in contempt.
Worse, Paul had a nice little sideline sending out newsletters begging racists for money, but we won't get into that. Why this plain homespun country doc "man of the people" needed such beaucoup bux ON TOP of a *huge* government salary any plain worker would be delighted to have remains mysterious.
I'm really not for means testing SS but I'm willing to make an exception for government-hating government employees. Fuck, I'm for *sanity* testing such people!
<< All these entitled little collectivists >>
Yes. Dr. Paul is a brave self-reliant individualist with his hand in everyone's pockets for decades.
Do at last wake up and actually *smell* what you're shoveling.
<< Y'know, Mr. "Star," >>
This kind of thing is invariable sign of someone about to unload a memorably dim opinion.
<< you're ultimately placing a lot of faith in some other as-yet-unnamed (or as yet non-existent) administration and form of statism. >>
Projection. Paulists would be insanely happy with a one-party totalitarian state run by Dr. Paul according to his goony, contradictory precepts. How do I know this? Why, every third yammerhead on the Internet for the last decade has been a Paulist and they all tell me life with Paul as Fuehrer would be one long sweet song in which no one would have to work, pay taxes, maintain a road, get sick, wear a motorcycle helmet, go to school, join a union, or ever stop smoking legal government weed. Every American will eat Beluga caviar five times daily and sleep on a bed of refined silk handwoven by sweatshop labor nobody ever pays for. Taxes? Education? National interest? Pshaw! The Internet and glorious Free Market could provide everything to everyone at once and at no cost if Washington would just get outta the way!
As you may be able to tell, I simply don't find the Paulist case convincing on any level. It's just a wingnut con job sold to those who think they're entitled to the world on a plate, but don't wanna share what they take from others with others. Their motto ought to be "Ask not, my country, for what I can do for you but what you've done for me lately."
I like the fact that Paulists are against the status quo, but they offer nothing in its place but a rather childish, boring and unsustainable fantasy of how the world works.
Folks, is Ron Paul being Social Security, going to spell the doom to the program -- or stop the coming dire wave of Boomer Hordes intent on spending it?
"Paul both "took" and "accepted" that which he's telling OTHER people to refuse"
that's a dishonest jump in logic, Paul never told anyone to refuse what they paid for, only for people to have the chance to opt out if they choose to.
www.staradvertiser.com/news/b...55.html
I don't really see this point of the thread anyway or why this is such a big story. There's no reason he shouldn't accept what he deserves and has paid for. He didn't opt out.
Hm... my mistake. I thought for a second there was a halfway intelligent discussion to be had here, but apparently you're more interested in attributing positions and opinions to me which I have never stated nor insinuated, and misrepresenting Paul's positions as well.
(so where was it again that Paul advocated for "no government salary?" Hm...)
>><< Y'know, Mr. "Star," >>
>>This kind of thing is invariable sign of someone about to unload a memorably dim opinion.
Cute. After all, sporting such a self-assigned moniker as you do doesn't impart any impression of vanity or over inflated self-importance. Not at all. Oy.
<<self-assigned moniker>>
Sorry to wreck your ego, Claude, but it's not self-assigned.
Thanks for playing!
<< I thought for a second there was a halfway intelligent discussion to be had here >>
You simply can't hold up your end of *any* conversation, can you? I mean, wallowing in dumb trivia about people's names because your man Paul is a open and undefendable hypocrite, bigot and charlatan is the best you can do?
<< impart any impression of vanity >>
How does *any* attribute of mine you can invent keep you from being wrong and pathetically gullible?
Boy, you guys will go to *any* lengths to huff that legal dope Paul keeps promising, huh? Voting for a panderer to racists just to get weed isn't exactly the smartest option out there, sonny.
Most Republicans would fuck up the world for a tax cut. Paulists would do it for cheap dope. That's not mere "vanity," but monstrous self-entitled stupidity.
>>Sorry to wreck your ego, Claude, but it's not self-assigned.
So your account was hacked? Or you let someone pick your Tribe handle? Regardless of whether someone else gave it to you as a nickname, you choose to assign it as your posted nom de plume.
>>You simply can't hold up your end of *any* conversation, can you?
Sorry, I dont' see much of a "conversation." I see unwarranted insults and you babbling about stuff I’ve never said or represented, eg: “Why, every third yammerhead on the Internet for the last decade has been a Paulist and they all tell me life with Paul as Fuehrer would be one long sweet song in which no one would have to work, pay taxes, maintain a road, get sick, [etc].” Not much point to a “conversation” in which hyperbolic opinions and positions will be assigned to me arbitrarily based on another’s previous bias instead of being based on my actual posts. Oh well, that's unfortunately typical for this tribe.
(so where was it again that Paul advocated for "no government salary?" Hm...)
<<Wrong. You're suggesting that to not be hypocritical, he would allow the government to just take his money and let them keep it.
That is exactly what I am suggesting, by his own standards he is taking part in an unconstitutaional program by recieving social security. Is it more important to take a principled stand, or is it more important to recieve the $$ back from the program?
<<I guess if you're going to make it a choice between being a victim of government theft
Sorry bud, but taxes are not theft.
<<That doesn't make a damn lick of sense.
Did you say lick? *wink*.... :)~
<<>>Since when is "I'm don't think" proper english? Just a thought being that you have taken it upon yourself to police others spelling and grammar.
Typos are not the same thing as bad spelling<<
You jump on my typos all the time bud, hypocrite.
<<Except in a sense, it is
Except it is not in any sense of the word. As you yourself have recognized, you pay in and then you get the $$ back at a later date. How does that = stealing if you get the $$ back?
<<You are *forced* to pay into it under threat of prison for tax evasion.
Yes, all successful nations have taxes that provide for the common good. If you are paying in but getting something for that payment, then obviously it is not theft.
<<And, of course, as is your wont, you once again do your selective quoting to avoid the entire point of the statement(s).
What selective quoting and statements are you speaking of?
<Don't believe I've ever seen Paul advocate for no government salaries>
congrats for the prize of most disingenuous argument of the day.
>>That is exactly what I am suggesting, by his own standards he is taking part in an unconstitutaional program by recieving social security. Is it more important to take a principled stand, or is it more important to recieve the $$ back from the program?
Um, I already pretty much responded to that, but you selectively editted it from your quote, so what's the point?
>>You jump on my typos all the time bud, hypocrite.
No, I occasionally point out your bad spelling. Not typos. But now you'll claim they're typos. Of course. Just like all those times you "forgot the link," right?
>>Except it is not in any sense of the word. As you yourself have recognized, you pay in and then you get the $$ back at a later date. How does that = stealing if you get the $$ back?
No, you get back a *portion,* if and when the feds determine you're entitled to it. And when someone takes something from me without asking, that's the basic definition of "theft."
Following your "logic," I can go hold up a bank, take a million dollars, invest it, keep the returns, and as long as I eventually return the original million (or a portion thereof), it's not theft, and nobody should complain.
Following your "logic," I can rip off people's cars and go for a joyride, and it's not theft, so long as I eventually return it.
>>Yes, all successful nations have taxes that provide for the common good.
Whether various taxes "provide for the common good" is obviously a debatable question.
>>If you are paying in but getting something for that payment, then obviously it is not theft.
It certainly is if I don't want what they're offering, or if I feel I could get the equivalent at a lesser cost.
>>What selective quoting and statements are you speaking of?
Um... how about everything you excised in your response? Must I now be reduced to explaining simple subtraction?
<<The problem is that while many of these types of programs sound very well and good at a superficial glance
Social Security has provided demonstrable good to our elderly, sick, and disabled. So it goes well and beyond sounding god.
<<ultimately they must be administered by a corrupt system that is doing it not out of altruism, but out of a cynical ploy to enrich itself and its own cronies and perpetuate its own parasitic existence.
In what manner is Social Security being used by the Govt. to enrich themselves, their cronies, and perpetuate their existence? Please be specific.
<<And he's consistently stated that he won't be accepting his government pension
How is his govt. pension (a part of his salary) different than social security? Both have been payed for via his income and then are subsequently payed out at a later date.
<<Btw, he "paid into" the system with money he got from a government he allegedly serves but openly holds in contempt.
Exactly, Ron Paul has been in politics for THIRTY SIX YEARS!
<<>>Sorry to wreck your ego, Claude, but it's not self-assigned.
So your account was hacked?<<
Nope, it was a nickname given to him many years ago. I find it interesting that you when backed in to a corner you make assumptions about peoples lives and then try to bash them with those assumptions. Such as your false claim that taxpayer dollars are subsidising my time on tribe.net.
<<I see unwarranted insults
And now you are going to whine about unwarranted insults? It looks like you and Ron Paul are both hypocrital.
<<Not much point to a “conversation” in which hyperbolic opinions and positions will be assigned to me arbitrarily based on another’s previous bias instead of being based on my actual posts.
Wow, the IRONY of that statement!
<<Oh well, that's unfortunately typical for this tribe.
And you.
<<Um, I already pretty much responded to that
No, you did not respond to "that". With "that" being the fact that he is choosing to take the $$ rather than refusing the $$ as a matter of principle and protest.
<<but you selectively editted it from your quote, so what's the point?
What did I "selectively edit"? Please be specific.
<<No, I occasionally point out your bad spelling.
Occasionally? Are you kidding me? And yes, sometimes what you are calling bad spelling are simply typos, as we can see, you look for any little stupid thing you can attack your oppoents with. Which are typically used as a tool of obfuscation from your own lack of a logical rebuttal to the subject at hand.
<<Just like all those times you "forgot the link," right?
Yes, exactly like that. You try to create idiotic little pissing matches as a means of personal attack rather than attempting to stick to the subject matter. Often times you just make shit up in your head and then attack based on false narratives you have created out of thin air. Like the idea that taxpayer dollars somehow pay me to be on tribe.net. Talk about desperate.
he basically argues that the federal government should cease to exist and all power should lie with the states. why is he perpetuating the federal government by accepting its money?
<< So your account was hacked? Or you let someone pick your Tribe handle? >>
Yet another geyser of idiotic irrelevant personal questions. Are you sure *you're* not Andrew's other Tribe account?
<<Sorry, I dont' see much of a "conversation." >>
Correct. There's people telling you in detail how you're wrong and you spewing like Linda Blair.
Try to do better, Albert.
<< I see unwarranted insults >>
Just listen to that doleful whine.
<<stuff I’ve never said or represented “Why, every third yammerhead on the Internet for the last decade has been a Paulist and they all tell me life with Paul as Fuehrer would be one long sweet song in which no one would have to work, pay taxes, maintain a road, get sick, [etc].” >>
You called me a "statist" (whatever the fuck that trendy emptyheaded insult means) simply because I wouldn't like living under the dunderhead fascist dictatorship Paul's been advocating for years and said so. Most of his online followers are simply ignorant non-readers of books who don't recognize almost all his polices were tried decades ago and failed horribly.
A lot of his youthful supporters buy his 19th century goldbug economics and bedsheet social views because Paul's propaganda machine has them convinced there's legal dope in it at the end of the line. Oldtimey Left radicals had several words for "activists" like these, "sellout" being the most printable.
If you don't like seeing Dr. Paul ridiculed, I'm afraid you'll just have to lump it. It's not like you and your widdle overheated keyboard can compel respect for the contemptible. Curious, though, how this little control-fantasy mindset of yours seems to permeate the whole Ron Paul movement...
<< why is he perpetuating the federal government by accepting its money? >>
I'd like to see an answer to this one but probably won't.
<< THIRTY SIX YEARS>>
All the while publicly reviling the government he serves (and whipping up racist paranoia) as he crams his pockets with literally MILLIONS of the people's money. In this, Paul pulls *way* too close to even with all but the very worst of the oldtime Jim Crow senators whose names are still mud today.
I urge Paulists to think this kind of thing over and reconsider. There are better outlets for your energy than this tired old Establishment fraud.
<What exactly is hypocritical about this? He was forced to pay into a system he finds unconstitutional, so it's "hypocritical" to accept when some of that money is offered back?>
The hypocrisy is that he complains about such a thing, but then takes advantage of it? That is straight-out hypocritical. If he had integrity to his point, he'd refuse the SS.
On another note, don't try to have a reasonable conversation with Jeff. He does not understand what he does - he just argues to argue.
<And again... still don't see the hypocrisy... it's money that *he paid* into SS. So because he doesn't find the program constitutional, he's just supposed to let them keep his money?>
Yes. He did pay into it. But, if he's going to complain about it, then he should put his money where his mouth is.
<And again... still don't see the hypocrisy... it's money that *he paid* into SS. So because he doesn't find the program constitutional, he's just supposed to let them keep his money? >
Well, you've been here long enough to know that ain't a'gonna happen.
<he basically argues that the federal government should cease to exist and all power should lie with the states. why is he perpetuating the federal government by accepting its money?>
Quite simply stated - Exactly.
He is in his 70's why shouldn't he get social security. He paid for it. Never did he suggest that anyone who paid into the system should not be able to take it out. I think people either don't understand or don't want to understand his position of giving people the choice to opt out. I don't see how there's anything wrong with it.
<<On another note, don't try to have a reasonable conversation with Jeff. He does not understand what he does - he just argues to argue.
That is a rather odd thing to say Andrew, the entire point of this tribe is to discuss, debate, and disagree. And here you and I are both putting forth the same argument to Abraxas, but yours is somehow legitimate but mine is "just to argue"? Illogical to say the least. I disagree with you on many issues, suck it up and deal with it as it is the intended purpose of this tribe.
He is taking $$ from a system he considers to be unconstitutional, can't get anymore hypocritical than that.
I think certain taxes are unconstitutional, but I pay them because it's the law of the land. Having to pay into SS is too, and paying money out is part of that. It's not hypocritical - I do know that you don't seem to like his ideas for change. Ironic that Obama ran on his promise of change that we have yet to see much of, while Paul's proposals for change are the real deal. I'm not defending Paul and it doesn't really matter since no one really takes his radical ideas seriously and they probably won't be executed till it's too late. But the point that SS is not constitutional is valid, but more importantly is headed to a bad place in the next 10-15 years, mostly because of drastic changes in size of the workforce and faulty government policies
>>The hypocrisy is that he complains about such a thing, but then takes advantage of it? That is straight-out hypocritical. If he had integrity to his point, he'd refuse the SS.
As I said, if that's the measure of his "hypocrisy," I'll accept it. Odd that this is being raised as some kind of incredible hypocrisy, but no one's touching the article I posted about Obama claiming executive priviledge in Fast & Furious when he railed against Bush for doing the same. Or railed against Bush for his signing statements. Or railed against Bush for having lobbyists in his administration. Seems a bit... how would one say... hypocritical, no? Sokay, though, I already understand your "keep it on the DL" position ;-)
>>Yes. He did pay into it. But, if he's going to complain about it, then he should put his money where his mouth is.
And just let them keep it? Sorry, I just don't buy into that. If I disagree with a given tax, is it hypocritical for me to cash my refund check?
>>Well, you've been here long enough to know that ain't a'gonna happen.
Darn, looks like you may have mistakenly pasted the same quote twice when you made this response. Whatever it was though, sounds like you're probably right. :-)
>><he basically argues that the federal government should cease to exist and all power should lie with the states. why is he perpetuating the federal government by accepting its money?>
>>Quite simply stated - Exactly.
But it's not. ;-)
P.S.
>>That is a rather odd thing to say Andrew, the entire point of this tribe is to discuss, debate, and disagree. And here you and I are both putting forth the same argument to Abraxas, but yours is somehow legitimate but mine is "just to argue"?
That's right. Isn't it beautiful when disparate political viewpoints can find common ground?
>>he basically argues that the federal government should cease to exist and all power should lie with the states. why is he perpetuating the federal government by accepting its money?
No, he "basically" argues for a constitutional federal government. That would include a Senate and House of Reps, of which he's an elected member. It's not like he's talking about disbanding the EPA from *within* the FDA.
"Perpetuating the federal government by accepting its money?" What does that even mean? If he sat as a Rep without taking any pay, would that somehow impede the federal government?
And you called *my* argument disingenuous? At least my statement was *true*
>>Yet another geyser of idiotic irrelevant personal questions. Are you sure *you're* not Andrew's other Tribe account?
>>Most of his online followers are simply ignorant non-readers of books
-sigh- And yet another example of what makes this tribe such an ironic little joke. This bizarre mindset that runs with the idea that it's "inapproriate" to comment on an individual's behavior (or the way they present themselves) when directed at that specific individual, but that it's perfectly alright to baselessly insult other users, so long as it's being done by way of grouping them into a larger whole and being referred to in the third person while being painted with a broad and denegrating brush. There's this weird idea that this is actually supposed to be some kind of clinical debate forum in which we're supposed to ignore the fact that there are actually people sitting behind the keyboards. And I could even be bothered to play that game (though it's not nearly as entertaining), were that the game actually being played, but it's not. This tribe parodies such a concept.
If you wanna play "lets compare hardcopy libraries," I'd be more than happy. I'd be happy to discuss all kinds of things about my personal life. Our life experiences shape our perspectives and opinions, so a little personal info can help others understand where we're coming from. But apparently around here all such things are borderline verboten. Curses upon one that says a particular handle implies vanity, but kudos upon another that's baselessly calling someone a stupid gullible wingnut out of the corner of their mouth (or at the top of their lungs).
>>Correct. There's people telling you in detail how you're wrong and you spewing like Linda Blair.
Mm kay... because if anyone's diatribes in this thread can be classified as "spewing," it's mine. Gotcha.
>>You called me a "statist" (whatever the fuck that trendy emptyheaded insult means) simply because I wouldn't like living under the dunderhead fascist dictatorship Paul's been advocating for years and said so.
Did I? Where did I do that? Oh, wait, I didn't, I said you're placing a lot of faith in some sort of statism. And I said it because of your repeated use of the term "government's money" without a basic acknowledgement that it is in fact the citizens' (Paul's included) money. But I guess it's more fun to put words in my mouth. Are you sure *you're* not Jeff's other Tribe account?
And if "statist" is a "trendy insult," I must say there are some odd "trends" in the circles you're observing.
Do you just run some random word generator and then string the results together in the order that sounds most whimsical? I have to wonder, because some of your posts seem to be little more than baseless invective with little if any anchor to what's been posted. Point to anything I've written that remotely relates to being a "control-fantasy mindset," or any of Paul's policy positions that remotely resemble a "fascist dictatorship." You go on "spewing" (sorry, I mean proffering calm dissertation) about Paul "cramming his pockets with literal millions" of taxpayer funds, when he's consistently, throughout his career, voted *against* all congressional pay raises. And you claim *I'm* the one shoveling shit?
>>A lot of his youthful supporters buy his 19th century goldbug economics and bedsheet social views because Paul's propaganda machine
Right right... that insideous "Ron Paul propaganda machine."
>>has them convinced there's legal dope in it at the end of the line.
Of course, if you're under thirty and support Ron Paul, you're just an illiterate pothead. Damn hippies! Slackers! Get off my Leftist Lawn!
>>Oldtimey Left radicals had several words for "activists" like these, "sellout" being the most printable.
Um, is anyone (besides yourself, apparently) supposed to give a rat crap what "oldtimey Left radicals" think? I mean, I can think of a couple "oldtimey Left radicals" that I hold in rather low esteem, and others that I find more favorable, so unless you'd like to be specific, that's just a bunch more of your "I'm the Leftiest of all!" hot air.
Looks like someone's just a cranky "oldtimey Left radical" themselves. Lots talk against "the system," lots of talk about capital "L"efty this and that, lots of ranting against the only candidate getting any sliver of real attention that's not a Republicrat go-along-to-get-along. Perhaps a touch bitter that the capital "L"efty radicals can't seem to field any reasonable candidates of their own (though I don't know that I can blame them, this presidential "election" process has become pretty much one big conditioning exercise anyway).
<< And yet another example of what makes this tribe such an ironic little joke. >>
And, now, in a head-spinning attempt to save face, the same trivia-hound who scorned me for my screen name (!) is gonna get all heavy 'n shit about how this Tribe has gone smack all to aitch-ee-double-toothpix because of lowered intellectual tone.
No wonder the charge of "hypocrisy" doesn't register. It seems as natural to you as breathing.
<< I'd be happy to discuss all kinds of things about my personal life >>
Thanks for not sharing!
<< I said you're placing a lot of faith in some sort of statism >>
Which is so *tooootally* NOT calling anyone a "statist," bro.
I see Romney already has *one* vote on Election Day...
<< Are you sure *you're* not Jeff's other Tribe account? >>
Are you sure there's not a killer load of paraquat in that dime bag you scored down at Ron Paul HQ? Are you *really* typing a reply or instead sitting on a Houston park bench talking to a can of Libby's Green Beans? Your argumentative style makes one wonder...
<< some of your posts seem to be little more than baseless invective with little if any anchor to what's been posted. >>
Says the Deep Thinker who bleats that my screen name is all that stands in the way of making the dream of a Paulist Fourth Reich a shimmering reality.
<< Paul "cramming his pockets with literal millions" of taxpayer funds >>
Multiply Paul's (huge) annual salary by the decades he's been in Congress before you call this charge "baseless."
Go borrow some fingers and toes if you have to.
<< he's consistently, throughout his career, voted *against* all congressional pay raises. >>
He didn't send the money *back* did he? You mean he KEPT it?
HAHAHA!!
You're rather too easily impressed by empty gestures.
<< Point to anything I've written that remotely relates to being a "control-fantasy mindset >>
This reflexive bellowing of "statist" every time someone shows Ron Paul is in fact sleazier than the typical hog at the Congressional trough is a nice example.
Yes, everyone who doesn't want Texas-style social engineering is a supporter of "statism" and some moneysucking career pol who runs for President every four years is an implacable foe of "big government."
You must spend a lot of time worrying about objects falling up.
<< And you claim *I'm* the one shoveling shit? >>
Yes.
<< radicals can't seem to field any reasonable candidates of their own (though I don't know that I can blame them, this presidential "election" process has become pretty much one big conditioning exercise anyway). >>
You seem to have stumbled upon a valuable insight here. Be careful with it.
>>And, now, in a head-spinning attempt to save face, the same trivia-hound who scorned me for my screen name (!) is gonna get all heavy 'n shit about how this Tribe has gone smack all to aitch-ee-double-toothpix because of lowered intellectual tone.
Mm hmm...
>>Thanks for not sharing!
I see...
>>I see Romney already has *one* vote on Election Day...
You don't say?...
>>Are you sure there's not a killer load of paraquat in that dime bag you scored down at Ron Paul HQ? Are you *really* typing a reply or instead sitting on a Houston park bench talking to a can of Libby's Green Beans? Your argumentative style makes one wonder...
Fascinating... tell me more...
>>Says the Deep Thinker who bleats that my screen name is all that stands in the way of making the dream of a Paulist Fourth Reich a shimmering reality.
Huh, I never thought of it that way...
>>Go borrow some fingers and toes if you have to.
Your reasoned insight is astounding...
>>You must spend a lot of time worrying about objects falling up.
Definitely something to take into consideration.
