I am one of the founders of the derailment of this thread, don’t tell me what the limits and breadth of the conversation are. They are whatever we make them. And you haven’t even said anything useful. You are just trolling a few of us. Your tiny intellect is amusing.
“I am one of the founders of the derailment of this thread, don’t tell me what the limits and breadth of the conversation are. They are whatever we make them.”
Oh forgive me derailment king for challenging your authority.
“And you haven’t even said anything useful. You are just trolling a few of us.”
Maybe if you hadn’t challenged me over nothing this wouldn’t have happened.
“Your tiny intellect is amusing.”
Thanks for that, that’s really high class discourse, and I’m sure that you, sir, are in a position to pass judgment upon my intellect
A picture does not make me a brony.
All I did was point out an avenue of discourse that hashem had not taken (which was based on his own statement) and that you had not perceived. Ii didn’t “challenge” you. You are still bitter over past arguements as evident from the tone of your post. Dumbass.
And so what if someone does challenge you? You aren’t smart and you think that your words are above reproach. For that reason alone people should talk down to you.
@ Neodoxy
I was just expressing my distaste at how people prefer that show over LazyTown, the obvious choice.
I had perceived it perfectly well, and it was inaccurate because of the way the analogy was being used. You have no idea what I was and wasn’t thinking about, and yea, I might just be a little angry that you’ve directly insulted me in many of our previous discussions, but that did not affect my responses until you started acting like you do. Notice that I avoided one of your great responses when asked to clarify something.
“Brony”… I had to look that one up. LOL
Is there a word for male fans of Jem? I remember watching that as a teen. No homo.
Hey, I find LazyTown to be interesting, and I’m in my teens.
Anyone who doesn’t already acknowledge communication as a means to advance ideas has probably not reached the age of conscious awareness, and therefore isn’t participating in this thread.
Ron Paul, by my account, wasted an opportunity to speak truth to the pure evil of government in theory and in history, and instead chose to trick the biggest audience of potential anarchists in history into believing that liberty is limited government—and into defending that theory ferociously against anarchism. That’s the Negative. Skeptic has admitted of his own volition to being affected positively and indirectly as a result.
“Ron Paul, by my account, wasted an opportunity to speak truth to the pure evil of government in theory and in history, and tricked the biggest audience in history into believing that liberty is limited government. That’s the Negative. Skeptic has admitted of his own volition to being affected positively and indirectly as a result.”
Misquote dude
I agree that this is probably a negative compared to what Paul could have done, but I would not fault a doctor for taking a half measure which does some good, than taking a full measure which he believes will do less good. If Ron Paul believed that your method would have advanced the cause more than what he actually did then I feel confident he would have done so.
Never heard of Lazytown, but a quick Google tells me I might have watched it for the same reason I watched “Clarissa Explains it All” back in the day. Nothing wrong with that!
In my infinite laziness that was this summer I went back and watched the entirety of the Fairly Odd Parents and the Angry Beavers… I know, I’m a pretty f***ing cool guy.
I sort of agree here. This is why politics isn’t the best method. Ron Paul wasn’t tricking people. He was playing politics. His advancement of the Constitution instead of plugging Rothbard alldayeveryday is his way of staying “inside” the beltway. He was, in essence, being Politically Correct.
I don’t fault him for this as starkly as you do.
Addendum: When you say he was “tricking” people, I would argue that only the dumbest people in the movement are"tricked" into thinking that based on the things he said. He said many times that people must do their own homework.
Also, I didn’t say what you quoted me as saying in your last post..
“Anyone who doesn’t already acknowledge communication as a means to advance ideas has probably not reached the age of conscious awareness, and therefore isn’t participating in this thread.”
OK? But what exactly does that do about the whole, you aren’t worth listening to problem?
@ Neodoxy,
I would not fault a doctor for taking a half measure which does some good
Implying that tricking the largest audience of potential anarchist converts in history into thinking liberty is limited government, and defending that theory ferociously against anarchism, is good. That’s not good in my book. That’s a chance that nobody in history ever had and will likely never get again, thrown away in positive, outright support of statism-as-liberty to a magnificent, awesomely attentative audience. He knew what he was doing.
EDIT: @ Aristophanes
LOL. Totally sorry meant to quote Neodoxy. Fixing now.
I think Ron Paul jumped the shark when he “debated” an Obama impersonator on an episode of Stossel. I couldn’t bear to watch it. Unfortunately the establishment media never gave him a chance so maybe being a clown was the only option that remained.
But as far as getting the message out and “speaking truth to pure evil”, that’s what he’s been doing for decades.
“Implying that tricking the largest audience of potential anarchist converts in history into thinking liberty is limited government, and defending that theory ferociously against anarchism, is good. That’s not good in my book. That’s a chance that nobody in history ever had and will likely never get again, thrown away in positive, outright support of statism-as-liberty to a magnificent, awesomely attentative audience. He knew what he was doing.”
Well why do you think that he did that?
I remember that. I have to wonder whether he knew exactly what was goingto happen…
It’s no problem at all, being argued as it is by you, someone for whom such a problem is twice the burden. Remember, I’m not the one arguing the virtues of politics toward the end of liberty.
Well why do you think that he did that?
Because he wasn’t strong willed. Because he didn’t have finely tuned technique for arguing and defending such truths, which is in turn because he failed to argue and defend such truths for so many decades.
Again, as rape and slaughter and unspeakable violence were a necessary part of history, and some good has filtered through like gold in a dredge, so some good will result from RP’s choices. One step at a time in the face of impossible odds, nearly every opportunity for great leaps flushed away, that’s the overarching story of humanity.
“Because he wasn’t strong willed. Because he didn’t have finely tuned technique for arguing and defending such truths, which is in turn because he failed to argue and defend such truths for so many decades.”
Why are you so certain that it wasn’t to maintain credibility and to prevent people from being scared off? People are ready enough to call him and his followers insane crackpots without him directly endorsing anarchism. I’d prefer a world of minarchists and constitutionalists to the current situation.
“Again, as rape and slaughter and unspeakable violence were a necessary part of history, and some good has filtered through like gold in a dredge, so some good will result from RP’s choices. One step at a time in the face of impossible odds, nearly every opportunity for great leaps flushed away, that’s the overarching story of humanity.”
Except that what Ron Paul did would not appear to be bad, it just wasn’t as good as it could have been. Surely you recognize the service that he rendered to liberty? If he is indeed an anarchist then he knew perfectly well that what he did would build generally anti-statist sentiment, both in terms of merely shrinking the state and in terms of raising support for anarchism itself.