Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

GOP Strategist: Ron Paul will be on GOP ticket

rated by 0 users
This post has 59 Replies | 9 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 853
Points 17,830
Graham Wright Posted: Sat, Feb 11 2012 12:05 PM

I think this deserves it's own thread.

John James:

This is an interesting theory. It would certainly make sense. Obviously Romney has been smart enough from day 1 to at least understand it wouldn't be smart to go after Paul, if not actually realize he would need Paul's supporters to win a general election (or possibly even a nomination). Paul has mentioned how his wife and Romney's wife have become friendly. There has even been speculation and conspiracy theories that Paul and Romney are possibly working together, or at least prepping to make deals.

I'm wondering if some of those theories aren't so far off...at least as far as Romney is concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this was in the back of his mind all along as a possible necessity.

The only question from here is...will Ron Paul go for it?

GOP Strategist: Ron Paul Will Be on GOP Ticket

I emailed this to a friend who had these comments about it:

I'm at work so I can't see the video.  Is it suggesting him as VP?  If so the republicans might want to, but why would he?  The VP has almost no power (apart from occasionally charing the senate).  Most of his "influence", and it is a lot, comes from being the President's deputy but this is worthless if he and the President are miles apart politically.
 
You should look at what the first VPs of the US said (I think Thomas Jefferson?).  The VP then was effectively the runner up in the race for president - so was normally from a rival party (except under Washington).  They hated it and saw it as a non-job.
 
From the republican point of view though it would be great.  Give a job with almost no power to Ron Paul.  Mop up the tea party, libertarian and Paul supporters whilst Romney can fight for the centre.  I can't see Ron Paul being unprincipled enough to take it though.

So I thought I'd ask you guys about the VP position... is it "powerful" in any sense that would appeal to Ron Paul?  Is it influential?  Does the VP make "addresses to the nation" like the President does? 

Do the P and VP nominees usually have closely aligned views?  If you had a Romney-Paul ticket, would it be open to the charge of "lacking unity" or "being divided", and be so hampered compared to a more united Democratic pair?  Or is diversity better for potentially appealing to more people?

How would VP compare to, say, Treasury Secretary?  Which position do you think would be more attractive to Ron Paul should Romney offer him the choice?

What other results could come out of a convention where no one has a majority?  When people talk about more delegates giving RP more bargaining power at the convention, what is being bargained FOR?  Cabinet positions?  Policy promises from the eventual nominee?  What?

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 12:18 PM

Can Romney take Rand as a VP? Is it possible if Ron agrees?

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290
No2statism replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 12:40 PM

I would rather Dr. Paul not serve in a hypothetical Romney Administration.  I'm pretty sure he'd only offer his support to Romney to give his son a chance in 2016 and because Romney is friends with him.

Dr. Paul has the delegates, and I think this GOP Strategist meant that Dr. Paul will be the Presidential Nominee.  A treasury secretary is not on the ticket and maybe he would take VP slot but I don't think he would.

The only thing I can think of is that if Dr. Paul was vice president they'd be very independent of each other since they both think independently and since they both seem like they will always have different ideologies.  Romney would also have to be changed on foreign policy.  That would  cost Romney votes among a lot of his base that supports imperialism.  Dr. Paul needs someone who is principled, a hardcore libertarian, and who loves to be around people.  Dr. DiLorenzo seems like he would fit all three.  Dr. Block also seems like he would fit all three.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 349
Points 5,915
Mtn Dew replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 1:14 PM

The last time the Republicans tried to hide an upstart in the vice-presidency it backfried. William McKinley was assassinated rather quickly and they had to put up with Teddt Roosevelt.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Notice how the guy said "the name Paul will be on the ticket."  This leaves a few options...one of them being touched on in a previous post...that Rand Paul be the VP.

That would actually be the perfect set up for a presidential run down the road...although it would likely mean anywhere from 8-16 years down the road.  That's actually a strong possibility.  It's the only other possible way to rally Paul supporters behind Romney, and Ron Paul would not have to compromise principle and settle not only for a useless post, but also an incompatible runningmate.

Otherwise, there is a much greater risk of Obama winning.  Sure it opens up the field for a Rand campaign in only 4 years, but how much animosity is there going to be when people try to blame Paul supporters for a Republican loss.  Either Obama has a second term and there is another two-party race in 2016, or a Republican wins and then runs for re-election in 2016.

And you're right, it is a useless post.  VP does virtually nothing.  Lyndon Johnson hated the position and he resented the fact that the younger John Kennedy was calling shots while he basically did nothing.

I also don't see Ron taking some cabinet position unless it's near the top.  It would have to be Defense or State, maybe Treasury...but I seriously doubt those would be a possibility.  If Ron doesn't get the nomination, I see him "retiring" and passing the torch.

Robert Wenzel goes into the whole "negotiating for positions" here, but I'm not sure how realistic much of that is.

What would seem to make some sense is having Ron be the nominee to guarantee a defeat of Obama, and then him not running for re-election, allowing Romney or someone he cares about make a run in 4 years...but I seriously doubt that kind of senario would get much honest discussion time.

I honestly don't know what will probably happen if he doesn't get the nomination, but of course there is at least some comfort in knowing Ron can be trusted to make the best decision.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

If Rand Paul is Romney's running mate, then Rand Paul should make every subtle effort possible to see that Romney loses.  This will be the last American election if it's not Dr. Paul, so what happens in 2016 doesn't apply.  Things will get a lot worse before they get better.  I'll be damn lucky if I survive the chaos and live into the stateless society that eventually replaces it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

No2statism:
If Rand Paul is Romney's running mate, then Rand Paul should make every subtle effort possible to see that Romney loses.  This will be the last American election if it's not Dr. Paul, so what happens in 2016 doesn't apply.

So basically what you're saying is that a second Obama term is preferrable to a Romney term, and that no elections will take place in the United States after 2012 either way.  Got it.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 8:06 PM

What's the difference between Obama and Romney (besides the rhetoric)?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Jargon:
What's the difference between Obama and Romney (besides the rhetoric)?

What are you asking me for?  I'm not the one who literally said Rand Paul should connivingly, dishonestly, and ultimately fraudulently work to sabotage a campaign, should be become a part of it.

Sounds to me like you should be asking No2statism that question.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

I'm not going to vote for Obama because he statist but I don't think he believes in war as much Romney does.   Thank you for helping me realize the failed logic in the post you quoted (i.e., if america is going to end, it shouldn't matter if it's Romney).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 1:10 PM

Do you really think the whole America is going to end if Ron Paul is not chosen? I mean, another Great Depression is possible, but really, the end of America?

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 1:25 PM

Nope. Things have been broken for a while and they'll continue to be broken for a while more.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 223
Points 5,335

Chyd3nius:

Do you really think the whole America is going to end if Ron Paul is not chosen? I mean, another Great Depression is possible, but really, the end of America?

The debt crisis is coming to a head. The unfunded liabilities at $117 trillion cannot last. There's either going to be a massive inflation or massive default. With this in mind, Ron Paul's cutting $1 trillion in the first year is far too timid, which should tell you how dangerous the other candidates are.

Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.

Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.

Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

@ Cheydnous (sorry for the misspelling):  I can't say with absolute certainty that America is going to collapse before 2016, but it seems likely that America will be defunct by 2024.

As Tony said, the National Debt is too high and that does lead to hyperinflation.  I don't see the logic in the prediction that Romney will pay down the debt unless he distorts the market like it's never been done before (i.e., regulating the fuck out the things while reducing redistribution).  Then it will be totally worthless unless it's done really quickly and then those regulations and inflations ended and the Obama-level redistribution not re-instated.

Inflation was high when he was governor, MA doesn't have a military, and he raised taxes.  Spending cuts came last with his balanced budgets.  We already know he's going to raise taxes as president (a 25% tariff on all China made imports) and it seems like he won't stop inflation because he thinks it necessary to adjust the min wage for it.

If there is to not be a collapse, then what needs to happen is 1/2 of the national debt distributed to the States by population and the other half paid for by selling Federal lands and the military's weapons, expenditures slashed, the 17th Amendment repealed, and all federal taxes repealed.  The federal government could simply borrow and then distribute the debt to the states based upon population every year.   While that's not ideal for an anarchocapitalist like most of us here, it would reduce the size of tyranny.  I don't know how realistic it is to expect a stateless society in the land occupied by this country.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 2:23 PM

Many countries have faced the hyperinflation and they still exist. Many countries have defaulted their debts and they still exist. It doesn't mean the end for America. Of course times will be tough, but it won't mean the end.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 3:20 PM

What would Romney get out of it though? I can't see Ron Paul telling his supporters to vote for Romney even if he is on the ticket.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Many countries have faced the hyperinflation and they still exist. Many countries have defaulted their debts and they still exist. It doesn't mean the end for America. Of course times will be tough, but it won't mean the end.

The worry is that our Constitution will not last through it.  That piece of paper is the only thing holding back "democracy" like we've never seen it before.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 11:16 PM

Aristophanes:
The worry is that our Constitution will not last through it.  That piece of paper is the only thing holding back "democracy" like we've never seen it before.

This is where ignorance really comes to a head.  That may very well be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.  Pardon my French, but an f-ing piece of paper has never stopped anyone from doing anything.  It's a piece of paper for crissake.  A two year old would put up a better fight than a piece of paper.  And I don't know about you, but I could beat the shit out of thousands of two year olds.  All day.  They wouldn't even gang up on me; they suck.

And you're trying to convince me a piece of fucking paper is the only thing preventing tyranny?  Either you haven't really thought this through, or you're insane.

The reality is people are what determine everything.  Sure a piece of paper can help because it allows consolidation of ideas into a single place and it's something people can point to and reference.  But again people are what prevent things or allow things to happen.  If a piece of paper was so good at all this, why the hell was the President able to assassinate an American citizen a few months ago?  Why the hell can't some people own guns?  Why the hell can't I get on a plane without getting exposed to abnormal concentrations of radiation or getting molested?

The only thing that matters is what the people allow.  And I have no idea where you're getting this idea that the world is going to end, and there will be not a single election after 2012 and we might as well all commit suicide if Ron Paul isn't elected President.

What matters is 50% of voters under 30 are voting for Ron Paul.  That is the future of this country.  Whether Ron Paul is President in 2012 or not...the United States will be inherited by the people who voted for him.  And these kids have kids of their own.  They'll be raised on An Island Called Liberty and The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible.  They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools.

I don't think you realize the depth of what has happened over the last few years.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

This is where ignorance really comes to a head.  That may very well be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.  Pardon my French, but an f-ing piece of paper has never stopped anyone from doing anything.  It's a piece of paper for crissake.  A two year old would put up a better fight than a piece of paper.  And I don't know about you, but I could beat the shit out of thousands of two year olds.  All day.  They wouldn't even gang up on me; they suck.

And you're trying to convince me a piece of fucking paper is the only thing preventing tyranny?  Either you haven't really thought this through, or you're insane.

John James, you need to stand back and see how much of a dick you come across as.  Every thread you post in is condescension one way or another justified or not.  No wonder you are always on these forums, obviously no one in the real world will spend any time around you.

The Constitution certainly doesn'tprevent tyranny, but it slows it down and curbbs its direction, that much is all my point was intended.

Smoke a bowl and realize you aren't right about things in which you cannot know others context...

Sure a piece of paper can help because it allows consolidation of ideas into a single place and it's something people can point to and reference.

You skim my reasoning here, but instead of asking if that was the extent of my comment, you use my sentence as a spring board for your rant at my expense.  There are so many examples where the Constitutions has delayed something that TPTB have wanted to do.  To use the language you did to disparage my opinion on the matter is way overkill.  (There are plenty of "nots" as well I get your point, no need in responding)

Why the hell can't some people own guns?

You can.  It is in the Constitution or you probably wouldn't anymore...

I have no problems with schizophrenics and violent criminals not being sold guns.  If I owned a gun store I wouldn't sell them weapons.

What matters is 50% of voters under 30 are voting for Ron Paul.  That is the future of this country.  Whether Ron Paul is President in 2012 or not...the United States will be inherited by the people who voted for him.  And these kids have kids of their own.  They'll be raised on An Island Called Liberty and The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible.  They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools.

So as you bash the Constitution (or my opinion more likely) keep plugging away for a politician that talks constantly about it knowing the same things you and I do... Not to mention the flurry of wild assumptions that you make as you are caught up in your moment.

Most of those same young people voted for Obama last go around and in four years when most of them have forgotten about Paul (because Rand is a shill) you'll realize you aren't alwys right.  Especially when you make assumptions like that.  Or the assumption that most of those people will grow up and not send their kids to govenment schools.  That is realistic, surely..

I don't think you realize the depth of what has happened over the last few years.

Do you have any idea who you are talking to?  To be so preachy and arrogant?  Exactly.  None.

douche.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

John James, you need to stand back and see how much of a dick you come across as.  Every thread you post in is condescension one way or another justified or not.  No wonder you are always on these forums, obviously no one in the real world will spend any time around you.

+1. This is definitely true, haha. Look at this guy's first response on this forum:

Kaz: "The only thing we need, to make the debt magically become soluble again is rapid, healthy economic growth."

JJ: Great. And the only thing a frog needs to magically not bump his ass when he hops is wings. I think the key word in both of these situations is "magically."

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Aristophanes:
Every thread you post in is condescension one way or another justified or not.

Sorry you feel that way!  I know others who would beg to differ.

 

No wonder you are always on these forums, obviously no one in the real world will spend any time around you.

Thanks for the sociological analysis!

 

Smoke a bowl and realize

"Smoke a bowl"?  Seriously?

 

You skim my reasoning here

No, I read it.

 

So as you bash the Constitution (or my opinion more likely) keep plugging away for a politician that talks constantly about it knowing the same things you and I do... Not to mention the flurry of wild assumptions that you make as you are caught up in your moment.

Huh?

 

Most of those same young people voted for Obama last go around and in four years when most of them have forgotten about Paul (because Rand is a shill) you'll realize you aren't alwys right.

Okie dokie.

 

Especially when you make assumptions like that.  Or the assumption that most of those people will grow up and not send their kids to govenment schools.

Where did I say that?  Could you quote it for me?

 

Do you have any idea who you are talking to to be so preachy and arrogant?

Aristophanes?

 

douche.

You stay classy.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

RothbardsDisciple:
+1. This is definitely true, haha. Look at this guy's first post on this forum:

Kaz: "The only thing we need, to make the debt magically become soluble again is rapid, healthy economic growth."

JJ: Great. And the only thing a frog needs to magically not bump his ass when he hops is wings. I think the key word in both of these situations is "magically."

Technically that was my third post.  And one might find it interesting you neglect to reproduce the very next reply.  Probably just an honest overlook.  I'll go ahead and pick up the slack for you and reproduce it here:

Smiling Dave: "Welcome, John James. Way to go."

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

Technically that was my third post. 

Hence my edit (before your response to my prior response) that it was really your "first response." Excuse me for the mistaken technicality of my first draft, your majesty.

Smiling Dave: "Welcome, John James. Way to go.

I saw that. Does one guy's approval change the fact that you were being a condescending ass, to paraphrase Aristophanes? (I'm too lazy to check context, all I know is that it seems dickish whether you are correct or not). 

In all fairness, I do think you often write excellent content, and I don't think Aristophane's remark was fair that "you don't have friends in real life." But that's simply my two cents.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

RothbardsDisciple:
In all fairness, I do think you often write excellent content, and I don't think Aristophane's remark was fair that "you don't have friends in real life." But that's simply my two cents.

No worries.  The Internet is a playground. smiley

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

John James:

I'm afraid I don't get the reference. Care to explain? (If you like).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Especially when you make assumptions like that.  Or the assumption that most of those people will grow up and not send their kids to govenment schools.

Where did I say that?  Could you quote it for me?

What matters is 50% of voters under 30 are voting for Ron Paul.  That is the future of this country.  Whether Ron Paul is President in 2012 or not...the United States will be inherited by the people who voted for him.  And these kids have kids of their own.  They'll be raised on An Island Called Liberty and The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible.  They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools.

I've made bold your highly academic assumptions about the future of the country.  You patriot, you.

Smoke a bowl and realize you aren't right about things in which you cannot know others context...

"Smoke a bowl"?  Seriously?

Yeah...It is a euphemism (or not) for 'relax'. In our situation, 'when dealing with things that aren't a big deal'!  Or, said differently, don't denigrate strangers trying to alpha male up the forum, you relentless nerd.  You are the prime example of the snob that drives outsiders away.  Then you complain that Ron Paul doesn't win, it never ends.

So as you bash the Constitution (or my opinion more likely) keep plugging away for a politician that talks constantly about it knowing the same things you and I do... Not to mention the flurry of wild assumptions that you make as you are caught up in your moment.

Huh?

Ummmm.  Your whole post was whining that I mentioned a mere piece of paper holding back government.  Also, notice how you've completely thrown red herrings at this one by not responding at all to my criticism of you high school interpretation of political power.

 

douche.

You stay classy.

Heh.

Do you have any idea who you are talking to to be so preachy and arrogant?  Exactly.  None.

Aristophanes?

Haha. You cannot seriously think you are speaking to somone who was alive at the same time as Socrates?  You know as well as I that the people on the internet are anonymous, therefore you can draw no conslusion as to who I am (save for some research;).  Using this rationale, and seeing as how you pretend to be an ancap, showing respect to strangers may warrant looking into.  You sit on a cloud of arbitrary interweb judgement, remember that.  That is all.

 

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

RothbardsDisciple:
I'm afraid I don't get the reference. Care to explain? (If you like).

Did you read any of the content at the link?  It's the website of a satirist who authored a book by that name.  (Check it all out.  Odds are you'll like it wink)

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Aristophanes:
Especially when you make assumptions like that.  Or the assumption that most of those people will grow up and not send their kids to govenment schools.
quote]Where did I say that?  Could you quote it for me?
What matters is 50% of voters under 30 are voting for Ron Paul.  That is the future of this country.  Whether Ron Paul is President in 2012 or not...the United States will be inherited by the people who voted for him.  And these kids have kids of their own.  They'll be raised on An Island Called Liberty and The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible.  They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools.

Oh no, I'm sorry.  I thought I spelled it out more clearly.  I meant for you to quote to me where I said anything about "most [people who support Ron Paul] will not send their kids to govenment [sic] schools."

Could you offer that quote please?

 

You patriot, you.

laugh

 

You are the prime example of the snob that drives outsiders away.  Then you complain that Ron Paul doesn't win, it never ends.

You know for someone who attacks people for not knowing who they are talking to, you sure make plenty attempts at profiling.

 

Ummmm.  Your whole post was whining that I mentioned a mere piece of paper holding back government.  Also, notice how you've completely thrown red herrings at this one by not responding at all to my criticism of you high school interpretation of political power.

red herring
Noun

2) something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

Non-response = a misleading clue?

 

Haha. You cannot seriously think you are speaking to somone who was alive at the same time as Socrates?  You know as well as I that the people on the internet are anonymous, therefore you can draw no conslusion as to who I am (save for some research;).  Using this rationale, and seeing as how you pretend to be an ancap, showing respect to strangers may warrant looking into.  You sit on a cloud of arbitrary interweb judgement, remember that.  That is all.

Thanks again for the psychoanalysis!

 

you relentless nerd.

The class just doesn't stop.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

"Oh no, I'm sorry.  I thought I spelled it out more clearly.  I meant for you to quote to me where I said anything about "most [people who support Ron Paul] will not send their kids to govenment [sic] schools."

Could you offer that quote please?"

last sentence, first paragraph, don't deny that was what you were implying.

"They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools."

Where you say (50% of youth voting Paul) -> (THAT is future)-> (Ron Paul or not..."the United States will be inherited by the people who voted for him")->("And these kids have kids of their own")->(raised on...blah)->("They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools.")

"THAT is" is an assumption.  "will"is as well.

See the " 'll " in  the contraction (something you do NOT use in rhetorically precise writings...)??  They + "WILL."  That's another assumption!

"red herring
Noun

2) something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

Non-response = a misleading clue?"

 By bringing up everything else other than the legitimate criticism (the class, thing, THIS, etc.) yeah.

"Thanks again for the psychoanalysis!"

You need to actually think, troll.  It really is your (and people like yours) attitude towards strangers that drives people away from Paul and from Mises.  The more douche there is, the less people will care.

you relentless nerd.

The class just doesn't stop.

Cause you are a troll?  You insult people's intelligence and then reprimand them when they respond.  Troll.

 

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Just to reiterate, John James: "seeing as how you pretend to be an ancap, showing respect to strangers may warrant looking into."

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Aristophanes:

last sentence, first paragraph, don't deny that was what you were implying.

"They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools."

Where you say (50% of youth voting Paul) -> (THAT is future)-> (Ron Paul or not..."the United States will be inherited by the people who voted for him")->("And these kids have kids of their own")->(raised on...blah)->("They'll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1...and if possible, not even put in government schools.")

"THAT is" is an assumption.  "will"is as well.

See the " 'll " in  the contraction (something you do NOT use in rhetorically precise writings...)??  They + "WILL."  That's another assumption!

mmkkkaaay...I wouldn't think I would have to explain this, but "if possible" is a qualifier that designates that certain requisites would have to be met before any of the occurences that follow the statement would occur.  Now, if you'd like to argue that most libertarian parents would, given the opportunity and means to keep their child out of government schools (and still receive schooling up to standards they would deem acceptible), elect to keep them in the government schools, I'd be happy to hear your argument.

But until you're willing to make such an argument, you'll need to explain how "will if possible" = "will".

 

By bringing up everything else other than the legitimate criticism (the class, thing, THIS, etc.) yeah.

Honestly, what am I supposed to be criticizing, again?

 

[picture under copyright]

I have another guess!  Are you Woody Hearn?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Feb 13 2012 3:42 AM

I saw that. Does one guy's approval change the fact that you were being a condescending ass, to paraphrase Aristophanes? (I'm too lazy to check context, all I know is that it seems dickish whether you are correct or not). 

In all fairness, I do think you often write excellent content, and I don't think Aristophane's remark was fair that "you don't have friends in real life." But that's simply my two cents.

I'd say you're wrong on both counts. I enjoyed both the original reply and the 'no friends' counter-reply. What are forums for if not for writing stylish posts that are fun to write and fun to read? It is the highest stage of forum posting. A form of art really and therefore entitled to artistic license. If you have style it's OK to go into all sorts of places.

I'd actually say JJ is personification of selflessnes here, why here he is preventing himself from being universally liked, all just to give us the enjoyment of reading a uniquely over the top post about hitting two year olds. The man is a slave to his art.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,010
Points 17,405

That would be pointless. The vice president has no power.

"They all look upon progressing material improvement as upon a self-acting process." - Ludwig von Mises
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Feb 13 2012 3:53 AM

That would be pointless. The vice president has no power.

Very true, but it would allow RP to make speeches that would be more difficult to ignore. I just don't know what it would give Romney besides a VP who is going to offer public dissent about everything he does?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Marko:
I'd actually say JJ is personification of selflessnes here, why here he is preventing himself from being universally liked, all just to give us the enjoyment of reading  a uniquely over the top post about hitting two year olds. The man is a slave to his art.

It's so nice to be appreciated!

It's like you understand me so well!  Perhaps my friend Aristophanes could take profiling lessons from you!

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Mon, Feb 13 2012 6:57 AM

John James:
douche.

You stay classy.

Thus the F-bombing pot says to the kettle...

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Mon, Feb 13 2012 7:01 AM

Marko:
I'd say you're wrong on both counts. I enjoyed both the original reply and the 'no friends' counter-reply. What are forums for if not for writing stylish posts that are fun to write and fun to read? It is the highest stage of forum posting. A form of art really and therefore entitled to artistic license. If you have style it's OK to go into all sorts of places.

I'd actually say JJ is personification of selflessnes here, why here he is preventing himself from being universally liked, all just to give us the enjoyment of reading a uniquely over the top post about hitting two year olds. The man is a slave to his art.

Troll harder next time, Marko. no

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 8
Points 205
The State replied on Mon, Feb 13 2012 8:11 AM

Wow, smells like trouble in libertarian paradise. Maybe you could use some.. Regulationcool

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Mon, Feb 13 2012 8:23 AM

I see what you did there.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (60 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS