By: Ronald West
Ron Paul’s speech at Ralph Reed’s ‘Faith and Freedom Coalition’ in this new season of straw polls and presidential aspirations, demonstrates stark contrasts to the popular image of Ron Paul embraced by Pagans, Wiccans, atheists, some socially liberal conservatives, as well as some gays, lesbians, and many peace loving progressives with a conservative bent. This may seem perplexing but it is not a unique circumstance in a sense of position on political issues, actually it is a quite common quandary. Politicians in the current system must serve ‘god and money.’
If ever there were a serpent who served money, all the while pretending to serve God, his name could be Ralph Reed. Ralph Reed stands for everything many, many Ron Paul supporters would find particularly abhorrent: The Bush family and Corporate excess. Just what is Ron Paul proposing to these people? Who is Ron Paul, really? Where is his money invested? Relative to Ron Paul’s position on money and where is his money invested, who/what is he really rubbing shoulders with, particularly at Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition? Ralph Reed’s history is one of long association with Bush neo-conservative policies.
It is agreed in many circles too much money is printed and the whole Fed thing has become part and parcel of a criminal racket that does not tax the rich [Ron Paul proposes abolishing the income tax altogether] but NEW solutions are called for, going back to the past simply does not work .. except that people give up the idea of becoming rich and turn to self-sufficiency again. And contrary to Ron Paul’s statement in his speech, government did NOT regulate too much, the bubble went unchecked to burst because regulation on bankers had been reeled back.
There is a big problem with a modern ‘gold standard.’ These days there simply are too many people for gold to be a viable currency. If all the world’s gold were divided between all the world’s people equally, you might need a microscope to see your share. Miniscule amounts of money would be the result, and except that governments on a gold standard hyper-inflate the value of gold reserves, the entire planet would have to be strip mined to make it work.
Recalling Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an agrarian based society with free artisan and independent local merchant, we might have to look at something like that in downsized local (sustainable) economies .. but for anything like Jefferson’s vision to actually happen, the corporate oligarchy has to be dismantled to rid ourselves of excess and erosion of individual liberty. This is what people are not looking at, if for reasons of corporate owned news, corporate owned justice and corporate owned government. How does Ron Paul fit into the corporate scene? I had a look at the investments of Ron Paul, multi-millionaire:
Vista Gold, Kinross Gold, Newmont, IAM Gold, Barrick Gold, Golden Star Resources, Golden Cycle Gold Corp, Pan American Silver, Great Basin Gold, Eldorado Gold, Freeport McMoran Gold & Copper, Apollo Gold Corp and Placer Dome mining corporations.
When it comes to multi-national mining corporations, things get sleazy as quick as you can blink an eye. Now, because 13 multi-national mining corporations are a bit much to shove down the reader’s throat with analysis, I drew a name out of a hat and came up with Barrick Gold. We’ll look at what Ron Paul’s money has been up to there.
Barrick Gold, in Tanzania: “Ongoing conflict between the mine and local communities has created a climate of fear for those who live nearby. Since the mine opened in 2002, the Mwita family say that they live in a state of constant anxiety because they have been repeatedly harassed and intimidated by the mine’s private security forces and by government police. There have been several deadly confrontations in the area and every time there are problems at the mine, the Mwita family say their compound is the first place the police come looking. During police operations the family scatters in fear to hide in the bush, “like fugitives,” for weeks at a time waiting for the situation to calm down. They used to farm and raise livestock, “but now there are no pastures because the mine has almost taken the whole land … we have no sources of income and we are living only through God’s wishes. … We had never experienced poverty before the mine came here.” They say they would like to be relocated, but the application process has been complicated, and they feel the amount of compensation they have been offered is “candy.”
What of the man who wrote a book on the subject? Sued by Barrick Gold to keep the book tied up and off the market. Ron Paul has invested in a ‘golden’ genocide? But wait, There’s more.
Barrick Gold & Bush: “In the waning days of his failed presidency, Bush I invoked an obscure 1872 statute to give a Canadian firm, Barrick Corporation, the right to mine $10 billion in gold from U.S. public lands. (U.S. taxpayers got a whopping $10,000 fee in return.) Bush then joined Barrick as a highly-paid “international consultant,” brokering deals with various dictators of his close acquaintance. Barrick reciprocated with big bucks for Junior’s presidential run.”
Ron Paul’s Barrick Gold investment not only contributes to the destruction of communities and war across Africa, it is handed American public lands for a song and is in bed with the Bush dynasty, not to mention being a big polluter.
Let’s have a look at the cyanide heap leech process by these mining corporations Ron Paul trusts to police themselves and do right by our environment. On average, 75 TONS of rock is crushed into cyanide heap leach to get ONE gold wedding band. That only works in 3rd world countries where labor is dirt cheap and environmental laws non-existent. Then you need the wars (corporate control by proxy) to run over those 3rd world people’s lives and control things when they rebel at their traditional lifestyle and community destroyed to accomplish having access to land you can trash for the minerals .. here is your ‘Christian just war’ in Afghanistan with its [Pentagon] raw mineral estimate of $1 trillion, a war Ron Paul did not condemn in his speech.
And if there is deregulation of the mining industry as Ron Paul would have, taken together with abolishing the EPA [founded by the Nixon administration who were ethical giants by today’s Republican standards] with sweetheart mining deals already delivered to Ron Paul’s mining corporations by the Bush family, America will be, by definition, a 3rd world country. That is, a country relentlessly trashed by corporations with a proven track record. How does that square with Ron Paul’s claims of people relying on ethical self discipline? Ron Paul proposes deregulation of corporations, and in such a case of corporations without oversight, the actual freedom of individuals in community acquires a literal flavor of a very poor, dead, and/or broken environment.
Meanwhile, an inflated price of gold only means gold costs more of the paper currency, a faith based system, much like stocks, and with a reasonably, responsibly managed system, goods do not necessarily inflate at the same rate. But in the current circumstance of a criminal corporate enterprise governing our politics, people who own gold/gold stocks are in a win-win with or without a gold standard, and would end up among the most world’s most wealthy in a gold standard economy when money supply is sharply reduced and dependent on them. On the other hand, without a gold standard, they simply continue to capitalize on economic disaster when the price of gold rockets, pointing to the possibility of engineered economic crisis for the profit of a few. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens suffer either way.
Government is a required evil if for no other purpose, than to stop criminal behaviors run amok, our founders recognized that, and Ron Paul is proposing to let corporate criminals run amok. When the land and community have been destroyed and water poisoned, it is a bit late to put criminals in jail, because putting criminals in jail, does not clean up the mess. And how do you put a corporation in jail? Meanwhile, Ron Paul’s mining investments will have made him an exceedingly rich man. Should the investor go to jail? I don’t think Ron Paul could claim he was taken in like a Bernie Madoff victim, and he appears to be proposing a ‘legalized’ violation of our constitutional [and certainly not ‘Christian’ but purposely ‘secular’ as determined by our founders] ‘right to life.’ The ‘right to life’ mentioned but not enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, is a right to live in community that does not have poisoned air, poisoned land, poisoned groundwater, poisoned rivers, a legacy of irreparable scars due to socially criminal corporate behaviors. The founding purpose of our government had been in fact to prevent just such events.
Ron Paul, if he were serious about cleaning up corporate corruption, would have accepted Jesse Ventura’s offer to run with him if he would leave the corporate oligarchy [two party system] and quit the Republican party. But that seems off the table since his kid (Rand Paul) was elected by the religious right to the Senate. Ron Paul’s boy is a piece of work, remember Jesus saying “You will know them by their fruits” ? Ron’s ‘fruit’ hasn’t a clue, if a ‘Christian’ were expected to act on Jesus admonition to care for our poor. Only the rich make it in the ‘Paul’ theology.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul has made a show of hiring ‘renown’ constitutional ‘scholar’ Bruce Fein to advise his campaign. As seriously corrupt corporations related to investment have turned up in a short exam of the reality of Ron Paul’s personal money, it follows we should have a short exam of his new ‘constitutional expertise.’
Who is Bruce Fein? Bruce Fein was [then congressman] Dick Cheney’s ‘research director’ in the Reagan/Bush I whitewash of the CIA Iran-Contra scandal. Fein has worked for the ‘American Enterprise Institute’ which was a major policy architect for George W Bush. Fein also has worked for the ‘Heritage Foundation’ or that is to say supports the corporate wealthy with Reagan ‘trickle down’ economics, which had initiated the policies we have seen, over time, destroy the American middle class. Both organizations are tied to CIA and other American or multi-national corporate friendly intelligence agencies and are responsible for many of the corporate friendly policies resulting in the very individual liberty losses Fein and Paul both claim to find reprehensible, a case of crocodile tears.
Asking Bruce Fein to advise on constitutional issues is like asking CHEVRON, Monsanto, or for that matter, Barrick Gold, to be your lawyer.
Relevant to this, the religious right power elite sit among the wealthiest of the corporate power corrupt. The related underlying Ron Paul campaign agenda appears to be setting corporations free from any vestige of control. The only way that can be accomplished and preserve any pretense of liberty, is to grant the same freedom the corporations wish to possess, to the individual. This strategy reflects the fact there is no way to grant corporations control over people on paper and preserve the lie of freedom. It is Edward Bernays deceit at its best.
What you do not see from Ron Paul in his speech, is the idea corporations are NOT citizens afforded absolute liberties. But in fact they cannot be. Corporations are not individual human beings. They cannot know a Human’s self disciplined ethics. They cannot sense a spirit of responsibility as a sentient being. They cannot know god or country. Corporations primarily serve the purpose of money and Jesus had stated “You cannot serve god and money.” Had Jesus known of our founders’ intent and our secular constitution promising individual liberty, he might have as easily stated ‘As well, you cannot serve corporations and your country.’
Ron Paul’s ‘freedom’ agenda proposes a science fiction medieval society in which our constitution is a Christian Lord, a corporation is a fief, directors are nobles, politicians are clergy, shareholders are the landed gentry or freemen, and everyone else is a bond servant or serf, in effect re-establishing the very things our founders had sought to do away with. Our constitution is NOT the Magna Charta, which had only served to free the Barons from a King.
Ron Paul had stated in his speech public schooling should be abolished in favor of education by home school and the church. Should it be a crime to educate in the home or at the church? No. Is it a treason against our Constitution to teach in the home or at the church our nation’s constitution is a Christian heritage ‘dominion’ ? Yes. In fact, were the USA Constitution to be honored in home school and church, it would require revoking the educational privilege of any parties or organizations that educated on our constitution contrary to established secular principles. In America, liberty never included any right to impose Christian values or any values, other than accurate and lawful American constitutional ethics, on others. And insofar as a ‘Christian’ duty to honor this principle, it had been said by Jesus: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and deliberately secular Constitution is our modern Caesar.
Yet in a context of our constitution and government, Ron Paul pushes in his speech: “Our Christian heritage.” This is contrary altogether to our founders intent. It is written in the 1797 American treaty with Tripoli “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”
What notables of the 4th United States Congress were sitting in the [32 seat] Senate which debated and approved this statement signed by President John Adams? Rufus King was a delegate to the Continental Congress, attended the Constitutional Convention and was one of the signers of the United States Constitution. Frederick Frelinghuysen served as a delegate to the Continental Congress. Timothy Bloodworth was a delegate to the Continental Congress. William Bingham was a delegate to the Continental Congress. Pierce Butler attended the Continental Congress, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Jacob Read was in the Continental Congress. Samuel Livermore was a member of the Continental Congress. John Langdon served in the Continental Congress. Theodore Sedgwick was a Delegate to the Continental Congress. Richard Potts served as a member of the Continental Congress in 1781, and as member of the Maryland convention which ratified the Constitution of the United States in 1788. John Henry was a delegate to the Continental Congress. Humphrey Marshall was a member of the 1788 Virginia convention which ratified the Constitution of the United States. John Brown was in the Continental Congress. James Gunn was a delegate to the Continental Congress. John Middleton Vining was a delegate to the Continental Congress.
In the event Ron Paul would wish to argue these men [preceding] were ignorant of what they had debated and approved as members of the United States Senate in relation to Christian heritage playing no role whatsoever in the founding of these United States, and should find himself in this trap, we have a very familiar character whose familiarity with the philosophy and spirit of the time should finally dispel any such notion:
Thomas Jefferson: “..a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”
And we can bring this statement of Jefferson around to the American revolution philosopher Thomas Paine via John Adams: “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been in vain.” What does the John Adams quote [naming Thomas Paine] point to, on the subject of our supposedly [so-called by Ron Paul] ‘Christian heritage’?
Paine wrote many things about religion when inspiring our people’s efforts at liberty, including “My own mind is my own church” and most importantly “Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated [rejected] by every inhabitant of America”
In fact the mood of the nation at the time of our founders writing the constitution was to recognize there is a deity no one religion or heritage could claim exclusive to any other religion or heritage, when having anything to do with these United States. Relevant to this ‘open to all, exclusive to none’ multi-cultural society established by our founders is the statement of Benjamin Franklin: “If the Mufti of Constantinople were to send an emissary to preach to us Mohammadism, he would be provided a pulpit”
Ron Paul, in his pitch to the ‘Faith and Freedom Coalition’, like his audience, has the cart in front of the horse. It is freedom first, and the Christian heritage and faith does not stand out in relation to our nation’s founding as any different to that of [in Jefferson’s words] the heritage or faith of “the Jew, the Gentile .. Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination” despite the religious right’s ‘Liars for Jesus’ attempted rewriting American history.
In other words, according to the treaty language “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” approved in the Senate during Washington’s presidency, by leading personalities at the time of our nations founding, and signed by founding father John Adams when he had shortly after become president, everyone is on an equal footing according to our Constitution, there is no exclusive American religious heritage whatsoever, none. All religious heritage is in fact excluded: in the governance of these United States. It follows, a Christian value of ‘right to life’ cannot be a value imposed on precisely ½ of our citizens.
The Christian definition has no constitutional foundation at all. Our ‘right to life’ in the Declaration of Independence’ refers to a quality of life. And in the case of Ron Paul’s position on abortion, it is her ‘quality of life’ that is at issue, and is not the decision of some sanctimonious men. Rabbits reabsorb their litters in times of lean and human abortion has been around for millennia. Relative to this, for the woman, it can come down to making the unenviable decision of whether to raise a child in poverty for a man who’d abandoned her, among possible other hard decisions concerning future, hard choices a man does not face. There is no valid constitutional rationale for imposing a religion based tangible slavery that put Ron Paul’s claims of individual liberty (for women) to death with a sword of hypocrisy.
Ron Paul and Ralph Reed’s ‘Faith and Freedom Coalition’ have the nouns precisely backwards. Freedom comes before faith, in the annals of our founders. Indeed, were biblical texts used to validate our laws, the Christian ‘right to life’ could be extended to the ludicrous punishment of men for masturbation, according to some passages of the Old Testament, ad absurdum.
A solution? DO NOT VOTE for Ron Paul (or anyone)
Sources:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4EbCis-Zuc
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ralph_E._Reed,_Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G4PpxnfilA
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Ratifying_Convention
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/ronpaulgold.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15265
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d50SYyLqFNo
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd02152003.html
http://meic.org/mining/hardrock-mining/cyanide_mining
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv23rI68vwU&playnext=1&list=PL1F0F46E300FC548D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62758433/Decoding-Cyanide
http://survivalacres.com/wordpress/?p=1573
http://blogs.alternet.org/penucquem/2011/08/07/rescuing-jesus-from-st-paul/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYgVglm2xFY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation
http://www.sisterzeus.com/Pennyroyal.htm
http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2011/06/19/why-i-wont-vote-and-you-shouldnt-either/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58185081/On-Edward-Bernays-and-Propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dePMo9MK30
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10311752
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b6kf5PIzX4&feature=player_embedded
L. A. Breaux
I feel it is our duty to vote. If you do not, you deserve what everyone else voted for.
Let’s gain some perspective. If you don’t vote for Paul, you are asking for more of what every other candidate stands for. That is: someone who embraces most of the executive power excesses of Bush/Cheney, wages war without congressional approval, ramps up drone strikes that kill innocents, spies on innocent Americans, says marriage should be between a man and a woman, and perpetuates the War on Drugs, among other policies.
Now, if you do vote for Paul, we can move past those items and then debate the less threatening ones you misunderstand. How is that not the logical way to proceed?
This article. Fantasy, Fallacy and Foible
This is all so full of it that it doesn’t deserve or require a rebuttal.
Here’s someone worse than Madoff. Read then forward this link to everyone you know, so they don’t get scammed: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-worse-bernie-madoff-or-rich.html
[Quote=sector7]I feel it is our duty to vote. If you do not, you deserve what everyone else voted for.[/quote]
Bullshit – voting changes nothing because all the candidates are corrupt to the core! All you really accomplish by casting the ballot is granting legitimacy to an incorporeal power to rule over you: I prefer to rule myself rather than be ruled over by some other entity, thank you…
Hm. If you were 1/10 the man Ron Paul is, you would be 100 times the man YOU are.
“-voting changes nothing because all the candidates are corrupt to the core!”
I don’t believe that Paul is corrupt. Besides, what are you gonna do big guy, move to a deserted island and live like Tom Hanks in Cast Away? Good luck with that. Do you follow laws? If so, you are a member of society and abide by those who hold power over you. More likely, you are a delusional child that is scared to research the candidates and issues and simply want to hide. My impression of you is: “Whaaaa!!! I don’t wanna play the mean game!”
This entire article is full of fallacies.
While you’re getting some colorful comments regarding your article being ‘full of it’, I’m going to have to weigh-in here on your side, Ronald.
Thanks for connecting the dots on this – because while Paul talked a good fight a few years back, he’s been exposed for what he really is: A closet theocrat and a supporter of the worst in Libertarian ideology.
Far from being ‘full of it’ – you remind me of another author who frequents this magazine (myself): You’re one of the handful who’ve connected the dots and figured it out.
So, for whom do we vote, this time around?
I’m also leaning toward your conclusion that ‘nobody’ is a good choice. See, I differ from many of my fellow-citizens, in that the only time I’ve ever voted against someone was, ironically, in this last Presidential election, when I cast a vote in the Obama camp to keep McCain/Palin out of the White House.
Now, it’s clear to see that if you make a list of the things McCain promised to do, then squared it up against a list of the things Obama has either done or failed miserably to do, that list is nearly the same.
So much for casting a vote against someone.
This time through, I’m going to exercise my franchise in the manner in which I believe Jefferson intended: One person; one vote – and vote your conscience.
Obama is a failed politician. He’s busy pandering to a group of wolverines who want him dead and buried; the Republicans are no longer the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, or even Nixon – they’ve jumped in bed with Weaponized Jesus and the Teabaggers.
Unless a leader comes along who has a track record of not pandering and selling out, and who articulates a platform which is very close to my own position, I’m opting out of this election.
I learned my lesson.
-W
Great job, Ronald.
LOL thanks for the laugh Sector7. Maybe we’ll hear back from you in a few years, after you step off the chrome horse and come to a sad realization.
OK, Mr. West, we get it, you really hate Ralph Reed, Bruce Fein, faith based groups, gold and liberty. Especially if Dr. Paul has recently associated with the above. Then again, politics does make strange bed fellows.
Then you go on the attack. You go on making statements such as Dr. Paul would allow corporations to run amok and how gold standard will not work. And in a very typical liberal tactic, you use guilt by association. After all how dare Ron Paul invest in Gold! Its not like its in the U.S. Constitution or something. Oh that’s right, these days its just a piece of paper used by liberals to wipe their behinds.
Also, I couldn’t help but notice that while you were listing excuses for not voting for Dr. Paul (or anyone) because of his philosophy, you, as a “concerned” citizen, weren’t providing any alternative new solutions.
Oh that’s right, you are not a running candidate. Ultimately, you and many others like yourself, use the voting booth as an excuse for personal vendetta instead of change you really can believe in.
If you are so dissatisfied with the political arena, why bother taking your time to write a long hit piece on Ron Paul? Its amazing how desperate the establishment is these days.
Hoo, boy. Thing is, Ron, I really hate having to throw it to you as it is as I can see that you’re a sensitive and passionate guy. It’s also clear to me that you spent a lot of time working on this article, and, when you finally clicked that button to publish it, you sat back with a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction on your face while telling your self “Ha! Wait ’til the internet gets a load of THIS!”.
However, I do recognize that, in order to grow as an individual and become a better thinker and writer, you do need to know where it is you went wrong in your article: the entire piece is absolutely fucking retarded and nonsensical beyond anything even a kindergarten teacher in the Bronx would have ever read before. You’re not even a terrible writer — it’s just that you’re an absolute moron, and the ideas that you use your writing to express are, themselves, the embodiment of the infinite stupidity that defines your psychological state.
Wow, why is it so hard for people to get educated and to think for themselves?? If only you understood what Ron Paul really stands for…
People wake the hell up and use that thing called brain!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!! IN YOUR FACE SIR!
:{yawn}: Ron Paul 2012!! Once you read this, YOU KNOW YOU GOTTA FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!!!
Hahahaha…I’m at work, no time for a reply…but I thought u.should know: you ate about to get a lot of emails/comments.
The gold standard is bad for gold mining and such. Because when the price of a dollar is tied directly to gold in value – it means the price of gold never goes up or down. It’s the current system that makes gold mining way more profitable.
Ron Paul is not actually in favor of a gold standard. He simply uses the gold standard in order to educate people about inflation and the devaluation of the money. He would only support it over the current system, it’s not his ideal system.
I have no idea where you get the idea that it would be split among people, and there wouldn’t only be a small amount for each person.
The problem with the fed is the entire thing is a scam, and a constant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Why should such an entity be given control over the peoples money supply, and allowed to issue that currency out as loans? To be paid back @ interest(Which is never created and is impossible for all to pay back) when the purchasing power of that created money comes from the existing money, and not the banks?
If in the entire world, only $100 exists, and you own $10 of it, then you own 10% of the worlds wealth. I’m going to steal that wealth from you, and still leave you with the $100 in your pocket.
The only thing in the market is say 10 apples. Each apple has a base value of $10. 10 apples x $10 each = $100, the money supply.
Now I’m the bank, and I’m going to issue another $100 to a 3rd party. Now there is $200 in the world, and you still own $10. But now you only own 5% of the wealth. And now each apple has a value of $20, and you can’t even afford to buy a single apple to feed yourself anymore.
I basically just took half your money and didn’t touch your wallet and you haven’t the first clue I’ve done it. As far as you can tell, you still have your $10, nobody has robbed you. But what I’ve done in effect is no different than if I had went into your wallet and took $5 from you.
And if that wasn’t enough, the bank loaned that $100 out as a loan, and is owed back $105(if @ 5% interest). So in order for that $100 to be paid back, an additional $5 has to come from the original $100. Because that $5 is never created.
And you do that 20 times, and the original money is all gone. Your $10 is now worth less than 1% of the wealth. And I – the bank have just successfully given your purchasing power to the entities of my choice, probably your competitors.
From that point on, as more money is created, there is no original wealth to get the $5 from. At which point it would be impossible for all the people to pay back their loans. Because the interest money is never created. AND, all that money is now owed back to the bank on top of that.
Since the money is loaned, it by default creates a state of DEFLATION. As that money is paid back, the currency is being removed from circulation, which deflates the money supply. And if all people paid back their loans, then there wouldn’t be any money AT ALL to go around. Because it’s all based on debt.
So the fed has to keep printing the money to keep the economy going. They can’t stop it, because as soon as they stop printing money, the whole thing comes crashing down from the immediate deflation. So they have to keep printing money in order to keep things going, and in order to pay for the interest money on previous debts, as it was never created.
And that is how we had the great depression. The banks quit loaning money, and the money supply shrank up, the banks wouldn’t loan out money. We had everything else, we just didn’t have the money to make it all go. People wanted to work, land could be farmed, people wanted to buy things. But not enough money to go around to make the trades happen due to the deflation. But for WWII? Oh, then the loans start coming. No money for food, but plenty for war.
All the while, this process is a constant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The rich get the new loans, the newly created purchasing power, but the people not getting them are just having their purchasing power taken. The poor people do not see it happen, they look at their income and still see that $10, but when they go to buy the apples, well can’t afford it anymore.
The entire thing has to go. There is no reason for the American people to allow this. We would be better off allowing the treasury to directly print the money – DEBT FREE and without interest and no national debt. This money can then be used to pay for government and so on when created.
And to keep it from hurting the poor people, you only issue new money in order to ease trade among people. You issue it in direct proportion to the economy. In simple terms with the above example, if there now exists 20 apples in the world, you could then add another $100 to the market, and the value of the apples would stay at $10. Meaning, you still are able to buy your apple. And since that money is then not issued as debt with interest, there is no need for an income tax.
This was very successful in history, it was called Colonial scrips. And the British made the colonies get rid of it because they weren’t getting the purchasing power removed(Currency Act of 1764), and was a huge reason for the revolutionary war.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands and wants to get rid of it. The last president who tried to do it was Kennedy. Executive Order 11110, which was promptly repealed after his assassination by LBJ.
Who is Ron Paul? Let the numbers give you a hint. You ‘Journalist’ can bang away, twist, spin the truth on your keyboards all you like.. It’s all coming to an end. 🙁
73.98% with 15,431 votes lol.. Who’s electable? 🙂
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-slams-unemployment-report-stock-market-tumbles/
Ron Paul–Join the Revolution and take back your freedom.
Touched a few nerves here, goes with the territory.
@Azazel ‘don’t feed the trolls’ is my advice, you’re smarter than that.
@W.D. Noble, thank you, and to the ‘Late Warren Mitchell’ thanks as well.
As for most of the rest, to this point, most of you remind me of a Black woman comedian I once heard state: “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” Interesting to me is to consider what the world thinks when they see these comments. I recommend looking at the site map statistics at some odd and uncivilized hour (middle of the night) and consider people from across the planet form their opinions of Americans by reading at subversify.. and see the result of your education that is a mile wide and one quarter inch deep ..
As for this stuff about corporations. Ron Paul doesn’t get the big money from these corporations. He gets his money from regular people. Unlike all these other candidates. He’s been ignored by the media, you know, the ones owned by corporations, the ones that get paid by corporations in advertising? If he was going to let the corporations run amok as you put it, then why are they pushing so hard for the status quo in candidates like Perry and Romney, and pushing so hard against Ron Paul?
Probably because you are full of it.
Who writes these regulations? Oh yeah, basically the lobbyists from the corporations, and the politicians that are hired by the corporations.
Pollution should be a crime and handled as a criminal matter. Not regulated so that it can be legal for those of means to get the regulations they want to see via lobbyists and whatever.
Not to mention all the other regulations that have been invented and pushed by corporations and industries to kill competition.
Get real.
[…] Read Full Post Social […]
Ronald, oh Ronald, with that moronic reply attempting to defend yourself and your terrible work from rational analysis (proper logic is an active idiot’s worst enemy, as it necessarily illuminates the reality of his failures as a human being), you allow yourself to be seen as the desperate and intellectually incapable idiot that you actually are. Frankly, it’s just not a smart tactic (and expectedly so, as it’s you who has employed it) for one who has nothing to offer society, yet is still desperate for their approval. Try hiding a bit from the rest of the world; try eclipsing your stupidity in silence. Otherwise, you leave your audience with no ability to give you the benefit of the doubt. In your case, the apathy of others or even the lack of recognition on their part is far preferable to allowing them to know you as you are, as the latter necessarily leads to justified contempt and disgust.
Just a little more advice for you there, Ron. I’m trying to help you get through this with as few bruises as possible.
Alert. Spin doctors on board. Notice the loose association of definitions for the sake of emotive language. “After all how dare Ron Paul invest in Gold! Its not like its in the U.S. Constitution or something. Oh that’s right, these days its just a piece of paper used by liberals to wipe their behinds.” No clarity as to whether it’s gold or the Constitution the liberals wipe their butts with… if it’s the former, that’s one helluva hard rock to be wiping your behinds with, if it’s the latter, i could have sworn it was ex-President Bush who exclaimed the Constitution was nothing more than a piece of paper.
“Its amazing how desperate the establishment is these days.” It’s amazing that mainstream persuasion could call counter-cultural, anti-establishment opinions; establishment. If the system of buying votes, via mass publicity through media channels and behind the door campaign promises to corporate investors, was unacceptable to the establishment, we wouldn’t need this discussion.
In my state, the President is formally announced before our votes are even counted. Those who vote in the National elections do so for one of of two reasons, they are betting on who’s going to win so they can make fun of the ones who chose the losing candidate, or they are betting on the one they think will lose so when the shit comes down, they can honestly say, “i didn’t vote for that man”. When your voice is so small, it’s virtually pointless to cast your vote for President, your concentration begins wandering away from petty issues and their representatives and more toward policies that affect your demographic area, and consequently, the global arena.
For this reason, i would much rather discuss the issue of gold as a global currency, than whether or not i should vote. It is policy, after all, that affects us, and not Ron Paul’s enlightenment with God. Your statements on gold has me swinging on a fence, unsure of which way to jump. China and the Mideast were the first regions to openly suggest a return to the gold standard, although a 2006 Avery report advised storing up metal; i.e., gold, silver, copper and nickel, for the upcoming economic collapse. Since the Avery report is considered a reliable economic data base, i’m sure a great many forward thinking investors made cautious preparations to secure their funds in the metals market.
I don’t blame those countries that would like to see a return to the gold standard. Gold values are highly cultural and the pleasures in owning gold is seen in every indigenous culture. The primary focus of gold for our humble ethnic beginnings, was its enduring compatibility as ornamentation. Anyone who works in the art of metal jewelry will tell you that gold is the most pleasurable medium to craft. Once warmed, it offers very little resistance to pressure for shaping. It doesn’t rust or lose luster. A gold heirloom can be passed on from generation to generation without losing its structural integrity.
While it’s easy for modern society to scoff at this ancestral vanity, the only real difference in materialism between then and now is our ancestors capitalized on a vanity that would last, our current vanities are throw-aways.
Gold is the most pliant metal for making jewelry and metal ornaments. Its purity and softness makes it the best metal to use in dental work. It is also the best metal wire conductor. Should gold then, be our currency standard?
Here’s another side to the argument. While countries and individual persons are antying up how advantageous a gold currency would be, Anglo-American and their cohorts, Northern Dynasty pursue their plans to build the largest open pit mine in one the world’s only remaining pristine environments. This mine contains not only enormous gold deposits, but at least seventeen other minerals, including copper, zinc and diamonds. Proponents say opening the mine would add prosperity to our gasping nation.
Would it really? It would certainly secure Anglo-American position as the world’s leading dealers in hard minerals (note to initiates, Anglo-American is the company the movie, “Blood Diamond” was based on)but how much would it affect the public, those who have invested in gold currency, and most of all, the people who would be directly affected by The Pebbles Mine project?
Here is a clue. Failing to convince the local people that no mine was worth having their fisheries at stake, Pebble Mine proponents hit on a new strategy; the legend of Alaska’s gold panners and independent dredgers striking it rich is a myth. This astonished quite a few Alaskans who opened their own private businesses based on the gold found in a private claim. It raised the question; if Anglo-American had full control over gold prices, how much gold would it take to survive? The small, independent miners trembled as they saw their chances crumble against such giant competitors, and so would it be for other countries that placed their currency value on gold.
For us, the issue has boiled down to this; how much value do you place on your natural resources? Is it worth it to you to turn in your fresh water for gold? Do you see better value in fracturing the earth for energy or in cultivating the earth for food production? It is a question we should all turn to, and until the majority understands that corporate values are tearing apart the earth, i am not in compliance.
You really have no clue do you?
As a wise man once said, with the invention of the internet… who needs public bathroom walls anymore… idiots can reach more people even faster now..
lmfao @ at that bloated heap of diarrhea spew, karlsie. What an unbelievable hill of pseudointellectual crap that only a moron of the highest level could possibly come up with. In spite of all those words, you managed to not state a single intelligent thought.
Fascinating.
Sir I have to admit that I barely kept up with your article on the first reading… I was however brought up to ALWAYS question authority and therefore will dig futher into the premise of your writting. I do and most likely will support and vote for ron paul. For all the other Ron Paul supporters who only respond with one liners and insults… stop!! You win arguments by being right not attacks. You influence others by example not by force. Ron Paul never attacks others personally… he always responds to the idea or policy. Debate with information, evidence, and logic. The truth will always come out in the end. On abortions… A major proble our society has is lack of respect for life. Life, wherever one believes it comes from, is a gift. While I would never tell another person what to do with their body I would never take another life (self defense excluded). There is a short story Called The Lottery many students were forced to read. It speaks to this ideal. Many people in America act like the characters in this story. Basically, everyone thinks it’s ok… til it happens to them. Someone who aborts a child, in many cases, is supremely selfish and a contradiction incarnate. Now the fiscal side: If you can’t care for a child, close your legs… If you have an accident, man up! That’s all I’m saying. Be responsible for yourself, be accountable for your actions, and stop living off other peoples fortunes. One last thought, Ron Paul does not “wear” his religion on his sleeves and I’m good with that.
Vote Ron Paul
Hey fellas, we’re fairly open-minded when it comes to debating and arguing. But please, no death threats or suicide talk. Anything violent will have to be removed.
-TLMW
Sorry, but your desperate attempts are not working anymore. You’d probably be better off going back to plan A, just ignoring him. You guys need to hurry up and pass as much banker friendly legislation, occupy as many countries as you can, and grab as many resources as you can “QUICKLY”, because the party is going to be over very soon!
this article is passionately and interestingly presented, it is a starting point for discussion, what is wrong with American and the internet is what is pissed out as comment and dogma instead of engaging in a real conversation about the points the article is trying to make .. there is a reason that Mr. Paul is not taken seriously, you might want to add that to the discussion .. way to personal and ugly to really move any issue forward .. the body politic is rancid and the pundits are not washing their hands after leaving the toilet of their agenda ..
Lordyourgod, it pains me to inform you, you’re not my God, nor do i have any interest in making you my own. Satirical note aside, i want to thank you for showing up today and adding in your two cents worth (at deflated values, mind you) as you have more aptly illustrated the spin doctor routine of name calling than anything i could come up with on my own. It’s so much simpler to make derogatory attacks than present an intelligent debate, if we all resorted to your mentality, all we’d be doing is grappling with the dictionary to find the cleverest means of calling each other ass wipes. Since your contribution has consisted of nothing more than presenting your own theories of the intelligence quotient, i have nothing more to say to you.
Kendal, i sympathize with your position. There are still a great many people who feel there’s a hero out there somewhere who will save us from our current economic dilemma. I will not try to distract you from your position, but i would like to encourage you to continue submitting your comments to the magazine. Most of the writers here welcome oppositional opinions as the basis of understanding is communications. You mention abortions. We have in the past, published articles both from the anti-abortion position and free choice. We welcome you to submit your own articles. In your words, debate with information, evidence and logic. We find such presentations of opinion entirely agreeable.
I’m not an American. I don’t give a millionth of a damn about any American President’s domestic policies. However, if Paul’s really, as he says, willing to end Operation Endless War and stop supporting the Zionazi Pseudostate, I’d vote for him if I could. If the payoff is that American women can’t have abortions or that the US suffers the kind of environmental collapse the rest of the world is already, that ‘s unfortunate, but I’d be willing to live with that.
lmfao, karlsie. Right after writing one of the most insane, retarded, and babbling posts that has ever stained the internet, you go on to attempt to criticize someone else with the accusation that they’ve avoided partaking in an intelligent debate. Here’s the thing, karlsie, an intelligent debate requires two intelligent participants. You’re like an infant running around screaming that monsters exist in your closet, and, when people don’t take your claims seriously, you then go on to whine about their refusal to engage you seriously on either your stupid premises or your claims. You’re not self-aware enough nor are you intelligent enough on a general level to understand why it is your arguments and statements are so ludicrous that any outside party possessing even the slightest capability to think critically would do anything other than laugh at you. Like mocking a homeless alcoholic for his streetside doomsday prophecies, to even begin to elaborately state the painfully obvious reasons for one’s disdain would be insulting to the intelligence of the audience.
It appears this article is pretty popular…
Anyway, to reply to sector7 – “…what are you gonna do big guy, move to a deserted island and live like Tom Hanks in Cast Away?”
No – I intend to construct my own society run by people with interests similar to my own: one not subject to the dictates of the present establishment and will take its place once civilization as we know comes craching down.
“Do you follow laws?”
Not if I can help it – “law” is tyranny as far as I’m concerned. I prefer to instead abide by a series of guidelines me and my associates have agreed to by mutual interests instead of the arbitrary dictates of the state.
Allow me to present evidence a.
Ron Paul, M.D., OB/GYN, 12 term U.S. Congressman, author of several books including renowned books on the economy.
Allow me to present evidence b.
Ronald West, ?
I rest my case.
You are right, Ron. Feeding the trolls is a bad idea, but the initial adrenalin rush was fun. Congratulations, by the way. I didn’t know you were running for president.
LordYourGod you have not said one intelligent thing in response to a well written rebuttal. All you’ve done is type out a bunch of personal attacks. If you guys are the type of people associated with Ron Paul then fuck ’em.
So what George W. and Obama are well credentialed and a bunch of tards in my book. Credentials mean nothing. Intelligent responses matter. But in politics, well there is no such thing right?
Ronald, this is a great article. I don’t agree with its thrust, but it meets all my criteria for a great article, and I intend to respond with one of my own.
Bill.
My favorite line in the entire discourse is the ‘trackback/ping’ stating: “Ralph Reed, Ron Paul’s evil shadow | and Now the Weather”
I’ll look in here again in a few days 😉
I agree Ron, that one did have flair! Excellent Dialog here, which is not to say always intelligent; but telling…
Here you are, from my blog, with a link to your article:
http://bill-purkayastha.blogspot.com/2011/09/bully-in-classroom.html
A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece called “Conversations with Conservatives”; in it, I postulated that the far Right was ignorant, uneducated and violent – and that it wasn’t their fault.
Most of them come from parts of the nation which gave up on its children long ago. They’re the first to suffer from the effects of the ‘poverty draft’ (the ‘volunteer army’); they’ve suffered from the worst which the banking system and the Wall Streeters have to offer, and are, in essence, economically and socially-marginalized. Citizenship means nothing. What they do ‘remember’ is this: They’ve been told stories, mainly by old-timers and local religious figures whom they’ve been culturally raised to respect, that (1) life was better ‘back then’, and (2) anything which ‘isn’t Biblical’ is ‘bad’.
If you take a gander at North American maps of both immigration and migration patterns from the 17th and 18th centuries, one thing is going to leap out at you – most of these people came straight from the Border-Ridings of Scotland and Ireland (that area near the English borders where they took their religion Calvinist-style, the whiskey bootleg so as not to pay taxes, and their government in small doses if they allowed any at all.
Governmental corruption – the real kind – was rife, and it wasn’t until the 19th century that all of this was put to an end, when the UK government could project enough real force into the area to end both the corruption and a lot of the anti-government behavior which it spawned.
Here in America, we weren’t so lucky – a Civil War didn’t put an end to that, and as we’ve done so poorly at regulating our financial systems, the military and the other machinations of government, there’s still fertile ground in these areas for the philosophies of a Ron Paul, who promises us that (1) things were better then, and I can make them that way again, and (2) you’ll have a friend in Ron Paul, as well as Jesus, in the government if you vote for me [nudge-nudge; wink-wink].
Borderers have a passion for their leaders – because they usually don’t come up that often, and don’t have a chance when they do arise. It’s probably worth mentioning that I was a delegate to the Libertarian Party Convention here in Portland a few years back – and that was probably the first thing which convinced me that the Libertarians didn’t have a chance at effecting real change in America – although Paul was both the darling and the cause celebre of the more-conservative elements of the Party, and it was clear that their star was ascendent (that’s sort of like being the prettiest ballerina in Galveston, but I digress).
Ronald has done a very good job here of pulling back the skin on the Ron Paul turkey to reveal maggots and decay. As my grandfather once said, “Billy; everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. They’re not entitled to their own goddamned facts.”
In this case, I couldn’t agree more.
What Paul represents are some of the most disaffected members of society. While he’s no threat at election, we’ve seen how rabid his followers are. It’s easy to see why – they’re the first fired and the last hired; their children are the first to see that their options are to flip burgers or join the army out of high-school; they’re the ones who wind up losing their trailers to the medical-care system when a family member develops cancer.
They want these problems corrected.
They don’t see that Paul isn’t the solution; that promoting strawmen like abortion, the gold standard and an audit of the Federal Reserve (Note: The Fed is audited yearly) isn’t going to solve the problem of nearly twenty percent of Americans being out of work (the central and core issue in America today).
Ronald did a very workmanlike job of peeling back the skin from Paul’s rotten ‘turkey’ – whether his followers like it or not isn’t the issue.
-W
W.D. Noble, do you not realize that your entire piece is nothing more than a collection of insane, absurd, insubstantial, irrational accusations and your own responses to your delicately crafted strawmen? Thing is, though, in this case, I actually DO recognize that it’s not your fault. Simply enough, your failed genetics and upbringing have made it utterly impossible for you to comprehend a logical argument or even a few basic and related ideas tied together. Worse still is that you are not only intellectually decrepit, you are also an emotional wreck. Were you even capable of actually understanding the discussion’s relevant ideologies, you’d be too cowardly to see and analyze them as they are as your emotional attachments to your current ideas and your allegiance to your thought masters are too great to permit you to do so. Due both to your intellectual and emotional weaknesses, you are incapable of arguing from anything other than irrelevant statements, non-sequiturs, and strawmen.
What is most revolting about you, Noble, is not that you’re a coward and not that you’re a moron — it’s that you’re a hopeless cause, born at the bottom of an abyss infinitely far beyond the lengths of the ropes of education and help. You can do nothing other than wallow in your misery and rot. For that, Noble, you are detestable on a level that no other man or creature is capable of being.
Many people compare Ron Paul to Thomas Jefferson. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Of these quotes from Jefferson, I appreciate the first one immensely, as it reflects what we have seen in the comments from certain ‘faith based’ supporters of Ron Paul:
“The Christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.”
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”
“They [clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
“I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us
“I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did”
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding
“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Book of Revelations], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”
Thank you for a well-written, lucid and well researched article.
As a non-American my interest in Ron Paul was piqued some years ago when I first read about about his being pro-legalisation of marijuana and his anti-war stance.
On the surface he seemed like exactly the type of politician who would make this little progressive liberal’s heart flutter. He seemed too good to be true. Unfortunately, it turns out, he was. After some delving I found the man, and what he stands for, completely abhorrent to me and a travesty of eveything progressives hold dear.
Unfortunately, those commentators who came to his defence here did absolutely nothing to further his credibility. Far from it. Rather than give me reasons to question my opinion of Paul with a rational and well-reasoned argument, they ranted like little cultists wallowing in wilful ignorance.
In 2008 Paul delivered the keynote address [video available on youtube] at the 50th anniversary gala of the John Birch Society, the famous anti-communist, anti-civil-rights organisation which attracts Neo-Nazi thugs and which was hatched in the 1950s with the help of none other than Fred Koch himself.
Ron Paul opposes EVERY single legacy of the life of Dr. King… whom he once accused of being “a pedophiliac orgie king like an escapee of the court of Caligula”… and the thousands of black, Jewish, Muslim, Latino, white, gay, and every other kind of American who has been imprisoned and/or died in the American struggle for Civil Rights against violent and brutal oppression.
In spite of this his supporters somehow believe that Ron Paul would be a good thing for America. Well perhaps for an America that isn’t white, male, straight, and has more than a few pennies to rub together already.
If I’m wrong, I’d welcome “Lordyourgod” et al to demonstrate the intelligence they seem to pride themselves on, and show me where I err.
If not, I’ll continue to dismiss Ron Paul for the misogynist and racist which he has shown himself to be… and a bane on everything good America once stood for.
LordYourGod, please kindly remove yourself from my ass. Instead of name calling, try making ONE valid point. ONE intellectual observation. No, you can’t. Name calling is the last resort of a desperate man, a desperate man like me.
I was always under the impression that socializing Land equally across the entire spectrum of humanity was the only way for each of us to have True Liberty which opens the door to Pure Democracy and a Pure Capitalistic Marketplace where we each have an equal footing to “play the game”. There is an easy way to accomplish this where individuals retain control over their property while the Land is held in Common by the Community -)
Oh, my.
He really got me there, didn’t he?
(I suppose it does no good to tell the likes of this fellow that there’s a huge difference between rebutting an argument and an ad-hominem attack. Regardless – over and out. Seems this article pulled the Paulites out of the woodwork, in spades….)
Ron Paul is a looneytarian. Period. His stance on war reminds me of the cliche that even a broken clock is right some of the time. Also, his stance regarding the “free market” and civil rights DEFINITELY worries me since it’s really a back door to Jim Crow.
Luckily, even the loons on the right won’t vote for THIS loon.
Christ, you guys are fucking morons. An ad-hominem attack would be an argument that the other person’s ideas are necessarily wrong because of a personal flaw. It disregards the argument yet forms a conclusion on it based on the person. It’s a specific version of a non-sequitur. My act of enlightening you all by telling you that you are absolute fucking idiots is not an ad-hominem attack. Your arguments are insanely stupid, and you, as people, are also insanely stupid. The former is a predictable result of the latter, but the latter is not my criticism of the former.
And, W.D. Noble, not only is what I said to you not an ad-hominem, it doesn’t even slightly resemble one. The entirety of your moronic piece is nothing but a collection of ludicrous and unsubstantiated statements that you use as the premises for your conclusion. That would be a statement on your actual argument, rather than a statement on you. A statement on you would be me telling you that your biological existence is like that of a slow-spreading virus, propagated by reproduction of your defective genes. The fact that you will, likely, ask me for specifics on your written piece is only further evidence of the fact that your stupidity is so extreme that you’re beyond education, like a retard pointing to the ocean and asking someone to point out specific areas that are wet.
Troll performance 5/10. Not much characterization or comedy, but effectively annoying. 😛
5/10 is generous, i think. I don’t see any originality in LYG’s statements, only a great deal of frenzy to crowd in as many ostentatious
words as possible. I think he lifts his comments from a troll website.