Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

You did say that a voter boycott would send a strong message. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when you say a voter boycott would send a strong message, that you mean that a voter boycott would send a strong message. Your statement was pretty straight forward and hardly open to misinterpretation.

So, I'll try one more time. How will sending a strong message to people who don't give a shit about what you send them effect a positive change?

 

Individual,

You are right. Unforturnately, most people I know have little understanding of what's going on. But they can tell you the winners of the last four American Idol contests, or the last five winners of Survivor.

Truly, the master has beome the servant, and the servant has become the master. I don't believe in a violent solution. Sometimes I wonder about that, but . . .

 

Here’s where the context comes in; you clearly asked a hypothetical question:

This was my answer:

The strawman continues:

My rebuttal:
I don't have such grand aspirations. I thought a boycott of "a corrupt system" would be more appropriate and effective than participating in it. It would not be a passive act.

Do you now see the strawman you've created and want me to defend?
It is getting tiring reposting our discussion.

 

Outthere,

Could you please direct me to the post in which I said that I think Ron Paul is a superman? I can't seem to find it.

 

I asked you to define a "successful boycott of a corrupt system" after you claimed it would be more appropriate and effective than participating in it. But you're not going to clarify that, are you?

It appears to me that you have no intentions of explaining how a boycott would be a first step in creating a more equal society. You do recall saying that, right?

 

When you say things that you find you can't back up or explain when called on to do so, that's called talking out your ass.

 

Why didn't you answer this question:

 

You want to take a figure of speech and turn it into a "get out of a debate free" card. It doesn't work that way. If you don't want to answer my questions concerning your indefensible statements, you can just say so.

And by the way, I found who it was that made the superman comment. It was you, believe it or not.

 

Boycott the elections all you want, as long as you pay your taxes the politicians won't care.

 

When I said, "I'm afraid that putting your faith in a voter boycott is a grand illusion. All it will do is allow all the people who don't know better to go out and vote anyway," wasn't that an indication to you that I understood that you didn't intend to mean everyone would participate?

You should just answer the questions I've asked instead of evading them. That would better serve the interest of making yourself understood.

 

It is true that boycotting the elections will be futile, but try explaining that to others. Or even try asking those others who make that claim that it would "send a strong message" to explain how it would be appropriate and effective. Or how it is a step towards creating a more equal society. Or how it is a non-passive act. But don't hold your breath waiting for the answer!

 

Wow I think this is the first post from Indie in this whole thread that I can agree with, lol. Unfortunately there are no easy answers to the nightmare our country has been going through. The presidential election of one person, no matter how good their intentions, will do nothing to change the system. The whole governmental system is poisoned by greed and corruption from the top federal levels right to the smallest local school boards. Sadly until we take all the private funding out of our political system we are doomed no matter what, corporate greed is the winner in every election, the only difference is to what degree. If we ever manage to overturn Citizens United and if we can collectively demand that all elected officials can only receive a limited amount of public funds for their campaigns we have a chance to change the way the system works. Having our government dominated by lobbyist who work for their own special interest is not helping the general public. Fortunately people are beginning to wake up and realize the extent of what is going on and for the first time in my adult life people are demanding changes. None of the changes we need can happen in one or two election cycles but will probably take decades and a half dozen election cycles to complete. As I said about a 1000 post ago RP has some very good ideas, he also has some very bad ones as well, many which would make the changes we need even harder to make. And boycotting voting is just silly, just throwing away what little chance at creating needed changes we have, its are best tool we possess.

 

We are way past any easy, painless fixes . Everyone says they want change . Yet few are willing to deal with the hardships that result from that action . It's not that hard to see . Change will only come when we stop funding the madness that's enslaving us .

 

Another case for single payer?

 

Some of us here are going to end up in an internment camp for dissidents where we'll be re-educated. You know that, right?

Hey, none of you guys snore or suffer from intestinal gas problems, do you? Cuz that would just really be shit for frosting on a cake I never wanted in the first place.

 

Come on, Individual. We all know you're eighty, so don't try telling us that everything's still in working order. 'Fess up. List your meds so that we know what to expect when they cut you off from them.

 

Actually, I'm a few years shy of 80, but everything IS still in working order, and I take no meds at all, other than an occasional brandy or scotch.

 

It looks to me like government is turning our homes into re-education camps by teaching our kids their parents are wrong about everything.

 

Ahem i know you guys are having a debate and all...

Just like to point out that Ron Paul won Maine..

 

Figures. Maine is too conservative for its own good, as well.