OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions
levi at cold.org
Sun Jun 29 09:08:50 MDT 2008
Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> writes:
> Wow, way to go guys. You fail to silence us with your superior logic so
> you revert to calling us marxist. Geez. Get a life.
I didn't call you a Marxist. I said you guys, with your 'revolution'
rhetoric and preaching of a pure, theoretically great
political/economic system, sound a lot like Marxists did while
advocating their pure, theoretically great political/economic system.
Of course, the systems themselves were *quite* different, and I'm not
claiming you espouse their system.
> So you don't like some sign somebody mady. Big deal. I doubt Ron Paul
> himself was all that directly involved in that particular design. It's a
> grassroots movement, remember??
So, I can't criticize a sign? You take offense at my criticism of a
sign? Gimme a break.
> Ron Paul was NEVER trying to get elected. If you would read anything
> he's written you would already know that. It's always been about the
> revolution, and frankly I think we are in desperate need of it. If you
> disagree that's your prerogative, but don't call me marxist and say I'm
> in a cult. I never have called you names. Ron Paul's campaign was a
> standard to rally behind. A way to spread the message. Getting elected
> would have just been nice icing on the cake. Get your head out of the
> sand and actually learn about something before you go berating it
> blindly. And you call me ignorant.
I don't want a revolution, thanks. I thought that was clear. And I
think I understand what his campaign and message are about.
> So do you agree with the principles or not? If you agree with the
> principles then make deductions, show your logic, debate it with others
> and maybe some will agree. If you don't agree with the principles then
> you have essentially no common ground with us 'radicals' so live by your
> own principles.
I thought it was clear that I disagreed with you on some fundamental
> Why don't you try a little logic for a change. If you come up with
> different results do share.
Well, I wouldn't be starting from the same assumptions as you, so I
clearly wouldn't end up in the same place. But we're not talking
about my results, we're talking about Ron Paul and his flavor of
> What's wrong with all those things? Personally I don't think the
> government needs ANY help overstepping its bounds. It needs every help
> to hold it back.
They're great in many circumstances, but I believe there are
exceptions, while Ron Paul does not appear to. This is why I'm happy
to have Ron Paul as a voice for small government in Congress, even
though I don't agree with his philosophy and wouldn't want him as
> You agree with the conclusions of his philosophy but not the philosophy.
> That is entirely possible. But might I suggest finding out if you truly
> disagree with the philosophies before knee-jerking out because of some
> scary words like 'revolution' and 'love'? Who knows, you might find you
> like it. Maybe your just afraid you'll be brainwashed if you do any
> homework. Who's paranoid now?
Yes, I disagree with his philosophy. Is that so hard for you to
> Sorry this post is so inflamatory. I enjoy debating with you Levi most of
> the time, but your comments here were just outrageous and I'm calling you
> on it. I don't ask for an apology, but you have stepped over the line.
The closest I came to a personal slight against you was saying you
sounded like a Marxist with all your calls for revolution and advocacy
for a pure political system. I apologize for associating you with
Marxists; you clearly don't espouse their values.
I'm afraid the rest of the offense you took seems to all be due to an
emotional attachment to Ron Paul and his campaign. Personally, I find
Ron Paul and libertarians in general to be advocating an outrageous
and dangerous philosophy. It looks great on the surface because it's
rather different from the current government, and it's mostly based on
the constitution and great principles, but we just have to trust him
that the consequences will actually be as good as he says. I just
don't believe it; I think full adoption of libertarian principles
would be disasterous. I know this sounds outlandish and outrageous to
you, but I suggest that that's only because you've been steeping
yourself in libertarian literature for so long.
Anyway, this thread has gone on long enough. I'm finished with it;
you can go on advocating your philosophy as long as you'd like, but if
you want to argue it with me, you'll have to do it via private email.
More information about the PLUG