I'm gonna go to bed soon (once I stop crying about poor RON PAUL, of course), but, rest assured, I'll be back tomorrow night, and you and I can continue doing this because I'm having fun. It's great watching you squirm, Mike. You so clearly went one step too far, that I hardly have to do anything at all to demonstrate... what was it? The duality, the inconsistency.

Rather than embrace all the things done according to existing rulesets, you play the victim! It's wonderful in how you implicitly concede the point while pretending to stay ahead. The Nazis followed the rules they established, to a tee, and so, in a worldview where it's not possible for a thing to be "truly wrong" without violating some rule, there's nothing wrong with being compared to Nazis or Ugandan death squads. The only reason to pretend that there is if you don't think that rules are the be-all and end-all of virtue.

And we both know that you don't think that, right? Because that would be inconsistent, or perhaps in duality, with your defense of RON PAUL. That's how you drew the line between why the RNC was wrong, and Ron Paul wasn't wrong.

Here's one last edit, and then I'll let you catch up: two wrongs don't make a right, and I don't claim that they do. But two people wronging each other sure does make it easy to be apathetic about their individual plights. That's what I believe; it's nothing to do with the ends and the means.

Then demonstrate it, if you can. You've talked a lot, but proven nothing.

I understand your apathy. You have restated it many times and I trust your sincerity.

themadscientist wrote:Then demonstrate it, if you can.

You already did.

Your statement and mine were both pretty vague, but that's okay. Because there's nothing that you could be asking me to demonstrate in response to what I just wrote that I can't prove by quoting you.

Not a Paulbot? Well, then why say things you obviously don't believe to defend him as somehow better than the RNC? Rules make right! Unless, of course, they're Nazi rules or anti-gay Ugandan death panel rules.
I'm not apathetic? You've said yourself that at this point, I'm not arguing because I care about Ron Paul any more. It's all about an underlying desire to show how wrong you truly are. And now it is, and you are. And that ^ is why.

I love how clever you think you are. It's really cute. I just want to pinch your cheeks red. Everything after "did" was an edit, by the way.

According to you. I'm sure you trust your source. Good luck advocating for lawlessness. I guess there will be a market in the future for anti-law lawyers. Be sure to have your clients plead, "the victim had it coming."

themadscientist wrote:According to you. I'm sure you trust your source. Good luck advocating for lawlessness. I guess there will be a market in the future for anti-law lawyers. Be sure to have your clients plead, "the victim had it coming."

Holy deflection, Batman! Keep at it, I'm sure somebody's fooled.

Pumpkin, you're so much better than me, I've decided to make you my source. Edizzle.

Since I very much doubt that this will go on very much longer, I feel that, for your benefit, I should illustrate your mistake. When you said that the RNC was in the wrong because it broke the rules, you had a point. But the heart of my argument relied on the wrongness of Ron Paul's actions, in an absolutist way. Ron Paul didn't break any rules, and that surely can fit into your devoted defense of him, but to really be convincing, you needed to attack the absolute wrong. You needed to say, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules AND he was totally justified in doing what he did, because the Republican Party has lost its way, and he was pursuing a nobler goal than simply having influence over the Party for the benefit of his son."

I think you fired that arrow, and missed. You made right and wrong contingent on adherence to and violation of rules. But you know that all that, deep down in that part of yourself you never let anyone see (or something). Realizing the error you had made, you made the topic about me, and all the terrible things I was doing. To be sure, I played the part and gave you opportunities for evasion, but always made sure to remind the bemused child in your heart of your mistake.

Honestly, the most touching part was your pity in that one paragraph. The one where you dont judge me, you just disagree (though we both know better, right Adolph?).

I'm going to cherish that post for at least a week.

I never claimed Paul to be able to do things others could not because he was nobler than anyone. That's your spin, not mine. You continue to assert I give him a special pass despite glaring examples to the contrary, you are a liar, sir, not I. Tabling that for the moment, let's play with your rhetorical toys for a second because they are colorful and obviously precious to you.

IBCoupe wrote:WELFARE QUEENS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

If they are not breaking a rule they are just "wrong." Don't like it, legally close the loopholes. You would have my support.

IBCoupe wrote:CORRUPT POLITICIANS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

If they are corrupt, by that act they are violating at least one law. Prosecute them. Again, I fully support you.

IBCoupe wrote:EXECUTION OF UGANDAN GAYS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

It's not a law yet. The proponent of it is having difficulty pushing it through. It is a tough sell being so reprehensible. The international chorus of outrage is certainly justified and loud.

IBCoupe wrote:EXTERMINATION OF GERMAN JEWS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

That law was enacted by a regime that came to power through unlawful acts. Any laws that thus come from such a regime are the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Now let's continue the game where you try to come up with more extreme examples to support your wish for me to be as mutable as you. You know you will. Prove me wrong. What now? Want to get biblical? Oh, I know, stoning rape victims in some middle eastern countries; that's a good one!

Despite you calling me Adolph and casting aspersion on my honesty I still mean what I said. Since you have already stated you beleive me to lie even though you can't seem to produce an example, funny ain't it? I know you won't beleive that, but ultimately I don't care.

Pumpkin, mmm!

And the last minute shifting around continues. obama must be giddy watching this silliness. The bad blood from this is going to fracture the party. Can't say it would make me sad, but it's a shame it got to this. The incoming hurricane will be outclassed by what goes down in that convention.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnO ... re=youtube[/youtube]

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:WELFARE QUEENS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

If they are not breaking a rule they are just "wrong." Don't like it, legally close the loopholes. You would have my support.

Oh, so there's "wrong" and there's "truly wrong?"

Fine, then in gaming the system, Ron Paul was wrong. Not "truly wrong," but wrong.

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:CORRUPT POLITICIANS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

If they are corrupt, by that act they are violating at least one law. Prosecute them. Again, I fully support you.

That's probably not the wisest assumption.

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:EXECUTION OF UGANDAN GAYS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

It's not a law yet. The proponent of it is having difficulty pushing it through. It is a tough sell being so reprehensible. The international chorus of outrage is certainly justified and loud.

But if it becomes a law, the international chorus should just stuff it, right?

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:EXTERMINATION OF GERMAN JEWS: NOT TRULY WRONG.

That law was enacted by a regime that came to power through unlawful acts. Any laws that thus come from such a regime are the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Which unlawful act brought the Nazis to power? You're absolutely right: it sure is easier to pretend the world conforms to your ideology than it is to construct an ideology that isn't incompatible with reality.

themadscientist wrote:Now let's continue the game where you try to come up with more extreme examples to support your wish for me to be as mutable as you. You know you will. Prove me wrong. What now? Want to get biblical? Oh, I know, stoning rape victims in some middle eastern countries; that's a good one!

I don't need to, Mike. You so blatantly erred and your attempts to cover it up now, after you spent most of the thread avoiding it by deflecting to ad hominem defenses, are so half-hearted that I don't need to do anything except disassemble your lame nonexcuses.

In order for your ideology to work (but we both know it's not actually your ideology), you have to be willing to assert that it's actually impossible for something terrible to be done within the rules. I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.

themadscientist wrote:Despite you calling me Adolph and casting aspersion on my honesty I still mean what I said. Since you have already stated you beleive me to lie even though you can't seem to produce an example, funny ain't it? I know you won't beleive that, but ultimately I don't care.

Still playing the victim, then? Okeedoke. Mike, what you get but won't admit now, is that you are the example. You said something you don't believe to help your guy. It's clear you don't believe it because you're bending over backwards to both refute all the terrible things done completely within the confines of terrible laws, and admit that there are things you dont like that can be made legal, all in the name of not walking back the claim that "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a law," a form of terrible logic that nearly disproves itself.

It's okay to be partisan, the world needs to see what not to be.

themadscientist wrote:And the last minute shifting around continues. obama must be giddy watching this silliness. The bad blood from this is going to fracture the party. Can't say it would make me sad, but it's a shame it got to this. The incoming hurricane will be outclassed by what goes down in that convention.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnO ... re=youtube[/youtube]

He's probably almost as giddy as I am, watching two villains destroy each other.

IBCoupe wrote:Oh, so there's "wrong" and there's "truly wrong?"

IBCoupe wrote:Fine, then in gaming the system, Ron Paul was wrong. Not "truly wrong," but wrong.

Not necessarily. Since the concept is only defined by what it is not illegal, the next step is non-repeatable as any charge of "wrong" is based upon the opinion of the observer. You think it's "wrong" I don't think it's very wrong at all. Don't assume we share your view. Your stance is 100% grounded in your personal opinion and that's why it's weak and resists extrapolation.

IBCoupe wrote:That's probably not the wisest assumption.

How do you define corrupt? Most definitions go something like this:

Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

As a politician is supposed to discharge his duties without influence within codified ethics law, law I would expect a law student to be at least aware of. The very act of being corrupt pushes pushes the individual outside the law and your argument starts to take on an odor.

IBCoupe wrote:But if it becomes a law, the international chorus should just stuff it, right?

If you want to argue about things that haven't happened, what should we do when space aliens arrive?

IBCoupe wrote: Which unlawful act brought the Nazis to power? You're absolutely right: it sure is easier to pretend the world conforms to your ideology than it is to construct an ideology that isn't incompatible with reality.

I don't have a copy of the Weimar Republic's election laws, but I'm reasonably confident burning down the Reichstag is not an approved campaign device. When Ron Paul sets the Capitol of fire we can revisit your shaky concepts and give them a framework because he will have then broken the law. See how laws provide us with defined boundaries of behavior? Certain factions in our country would not see that act as "wrong."

IBCoupe wrote:I don't need to, Mike. You so blatantly erred and your attempts to cover it up now, after you spent most of the thread avoiding it by deflecting to ad hominem defenses, are so half-hearted that I don't need to do anything except disassemble your lame nonexcuses.

In order for your ideology to work (but we both know it's not actually your ideology), you have to be willing to assert that it's actually impossible for something terrible to be done within the rules. I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.

It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.

IBCoupe wrote:Still playing the victim, then? Okeedoke. Mike, what you get but won't admit now, is that you are the example. You said something you don't believe to help your guy. It's clear you don't believe it because you're bending over backwards to both refute all the terrible things done completely within the confines of terrible laws, and admit that there are things you dont like that can be made legal, all in the name of not walking back the claim that "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a law," a form of terrible logic that nearly disproves itself.

It's okay to be partisan, the world needs to see what not to be.

Again, you make unsupported assertions and miscast them as factual. You are in no position to say what I believe. I have demonstrated consistency in my beliefs and provided concrete examples. You have, what, your opinion? You similarly would have the rule of law dismantled to serve, again, your opinion. Starting to see a pattern? I am, well more to the point, I did a while ago and still do.

You will have to forgive me if I find more solace in a society built on laws than one that serves you personally. You aren't a prince, a big deal, sure, why not, but not royalty. If you hold your ideas so close to your heart go commit a crime and share your philosophy with the arresting officer, then share it with the judge and jury, then with your cellmate. He will then explain how laws are negotiable outside their established amendment process and what he is doing to you is not "wrong" in his mind. I would of course disagree with that, but you have discarded my antiquated notion of rules being rules. To show my good will I'll send you some soap on a rope.

themadscientist wrote:Not necessarily. Since the concept is only defined by what it is not illegal, the next step is non-repeatable as any charge of "wrong" is based upon the opinion of the observer. You think it's "wrong" I don't think it's very wrong at all. Don't assume we share your view. Your stance is 100% grounded in your personal opinion and that's why it's weak and resists extrapolation.

Much better! I'm impressed. See, that's what you should have been arguing from the first time I replied. Instead of writing, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, so it wasn't wrong," you should have written, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, and it wasn't wrong." See the difference? One statement makes you seem like a crazy fanboy, and the other merely makes you seem questionably biased.

However, it seems you still have some ground to cover. My "stance is 100% grounded in [my] personal opinion?" I even offered you insight into the "grounds" for my comment, when I wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:Ron Paul's behavior here defeats the purpose of a proportional delegation award in the first place.

I mean, so it's probably not the greatest argument to say that my opinion is "100% grounded in personal opinion." Clearly, there's some thought put into it. That's just you trying to hide your own biases behind mine. Were this a normal conversation, I'd probably say right here, "In your defense, we didn't get very far into that issue," but this isn't a normal conversation, because the obstacle to discussing that was you.

themadscientist wrote:How do you define corrupt? Most definitions go something like this:

Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

As a politician is supposed to discharge his duties without influence within codified ethics law, law I would expect a law student to be at least aware of. The very act of being corrupt pushes pushes the individual outside the law and your argument starts to take on an odor.

Pushes them outside the law? I don't see any laws against crony capitalism, do you? See, here your defense of your position really serves to undermine it further. It's probably best to just give up, as you started to do above, and admit, "Yeah, that was a pretty dumb thing to say, and I don't really believe that rules alone define the boundary between morality and immorality."

themadscientist wrote:If you want to argue about things that haven't happened, what should we do when space aliens arrive?

Why would we talk about that? How does this figure into your belief that "If it was truly wrong it would have violated a rule?" You maintain that I have no basis for calling you a liar, and so obviously you must have been telling the truth about your beliefs when you wrote that. So answer the question in the hypothetical: would it be wrong to kill gays for being gay if a law said that you could?

themadscientist wrote:I don't have a copy of the Weimar Republic's election laws, but I'm reasonably confident burning down the Reichstag is not an approved campaign device. When Ron Paul sets the Capitol of fire we can revisit your shaky concepts and give them a framework because he will have then broken the law. See how laws provide us with defined boundaries of behavior? Certain factions in our country would not see that act as "wrong."

You might want to check your history books. The burning of the Reichstag took place after the Nazis had taken 37% of the seats in the Reichstag in the year prior. They were well on their way to a government takeover, and for all anybody can tell, the Nazis didn't burn down that building.

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.

It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.

So then you agree with me: Ron Paul can't hide behind the rules, in this situation the fruit of a poisoned tree. You see, he's operating under the rules established by the Republican National Committee, a political organization formed within the boundaries of the laws of the United States. Tell me, how'd that government get started?

themadscientist wrote:Again, you make unsupported assertions and miscast them as factual. You are in no position to say what I believe. I have demonstrated consistency in my beliefs and provided concrete examples. You have, what, your opinion? You similarly would have the rule of law dismantled to serve, again, your opinion. Starting to see a pattern? I am, well more to the point, I did a while ago and still do.

No, you've demonstrated that either you don't stand by your beliefs, or that you don't believe what you say you do. Every time you get an opportunity to stand up and affirm what you said earlier, you instead choose to deflect and draw attention away.

I wouldn't have the rule of law dismantled to serve my opinion, but you'll never get to discuss that until you man up and actually start to discuss that part of the issue. Instead, you're still pretending that you're being totally consistent by saying no wrong can be done when following rules and simultaneously finding all kinds of excuses for why some rules are rules and other rules are not.

themadscientist wrote:You will have to forgive me if I find more solace in a society built on laws than one that serves you personally. You aren't a prince, a big deal, sure, why not, but not royalty. If you hold your ideas so close to your heart go commit a crime and share your philosophy with the arresting officer, then share it with the judge and jury, then with your cellmate. He will then explain how laws are negotiable outside their established amendment process and what he is doing to you is not "wrong" in his mind. I would of course disagree with that, but you have discarded my antiquated notion of rules being rules. To show my good will I'll send you some soap on a rope.

IBCoupe wrote:Much better! I'm impressed. See, that's what you should have been arguing from the first time I replied. Instead of writing, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, so it wasn't wrong," you should have written, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, and it wasn't wrong." See the difference? One statement makes you seem like a crazy fanboy, and the other merely makes you seem questionably biased.

However, it seems you still have some ground to cover. My "stance is 100% grounded in [my] personal opinion?" I even offered you insight into the "grounds" for my comment, when I wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:Ron Paul's behavior here defeats the purpose of a proportional delegation award in the first place.

I mean, so it's probably not the greatest argument to say that my opinion is "100% grounded in personal opinion." Clearly, there's some thought put into it. That's just you trying to hide your own biases behind mine. Were this a normal conversation, I'd probably say right here, "In your defense, we didn't get very far into that issue," but this isn't a normal conversation, because the obstacle to discussing that was you.

Pushes them outside the law? I don't see any laws against crony capitalism, do you? See, here your defense of your position really serves to undermine it further. It's probably best to just give up, as you started to do above, and admit, "Yeah, that was a pretty dumb thing to say, and I don't really believe that rules alone define the boundary between morality and immorality."

Prohibition of using public office for personal gain is a bedrock component of ethics laws. It may be hard for you to see because you are out there in the mist trying to weigh breaches against your own formulae. That takes a lot of time, it isn't consistent and it's colored by your own personal prejudices.

IBCoupe wrote:Why would we talk about that? How does this figure into your belief that "If it was truly wrong it would have violated a rule?" You maintain that I have no basis for calling you a liar, and so obviously you must have been telling the truth about your beliefs when you wrote that. So answer the question in the hypothetical: would it be wrong to kill gays for being gay if a law said that you could?

Opening the door to hypotheticals because you can't justify your skewed logic with demonstrable facts is transparent. Try again. Better yet, let's take that issue and flip it around using a real, factual situation.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/18/nyreg ... all&src=pm

In court, Mr. Doyle testified that he and two friends, Erik Brown, 21, and Esat Bici, 20, had gone out after drinking heavily at a party at his house, armed with a knife, a claw-hammer, a wrench and a beer bottle, hunting for "a drug dealer or a drug addict or a h0m0 out cruising" to ambush. They found Mr. Rivera.

Mr. Doyle, who said he instigated the attack, was originally charged with second-degree murder, but was permitted to plead guilty to the lesser crime of manslaughter in return for testifying against his friends. At their trial, the 6-foot 5-inch Mr. Doyle stated in a flat monotone that after the party wound down, he had told Mr. Bici, "I would like to beat some people up, stretch some people out." He added that he had fatally stabbed Mr. Rivera "because he was gay."

This guy thought that his opinion was over and above the laws and he killed a guy, because he was gay. Good luck getting supporters for that idea.

Moving on...

IBCoupe wrote:You might want to check your history books. The burning of the Reichstag took place after the Nazis had taken 37% of the seats in the Reichstag in the year prior. They were well on their way to a government takeover, and for all anybody can tell, the Nazis didn't burn down that building.

In no small part to that act and the blaming of it on the Communists. We will never know if they could have achieved their goals within the framework of an untainted process so get out of the weeds and come back to the here and now.

IBCoupe wrote:So then you agree with me: Ron Paul can't hide behind the rules, in this situation the fruit of a poisoned tree. You see, he's operating under the rules established by the Republican National Committee, a political organization formed within the boundaries of the laws of the United States.

He is not "hiding" behind anything, that's your slant and there is no poison in it. The rules were established at the outset of the contest and he has adhered to then, done and done. The RNC now seeks to change the rules in mid-process, there is your poison injection. Where do you get to do that? Can we decide that two outs end a team's at bat in the second inning because we don't like the Yankees? Can the winning three point shot be reversed by a last minute rule change that the three point line is now six feet further out? You sign a contract to deliver 10 widgets by wednesday and you do and the customer lines out the entry and pen changes it to 20? No, your little exercise in contrarianism is just that, fluff, potentially entertainment. it's not reasonable, it's not workable, it's not sustainable and in the end it consumes itself.

IBCoupe wrote:Tell me, how'd that government get started?

So you are ready to take up arms and overthrow your elected government now? Your attempt to draw a parallel between the English monarchy and and our republic, with all its foiables, is specious. If you are ready to do that, I'm sure there are a few cammied up rednecks in the woods of Montana who would glad to add you to their "malitia." With youin's booklerning you make "do whatever you want to do cuz you are righter" sound more su-fist-ikated.

Next.

IBCoupe wrote:No, you've demonstrated that either you don't stand by your beliefs, or that you don't believe what you say you do. Every time you get an opportunity to stand up and affirm what you said earlier, you instead choose to deflect and draw attention away.

I wouldn't have the rule of law dismantled to serve my opinion, but you'll never get to discuss that until you man up and actually start to discuss that part of the issue. Instead, you're still pretending that you're being totally consistent by saying no wrong can be done when following rules and simultaneously finding all kinds of excuses for why some rules are rules and other rules are not.

But you would. Your opinion requires just that. That's the problem with it. Once you start, where do you stop? You can flirt with these little daliances to your heart's content, but you are trying to comparing dissimilar situations and arguing to extremes to inject emotion into this and justify the subversion of of a legitimate process. Should you win that argument, the door opens. The process becomes a sham where we can make dope changes whenever the more powerful faction has the means to do so. That it's ok to you based upon it being Ron Paul as the victim exposes YOUR partisanship. Next time it might be someone who speaks for your views. Well, upon considering that, since you think the ends justify the means, the candidate that speaks for you would act the same way and in that sort of system succeed so I can see why it gives you no pause.

Again, darnit those pasky exhibits underminingg your Tom Cruise moment, I have demonstrated my consistency in regards to this issue, and to be fair, you are consistent with yours, it's just yours is reprehensible. You can't handle the truth.



Oh look, aliens.

themadscientist wrote:Prohibition of using public office for personal gain is a bedrock component of ethics laws. It may be hard for you to see because you are out there in the mist trying to weigh breaches against your own formulae. That takes a lot of time, it isn't consistent and it's colored by your own personal prejudices.

My own formulae hasn't actually been described. My own formulae has been elaborated as nothing but "It isn't true that just because something doesn't break the rules that it is moral." Maybe I've been wrong to say this is deflection; maybe you truly are that dumb.

themadscientist wrote:Opening the door to hypotheticals because you can't justify your skewed logic with demonstrable facts is transparent.

I don't understand. What's so hard about this. You established a categorical rule. You should be able to apply it categorically. If it becomes legal to kill gays for being gay, would it be wrong to do so? If you truly believe what you wrote, the answer is "Yes." The fact that you have done all this work to avoid answering the question pretty much tells anybody what they'd need to know about you: you're a Paulbot, and a proud one at that. You constructed an excuse for your God-on-earth, and you went a bit too far, and now are struggling to figure out how to weasel out of it.

themadscientist wrote:Try again. Better yet, let's take that issue and flip it around using a real, factual situation.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/18/nyreg ... all&src=pm

In court, Mr. Doyle testified that he and two friends, Erik Brown, 21, and Esat Bici, 20, had gone out after drinking heavily at a party at his house, armed with a knife, a claw-hammer, a wrench and a beer bottle, hunting for "a drug dealer or a drug addict or a h0m0 out cruising" to ambush. They found Mr. Rivera.

Mr. Doyle, who said he instigated the attack, was originally charged with second-degree murder, but was permitted to plead guilty to the lesser crime of manslaughter in return for testifying against his friends. At their trial, the 6-foot 5-inch Mr. Doyle stated in a flat monotone that after the party wound down, he had told Mr. Bici, "I would like to beat some people up, stretch some people out." He added that he had fatally stabbed Mr. Rivera "because he was gay."

This guy thought that his opinion was over and above the laws and he killed a guy, because he was gay. Good luck getting supporters for that idea.

Good luck showing that I've advocated that idea. We can get to that debate as soon as you tell me: If a thing is only "truly wrong" when it violates a rule, would it be "truly wrong" to kill gays if the law said you could? It's not a difficult question. I've given you the answer.

themadscientist wrote:Moving on...

That's basically what you've been doing the whole thread, because you're wrong and you know it.

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:So then you agree with me: Ron Paul can't hide behind the rules, in this situation the fruit of a poisoned tree. You see, he's operating under the rules established by the Republican National Committee, a political organization formed within the boundaries of the laws of the United States.

He is not "hiding" behind anything, that's your slant and there is no poison in it.

You're right. That's my mistake: you're hiding him behind the rules, because that's why he's not "truly wrong."

themadscientist wrote:The rules were established at the outset of the contest and he has adhered to then, done and done. The RNC now seeks to change the rules in mid-process, there is your poison injection. Where do you get to do that? Can we decide that two outs end a team's at bat in the second inning because we don't like the Yankees? Can the winning three point shot be reversed by a last minute rule change that the three point line is now six feet further out? You sign a contract to deliver 10 widgets by wednesday and you do and the customer lines out the entry and pen changes it to 20? No, your little exercise in contrarianism is just that, fluff, potentially entertainment. it's not reasonable, it's not workable, it's not sustainable and in the end it consumes itself.

I agree completely. The RNC is in the wrong. But you're still stuck in this situation where you say, "Because he adhered to the rules, he wasn't wrong." So tell me: if it's made legal to kill gays, would it be wrong to do so? As soon as you answer this question, I'll be happy to debate the merits of Ron Paul's actions. We can talk about whatever you want, but I need you to be a grown up for a little bit, first.

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:Tell me, how'd that government get started?

So you are ready to take up arms and overthrow your elected government now?

Really cute, but that's not what I wrote. On the other hand, you wrote: "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." Tell me, if it were made legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?

themadscientist wrote:Your attempt to draw a parallel between the English monarchy and and our republic, with all its foiables, is specious. If you are ready to do that, I'm sure there are a few cammied up rednecks in the woods of Montana who would glad to add you to their "malitia." With youin's booklerning you make "do whatever you want to do cuz you are righter" sound more su-fist-ikated.

I understand how difficult this is for you, but let me reiterate the exchange:

IBCoupe wrote:I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.

Then you wrote:

themadscientist wrote:It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.

Then I pointed out our country was founded by violent revolution. I said nothing about the English monarchy - no parallels were drawn. I'm just trying to get a handle on this superior worldview you've developed that seems to have so much trouble being applied consistently.

The real problem is that you're a libertarian, a group consisting mostly of people who never advanced mentally or emotionally beyond age 17. It's not your fault your opinions make you look like an idiot.

themadscientist wrote:Next.

How about you actually respond to anything in a substantive way? Eventually, you're going to run out of straw if you keep hopping from argument to argument like this.

themadscientist wrote:But you would. Your opinion requires just that. That's the problem with it. Once you start, where do you stop?

I don't believe my opinion requires anything of the sort, and I'll be happy to discuss that once you tell me whether it would be wrong to kill gays in the event that it ceases to be against the law. In the meantime:

themadscientist wrote:You can flirt with these little daliances to your heart's content, but you are trying to comparing dissimilar situations and arguing to extremes to inject emotion into this and justify the subversion of of a legitimate process.

You wrote, "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." I'm not arguing any extremes - you have made a categorical statement. That's the extreme.

themadscientist wrote:Again, darnit those pasky exhibits underminingg your Tom Cruise moment, I have demonstrated my consistency in regards to this issue, and to be fair, you are consistent with yours, it's just yours is reprehensible. You can't handle the truth.

You can demonstrate your consistency in one word, by answering a simple question: if it were legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?

IBCoupe wrote:My own formulae hasn't actually been described. My own formulae has been elaborated as nothing but "It isn't true that just because something doesn't break the rules that it is moral." Maybe I've been wrong to say this is deflection; maybe you truly are that dumb.

Morals are subjective, as you have demonstrated. I don't think you're dumb, just unwilling to cop to your partisanship because that would undermine your perception of ability to decide what is and is not "moral." I don't trust your judgment that much.

IBCoupe wrote:I don't understand. What's so hard about this. You established a categorical rule. You should be able to apply it categorically. If it becomes legal to kill gays for being gay, would it be wrong to do so? If you truly believe what you wrote, the answer is "Yes." The fact that you have done all this work to avoid answering the question pretty much tells anybody what they'd need to know about you: you're a Paulbot, and a proud one at that. You constructed an excuse for your God-on-earth, and you went a bit too far, and now are struggling to figure out how to weasel out of it.

My argument is for the stability of the process, a fact you continue to ignore because you need to again bend reality to your opinion, a baseless opinion.

IBCoupe wrote:Good luck showing that I've advocated that idea. We can get to that debate as soon as you tell me: If a thing is only "truly wrong" when it violates a rule, would it be "truly wrong" to kill gays if the law said you could? It's not a difficult question. I've given you the answer.

Show the law that is in place to do that. You only have hypotheticals. You argue for discarding the rules, I gave you a concrete example of that. It's your idea, you bear responsability to explain that away. Good luck.

IBCoupe wrote:That's basically what you've been doing the whole thread, because you're wrong and you know it.

That's your assertion and one, like the preponderance of your other ones, you can't prove.

IBCoupe wrote:You're right. That's my mistake: you're hiding him behind the rules, because that's why he's not "truly wrong..

So you changed your mind then. I'll have to notify Mr. Paul so he can remit me for reminding you what the rules were and that he's operating within them. As you continue to mischaracterize me, let me help you again. He's not wrong any which way, "truly," "just," or "slightly" based on what has been presented here. If there is concrete eveidence ballots were tampered with or something otherwise definitive I will be the first to cry foul and not because I had a selfish emotional stake in it like you require to make moral decisions. I think you are doing a good job representing your views, you don't need to try and elicit my endorsement.

IBCoupe wrote:I agree completely. The RNC is in the wrong. But you're still stuck in this situation where you say, "Because he adhered to the rules, he wasn't wrong." So tell me: if it's made legal to kill gays, would it be wrong to do so? As soon as you answer this question, I'll be happy to debate the merits of Ron Paul's actions. We can talk about whatever you want, but I need you to be a grown up for a little bit, first.?

As soon as it's made a law we can discuss it. It's just a device at the moment and you need to use it because you can't support your view without it. Again, he didn't do anything wrong from a moral or legal aspect. That is YOUR opinion. You don't get past step one to even tackle step two so the whole line that you are trying to take is stuck in the gate.

IBCoupe wrote:Really cute, but that's not what I wrote. On the other hand, you wrote: "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." Tell me, if it were made legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?

Thank you. I've been told I have a boyish charm. Hypothetical question is hypothetical and useless.

IBCoupe wrote:I understand how difficult this is for you, but let me reiterate the exchange:

IBCoupe wrote:I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.

Then you wrote:

themadscientist wrote:It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.

IBCoupe wrote:Then I pointed out our country was founded by violent revolution. I said nothing about the English monarchy - no parallels were drawn. I'm just trying to get a handle on this superior worldview you've developed that seems to have so much trouble being applied consistently.

See the forest for the trees. Your desire to wrap yourself in the cloak of the American revolution, nice try by the way, requires the context of the illegitimate laws that were being rebelled against. England was ruled by a king, not freely elected by the people, not answerable to them in any way with no established systemic method to redress greivances. It is disimilar to what we are talking about on that fundamental level and thus apples and oranges.

IBCoupe wrote:The real problem is that you're a libertarian, a group consisting mostly of people who never advanced mentally or emotionally beyond age 17. It's not your fault your opinions make you look like an idiot.

Nice sweeping generalization. Of course we can look to all other schools of thought as devoid of kooks. Oh, I don't know, that women's bodies have secret defenses against rape for example. that must be taught in the 12th grade. More of that partisanship oozing out buddy, you might want to get a tissue.

IBCoupe wrote:How about you actually respond to anything in a substantive way? Eventually, you're going to run out of straw if you keep hopping from argument to argument like this.

Your gay strawmen are offended. Your maligned Nazi strawmen are hurt. Enough substance for you.

themadscientist wrote:But you would. Your opinion requires just that. That's the problem with it. Once you start, where do you stop?

IBCoupe wrote:I don't believe my opinion requires anything of the sort, and I'll be happy to discuss that once you tell me whether it would be wrong to kill gays in the event that it ceases to be against the law. In the meantime:..

I beleive you beleive that, but again, that's just your opinion and it is demonstrably suspect. You freely admit that the RNC is wrong, but in the same breath dismiss it as acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

IBCoupe wrote:You wrote, "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." I'm not arguing any extremes - you have made a categorical statement. That's the extreme.

And he didn't violate a rule. A rule is not an extreme, it's a defined barrier and he did not cross it. You're done.

IBCoupe wrote:You can demonstrate your consistency in one word, by answering a simple question: if it were legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?

It isn't so it's a rediculous question. A hypothetical extreme. What do you care, the law is subjective to you anyway. If aliens landed would you eat jello? ANSWER NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT! to somebody who is trying to force someone to eat jello.

Wow, now they pipeline from suppressing a candidate in their own party to suppressing candidates in other parties.
http://www.examiner.com/article/republi ... n_ref_map=[]

Jay Kramer, a Mitt Romney campaign supporter from Washington, D.C., filed a challenge on Friday to keep Libertarian candidate for President, Gov. Gary Johnson, from appearing on the Iowa ballot in November. The Romney campaign hired the Des Moines-based Nyemaster Goode PC for the challenge, which will be heard by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz on Monday at 3 p.m. "This is clearly a setup," said the Johnson campaign's attorney, Alicia Dearn. "The Libertarian Party had 2,000 petition signatures and should have been on the ballot without challenge, as they have always done in the past. But Republican Iowa Secretary of State Schultz — in violation of longstanding Iowa law — rejected the petition and required the Johnson campaign to caucus at the state fair. There, the Romney campaign surveilled the Johnson campaign's activities for the sole purpose of bringing this eleventh-hour challenge," Dearn said.

And again the rules are discarded for political purposes. They must think Romney is as weak of a candidate as everyone else does. The tailspin picks up speed and the ground is getting closer and they have nobody to blame, but themselves.

And more.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texa ... 37647.html

TAMPA--On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texan delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican party's rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

"Our delegates are in shock that such an amendment even would be presented before the Rules Committee much less passed into rule," Fredricks said. "Please know from the Texas delegation standpoint that the only way a floor fight can be avoided is for this rule to be stricken."

At that point, the entire Texas delegation stood up and applauded.

Texans don't necessarily want to have an ugly floor fight on the same day the party officially nominates Mitt Romney. But they're willing to do it if their concerns about the rule aren't satisfied. The changes, which Mitt Romney's top lawyer put forward last week and Gov. Haley Barbour along with some other Romney supporters have embraced, are seen by opponents as intended to significantly weaken the power of grassroots politics and insurgent candidates such as Ron Paul. Many against the move worry that it would give national candidates the power to replace delegates--often grassroots party faithfuls--with big-time donors or friends.

The effort to squeeze out dissenting opinion in the party would be shocking if not for the steady build up to this point. This is merely the next step. proponents of this behavior will attempt to justify it because of who it is aimed at, but as the Texas delegation has astutely recognized, this is a power grab to push national control over state delegations. That is not how the system was set up and if our country is any indication that is not how it should be done. He disagrees. Do you trust him?

So, Romney doesn't know about this? It's his legal team that's doing it! That makes him at worst, a liar, at best incompetent. THAT is who the Republicans want you to vote for this year and they are determined to make sure you have no choice.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llg-a8Fa ... re=youtube[/youtube]

Somewhere Obama is saying "dam, that's f*** up!"

Remember a few months or so back, they unveiled the technology that allowed for a Tupac concert? Using hologram technology? Damn what I wouldn't give to see a Reagan hologram presentation at the RNC this year!

What with him facepalming what the party has become?

And fix comes to fruition.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/au ... added-rnc/

TAMPA, Fla. — Despite a determined and frenzied effort, delegates making a last ditch push to put Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s name on the presidential nominating ballot fell just short of the eight states they needed to make it happen.

Paul supporters, lead by Nevada delegate Wayne Terhune, succeeded in putting together petitions from six states to put Paul’s name up for nomination. But earlier this week, the Romney campaign won a critical rules change requiring eight states to put a candidate up for nomination.

At the last moment, Paul supporters handed the petitions to the convention secretary. Then, the convention voted to adopt the eight-state rule, crushing the Paul effort.

“They said to us, you have no voice,” Paul delegate Cindy Lake of Las Vegas said. “Tea Party, you have no voice. Liberty movement, you have no voice.”

With more than 1,500 Romney delegates on the floor, it was always unlikely Paul would win the rules fight.

"It's a very slim window... but we are in the game," Terhune said earlier in the day.

Other than Nevada, states submitting Paul's name for nomination are Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Alaska and the Virgin Islands.

He was not even allowed to speak. He would not agree to endorse Romney which was the caveat.
http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-romney-rnc-671/

As 77-year-old Ron Paul retires and brings his campaign to an end, he is refusing an opportunity to speak at the Republican National Convention to avoid endorsing Mitt Romney.

themadscientist wrote:What with him facepalming what the party has become?

Precisely

More damming evidence. delegations were sabotaged so they couldn't participate in the vote. The vote was done by voice with that pillar of fair play John Boener deciding he heard more "aye"s.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... nt-page-1/

Meanwhile, some committee members suggested meddling was at play. A bus full of Virginia delegates arrived at the committee meeting - after it had adjourned.

"The bus that was supposed to pick up the Virginia delegation arrived an hour later than it was supposed to," explained Virginia delegate Morton Blackwell, a prime opponent of Rule 16.

Blackwell continued: "And then when we went downtown, we went around the same series of blocks repeatedly – twice. And then the bus took out away from downtown, went about a mile and a half, and then did a u-turn and came back. And did another circuit, of the same place where we had been before. And at that point, the Virginia delegates demanded, 'Stop the bus. And we're going to walk.' And we did."

Mike Rothfeld, a Virginia delegate also on the bus, went further.

"They pushed us around for 45 minutes and then we missed the meeting," Rothfeld said.

"We were in the security perimeter, they pushed us out of it three separate times. They moved us around until the meeting was adjourned."

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:Good luck showing that I've advocated that idea. We can get to that debate as soon as you tell me: If a thing is only "truly wrong" when it violates a rule, would it be "truly wrong" to kill gays if the law said you could? It's not a difficult question. I've given you the answer.

Show the law that is in place to do that. You only have hypotheticals. You argue for discarding the rules, I gave you a concrete example of that. It's your idea, you bear responsability to explain that away. Good luck.

No. You shouldn't need a real law to answer a question about your categorical statement. Any hypothetical would do. Would it be wrong to kill gays in the event that its legality ceases to be in doubt?

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:I agree completely. The RNC is in the wrong. But you're still stuck in this situation where you say, "Because he adhered to the rules, he wasn't wrong." So tell me: if it's made legal to kill gays, would it be wrong to do so? As soon as you answer this question, I'll be happy to debate the merits of Ron Paul's actions. We can talk about whatever you want, but I need you to be a grown up for a little bit, first.?

As soon as it's made a law we can discuss it. It's just a device at the moment and you need to use it because you can't support your view without it. Again, he didn't do anything wrong from a moral or legal aspect. That is YOUR opinion. You don't get past step one to even tackle step two so the whole line that you are trying to take is stuck in the gate.

You made a categorical statement. Whether there's such a terrible law somewhere isn't something I'm going to look up - your moral code allows for it. That's what it means when you say, "If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule."

themadscientist wrote:See the forest for the trees. Your desire to wrap yourself in the cloak of the American revolution, nice try by the way, requires the context of the illegitimate laws that were being rebelled against. England was ruled by a king, not freely elected by the people, not answerable to them in any way with no established systemic method to redress greivances. It is disimilar to what we are talking about on that fundamental level and thus apples and oranges.

I love it. The only legitimate rules are those enforced by a liberal society. Tell me about the U.S.S.R. - that's a government derived from the overthrow of monarchs and established by popular will; how were they illegitimate?

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:The real problem is that you're a libertarian, a group consisting mostly of people who never advanced mentally or emotionally beyond age 17. It's not your fault your opinions make you look like an idiot.

Nice sweeping generalization. Of course we can look to all other schools of thought as devoid of kooks. Oh, I don't know, that women's bodies have secret defenses against rape for example. that must be taught in the 12th grade. More of that partisanship oozing out buddy, you might want to get a tissue.

I don't understand; was that supposed to somehow rebuke the notion that libertarianism is a childish ideology? Because I don't think the mechanism's there in what you wrote.

themadscientist wrote:I beleive you beleive that, but again, that's just your opinion and it is demonstrably suspect. You freely admit that the RNC is wrong, but in the same breath dismiss it as acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

No, I dismiss it as not being something I care about, because it only affects someone who brought it on themselves. Watch me have it both ways. I think speeding on the highway is wrong, and I still don't care all that much that it happens. I also derive a fair amount of pleasure from watching skateboarders hurt themselves on YouTube, but I'm not about to advocate that we go out and beat them up in advance. f*** priorities, how do they work?

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:You wrote, "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." I'm not arguing any extremes - you have made a categorical statement. That's the extreme.

And he didn't violate a rule. A rule is not an extreme, it's a defined barrier and he did not cross it. You're done.

I didn't say the rule is extreme. I said your categorical statement was extreme. Are you drunk when you write this stuff?

themadscientist wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:You can demonstrate your consistency in one word, by answering a simple question: if it were legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?

It isn't so it's a rediculous question. A hypothetical extreme. What do you care, the law is subjective to you anyway. If aliens landed would you eat jello? ANSWER NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT! to somebody who is trying to force someone to eat jello.

I'm not a huge fan of jello, regardless of the presence of aliens. Look at that! I just responded to your hypothetical that had no literal basis in anything I actually wrote. Meanwhile, you have said: "If X is true, Y cannot be true," where X="rule remains unbroken" and Y="something wrong has happened." Challenged in a pretty straightforward application of that formula (that you invented), you've done nothing but deflect and whine.

themadscientist wrote:Wow, now they pipeline from suppressing a candidate in their own party to suppressing candidates in other parties.
http://www.examiner.com/article/republi ... n_ref_map=[]

Jay Kramer, a Mitt Romney campaign supporter from Washington, D.C., filed a challenge on Friday to keep Libertarian candidate for President, Gov. Gary Johnson, from appearing on the Iowa ballot in November. The Romney campaign hired the Des Moines-based Nyemaster Goode PC for the challenge, which will be heard by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz on Monday at 3 p.m. "This is clearly a setup," said the Johnson campaign's attorney, Alicia Dearn. "The Libertarian Party had 2,000 petition signatures and should have been on the ballot without challenge, as they have always done in the past. But Republican Iowa Secretary of State Schultz — in violation of longstanding Iowa law — rejected the petition and required the Johnson campaign to caucus at the state fair. There, the Romney campaign surveilled the Johnson campaign's activities for the sole purpose of bringing this eleventh-hour challenge," Dearn said.

And again the rules are discarded for political purposes. They must think Romney is as weak of a candidate as everyone else does. The tailspin picks up speed and the ground is getting closer and they have nobody to blame, but themselves.

See? Now that I think is a legitimately f*** up thing to do. Gary Johnson's a decent guy from what I've seen, and I see no activity by him that should have earned him the ire of the RNC. And I don't have a dog in that fight, either.

Johnson has committed the same sin, though. he is trying to "steal votes' from the Republicans. I like that presumption and I really think is most often a GOP statement, that any segment of the voting public belongs to them rather than being a concurrence they must instead earn. Sure the Democrats feel entitled to some voters, but they are less bald-faced about it. Now that they have excised Ron Paul they will turn to undermining Gary Johnson. The tactics will be exactly the same. Luckily so will the results. If they think the people that walked out on that convention are coming back in November because they hold up a picture of Obama and say BOO! they are in for a surprise. They have disenfrinchised a large chunk of the base and they are about to do it to independent voters in the general by showing their a** aagin. I wish them all they deserve.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koe ... 38617.html

themadscientist wrote:Johnson has committed the same sin, though. he is trying to "steal votes' from the Republicans.

That wasn't Paul's sin.

He refused to give up when told to lay down. Same thing. They want Johnson to get out of the way of Romney's coronation. Their disappointment in November will be enjoyable, the four more years of Obama will not.

How rigged was the vote? So rigged it was teleprompted.

Skip to 1.40 to watch the "vote."
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77W5OKStO5s[/youtube]

TMS, are you starting to understand why I consistently rail against partisan politics? Political parties are the strongest form of political venom in our day. We've created a system where issues no longer matter, its a Team A versus Team B competition, with a few minor league wildcard teams thrown in. Its impossible to know where someone actually stands on an issue because every single one of them draws their platform on an etch-a-sketch.

And I have a question regarding delegations. So are the entire electoral college delegations at these conventions, or just the primary party delegations? I think its the latter, and that seems to be a problem to me. We need to have a convention of sorts after both party's conventions where the entire delegation can be addressed by all candidates on the the general ticket. The republican delegates hear all the republican pontification, and the democrat delegation hears all the democrat pontification, but when do the delegates get exposure to the opposition, at the debates? Are delegates at the debates? And do delegates even understand anymore that they are free to make their own decision, that they dont have to dance with the person they came with? I still disagree that we should even be voting for president, the popular vote is such a distraction from the actual process, and its creates a false sense of binding in the delegates.

I've never been a party guy. I'm not registered with any party nor would I easily enter into official association with one. Even though I am strongly Libertarian I won't even register as that. I will vote for the person I think has the best answers for our country. If, in 2016, that person is a Democrat, so be it. A Republican, fine. A Libertarian, definitely. Green party, or some guy named Bob who manages to get himself on the ballot and has the right credentials, demonstrated experience and character and plan, it's done. I've railed against the two-party system my entire life. It's a scam and every year it gets bolder, more naked and shameless and every year i think we get a little closer to the American electorate waking up.

Ah, but they are not really free as we have seen. They are supposed to be able to vote their feelings, but the mechanism is now in place since the rules change this go around so that if there is a president Romney he can strip delegates and replace those duly elected delegates with those he wants. Nice, huh?