Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

You don't really believe that not voting is non-passive, do you?

But I guess you do, since that's what you said.

 

You continue to beat your strawman...

 

But back to my questions:

So, why don't you explain how it is that voting is not a passive act? And explain how it would be more effective than voting. And then explain to me in what way it would be a first step toward a more equal society.

 

And you continue to pretend that my questions pertaining to what you've posted don't exist, or simply shouldn't have been asked. I don't get you. Do you?

 

See, here's how it works. You say something, and then I might or might not ask you about some statement you've made. In this case, I did opt to ask you to explain a few of your statements. If you find that to be too challenging, I will understand.

 

In closing, I would like to say that in light of the issue of Executive Orders, voting for someone who promises to end the theft and illegal wars is far more non-passive than not voting at all, which is what you recommended people do--er, not do.

 

Do you see how you created that straw man? I gave a suggestion for you and you turned it into, "Well, if you think you're going to get everyone to boycott the system...”

I never thought that I could "get everyone to boycott the system." What I did write was, "I don't have such grand aspirations" yet you continue to try to get me to defend a position I never asserted. Why discuss with a person like that?

 

That's funny, because I've just reposted everything you said, and then I asked you to explain them one at a time. And all you come back with is stalling tactics.

I can't force you to answer for things that you did say; you're going to have to volunteer.

But first, I would like to ask you something else concerning other things you did say. When you said that a successful voter boycott would send a strong message that "We the People" are united in protest of the crony capitalist system," what did you mean by "successful?" And exactly what would this strong message do to influence the crony capitalist system which, by definition, doesn't give a shit about what the people think?

 

You honestly don't remember writing this: 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. And do you remember me asking you how that could be a non-passive act?

 

I might vote for Paul. I dont like the raciest parts I've heard about in his newsletters. He says it wasnt him writing.
Can I write him in on the ballot? Paul wont be a actual choice unless he runs on the Libertarian ticket. It seems like the only two people your allowed to vote for are the Repub. and Dem nominee. I think I'll write him in if I can.

 

And do you remember saying this: "It would be a first step toward a more equal society." And do you remember me asking you how it would make society more equal?

 

Dialogue with you is futile.

 

I like some of what I hear from him, but I have a very tough time believing that he'd be able to carry much of it out.

Looking at it practically, it's excruciatingly difficult for someone who isn't the Democratic or Republican candidate to get elected president. I'm afraid we're stuck with Obama or Romney this time around.

 

Is there a consensus here that government has or should have a responsibility or duty to create a society where every individual is more or less equal to one another?

 

Cronyism will exist and be made use of wherever power exists. Capitalism will remain the economic system no matter what form of government is in place, and what we should be giving attention to is a "crony government system" where our government is made up of elected and appointed persons who take advantage of their assumed power to impose their agenda, Left or Right, without consent of the governed.

 

Outthere,

I think the problem here is that you don't understand what it is I'm talking about when I say "illegal financial intstitution." What do you think I'm referring to?

One man, I believe, can change that with a stroke of the pen. It's called an Executive Order. A voter boycott, however, would do nothing to change it.

 

Individual,

I agree. An imposed agenda is hardly consent of the governed. A crony government system is exactly the problem. What to do?

 

Outthere,

I don't think I'm out of line when I ask you to explain how sending a strong message to the people who demonstrate over and over again that they don't give a shit what "we the people" think is going to effect some kind of positive change.

 

I don't know if you're doing it on purpose but you continue to distort the context of our dialogue by extracting meaning that was not in the context. You then ask me to defend some out of context nonsense.

Let's see if you like it done to you:

What did you mean by 'you think Ron Paul is a super man…'
You realize supermen don't exist right?

 

I only wish there was an easy answer. Until voters begin to demand that the politicians they elect recognize as fact that their role is one which is subservient to the governed within the confines of the U.S. Constitution without re-interpretation other than what might occur through a lawful amendment process in which the governed give their consent, we will continue to be ruled by one of the two parties, Democrat or Republican, and those who finance their campaigns.