The fight to take back money and again make it a commodity like any other in the market is the fight of our time. Publicly bashing the one 'fedgoon' who is on the right side of the issue seems like kicking yourself in the dick.

Never mind, I'm sure you barter or pay gold for everything, right? Great. Guess it's just too bad for the rest of us suckers who are still stuck on the plantation, right?

Again, technically you are correct, Charley. But what good are you doing with your stuck up libertine attitude toward Ron Paul?

I'm a disingenuous jerk? Maybe. Cultist? No, not so much. I'm just learning my way through this stuff bit by bit, and while I understand the wrong within what Ron Paul does, I don't see how he can advocate for liberty in the Congress if he doesn't at least make a living. He doesnt go on junkets, he doesn't take their health insurance or their pension. So basically you are philosophically bashing the man who is the best of a very very bad lot.

It must make you feel like a big big man Charley. I don't know why you even take the time to read my 'retard filth'. Obviously you would be better served by going in the bathroom and jerking it while you have a mental debate with Mises or something.

Cheers

“Obama’s better”, he says.

straw man. shocker.

Later

Besides I like fucking with you because you hate RP so much. "Obama's better", he says. LOL

You kill me dude

Anyway, I stuck this in here cuz Charley loves Ron Paul he told me so.

nobody was talking about ron paul. when i reply as you know i'm going to (because nothing has changed), you whine, "What is to be gained by attacking Ron Paul?"

don't fucking bring him up to me if you don't want an honest discussion, asshole. you're now going to write to me, seriously, that a career statist parasite isn't espousing salvation via the state? fuck off.

Charley. I get that you’re mad that Ron wound his campaign up with a surplus of money. I get it.

making shit up, your usual fallback routine.

deviates from principle even a little

more straw man tripe. three goddamned million 2008 dollars in plunder (i link once again, since obviously you never check to see WTF i'm referring to) is not "deviates from principle even a little". you're insane. and that's before RP's premise that the state is essential.

stop talking your retard filth addressed specifically to me. you're a disingenuous jerk and cultist. me? i live and support according to the ethics of liberty i espouse — something your idol cannot assert honestly, even if isolated to his campaign rhetoric. that, snot-nosed bastard, is a material win for liberty.

I hate evil bastards like Ron Paul who only agree with me on 99% of issues.

when the only issue is the non-aggression principle (as with ron paul), your numbers are reversed and off. takes a cultist to not notice this glaring detail.

salvation via the state? yes, or no. ron paul shouts, "yes".

Did you read Dr. Paul’s book, Charley? The whole thing is a rather stinging rebuke of statism.

you and most other paulists are apparently hopelessly confused regarding the definition of "statist", and it's laughable that you do the usual routine of paulist scrambling, calling him "Dr." for effect, in the same paragraph implying he isn't a statist. ron paul asserts that the state is a requirement for social interaction. << read that again. if reading again doesn't help, merely consider that he's made a career of being a state parasite. you, like lew rockwell, have a psycho double standard whereby the identical behavior criticized in others as parasitism becomes holy writ when emanating from the 2008$3M bandit of "peace".

"Dr." is an absurd coercive-guild title infused up the ass with statism. note the word "is", indicating present tense.

I don’t really consider my self a Paul worshipper or anything [...]

hold that thought.

[...] you can’t seem to get past the fact that he’s getting paid to be a Congressman.

said the paulbot who cannot accept rationally (i.e., objectively) that he's "getting paid to be a Congressman". sounds almost quaint when viewed through a socialistic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington brainwash fog, but more than a bit of a sticker when it's done by a fuck whose avowed principle is non-aggression. explain to me how that plunder's in line with the principle you espouse. name one other person on the earth, cultist, who's embraced over 2008$3M in plunder and gets such a pass.

This automatically makes him evil. Well I don’t buy it.

now back to you being a cultist. thievery is evil.

Charley, why don’t you attack somebody who is doing evil upon others right now, like that madman Obama?

the usual FK false dilemma horse shit from the very person who in this thread inserted ron paul into the discussion with the explicit assertion, "Anyway, I stuck this in here cuz Charley loves Ron Paul he told me so."

i didn't bring him up, you fucking disingenuous retard.

I don’t think your approach is helping. But if you think it is, feel free to elucidate

a stance that might rise above snot-nosedness were ron paul's "approach" helping on net, or were the pro-liberty aspect of his actions limited to those who embrace the state for decades. you and the other cultists assert/imply this, at the very time you notify the world that things are rapidly getting worse than ever and you ignore writers/speakers far superior to your plastic jesus. lemmings.

Only those who agree with me on 100% of issues, and are willing to change their minds when I do, are not evil.

What is to be gained by attacking Ron Paul? And don't give me the 'at least Obama is honest about tyranny' shit. I don't WANT to live in tyranny, I want out! I don't think your approach is helping. But if you think it is, feel free to elucidate