LoweLeif
12-23-2007, 10:27 PM
As the originator of that thread I just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings.
1) I'm not a troll. The person who started this thread including my post is not a troll. It was a general concern that I believed needed attention, and if deemed a valid point, brought to the attention of the campaign. This sentiment was shared on the college facebook boards.
2) The man is 72 and does have a certain manner of talking. My intention was never to criticize his style. However, if he is asked how he is going to have a balanced budget without the income tax, he needs to not only say how i.e Ending U.S imperialism but he should at least present the figures honestly to show how it is feasible. Sure these figures can be disputed, however, being able to say $1 Trillion cut here in x years will allow us to slash such a tax by y%, sounds much better than...
"Our foreign policy costs $100's of billions of dollars... and I want to abolish the income tax". Getting rid of the IRS and the Income tax are very popular positions. However, the rebuke by those skeptical often is, "Is this practical/possible"? Therefore in order to win over those skeptical, we should at least have no problem citing our plan! : D
3) "... and at least appear well informed." This was an error on my part. I do not believe nor did I want to state that Ron Paul is uniformed. He is well informed. However, he needs to be able to present the fact that he is well informed. And IMO, it appears that he isn't when he doesn't cite figures (not that I subscribe to empirical validation, unfortunately the populace does thing that way to some extent). What's worse, is when we dig into the Income Tax debate, the campaign does not appear to have a credible explanation for how the budget would be balanced and the income tax a thing of the past. (If am in error, feel free to post a link to where the campaign does give a pragmatic explanation. As the originator of that thread I just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings.
1) I'm not a troll. The person who started this thread including my post is not a troll. It was a general concern that I believed needed attention, and if deemed a valid point, brought to the attention of the campaign. This sentiment was shared on the college facebook boards.
2) The man is 72 and does have a certain manner of talking. My intention was never to criticize his style. However, if he is asked how he is going to have a balanced budget without the income tax, he needs to not only say how i.e Ending U.S imperialism but he should at least present the figures honestly to show how it is feasible. Sure these figures can be disputed, however, being able to say $1 Trillion cut here in x years will allow us to slash such a tax by y%, sounds much better than...
"Our foreign policy costs $100's of billions of dollars... and I want to abolish the income tax". Getting rid of the IRS and the Income tax are very popular positions. However, the rebuke by those skeptical often is, "Is this practical/possible"? Therefore in order to win over those skeptical, we should at least have no problem citing our plan! : D
3) "... and at least appear well informed." This was an error on my part. I do not believe nor did I want to state that Ron Paul is uniformed. He is well informed. However, he needs to be able to present the fact that he is well informed. And IMO, it appears that he isn't when he doesn't cite figures (not that I subscribe to empirical validation, unfortunately the populace does thing that way to some extent). What's worse, is when we dig into the Income Tax debate, the campaign does not appear to have a credible explanation for how the budget would be balanced and the income tax a thing of the past. (If am in error, feel free to post a link to where the campaign does give a pragmatic explanation.
1) I'm not a troll. The person who started this thread including my post is not a troll. It was a general concern that I believed needed attention, and if deemed a valid point, brought to the attention of the campaign. This sentiment was shared on the college facebook boards.
2) The man is 72 and does have a certain manner of talking. My intention was never to criticize his style. However, if he is asked how he is going to have a balanced budget without the income tax, he needs to not only say how i.e Ending U.S imperialism but he should at least present the figures honestly to show how it is feasible. Sure these figures can be disputed, however, being able to say $1 Trillion cut here in x years will allow us to slash such a tax by y%, sounds much better than...
"Our foreign policy costs $100's of billions of dollars... and I want to abolish the income tax". Getting rid of the IRS and the Income tax are very popular positions. However, the rebuke by those skeptical often is, "Is this practical/possible"? Therefore in order to win over those skeptical, we should at least have no problem citing our plan! : D
3) "... and at least appear well informed." This was an error on my part. I do not believe nor did I want to state that Ron Paul is uniformed. He is well informed. However, he needs to be able to present the fact that he is well informed. And IMO, it appears that he isn't when he doesn't cite figures (not that I subscribe to empirical validation, unfortunately the populace does thing that way to some extent). What's worse, is when we dig into the Income Tax debate, the campaign does not appear to have a credible explanation for how the budget would be balanced and the income tax a thing of the past. (If am in error, feel free to post a link to where the campaign does give a pragmatic explanation. As the originator of that thread I just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings.
1) I'm not a troll. The person who started this thread including my post is not a troll. It was a general concern that I believed needed attention, and if deemed a valid point, brought to the attention of the campaign. This sentiment was shared on the college facebook boards.
2) The man is 72 and does have a certain manner of talking. My intention was never to criticize his style. However, if he is asked how he is going to have a balanced budget without the income tax, he needs to not only say how i.e Ending U.S imperialism but he should at least present the figures honestly to show how it is feasible. Sure these figures can be disputed, however, being able to say $1 Trillion cut here in x years will allow us to slash such a tax by y%, sounds much better than...
"Our foreign policy costs $100's of billions of dollars... and I want to abolish the income tax". Getting rid of the IRS and the Income tax are very popular positions. However, the rebuke by those skeptical often is, "Is this practical/possible"? Therefore in order to win over those skeptical, we should at least have no problem citing our plan! : D
3) "... and at least appear well informed." This was an error on my part. I do not believe nor did I want to state that Ron Paul is uniformed. He is well informed. However, he needs to be able to present the fact that he is well informed. And IMO, it appears that he isn't when he doesn't cite figures (not that I subscribe to empirical validation, unfortunately the populace does thing that way to some extent). What's worse, is when we dig into the Income Tax debate, the campaign does not appear to have a credible explanation for how the budget would be balanced and the income tax a thing of the past. (If am in error, feel free to post a link to where the campaign does give a pragmatic explanation.