A Snippet From Paul Phillips

[strategy 4]

.

[Kaveros 0]

:D

[nutzbuster 7]

this is from a Q&A blog from paul phillips some years ago:From: Some GuyTo: paulp Subject: questionPaul, you've made it clear that you are ashamed ofAmerica. Why don't you move to France and keep JohnnyDepp company? You surely can afford to do so. Itseems puzzling to me that a millionaire who hatesAmerica still chooses to live here.paul's response:This email captures a particular stupidity that I can't quite understand: this idea that it's unpatriotic to criticize your government. THIS country, unlike most others, was founded by people who understood that government is merely a tool, not a god to whom we pledge unthinking allegiance, and it is a tool useful only for a very limited set of tasks. When your government is vastly overreaching its proper role, who is the patriot: the man who speaks his mind, or the man who says "love it or leave it, you pinko commie!"This isn't a sports team you're rooting for, some guy. I don't feel any obligation to wave a giant foam finger when my government is blowing it. That you do makes you much worse than useless.I listened to bruce sterling's speech from sxsw and he talked a lot about what it's like as an american living in serbia. He said, memorably, it's like watching the last reels of "gone with the wind" over here. And I know just what he means. He also said "the shame is almost too much to bear", and I know what he means about that too. But if I do have to leave the US it's going to be with enormous regret, because this country was founded on ideals that I believe in and for a time our government was the best the world had. That day is done. I have lost the ability to root for the home team because I do not believe our present government represents those ideals in any meaningful way, and I think we are likely headed for a disaster of our own making.Maybe I will move to france and get a duplex with johnny depp, or more likely I'll stick it out here and continue to be critical of the government when I feel it is warranted. Either way, I'm a citizen and a patriot, and you're just some dumb schmuck who listens to too much right-wing radio and who can't tell the difference between your country and your government of the moment.Sincerely, paulplinkya good portion of his scorn is heaped at the assault on civil liberties we've seen over the last seven years or so. it's sad, because it's abundantly clear that there's no pro-civil liberties vote in this upcoming election unless you're willing to take the third-party plunge.

How 'bout the Paul Phillips party?The guy's obviously a genius and seems to have all the answers.

[strategy 4]

How 'bout the Paul Phillips party?The guy's obviously a genius and seems to have all the answers.

let's hear some criticism. where's he wrong here?

[nutzbuster 7]

let's hear some criticism. where's he wrong here?

He is completely entitled to his opinion. The guy asking the question seems douchey enough and Paul's response was just one mans opinion, that's it.I will agree that America is becoming a faded image of what made it so great, say just 50 years ago....

[Kaveros 0]

He is completely entitled to his opinion. The guy asking the question seems douchey enough and Paul's response was just one mans opinion, that's it.I will agree that America is becoming a faded image of what made it so great, say just 50 years ago....

I think a lot of people will agree with you

[jmkiser 0]

That response by Paul Phillips is definitely at the heart of my Libertarian philosophies... maybe, third party isn't such a bad thing ;)But one party or another, the main point was the pride of patriot that would criticize its country. What others misunderstand is when they confuse criticism with "USA-bashing".A wonderful point, though, is that you can be a part of any political party and criticize our country's weaknesses with the intentions of desiring to see the USA be the best it can be.Democrats desire a more governmental and connected society where the little guy has access to what the big guy has. Republicans (well, some at least...) desire a less intrusive government to allow society to economically prosper at its fullest potential (but you guys are whack jobs socially it's not 1950 anymore!). Libertarians want a less intrusive government, especially, in social matters (example: drug war).Either way, we all have our legitimate criticisms from our own points of view and as long as we keep up the discussions and be as pro-active as we can, then I would call us much more patriotic then a crazed hippy idiot Oregon pussy or a machine gun-toting retard redneck from Mississippi.The left-wing rhetoric aside, Bill Maher feels the same way"We must stop bragging that we're the greatest country on Earth and start acting like it"

[strategy 4]

I will agree that America is becoming a faded image of what made it so great, say just 50 years ago....

this is the kind of stuff that our current patron saint set in motion decades ago. republican majorities across the board led to this. our boys in washington championed this legislation. on the other end of the spectrum, this man was vilified and that particular clip was edited out of all rebroadcasts on fox news.I just want to know where the outrage is.

[copernicus 0]

this is the kind of stuff that our current patron saint set in motion decades ago. republican majorities across the board led to this. our boys in washington championed this legislation. on the other end of the spectrum, this man was vilified and that particular clip was edited out of all rebroadcasts on fox news.I just want to know where the outrage is.

MY only outrage is that you seem to think there are only Republicans in the government for the last 20 years, that national debt is inherently bad, that FISA is bad, and that you dont realize that Ron Paul ascribes to an economic policy that has never succeeded in the history of the world.

[Mercury69 3]

I like Paul Philips based on his response

[strategy 4]

MY only outrage is that you seem to think there are only Republicans in the government for the last 20 years[1], that national debt is inherently bad[2], that FISA is bad[3], and that you dont realize that Ron Paul ascribes to an economic policy that has never succeeded in the history of the world.[4]

1. Never said this. My outrage stems from the fact that we (republicans) never made an issue out of any of the above. It's basic shit from what our platform has historically been, but it doesn't get any attention anymore.2. The national debt becomes a problem when you allow it to reach astronomical levels that will eventually force the government to print money or drastically raise taxes. see: all of the plain-as-day indications that a $60T bill will come due in the next few decades with medicare, social security, etc.3. FISA is bad. The telecoms were listening in on hubs that had zero international traffic, and now they're off the hook as if nothing untoward transpired. You can't fucking tell me you're for smaller government whilst supporting a massive shift in policy that allows our government to wiretap without warrant.4. I never defended ron paul's economic policy because it's retarded. he's wrong on a lot of things, but that clearly isn't the point here.

[Balloon guy 158]

Paul Phillips cherry picks an email he can easily refute, so what.That's how most of his rants emerge; he picks a straw man, pretends he's smart, and then quotes ultra left wing books that show how smart he is.At least the little I have read from Paul is like that. He failed too much from a cursury look to warrant any benefit of the doubt.Maybe we should try to listen to people that don't think dying their hair pink is cool?

[strategy 4]

Maybe we should try to listen to people that don't think dying their hair pink is cool?

let's not bring loismustdie into this...

[El Guapo 8]

let's not bring loismustdie into this...

Beat everyone else to it.Also, I liked Paul Phillips before he started talking about things other than poker and business.

[copernicus 0]

1. Never said this. My outrage stems from the fact that we (republicans) never made an issue out of any of the above. It's basic shit from what our platform has historically been, but it doesn't get any attention anymore. But its not true that republicans "never made an issue out of it" and you implied it was just a Republican problem. 2. The national debt becomes a problem when you allow it to reach astronomical levels that will eventually force the government to print money or drastically raise taxes. see: all of the plain-as-day indications that a $60T bill will come due in the next few decades with medicare, social security, etc. Money is never just "printed", and the first dollar of deficit causes the first dollar of debt. There is never a point where you "eventually force" anything. the national debt is nowhere near record levels...yet. Blowbama will fix that.3. FISA is bad. The telecoms were listening in on hubs that had zero international traffic, and now they're off the hook as if nothing untoward transpired. You can't ****ing tell me you're for smaller government whilst supporting a massive shift in policy that allows our government to wiretap without warrant. Yes, I can. "small" government has nothing to do with paranoid delusions about anti-terrorism doing anything to infringe on the rights of the innocent.4. I never defended ron paul's economic policy because it's retarded. he's wrong on a lot of things, but that clearly isn't the point here.My point is that you posted something about Ron Paul, who is more lunatic than retard.

[strategy 4]

Beat everyone else to it.Also, I liked Paul Phillips before he started talking about things other than poker and business.

I quit reading during his scrabble stint, but I welcome any new entries on my LJ friends page from him these days.

[copernicus 0]

Paul Phillips cherry picks an email he can easily refute, so what.That's how most of his rants emerge; he picks a straw man, pretends he's smart, and then quotes ultra left wing books that show how smart he is.At least the little I have read from Paul is like that. He failed too much from a cursury look to warrant any benefit of the doubt.Maybe we should try to listen to people that don't think dying their hair pink is cool?

He's a guy of average intelligence who lucked into a a startup that worked. His poker success is a result of being able to shotgun every major tournament until he established a name, and his rants are no more interesting than any other idiot with a computer who starts a "blog". I'll try and find a 4 debate between him and I. Assclown doesnt begin to describe him.

[strategy 4]

But its not true that republicans "never made an issue out of it" and you implied it was just a Republican problem.

The republicans have failed to address any of the above in any meaningful way in lieu of supporting a platform that pushes fear politics and shitty fiscal policy. you of all people should know this.

Money is never just "printed", and the first dollar of deficit causes the first dollar of debt. There is never a point where you "eventually force" anything. the national debt is nowhere near record levels...yet. Blowbama will fix that.

stop attempting to paint obama as a socialist and open your eyes to the fact that your party has essentially endorsed that same bullshit for the last eight years.

Yes, I can. "small" government has nothing to do with paranoid delusions about anti-terrorism doing anything to infringe on the rights of the innocent.

so you're deluded enough to think that you can rely on this power being used correctly in the future? did you not watch the youtube video I linked with the man who saw first-hand what unfettered, shitty policy can do to a perfectly innocent household?above and beyond that, government is NOT smaller if you EXPAND its influence over our lives. stop sidestepping the issue: republicans have done nothing but increase the scope and size of the government over the last eight years. this is wholly inconsistent with the rhetoric we hear from them on a daily basis. this is NOT acceptable.

My point is that you posted something about Ron Paul, who is more lunatic than retard.

he is looney on a bunch of issues, but he has the basics of what the republicans are supposed to stand for. the crowds in all of the debates seemed to love the guy. just don't ask him what he thinks about the gold standard, lol.

[copernicus 0]

The republicans have failed to address any of the above in any meaningful way in lieu of supporting a platform that pushes fear politics and shitty fiscal policy. you of all people should know this. And so have the Dems. Youre attempt to paint it as a GOP problem is what Im objecting to.stop attempting to paint obama as a socialist and open your eyes to the fact that your party has essentially endorsed that same bullshit for the last eight years. Not even close, and you know (or should know) it. Dont make me enumerate the differences which are substantial.so you're deluded enough to think that you can rely on this power being used correctly in the future? did you not watch the youtube video I linked with the man who saw first-hand what unfettered, shitty policy can do to a perfectly innocent household? Slippery slope arguments and exagerrated anecdotes? Fail. above and beyond that, government is NOT smaller if you EXPAND its influence over our lives. stop sidestepping the issue: republicans have done nothing but increase the scope and size of the government over the last eight years. this is wholly inconsistent with the rhetoric we hear from them on a daily basis. this is NOT acceptable. If you want to argue size I agree. If you want to argue scope, I think the expansions of scope (FISA, Patriot Act) were not only acceptable but critical to our survival.he is looney on a bunch of issues, but he has the basics of what the republicans are supposed to stand for. the crowds in all of the debates seemed to love the guy. just don't ask him what he thinks about the gold standard, lol. Or the Fed, or the IRS, or the war in Iraq, or "blowback" or isolationism or.....

[strategy 4]

ok, if we're going to continue to have this discussion, you need to learn how to use the quote feature.

[strategy 4]

And so have the Dems. Youre attempt to paint it as a GOP problem is what Im objecting to.

it's a GOP problem because no one from our side seems to object to it in any way but verbally on the campaign trail. I'm not asking you to change parties, I'm just asking you to open your eyes and hold them accountable for these shortcomings.

Not even close, and you know (or should know) it. Dont make me enumerate the differences which are substantial.

the end result is a bigger government with more influence over my life. I really don't care about the semantics, it's our party who put us in this position.

Slippery slope arguments and exagerrated anecdotes? Fail.

exaggerated anecdotes? no-knock police drug raids are fail. where's the outrage over this horrible, destructive policy?

If you want to argue size I agree. If you want to argue scope, I think the expansions of scope (FISA, Patriot Act) were not only acceptable but critical to our survival.

'our survival'? you honestly believe there is any chance at all that a fringe middle eastern terrorist organization could threaten the US in any way other than encouraging costly knee-jerk government regulation? come on now. the death toll on 9/11 was a fucking pittance compared to what will happen if our government is allowed to continue attacking civil liberties.

[copernicus 0]

the death toll on 9/11 was a ****ing pittance compared to what will happen if our government is allowed to continue attacking civil liberties.

horseshit like this is why I stopped responding to anything you write in detail.

[strategy 4]

horseshit like this is why I stopped responding to anything you write in detail.

I honestly worry about our future if you (and others in our party) do not see civil war as a possible result of the steps we are taking today in the name of terrorism prevention. our government was out of control for the last eight years w/r/t civil liberties, and turning a blind eye to it will not help the situation.

[copernicus 0]

I honestly worry about our future if you (and others in our party) do not see civil war as a possible result of the steps we are taking today in the name of terrorism prevention. our government was out of control for the last eight years w/r/t civil liberties, and turning a blind eye to it will not help the situation.

QED. Your paranoid fantasies have no value. The lives of our friends/colleagues/relatives who died on 9/11 and those who would die from terrorism without vigilance do.

[vbnautilus 48]

QED. Your paranoid fantasies have no value. The lives of our friends/colleagues/relatives who died on 9/11 and those who would die from terrorism without vigilance do.

There has to be a line somewhere. It's not paranoia to recognize that granting the government the right to invade privacy without warrant is a huge shift in power. Every organization wants power for itself. Don't you think the federal government is capable of using the terrorist justification to gain as much power as it can? Don't you think there should be some checks on that? Surely many of our friends and relatives who died on 9/11 would not want their deaths used a justification for a federal power grab?