Presidential hopeful Ron Paul adds another key member to his team today. Paul announced his new economic adviser is Peter Schiff, operator of a security brokerage, Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. and author of a new book titled Crash Proof. Schiff is also co-author of another tome, The Great Income Tax Hoax.
Curiously, the Paul Campaign did not mention Peter Schiff co-authored that book with none other than the infamous Irwin Schiff, his father and current resident of a federal prison. Irwin Schiff is now serving out a thirteen and a half year term for tax fraud and an additional twelve months for contempt of court. The elder Schiff has long been a notorious advocate of refusing to pay taxes and has been sued for millions by citizens who followed his advice.
The Schiff family philosophy is not new to many Paul adherents and yet the addition of Peter Schiff as economic adviser adds a new and interesting dimension to this election cycle.
Not mentioned by the Paul campaign is that Mr. Schiff is the son of Irwin Schiff of Las Vegas, now serving his third federal prison sentence for tax crimes. He is also the author of such books as “The Federal Mafia,” which asserts that federal judges are paid off by the Internal Revenue Service, and other books describing the federal government as a criminal organization that illegally extracts income taxes.
Peter Schiff was the co-author of “the Great Income Tax Hoax.”The son, in interviews, has said he thinks his father is correct in asserting that there is no law to make most Americans liable for income taxes and so they can legally put zeroes on their tax returns. Peter Schiff, however, said that he pays his taxes.
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
66 Responses to “The Other Ear of Ron Paul”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Son;t have to say much to that, kinda speaks for itself. My statement from the OC stands–RP is subverting Conservatism just as Islamofascists subvert Islam
Saw where Wesley Snipes got off of his tax evasion charges - and he provided no defense witnesses.
It’s just Fiat money. I hate them cars any way!
I’m waiting for his endorsement from Count Chocula!
I think Franken Berry went for Obama!
Rastus didn’t he still get charged with a few things. He won a few, lost a few?
Just when you think the PaulBearers can’t get farther off the edge, they do it. Amazing.
Snipes guilty of three counts of tax evasion–non-delony–still could do time, but not much.
Ron WHO ?
You know what else I find curious? CNBC doesn’t run that his father is Irwin Schiff either when they have Peter on about twice a month for his unparalleled knowledge of global currency, commodity and equity markets …. hmmm….. It appears Paul is in cahoots with CNBC! It is also telling that they didn’t mention that his great uncle, Ebeneazor Schiff was a womanizing immigrant dock-worker who was known to bend the elbow more than is advisable. That damned Paul campaign is at it again! Fortunately we have the
Peden campaign cheerleaderdisinterested campaign observers to point out all of these clear attempts to pull the wool over the public’s eyes!You clearly have no firsthand knowledge of what Irwin Schiff actually believes as it pertains to the income tax. The dispute (in Schiff’s view) is that according to the definition provided in the operative parts of the IRS code that defines taxable income, wages earned from labor performed within the United States is not covered (IRS code 26 USC § 861(b), and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8).
While I don’t necessarily agree with Schiff-the-elder, I certainly follow the reasoning. In truth, I do agree with him that normal wages are never properly defined in the code as income, and as such, lack the legal foundation necessary to be enforced according to the letter of the law. But I am unwilling to leave my kids without a father at home simply because I believe I have the moral high ground. I’ll leave that to those like Irwin Schiff who are willing to risk their freedom to take a principled stand.
Yet a better stand to take (one I would take if I weren’t a net winner from the tax bonanza with all the mouths I have to feed) is refusing to sign your income tax return on the grounds that you cannot be required to provide testimony against yourself under the fifth amendment. The tax return specifically requires you to bear witness (by signature) that the information you are providing is accurate under penalty of perjury, specifically noting that your return and the included supporting documentation may be used against you in a criminal proceeding. There are people who employ this method, preparing the return but neglecting to sign, and enclosing a power of attorney authorization giving the reviewing agent the ability to sign the return in their stead. To date, I do not know of a single agent who has availed themselves of the offer, or a single prospective taxpayer who was charged in a criminal proceeding.
In the final analysis, just what in hell does it have to do with Ron Paul’s campaign? Not a damned thing to an intellectually honest reader with the capacity for thinking beyond bumper sticker slogans. I’m guessing that you all see that now.
I’m with MTR. Why would anyone assume that someone convicted of Anything is necessarily not correct in their interpretation of the law. I’ve heard of tax court rulings esentially saying: “everyone knows that income tax is voluntary”; that in answer to the plea that a person ’supposedly’ has the right to NOT incriminate himself by signing an oath which by signing ‘could produce charges of perjury. Irwin schiff, may be guilty of bad judgment re: his followers. But thank God Someone will stand up tot the government.
mty: What it has to do is that Dr. Paul continues to associate with anyone or any organization that buys into his philosophy, whether Shiff or Nazis; Troofers or you. We all realize how so very intelligent and learned that all of you Ronulans are, and as well, the disdane in which those of us which cannot come to the crazy uncle with our hands upraised in supplication to save us from the Evil Empire of the United States. Please reside in piece during your time here at LST–then get the hell out and find some other site to spread your crazy–in the words of Jack Nicholson,”’cause wer’e all full up here.”
Thanks and be well, if that’s possible.
Wow, Kent. I’m impressed that you fit so much ignorance into so few words, and still managed to do nothing but call me names.
If you aren’t already, you should be proud. “Persuasive” doesn’t do justice to your finely crafted repartee.
Thanx mty. G’nie now. You can go away to where ever it is y’all hole up during the day light.
Let me just leave you with a repeat:
RP is subverting Conservatism just as Islamofascists subvert Islam
Bovine processed hay Kent. And you know it.
mty
I don’t really care about your tax code tutorial. Frankly, it is irrelevant here. The object of my posting this thread was to point out the Paul campaign’s utter obliviousness to customary expectations in political behavior. That is not unexpected, but it is entertaining nonetheless.
You are, though, a dedicated and stalwart pedant, thoroughly qualified to be a Paul supporter from now unto eternity. You have qualified for the lifetime RP membership in this life and the next.
Alright…. can I play word games too?
KentBook is subverting intelligence just as KentBook’s posts subvert coherency.
That is fun! I see now why you like to play it. So now that I said it…. is it true?
“Customary expectations in political behavior” have resulted in a litany of hideously limited choices presented by a power structure whose last concern is representing the people.
Many jailed tax protesters have harmed no one, and in some ways do us a all a favor. Of course, if your a big government nanny stater you might frown on such civil disobedience.
#17 bob42
My definition of customary expectations is elastic and flexible, but doesn’t stretch near far enough too include reprehensible moonbats like Philip Garibaldi. It almost stretches out there to include Peter.
Texpat says:
When confronted with those ’stubborn facts’ (thanks, Mitt), most people who are wrong have that reaction. It’s natural, and if you’re lucky, it will pass.
Yes…. what is missing in government today is the pandering to customary expectations. If we could only get more politicians to behave like we ‘customarily expect’, we could really start to get this country on the right track. A pox on the people who think it might be high time we try a different way of looking at the world. Consider your object obtained - I LOVE big brother! Can we move right to the part where we bomb towelheads? Please!!!!
Derisive ad hominem. Thank you very much. I’m collecting them like badges of honor these days.
mty
You slaughtered a whole bunch of pixels to say nothing. Save the pixels!
#19 mty
You are very welcome.
Wasn’t RP a OBGYN kinda doc? Heard a radio spot mentioning he’s delivered 4 thousand babies.
Soon as I hear that, a line from “Revenge of the Nerds” popped into my noggin. Sorority girl phoning her jock boyfriend after nerds conducted a panty raid… “Some nerd saw me naked!”
#20
Sticks…… stones….. bleh….
23
There you go. Short and sweet.
Some of us neocons ain’t got no learnin’. We ain’t nuanced enuff ta be a readin all them faincey words about that Ron Popiel feller….
Ahhh, mty eloquently crawls back up on the cross…
Hey TexPat. I don’t think your comments to MTY were equitable. We, many of us, have sat through your very knowledgable and literally exhaustive historical letters. We appreciate the education being given therein. Nevertheless, most of us have world-views and working models in our own brains that can be beneficial to the cause of FREEDOM from tyranny. Though many of us do NOT have the level of historical detail at our disposal that you are blessed to have, each of us have our own perspective from, if you will, our seat in the stadium of life. I hope that this site continues to allow divergence of thought and opinion.
I believe the Mty’s article was informative, relevant and thought provoking. Surely the reasons Mr. Schiff made his stand are MOST relevant. What his relative does is HIS business. I would have though that guilt by association was beneath a scholar such as yourself. AS was pointed out, Peter Schiff does have some level of accepted financial cedibility. Indeed, I feel we should be grateful and accepting of the insight into the tax code proffered here tonight.
#24 Faster, you’re making us sound like idiots. Enuff is the one with the silent ‘g’…
#24….
If you’d like to take some kind of intelligible position, I’d be happy to give you a thrashing.
Posting pictures of fiats and ’saying I slaughtered pixels’ conveys nothing of substance - It’s just typing cause you like the sound it makes.
I dare you to say something on the subject at hand that attempts to add some substance. Remember….. no car pictures…..
#26 pimlico
Your compliments exceed anything I have done here, however I’ll try to live up to them in the future.
Please notice I made no derogatory statements about Peter Schiff in my piece and acknowledge his positions without criticism in my comment #18 as in, “It almost stretches out there to include Peter”.
I understand the anti Ron Paul thing to a certain point. Surely he’s not entirely wrong vis a vis foreign policy. I do believe that we should recognize that sometimes Governments do things (abroad)that the people: don’t know about; Wouldn’t approve of; that favor special connections; that interfere unnecessarily with with foreign Countries for undue influence etc.; for good reson; to defend the country. Does that make ME a kook. I don’t get where RP is. I do think we should be careful to protect the ‘Baby’ from the drain hole, whilst draining the the Ron Paul dirty water.
#29 I worry that the thrashing given to Ron Paul will be the same for He who might be more of a clear cut Constitutionalist. What I see is ‘piling on’ to the Nth degree; name calling a la frenzy and intolerance at an intolerable level.
pimlico - every single contributor here has acknowledged the worth of many of Paul’s positions. For instance, getting rid of earmarks (although he happily requests them after he votes against the bill they’re attached to), congressional term limits (although he’s been in Congress for 20 years), eliminating the IRS (although in his 20 years he’s never been able to pass any substantive legislation) are all noble positions. It’s the package they’re wrapped in that I have a problem with.
#32
What a great opportunity to point out a logical weakness recurrent in our discussions…..
FALLACY: Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”
It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (”reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”
Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
1. “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
2. “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
3. “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”
Tommy’s rockin’ and rollin’ tonight. Sweet dreams all.
#33 What in the hell are you prattling on about now?
mty
You are not a dumb guy, actually pretty bright, if I say so myself. However, the world is full of bright people who never get anywhere in convincing others of the rightness of their positions because they never seem to understand how to get along with folks who don’t immediately agree with everything they say. I am interested in your take on things, particularly concerning the international currency markets and commodities. But if you continue to insist your opinion is sacrosant, your political stance is unimpeachable, then, sadly, we’ll never be able to have a civil conversation.
And I really mean it this time - I’m off to get a few hours of sleep.
Night Tex. Thank you for the friendly words. My general impressions of you are similar.
I may come off as dismissive, but when I am assumed to be heretical, called out as a kook or otherwise challenged on a point where I am demonstrably correct, I usually pick up the gauntlet. You’ll note that I don’t generally deride other candidates or the positions of others until clearly unfair swipes are made at the candidate I support or the conservative principles I hold dear.
My opinion is not sacrosanct - they are as profane as the next man’s. Likewise, my political stance is not unimpeachable, but my job is to defend it, not impeach it.
When the salvo is ‘Ron Paul is such a slimebag kook, and is destroying conservatism’, what tact does one take? That’s not a position, or even an intelligible opinion. You either allow it to stand unchallenged, or call them out on their rationale so that you might offer a logical refutation. If some clown is spouting nonsense, I leave him to his skullduggery. If an otherwise reasonable person is trying to stop debate through derision and ridicule, I’m liable to chime in. I pick the battles I can win, but I’m not angling for the fight.
So if we stroke your ego you’ll play nice? Why heck, why didn’t you say so!
You just can’t walk away and lick your wounds, can you?
If it were Ron Paul or Hillary who would you choose?
I’m not sayin, I’m just sayin.
Smack, if I were Ron Paul or Hillary, I’d consider suicide.
Ronnettes remind me of the Black Knight….
Arthur: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight. [Pause] I am Arthur, King of the Britons. [Pause] I seek the finest and bravest knights to join me in my court at Camelot. [Pause] You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me? [Pause] You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy.
Black Knight: None shall pass.
Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass.
Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move… for no man.
Arthur: [Unsheathes his sword] So be it!
[rounds of melee ensue, with Arthur cutting off the left arm of the Black Knight.]
Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: ‘Tis but a scratch.
Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm’s off!
Black Knight: No, it isn’t.
Arthur: Well, what’s that, then? [Pointing to the knight's arm lying on the ground.]
Black Knight: I’ve had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on then, you pansy! [Charges at Arthur, who chops the knight's remaining arm off.]
Arthur: Victory is mine! [kneels and starts to pray...] We thank thee, Lord, that in thy — AAAH! [is kicked in the head by the armless knight.]
Black Knight: C’mon, then!
Arthur: What?!
Black Knight: Have at you! [Kicks Arthur]
Arthur: You are indeed brave, good Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard! You’ve got no arms left!
Black Knight: Yes, I have!
Arthur: Look!
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound. [Continues to kick and taunt Arthur]
Arthur: Look, stop that!
Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!
Arthur: Look, I’ll have your leg. [Receives a very sharp kick] RIGHT! [Chops off one of the Black Knight's legs]
Black Knight: Right! I’ll do you for that!
Arthur: You’ll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?!
Black Knight: I’m invincible! [Hopping on one leg towards Arthur and colliding with him head first]
Arthur: You’re a looney…
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! C’mon, then! [Hopping on one leg towards King Arthur]
[Arthur chops his other leg off, leaving his body upright on the ground.]
Black Knight: Alright, we’ll call it a draw.
Arthur: Come, Patsy!
Black Knight: Oh, oh I see. Running away, eh?! (Calling after them angrily) You yellow BASTARDS! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’LL BITE YOUR LEGS OFF!
Good thread stopper there, Big 45 Iron.
I would say that, when it comes to the destruction of conservatism, Dubya gets a front row seat. Here’s a phoney conservative whose whole presidency has been a loathsome lie. Here’s hoping that he moves to his ranch in Paraguay and rots there along with the rest of the Nazis!
Why are we wasting so much space and air talking about Ron Paul? He should do his best John Edwards immitation and just get the heck out the race. He has little (VERY little) of value to add to the overall Republican nominee discussion….anyone who disagrees with this is simply clueless. We can all have our favorite candidates but sometimes it’s simply best to wake up and smell the coffee: he hasn’t got a hope in Hades of being the nominee, and he’ll be lucky to keep his Congress seat after all is said and done. The sooner he gets out, the more opportunity he has to regain the trust of his present constituents. As the saying goes, “Better to keep your mouth shut and look like a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
#37 Mty, I am impressed. thanks for the logic lesson. I suppose that some of our fellows are suspicious of some references to some things that Rp may, at one time, have espoused are a clue to our being either closet or overt Rp sycophants. I have understood for years that Mr. Paul was a proponent of the US constitutuion etc. Obviously there are some flies in the oinment, at present. However, the principles remain the same. Whether or not one agrees with Schiff, there are demonstrable problems with the IRS vis a vis legality, enforcement and the tax codes boon to legislators. (my computer or the site are preventing me from using apostrphes) PS I had your back during this disscussion and I am still waiting for a bone!.
Mty and Texpat. My LINE ITEM VOTE proposal (Amendment, obviously) would make the Bas%#ds vote on EACH item and be responsible for EVERY voted ITEM. More accountabilty. The result would be less in each bill. Also would more or less guarantee that the bills would be read by the legislators. They would bitch and moan but they could have a little bigger staff too. I realize how up-hill this would be but it would help the budget get smaller. Now lets all be friends OK?
How many of you know the real history of the Republican Party? Not many, I’ll wager, as you would never have been taught these facts in our pathetic K-12 “education” system.
Republican Party: Red From The Start
http://www.etherzone.com/2008/stang020108.shtml
Of course, since many, if not all, of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have long ago been implemented in Amerika, we are all Marxists now comrade!
For the benefit of all readers:
The article linked above in #48 is by Alan Stang, a notorious moonbat for decades. He likes to publish diatribes and rants on Communists and the evil Dr. Martin Luther King on David Duke’s website. He has no education in, or inclination for, serious scholarly research or its methodology. The etherzone.com website linked above has a great affection also for Justin Raimondo, another creepily psycho-neurotic poltroon from the dark side of the universe. Google Stang or Raimondo - it’s hilarious.
I just wanted to offer a little background here.
Consider the bone thrown.
I’m always a bit careful about referring to anyone else’s arguments (even when they support my position directly) when debating….. for one, I don’t fully know what the other person is going to say subsequently, and I have a hard enough time defending my own positions….. second, I don’t want the opponent to divert attention away by saying I had to have help or that he/she was ganged up on.
But hey - you’re out there swimming upstream in the defense of truth and sound policy! You deserve a bone to be thrown. This place has some of the most entrenched partisans of the places I visit, and the knee jerks that happen in unison when a particular name comes up is striking. It’s like watching Pavlov’s dog salivate when the bell rings. I’m not sure what explains the hive mind mentality on the subject (I’m well aware that our detractors would say the same of Paul partisans), but it needs to be battled in the pursuit of liberty.
#49 texpat - and they wonder why people resort to ridicule.
I’ve lost count of the whacked-out fascists that have jumped on the RP choo choo. But it’s ok. Anything is acceptable in the pursuit of “liberty”.
Kandwyn’s Site
try this:
Kandwyn’s Site
LOL! Dude, give it up. Ok, one last time. Pay attention:
<a href=”http://www.lordsofthemarch.com”>Kandwyn’s site</a>
I don’t know anything about Alan Stang, and didn’t click the link. On the face of it though, you clearly are ‘poisoning the well’:
It is perfectly valid for you to refuse to use a source you deem invalid, or to call into question the track record of credibility for a source. Dismissing the information out of hand as ludicrous because the writer is a ‘moonbat’ is the definitional illustration of the fallacy.
Of course, you can employ any tactic you wish in a debate.
And while we’re delving into the study of logical fallacies, #55 is a textbook example of a strawman:
Very good Hamous. Only I would challenge you to point out where I’ve misrepresented anyone’s position for the purpose of refuting something other than their actual position. That is very critical to deciding whether or not I have in fact employed a straw man.
Was the point not that the author in question’s position should be disregarded because of the points detailed - points that had nothing to do with the validity or lack of validity of the conclusions in the article referenced?
I’m glad you’re out there trying, buddy. Keep it up - You’ll catch me in a fallacy eventually. We all use them inadvertently, and I am no exception. I do however attempt to read my comments critically to avoid them where I can.
Texpat’s argument was not to “poison the well”, but rather to point out to other readers that they should consider the author’s history because it goes to motive. Had you not left this line out in your quote of texpat it would be obvious:
Clearly he didn’t dismiss it out of hand as you suggest. Hence the strawman.
Adding a qualifying statement does nothing to detract from the reality that the clear intention was to tell readers that you shouldn’t bother clicking the link or considering the argument of the article in question because of the author’s status as a ‘moonbat’. Saying that it is just for ‘background purposes’ and then calling the guy a ‘moonbat’ doesn’t mitigate the impact of the personal derision.
Had he not intended to dismiss it out of hand, he would have offered a refutation of the information in the article.
Again…. I seriously applaud the attempt. We should all be more familiar with the more common logical fallacies, both to avoid them in our own attempts to persuade and so that we might spot logical weaknesses in the arguments of others.
Texpat refuted the article (which you admittedly haven’t read) in the very paragraph you quoted. The title of the article was “The Republican Party- Red from the Start”. With a premise like that there’s not much point in digging into the meat of the article since it starts out based on a falsity.
As I said the other day, you are incapable of admitting when you’re wrong. More people may be willing to engage you if you didn’t float on high condescendingly pretending to school the ignorant masses. Most folks immediate reaction is to want to “beat up the smart kid” ; - )
You can have the last word. I’m going out to play. Somewhere there’s a brainy wimp in need of an ass-whuppin’.
One last thing. A quick example - titling an article “The Republican Party- Red from the Start” is like titling an article, “Why The Beatles Never Made it Big.” There’s not much point in refuting individual claims that may be made in the body.
…or “The Terrorists are Winning” ; - )
That is mental shorthand, not an argument. He could have simply stated “I disagree with the premise of the article, and reject it out of hand”, which wouldn’t have offered a refutation, but would have admitted as much. I use that tactic all the time, and it is completely valid. Saying “I don’t give any weight to Stang, and I’m not going to take the time to refute the article” is likewise an even-handed response (but again, is not a refutation). Saying “I don’t read moonbat’s opinions” is not a refutation, and is poisoning the well.
When I am demonstrated to be wrong, I am very quick to admit it (demonstrated - not recurringly accused). The last thing I wish to have said about me is that I’m unwilling to change my opinions when confronted with incontrovertible evidence contradicting my position. I will not, however, fold up my tent and walk away simply because you don’t like my positions or the manner in which I vigorously defend them.
Whether or not you choose to recognize it, it is poisoning the well. It doesn’t make him a bad person, but it also isn’t a refutation of the article in any way. I am not defending the article (still haven’t read it), and it could be the most fabulous bit of clap trap in history. Nothing said about it here attempted to demonstrate any falsehoods or logical errors, but certainly took shots at the content of the article based solely on the perceived characteristics of the author (or publishing website).
And if you think I’m “floating on high condescendingly”, you’ll have to deal with it. I’m not going to alter the method in which I’m accustomed to communicating because you don’t like looking foolish.
#61
It would be a valid reason to not read the article, but not a valid refutation of the content.
Since you mentioned my glorious offering, I’ll use it as the reference point. While you may find the title off-putting, is that a substitute for a refutation of the content? Does noting that I’m a ‘Died-in-the-wool Paul supporter’ make the logic invalid?
My article might be filled with untruths, logical errors and other objectionable things, but noting that the title runs against your personal preconceptions isn’t a refutation and isn’t even a launching point for a logical analysis of the conclusions reached in the article.
Using ‘Why the Beatles Never Made It Big’ is a good example - the title might be tongue in cheek, and the article could in fact be about the Beatles stranglehold on pop culture in the 60’s but with an ironic title. Ridiculing the article’s content as being obviously wrong based solely on the title would not only be incorrect based on the actual content, one would have to accept fallacious lines of reasoning to accept the logic of rejecting it on those grounds (Non-sequitur - The title goes against commonly accepted sentiment, therefore the content of the article must be wrong; it simply doesn’t follow). In truth,since the poster has presumably cited that article to buttress a point he is making, if he is citing an article that makes employs fallacious reasoning or citing inaccurateinformation should make your eyes light up - he has handed you the tools you need to refute his contentions!
Re: My Comment #49
I had every intention of being humiliatingly derisive concerning Alan Stang, his article, the host website, his dog, his cat and the haunted woman who bore him life. If, after my resolute effort to utterly dismiss Alan Stang and all he stands for, readers cannot deny their curiousity and choose to waste their time reading the fermented swill he churns, I cannot be responsible. There is, however, something to be said for Stang’s surrealistic, droll tripe planted on the written page as it, at least, has some entertainment value. Your comments and the ensuing ennui with your dreary, leaden and impervious prose leave me immensely bored.
Your choice, of course, and I offer no opinion on whether it is a good one. It in no way is proof of the inaccuracy of the article in question, establishing only that you don’t particularly care for him. Not the stuff that roots a persuasive argument, but if your only intention was to let your own personal disdain be known, then….. mission accomplished. If your goal was to demonstrate that textruth’s reasoning was flawed(with reliance on this article’s content for support), it was irrelevant.
All well and good, but again, you’ve said nothing of substance to refute the contentions of the article (whatever they may be) . Just more restatement of your generic disapproval of a ‘moonbat’. You can use every derisive adjective and noun you can muster, but derision only substitutes for a persuasive argument with the mentally infirmed (lack the capacity fro critical thought) or those especially susceptible to peer pressure (fear the results of critical thought. If that is the target audience, they might be sufficiently persuaded.
Meh….. Sorry you didn’t find it melodic, but I’ve been told worse. Go watch the Super Bowl. Maybe that’ll take the edge off your boredom.
mty: Observing the pathetic logic and ignorant lack of knowledge of history as evidenced by many of the posters to this blog, one can only wonder how they can reasonably function in daily life unless it’s by sheer blind luck.