What's with your ridiculous 'at the point of a gun' statement? You seem like an intelligent guy and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you keep repeating this.
It's a figure of speech, meant to indicate I am being forced to act against my better judgement.
I guess I had to pay taxes for wars I didn't support 'at the point of a gun'.
Whether you support the particular wars is irrelevant imo. National defense is a proper function of government, one we should pay taxes for. You can argue that the wars weren't in the interest of national defense and a whole host of other issues, but whether you, specifically, supported them or not is irrelevant.
I guess I can't shoplift in America 'at the point of a gun'.
When you shoplift, you are doing it at the point of a gun - a gun that you're holding. You are using force to deprive other people of their property. You cannot steal except through the use of force.
Why do I, a person without children, have to pay taxes for education 'at the point of a gun'?
You shouldn't have to. But you are forced, by the government, whether in the form of property taxes ("pay this or we take your house") or in the form of income taxes ("pay this or we take you to Court") or any of the other forms of taxation.
Who is pointing a gun at you?
Anyone who is forcing me to act against my will and against my better judgement. I'm being forced to contribute to social security - a service I do not want or need - at the point of the government's proverbial gun: I work, and so the law compels me to contribute. I'm being forced to pay for the government to subsidize telephone service for those who are poor or live in rural areas - something I have no desire to do - at the point of the government's proverbial gun: they add mandatory fees to services I do want. The list goes on.
No it's not. It's about a principals. If Ron Paul has an anti-social security principal then collects SS, that is the exact same type of hypocrisy i mentioned above. Ron Paul is suppose to be all about his core beliefs and principals, that's what makes him so appealing. His message is the same. Except when it's time to collect his cheque, then he's gonna line up like everyone else.
It is about principle. Ron Paul's principle is that you should get to keep your own money. If he can recover some of the money taken from him, then to
not recover it would be the hypocrisy. It's neither inconsistent nor dishonest.
Typical politician really. It's a shame you Paultards try to elevate him to saintly status when in reality he's just another snakeoil salesman in office. Telling you one thing, then doing another.
I don't think Ron Paul is some kind of of Saint. But I see nothing problematic with his actions here.
