FoC's Ron Paul Shitheap: Patel Melts the Internets starting on pg. 24

[FlameOfCallandor]

why?

Lets pretend the election in texas is 70% huckabee 30% Obama. Where does my one vote fit in? Why would I support a candidate I dont believe in only because they have a chance.

[brawndolicious]

okay, don't vote.  you could at least keep political discussion here on a realistic track though.

[FlameOfCallandor]

okay, don't vote.  you could at least keep political discussion here on a realistic track though.

I am still gonna vote. Im not usually the one who goes off track....

[Van Cruncheon]

abolishing the fda/doe/fed reserve bank are hardly practical ideas, and the gold standard is straight-up religious mumbo-jumbo mysticism.

Why are they so impractical? We have not had those things for alot longer than we have had them.

because, clown, industrial society has only been around for the last 100 or so years, and mass communications technology for the last 50 or so? technology is still changing and the globalization of society is occurring at a rapid rate. ron paul lives in fucking 1840.

[Gay Boy]

foc drop the "we need to get rid of ____" stuff. No candidate will ever get rid of the things you want in the next 10 years. Not one.

[Mandark]

Why does our military need an air force?  We won the Spanish-American War fine without them.

[Phoenix Dark]

1. Mike Huckabee 9.5/10
2. Mitt Romney 7/10
3. Ron Paul 6/10
4. John McCain 0/10

McCain gets a 0 for being a god damn disgrace. Romney is definitely a flip flopper, but McCain has gone from a straight shooting throwback republican to a blind Bush apologizer. It's disgusting, almost more than his 90+ year old mother

Huckabee makes me feel great, like I want to go to the soup line and help the needy. But then I just get up and go get some chips n dip

Paul is a fool, but he's an honest fool. Plus he's against the Iraq war so he gets some props.

[Gay Boy]

PD.....Ichi was joking when he asked to rate them. omg 9.5/10 

Rate the dems now please.

[FlameOfCallandor]

foc drop the "we need to get rid of ____" stuff. No candidate will ever get rid of the things you want in the next 10 years. Not one.

And as much you think, we will never have socialized health care.

[Gay Boy]

foc drop the "we need to get rid of ____" stuff. No candidate will ever get rid of the things you want in the next 10 years. Not one.

And as much you think, we will never have socialized health care.

so says the guy who claimed we'd be "OWNED" today.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why does our military need an air force?  We won the Spanish-American War fine without them.

But unlike FEMA and other federal agencies, the air force is effective and part of our national defense.

[Gay Boy]

Why does our military need an air force?  We won the Spanish-American War fine without them.

But unlike FEMA and other federal agencies, the air force is effective and part of our national defense.

unlike NASA amirte

[FlameOfCallandor]

unlike NASA amirte

The hubble telescope helps us spy on commies!!!!!

[Phoenix Dark]

Hillary:
7/10 on issues
1/10 on likability

Obama:
6/10 on issues
5/10 in blackness

Edwards:
6/10 on issues
9/10 in attractiveness

Hillary is the typical special interest Dem leader. But I like the fact that she doesn't just give her supporters red meat on Iraq. She's not pulling out of there asap, and isn't promising to. I'd rather have her and her staff working on the Iraq issue than anyone else

Obama is still Master of the Cliches to me. HOPE. CHANGE. OPRAH. I haven't heard or seen anything of substance from him. In fact he seems to piggybank on Hillary's plans, but after yesterday who knows.

Edwards gets a big MEH/9.25 from me in likability. He might be faker than Hillary, and I'm surprised the left doesn't seem through him. He's all hot air, nothing more. It's a shame he puts his family through such tenuous strain so he can run for Big Nicca. Almost as disrespectful as him cheating on his cancer-ridden wife.

[Gay Boy]

so you rank it

1. Huckabee
2. Hillary
3. Romney

[Phoenix Dark]

No, in terms of who I'd like to see president:

1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. MIA

[brawndolicious]

I am still gonna vote. Im not usually the one who goes off track....

let's take the gold standard for example.  I know it's been talked about to death but it's important.

during WW2, a lot of war supplies had to be bought with gold and thus, US got rich (leprechaun rich).  By the 70's, Europe was cashing in on US' gold reserves and the supplies were dwindling so Nixon refused to back the currency with gold.  since then, gold is just a commodity.

then you come and start talking about how much the price of gold has inflated.  I honestly can not remember a more substantiative argument on gold from you.

[Mandark]

Why does our military need an air force?  We won the Spanish-American War fine without them.

But unlike FEMA and other federal agencies, the air force is effective and part of our national defense.

I could waste time on Google stockpiling links of incidents where US airstrikes killed civilians or US allies.  The Air Force, like EVERY SINGLE LARGE ORGANIZATION EVER, has screwed up.

That does not mean we should get rid of the USAF, or that the invisible hand of the market would somehow step in to perform the same function, only with super-magic efficiency.

Yes, the product safety agencies have dropped the ball in some high-profile cases.  But getting rid of them wouldn't help that at all.  Name five countries where the market has spontaneously produced non-governmental equivalents of the FDA.

[Ichirou]

No, in terms of who I'd like to see president:

1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. MIA

Who I'd like to see president:

1. Edwards
2. Edwards
3. Edwards

MY RANKING OF THE DEMOCRATS

1. John Edwards 9.9/10
2. Barack Obama 5.4/10
3. Hillary Clinton 3.25/10

[Flannel Boy]

Obama:
6/10 on issues
5/10 in blackness

 

[Mandark]

Good Lord but PD is dumb.

[Human Snorenado]

Good Lord but PD is dumb.

This is true.  The irony of him trying to rank someone's blackness, however, is delicioso.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Huckabee - 3/10 - Batshit insane Christian fundie.  You never really know what he stands for other than his faith.  When he flips out over "Acts of God", you know his priorities are fucked.

Romney - 5/10 - I love Romney and I hate him.  10 + 0 / 2 = 5.  Yeah, it was a shitty flip flopper joke.  Fuck you.  Flip flopping must be a Massachusetts tradition.  The fact that he is Mormon is causing him to say a lot of stupid shit, mostly trying to push away "Islamofascism" and trying to unite Christians.  Perhaps if his religion was not a problem to the GOP base, he would not be such a distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.

Thompson - 1/10 - Why the fuck is he running?  Basically The Next Reagan but he fizzled out.  He is a lazy fuck but I would be too because I'd spend all my energy drilling my trophy wife.  Thompson stepped in only because at the time (mid-late 2007), candidates tried to pretend they were Ronald Reagan.  Now that they moved on from that, thank the fuck Christ, Thompson has nothing.  The party has all but abandoned him.

McCain - 4/10 - He turned out to be such a distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.  Once people no longer bought his "Rogue Senator" persona, he turned into another Bush ass kisser.  If McCain wins, it will essentially be George W. Bush's third term.

Rudy Mussolini - 3/10 - Turning to clocks back to 1922, baby!  I think he copied his campaign strategies from V for Vendetta and 1984.

Duncan Hunter - 9/10 - Guns before butter.  The solution to everything is a missile and soldiers.  More guns and more Jesus.  Just the way the good Lord (Christian God for you heathens out there) intended to.  Every American deserves their own assault rifle and Duncan Hunter will help us out with exactly that.

Ron Paul - 2/10 - He is an idiot.  His policies essentially are pretending that he knows what Jefferson, Washington, etc. would say about certain issues.  I don't think he is racist but he isn't intelligent enough to know that the white supremacist groups' fondness of him will fuck him over hard.  Which makes me think Paul doesn't even give a damn and did this to test his viability.  He always intended to run for another term in the US House.

Barack Obama - 8/10 - I think the hope and change stuff is good.  What candidates say to get elected, they usually renege on them anyway.  Going by his speeches, voting record, and all that, he is the Democrat I liked the most.  He isn't perfect.  Also reminds me of Tom DuBois from The Boondocks.

John Edwards - 5/10 - He had some potential.  I like his speech on two Americas because it is true.  Only problem is that his solution is essentially to tax the rich and everything will even out in the end.  I need to see something more concrete, especially if he wants to tackle poverty, which is an issue.  He would be my favorite easily if he campaigns harder for that issue.

Hillary Clinton - 6/10 - Another Clinton.  Her views are ok but I don't like the fact of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and then Clinton.  We don't need to turn ourselves into a monarchy, no matter how much it seems that we're there today.  Also, she is just another mouthpiece of special interest groups, like her husband.

[APF]

"Hope" is not a platform.  "Change" is not a platform.  But if that's what puts you in the booth, Ron Paul == *far* more "change" than Obama, and his campaign is nothing but a dream ie "hope."

[Phoenix Dark]

This thread has taken a turn for the better 

[Mandark]

Good Lord but PD is dumb.

This is true.  The irony of him trying to rank someone's blackness, however, is delicioso.

The problem is that PD uses a lame hermeneutic shortcut to evaluate the candidates, especially on foreign policy, which saves him the trouble of actual thought.

I seriously doubt that when he says he wants Clinton's people in charge it's because he prefers Richard Holbrooke's approach to Anthony Lake's or Susan Rice's.  What he's doing is assuming that a politician that contradicts the position of their natural base (by not giving them "red meat") must be thoughtful, nuanced and unbiased.  Someone who says something the base wants to hear is probably pandering, and therefor making worse policy or being dishonest.

Of course PD puts himself in the serious thinker category.  Only his analysis is shallow (again, especially on FP) because instead of seeking out more knowledge, he... uses a lame hermeneutic shortcut!

[Fresh Prince]

Who I'd like to see president:

1. Edwards
2. Edwards
3. Edwards

MY RANKING OF THE DEMOCRATS

1. John Edwards 9.9/10
2. Barack Obama 5.4/10
3. Hillary Clinton 3.25/10

Pretty much. Though like someone said earlier he needs to elaborate more.
PD's love of Huckabee is laughable almost as bad FOC's love of Ron Paul.

[Van Cruncheon]

if edwards elaborates, he'll be ignored as the press collectively rolls their eyes and moves on to the candidate with the catchier sound bites. you can't afford to waste time with THINKAMERATIN' with our press core.

[APF]

I'd argue a large part of that is the press' fault for not elaborating on the practical differences between campaigns / platforms, other than soundbytes.  This is literally what the press corpse is there for; not for chittering about someone's laugh or their haircuts, etc.

[Van Cruncheon]

it is their fault and they SHOULD not be such a collection of nattering fame hounds and cling-ons; unfortunately, it's not the reality as it exists. while it'd be nice if edwards tried to work the press a bit better, i still can't fault him significantly for responding to reality rather than the ideal.

[Phoenix Dark]

Good Lord but PD is dumb.

This is true.  The irony of him trying to rank someone's blackness, however, is delicioso.

The problem is that PD uses a lame hermeneutic shortcut to evaluate the candidates, especially on foreign policy, which saves him the trouble of actual thought.

I seriously doubt that when he says he wants Clinton's people in charge it's because he prefers Richard Holbrooke's approach to Anthony Lake's or Susan Rice's.  What he's doing is assuming that a politician that contradicts the position of their natural base (by not giving them "red meat") must be thoughtful, nuanced and unbiased.  Someone who says something the base wants to hear is probably pandering, and therefor making worse policy or being dishonest.

Of course PD puts himself in the serious thinker category.  Only his analysis is shallow (again, especially on FP) because instead of seeking out more knowledge, he... uses a lame hermeneutic shortcut!

It's good to know you understand my thought process better than I do. The generalizations and leaps in your rebuttal aren't worthy of response.

[Gay Boy]

My ratings of the Dem daughters in HOTNESS:

1. Cate Edwards - 8.7/10

Pretty cute girl.
 
2. Sasha Obama  - 8.4/10

(on the left)
This was a tough fight for first with Cate Edwards.

3. Chelsea Clinton - 7.1/10

Winner of most improved, but I can't get that image of 90's Chelsea out of my mind for good.

[Phoenix Dark]

Cate Edwards 6.5/10


She's got that thick Jenny Lewis look going; too bad it only works for latinas and black women

Obama Girls 9/10

Wait, is that a cheeseburger surprise I see? 

Chelsea Clinton 7/10


Looks like daddy taught her well

[Gay Boy]

Chelsea Clinton 7/10
(Image removed from quote.)

Looks like daddy taught her well

holy shit 

[Mandark]

It's good to know you understand my thought process better than I do. The generalizations and leaps in your rebuttal aren't worthy of response.

Oh dear.  You don't complain when people break down FoC's tendencies towards hero worship and cognitive dissonance.  Same deal here.

The proper response would have been to drop some science on international relations and show everyone how well-versed you are.  Which I suspect you won't do, cause you can't.  Which brings us back to the gist of 99% of my posts directed at you: stop pontificating on subjects where you're ignorant.

[BlueTsunami]

Silver and GoooOoOld, Silver and GooooooOooOld
FoCs bootyhole has Silver and GooooooOold

[APF]

Mandark, do you have a setting other than "self-righteous douchebag" you can set yourself to?

[Human Snorenado]

Mandark, do you have a setting other than "self-righteous douchebag" you can set yourself to?

HEY HOW'S THAT HILLARY CLINTON DOING LULZ

[APF]

Hey, it looks like no one's getting their candidate of choice.

But at least people can be compelled to vote for the "most electable."  That's a winning strategy.

[Van Cruncheon]

on the plus side, a successful obama bid for the white house might make fox news commentators take up blackface

[Gay Boy]

Hey, it looks like no one's getting their candidate of choice.

Huh? On the dem side the internet darling is winning.

[Phoenix Dark]

It's good to know you understand my thought process better than I do. The generalizations and leaps in your rebuttal aren't worthy of response.

Oh dear.  You don't complain when people break down FoC's tendencies towards hero worship and cognitive dissonance.  Same deal here.

The proper response would have been to drop some science on international relations and show everyone how well-versed you are.  Which I suspect you won't do, cause you can't.  Which brings us back to the gist of 99% of my posts directed at you: stop pontificating on subjects where you're ignorant.

Nah, my response fit perfectly. I don't need to parrot the opinions of others just to prove my knowledge in a subject; FoC does enough of that for me to be turned off by it. Nor do I need to know the architects of each candidate's foreign policies before I choose the one that best suits my opinions. You usually take being a smart asshole to  an art, but this is rather lazy; your response to any differing opinion has always been to dismiss the individual as ignorant, not knowing anything about the subject. It's getting old

Back to whatever the thread point was..

[Van Cruncheon]

look, it's a variant on "your schtick was funny, now it's old" -- WHERE HAVE I HEARD THAT TIRED APPROACH

mandark is right, pd. you throw a pastiche of poorly-concieved opinions and try to pass it off as rational, pd, but you're fooling no-one. he's not asking you regurgitate others' opinions; he's asking that you discuss facts to "prove your knowledge."

[Phoenix Dark]

Whatever, the constant attacks are getting tiring. If you're going to jump on me, at least make some sense. How this thread even turned into a referendum on me...dunno. 5/10 blackness? If you guys can't take a joke then get off my nuts

[Van Cruncheon]

be sure to blame the attacks on the "elitist circlejerk" when you inevitably post at mupepe.com, and likewise completely disacknowledge your role in our mockery

[APF]

It's interesting to me that this primary/etc cycle has focused a lot more on, "which policy nerd is writing my shit," than I can remember in previous years.  I'm assuming this has to do with blogospheric influence...

[APF]

I can't help but wonder though, if collecting an elite cabal of ivory-tower philosopher-types and favoring their council over well-experienced practical hard-won advice hasn't proven a disastrous route in recent years.

[Ichirou]

You guyyys... PD never provokes any of the unmitigated personal attacks on him.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'm used to it. It's clear the Standards are higher for certain people here, and I know what to expect. MY initial interest in policy has little to do with who's writing who's shit. I merely seek out the various positions, opinions, and policies and go from there - deciding what makes sense to me and what doesn't. Like everybody else.

[FlameOfCallandor]

What makes sense about Huckabee?

[Phoenix Dark]

Are you asking me? If so, not much. My interest in Huckabee is nothing more than cult of personality interest; he's an interesting guy, good speaker, etc but it's not like I'm contemplating voting for him. Although like I said, it sucks that I even have to explain that - takes all the fun out of it.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I think you of all people would have to explain that.

Who are you voting for?

[Phoenix Dark]

Hillary or Obama. I prefer Hillary in terms of policy, but I just don't like her. Honestly I'd rather vote for Obama. My problem with him is that there's basically no substance to his speeches, or anything he says. Hope is not a policy. My dad is on his election board in Michigan so he's constantly trying to convince me otherwise, but all the stuff I've seen really doesn't impress me. It's like he took a bunch of Hillary positions, threw them in a pot, and then added some Hope/Change/whatever other cliche you can find. Meh

I like the fact that Hillary isn't willing to tell people what they want to hear on Iraq; there was some talk awhile ago that Bush was talking to her lol. I never supported the Iraq war, but I certainly don't support an immediate withdrawal either. Edwards seems more gung-ho about withdrawing than Obama, but then again I haven't payed much attention to him.

I don't support universal healthcare, I support gay marriage, I'm all for a strong foreign policy that doesn't rely on unilateral war/bullshit, etc. So yeah, Hillary isn't up my alley on many domestic issues, but Iraq/security is #1 for me

[TakingBackSunday]

PD, you're just gonna have to get used to the fact that elections, especially this early, are all ABOUT lack of substance.  That's just what politicians are like.  Campaigning is just the act of blowin smoke out their asses.  Obama is no worse than Hilary in that respect.

[Gay Boy]

PD, you're just gonna have to get used to the fact that elections, especially this early, are all ABOUT lack of substance.  That's just what politicians are like.  Campaigning is just the act of blowin smoke out their asses.  Obama is no worse than Hilary in that respect.

Not really, Obama talks vision and has a lack of substance a looooooot more than Hillary. Hillary talks PURE policy and pure substance, that is part of her problem even.

[Van Cruncheon]

why do you not support universal healthcare, pd

[Gay Boy]

why do you not support universal healthcare, pd

I know thats pretty wtf to me too.

[Van Cruncheon]

it's fine to think certain implementations of universal healthcare are bogus, or that it has the potential to go awry, but to NOT support it as a CONCEPT the nation should work steadily towards is beyond me

[FlameOfCallandor]

I think he means government run universal healthcare.

[Van Cruncheon]

in what bizarre universe would corporations implement universal healthcare, especially for the unemployed, sick, insane, or elderly?