So, because Ichirou is a fucking psycho the other Ron Paul thread is now locked. This is a Bad Thing, as it will no doubt lead to FoC shitting up otherwise completely readable threads with Ron Paul nonsense.
So here you go, FoC. A home for your inanity and dumbness. Please keep it here.
And Ichirou. STFU.
I'm voting for Stephen Colbert.You live in SC?
You live in SC?
Then you win at life!You live in SC?
Yup!
:santocry
The other Ron Paul thread was a complete waste. FoC posted shit, everybody trolled him. Repeat ad nauseaum.
The other Ron Paul thread was a complete waste. FoC posted shit, everybody trolled him. Repeat ad nauseaum.
I fail to see what's bad about this.
Well I want a topic to discuss the logical stances and ideals of Mike Gravel then but you can't get always get what you want.
The title change in that other thread completely threw me. "How did I miss a 400+ reply topic? And what happened to the old Ron Paul thread?"
*An embarrassing amount of minutes later*
"Oh..."
The title change in that other thread completely threw me. "How did I miss a 400+ reply topic? And what happened to the old Ron Paul thread?"Yeah the first post in this topic sums up what happened decently well.
*An embarrassing amount of minutes later*
"Oh..."
The other Ron Paul thread was a complete waste. FoC posted shit, everybody trolled him. Repeat ad nauseaum.
I fail to see what's bad about this.
I was actually hoping for legitimate discussion about the candidate's strengths and failings other than bullshit hypothetical strawman arguments about how Ron Paul would have handled the civil rights movement if he'd been president in the sixties. Sorry if you think I'm a fucking psycho but I decided to kill that thread and I did it in the way that amused me the most, by making lame jokes about the person mostly responsible for shitting up that thread in the first place.
OMGAgreed.
i can't believe you tards make me WANT to hear FoC talk about Paul. back on topic geez
I don't think he is racist. I do think his views on states rights would have led to racists holding on to a lot of power still. Since if civil rights was decided on a state by state basis much of the south would not have accepted it in the 60's.
A strong national government is all that is powerful enough to bring about important change in society traditionally.
I don't think he is racist.
If civil rights was done state by state like gay marriage you honestly think a state like texas would pass it in the 60's? :lolI don't think he is racist. I do think his views on states rights would have led to racists holding on to a lot of power still. Since if civil rights was decided on a state by state basis much of the south would not have accepted it in the 60's.
A strong national government is all that is powerful enough to bring about important change in society traditionally.
You've got to be fucking joking
If civil rights was done state by state like gay marriage you honestly think a state like texas would pass it in the 60's? :lolI don't think he is racist. I do think his views on states rights would have led to racists holding on to a lot of power still. Since if civil rights was decided on a state by state basis much of the south would not have accepted it in the 60's.
A strong national government is all that is powerful enough to bring about important change in society traditionally.
You've got to be fucking joking
:lolIf civil rights was done state by state like gay marriage you honestly think a state like texas would pass it in the 60's? :lolI don't think he is racist. I do think his views on states rights would have led to racists holding on to a lot of power still. Since if civil rights was decided on a state by state basis much of the south would not have accepted it in the 60's.
A strong national government is all that is powerful enough to bring about important change in society traditionally.
You've got to be fucking joking
OH I thought you were sayng they would. My bad :lol
I was about to get pissed
Edit: Ichi that was sarcasm, I said things to piss FoC off.
Uh half the people in that thread were trolling ron paul to get FoC pissed off. :lolEdit: Ichi that was sarcasm, I said things to piss FoC off.
So you basically admit you were trolling that thread from the getgo.
If I say all the jokes I made a few minutes ago were just sarcasm meant to rile you up, will we be kewl again, dode?!
On the hometown turf of Clinton and Giuliani, EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE has found a small but determined group who support the quixotic candidacy of Ron Paul.
By Edward-Isaac Dovere
Avery Knapp is a 28 year-old lanky, blond radiologist originally from Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., in the last year of his residency at Lenox Hill. He is not the guy always talking politics in high school, nor the guy long drawn to iconoclastic ideology—always a conservative, he thinks he voted for Bob Dole in 1996 and knows he picked George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. He is a committed Republican. But he never thought to vote in a primary or care much about who did.
Knapp found Ron Paul this spring while sitting in his girlfriend’s apartment in Chicago, on a week of vacation. He was surfing the web during a study break, researching monetary policy for his father. Articles about inflation and the federal reserve led him to Give Me a Break, John Stossell’s libertarian polemic, and Freedom to Fascism, a documentary by Aaron Russo in which Paul says there is “a possibility” that the private bankers of Fort Knox could have taken control of America’s wealth.
Paul, the small town Texas obstetrician turned 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate turned Republican congressman turned 2008 GOP presidential primary phenomenon, has found an encouraging and unexpectedly large groundswell of supporters around the country, many of them like Knapp. A staunch Constitutionalist, he has appealed to both the anti-tax right and the anti-war left who might otherwise be left on the fringe of the Republican and Democratic parties.
Knapp liked Paul’s economic message. The rising cost of health care had bothered him for years, and Paul’s anti-government, free market insistence seemed like the right solution. And the more he thought about things, the more he felt himself drawn to Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy approach. To his girlfriend’s satisfaction, he changed his mind about the Iraq War, which he had once strongly supported.
On May 12, he founded the New York City Ron Paul MeetUp group with his sister and a friend, becoming the unofficial but acknowledged leader of a local Ron Paul movement growing larger by the day. Both Rudolph Giuliani and Hillary Clinton call New York home, and most New Yorkers not backing either of them for president are still holding out hope that Michael Bloomberg will get into the race. But for Knapp and the hodgepodge group of professionals, performance artists and political neophytes pledging their time, energy and passion to the effort, Paul is the only candidate who matters.
Paul’s supporters can mouth many of his positions like memorized lyrics to old favorite songs—at least in part. Not only would their candidate lower taxes, but he would also abolish the Internal Revenue Services along with much of the rest of the federal government. Not only would he bring troops home from Iraq, but he would also bring them home from anyplace they are stationed outside the borders of the count. The MeetUp group has already had more than 50 events, watching their candidate on television, handing out fliers at the Staten Island ferry, in front of television studios and whatever else they can find to do to spread Paul’s message. Against the black roof of an East Village building, they have painted the words “Google Ron Paul” in thick white letters, hoping to grab the attention of airplane passengers high overhead. They have donated what they can, pouring in money in donations large and small, reconditioning computers to use in the makeshift office they have set up in what was the box office of their Chelsea headquarters, when it was a club.
The rest of the voters, Knapp believes, will soon come around as well.
“Either they’re going to be apathetic or they’re going to get on the Ron Paul train,” Knapp says.
Paul has generated more interest and support than he ever seemed to imagine possible, but, as even he and his most ardent supporters will let slip in less guarded moments, he is not a top tier candidate in terms of his position in the polls. Knapp believes this will change, but not just by Paul campaigning around the country. The change will come from people like him and the others who come to the rallies and events, gathering together and spreading the word themselves.
“Word of mouth is key,” Knapp says. “Every Ron Paul supporter tells more people about it—it’s not like they keep it a secret.”
Across the country and even the world, 1,083 Ron Paul MeetUp groups have formed, more than for any other presidential candidate, of either party. The largest is in Austin, Texas, not far from the coastal district Paul calls home. With 775 members at last count, New York City’s ranks second.
Paul himself said he and his campaign workers have been taken aback not only by how many voters are responding to his message, but also by who those people are and how they are coming to hear it and how quickly they have mobilized. His e-campaign coordinator, Justine Lam, was one of the first staffers hired, but nonetheless, Paul says never would have predicted how people have attached themselves to his candidacy after reading web posts or YouTube videos was something.
“Something’s going on, actually almost out of our control,” Paul said. “It’s growing spontaneously. Of course, we feed into it, and yet I would say 80 percent of the campaign has been a spontaneous, grassroots effort and it’s almost difficult to understand, even from our viewpoint.”
In typical libertarian fashion Paul is a major proponent of the Internet. But the 72 year-old country doctor was not one to frequent the social networking sites that have made his campaign such a surprise mobilization success, as well as generating the millions in campaign donations that have put him ahead of several of his Republican competitors, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, the once-frontrunner. “I don’t look at all those,” Paul says. “I’ve always used the internet, but not with MeetUps and Facebooks and all these things that I wasn’t that much aware of.”
Those drawn into Paul’s New York campaign include some with ties and collar stays, others with tattoo wrapped arms and lip studs. There are policy wonks and whiners, lost soul weirdoes and straight-laced professionals. A roomful of Ron Paul supporters, gathered at a bar to watch a Republican debate or at the warped-floorboard loft in Chelsea they now call their campaign headquarters, looks barely distinct from any group of New Yorkers out for the night.
About 40 of them gathered Sept. 27 at Café 81, a posh East Village hotspot to watch the six Republican candidates who had agreed to attend the debate that night at Baltimore’s Morgan State University.
There was William Slippey, a web designer, who at 30, had never voted before. There was Justin Glynn, who had served eight years in the army in Iraq and Israel, “an aspiring green energy consultant” who voted for Ralph Nader in 2004 who believes Paul’s stance on the Middle East is the only one with the proper sense of history and understanding. There was Autumn Wark, a mixed media artist who sells her work on the street of SoHo—and also described herself as an aspiring screenwriter, a dancer/choreographer and a personal trainer. She raised three children as Democrats in a one bedroom apartment without medical insurance, she said. But no candidate had ever inspired her before—“giving me wet dog crap and dry dog crap is not a choice,” she said. She switched her registration to Republican to vote for Paul in the primary.
“International conspiracy theorists and blue blood lawyers—people who never would have rubbed shoulders before,” said Sam Russo, a criminal defense lawyer from Brooklyn, of the crowd gathered that night.
They jeered at Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, then still in the race, as he told tales of spending nights in jail to commune with the incarcerated experience. When a waft of marijuana smoke floated in from the back, they giggled like adolescents, one asking several around him whether they smelled what he smelled. They drank beers, laughed, talked about work, getting so loud over the course of the night that at points, the debate itself got lost in the noise.
But each time Paul was asked a question, they went into hushed silence.
At Morgan State, many of Paul’s comments cued applause. In the bar, all did. His opposition to a national identity card got the biggest response; his insistence that the country legalize drugs also did well. Cheers also followed some of the smaller philosophical points, as when Paul declared that the District of Columbia only get a voting member of Congress through a Constitutional amendment. That pronouncement prompted a broad-shouldered man in his twenties to lead the crowd, snapping his fingers and pointing at the screen, screaming: “Yeah!”
At the end of the evening, Knapp mute the televisions and stood at the edge of the bar as he exhorted supporters to donate more money to the campaign. “I think you’ll get a good return on your investment,” he said, “particularly if we eliminate the 16th Amendment, the income tax amendment.”
The crowd cheered. Knapp smiled.
“To freedom!” Knapp shouted.
The people in the bar were not the only ones Knapp has helped convince. His whole family supports Paul now, as does his girlfriend. They both watched the Oct. 9 Republican debate—he at Proof on East 20th with an even larger group than the last one that had come despite the pouring rain, she while visiting her family in Los Angeles. When, 28 minutes in, Paul had been thus far been given only one chance to speak, Knapp proudly displayed a text message on his cell phone from her: “Why aren’t they asking Ron Paul more questions????”
The last six months have been a political awakening period for Knapp. The man who once did not know much about libertarianism or politics now speaks to campaign headquarters regularly, and calmly corrects those who call him and Paul libertarians, rather than Constitutionalists.
Several in his MeetUp group suggest that no matter what happens in the primaries, they think Knapp will soon be running for office himself.
Knapp smiles at the thought.
“I may have a career as a radiologist, and that’s fine. I may do something political, that’s fine, too,” he said, then paused, reconsidering. “It wouldn’t surprise me if I got involved.”
After watching the Oct. 9 debate, the group gathered for another strategy session. As Bill Buran, the MeetUp group’s volunteer media coordinator, encourages them to continue spreading the word and donating online, Knapp slips behind a curtain with his cell phone. When he reemerges, he has exciting news. That was the national campaign office, he tells them. All is confirmed: Paul will be in town that weekend, and he will join them for a party at the new campaign headquarters just after 10 PM.
So they gather again on Oct. 12, deep past the heart of Chelsea. West of Penn Station, west of Studio Dante, west of the massive mail sorting facility that sprawls from 28th to 30th streets along 10th Avenue, the line builds on the sidewalk outside the campaign headquarters. They fill out their paperwork. They collect their drink tickets. College students pay $25 to enter. The rest pay $100.
Paul himself arrives through a side door. He blinks in the spotlight, placing fingers from both hands on the microphone stand.
“It seems like the revolution is spreading,” he begins. “If we can do it in New York City, we can do it anywhere!”
He speaks about the success the campaign has been enjoying around the country, and they get increasingly excited. He riffs on the theme of freedom, and looks out at those who have come to support him.
“The great thing about the freedom movement is the crowds tend to be very diverse,” Paul says, each of sentences followed by a roaring cheer. “We do have some Republicans here. We have a few independents out there. We have people who have been turned on who dropped out of the system. We have a few people who were never in the system before. And we might even have a Democrat here. There may even be a few anarchists, here, and that’s all right. This is the great thing about freedom. It brings people together.”
“Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!” they chant as the candidate slips back out the side door. The music picks up again, a few guitar chords which quickly get a fast drumbeat and a supporting organ. A mix of rock and folk, the catchy tune is standard enough to blend in with the rest of the hit songs, even as the singer’s happy, Beatles-esque voice begins: “There is a doctor a healing man / Only Hope for America / He’s been teaching a better way, I thought I heard him say.
Each line of the chorus is sung twice: “Walk on the other side/Walk on the other side with liberty.”
Then comes the second verse: “Millions are working day and night/Come together now as one they fight./To take the White House and let freedom ring/Oh listen to the song they sing.”
Another chorus, then the bridge, “Calling all Americans, look now and see/ The leader that our country needs right now to stay free.”
Early the next morning, supporters line up along 42nd Street, across from Grand Central. Paul sits in the glass-enclosed restaurant of the Grand Hyatt, meeting with reporters and conferring with staff. The fans stand below, perhaps hundreds of them, waving at him and trying to zoom in on their cell phone cameras.
When all the interviews are done, he takes the escalator down to street level, ready to greet the crowd. He waits with his staff as they try to assess the situation.
“Avery!” one calls out, searching for Knapp.
He steps forward. As the New York leader, they will rely on him to lead Paul across the street and through the crowd. Those in the crowd greet the congressmman like a rock star—touching him, taking pictures of him, waving until they get his attention. Some scramble to get close. Some are content to work the edges of the crowd, leading chants.
“We love you Dr. Paul!”
“Freedom! Liberty! Peace!”
“Thank you for speaking the truth!”
“No matter what, Dr. Paul, you’re our president!” one loner screams. “We love you Mrs. Paul! Keep him strong. Feed him... soup!”
Knapp holds traffic on 42nd Street, trying to get Paul through Grand Central, on the way to his speak at the free-market Mises Institute luncheon, which Knapp will attend as well. The crowd follows. They bunch at the door as they wait for the stragglers. They pause for a moment, then they pour in, chanting his name.
“Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!” Paul himself does not seem to notice. Veering to the right, he bounds up the first set of beige marble stairs, on his way up to Métrazur. Behind him, they have poured in, hundreds of them waving their blue and red campaign signs. They fill most of the space in the main concourse between the stairs and the clock. Paul turns to face the crowd. He motions for his wife to come stand by his side.
“Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!” they scream.
The whole station has turned toward the noise. Paul grabs the thick edge of the balcony with his right hand, steadying himself, and hurls his left into the air, finger pointed.
“It is now time to end this war and bring our troops home!” Paul shouts.
The crowd roars. Paul thrusts himself forward again. “It is time to restore liberty to this country and obey the Constitution!” They cheer, stomp their feet, whistle and catcall. “It is time to make sure that we retain the right of habeas corpus and personal liberties.” Each time, the applause gets louder.
“Thank you very much for coming,” he says, slightly emphasizing the “very,” seemingly shocked, as he often seems to be, that so many people are paying attention to him and simultaneously just as shocked that many more are not.
“There is really something going on, there is truly a revolution going on in this country!” Paul shouts, hitting the first syllable of “revolution” with the flourish of a preacher.
“Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!” the crowds chants.
Then, from among them, comes a solitary voice.
“Times Square!”
They all stop, and for a moment, there is almost a hush in Grand Central. Then the crowd erupts again.
“Times Square! Times Square! Times Square!” And off they go, waving their signs and pumping their fists. As their candidate leaves for lunch, his supporters march off to spread their message on the other side of town.
Uh half the people in that thread were trolling ron paul to get FoC pissed off. :lolEdit: Ichi that was sarcasm, I said things to piss FoC off.
So you basically admit you were trolling that thread from the getgo.
If I say all the jokes I made a few minutes ago were just sarcasm meant to rile you up, will we be kewl again, dode?!
And shut up about me plz. You are waaay too obsessed.
Back on topic RON PAUL POLL NUMBERS:
Quinnipiac 10/23-29/07
Paul 2%
Fox 10/23-24/07
Paul 1%
Times/Bloomberg 10/19-22/07
Paul 2%
POS (R) 10/18-21/07
Paul 2%
I don't think he is racist.
You called him a racist in your very first post in the original Ron Paul thread. Why are you lying about it now?
Goddammit FoC, condense that shit. It's too much effort for me to read.
Goddammit FoC, condense that shit. It's too much effort for me to read.
:lol :lol
Except I never thought he was racist kiddo.I don't think he is racist.
You called him a racist in your very first post in the original Ron Paul thread. Why are you lying about it now?
:o Cheebs got Pwned!!
DES MOINES, Iowa - Rip Van Winkle slept for 20 years and woke to find the world had passed him by. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, woke up one morning recently to find that perhaps America has caught up with him.
Paul, 72, has had a 32-year career in the House. But some voters have just now discovered Paul’s constitutionalist, individualist, “just bring all the troops home” creed.
Last weekend in Iowa, Paul, running for the Republican presidential nomination, was greeted by 700 whooping fans at Iowa State University in Ames and another 300 at a rally in Des Moines.
There is something rather amazing about the Internet,” he told his Ames supporters, about two-thirds of whom appeared to be under age 25. “I’ve been used to delivering a message very similar to what I’m delivering tonight for many, many years and not getting a whole lot of responses. And all of a sudden, there’s a whole generation of people now very excited about hearing about the message of freedom.”
'Practically miraculous'
“I think it is practically miraculous what has happened in the last 12 months,” Paul told reporters in Ames. “Not me and not what I’ve done. But it’s miraculous to find out that there have been so many who had already been informed and were just waiting for someone to ignite these issues.”
On foreign policy, Paul told crowds in Ames and Des Moines:
“Let’s give up on nation-building and policing the world."
The Constitution mandates a policy of non-intervention. “That means: mind our own business.”
He’d pull troops from Iraq and everywhere else. “Don’t you think 55 years is long enough to be in Korea?”
He also denounced the idea of bombing Iran to prevent the potential of the Tehran regime acquiring a nuclear weapon, which he sees as no threat to the United States or Israel.
“Israel would be better off” and the Israelis "could take care of themselves” if the United States ended its alliance with Israel, he said during a weekend meeting with several Christian pastors from across Iowa.
No Ron Paul speech is complete without a denunciation of the Federal Reserve Board which he blames for the devaluation of the dollar.
He forecasts ever greater Chinese reluctance to buy Treasury bonds.
“All empires fail because of a financial crisis,” he told the Christian pastors.
If elected, Paul would try to radically shrink the federal government.
“If we don’t want the government running our lives and we get to run our lives, then we have to assume total responsibility for what we do,” he told the Ames crowd. “We have to suffer the consequences. But the great thing about this philosophy is that if you believe in life, liberty, and the right to pursue your happiness, you also believe you get to keep all of the fruits of your labor.”
Hence Paul would scrap the income tax.
“We don’t have to put anybody out in the streets,” he said. “We can just let young people —whoever wants to take care of themselves — get out of the (Social Security and Medicare) system,” he said.
Americans' love of the welfare state
Since most Americans have become accustomed to the welfare state, isn’t ending it the toughest idea to sell to audiences?
“It is,” he acknowledged in an interview before his Ames speech. “It’s really tough — unless the young people listen to what I’m talking about, because the young people know they’re getting ripped off.”
Asked point blank whether he would propose to abolish Medicare, Paul replied, “That’s not my goal. It might be my theoretical goal and my philosophic goal.”
He predicts Medicare will “self-destruct.”
He foresees a transition in which current beneficiaries are paid for, but "young people get out.”
The only place where Paul got a less than friendly reception this past weekend in Iowa was the Iowa Republican Party’s Reagan Dinner Saturday night.
The members of the GOP establishment sat on their hands through most of Paul’s address. Not until he’d spoken for nine minutes did he get any applause, a tepid round of clapping when he called for abolishing the income tax.
Meanwhile, Paul is drawing a mixture of curiosity and respect from Democrats.
Doug Bishop, the treasurer of Jasper County in central Iowa and a staunch supporter of Democrat John Edwards for president, said, “There are a lot of people (in Iowa) looking at Ron Paul because he knows he’s not going to win, so he’s not scared to tell the truth."
Bishop added, "He’s throwing it right out there: get us out of Iraq, take care of America first, let’s take care of home before worrying about spending billions and billions of dollars overseas. And that message is resonating throughout the Midwest.”
Praise from the left
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., the left-of-center antiwar leader from Marin County, said, “Ron Paul appeals to people who are hungry for politicians who will speak their minds, not parsing, weighing, measuring. He knows what he believes, he’s not afraid to say it.”
he added, “People are loving it.”
Joe Trippi, a 25-year veteran of Iowa caucus politics who served as Howard Dean’s campaign manager in 2003 and who’s now a top aide to Edwards, said, “From what I see, Ron Paul is doing much better than his better-known opponents think he is doing. He is at that stage of the Dean campaign when all the other campaigns are laughing at him and have no idea of how strong he really is.”
Trippi added, “This kind of candidacy can be surprisingly strong in a caucus state particularly if it stays just below the radar.”
Drew Ivers, Paul’s Iowa campaign chairman, used that same phrase in addressing the Paul rally in Des Moines Saturday.
Ivers asked for show of hands on how many members of the audience were registered Republicans. Seeing that about half weren’t, Ivers told them they were “under the radar — which is exactly where I want to be.”
A repeat of the 1988 Robertson surprise?
In 1988, Ivers headed Pat Robertson’s campaign in Iowa, recruiting thousands of Christian conservatives.
Robertson shocked the GOP establishment by placing second in Iowa to Sen. Bob Dole, and ahead of eventual GOP nominee George H.W. Bush.
To some degree Paul is drawing on the same conservative Christian voters that Robertson did, although he must vie for their affections with GOP rivals Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.
Paul told the pastors’ meeting Saturday that, as an obstetrician, he had delivered approximately 4,000 babies. “The right to life issue is a very important issue to me,” he told them.
He told them that during his medical school training he’d entered an operating room without knowing an abortion was being performed. “At the time they weren’t sophisticated in how to kill the unborn before it was delivered. They delivered the baby and put it in a bucket and put in the corner of the room. It tried to cry, tried to breathe. Everybody was pretending it wasn’t there.”
He also explained to the pastors that he voted against the constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage. “It’s a state issue,” he said, “I think it should be a religious ceremony; I don’t even like the idea that it’s a state licensing process.”
Paul seems astonished by what has happened to him: “I never would have dreamed that I would have a campaign going that would have big rallies in the center of San Francisco and New York City. There’s something very strange going on. I don’t think anyone has fully comprehended how big it is.”
Paul and his fans will get a first measurement of how big it is on Jan. 3, the night of the Iowa caucuses.
Pick your poison:
(http://images.politico.com/global/071031_hillary_rudy1.jpg)
Did you mean to say cynical?Pick your poison:
(http://images.politico.com/global/071031_hillary_rudy1.jpg)
Dude I know that even someone as gay as you dont want either of them as your candidate. Are you just trolling because you are senile about the election process? Dude Man up and support a candidate worth supporting.
Did you mean to say cynical?Pick your poison:
(http://images.politico.com/global/071031_hillary_rudy1.jpg)
Dude I know that even someone as gay as you dont want either of them as your candidate. Are you just trolling because you are senile about the election process? Dude Man up and support a candidate worth supporting.
You know what? I like Biden best of all the more I think about it
Dems:
1. Joe Biden
Liking a fringe candidate and trying to convince people a fringe candidate has a chance aren't one and the same.
Biden wants to bring back slavery.
I'm white, not my problem. Plus I am not even voting Biden in the primaries. I am voting in the republican primaries.:o
Paul...get my vote, sure.:D :o
omg someone hacked wikipedia
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com/2007/10/just-how-many-taxes-does-government.html (http://liberty-central.blogspot.com/2007/10/just-how-many-taxes-does-government.html)I am forced to pay the Cigarette Tax? Because I don't have to pay for that and never will.
Just how many taxes does the Government collect
Some have asked,..."How would government run without the income tax?"
We'll for starters we need to cut spending by at least a third, but income taxes don't really pay for any services, just interest on national debt. My question is who gets the interest?
(From Aaron Russo's documentary film "America: Freedom to Fascism")
A Partial List Of Taxes Americans Are Forced To Pay:
Accounts Receivable Tax
Automobile Registration Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (Indirect Taxes)
Dog License Tax
Estate Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 Cents Per Gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (Tax On Top Of Tax)
IRS Penalties (Tax On Top Of Tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Parking Meters
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-Recurring Charges Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
I am forced to pay the Cigarette Tax? Because I don't have to pay for that and never will.
How about you stop paying taxes and when you you want to do something like use a road we don't let you.that didnt make any sense.
Alot of the taxes you listed pay for roads, amongst other things you use daily.
Also, we could move stupid uneducated people into their living rooms if they want to eliminate the Dept. of Education.
well no shit only ron paul signed it, he has no chance. if you sign that then it can be twisted in a lot of ways against you, especially that judge, jury, and prosecutor part.
Also, we could move stupid uneducated people into their living rooms if they want to eliminate the Dept. of Education.
Tell me one thing that the department of education even does? Then tell me what they have done that actually is any good.
Fuck clean air and water. I don't remember that being a problem when the constitution was written, so why should we care now.
"Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property -- water, air, or land. It is very strict."
"Certainly, any time there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government. "
"My favorite thing is riding bicycles, and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes. I live on the San Bernard River in Texas and I belong to an environmental group that works very, very hard to protect the natural aspects of that river."
Why can't individuals and corporations just clean up after themselves without government interference?
(http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ecotone/es203/envmvmt/cuyahoga2.jpg)
Fuck clean air and water. I don't remember that being a problem when the constitution was written, so why should we care now.
Are you willing to sacrifice your liberties for the environment.
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-pauls-environmental-q.html (http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-pauls-environmental-q.html)
Yes, frankly.(http://www.champaign.org/resources/images/photos/teens/LOL_emoticon_color.jpg)
So am I. I don't think the constitution is the holy document of FREEDOM.
Yea who needs that shit.why are you so stupid? it is impossible for any realistic presidential candidate to sign that because it would mean A LOT of hassling. constantly.
You're Arab right? You're gonna be the first to be denied rights if shit ever goes down and we don't change.
Yea who needs that shit.why are you so stupid? it is impossible for any realistic presidential candidate to sign that because it would mean A LOT of hassling. constantly.
You're Arab right? You're gonna be the first to be denied rights if shit ever goes down and we don't change.
Have you ever stooped to think about stupid really are? Like look at those Ron Paul supporters for instance.
One week in Shanghai was enough to convince me of the importance of governmental regulation regarding environmental issues.:lol :lol :lol
The difference between FoC and me is FoC believes that people are intelligent enough to govern themselves
China has almost zero governmental regulation regarding the environment.
And we know how well the lack of it works as well! (Also see above picture of burning river in Ohio. )
At the risk of actually appearing to engage FoC on some issues:
1) I am willing to cede personal freedoms to the government in exchange for improved quality of life. This is only on issues where the government can affect change that no individual or even organization is capable of performing. (environmental issues, health care issues, etc.)
2) I believe that people are basically selfish, short-sighted creatures and will always screw over their neighbor (and their children) for short-term personal gain.People are selfish short sighted yet the government isnt? ???
I also think that fucking over others in the name of "freedom" is amoral.Then what is the disagreement with Ron Paul. If you could sum up his views it would be "Live and let Live
3) If it's 15 degrees hotter, the air is full of toxins, and I have cancer, personal freedoms won't do me much good.And all of our environmental issues will just disappear if we pass a law or two?
4) Without government oversight, there is nothing to keep corporations from fucking over people in pursuit of the bottom line. Part of this is due to our fucked up treatment of corporations as individuals, but that's another story.You are right it is another story that I might even agree with you on. But What you are saying about corporations can be said 10 times over with the government.
I also think that fucking over others in the name of "freedom" is amoral.Then what is the disagreement with Ron Paul. If you could sum up his views it would be "Live and let Live."
I also feel I should mention that my brother is partially deaf because he grew up in a town in Southern Arkansas with a dioxin incinerator that they assured us was "perfectly safe." Here's a twist ending that even a Ron Paul supporter should see coming from miles away: It wasn't, and birth defects and environmental illnesses in the town were through the roof. My brother had four sets of tubes in his ears by the time he was three years old. It took the intervention of the EPA (a governmental agency!) to finally shut the site down.(Link Please)
So excuse me if I don't exactly believe in the motherfucking free market, you...you...COLLEGE STUDENT.
http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1986-0519-1874.pdf
And if you're not in college, then how can you be stupid enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit hook, line, and sinker?
You're a fucking cultist, you know.
College kids, especially the "internet" crowd is famous for being lazy and apathetic. I fail to see how Ron Paul wins Straw Poll after Straw Poll if it was this crowd.
I would rather give my fingerprints over to a corporation than the government any day. Why? Because you have legal recourse with corporations.
QuoteI would rather give my fingerprints over to a corporation than the government any day. Why? Because you have legal recourse with corporations.
the only thing i trust less than the federal government is any given corporation.
College kids, especially the "internet" crowd is famous for being lazy and apathetic. I fail to see how Ron Paul wins Straw Poll after Straw Poll if it was this crowd.
Actually, IP logs at most major polling sites suggest the answer is "spambots" but thank you for playing.
you dumb maroon motherfucker, who gives you legal recourse? the federal government. without them, corporations would bend your ass over and shoot their cancer up your butthole while you tearfully cough up plebian sophistry about the "free market".
No, it was debunked that Ron Paul's campaign was involved, the spambots are still real.
you dumb maroon motherfucker, who gives you legal recourse? the federal government. without them, corporations would bend your ass over and shoot their cancer up your butthole while you tearfully cough up plebian sophistry about the "free market".
What? English please. Your trolling isnt even making sense this time.
Reality-land
1) corporation fucks over FoC
2) FoC sues corporation
3) the strong judicial system of our federal government provides a framework in which FoC and the corporation can resolve their differences and the necessary muscle to enforce any decision reached
Reality-land
1) corporation fucks over FoC
2) FoC sues corporation
3) the strong judicial system of our federal government provides a framework in which FoC and the corporation can resolve their differences and the necessary muscle to enforce any decision reached
What is wrong with this? I agree with this.
OH MY GOD WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE WORDS YOU ARE TYPING :punch::)
Without a strong federal government, who enforces the laws?
Whoa whoa whoa. I think I found the core problem here. I think there is a misunderstanding. Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of every Tax.you listed taxes earlier that you deemed un-needed THAT PAID FOR ROADS
I still cant get over a few posts back FoC basically stating that govt. funded education has not ever done anything good.
if you think we axe the dept. of education that our public education system will go on fine and dandy as is then you are clueless.I still cant get over a few posts back FoC basically stating that govt. funded education has not ever done anything good.
Department of education does not equal public education.
You fail.
you listed taxes earlier that you deemed un-needed THAT PAID FOR ROADS
if you think we axe the dept. of education that our public education system will go on fine and dandy as is then you are clueless.
Tell me one thing that the department of education even does? Then tell me what they have done that actually is any good.
Guys, guys, guys. I kept trying to tell you- it's useless to try and talk with it. You can own it over and over and over and over again and it doesn't even notice. FoC is basically a Boonga Boonga game that anyone can win at, but the game KEEPS THINKING IT IS UNBEATEN.
and have you read henry david thoreau's essay civil disobedience? is there anything in it that you disagree with?Freshman year i did. And there is nothing I disagree with. What is your point?
The difference between FoC and me is FoC believes that people are intelligent enough to govern themselves, while I believe that people are intelligent enough to support Ron Paul.
what is best for any given individual almost always involves stuff that is not the best for everyone else
i do not enjoy the tyranny of determined individualists when i participate in a society
that requires educated well informed voters.
the world isn't binary, foc; although if you're suggesting that ron paul's libertarian shenigans are as much extremist nonsense as fascism, then i agreeWhat about the libertarian view do you not agree with?
that rules out you and the rest of ron paul's cultists, fo sho
Freshman year i did. And there is nothing I disagree with. What is your point?are you willing to give up all your wordly possessions if ron paul doesn't get elected?
Read a book!
[youtube=425,350]rN2VqFPNS8w[/youtube]
if i'm going to sacrifice many of my "freedoms" -- as i must, if i wish to participate in any human society -- i'm not going to do so on the altar of hapless individualist idealism, but rather under a properly pragmatic structure that seeks to compensate for human selfishness, rather than elevate itYou don't have to sacrifice freedoms to participate in human society. You do have to sacrifice basic rights given to us after thousands years of society to live in fascism.
again, dolt, where are we living in fascism
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authority
On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[3][4] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[5]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.
On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.
As such, the law could be extended to U.S. citizens and held if left unchecked.
"HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech that allows those in power to criminally penalize anything they considered to be particularly effective in terms of galvanizing an opposition that might conceivably in some sense disrupt or destabilized the status quo, so it's to keep everything in that nice sanitized arena that I was just talking about where you're actually a collateral functionary of the state by participating."
erhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.
I like how there's all these coherent arguments and discussion on one side and FoC posting smileys and youtube videos on the other side.
Pick your poison:
(http://images.politico.com/global/071031_hillary_rudy1.jpg)
Too bad none of those sentences are about what other people are saying, you nimrod's son.
i think what irks me about the more avid paulites i've encountered is that cult-think "bububububut it's all so simple!" spiel that invariably comes out of their maws, like canto and verse from a libertarian bible i've thankfully never read.
"it's all so simple, doug! if we stop taxing folks, they'll have more money to spend!"
"it's all so simple, doug! if we abolish national education, private schools will step in and pay teachers better wages, and students will have a choice!"
"it's all so simple, doug! corporations will not make decisions that hurt their bottom line -- that's how the market works!"
"it's all so simple, doug! if we kill bureaucracy at the root, we won't need as many taxes!"
"it's all so simple, doug! we can eliminate so much corruption if we just trust the constitution!"
if you can't spot why ALL of these statements are patently stupid and idealistic, or can't see the RELIGION inherent in all of them -- and i'll be glad to help you with your weird inverted political myopia -- then DROP THE FUCKING CUP OF KOOL-AID AND TRY PARTICIPATING IN THE REAL WORLD
if you can't spot why ALL of these statements are patently stupid and idealistic, or can't see the RELIGION inherent in all of them -- and i'll be glad to help you with your weird inverted political myopia -- then DROP THE FUCKING CUP OF KOOL-AID AND TRY PARTICIPATING IN THE REAL WORLD
I really believe much of the apathy, irrationality, and irresponsibility of todays society stems from the fact, that no matter what dumb shit we do, the government will bail us out.
I think we should make FoC a deal- if Ron Paul finishes 3rd or better in any primary or caucus, he can have his townie leper status removed. But if Paul fails to do that, he gets permabanned. And all dupe accounts permabanned too.
I love how up until 3 or 4 months ago FoC spent all his time trying to convince us he wasn't a conservative redneck racist inbred shitkicker from Texas and that he actually voted for Democrats. Now he's a Ron Paul true believer. ::) ::) ::)
Dude FoC you are 100% going to be banned.
You made a deal with me to be banned/leave if Paul gets under 10% in Iowa as well. With this bet and my bet the chances of you of remaining at EB past Jan/Feb are almost none.
As the U.S. military budget balloons, so does the Armed Services’ need to train its soldiers. In fact, some military planners foresee a need for 5 million more acres for training facilities by 2011So here begins the United States Army taking away citizens land in the name of national security.
The government is appealing to the patriotism of the community, but the landowners are skeptical of the appeals to national security.
When President Bush's emergency supplemental funding request is granted by Congress in the coming weeks, the cost of the Iraq War will reach ten times its original projected cost of $50-60 billion, CNN reports.
Is there an actual 'libertarian' government in power, anywhere?
The Iraq war is a corrupt, pointless, and expensive war. Some of us knew this were preaching this even back before it was fashionable.Including me.
But what does that have to do with Ron Paul?
when did he become a doctor
Taking over the medical practice of a retiring doctor in Lake Jackson, Texas, he was busy as the only ob/gyn doctor in Brazoria County, saying, "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery." Paul did not accept Medicare and Medicaid payments as a physician; instead, he worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients; he says of these patients, "I just took care of them."
Are you going to ignore what i said in the last post?
QuoteTaking over the medical practice of a retiring doctor in Lake Jackson, Texas, he was busy as the only ob/gyn doctor in Brazoria County, saying, "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery." Paul did not accept Medicare and Medicaid payments as a physician; instead, he worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients; he says of these patients, "I just took care of them."
An honest politician who practices what he preaches. Even if you disagree with his ides you can at least admit that.
So instead of accepting Medicaid, he forced poor patients to pay him directly? What a champ!He worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans
Yes, because I don't see a correlation between "wake up" and "vote for Ron Paul." I've been awake for years, thank you, and I'm awake enough to know that there's no sense supporting a fringe candidate who won't get 3% of the vote in any primaries and will be a forgotten footnote come next fall.
Dr. Paul has made it the very first thing he would do if elected. He is the only candidate that didnt vote for the war. Denounces pre-emptive strikes, and voted against the patriot act.
Respond to this.QuoteDr. Paul has made it the very first thing he would do if elected. He is the only candidate that didnt vote for the war. Denounces pre-emptive strikes, and voted against the patriot act.
Dr. Paul has made it the very first thing he would do if elected.
He is the only candidate that didnt vote for the war.
Denounces pre-emptive strikes,
and voted against the Patriot Act.
FoC will grow up and look back 5 years from now and laugh at how he he supported a fringe candidate. Hopefully. :-\Are you going to ignore what i said in the last post?
Yes, because I don't see a correlation between "wake up" and "vote for Ron Paul." I've been awake for years, thank you, and I'm awake enough to know that there's no sense supporting a fringe candidate who won't get 3% of the vote in any primaries and will be a forgotten footnote come next fall.spoiler (click to show/hide)When I was in college I supported Nader. :'([close]
FoC will grow up and look back 5 years from now and laugh at how he he supported a fringe candidate. Hopefully. :-\
And if he wins?Fail in his Libertarian paradise in 50 years time.
I find it facetious that you've started referring him to "Dr. Paul," as if his medical background has anything to do with politics. I'm fairly opposed to the "Dr." honorific in general, however.So you are opposed to it, whoopty-fucking-do.
I am absolutely opposed to the Iraq war and consider it an illegal and immoral war, but I also know that stopping a war is a lot like stopping a runaway freight train. You can't just pull everyone out and call it a day. Well, you can, but then you get Afghanistan and we all saw how THAT worked out.Vietnam says hello.
Good for him, but given the political atmosphere of the time I'm not going to count that either for or against him (or the other candidates). It was a stupid vote for a stupid war but it's not like voting against it would have stopped it (even if a majority of Congress had voted against it.)
Great, but he's not the only candidate with that stance.Who else? Kucninich? :lol
Good for him. The Patriot Act is expected to be overturned (or at least significant parts not renewed) in the next meeting.Agian you are not giving him credit for being caught up in the "OMG 'Merica Patriot business" You are basically saying that it was a bad law but it probably wont stay so whatever. :lol
Ron Paul sounds like a wonderful idealist. I don't want an idealist in a position of power. I want a realist, because I live in reality.What candidate is this?
The "realist" candidate is "whatever Democratic candidate our fucked up electoral process spits up":-\ No matter what they stand for.
Patel I think you beleive in what Paul stands for but cant bring yourself to support him for whatever reason.
1) Ron Paul is not getting the Democratic nomination
2) Ron Paul is not a viable third-party candidate
3) Ron Paul is not the next POTUS
I agree with many of his viewpoints, sure. But supporting him would be a waste of time. You are wasting your time.As opposed to anime and video games? :lol
As of yesterday it is exactly 2 months until the Iowa caucus. Get going ron paul! You've gone from 0 to 2% in 8 months, just 2 more months to shoot that up by about 40%!
1) Ron Paul is not getting the Democratic nomination
2) Ron Paul is not a viable third-party candidate
3) Ron Paul is not the next POTUS
1)Would you vote for a democratic candidate if you disagreed with everything he/she stood for? Should you put the issues about the party?
2)Its a goof thing he isnt running as a third party candidate then.
3)Says who?
I find it facetious that you've started referring him to "Dr. Paul," as if his medical background has anything to do with politics. I'm fairly opposed to the "Dr." honorific in general, howeverI was thinking. Dr. Paul is the only medical doctor candidate. That gives him a huge edge on healthcare, imo.
kinda like how dr. santorum has an advantage in the abortion debate and the terry schiavo case, amirite?
(evilbore fun fact: i couldn't recall rick santorum's name, so igoogledmsn live search'd "dan savage semen and shit." first hit was rick santorum. thanks, internet!)
^maybe he's talking about representatives only? I can't remember what any representative voted for.
I know Barbara Boxer didn't vote for the war.
Uh, Paul wasn't the only candidate not to vote for the Iraq war...
Uh, Paul wasn't the only candidate not to vote for the Iraq war...
Are they running for president?
Obama did not support the war when it began nor did KuchinichchchchhcThis is true, I wouldn't have such a problem voting for them. Especially if it was Rudy vs. Obama.
I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.
I would also like to point out that Ron Paul would say that it is not the Government's job to make sure children's toys don't have poisonous lead paint on them. THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING.
I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.
I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.
Bill Richardson
I would also like to point out that Ron Paul would say that it is not the Government's job to make sure children's toys don't have poisonous lead paint on them. THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING.
Is it the federal governments job to make sure toys are safe?
Right now it is and they are doing a pretty fucking lousy job. :lol :lol
Who?
I do want to point out that Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to bring our troops home as soon as safely possible.
Bill Richardson
Who?
I'm failing to understand the gist of your argument. Let me see if this is what you're saying: "A massively underfunded and understaffed agency run by a woman who is resisting attempts to strengthen it is unable to regulate rogue companies from providing toxic toys for toddlers. The obvious solution is to completely eliminate the agency and let those companies police themselves!"
I'm failing to understand the gist of your argument. Let me see if this is what you're saying: "A massively underfunded and understaffed agency run by a woman who is resisting attempts to strengthen it is unable to regulate rogue companies from providing toxic toys for toddlers. The obvious solution is to completely eliminate the agency and let those companies police themselves!"
Sounds like the agency is ineffective and wasting money even existing.
Lets throw more money at the problem.
Obama did not support the war when it began nor did Kuchinichchchchhc
Obama did not support the war when it began nor did Kuchinichchchchhc
Kuchinichi Wa
Well obviously you have been exposed to lead toys as a child.
Who?
You're just a font of knowledge, aren't you?
Obama did not support the war when it began nor did Kuchinichchchchhc
Kuchinichi Wa
I would totally fuck his wife.
Who?
You're just a font of knowledge, aren't you?
I knew he was I was just making the joke that this guy isn't very not worthy. In the debates he sounds kind of whiney and doesnt set him self apart from the rest of the pack.
Ron Paul doesn't sound whiney?
QuoteTaking over the medical practice of a retiring doctor in Lake Jackson, Texas, he was busy as the only ob/gyn doctor in Brazoria County, saying, "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery." Paul did not accept Medicare and Medicaid payments as a physician; instead, he worked for free or arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients; he says of these patients, "I just took care of them."
An honest politician who practices what he preaches. Even if you disagree with his ides you can at least admit that.
So instead of accepting Medicaid, he forced poor patients to pay him directly? What a champ!
A lof of dental and hospital practices don't support Medicaiddoes the average hospital accept it when it's for a life-saving emergency?
how the fuck would you prevent unsafe children's toys without a government agency?
how the fuck would you prevent unsafe children's toys without a government agency?
let him answer it, I'm very curious.
how the fuck would you prevent unsafe children's toys without a government agency?Is it the governments job to prevent unsafe toys? If shit like this happens you put stiff fines on the company and let the parents sue their asses into oblivion.
does the average hospital accept it when it's for a life-saving emergency?
Its like the Government Bureaucracy Defense Force up in here. I seriously suggest you guys learn the difference between anarchism and libertarianism.
This is a problem with our justice system. I'm not entirely sure what to do, but probably something along the lines of a few ass whoopings against shit like the exon valdez or the toys stuff would be good.
Throwing money at a government agency wont solve the problem.
The government cares more about Exxon than it does Valdez or the people affected in the area. Thats just the fuckin truth. And its cause we give politicians more power than they should have. Exxon can line the pockets of their buddies, just like any other company, and shit goes their way. If the game of politics stopped being about alliances and fundraising and funny things slipped into bills we'd see something happen. The answer to that is changing the form of government, not giving our warped politicians more power and money and federal agents.
The government cares more about Exxon than it does Valdez or the people affected in the area. Thats just the fuckin truth. And its cause we give politicians more power than they should have. Exxon can line the pockets of their buddies, just like any other company, and shit goes their way. If the game of politics stopped being about alliances and fundraising and funny things slipped into bills we'd see something happen. The answer to that is changing the form of government, not giving our warped politicians more power and money and federal agents.
There ya go folks. Remind them who they work for.
thankfully ron paul decided to run for the gop nomination not a third party so we can be done with his whiney voice in 2 months rather than 1 year.
thankfully ron paul decided to run for the gop nomination not a third party so we can be done with his whiney voice in 2 months rather than 1 year.
Even though he has denied it, I doubt he would not run as a third party candidate. He has alot of passionate support.
He ran as third party before and swore afterwards he never would again. That would make your candidate a liar wouldn't it?thankfully ron paul decided to run for the gop nomination not a third party so we can be done with his whiney voice in 2 months rather than 1 year.
Even though he has denied it, I doubt he would not run as a third party candidate. He has alot of passionate support.
thankfully ron paul decided to run for the gop nomination not a third party so we can be done with his whiney voice in 2 months rather than 1 year.
ough he has denied it, I doubt he would not run as a third party candidate. He has alot of passionate support.He ran as third party before and swore afterwards he never would again. That would make your candidate a liar wouldn't it?
Did I post this or not? Marvel at my awesome MS Paint skills!:-\
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/galeninjapan/avp_1.jpg)
that photoshop is as professional and believable as Ron Paul's candidacy
boo fucking hoo, go cry into your kleenex:kylielaff :kylielaff
it's almost like he's a real candidate
it's almost like he's a real candidate
He's been a top tier republican for a few weeks.
Except Romney, Rudy, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee all have more support. Only 2 candidates have less support than him.it's almost like he's a real candidate
He's been a top tier republican for a few weeks.
Except Romney, Rudy, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee all have more support. Only 2 candidates have less support than him.it's almost like he's a real candidate
He's been a top tier republican for a few weeks.
Hahaha, FoC has turned into JayDubya! Someone give him a copy of Atlas Shrugged and blow the simp's mind.
This isn't specific to Ron Paul, but why, when we are stuck with two parties that really go nowhere, that when another outside candidate comes along people seek to mock them instead of encouraging competition to shake things up?he isn't outside the two parties, he is running for the GOP nomination. What you speak of is more along the lines of Ralph Nader.
This isn't specific to Ron Paul, but why, when we are stuck with two parties that really go nowhere, that when another outside candidate comes along people seek to mock them instead of encouraging competition to shake things up?he isn't outside the two parties, he is running for the GOP nomination. What you speak of is more along the lines of Ralph Nader.
He tried that already in a past election already.This isn't specific to Ron Paul, but why, when we are stuck with two parties that really go nowhere, that when another outside candidate comes along people seek to mock them instead of encouraging competition to shake things up?he isn't outside the two parties, he is running for the GOP nomination. What you speak of is more along the lines of Ralph Nader.
He's going for the republican card? It would seem to make more sense for him to go under another party.
Hahaha, FoC has turned into JayDubya! Someone give him a copy of Atlas Shrugged and blow the simp's mind.
I still can't believe he agreed to be perma'ed if Paul loses.
This isn't specific to Ron Paul, but why, when we are stuck with two parties that really go nowhere, that when another outside candidate comes along people seek to mock them instead of encouraging competition to shake things up?
Just wait. Cheebs is gonna be perma banned from evilbore.(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/RiskyChris/smileys/emot-suicide.gif)
He also agreed to be perma'ed if he gets under 10% in IowaI still can't believe he agreed to be perma'ed if Paul loses.
Well, technically he agreed to be perm'd if Paul failed to finish in the top three in any GOP primary or caucus, but regardless he's gonna be toast.
He also agreed to be perma'ed if he gets under 10% in IowaThats not even hard.
I'd probably vote for him as a President, because it'd be awesome to have some libertarian in charge of the military.
I'd probably vote for him as a President, because it'd be awesome to have some libertarian in charge of the military.
The troops will come home! :)
[youtube=425,350]DOgs1qw-6uA[/youtube].
I'd probably vote for him as a President, because it'd be awesome to have some libertarian in charge of the military.
The troops will come home! :)
will they have to pay their own air fare for the trip back?
Ron Paul Raises More Than $4.2 Million
By JIM KUHNHENN – 6 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.
Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.
Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."
Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.
"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.
The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors, fundraising director Jonathan Bydlak said Monday night.
Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.
Paul as of Monday had raised more than $7 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.
Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNV5Q02 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNV5Q02)Yet you think he can win based off your money assessment when Romney raises 4-5x as much?QuoteRon Paul Raises More Than $4.2 Million
By JIM KUHNHENN – 6 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.
Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.
Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."
Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.
"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.
The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors, fundraising director Jonathan Bydlak said Monday night.
Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.
Paul as of Monday had raised more than $7 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.
Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.
Probably spambots right? :lol :lol :lol
Thanks for ignoring all the points I made in my post, FoC! :maf
Thanks for ignoring all the points I made in my post, FoC! :maf
Uh... I mean. Ron Paul will put an end to Tyra banks.
What do you guys think of this interview?
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3826776&affil=wabc (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3826776&affil=wabc)
there's some public domain artwork of the founding fathers on the cover so you KNOW what's inside is true
there's some public domain artwork of the founding fathers on the cover so you KNOW what's inside is true
All artwork of the founding fathers is public domain! :lol
there's some public domain artwork of the founding fathers on the cover so you KNOW what's inside is true
All artwork of the founding fathers is public domain! :lol
there's some public domain artwork of the founding fathers on the cover so you KNOW what's inside is true
All artwork of the founding fathers is public domain! :lol
no, you stupid fat taco, NOTHING is public domain until the statute of limitations is up on it -- if i painted a picture of george washington getting anally savaged by john adams, you could not use it in one of your shitty films until 2057ish
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/lunarworks/paul-herman-08.jpg):lol :lol :lol
This is turning into a fucking huge shitheap.
This is turning into a fucking huge shitheap.
What do you expect? FoC is involved. Although it will be massively entertaining to reference this thread when it's banning time for El Retardo.
pretty sure this little banning wager doesn't have mod approval
how is supporting a silly wager anything resembling "moderation"
You dont actually get to tell me what to do.
how is supporting a silly wager anything resembling "moderation"
Well, both parties agreed to the bet. And nothing done here resembles "moderation". In any sense of the word.
But if, after annoying the everliving shitfuck out of everyone and agreeing to stupid bets regarding Ron Paul if you think FoC should be allowed to stick around longer than maybe a week afterwards for shaming purposes... man, I guess I just don't know you anymore.
pretty sure this little banning wager doesn't have mod approval
I dont have to do anything, stfuIm not saying you have to do anything.
i should add that the new libertarian foc is MUCH more tragically amusing than the previous ignorant racist foc -- i'm glad to see that he hasn't tried to discuss, oh, muslims lately.
please point to a forum on the interweb where there are NO annoying people; IT MUST BE A PARADISE FOR THE HUMORLESS
What is this ron paul?
So wait your telling me he is a she? :o
That's a great idea, tennin! Pick a forum you really like and think of as unspoiled, then link to it in a Ron Paul thread dedicated to FoC. Fabulous!
::)QuoteThat's a great idea, tennin! Pick a forum you really like and think of as unspoiled, then link to it in a Ron Paul thread dedicated to FoC. Fabulous!
I don't really see FoC bothering to troll programming language forums, but I guess I usually underestimate the depths of human depravity.
I actually just dont wanna ban FoC cause then the ban whiners, and they know who they are, have won.
I actually just dont wanna ban FoC cause then the ban whiners, and they know who they are, have won.
Have you ever thought that if you ever, I don't know, MODERATED I wouldn't whine? Just axin.
I dont change to let whiners have their way.
I don't know why people continue to post on forums where they are constantly abused--even if the abuse is completely warranted. I wouldn't need to make a ban bet. I'd just stop posting.
Except 90% of the people in this thread agree with my distaste of ron paul?I don't know why people continue to post on forums where they are constantly abused--even if the abuse is completely warranted. I wouldn't need to make a ban bet. I'd just stop posting.
Seriously cheebs should just stop posting here.
I don't know why people continue to post on forums where they are constantly abused--even if the abuse is completely warranted. I wouldn't need to make a ban bet. I'd just stop posting.
Seriously cheebs should just stop posting here.
Except 90% of the people in this thread agree with my distaste of ron paul?
But I'd still rather be stuck sitting next to you in hell than FoC.
that had nothing to do with ron paul though? That was cause of shake lolI don't know why people continue to post on forums where they are constantly abused--even if the abuse is completely warranted. I wouldn't need to make a ban bet. I'd just stop posting.
Seriously cheebs should just stop posting here.
Except 90% of the people in this thread agree with my distaste of ron paul?
To be fair, your old account was nuked and then you had to make a dupe with the name GAY BOY.
But I'd still rather be stuck sitting next to you in hell than FoC.
I don't know why people continue to post on forums where they are constantly abused--even if the abuse is completely warranted. I wouldn't need to make a ban bet. I'd just stop posting.
Seriously cheebs should just stop posting here.
Except 90% of the people in this thread agree with my distaste of ron paul?
To be fair, your old account was nuked and then you had to make a dupe with the name GAY BOY.
But I'd still rather be stuck sitting next to you in hell than FoC.
that had nothing to do with ron paul though? That was cause of shake lol
has Ron Paul hit 3% yet or should we not dream that impossible dream
has Ron Paul hit 3% yet or should we not dream that impossible dream
From NBC's Mark Murray
AUSTIN, TX -- Want more proof that Ron Paul supporters are everywhere? Outside the University of Texas football stadium here -- just an hour before kickoff -- is a plane flying with a banner that reads: "Ron Paul for President...Everyone wins." We're not kidding.
...do you get the irony?
The irony that you are gay? No I didnt get that.it's talking about ron paul having support in real life and you are the example.
God, this thread is so stupid.
I love this video. :D
God, this thread is so stupid.(http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6408/avatar790654go1.jpg)
I love this video. :D
From the comments:
The pollsters are polling people who:
1. Voted Republican in the last election (this immediately excludes 50% of Ron Paul's supporters)
2. Have a landline (this excludes another 25% of Ron Paul Supporters)
3. Have nothing better to do than answer a pollsters questions on the telephone (this excludes the rest of Ron Paul's supporters--we're all to busy working to get Ron Paul elected!!!)
It's like the political Wal-cuse!
Seeing the "1%" and "2%" at the store yesterday while grabbing a carton of milk yesterday made me think of this thread. Thanks Ron Paul!
No, but it has more of a chance than Ron Paul.
Remember the days when FoC tried to convince us he was a liberal and not a wacko social conservative from the south? Now he isn't even hiding his passion for social conservatives. :)
That doesn't change the fact you are voting for someone more socially conservative than Rudy or Romney.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Treaty Power of the President does not extend beyond the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, but are limited by the Constitution, and any exercise of such Executive Power inconsistent with the Constitution shall be of no legal force or effect.
Wow. Ron Paul is a complete asshole.Why should any foriegn student get federal aid?
H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.
H.R.2424: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.If he was president i dont think this law would disapear.
ouch, that's a pretty complete condemnation of paul's record. ah, the blindness of ideologues!
Why pinpoint Iranians?Wow. Ron Paul is a complete asshole.Why should any foriegn student get federal aid?
H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.
Why pinpoint Iranians?
Honest Money Act - Amends Federal law to repeal the status of U.S. coins and currency as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks).
Why pinpoint Iranians?
3) Why should we return to a gold standard?
That is from the 109th congress. The number resets every two years for HR's. This is not from that. From the OFFICAL congress library:
Why pinpoint Iranians?
I googled that House resolution.
I got this
"H.R.5842
Title: To compromise and settle all claims in the case of Pueblo of Isleta v. United States, to restore, improve, and develop the valuable on-reservation land and natural resources of the Pueblo, and for other purposes"
That blog looks fishy.
Paul wrote that bill during the Iranian hostage crisis. REACTIONARY REMOVING THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS MUCH?
Now I'd like for you to explain how such a staunch libertarian and defender of personal freedoms could have sponsored half-a-dozen anti-reproductive freedom bills!
If you want to vote for Libertarian Happy Crappy Puppies n' Sunshine Nonsense (ie NO TAXES, LESS GUBMINT, THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING, GUNS FOR E'RBODY!), then vote for Ron Paul. But saying you're supporting/voting for the man because he's "honest" or "supports the constitution" is lazy and stupid, which thinking about it are defining traits of Texans in general and FoC in specific so I guess he really is right in your wheelhouse, eh?
If you want to vote for Libertarian Happy Crappy Puppies n' Sunshine Nonsense (ie NO TAXES, LESS GUBMINT, THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING, GUNS FOR E'RBODY!), then vote for Ron Paul. But saying you're supporting/voting for the man because he's "honest" or "supports the constitution" is lazy and stupid, which thinking about it are defining traits of Texans in general and FoC in specific so I guess he really is right in your wheelhouse, eh?
Kucinich isn't for smaller government which is the core of all the issues in America right now. You guys have this delusion that if Ron Paul were elected president everything he wants would pass. If nothing else it's time that the Federal government was stripped of alot of its power. Do we really need a no fly list with 750,000 people? Do we need the NSA listening in on calls without a warrent? Do we want the government defining extreme thoughts as terrorism? All this shit does is limit liberty. But you guys want bigger government and liberty. It doesn't work that way pal. You cant have a large monolithic government and liberty from it at the same time.
Kucinich isn't for smaller government which is the core of all the issues in America right now.
But you guys want bigger government and liberty. It doesn't work that way pal. You cant have a large monolithic government and liberty from it at the same time.
I can have a large, monolithic government focused more on issues that I care aboutAnd how exactly do you make sure they are focused on your issues? Who gets to decide the important issues?
(health care, education, economic inequality) or I can have a large, monolithic government focused on issues I'm opposed to (wars, loosening restrictions on corporations, curbing civil liberties I support).What happens when your definition of these things doesnt meet what the government's definition is? Why give the government any of this responsibility or power to curb civil liberties.
A smaller federal government that gives up it's powers is not about to happen, so I might as well try to make the option that I like more feasible.
Now I'd like for you to explain how such a staunch libertarian and defender of personal freedoms could have sponsored half-a-dozen anti-reproductive freedom bills!
Probably because hes an OBGYN.
Wrong on both counts. Plenty of problems come from the private enterprise side of the equation, and it's perfectly possible to have a heavily-regulated economy that doesn't devolve to a police state.
Look at the Netherlands. They're way closer to social democracy than the United States, and are also way more liberal on social issues like gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.
Cool, I didn't know being an OBGYN gave you absolute power over women's bodies. Time for a career change!
I can have a large, monolithic government focused more on issues that I care aboutAnd how exactly do you make sure they are focused on your issues? Who gets to decide the important issues?(health care, education, economic inequality) or I can have a large, monolithic government focused on issues I'm opposed to (wars, loosening restrictions on corporations, curbing civil liberties I support).What happens when your definition of these things doesnt meet what the government's definition is? Why give the government any of this responsibility or power to curb civil liberties.A smaller federal government that gives up it's powers is not about to happen, so I might as well try to make the option that I like more feasible.
It's already happening, if you cant see it, then you are blind.
I'm pro-choice, but I at least see that someone who is a medical doctor and delivered over 4,000 babies might have a right to feel that the way he does. He's isn't some Jesus freak that has double standards on the whole issue.
C. If you honestly think that the federal government has lost power in the last 25 or so years, you really are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged and I encourage you to go suck on a fucking tailpipe. Show me how this is happening.
As to why give them this power, it's part of a social contract.I mean why give them the power to fuck up in the first place. I understand social cotnract, give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order.
I might have to give up my freedom of not having 100% of my paycheck come home with me, or the right to buy lead covered toys to give to my nephew.
Wrong on both counts. Plenty of problems come from the private enterprise side of the equation, and it's perfectly possible to have a heavily-regulated economy that doesn't devolve to a police state.
Look at the Netherlands. They're way closer to social democracy than the United States, and are also way more liberal on social issues like gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.
libertarians are okay with all that.
And how exactly do you make sure they are focused on your issues? Who gets to decide the important issues?
If he's not a Jesus freak, then why has he introduced bills trying to eliminate the separation of church and state?
Short version: The expansion of government involvement in one area DOES NOT automatically equal government involvement in all other areas.
Short version: The expansion of government involvement in one area DOES NOT automatically equal government involvement in all other areas.
When has government ever said "oops we have too much power, we need to resend some of it. :lol :lol Few and far between.
Just like taxes (which basically equates to power) the more you give the more they spend and the more they will want. Not government agency ever asks for less money than the year before.
If he's not a Jesus freak, then why has he introduced bills trying to eliminate the separation of church and state?
Because that seperation is not in the constitution. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion'
Many states had official religion at the time of ratification.
If you actually believe this then fuck you and die. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation!" meme is the most virulent political cancer of the past 5 years.
Short version: The expansion of government involvement in one area DOES NOT automatically equal government involvement in all other areas.
When has government ever said "oops we have too much power, we need to resend some of it. :lol :lol Few and far between.
Just like taxes (which basically equates to power) the more you give the more they spend and the more they will want. Not government agency ever asks for less money than the year before.
WAY TO MISS THE POINT
If you actually believe this then fuck you and die. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation!" meme is the most virulent political cancer of the past 5 years.
you said states are allowed to declare official religions!
If you actually believe this then fuck you and die. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation!" meme is the most virulent political cancer of the past 5 years.
I dont believe that.
If you govern through legislation, then executive branch agencies can't just expand their own mandates cause they want to. You have to change the law, which means Congress, which means a public and transparent process and people who need votes in order to keep their jobs, which means accountability:-* You just advoctated Ron Pauls own feelings!
If you think businesses shouldn't be regulated, then argue it on the merits of that particular issue. Don't pretend that child labor laws push us down a slippery slope towards autocracy.
you said states are allowed to declare official religions!
so if something was ok when the constitution was ratified it should be ok now?
you said states are allowed to declare official religions!
any states had official religions at the time of ratification. You think they would have ratified the constitution if it meant otherwise?
so if something was ok when the constitution was ratified it should be ok now?
If you govern through legislation, then executive branch agencies can't just expand their own mandates cause they want to. You have to change the law, which means Congress, which means a public and transparent process and people who need votes in order to keep their jobs, which means accountability:-* You just advoctated Ron Pauls own feelings!
so you really think states should have official religions purely cause there was no amendment? Doesn't that go against your precious Thomas Jefferson?so if something was ok when the constitution was ratified it should be ok now?
unless amended. You have to change the law for the law to be changed. You cant just will it to change. You are such a fucking idiot when it comes to this.
No, Ron Paul thinks that Wickard v. Filburn and other rulings by the Supreme Court sent the Constitution into exile, so 90%+ of what Congress does is unconstitutional.It is. Where does the constitution give the federal government the right for a Department of Education? (one example)
Paul wants to strip it entirely. [/b]
so you really think states should have official religions purely cause there was no amendment? Doesn't that go against your precious Thomas Jefferson?
Guys, seriously.
STOP TALKING TO IT.
Guys, seriously.
STOP TALKING TO IT.
This is a very valid and interesting point. I am so glad you have real contributions to this discussion.
foc who did you vote for in 2004.
:lol :lol What have I ignored? Your ignorant Texas redneck rants?
As opposed to your MO of "ask someone a question, have it answered, make a point completely unrelated, ignore responses, rinse and repeat."
All three of these principles have an ethical and political skew. For example, “economic rationality” is in theory a purely formal definition (neither a description of actual behavior nor a proposed ideal). According to this definition, a sociopath can be completely rational, whereas a seeming self-sacrificing individual must be seen either to be irrational or else secretly selfish after all. Economic rationality does not forbid generosity or fellow-feeling, but these are merely treated as consumption options. An economic actor who does not have a taste for generosity or decency will be completely rational in behaving cruelly within the bounds of law if that's what works for him. In short, this definition of rationality assumes individuals with no necessary social commitments, and while it is possible to tweak the system and patch in the possibility of individuals who follow extra-economic ethical principles, they are at best equally as rational as cold-bloodedly selfish individuals or even successful sociopaths. (...) The scientific blind spots and engineering biases I've been describing have been institutionalized and have also been developed into a toxic ideology called libertarianism. (...)
Kerry was more big govt. than bush, how did that fit your small govt. criteria.foc who did you vote for in 2004.
Kerry.
Kerry was more big govt. than bush, how did that fit your small govt. criteria.foc who did you vote for in 2004.
Kerry.
there's a really interesting post (that touches) on libertarianism and stuff on top of the front page at one of my favorite bloggy sites, http://idiocentrism.com
m. (...)
George Washingtons views were cool back then. 2007 is a bit different. Going purely based on what the founding fathers said doesn't apply now. It's been hundreds of years it no longer can fully apply fully. Things change.
FoC at the Consitutional Convention:
"Yeah, three fifths sounds about right. I was never good at fractions, lol!"
FoC at the Consitutional Convention:
"Yeah, three fifths sounds about right. I was never good at fractions, lol!"
What? Yes, I wish we could all have slaves. ::)
:lol Where do you guys get all this garbage from?
The rolleyes is because FoC really wishes only he could have slaves.
:lol :lol What have I ignored? Your ignorant Texas redneck rants?
As opposed to your MO of "ask someone a question, have it answered, make a point completely unrelated, ignore responses, rinse and repeat."
:lol Where do you guys get all this garbage from?
The rolleyes is because FoC really wishes only he could have slaves.
Oh he doesnt agree with me. He must be pro-slavery.
:lol
Well, yes. But also when Patel linked to that blog about Paul's voting record, you chose one thing (that you didn't even really understand) to highlight and ignored the rest. How convenient.
Well, yes. But also when Patel linked to that blog about Paul's voting record, you chose one thing (that you didn't even really understand) to highlight and ignored the rest. How convenient.
but patel is only doing unto you as you have done to others in this thread by ignoring the broader thrust of their points in favor of cherrypicking tangential specifics
Kerry was more big govt. than bush, how did that fit your small govt. criteria.foc who did you vote for in 2004.
Kerry.
At the time i was really interested in getting out of the war. and I thought the democrats wanted to do that. I also didnt realize that they were big govt. That election was freshman year of college for me. I was swept up in all the rhetoric about "democrats are for poor people and want to save society" "Republicans are evil because of bush, booooo"
also why do you hate black people
This pretty much sums it up.
"Back then, my vast ignorance about every aspect of public policy didn't stop me from buying into a political program that I didn't really understand. But now I've learned my lesson! I'm going to do it with a *different* program this time!"
He's like a dollar-store David Horowitz.
How big a type font do you need to prove you're a well-informed citizen with good political judgment?
I don't know, let's ask Mr. Owl!
I also didnt realize that they were big govt.
Are you saying that I wasn't well informed
I also didnt realize that they were big govt.Quote from: FlameOfCallandorAre you saying that I wasn't well informed
No, I think you're saying that.
This sounds like post-Hitler Germany. :lol
"At the time, it sounded like a great idea!"
Ronald Reagan wanted to get rid of the dept. of education, was he your hero?Sure why not.
Ronald Reagan wanted to get rid of the dept. of education, was he your hero?Sure why not.
Ronald Reagan wanted to get rid of the dept. of education, was he your hero?Sure why not.
well that explains a lot.
I think everyone already understands the irony of you calling reagan a hero while mere months ago you tried to convince us you were an open minded liberal.
This thread is not nearly as fun when it turns into FoC vs. Cheebs.I will willingly leave if Paul wins the primaries but honestly I do not fear that too much.
Hopefully one of the ban bets will kick in and I can start cannibalizing the forum Democrats during primary season.
This thread is not nearly as fun when it turns into FoC vs. Cheebs.I will willingly leave if Paul wins the primaries but honestly I do not fear that too much.
Hopefully one of the ban bets will kick in and I can start cannibalizing the forum Democrats during primary season.
This thread is not nearly as fun when it turns into FoC vs. Cheebs.I will willingly leave if Paul wins the primaries but honestly I do not fear that too much.
Hopefully one of the ban bets will kick in and I can start cannibalizing the forum Democrats during primary season.
What are you gonna do when you cant post on evilbore anymore?
:lol
FoC I want your serious real answer to this:
The primary is in a month and a half yet Paul's poll numbers have shown no significant improvement these past few weeks. Why do you think this will change in December?
Ron Paul distortions and smears
I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul's record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:
that comments on the flag burning votes, I never brought those up nor did anyone else. Most seemed concerned with his abortion stances, religious stances, and taking away rights of people during crisis's
that comments on the flag burning votes, I never brought those up nor did anyone else. Most seemed concerned with his abortion stances, religious stances, and taking away rights of people during crisis's
Not to mention his monetary policy and wholesale discounting of legal precedent.
That isn't to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even crazy. But I've heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot of views he espouses that I don't share. But he is a medical doctor and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way -- at least as thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the severe devaluation of the dollar.
And -- as the above-cited efforts to compel Congress to actually adhere to the Constitution demonstrate -- few people have been as vigorous in defense of Constitutional principles as those principles have been mangled and trampled upon by this administration while most of our establishment stood by meekly. That's just true.
Paul's efforts in that regard may be "odd" in the sense that virtually nobody else seemed to care all that much about systematic unconstitutional actions, but that hardly makes him a "weirdo." Sometimes -- as the debate over the Iraq War should have demonstrated once and for all -- the actual "fruitcake" positions are the ones that are held by the people who are welcome in our most respectable institutions and magazines, both conservative and liberal.
Under the right circumstances, enforcement of norms might have some utility. Where things are going relatively well, and the country has a healthy political dialogue, perhaps there isn't much of a need to expand the scope of ideas that we consider "normal." Having all the people whose views fit comfortably in the mainstream stigmatize as "fruitcakes" all those whose views are outside of the mainstream might, under those happy circumstances, bear little cost.
But our country isn't doing all that well right now. Our political dialogue isn't really vibrant or healthy. It seems rather self-evident that it is preferable to enlarge the scope of ideas that we consider and to expand the debates that we engage. The "norms" that have prevailed over the last six years have led the country quite astray and are in need of fundamental re-examination, at the very least. That a political figure (or pundit) clings loyally to prevailing norms isn't exactly evidence of their worth, let alone their mental health. The contrary proposition might actually be more plausible.
In what ways are these legal precedents unconstitutional?
Why the focus on "constitutionality"? I like the Constitution as much as the next American, but there's many other documents (like the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that I would consider equally important to our identity as Americans.
I refuse to venerate the Constitution like it's an unchangeable religious text; I believe that our government's ultimate accountability is to its citizenry, not a 200 year old document.
Just because the war in Iraq was a bad idea doesn't mean I should vote for Ron Paul. Just because the dollar is devalued doesn't mean I should vote for Ron Paul. Just because our government is turning into a police state doesn't mean I should vote for Ron Paul.
I agree that all of those are problems with America today, but I don't believe that Ron Paul has the solutions. And nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. You talk about him like he's a prophet, but I'd prefer a politician.
Reply to my other points.
So what is the solution?
Just because the war in Iraq was a bad idea doesn't mean I should vote for Ron Paul. Just because the dollar is devalued doesn't mean I should vote for Ron Paul. Just because our government is turning into a police state doesn't mean I should vote for Ron Paul.
I agree that all of those are problems with America today, but I don't believe that Ron Paul has the solutions. And nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. You talk about him like he's a prophet, but I'd prefer a politician.
So what is the solution?
The solution isn't to eliminate the governmentAm I advocating anarchy?
the solution is to create a socially responsible government that is able to provide for the citizenry while safeguarding important privacy rights.I agree I think a government should provide the citizenry with liberty. But as long as you thikn the governments job is to take care of you cradle to grave you will be giving up liberties and you will be allowing the government more and more control over your life.
Politics is not a some Manichean nightmare; there is a full spectrum of possibility between a dystopian police state and an anarchic nightmare
Do you believe in the germ theory of disease? Or are you a Liberty Scientist?
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm
OMG, check it out! Looks like Paul DID want to go to war with Iraq, he just wanted to make it look all nice, official and CONSTITUTIONAL.
So, how do you feel supporting someone who advocated war with Iraq, FoC?
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm
OMG, check it out! Looks like Paul DID want to go to war with Iraq, he just wanted to make it look all nice, official and CONSTITUTIONAL.
So, how do you feel supporting someone who advocated war with Iraq, FoC?
... ::)
Read the salon article then get back to me.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html
OMG, look! Ron Paul getting supported by racists! Go figure! Shucks n' golly!
:lol :lol
I don't see why I should do anything you tell me to do, you fucking baboon. You're my intellectual inferior. FACT.
:lol :lol
I don't see why I should do anything you tell me to do, you fucking baboon. You're my intellectual inferior. FACT.
You might sound like you know what you are talking about if you read that article...
It's funny coming from someone who cant keep a job, smokes all day, probably eating twinkies and claims to get paid MPEG wages even though you have reel, you have no experience and you have no talent. Most likely you edit some porn here and there, just enough to live in your friend's house.
:lol :lol :lol
It's funny, you know about as much about me as you do about politics!
foc, imagine that the government HAS to survive as a world superpower and consider that this country wasn't found on having liberty, it was a power grab from britain cause they saw they were being controlled by a smaller country, started a war lalala constitution.What? English please.
I'm not exaggerating. read the literature from the time. colonists couldn't give a shit about liberty when they started the revolutionary war.It was a war over taxes, I know.
if you want to talk about "common sense" (pun there lol) in changing the rights of the individual and the corporations and the government to make the world more fair, you have to do more than change a 250 year old document.Why does the age of the document have anything to do with this. Please get a new meme.
that lemon party lad that you love (ron paul) doesn't see this for whatever reason and I'm guessing it's because he's old. he's senile. I really can't see any other reason why he'd be so stupid.He's actually not very senile at all. Have you seen him talk? He has held the same values since he started.
some people said that the libertarianism foc has is like a religion. it's closer to militant atheism but you replace all the fairy tales with facts.What?
Are you gonna vote for Hillary?
If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.
:lol :lol :lol Is that all you have? I guess I would take that bet with you.Are you gonna vote for Hillary?
If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.
Who's gonna step up and win that $38.54?
Are you gonna vote for Hillary?
If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.
Who's gonna step up and win that $38.54?
:lol :lol :lol Is that all you have? I guess I would take that bet with you.
Are you gonna vote for Hillary?Well if its Hillary vs. Romney or Rudy you have said you'd vote Hillary so she has your vote in the bag!
If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.
Are you gonna vote for Hillary?Well if its Hillary vs. Romney or Rudy you have said you'd vote Hillary so she has your vote in the bag!
If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.
I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.Are you gonna vote for Hillary?Well if its Hillary vs. Romney or Rudy you have said you'd vote Hillary so she has your vote in the bag!
If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.
Really? I said that?
I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.
even if the third party aint paul?
I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.
I don't remember that. If it was Hillary vs. Rudy I would go third party.
even if the third party aint paul?
I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.
I don't remember that. If it was Hillary vs. Rudy I would go third party.
you'll write him in? seriously?
Yeah, I'm writing in Alfred E. Neuman if Hillary is the candidate and Nader isn't running.
Yeah, I'm writing in Alfred E. Neuman if Hillary is the candidate and Nader isn't running.
According to phenry, Paul's newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report (renamed The Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993, in a bid to pander to the militia audience that was peaking that year) was a Patriot movement must-read, full of helpful advice on tax protest, gold-backed currency, urban race war and other pet legal and social theories of the extremist right. While content is very hard to come by now (Paul has scrubbed much of what was on the Web, and refuses to release the newsletter to the media), phenry dug up a few choice samples, including:
* A 1992 screed on African-American"racial terrorism" in Los Angeles, in which Paul insists that "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
* Another 1992 article, this one asserting that "complex embezzling" is "100% white and Asian;" and noting that young black male muggers are "unbelievably fleet-footed."
In the second post, phenry outlines Paul's connections to various white supremacists groups. In 1996, Paul was one of only two candidates endorsed by Christian Identity leader Larry Pratt (who had previously worked with David Duke, and resigned from Pat Buchanan's team when his Identity role became public). Paul refused to repudiate the endorsement; and Pratt has stepped forward again with a quasi-endorsement of Paul's current campaign.
Through the 90s, Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the "once and future Republic of Texas"; has appeared on a radio program affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions -- the group has given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days, those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't get enough of him. They know he's one of their own.
Those of us who are interested in getting to a sane and functional immigration policy should also reflect on the fact that he stands right next to Tom Tancredo on that issue.
Which brings us to the Big Question: How can someone who's been such a darling of the extremist right for over 20 years now become the Next Big Thing on the left as well?
Straight talk is powerful. Americans are addicted to it -- and, too often, addled by it. We've seen this before with Ross Perot and John McCain, two other right-wing candidates who charmed us with their apparent penchant for telling us uncomfortable but necessary truths. (And to give the man his due: pointing out that 9/11 was the inevitable outcome of decades of monstrous US foreign policy was a very necessary truth.)
But -- as we learned the hard way on both those earlier occasions -- just because someone can cut through the political drivel and speak with some clarity now and again, it doesn't mean they're someone we should dump our principles and better judgment out the window for, and rush right out and follow. The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right. There's twenty-plus years of documentary evidence that he does not believe in democracy as we progressives understand it. No amount of disarming straight talk should blind us to that core fact.
:bow :bow it is divine writ, this constitution; it is the bible ii :bow :bow
i bet dragonforce writes the stump themes for the ron paul campaign
But -- as we learned the hard way on both those earlier occasions -- just because someone can cut through the political drivel and speak with some clarity now and again, it doesn't mean they're someone we should dump our principles and better judgment out the window for, and rush right out and follow. The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right. There's twenty-plus years of documentary evidence that he does not believe in democracy as we progressives understand it. No amount of disarming straight talk should blind us to that core fact.
It all makes sense now. Racists can smell their own. Of COURSE FoC is gonna support Ron Paul; hell, he probably researched it and knew about the disgusting Iranian student proposal and it appealed to his hate of all brown people but Arabs in particular.
Racist.
on Paul distortions and smears
(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul's record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:
Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag.
He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning.
But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic Party front-runner who, "along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal" -- Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced that amendment solely to make a point -- one he makes frequently -- that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.
Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to do it that way -- i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be "very unnecessary and very dangerous." And he urged his colleagues to vote against them, including the ones he introduced:
As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.
It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. . . .
It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people -- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach.
Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws
Rep. Paul did exactly the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, which he opposed. He argued (accurately) that the only constitutional method for Congress to authorize the President to invade another country was to declare war on that country. The Constitution does not allow the Congress to "authorize" military force without a war declaration. Rep. Paul thus introduced a Declaration of War in the House on the ground that such a Declaration was constitutionally required to invade Iraq -- and he then proceeded to vote against the AUMF (because, unlike Hillary Clinton, he actually opposed the invasion). Thus, saying that Paul wants to outlaw flag burning (as Neiwert's post does) -- or that he supported the war in Iraq -- is just false.
* * * * *
This raises a broader point. It has become fashionable among certain commentators to hurl insults at Ron Paul such as "huge weirdo," "fruitcake," and the like. Interestingly, the same thing was done to another anti-war medical doctor/politician, Howard Dean, back in 2003, as Charles Krauthammer infamously pronounced with regard to Dean that "it's time to check on thorazine supplies." Krauthammer subsequently said that "t looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."
For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."
Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or, at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or big weirdos, or fruitcakes?
Or how about her recent support for Joe Lieberman's Iran warmongering amendment, or her desire to criminalize flag burning, or her vow to strongly consider an attack on Iran if they obtain nuclear weapons? Is all of that sane, normal, and serious?
And I read every day that corporations and their lobbyists are the bane of our country, responsible for most of its ills. What does it say about her that her campaign is fueled in large part by support from exactly those factions? Are she and all of her supporters nonetheless squarely within the realm of the sane and normal? And none of this is to say anything of the Giulianis and Podhoretzs and Romneys and Krauthammers and Kristols with ideas so extreme and dangerous, yet still deemed "serious."
That isn't to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even crazy. But I've heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot of views he espouses that I don't share. But he is a medical doctor and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way -- at least as thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the severe devaluation of the dollar.
And -- as the above-cited efforts to compel Congress to actually adhere to the Constitution demonstrate -- few people have been as vigorous in defense of Constitutional principles as those principles have been mangled and trampled upon by this administration while most of our establishment stood by meekly. That's just true.
Paul's efforts in that regard may be "odd" in the sense that virtually nobody else seemed to care all that much about systematic unconstitutional actions, but that hardly makes him a "weirdo." Sometimes -- as the debate over the Iraq War should have demonstrated once and for all -- the actual "fruitcake" positions are the ones that are held by the people who are welcome in our most respectable institutions and magazines, both conservative and liberal.
* * * * * *
This whole concept of singling out and labelling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" political figures because they espouse views that are held only by a small number of people is nothing more than an attempt to discredit someone without having to do the work to engage their arguments. It's actually a tactic right out of the seventh grade cafeteria. It's just a slothful mechanism for enforcing norms.
Under the right circumstances, enforcement of norms might have some utility. Where things are going relatively well, and the country has a healthy political dialogue, perhaps there isn't much of a need to expand the scope of ideas that we consider "normal." Having all the people whose views fit comfortably in the mainstream stigmatize as "fruitcakes" all those whose views are outside of the mainstream might, under those happy circumstances, bear little cost.
But our country isn't doing all that well right now. Our political dialogue isn't really vibrant or healthy. It seems rather self-evident that it is preferable to enlarge the scope of ideas that we consider and to expand the debates that we engage. The "norms" that have prevailed over the last six years have led the country quite astray and are in need of fundamental re-examination, at the very least. That a political figure (or pundit) clings loyally to prevailing norms isn't exactly evidence of their worth, let alone their mental health. The contrary proposition might actually be more plausible.
There is something disorienting about watching the same people who cheered much of this on, or who will enthusiastically support for President a candidate who enabled and cheered much of it on, trying to constrict debate by labeling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" those who have most aggressively opposed it all. As the debates of 2002 should have proved rather conclusively, the arguments that are deemed to be the province of the weirdos and losers may actually be the ideas that are right. They at least deserve an honest airing, especially in a presidential campaign with as much at stake as this one.
* * * * * *
For anyone with any questions about what this post means and, more importantly, what it does not mean, please see here (Update II).
UPDATE: Bruce Fein is an example of a conservative who -- by virtue of his outspoken opposition to Bush lawbreaking -- has generated substantial respect among Bush critics, including many liberals. Yet Fein hasn't changed his views at all. He is, for instance, emphatically pro-life, and rather recently urged that "President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Judge Robert H. Bork." Fein is still a hard-core conservative, but a principled one. At least in that regard, I would compare Fein to Paul.
On another note, I wrote in my prior post concerning Paul that I found the efforts (by Neiwert and others) to smear him by linking him to some of his extremist and hate-mongering supporters to be unfair (for reasons I explained here). Neiwert responded and compiled what he thinks is the best evidence to justify this linkage here.
For reasons I'll detail at another time, I found virtually all of that to be unpersuasive, relying almost entirely on lame guilt-by-association arguments that could sink most if not all candidates (the only arguably disturbing evidence in this regard is this 1996 Houston Chronicle article, which Neiwert didn't mention, and the pro-Paul response is here). Everyone can review the evidence -- all of which is quite old and very little of which relies on any of Paul's own statements -- and make up their own minds.
UPDATE II: Interesting, and otherwise passed on without comment (h/t selise):
UPDATE III: For a sense of how consistently Paul applies his principles regarding the proper role of the federal government, consider his emphatic opposition to a Congressional Gold Medal to be awarded to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, on the ground that "appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government" (on the other hand, his recent vote in favor of the Congressional resolution to condemn MoveOn.org, which he'd presumably justify on the ground that it is non-binding, certainly seems in tension with his underlying view of federal power).
There is certainly ample ground to dispute Paul's view of the proper, constitutional role of the federal versus the state government in various matters. That is probably a worthwhile debate to have. But the claim that Paul's federalism is just an unprincipled ruse to promote some sort of neo-Nazi or racist agenda is plainly belied by such acts, and is exactly the type of dishonest smear designed to discredit his views without bothering to do the work to engage and refute them.
UPDATE IV: The aforementioned Bruce Fein is legal counsel to the Ron Paul campaign. Liberal pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf recently sang Paul's praises, hailing him as "the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these [constitutional] values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses."
Have Bruce Fein and Naomi Wolf been concealing a neo-Nazi agenda which they are finally able to express through the Ron Paul campaign, or are they simply impressed by the obvious convictions and intense (though rare) passion he brings to issues which they seem to think are of vital importance -- restoration of our constitutional framework and the rule of law, along with principled opposition to America's imperialistic and militarized role in the world?
:rock THROUGH THE FIRE AND THE FLAMES, THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN WILL CARRY ON :rock
It all makes sense now. Racists can smell their own. Of COURSE FoC is gonna support Ron Paul; hell, he probably researched it and knew about the disgusting Iranian student proposal and it appealed to his hate of all brown people but Arabs in particular.
He's not racist. Nice try.
Do you think we should give federal money to foreign students?
do you enjoy apologizing for a man who has pandered to neo-nazis and fascists for decades, foc?
do you enjoy apologizing for a man who has pandered to neo-nazis and fascists for decades, foc?::)
why would they relocate across the earth to study in the US if they're not going to make a career in the US?It all makes sense now. Racists can smell their own. Of COURSE FoC is gonna support Ron Paul; hell, he probably researched it and knew about the disgusting Iranian student proposal and it appealed to his hate of all brown people but Arabs in particular.He's not racist. Nice try.
Do you think we should give federal money to foreign students?
do you enjoy apologizing for a man who has pandered to neo-nazis and fascists for decades, foc?::)
He hasn't pandered to them.
man, yglesias' comment that ron paul is the candidate of "cranky young kids" and chronic racists couldn't be more apt
I guess that's right. On the subjects where Paul seems unusually wrong for a Republican, there's just no chance of Paul's policy preferences being enacted into law. On the issues where Paul's views are a lot closer to mine than they are to the average Republican, by contrast, the executive has a great deal of discretion. Paul's foreign policy ideas about the use of force are a good deal more dovish than mine, but I think at this point I'd rather see the country go too far in Paul's direction than too far in Giuliani's. So there you have it. Ron Paul: "Less Torture and His Domestic Policy's So Crazy Congress Will Be Able to Block It" it seems like a convincing least-pernicious Republican bid to me.
did you NOT read the direct citations i provided?
why would they relocate across the earth to study in the US if they're not going to make a career in the US?
most of the people that can get accepted to UC Berkeley can get accepted to a comparable Iranian university but it wouldn't make sense unless your going to work here.
did you NOT read the direct citations i provided?
I did, they are bullshit. He's none in washington as the one guy no one lobbies to because it's not going to change his opinion. You fail.
It's true, Ron Paul is noone in Washington! :)
It's true, Ron Paul is noone in Washington! :)
He will be when he is elected president of the united states.
why would a country where the majority want a govt. funded universal health care system vote for ron paul?
It's true, Ron Paul is noone in Washington! :)
He will be when he is elected president of the united states.
Because the Constitution!
why would a country where the majority want a govt. funded universal health care system vote for ron paul?
did you NOT read the direct citations i provided?
I did, they are bullshit. He's none in washington as the one guy no one lobbies to because it's not going to change his opinion. You fail.
Quoteman, yglesias' comment that ron paul is the candidate of "cranky young kids" and chronic racists couldn't be more apt
but Yglesias has now come out in support of Ron Paul! :o
FoC, why do you want people to die in the name of the free market? Seriously. Health care is good! People shouldn't die because they're poor. Or do you think they should?
FoC, why do you want people to die in the name of the free market? Seriously. Health care is good! People shouldn't die because they're poor. Or do you think they should?
I have health care. and GASP its not through the government!
So since you have health care, it's cool if the poor people die? Why should your socioeconomic status determine the quality of health care you receive? Can you really say that a rich person's life is more important than a poor person's life?
FoC, why do you want people to die in the name of the free market? Seriously. Health care is good! People shouldn't die because they're poor. Or do you think they should?
I have health care. and GASP its not through the government!
FoC, why do you want people to die in the name of the free market? Seriously. Health care is good! People shouldn't die because they're poor. Or do you think they should?
So since you have health care, it's cool if the poor people die? Why should your socioeconomic status determine the quality of health care you receive? Can you really say that a rich person's life is more important than a poor person's life?
If you feel so strongly about it why dont you go psy for some poor persons health care? Why should I pay for shit Im not gonna use?
FoC, why do you want people to die in the name of the free market?
it's not that it's not their fault. It's just not my responsibility
So since you have health care, it's cool if the poor people die? Why should your socioeconomic status determine the quality of health care you receive? Can you really say that a rich person's life is more important than a poor person's life?
If you feel so strongly about it why dont you go psy for some poor persons health care? Why should I pay for shit Im not gonna use?
You really are fucking dumb, aren't you? I'm pretty sure I speak for nearly all of us that are continually mocking you when I say we would be happy to finance public health care through our taxes, you mouth breathing shitburger.
So since you have health care, it's cool if the poor people die? Why should your socioeconomic status determine the quality of health care you receive? Can you really say that a rich person's life is more important than a poor person's life?
If you feel so strongly about it why dont you go psy for some poor persons health care? Why should I pay for shit Im not gonna use?
I will. Through taxes. To a national health care system.
So you're okay with letting poor people die in order to save a few bucks on your 1099?
You really are fucking dumb, aren't you? I'm pretty sure I speak for nearly all of us that are continually mocking you when I say we would be happy to finance public health care through our taxes, you mouth breathing shitburger.
How much money do you donate to red cross? What about other non profit organizations? Probably none, because you a re a dirt poor mother fucker.
Why not start now? You can donate to non profit organizations that are more transparent and alot better than anything the government does.
I will. Through taxes. To a national health care system.
So you're okay with letting poor people die in order to save a few bucks on your 1099?People are going to die weather people pay taxes or not. Thats a fact.
And as a "dirt poor motherfucker," does he not deserve (in your eyes) the same quality of health care as someone who works for Goldman Sachs? You should get the quality of health care you can afford, and none if you can't afford any? That's your belief?
You really are fucking dumb, aren't you? I'm pretty sure I speak for nearly all of us that are continually mocking you when I say we would be happy to finance public health care through our taxes, you mouth breathing shitburger.
How much money do you donate to red cross? What about other non profit organizations? Probably none, because you a re a dirt poor mother fucker.
Ron Paul 2008-Fuck You Poors, It's All Mine! . Seriously, I need signs made asap.
Sigh... Last year I donated about $800 to various charitable organizations, in addition to volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross and the local soup kitchen around Thanksgiving. I gave more in 2005 due to Katrina and pretty much lived at the local Red Cross to help relocate people.Awesome so you know that these programs are far better than anything the government could do. Look at Fema, thats what our healthcare system would be like. :lol :lol Is that what you want?
You may say that but the majority of the country wants that. And our country is ruled by a majority rule stance.why would a country where the majority want a govt. funded universal health care system vote for ron paul?
Because thats not the role of the federal government. If you want it so bad, why not try to encourage your state to get it.
People are going to die whether people pay taxes or not. Thats a fact.
an unfortunate offshoot of humanity that will be amongst the first up against the wall when the Revolution comes. Rest assured.
Did i say that?People are going to die whether people pay taxes or not. Thats a fact.
So you're okay with people dying if they don't have health care because they would have died eventually anyways?
You may say that but the majority of the country wants that.Link
And our country is ruled by a majority rule stance.
Did i say that?People are going to die whether people pay taxes or not. Thats a fact.
So you're okay with people dying if they don't have health care because they would have died eventually anyways?
Sigh... Last year I donated about $800 to various charitable organizations, in addition to volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross and the local soup kitchen around Thanksgiving. I gave more in 2005 due to Katrina and pretty much lived at the local Red Cross to help relocate people.
Awesome so you know that these programs are far better than anything the government could do. Look at Fema, thats what our healthcare system would be like. :lol :lol Is that what you want?
tem is infalliable; however, I think we can take it as a given that fewer people will die if we pay taxes to improve health care services for all citizens than if we do not fund those programs at all.
So by refusing to support equal health care rights for all Americans, you are effectively condemning a greater percentage of the poorer ones to death.
You want some polls?
EXPLAIN THIS:
"Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care, or don't you think so?"
Think It Is: 57%
Don't Think So: 38%
Only 38% of the country agrees with you FoC! Explain this result, do it.
I know that these programs are poorly financed NOW to the extent that they can't possibly help everyone in need. And this is when people get a tax break for donating to these organizations... what happens when there is no incentive to do so any longer because OMG NO MORE TAXES!!!
Only 38% of the country agrees with you FoC! Explain this result, do it.
Polls from that page say Americans feel paying for the uninsured is more important than keeping costs down. Poor ron paul, America doesn't want a small government like him!
Who says? America says its the govt's job. So therefore it is. The people decide, not you and ron paul.
Only 38% of the country agrees with you FoC! Explain this result, do it.
They don't understand that government inst supposed to be Robin Hood.
Who says? America says its the govt's job. So therefore it is. The people decide, not you and ron paul.
Only 38% of the country agrees with you FoC! Explain this result, do it.
They don't understand that government inst supposed to be Robin Hood.
It's not like all the poor people are going to magically disappear if we get universal health care.
I didn't know the constitution said we couldn't have govt. health care!It didnt say we couldnt. But it doesnt give the power to legislate that. You would need to amend the constitution. Good luck with that.
It's not like all the poor people are going to magically disappear if we get universal health care.
But they will magically disappear as long as we keep denying it to them!
I didn't know the constitution said we couldn't have govt. health care!It didnt say we couldnt. But it doesnt give the power to legislate that. You would need to amend the constitution. Good luck with that.
Ron Paul is a "strict anti-Constitutionalist." Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is explicitly forbidden!
Do you know what an amendment is? :lol :lol :lol
No one will stop them and say its illegal. If it passes we will get it. End of story.
you dont have to have a fucking amendment for every little thing. We have bills in congress for a reason. Civil rights was not in constitution for minorities. We didn't have an amendment for it, yet we got it through a bill...IN CONGRESRon Paul is a "strict anti-Constitutionalist." Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is explicitly forbidden!
Do you know what an amendment is? :lol :lol :lol
No one will stop them and say its illegal. If it passes we will get it. End of story.
:lol :lol You don't know anything.
what do you think courts do all day? Sit on their asses?
the courts will not over-turn it. The republicans aren't saying its ILLEGAL. They are saying it would be bad. No one but ron paul freaks are going around declaring it illegal.
No one will stop them and say its illegal. If it passes we will get it. End of story.
:lol :lol You don't know anything.
what do you think courts do all day? Sit on their asses?
How could a government health care system possibly be worse than my current HMO? That's what I wanna know!
you dont have to have a fucking amendment for every little thing. We have bills in congress for a reason. Civil rights was not in constitution for minorities. We didn't have an amendment for it, yet we got it through a bill...IN CONGRESRon Paul is a "strict anti-Constitutionalist." Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is explicitly forbidden!
Do you know what an amendment is? :lol :lol :lol
FoC what should the national govt. do about global warming
So guys, what would give the federal government the authority to enforce universal health care?what gives the federal govt. power to enforce all the laws congress passes that aren't done through amendments that aren't outlined in the constitution?
This will get your goat.
FoC what should the national govt. do about global warming
What can it do about global warming?
HOW ABOUT A CARBON TAX?
Nothing, the free market will work it out.
And when it's 20 degrees hotter in July I'm sure the free market will have lots of solutions for that, too.
What percentage of European income goes towards taxes?
Nothing, the free market will work it out.
And when it's 20 degrees hotter in July I'm sure the free market will have lots of solutions for that, too.
Is it 20 degrees hotter? :lol
What percentage of European income goes towards taxes?
They work 35 hour work weeks, have a lower obsesity rate despite having far better food and beer, never have to pay to go to the doctor, live longer than Americans, have better quality air and land, have decent public transportation, and their women are way, way hotter.
I don't know the percentage off hand, but I'd say it's worth it!
We don't have to. The majority of the country already want to help the poor. WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Why convince the majority when the majority is on our side?
Just do your part and try to convince other people to do the same.
Not yet, nowadays it's only about 5-7 degrees hotter. But it'll be 20 degrees hotter by 2040 at the rate we're going.
We don't have to. The majority of the country already want to help the poor. WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Why convince the majority when the majority is on our side?
Just do your part and try to convince other people to do the same.
We don't have to. The majority of the country already want to help the poor. WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Why convince the majority when the majority is on our side?
Just do your part and try to convince other people to do the same.
Then if the majority of the people want to do it, then why arent they? Why do they need the government to help the poor?
JOHN EDWARDS 2008I love me some john edwards but I am curious how well he would be doing if Obama didn't jump in due to the pressure from the media and activists. Obama and Edwards both being in the "top tier" fucks both of them up.
he gay boy, how about this idea.
Healthcare for people who want it. We have a system of government run healthcare. If you want it you pay the tax for it (+5% income or whatever). If you dont want it then you dont pay for it and you dont get it.
It's a win win situation.
Unless my campaign starts showing some signs of life, I might just vote for him next November.
What about people who are unemployed and thus have no income to elect to pay the extra tax on? Do they not get health care?*
*NOTE: This is how our current system works lol
Hey PAtel didnt you vote for Nader?how can he vote for someone in november who will be voted off the ballots in a little over a month and half.
http://www.newsgroper.com/ralph-nader/2007/11/13/ron-paul-enima-america/ (http://www.newsgroper.com/ralph-nader/2007/11/13/ron-paul-enima-america/)
Ron Paul: an enema for America
By Ralph NaderQuoteUnless my campaign starts showing some signs of life, I might just vote for him next November.
:o :o :o :o
Hey Patel didnt you vote for Nader?
he gay boy, how about this idea.
Healthcare for people who want it. We have a system of government run healthcare. If you want it you pay the tax for it (+5% income or whatever). If you dont want it then you dont pay for it and you dont get it.
It's a win win situation.
Well, FoC didn't say anything about excluding pre-existing conditions. So you just wait until you get sick, sign up and pay the surtax, get treated, and then stop paying when you're cured (or dead, if it doesn't stick).
I'm sure that wouldn't create any sort of moral hazard or massive funding issues!
he prefers posting pictures of excited college students who never show up to vote in the first place in a general election and likely dont have a clue what a primary is.
the degree to which FoC is ignoring all the actual discussion going on is intensely awesome
who pays for you when you get diagnosed with THE CANCER if you don't pay for it and don't have any coverage?Who's fault is it for not having free healthcare? :lol :lol
from time to time we will character wipe the poors
the degree to which FoC is ignoring all the actual discussion going on is intensely awesome
Well, FoC didn't say anything about excluding pre-existing conditions. So you just wait until you get sick, sign up and pay the surtax, get treated, and then stop paying when you're cured (or dead, if it doesn't stick).
I'm sure that wouldn't create any sort of moral hazard or massive funding issues!
from time to time we will character wipe the poors
the degree to which FoC is ignoring all the actual discussion going on is intensely awesome
What am I ignoring?
Ron Paul Supporters Run Full Pg Ad in USA Today
On either November 20, or 21, USA Today will be running a full-page, black and white ad in support of the campaign of presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex), currently titled "An Open Letter to the American People.":lol :lol :lol :lol
The ad will be paid for by a wealthy Ron Paul supporter in Massachusetts who will be placing the ad on his own behalf and is not associated with the official campaign. The graphic design work is being provided out of NH, and the ad concept is the brain work of the team at www.ronpaulforums.com, sources said.
The black and white ad will emphasize the constitutional nature of the Ron Paul campaign and the foundations of his small-government, anti-tax and anti-foreign entanglements perspective.
Answers.com profiles USA Today as follows: “USA TODAY is the #1 daily newspaper in the US, with a circulation of 2.3 million. First published in 1982, it is available throughout the country and through international editions; the paper also published news on its popular Web site. … More than 60% of its paid circulation comes from newsstands, vending machines, and hotels. USA TODAY is owned by #1 newspaper publisher Gannett.”
I don't think you're allowed to say "It would be like how health care works now" if you don't understand how health care works now.
Anything in the incredibly thorough and well-thought out multiparagraph response that Drinky posted.
Refusing to acknowledge any difference between the capabilities of the federal government and a private organization.
Everything Frag has been saying about social contracts and the relationship between a government and its citizens.
Explaining how your "system" funds health care for people who can't afford it while still allowing people to opt-out.
So it would work like an employer-based HMO plan, only government funded?
Or it would work like the Veteran's Administration?
Or it would work like an expanded Medicare?
Or it would work like the MA plan, where the government mandates private coverage?
I don't think you're allowed to say "It would be like how health care works now" if you don't understand how health care works now.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when any attempt to engage you in conversation or debate results in a non sequitur article link and a cavalcade of laugh emotes?
Anything in the incredibly thorough and well-thought out multiparagraph response that Drinky posted.
Refusing to acknowledge any difference between the capabilities of the federal government and a private organization.
Everything Frag has been saying about social contracts and the relationship between a government and its citizens.
Explaining how your "system" funds health care for people who can't afford it while still allowing people to opt-out.
It's good to know that you havent posted anything substantial.
Frag's arguments are basically if nazis support X then X is a nazi and you should vote for Y.
Looks and smells like a straw man. Get that shit out of here
Drinky is just trolling so Im ignoring his garbage.
So it would work like an employer-based HMO plan, only government funded?
Or it would work like the Veteran's Administration?
Or it would work like an expanded Medicare?
Or it would work like the MA plan, where the government mandates private coverage?
I don't think you're allowed to say "It would be like how health care works now" if you don't understand how health care works now.
It would work exactly like you fegs want government run healthcare to work. Except its optional. Does that make it clear?
Seriously, now: Do you know what is meant by a "social contract"?
Is there anyway we can get you to up your ban bet to a suicide pact?
Seriously, now: Do you know what is meant by a "social contract"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)
Go ahead and point out health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)
Go ahead and point out health care.
I think FoC read the question as "Can Google 'Social Contract' and hit the 'I'm feeling lucky!' button?"
So you don't understand what a Social Contract is, then.I have, where have I said otherwise?
So you don't understand what a Social Contract is, then.I have, where have I said otherwise?
The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subjects are the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. In laymen's terms, this means that the people give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order.I didn't know that healthcare is needed to keep order?
Frag's arguments are basically if nazis support X then X is a nazi and you should vote for Y.
Looks and smells like a straw man. Get that shit out of here
I'm just applying your standard of omission; where if something isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution (or on Wikipedia!) then it's patently untrue.Nice try, but Im not the law. I dont need to be held to the same standards as the law of the land. Especially on a video game forum. :lol
it's not just about support (which he has in abundance!)-it's about active consorting with those elements, which Herr Doktor has done repeatedly.:lol :lol :lol You guys really do try so hard. I will give you credit for making up bullshit.
Im going to quote wikipedia for the sheer simplicity of it.QuoteThe term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subjects are the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. In laymen's terms, this means that the people give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order.I didn't know that healthcare is needed to keep order?
I guess all these years we weren't keeping order at all, we ere keeping non order? :lol
I give up, from now on I'm just going to say "Racist!" to whatever you say, and I suggest other people do the same.
it's not just about support (which he has in abundance!)-it's about active consorting with those elements, which Herr Doktor has done repeatedly.:lol :lol :lol You guys really do try so hard. I will give you credit for making up bullshit.
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Well Patel certainly has turned this shit-heap into a jumbo curry flavored diarrhea wagon.
I suppose open support for the branch davidians and parroting in public forums the beliefs of white supremacists:
Well Patel certainly has turned this shit-heap into a jumbo curry flavored diarrhea wagon.I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
Well Patel certainly has turned this shit-heap into a jumbo curry flavored diarrhea wagon.I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
He didnt say that. It's been noted already.
Frag: I didn't really follow that kerfluffle. AFAIK, it was published under his name, went under the radar, then he said several years later that he didn't write it, but for some reason couldn't have admitted that during the campaign.
If that's accurate, did anyone find out who *did* write it? Why couldn't he say so during the campaign? Was that implied plagiarism/ghostwriting? It all seems odd to me.
'Nother thing. Libertarians are almost as bad as centrists for committing the pundit's fallacy.
"There is a great untapped mass of people who believe what I believe, and only the smoke and mirrors of politics are keeping it from becoming a movement!"
If The People don't tend towards centrism, why do candidates appeal to the middle when they're actually their party's nominee? Why have centrist politicians done so well, while fringe candidates are by definition on the fringe?Globally the 'center' has moved towards the right. It is not that the 'right' or 'left' have moved toward the center but rather the 'left' has moved towards the 'right'.
Quote'Nother thing. Libertarians are almost as bad as centrists for committing the pundit's fallacy.
"There is a great untapped mass of people who believe what I believe, and only the smoke and mirrors of politics are keeping it from becoming a movement!"
yeah, but every small political movement thinks that. the difference is that we Marxists are right about it
cause that's investing in the economy.why would they relocate across the earth to study in the US if they're not going to make a career in the US?What does that do with the government giving money to pay for education?
most of the people that can get accepted to UC Berkeley can get accepted to a comparable Iranian university but it wouldn't make sense unless your going to work here.
Quote'Nother thing. Libertarians are almost as bad as centrists for committing the pundit's fallacy.
"There is a great untapped mass of people who believe what I believe, and only the smoke and mirrors of politics are keeping it from becoming a movement!"
yeah, but every small political movement thinks that. the difference is that we Marxists are right about it
True that.
Though I know a good chunk of leftists (see Raoul Duke) who revel in the idea that they're in a tiny, sane, frustrated minority. Come to think of it, that's true of the libbies too, so I kinda take it back.
B-B-But cheebs wants free healthcare. Who cares what the law is!!so does the majority of the country and 90% of the people in this thread.
Kids love candy; its a big reason a Libertarian government will never get elected.
From the Article:
Ron Paul may be an old-school Republican, but no other candidate running for president — in either party — has spoken out against the war in Iraq as bluntly as he has.
Later on, Paul gets tough. When asked about Giuliani, he responded with:
…since Giuliani is so anxious to go to war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn’t go when he was called up instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks — he took, what, four deferrals?
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is gaining momentum in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a poll released Tuesday by CBS News and the New York Times. The Texas congressman has garnered an estimated 8 percent in New Hampshire, surpassing former GOP front-runner Fred Thompson, and is now tied with John McCain in Iowa.
Polls released over the weekend by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both confirmed Congressman Paul’s support to be higher than Thompson’s as well.
“The polls confirm what we already know: Congressman Paul is catching on in the early primary states,” said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we’re rapidly gaining support nationwide.”
The CBS-New York Times poll was conducted November 2-12. On November 5, the Ron Paul campaign brought in a record-breaking $4.2 million online, and an additional $1 million to end the week.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/43/ron-paul-surges-ahead-of-thompson-tied-with-mccain (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/43/ron-paul-surges-ahead-of-thompson-tied-with-mccain)He is nowhere near 10% in Iowa.QuoteARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is gaining momentum in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a poll released Tuesday by CBS News and the New York Times. The Texas congressman has garnered an estimated 8 percent in New Hampshire, surpassing former GOP front-runner Fred Thompson, and is now tied with John McCain in Iowa.
Polls released over the weekend by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both confirmed Congressman Paul’s support to be higher than Thompson’s as well.
“The polls confirm what we already know: Congressman Paul is catching on in the early primary states,” said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we’re rapidly gaining support nationwide.”
The CBS-New York Times poll was conducted November 2-12. On November 5, the Ron Paul campaign brought in a record-breaking $4.2 million online, and an additional $1 million to end the week.
:tbslol :tbslol :tbslol :tbslolCheebs is gonna be banned!!
:hans1 :santocryWhat a reply.
:hans1 :santocryWhat a reply.
Both Huckabee and Paul were 0% candidates 6 months ago. Huckabee has risen into the top tier, not Paul. How about that?
what if *gasp* foc becomes a famous director. and what if people discover his posts on forums like gaf and eb. what will people think of him
Because the Constitution.
Hey FoC, why does that Ron Paul ad talk about "honest money" instead of "return to the gold standard"? Is it because a return to the gold standard is a fucking nutjob idea that only a loonybin fruitcake would ever advocate? So he's hiding behind his words? Some straight talker!
orly? Why is huckabee getting no press. Ron Paul is getting press everywhere.As we all know Howard Dean proved getting loads of press = success in Iowa and beyond!
Why do you call it universal healthcare? Why not call it free shit for people without a job.
Because people who work get it too! *gasp* That's why it is called...Universal Health Care
Well the majority wants it. You can't please everyone but you try to go for the most and the most want govt. health care. The minority did not vote Bush in 04 but they don't get what they want, its life.Because people who work get it too! *gasp* That's why it is called...Universal Health Care
What about people who dont want it? Do they have to pay for it?
what i don't like about fiat currency is that it gives government a blank check to start wars and do pretty much whatever they want.
Unfortunately, he presents his points in a way that is both 1) antagonistic and 2) completely unsupported,
This is false i support most of what I say here.
can someone point me to a good debunking of the gold standard? i'm seriously curious. when the people in power have so much to gain, i can't take expert opinions as fact.
America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling The Nation Out From Under Us. Here's A Way To Fix The Problem--And We Need To Do It Now.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm)
B-B-But we need the government to do more shit for us!!!
Wake up people, the government isnt a cash dispenser.
even if you don't believe in a libertarian society, wouldn't most people agree that our government needs a libertarian push at this point?I think a lot of what we've been seeing recently is the exact opposite. Both parties are heavy-spenders; neither want to reduce the size or power of the government, and the American people, IMO, see the massive amounts of money being spent on a war they've abandoned all support for, and are thinking, "hey we could be spending that money on something that actually has a tangible and direct benefit for all Americans, like health care." The war in Iraq has made people more comfortable with the idea of spending a crapton of money in handouts, and support for public officials has only dropped because they're not doing enough, not asserting enough control.
What I find most annoying is he honestly thinks Ron Paul will win the republican nomination. Loving a fringe candidate is one thing, but stating without budging slightly that he'll win the nomination and be the next president, end of discussion is completely at another level.
If FoC could at the very least admit Ron Paul has almost no chance whatsoever of getting nominated I would gladly leave him alone to praise his fringe candidate.
Exactly here is a great quote that sums it up.even if you don't believe in a libertarian society, wouldn't most people agree that our government needs a libertarian push at this point?I think a lot of what we've been seeing recently is the exact opposite. Both parties are heavy-spenders; neither want to reduce the size or power of the government, and the American people, IMO, see the massive amounts of money being spent on a war they've abandoned all support for, and are thinking, "hey we could be spending that money on something that actually has a tangible and direct benefit for all Americans, like health care." The war in Iraq has made people more comfortable with the idea of spending a crapton of money in handouts, and support for public officials has only dropped because they're not doing enough, not asserting enough control.
Who?
3) There is no casual connection between what you are posting and voting for Ron Paul. Several other candidates are running on a platform of balancing the budget and fiscal responsibility.
You seem oblivious to the fact that people can agree with many if not all of your basic principles and reach entirely different conclusions. You start with your conclusion ("vote for Ron Paul!") and berate anyone who disagrees as not understanding the principles. That sort of backwards induction just makes you look silly, frankly. It's logically back-asswards.
Excuse me, I am not the one berating here. I only do it as a defense against getting ganged up on here.
Excuse me, I am not the one berating here. I only do it as a defense against getting ganged up on here.
So preemptive war is bad, but preemptive assholery is fine?
Because it is illogical.What I find most annoying is he honestly thinks Ron Paul will win the republican nomination. Loving a fringe candidate is one thing, but stating without budging slightly that he'll win the nomination and be the next president, end of discussion is completely at another level.
If FoC could at the very least admit Ron Paul has almost no chance whatsoever of getting nominated I would gladly leave him alone to praise his fringe candidate.
Why is that annoying to you? Why do you even care? Does it bother you that I think he is going to win? Is it so annoying that you cant sleep at night? Please help me understand why it's so annoying to you that I think he can win.
sigh
Because it is illogical.Is it annoying to you that people bet on the underdog teams in the superbowl? Do you use sleep over it? Do you go onto internet message boards and bitch about it like a little girl?
I'm not acting like jack shit you goddamned mouthbreathing motherfucker.:lol :lol :lol :lol
You're wasting my life as well as your own. I'm requesting a ban until you're off the forums.
Why dont you guys leave this thread if it bothers you so much?A better question is why do you need this thread? There is no one on the fence about ron paul here. for whom are you posting the endless articles and videos?
Why dont you guys leave this thread if it bothers you so much?A better question is why do you need this thread?
so why do you keep posting videos and news articles about him that no one ever responds to?Why dont you guys leave this thread if it bothers you so much?A better question is why do you need this thread?
I didnt make the thread.
so why do you keep posting videos and news articles about him that no one ever responds to?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_42_giuliani_39_ron_paul_8 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_42_giuliani_39_ron_paul_8)The nation would pick hillary over either of them, good stuff.
Election 2008: Clinton 42% Giuliani 39% Ron Paul 8%
:o
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_42_giuliani_39_ron_paul_8 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_42_giuliani_39_ron_paul_8)The nation would pick hillary over either of them, good stuff.
Election 2008: Clinton 42% Giuliani 39% Ron Paul 8%
:o
I dont hate Paul, I hate his fans.
I dont watch anime or play video games lolI dont hate Paul, I hate his fans.
Why what do they do? Post on your precious animu video game forum? :lol
I dont watch anime or play video games lol
I only have a month to go and the thread is dead, I can wait.Why are you going to stop posting in it?
because it wont exist? It'd be like posting in a Howard Dean thread after the iowa caucus.I only have a month to go and the thread is dead, I can wait.Why are you going to stop posting in it?
then why did you keep posting news about ron paul in the outside link thread that is meant for links to other forums?so why do you keep posting videos and news articles about him that no one ever responds to?Because this is the Ron Paul thread.
Why do you keep responding?
then why did you keep posting news about ron paul in the outside link thread that is meant for links to other forums?so why do you keep posting videos and news articles about him that no one ever responds to?Because this is the Ron Paul thread.
Why do you keep responding?
then why did you keep posting news about ron paul in the outside link thread that is meant for links to other forums?
then why did you keep posting news about ron paul in the outside link thread that is meant for links to other forums?
Because this thread didnt exist. I posted outside links in the outside link thread.
I guess thats too much for nintenho and triumph to understand.
8% is kinda impressive. Isn't that more than Nader got in 2000?
Maybe FoC isn't all wrong, and is instead mainly wrong...? That's an interesting poll :o
I hope he can keep it up.
:lol :lol He has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Im sure they are happy without sex.I hope he can keep it up.
At his age? :(
can someone point me to a good debunking of the gold standard? i'm seriously curious. when the people in power have so much to gain, i can't take expert opinions as fact.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/goldbug.html
...then why did you keep posting news about ron paul in the outside link thread that is meant for links to other forums?Because this thread didnt exist. I posted outside links in the outside link thread.
I guess thats too much for nintenho and triumph to understand.
the thread was made for discussion on irrelevant things that you found interesting on other forums. not for somebody to talk about their political beliefs.
The thread is called "outside link thread" I posted links I found through digg because I cannot make threads of my own.there's a reason.
The thread is called "outside link thread" I posted links I found through digg because I cannot make threads of my own.there's a reason.
btw, you also posted a link about muslims being violent. did you do what I said and talk to a mullah?
we can mix it together. nobody is probably going to start a thread for you to talk about that by the time you get banned.
so what do you think of muslims now?they should be euthanized.
so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
All muslims have done is start holy wars and killed millions of people, I don't think flipper people have ever killed anyone.so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
Personally, I think flipper people should be euthanized. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world throughout time, whereas flipper people just sit around, spend my tax money on worthless shit and then have to fucking whine about it.
All muslims have done is start holy wars and killed millions of people, I don't think flipper people have ever killed anyone.so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
Personally, I think flipper people should be euthanized. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world throughout time, whereas flipper people just sit around, spend my tax money on worthless shit and then have to fucking whine about it.
Well if they're smart enough to have made algebra than they should be smart enough to realize that Allah doesn't exist and Muhammed had obvious mental issues and if they stopped believing in such bullshit they could actually make a prosperous country that isn't ruled by dickheads.All muslims have done is start holy wars and killed millions of people, I don't think flipper people have ever killed anyone.so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
Personally, I think flipper people should be euthanized. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world throughout time, whereas flipper people just sit around, spend my tax money on worthless shit and then have to fucking whine about it.
Not true! Read up on it, Muslims have done lots, like invent algebra or something and most importantly not be born disgusting flipper things.
Well if they're smart enough to have made algebra than they should be smart enough to realize that Allah doesn't exist and Muhammed had obvious mental issues and if they stopped believing in such bullshit they could actually make a prosperous country that isn't ruled by dickheads.All muslims have done is start holy wars and killed millions of people, I don't think flipper people have ever killed anyone.so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
Personally, I think flipper people should be euthanized. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world throughout time, whereas flipper people just sit around, spend my tax money on worthless shit and then have to fucking whine about it.
Not true! Read up on it, Muslims have done lots, like invent algebra or something and most importantly not be born disgusting flipper things.
I know that, I hate all religions.Well if they're smart enough to have made algebra than they should be smart enough to realize that Allah doesn't exist and Muhammed had obvious mental issues and if they stopped believing in such bullshit they could actually make a prosperous country that isn't ruled by dickheads.All muslims have done is start holy wars and killed millions of people, I don't think flipper people have ever killed anyone.so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
Personally, I think flipper people should be euthanized. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world throughout time, whereas flipper people just sit around, spend my tax money on worthless shit and then have to fucking whine about it.
Not true! Read up on it, Muslims have done lots, like invent algebra or something and most importantly not be born disgusting flipper things.
Allah is the same God as the God of Christianity and Judaism you idiot. Islam split off from Judaism via one of Abraham's children. Much like Christianity being a split off religion from Judaism.
how nice of you.I know that, I hate all religions.Well if they're smart enough to have made algebra than they should be smart enough to realize that Allah doesn't exist and Muhammed had obvious mental issues and if they stopped believing in such bullshit they could actually make a prosperous country that isn't ruled by dickheads.All muslims have done is start holy wars and killed millions of people, I don't think flipper people have ever killed anyone.so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
Personally, I think flipper people should be euthanized. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world throughout time, whereas flipper people just sit around, spend my tax money on worthless shit and then have to fucking whine about it.
Not true! Read up on it, Muslims have done lots, like invent algebra or something and most importantly not be born disgusting flipper things.
Allah is the same God as the God of Christianity and Judaism you idiot. Islam split off from Judaism via one of Abraham's children. Much like Christianity being a split off religion from Judaism.
Well when you relize that the world would be far better off if religion never existed I think any sane person would. Look at the facts, if religion never existed then:how nice of you.I know that, I hate all religions.Well if they're smart enough to have made algebra than they should be smart enough to realize that Allah doesn't exist and Muhammed had obvious mental issues and if they stopped believing in such bullshit they could actually make a prosperous country that isn't ruled by dickheads.All muslims have done is start holy wars and killed millions of people, I don't think flipper people have ever killed anyone.so what do you think of muslims now?
they should be euthanized.
Personally, I think flipper people should be euthanized. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world throughout time, whereas flipper people just sit around, spend my tax money on worthless shit and then have to fucking whine about it.
Not true! Read up on it, Muslims have done lots, like invent algebra or something and most importantly not be born disgusting flipper things.
Allah is the same God as the God of Christianity and Judaism you idiot. Islam split off from Judaism via one of Abraham's children. Much like Christianity being a split off religion from Judaism.
3) There is no casual connection between what you are posting and voting for Ron Paul. Several other candidates are running on a platform of balancing the budget and fiscal responsibility.
Who?
It's one thing for the left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for the group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice and equality at home for the same people abroad. In fact I have never been able to make much sense out of the left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the ideas of socialism.
QuoteIt's one thing for the left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for the group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice and equality at home for the same people abroad. In fact I have never been able to make much sense out of the left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the ideas of socialism.
lulz, that's a pretty shallow understanding of socialism he's displaying there. but I guess he's trying to sell something to the right.
left-wing socialism isn't about expanding state power.That might not be the intention, but it is a by product of everything the left does to move towards socialism.
That might not be the intention, but it is a by product of everything the left does to move towards socialism.
Ron Paul didnt say that quote. What you said doesnt make any sense. Ron Paul is a big supporter of non violent protest.QuoteThat might not be the intention, but it is a by product of everything the left does to move towards socialism.
sure, but if it's clearly not the intention then Ron Paul's expression of bafflement at left-wing socialist antiwar activism is dishonest and/or silly.
you're right, it was Lew Rockwell in the foreword to Paul's book. I was skimming, sorry.
still silly though.
so what do you think of muslims?inherently evil ppl that are as stupid as they are fanatics for muhashit and allaahshit
so what do you think of muslims?
inherently evil ppl that are as stupid as they are fanatics for muhashit and allaahshit
Look, FoC! Your best friend is a flipper person- who knew!
so what do you think of muslims?inherently evil ppl that are as stupid as they are fanatics for muhashit and allaahshit
If you're muslim or religious in anyway you are.
Because religion breeds ignorance, bigotry, hypocrisy and all that is wrong. If religion never existed, could you honestly say this world wouldn't be better. Part of my hate for religion stems from not only my ultra religious parents, but the fact that despite saying as long as I believed in God anything were possible, yet I never got some new arms! Funny how those "healers" never fix someones physically deformed problems. Just think, if religion never existed and we weren't held back for 700 years by the fuckin pope maybe we'd have the ability to get me new arms. FUCKIN RELIGIOUS fegs!!!If you're muslim or religious in anyway you are.
Why?
God ripped your arms off, SynbiosHENCE WHY I HATE RELIGION AND ALL THAT IT STANDS FOR!!! :maf :maf
Without religion we might not have ever had the age of enlightenment. :oWithout religion we never would've had the crusades, holy wars, and peace in the middle east.
Without religion we might not have ever had the age of enlightenment. :oWithout religion we never would've had the crusades, holy wars, and peace in the middle east.
People that got the idea from religion.Without religion we might not have ever had the age of enlightenment. :oWithout religion we never would've had the crusades, holy wars, and peace in the middle east.
Not religions fault, its more the corrupt people who use religion.
People that got the idea from religion.
The people that use religion as a means to do harm far outweigh the people who use it to do good.People that got the idea from religion.
ok... What about people who ge tthe idea to help the poor through religion?
I'm just so fucking sick of this apology! Guess fucking what! Islam itself is nothing but a tradition and goes hand in hand with the surrounding culture. Religion is born out of these traditions in the first place. "Oh, but Islam is so innocent, it's just the customs which are bad." No, you can't separate these two. This IS Islam however you want to turn it.Without religion we might not have ever had the age of enlightenment. :oWithout religion we never would've had the crusades, holy wars, and peace in the middle east.
Not religions fault, its more the corrupt people who use religion.
because it offers so much room for interpretation.that describes every damn religion
I'm just so fucking sick of this apology! Guess fucking what! Islam itself is nothing but a tradition and goes hand in hand with the surrounding culture.Most religion comes down to tradition. Tradition was and arguably is an important part of human civilization.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Hey cheebs whre does universal healthcare fit into the presidential oath of office?QuoteI do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
b-b-b-but the constitution is 200 years old.
WHERE DOES FEDERAL MONEY FOR HIGHWAYS FIT IN, YOU IGNORANT SHITBURGER?
BU BU BU BU BUT DON'T DRIVE ON HIGHWAYS ANYMORE, YOU MOUTHBREATHING JACKASS
The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribesQuote
I would argue that the interstate highway system falls under this clause.
Holy fuck, 21 pages? Is this where ALL the political discussion goes?I think so. Some might say it's to keep foc out of other political threads but I dunno.
providing basic healthcare also would make sense for that. it boosts your economy because won't die/get so sick and it's hardly the type of thing you can get a free ride out of.
it's a fucking shame you people validate Paul's fringe campaign and FoC's racist sensibilities by continuing to pay attention to this shit. 21 pages? let the garbage take itself out
as amazing as it may be, we HAVE gone a long way since the time of sawing off feet when you broke a nail.i dont want to hear your Islamic ideals :maf
since we are able to cure people's illnesses to the point where they are able to completely contribute to society (more than they take in "government handouts") it makes sense to do that rather than to rely on privatized insurance and wait for sick poor people to rely on that until they can't make the payments (either through a private plan or through their employer) and then have to fall back on government paid healthcare.
do you think that everybody that can't get healthcare are homeless?
as amazing as it may be, we HAVE gone a long way since the time of sawing off feet when you broke a nail.And we did it all without government healtcare! Innovation flourishes in a free market.
since we are able to cure people's illnesses to the point where they are able to completely contribute to society (more than they take in "government handouts") it makes sense to do that rather than to rely on privatized insurance and wait for sick poor people to rely on that until they can't make the payments (either through a private plan or through their employer) and then have to fall back on government paid healthcare.
um, right now the government only helps those in DESPERATE need, the majority of the country that disagrees with you has the foresight (more hindsight actually) to see that.
I don't get how you feel a corporation that is designed to take more money than it gives you (insurance companies) is going to be more efficient.
What makes you think that the rest of the western world is wrong based on what you've seen in a hospital designed for people who got serious handicaps from service in the military and have trouble finding jobs? what makes you think that is comparable?
I don't get how you feel a corporation that is designed to take more money than it gives you (insurance companies) is going to be more efficient.
how the hell do you overcharge for healthcare?Somehow the evil inssurance companies are able to do it. :o
do you think if the government pays for it than hospitals will give patients extra procedures so they can charge the government more? that's kind of the type of thing the average person can notice and oppose.No, lobby groups will fight over an ever increasing healthcare budget that will ultimatly create an entire industry subsidezed by government spending. You think the situation with stem cell research is bad now. Wait till politicians really have a say in it.
No, lobby groups will fight over an ever increasing healthcare budget that will ultimatly create an entire industry subsidezed by government spending.what are you basing this on? your article just said bullshit about doctors ordering more tests than they need.
I like how he managed to get in a dig on illegal immigrants on that health care question, like that's even 1/10th of a percent of what's wrong with health care.
I like how he managed to get in a dig on illegal immigrants on that health care question, like that's even 1/10th of a percent of what's wrong with health care.
I like how the solution isn't to get them insured, so that they can get preventative care and avoid costly ER trips, but to deny them care when they get to the ER.
If an uninsured Mexican walks in coughing blood, send them on their way! That's how to bring down costs! I'm amazed more people aren't jumping on this bandwagon.
okay, show me the youtube videos of what happens when we leave iraq.
Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war.
Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, said not a single constituent has asked about the war during his nearly two-week long Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said only three of 64 callers on a town hall teleconference asked about Iraq, a reflection that the war may be losing power as a hot-button issue in his strongly Democratic district.
First-term Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) — echoing a view shared by many of her colleagues — said illegal immigration and economic unease have trumped the Iraq war as the top-ranking concerns of her constituents.
In an interview with Politico, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) attributed the change to a recent reduction of violence and media coverage of the conflict, saying there is scant evidence that more fundamental problems with the Bush administration’s policy are improving. Even so, he agreed voters are certainly talking less about the war. “People are not as engaged daily with the reality of Iraq,” Hoyer said.
The change in mood perceived by Democratic lawmakers comes as one of Congress’ most vocal war critics, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working” to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains “dysfunctional.”
On Friday, Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, clarified his remarks. The surge, he said, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ which he added has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”
“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” Murtha said.
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who traveled to Iraq with Murtha over the Thanksgiving break, also agrees the surge is working, adding another high-profile Democrat to the list of lawmakers who believe there has been improvement. Like Murtha, though, Dicks still favors troop withdrawal and points out that political reconciliation in Iraq has been a failure.
“There is a sense of normalcy you didn’t see before. In that sense, the surge is being successful,” Dicks said in an interview with the Seattle Times. “But there is no success on political reconciliation. From that standpoint, it’s not working.”
The apparent shift in voter intensity about Iraq, also captured in some polls, shows how dramatically the political context of the war debate has changed from last summer.
Democrats believed then that mounting public pressure would soon force Republicans to take flight from President Bush, allowing Congress to impose a more rapid end to the war on an unwilling administration. It has not happened yet, and if anything it shows Democrats are facing a stiffer challenge at year’s end than they had at the beginning to frame the public debate on their terms.
Hoyer said the public clearly backs the Democratic view of the war: that it was a major foreign policy blunder that must be ended quickly. That is true, based on dozens of public polls over the past year. The diminished attention to Iraq, moreover, could end in an instant with a new burst of violence or other unfavorable turn of events.
For now, however, Democratic leaders are reckoning with a more complex, if fragile, reality both in Iraq and their congressional districts. The military surge ordered by Bush over Democratic opposition is helping pacify pockets of Iraq, according to many official and journalistic accounts, with 175,000 U.S. troops showing at least temporary success in reducing violence and death.
Cooper, who represents a moderate Nashville-area district, said Democrats "shouldn't be against good news" in Iraq. At the same time, even military planners fear the situation could quickly worsen once U.S. troop levels are reduced, or if delicately crafted ceasefires collapse.
For now, voters appear more upbeat as the war’s progress than at any point this year. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a report this week showing that nearly half of Americans believe the military operation is going well — an 18-point increase since February. You have to go back to the days before the last election, in 2006, to find Americans feeling this positively about the war effort.
Still, Democrats are showing no sign of backing down in their fight to demand a swift end to the war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday said Democrats would continue to resist President Bush’s demand they immediately fully fund his $200 billion request to finance military operations. Pelosi, in a strategy backed by party leaders in both chambers, is pushing for legislation that would provide $50 billion in exchange for a commitment to end the war in about one year.
Anti-war Democrats believe that voters are simply war-weary and have made up their minds about Iraq, so it might not be as hot an issue right now.
“There used to be more [questions about Iraq]. I’m just not getting the calls,” Capuano said. “It’s not because the vehemence has gone down. Ninety percent [of my constituents] are all against the war, but most people have checked this off as a major topic.”
But the fact that Iraq might be slipping as top voter priority, coupled with clear strides in the security situation in Iraq, seems to have reduced the sense of urgency in the political debate.
In fact, Democrats are putting off further debate on the $196 billion supplemental spending bill until February. Meanwhile, Democrats are planning to shift their attention to the economy when they return next week. Democrats are considering holding an "economic summit," and the first order of business in the House will be an energy bill, aimed at elevating discussion of environmental issues.
Boyda, who beat a conservative Republican last year, said: “Generally the feeling in Kansas is get us out of the war but don't do it so fast. Do it responsibly."
The large number of anti-war Democrats, who have been frustrated by their inability to impose limits on the war or end it outright, are concerned their efforts will lose steam as they wrap up the congressional sessions.
Some of those anti-war members worry the changing environment already has had negative consequences at the presidential campaign level. “They’ve been fairly bland, certainly not bold," said Rep. Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), a leader in the Out of Iraq Caucus. "Probably they want to be careful — the swing voter and all that. But the swing voters want leadership.”
One House Democratic aide summed up the challenge for the leadership, and admitted that it may be a smart move for Democrats to focus on the economy since they haven't been able to deliver on Iraq.
Republicans plan to exploit any cracks they see in the Democratic message.
“Democrats made a strategic calculation last January that has proven to be dead wrong,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “Their message of failure and retreat makes little sense in light of our troops’ remarkable progress, and the American people are responding to their successes.”
The surge is working because they've changed how they calculate deaths, violence, and assassinations. At any rate, let's see how things go back to being chaotic as soon as the US starts pulling troops out. It's a mess over there.
The only solution is for Iraq to become a US territory, English to be made the official language, and eventually steps be taken for it to become...the 51st state.
:bow AMURRRCA :bow
What about people who support Kucinich and think Paul's economic ideas are batshit insane, FoC? What about them?spoiler (click to show/hide)FoC- lol constitution lol states rights[close]
What about people who support Kucinich and think Paul's economic ideas are batshit insane, FoC? What about them?spoiler (click to show/hide)FoC- lol constitution lol states rights[close]
Paul's economic ideas aren't batshit insane. Kucinich is fucking distinguished mentally-challenged, his answer to problems is to throw more government money at it. Paul's is to take a step back and support individual responsibility.
What about people who support Kucinich and think Paul's economic ideas are batshit insane, FoC? What about them?spoiler (click to show/hide)FoC- lol constitution lol states rights[close]
Paul's economic ideas aren't batshit insane. Kucinich is fucking distinguished mentally-challenged, his answer to problems is to throw more government money at it. Paul's is to take a step back and support individual responsibility.
The federal reserve caused the depression not capitalism. The government mismanagement during the 20s, which were far from an error of Laissez-faire helped eve more.
paul's economic ideas ARE batshit insane. don't tell us we need to go over the whole pedantic suite of reasons the gold standard is distinguished mentally-challenged AGAIN JESUS HELL WTF(http://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gif)
If someone was for "individual responsibility", you think they'd want to jack up the estate tax and force the sons and daughters of privilege to get real jobs.
Responsibility for thee, and not for me.
If someone was for "individual responsibility", you think they'd want to jack up the estate tax and force the sons and daughters of privilege to get real jobs.
Responsibility for thee, and not for me.
How is that individual responsibility? If rich people want to give their kids money then its their own deal. What you are saying is the opposite of individual responsibility. What you are saying is that people shouldn't do what they want with their money so government should decide for them.
If someone was for "individual responsibility", you think they'd want to jack up the estate tax and force the sons and daughters of privilege to get real jobs.
Responsibility for thee, and not for me.
How is that individual responsibility? If rich people want to give their kids money then its their own deal. What you are saying is the opposite of individual responsibility. What you are saying is that people shouldn't do what they want with their money so government should decide for them.
Eh, I think he was talking more about the free pass rich folks get with the weak estate tax. But I'd assume you'd reject that notion since you don't want to see tax increases on/for anything correct?
Oh, chasquido! FoC found mises.org!
That place has at least one thing on his reading level. (http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/)
mises.org? HAHAHA
you are like the young Earth creationists who point to the Bible as their primary source. your "arguments" are depressingly tautological.
foc, we all went through our libertarian dogmatic phases and read half this shit -- when we were sixteen years old. then we got jobs and lived in the real world and had no more use for shallow dogma that purports to illustrate the world as simple, lacking in nuance and wholly comprehensible if we could all just agree on the rules in spite of the observable complexity
Oh, chasquido! FoC found mises.org!
That place has at least one thing on his reading level. (http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/)
Pretty basic version of why central planning doesnt work.
that's not half as cute a response as you think it is.
Totally. I remember back in London, because the National Health Service had introduced socialized medicine, the Thatcher dictatorship made us all do calisthenics in the streets, on pain of death!
Artist's rendering of Mandark's childhood (not to scale)
Totally. I remember back in London, because the National Health Service had introduced socialized medicine, the Thatcher dictatorship made us all do calisthenics in the streets, on pain of death!
Artist's rendering of Mandark's childhood (not to scale)
In all fairness, this looks like it was written in the 30s.
this is a web forum. the last thirty or so times i have given you complete, fully supported arguments you've ignored them and continued mouthing your juvenile crap. if you're refusing to educate yourself beyond the few articles of faith you get from your tinfoil hatter meet-ups in ron paul country, then you don't deserve much more than argumentum ad authoritatum. enjoy!
In all fairness, this looks like it was written in the 30s.
In all fairness, this looks like it was written in the 30s.
...
Dot dot dot
ellipsis
In all fairness, this looks like it was written in the 30s.
...
Dot dot dot
ellipsis
Soo they were of course a little sensationalist because that shit really was happening. You know Nazi Germany...
Dot dot dot
foc, you haven't responded with anything resembling a coherent argument. at best, we get the above -- crazy pseudo-academic missives from the libertarian kooketeer econ a-squad. at worst, we get a ron paul stump video. never do we get a response in your own words that shows that you have considered and evaluated anything rationally; no, we get chapter-and-verse from whatever libertarian bible you're hewing to this week.
(http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/16.jpg)
I love how expressive Faceless Oppressed Citizen is in this one.
I think it captures how I feel sometimes when I read FoC's posts.
you're not a very good thinker, either
Why are you guys continuing to validate this nonsense?
FoC: But that can't be Drinky! He wasn't alive when they made that...
in the 1930's.
In order to prove the importance of free thinking, here are some links to Ron Paul-approved websites
In order to prove the importance of free thinking, here are some links to Ron Paul-approved websiteshttp://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/)
its humorous that you take a stab at content when your own post contains none.
Taking individual responsibility and being hands off govt. saved the depression!
Oh wait no, that was a big govt. democrat with a dash of Hitler.
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
FDR and WWII made the depression worse?
Wow, you actually believe this nonsense?
Explain why historians and basically every history text book ever don't claim that FDR and WWII made the depression worse?
Your point uses fucking wikipedia.
Your point uses fucking wikipedia.
And you dont have one.
Your point uses fucking wikipedia.
And you dont have one.
Every history text book about the 20th century...ever?
Wait so I should doubt EVERY HISTORY PROFESSOR and accept your "parable" from Wikipedia? Sounds logical to me.
foc, it's pretty simple. managing and creating money are two totally different beasts. however, both duties drastically change in different ways over the course of history. can you show us any example of a libertarian government in the last 25 years (your lifetime) that was successful?
(http://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gif)
:lol :lol
I love that gif
did ron paul actually say he believes that? japan did attack the US.FoC can't think for himself so I would assume so.
FDR made the depression worse and WW2 did not help fix the depression
FDR made the depression worse and WW2 did not help fix the depression
FDR made the depression worse and WW2 did not help fix the depression
FDR made the depression worse and WW2 did not help fix the depression
FDR made the depression worse and WW2 did not help fix the depression
amazing. but I still don't think anybody, much less a presidential candidate, is that crazy.did ron paul actually say he believes that? japan did attack the US.FoC can't think for himself so I would assume so.
I've heard people argue the New Deal didn't fix the depression, which of course is a position that can be validated (and is true). But I've never heard anyone suggest WWII didn't turn around the depression. Am Nintenho is right, it fucking boosted the economy to the point where we emerged from the war as a supreme super power.
explain how your little parable that is just a STORY prove history wrongI've heard people argue the New Deal didn't fix the depression, which of course is a position that can be validated (and is true). But I've never heard anyone suggest WWII didn't turn around the depression. Am Nintenho is right, it fucking boosted the economy to the point where we emerged from the war as a supreme super power.
See the broken window fallacy
foc, it's pretty simple. managing and creating money are two totally different beasts. however, both duties drastically change in different ways over the course of history. can you show us any example of a libertarian government in the last 25 years (your lifetime) that was successful?
and just shut up about the great depression. FDR made stupid farming practices stop by forcing farmers to rotate crops. Ever heard about the dust bowl?
WW2 really helped our economy since we loaned out a bunch of money to the allies and sold them a lot of weapons and supplies. This was going on for a long time before the war. and even during the war we sold supplies to the allies. it was a new market for JOBS. a lot of them.
explain how your little parable that is just a STORY prove history wrongI've heard people argue the New Deal didn't fix the depression, which of course is a position that can be validated (and is true). But I've never heard anyone suggest WWII didn't turn around the depression. Am Nintenho is right, it fucking boosted the economy to the point where we emerged from the war as a supreme super power.
See the broken window fallacy
how the fuck does Katrina have anything to do with us going over-seas in WWII making ourselves a world super power?foc, it's pretty simple. managing and creating money are two totally different beasts. however, both duties drastically change in different ways over the course of history. can you show us any example of a libertarian government in the last 25 years (your lifetime) that was successful?
and just shut up about the great depression. FDR made stupid farming practices stop by forcing farmers to rotate crops. Ever heard about the dust bowl?
WW2 really helped our economy since we loaned out a bunch of money to the allies and sold them a lot of weapons and supplies. This was going on for a long time before the war. and even during the war we sold supplies to the allies. it was a new market for JOBS. a lot of them.
And Katrina did alot for New Orleans because Home depots everywhere were selling wood and nails... :lol
did ron paul actually say he believes that? japan did attack the US.FoC can't think for himself so I would assume so.
Comparing Katrina (you know, the natural disaster) to WWII is perhaps the dumbest thing you've ever done.
Or I'll lock this thread and hopefully the idiot will be banned for derailing other political threads.Do this.
Guys, stop feeding the idiot. Or I'll lock this thread and hopefully the idiot will be banned for derailing other political threads.:lol the second thread for him locked because of him.
Seriously, FoC- go to OA with your act. No one here is dumb enough to buy it, and that says a lot when our members include such mental heavyweights as Pee Dee and Homosexual Lad.
:lol the second thread for him locked because of him.
lock. he can't read 2 more sentences from that post to get my point. he's an idiot. when paul loses, bump it.
Hey Drinky, what's the melt value of paper money?
that makes no fucking sense, much like the gold standard. what's the melt value of uranium, if we're tossing about non sequiturs?
Maybe because he isn't online 24/7 like you lol.that makes no fucking sense, much like the gold standard. what's the melt value of uranium, if we're tossing about non sequiturs?
You dont know what melt value means? It's the intrinsic, value of metal, in this case gold. If you could redeem your paper money for gold instead you would then have something with intrinsic value instead of an empty IOU from the government.
that makes no fucking sense, much like the gold standard. what's the melt value of uranium, if we're tossing about non sequiturs?
You dont know what melt value means? It's the intrinsic, value of metal, in this case gold. If you could redeem your paper money for gold instead you would then have something with intrinsic value instead of an empty IOU from the government.
You still haven't answered me! what does your gf think of Ron Paul?
Gold is only valuable because humans value gold. Gold has no intrinsic value.
Gold is only valuable because humans value gold. Gold has no intrinsic value.
If I offered you an ounce of gold vs. an ounce of paper, you would chose paper?
Gold is only valuable because humans value gold. Gold has no intrinsic value.
If I offered you an ounce of gold vs. an ounce of paper, you would chose paper?
If that paper was Microsoft stock, government securities, or $100 bills--absolutely. I rarely spontaneously combust, so I'm not too worried about the melt value of objects.
THE GOLD STANDARD?! Are you for fucking real?
Check/Debit Cards > Cash > Checks (too much effort) > Gold
I like to use things that I CAN PAY FOR STUFF WITH AND DOESNT TAKE UP ROOM. Shocker.
If the paper has Franklin on it>>>>>>>>>>one ounce of gold
Why do we need to be able to exchange it for gold? Gold is useless as a form of money in modern society.Check/Debit Cards > Cash > Checks (too much effort) > Gold
I like to use things that I CAN PAY FOR STUFF WITH AND DOESNT TAKE UP ROOM. Shocker.
Paper money used to be exchangable for gold. Im not advocating we walk around with gold bags. Your an idiot that doesnt understand the basics.
If the paper has Franklin on it>>>>>>>>>>one ounce of gold
:lol :lol :lol
One ounce of gold= $800
I just went to mcdonalds and they wouldn't accept my gold as pay. ??? wtf
Why do we need to be able to exchange it for gold? Gold is useless as a form of money in modern society.
Oh really? Well I can't wait to head to the bank and exchange this ounce of gold for $800
No one buys shit with gold or has it in their bank. THIS ISN'T HARRY POTTER FOC
If the paper has Franklin on it>>>>>>>>>>one ounce of gold
:lol :lol :lol
One ounce of gold= $800
If I were president, I would institute a Fruity Pebbles standard. I know what the people truly value, and I guarantee that if I ran for Prez on the Fruity Pebbles platform, I would get the youth voting in droves.
It was Rudy Giuliani campaigning for president on the Marietta Square on Sunday afternoon, but anyone listening may well have thought the candidate's name was Ron Paul.
"RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!" — a crowd chanted from Glover Park, effectively drowning out comments from the former New York mayor and occasionally changing the chant to "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"
The younger crowd of Paul supporters had stronger, or maybe more enthusiastic, lungs than the middle-aged crowd of Giuliani's gaggle, who responded with a college try — "Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!" — while the Paul cadres tailed the GOP front runner on his walking photo op in downtown Marietta.
The Paul backers, handing out their own candidate's literature, said they were more interested in a president who would truly try to shrink government, not just promise to do it, and who promises outright to bring the troops home from Iraq.
foc, you dipshit, gold is no longer a realistic standard of value by modern standards -- it's value is almost nil in first-world countries outside of fiat. uranium/plutonium or oil are probably better bets if you need a "fungible" commodity, since it has modern relevance. gold is useless unto itself in the modern market -- it has no intrinsic desirable properties that are meaningful in the modern world. ron paul and the gold standard nut brigade may yearn for a simpler time, but reality doesn't seem to care.
foc, you dipshit, gold is no longer a realistic standard of value by modern standards -- its value is almost nil in first-world countries outside of fiat.
Even wikipedia knows what it's about when it comes to melt values:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/9/a/09aba87f1f9c817fa0b4f838a9478fdc.png)
The above formula both describes the thermodynamics of melting, and also-if you interpolate four letter words properly-accurately models this thread as well.
The importance of the economic impact of the secular Christmas holiday was reinforced in the 1930s when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed moving the Thanksgiving holiday date to extend the Christmas shopping season and boost the economy during the Great Depression.
I am doing some research about christmas for work and I found this. Look how smart FDR was.christmas shopping does help the economy asswipeQuoteThe importance of the economic impact of the secular Christmas holiday was reinforced in the 1930s when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed moving the Thanksgiving holiday date to extend the Christmas shopping season and boost the economy during the Great Depression.
:lol :lol :lol
I am doing some research about christmas for work and I found this. Look how smart FDR was.christmas shopping does help the economy asswipeQuoteThe importance of the economic impact of the secular Christmas holiday was reinforced in the 1930s when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed moving the Thanksgiving holiday date to extend the Christmas shopping season and boost the economy during the Great Depression.
:lol :lol :lol
I am doing some research about christmas for work and I found this. Look how smart FDR was.christmas shopping does help the economy asswipeQuoteThe importance of the economic impact of the secular Christmas holiday was reinforced in the 1930s when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed moving the Thanksgiving holiday date to extend the Christmas shopping season and boost the economy during the Great Depression.
:lol :lol :lol
oh god :lol
Only if you're shopping with gold, or for gold.
if the gold standard is so awesome, why did Mr. T sell his chains after Katrina? HE'S NO FOOL
FoC its less than 29 days till the Iowa caucus. How's Paul looking there?I'm too busy planning the Christmas standard.
ARG 11/26-29/07
Romney - 28
Huckabee - 27
Thompson - 14
Rudy - 9
McCain - 9
Paul - 3
He is going to have to increase his polling TEN TIMES in less than 4 weeks to win the caucus.
Also, he doesnt need to win in Iowa. He just needs to get top 3.Yet I've just checked. There hasn't been a single poll released in the entire campaign that put paul in the top 3 in either Iowa, NH, MI, or SC. The first 4 primaries.
Also, he doesnt need to win in Iowa. He just needs to get top 3.Yet I've just checked. There hasn't been a single poll released in the entire campaign that put paul in the top 3 in either Iowa, NH, MI, or SC. The first 4 primaries.
If he loses will you move to his district in texas so he can be your congressman?Also, he doesnt need to win in Iowa. He just needs to get top 3.Yet I've just checked. There hasn't been a single poll released in the entire campaign that put paul in the top 3 in either Iowa, NH, MI, or SC. The first 4 primaries.
Then I guess you will clearly win the bet. What are you worried about?
If he loses will you move to his district in texas so he can be your congressman?Also, he doesnt need to win in Iowa. He just needs to get top 3.Yet I've just checked. There hasn't been a single poll released in the entire campaign that put paul in the top 3 in either Iowa, NH, MI, or SC. The first 4 primaries.
Then I guess you will clearly win the bet. What are you worried about?
I thought you lived in Austin?If he loses will you move to his district in texas so he can be your congressman?Also, he doesnt need to win in Iowa. He just needs to get top 3.Yet I've just checked. There hasn't been a single poll released in the entire campaign that put paul in the top 3 in either Iowa, NH, MI, or SC. The first 4 primaries.
Then I guess you will clearly win the bet. What are you worried about?
I'm from his district.
I thought you lived in Austin?
Also, he doesnt need to win in Iowa. He just needs to get top 3.
Wait, is the Constitution backed by a commodity?
Just the good faith in the government
Gold is actually used in computers and other electronics today. Moving to the gold standard would make the price of gold skyrocket. Also going to the gold standard gives banks less options when there's an economic crisis (that's logical).
according to wikipedia, we have about $2.3 trillion of gold and $7.3 trillion dollars of currency. do the math.
..banks don't print money.
you think we're going to have ~3 times inflation in the next few years?
For someone so smart, Chomsky certainly reveals himself as an idiot from time to time.
Except you're not smart.
What's the melt value of a HOBO NICKEL!!!!
What's the melt value of a HOBO NICKEL!!!!
What is it made out of?
What's the melt value of a HOBO NICKEL!!!!
What is it made out of?
Train tracks
Chomsky operates from the assumption that anyone who doesn't own a business is completely powerless and needs to be babied by the government. The corporations he supposedly despises WANT that to be true. Only in a freer market is it not true.
And the random bit about "contracts enforced by law"...who else is supposed to enforce contracts, exactly?
For someone so smart, Chomsky certainly reveals himself as an idiot from time to time.
the pursuit of wealth should never be a right, and should always remain a privilege. we don't live in an idealistic world where the cult of entrepreneurism and the hand of the free market it worships are somehow moral and operate with only the benevolent interest of greater society in mind -- history has told us otherwise countless times, and american history in particular.
i'm hardly a fan of chomsky, but that blog repsonse was distinguished mentally-challenged. most of his rebuttals were ludicrous edge cases -- "what if somebody hates his family and wants to work for 12 hours/day!" wtf. government is there to server the greater interest of society, not the nutball fringe -- which is, of course, what ron paul's tiny but vocal constituency is.
second, how is it NOT true in "a freer market" -- in a wholly free market, the businesses have no need for restraint. businesses accumulate capital and wealth, which directly translates into power, which then translates into private-sector cabalism and corporate aristocracy. teddy roosevelt am cry. government business regulations -- especially anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations -- came about because of the excesses of ron paul's precious turn-of-the-century profiteering.
fuck that noise. the pursuit of wealth should never be a right, and should always remain a privilege. we don't live in an idealistic world where the cult of entrepreneurism and the hand of the free market it worships are somehow moral and operate with only the benevolent interest of greater society in mind -- history has told us otherwise countless times, and american history in particular.For the most part they do. And I trust the hand of business more than the hand of government any day of the week.
lastly, for a libertarian to argue for "contracts enforced by law" is utterly hypocritical. the enforcement of contracts requires a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT,No it doesnt. Considering alot of the states are bigger than coutnries out there, we would be just fine.
because contract enforcement is not a simple police action within a fair society, and will always necessitate something resembling a bureaucracy, because THERE IS NOTHING SIMPLE ABOUT CONTRACT AUTHORING AND NEGOTIATION IN A GLOBAL OR NATIONAL FREE MARKET. jesus! do paulites even live in the real world? get jobs! quit pretending we don't live in a flat society! ENTER THE FUCKING 21ST CENTURY. ANDREW CARNEGIE IS DEAD.
but then your mother would be out of a job
whats your girlfriend think of ron paul?
whats your girlfriend think of ron paul?
I'm guessing he left her to slob on Ron's golden knob
i'm hardly a fan of chomsky, but that blog repsonse was distinguished mentally-challenged. most of his rebuttals were ludicrous edge cases -- "what if somebody hates his family and wants to work for 12 hours/day!" wtf. government is there to server the greater interest of society, not the nutball fringe -- which is, of course, what ron paul's tiny but vocal constituency is.
Government is there to protect the rights of citizens and to uphold the law. Not to serve the "greater interest."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -Benjamin Franklin
second, how is it NOT true in "a freer market" -- in a wholly free market, the businesses have no need for restraint. businesses accumulate capital and wealth, which directly translates into power, which then translates into private-sector cabalism and corporate aristocracy. teddy roosevelt am cry. government business regulations -- especially anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations -- came about because of the excesses of ron paul's precious turn-of-the-century profiteering.
These "evil" business only give socoety what they ask for. You paint them to be some kind of evil entity that is out to get us all, but what you dont realize is that anyone can own a business and anyone can accumulate wealth. Also most monopolies cannot exist without government intervention. That's basic economics distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.
fuck that noise. the pursuit of wealth should never be a right, and should always remain a privilege. we don't live in an idealistic world where the cult of entrepreneurism and the hand of the free market it worships are somehow moral and operate with only the benevolent interest of greater society in mind -- history has told us otherwise countless times, and american history in particular.For the most part they do. And I trust the hand of business more than the hand of government any day of the week.
lastly, for a libertarian to argue for "contracts enforced by law" is utterly hypocritical. the enforcement of contracts requires a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT,No it doesnt. Considering alot of the states are bigger than coutnries out there, we would be just fine.
because contract enforcement is not a simple police action within a fair society, and will always necessitate something resembling a bureaucracy, because THERE IS NOTHING SIMPLE ABOUT CONTRACT AUTHORING AND NEGOTIATION IN A GLOBAL OR NATIONAL FREE MARKET. jesus! do paulites even live in the real world? get jobs! quit pretending we don't live in a flat society! ENTER THE FUCKING 21ST CENTURY. ANDREW CARNEGIE IS DEAD.
*yawn, anything of substance? No just a bunch of drival "Only the government can steer the good of society"
so you're exchanging one faith for another. some of us trust neither equally.
and by what FACTS do you assert this, toolbox? you're a clueless twenty-something who has lived a privileged life. you knoew very little of struggle, or of experience, or of education, or of the very workings of this world, so do not presume you have the authority or experience to assert ANYTHING in lieu of facts.
likewise, these evil governments only give societies what they ask for. also, monopolies can and do flourish under "free markets" -- the 1860-1910 period that ron paul so adores saw the rise of big steel, big coal, and big transportation monopolies.And yet look at all these so called evil corporations did for america. They practically built. You think america would have been a superpower if we let the government just run everything?
hell, in recent times, ms became a power without any government aid whatsoever -- only the complicity of other businesses and partners.
also, as the hilarious children's movie "ratatouille" demonstrated to those of us with an iq above that of six years old -- the fact that "anyone" can accomplish great things does not in any way suggest that "everyone" can accomplish great thing, and that society ultimately determines greatness and success, not the individual.
We need more public spirit among our citizens, not less. We need people to be less selfish and more responsible to society at large. Libertarians would take us in the opposite direction. That is why I sadly conclude that libertarianism is fundamentally wrong.
There is no moral onus attached to being selfish. And if selfishness is exalted (as it is in libertarianism), then public spirit withers.
FoC has a pretty good point. People are often wary of giving corporations too much power through unchecked capitalism because it has led to things like sweat shops and child labor, which are very valid concerns. While these are terrible things, they are nowhere on the same scale as some of the atrocities that have occured from giving the government too much power to do what they claim is for the greater good.Except with govt. if they dont do what we want we can throw them out, we are given that chance every other year. We cant do that with corporations.
Except with govt. if they dont do what we want we can throw them out, we are given that chance every other year. We cant do that with corporations.
FoC has a pretty good point. People are often wary of giving corporations too much power through unchecked capitalism because it has led to things like sweat shops and child labor, which are very valid concerns. While these are terrible things, they are nowhere on the same scale as some of the atrocities that have occured from giving the government too much power to do what they claim is for the greater good.
Did you just compare our elections with Nazi Germany?
Except with govt. if they dont do what we want we can throw them out, we are given that chance every other year. We cant do that with corporations.
:lol :lol Why didnt the jews just throw out hitler if it was so easy?
Also, to the extent that capitalism hasn't achieved the same level of horrors, it's because governments were restricting the use of violence by private actors. As soon as corporations can crack heads, they will.
See the violent strike-breaking in the US, or the wars fought by the British East India Company. You could argue that those companies were becoming governments, in the Max Weber sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force), but that's sort of begging the question. "Only governments cause atrocities, because atrocities require governments."
The point is, accumulated power screws things up in a society. That power can be accumulated by private or public means. But a company answers only to its owners. A democracy answers to everyone under its rule, at least domestically.
• $24 billion has been spent, and at least $178 million wasted, on the failed Coast Guard Deepwater program;
• over $600 million has been allocated for unworkable radiation border scanners;
• $1.3 billion has been lost on the USVISIT program, which was never fully implemented; and
• projected $2 billion loss on the SBInet “virtual fence” border program.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.
Dec. 16th. REMEMBER!
so you're exchanging one faith for another. some of us trust neither equally.
I agree, but why are you willing to give government, which throughout history, has a much worse record of abusing people than TeH corporations.
Violent strike breaking tactics as seen in the early 20th century required government to, if nothing else, look the other way.
so you're exchanging one faith for another. some of us trust neither equally.
I agree, but why are you willing to give government, which throughout history, has a much worse record of abusing people than TeH corporations.
because corporations have a history of roughly 100 years, as opposed to governments which have a record exponentially longer than that?
as for your other questions -- america did not become a superpower until the early part of last century, after teddy roosevelt (y'know, the populist president) busted up big business and the resource conglomerates, and the set the tenor of america's international superpower aspirations.
lastly, you suggest you can vote with your dollar, but what happens when corporations establish monopolies, and/or become more powerful than the state? we're almost at that point, since it is clear that the government operates at the whim of business lobbies, money, and cronyism. if the us becomes an authoritarian state, it will be financed not by your silly federal reserve inflationary theories but by the dollars of big international business (like the pharma, insurance, and energy lobbies).
I think state corporatism is largely to thank for the influence of business lobbies. Though I would actually probably be in favor of legislation banning campaign contributions from corporations.
But then you are faulting it for not being involved in the marketplace enough during the early 20th century! Not very libertarian of you.
No, just looks like a bunch of Libertarians and clueless shitburgers to me! Actual Republicans are as fine as they can be.
[youtube=425,350]j_GADQv3vKs[/youtube]
The republican party has a huge growing dissent among them.
[youtube=425,350]j_GADQv3vKs[/youtube]
The republican party has a huge growing dissent among them.
You're right: they can't decide whether they want Rudy, Romney, or Huckabee :lol
Yea, it makes perfect sense. The Republican Party is currently seeing a three way battle for the nomination: Romney, Huckabee, and Rudy. Thompson and McCain are on the outside trying to fight their way in. Paul, Hunter Thompson, and That Immigration Guy are irrelevent. They aren't going to win any primaries, or come close.
If he wins straw polls why has he never broken into the top 5 in any real poll?
The why has Ron Paul won so many straw polls?
Yea, it makes perfect sense. The Republican Party is currently seeing a three way battle for the nomination: Romney, Huckabee, and Rudy. Thompson and McCain are on the outside trying to fight their way in. Paul, Hunter Thompson, and That Immigration Guy are irrelevent. They aren't going to win any primaries, or come close.
The why has Ron Paul won so many straw polls?
1. Ron Paul will not win one primary. Do you disagree?
2. Ron Paul won't get 10% of the vote in Iowa, NH, or SC. Do you disagree?
[youtube=425,350]JPpCvF7N3Vg[/youtube]If he wins straw polls why has he never broken into the top 5 in any real poll?
The why has Ron Paul won so many straw polls?
Ron Paul is going to win a primary? Which one is his best shot in your opinion
Then just look at the last 100 years of government. Adding up the death tolls of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao's reigns of power and there was over 50 million people killed.fascism though..
1. Ron Paul will not win one primary. Do you disagree?
2. Ron Paul won't get 10% of the vote in Iowa, NH, or SC. Do you disagree?
I disagree with both. Want to make it a bet?
He wont be able to post it. He promised me to leave EB if Paul doesnt get above 10% in Iowa.
1. Ron Paul will not win one primary. Do you disagree?
2. Ron Paul won't get 10% of the vote in Iowa, NH, or SC. Do you disagree?
I disagree with both. Want to make it a bet?
I do! If Ron Paul doesn't win a single primary, I want you to videotape yourself wearing a sign that says "I hate spics" and nothing else around a heavily hispanic part of town.
He wont be able to post it. He promised me to leave EB if Paul doesnt get above 10% in Iowa.
1. Ron Paul will not win one primary. Do you disagree?
2. Ron Paul won't get 10% of the vote in Iowa, NH, or SC. Do you disagree?
I disagree with both. Want to make it a bet?
I do! If Ron Paul doesn't win a single primary, I want you to videotape yourself wearing a sign that says "I hate spics" and nothing else around a heavily hispanic part of town.
1. Ron Paul will not win one primary. Do you disagree?
2. Ron Paul won't get 10% of the vote in Iowa, NH, or SC. Do you disagree?
I disagree with both. Want to make it a bet?
I do! If Ron Paul doesn't win a single primary, I want you to videotape yourself wearing a sign that says "I hate spics" and nothing else around a heavily hispanic part of town.
And you're crazy if you think that he'll leave.
And you're crazy if you think that he'll leave.
Why wouldnt I leave?
He wont be able to talk about Ron Paul post Jan 3rd though, so why would he WANT to stay?And you're crazy if you think that he'll leave.
Why wouldnt I leave?
Considering the fact that you're still here after all the abuse you've taken, I don't think losing a bet would make much of a difference to you.
1. Ron Paul will not win one primary. Do you disagree?
2. Ron Paul won't get 10% of the vote in Iowa, NH, or SC. Do you disagree?
I disagree with both. Want to make it a bet?
I do! If Ron Paul doesn't win a single primary, I want you to videotape yourself wearing a sign that says "I hate spics" and nothing else around a heavily hispanic part of town.
I dont hate anyone, why would I do that?
Actually I would wear a sign that says "Socialism sucks see Raoul Duke for proof"
:wag That wasn't the bet.
He wont be able to talk about Ron Paul post Jan 3rd though, so why would he WANT to stay?
He'll just switch things around and talk about Torture Corn 2: Corn Harder.
I know. the bet is you'll leave if he doesnt get over 10% in Iowa. I was saying IF you refuse to follow the bet why would you want to stay? His campaign would be dead what would you want to talk about?:wag That wasn't the bet.
He wont be able to talk about Ron Paul post Jan 3rd though, so why would he WANT to stay?
The one that featured male nudity but nothing from the hot chick with the giant rack.:-\ I know I know. We tried dude, we really tried to get her to go nude.
I know. the bet is you'll leave if he doesnt get over 10% in Iowa
The one that featured male nudity but nothing from the hot chick with the giant rack.:-\ I know I know. We tried dude, we really tried to get her to go nude.
I went and looked back a few weeks ago, it was. I'll get the link again.
I know. the bet is you'll leave if he doesnt get over 10% in Iowa
Im pretty sure that wasnt the bet either.
http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=13815.msg327289#msg327270
FoC agreed to leave but if he wins he said he wants me to buy him a book. lol.
Over 10% in Iowa, he is currently at 3%.
he'll have it 10x worse here than he does now.http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=13815.msg327289#msg327270
FoC agreed to leave but if he wins he said he wants me to buy him a book. lol.
Over 10% in Iowa, he is currently at 3%.
lol owned
He DID say in the thread that he'd have to be banned because he didn't think he could voluntarily leave, but we all know that won't happen. So in the end it's a bet without any teeth, sigh.
He'll be a more of a flip flopper than Ron "i hate black people/i love black people" Paul :punchI have never wavered on that issue.
He'll be a more of a flip flopper than Ron "i hate black people/i love black people" Paul :punchI have never wavered on that issue.
He'll be a more of a flip flopper than Ron "i hate black people/i love black people" Paul :punch
"Mises lolololol"
- Synthesizer Patel
"I'm hungry, what's in my refrigerator?"
- Synthesizer Patel
"I suck at debating issues, but I still post lots of quotations in place of rational discourse"
- Lame of Callandor
"It looks like we have some Hot Pockets."
- Synthesizer Patel
Romney - 25%
Rudy - 17%
McCain - 16%
Huckabee - 11%
Thompson - 6%
Paul - 5%
I just owned all of you with that quote. :lol Not one proper rebuttal amongst you.
I just owned all of you with that quote. :lol Not one proper rebuttal amongst you.
Has anyone ever watched an ugly--yet delusional--person proudly look in the mirror? This thread is sort of like that.
Why are you ugly and delusional?
I just owned all of you statist noobs, your only comeback? "Ho-hum have you ever seen how ugly FoC is. He is quite ugly
Sucks to be you guys. It sucks so bad.
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. "
-Ludwig von Mises
no, ludwig, one mustn't, because government never embodies 100% of one's ideology and ultimately is a structure cobbled together from compensatory mechanisms to address fallibility and moral weakness. hence, government exists inasmuch as ideology is never perfectly realized.
they weren't saying "boo" they were saying "boo-urn value," "boo-urn value"nice simpsons reference too
I'm pretty sure it's rather the Bush administration that's a ham-fisted metaphor for the Magisterium.
I wonder if FoC liked it when Paul got huge boos from the republican crowd at the debate last night.
what should I have for lunch guysa hardy serving of laissez fair economics and gold.
i have evolved beyond the need for sleep
the girl across from me is incredibly hot and cute and also has incredibly bad skin. i'm not sure how that works exactly but it does
what should I have for lunch guys
I dunno, I think that talking about things that actually happen in our own words is better than cut-and-pasting inapplicable ideology.
So, funny story.
My dad told me yesterday that my uncle is like the chairperson and spokesman for Ron Paul's campaign in the Tampa Bay area.
That made me laugh. I don't know if he was joking or not.
So, funny story.
My dad told me yesterday that my uncle is like the chairperson and spokesman for Ron Paul's campaign in the Tampa Bay area.
That made me laugh. I don't know if he was joking or not.
Does your uncle enjoy soup?
I really like putting barley in soup to make it more filling. Plus I really like the texture.
I miss eating ramen, udon, and soba all the time in Japan. Curry udon is one of life's best pleasures. And yakiniku ramen is like a threesome in your mouth.
Dunno, but I know he enjoys his weed, and since Paul is for the legalization, it makes perfect sense.So, funny story.
My dad told me yesterday that my uncle is like the chairperson and spokesman for Ron Paul's campaign in the Tampa Bay area.
That made me laugh. I don't know if he was joking or not.
Does your uncle enjoy soup?
BTW,
FoC: racist subtext
My uncle: one of the biggest racists I am related too (even bigger than my grandparents)
FoC: Ron Paul supporter
My uncle: HUGE Ron Paul supporter (just found out he's been trying to get my mom to vote for him)
Coincidence?
ron paul thinks the civil rights bill shouldn't have passed. of course racists love him
I am done with the monster of "we," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery falsehood and shame.:bow :bow :bow
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word:
"I"
At first, man was enslaved by the gods. But he broke their chains. Then he was enslaved by the kings. But he broke their chains. He was enslaved by his birth, by his kin, by his race. But he broke their chains. He declared to all his brothers that a man has rights which neither god nor king nor other men can take away from him, no matter what their number, for his is the right of man, and there is no right on earth above this right. And he stood on the threshold of freedom for which the blood of the centuries behind him had been spilled.:bow :bow :bow
But then he gave up all he had won, and fell lower than his savage beginning.
What brought it to pass? What disaster took their reason away from men? What whip lashed them to their knees in shame and submission? The worship of the word "We."
QuoteI am done with the monster of "we," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery falsehood and shame.:bow :bow :bow
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word:
"I"
It's amazing how you can prop yourself up as a proponent of individualism by flitting around other peoples thoughts like a parrot.
what ARE these rights that no other man can take from one
i'd love to know
When men accepted that worship, the structure of centuries collapsed about them, the structure whose every beam had come from the thought of some one man, each in his day down the ages, from the depth of some one spirit, such as spirit existed but for its own sake. Those men who survived- those eager to obey, eager to live for one another, since they had nothing else to vindicate them- those men could neither carry on, nor preserve what they had received. Thus did all thought, all science, all wisdom perish on earth. Thus did men- men with nothing to offer save their great numbers- lose the steel towers, the flying ships, the power wires, all the things they had not created and could never keep. Perhaps, later, some men had been born with the mind and the courage to recover these things which were lost; perhaps these men came before the Councils of Scholars. They answered as I have been answered- and for the same reasons.
I remember foc said his mom would give him a few thousand dollars if he graduated from college without getting a girl pregnant. he sounded serious too.
dinner options at the cafeteria:
Hawaiian Luau Pizza with Chicken and Teriyaki sauce
Onion Soup with Cheese Croutons
Bison Chili
BLT Sandwich with Avocado on Sourdough
Rotisserie Chicken
regular grill, deli, and salad services
tomorrow for breakfast they have Banana-stuffed French Toast and on Thursday they have a sushi chef coming in ??!!
i'm getting my first placement bonus this friday, i'm thinking
GOLD
and blow
what ARE these rights that no other man can take from one
i'd love to knowQuoteWhen men accepted that worship, the structure of centuries collapsed about them, the structure whose every beam had come from the thought of some one man, each in his day down the ages, from the depth of some one spirit, such as spirit existed but for its own sake. Those men who survived- those eager to obey, eager to live for one another, since they had nothing else to vindicate them- those men could neither carry on, nor preserve what they had received. Thus did all thought, all science, all wisdom perish on earth. Thus did men- men with nothing to offer save their great numbers- lose the steel towers, the flying ships, the power wires, all the things they had not created and could never keep. Perhaps, later, some men had been born with the mind and the courage to recover these things which were lost; perhaps these men came before the Councils of Scholars. They answered as I have been answered- and for the same reasons.
oddly, science and innovation exist in spite of individualism, and the increased complexity has emphasized teams and collaboration rather than individual "geniuses" in their garages
the cult of individuality has not updated its tenets since 1930 :'(
oddly, science and innovation exist in spite of individualism, and the increased complexity has emphasized teams and collaboration rather than individual "geniuses" in their garages
the cult of individuality has not updated its tenets since 1930
when the price of gold goes up by GOVERNMENT FIAT, oh my :o
Drinky, if we have real bad inflation would you rather be stuck with an ounce of gold or a dollar bill that says $500?
The price of gold will increase in value compared to the dollar, but the bill will remain $500. Is that hard to understand?
when the price of gold goes up by GOVERNMENT FIAT, oh my :o
Economics works without government FIAT, oh my. :o
only when it is a basic barter system, OH MY
But this doesn't mean that the gold isn't "more valuable" than the dollar. You might as well compare the dollar to the euro, or the dollar to plutonium, or the dollar to BMW fuel injectors, or the dollar to Beverly Hills townhouses. Gold as a "standard" is completely arbitrary and meaningless.
Besides, if we stop having real money and return to an ancient and unworkable gold standard, wouldn't that eliminate your precious gold's subjective advantage? The gold and the money would always be worth the "same"--so how would gold continue be a "good investment" at this point, since your entire argument is based on HOW MANY inflation bucks it's worth? You can't argue for the value of the gold standard using our current free money economics.
Not sure why I bother having a point, as I'm sure I'll just get some :lol s for my trouble.
only when it is a basic barter system, OH MY
Correct. Now tell me why, in a barter system, you would accept paper IOUs forever.
only when it is a basic barter system, OH MY
Correct. Now tell me why, in a barter system, you would accept paper IOUs forever.
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html (http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html)Hmm the general consensus of the science community or BLOGSPOT. Tough call.
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
:o :o
Cheebs what say you.
Did Flame just say NASA is a waste of money?funny thing is that he's friends with olimario who's dad works at nasa.
Did Flame just say NASA is a waste of money?
Did Flame just say NASA is a waste of money?
Because exploring space and setting up camps and stations outside of earth is the only way to save mankind? Earth wont live forever. It is a goal and priority to explore space for this reason.Did Flame just say NASA is a waste of money?
How is it not?
If anything, NASA needs more funding to adequately support the space program. Right now, it's languishing, barely able to keep old, broken technology while our government dumps an insane amount of money into bogus Iraqi contracts. How many billions will be funneled into Iraq, where will we never see what we paid for or if we do, mafia-style contract jobs (let's cut corners!)?
If you're going to break down fruitless government spending, let's start there, not with fucking NASA.
The technology and experience gained by NASA is immeasurable, even by Ron Paul's gold standard. And since global warming does not exist and we are not responsible for any of the climate changes, I guess we'll need NASA to start looking for another planet, because this one is busted. But it's the planet's fault, not ours.
Because exploring space and setting up camps and stations outside of earth is the only way to save mankind?
Because...we fucking do? Or does your Ron Paul religion believe the Sun isn't going to die out?Because exploring space and setting up camps and stations outside of earth is the only way to save mankind?
:lol :lol Oh God, this is funny.
We need to set up space camps to save mankind!!
Because...we fucking do? Or does your Ron Paul religion believe the Sun isn't going to die out?
Jesus Christ, you really are denying we can't stay on Earth after the Sun is gone.
Instead, in 5–6 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase, its outer layers expanding as the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts and heats up.5–6 billion years
You realize the earth could become impossible to live on MUCH sooner thanks to lovely global warming and pollution?
Oh wait I forgot you don't "believe" in pollution.
Jesus Christ, you really are denying we can't stay on Earth after the Sun is gone.
i'm getting my first placement bonus this friday, i'm thinking
GOLD
and blow
If you were to invest in gold, there is a good chance your investment will multipy by 30 whenever the price of gold and the DOW go 1:1 history shows happens.
Why is science wrong?You realize the earth could become impossible to live on MUCH sooner thanks to lovely global warming and pollution?
Oh wait I forgot you don't "believe" in pollution.
I dont believe global warming is caused by humans.
Why is science wrong?
How the fuck does that make any sense. My view is that of basically the entire science community.
Why is science wrong?
I could ask you the same thing.
Does it have to be like, gold bullions? Can I get a gold necklace and at least put something into my investment?
You realize the earth could become impossible to live on MUCH sooner thanks to lovely global warming and pollution?
Oh wait I forgot you don't "believe" in pollution.
How the fuck does that make any sense. My view is that of basically the entire science community.
You realize the earth could become impossible to live on MUCH sooner thanks to lovely global warming and pollution?
Oh wait I forgot you don't "believe" in pollution.
Let's not forget overpopulation. People need to either quit fuckin' or start fuckin' with protection.
Yes, yes it fucking is. You honestly think 99% of the science community DOES NOT believe in man made global warming?
How the fuck does that make any sense. My view is that of basically the entire science community.
No it's not. I posted links and you ignore them.
Technically, the earth will be uninhabitable long before the sun actually dies.
How the fuck does that make any sense. My view is that of basically the entire science community.
No it's not. I posted links and you ignore them.
that link you posted on global warming was bs. it was just a list of findings and no evidence from somebody else's article.
plus, like I said before, things like doubling the amount of CO2 and ripping a hole in the ozone layer are not things that help life on earth. you have to realize we do put pollutants into the air you whiny little buttfuck.
you can make profits on it! and then the corporations will get all rich and circle-jerk each other until the ozone layer is filled!that link you posted on global warming was bs. it was just a list of findings and no evidence from somebody else's article.But....TAXES
plus, like I said before, things like doubling the amount of CO2 and ripping a hole in the ozone layer are not things that help life on earth. you have to realize we do put pollutants into the air you whiny little buttfuck.
Humans contribute to global warming but I don't take the alarmist position of Gore.
Al Gore, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday, drew a comparison between global warming and that awful moment in human history. He suggested those leaders who ignore the threat of climate change now are stuck in a state similar to the state that froze those leaders who appeased Hitler.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)99% of Scientist's and the majority of Americans say you are wrong kiddo. As do the leading candidates on both parties.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf)
99% of Scientist's and the majority of Americans say you are wrong kiddo. As do the leading candidates on both parties.
""Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants. "
Wow. You believe this shit FoC?
How would FoC's idol George Lucas feel about all of this?
before ron paul you were mocked for calling return of the jedi and jurassic park your favorite movies of all time. Yeah, you really hate Lucas.How would FoC's idol George Lucas feel about all of this?
I hate geroge lucas
that link you posted on global warming was bs. it was just a list of findings and no evidence from somebody else's article.
plus, like I said before, things like doubling the amount of CO2 and ripping a hole in the ozone layer are not things that help life on earth. you have to realize we do put pollutants into the air you whiny little buttfuck.
before ron paul you were mocked for calling return of the jedi and jurassic park your favorite movies of all time. Yeah, you really hate Lucas.
FoC does it blow your mind that Terry Gilliam supports Hillary Clinton. OH NO
FoC could never believe he is wrong! America is wrong, not FoC. How can america not want the gold standard or ron paul? ITS INSANE
FoC could never believe he is wrong! America is wrong, not FoC. How can america not want the gold standard or ron paul? ITS INSANE
has it ever occurred to you that maybe, maybe, you might be wrong, about something
and then...that link you posted on global warming was bs. it was just a list of findings and no evidence from somebody else's article.
plus, like I said before, things like doubling the amount of CO2 and ripping a hole in the ozone layer are not things that help life on earth. you have to realize we do put pollutants into the air you whiny little buttfuck.
then stop putting them in the air.
and then...
and then...
You can quit bitching about it.
are you to stupid to see my question? I'm asking once you stop producing CO2 (read: stop using power plants and cars) what do you do?
has it ever occurred to you that maybe, maybe, you might be wrong, about something
Sure, I've been wrong before.
Has the thought ever occurred to you?
and then...
You can quit bitching about it.
I think you're missing the point. It's great if one person takes the initiative to not do something that would be harmful to society at large; however unless A WHOLE LOT of people take that step the effect is negligible. The best way for that to happen is not to say "ok everybody, we trust you to do what's right for people at large." Ha. Fucking. Ha. People are selfish, you dopey fucking Tejan public education failure. They're going to do what's best/easiest for them to do NOW, not what's going to benefit society at large in the long or even short run. So the best way for this to happen is to pass laws making things illegal or costly for people to do so THEY STOP FUCKING DOING IT. It's not a hard equation to figure out.
Man Libertopians are fucking DUMB.
and then...
You can quit bitching about it.
I think you're missing the point. It's great if one person takes the initiative to not do something that would be harmful to society at large; however unless A WHOLE LOT of people take that step the effect is negligible. The best way for that to happen is not to say "ok everybody, we trust you to do what's right for people at large." Ha. Fucking. Ha. People are selfish, you dopey fucking Tejan public education failure. They're going to do what's best/easiest for them to do NOW, not what's going to benefit society at large in the long or even short run. So the best way for this to happen is to pass laws making things illegal or costly for people to do so THEY STOP FUCKING DOING IT. It's not a hard equation to figure out.
Man Libertopians are fucking DUMB.
So we need the government to protect us from ourselves?
Yup. You're pretty much Exhibit A. You shouldn't be allowed outside without supervision and I would feel much better if it were illegal for you to breed.
and then...
You can quit bitching about it.
I think you're missing the point. It's great if one person takes the initiative to not do something that would be harmful to society at large; however unless A WHOLE LOT of people take that step the effect is negligible. The best way for that to happen is not to say "ok everybody, we trust you to do what's right for people at large." Ha. Fucking. Ha. People are selfish, you dopey fucking Tejan public education failure. They're going to do what's best/easiest for them to do NOW, not what's going to benefit society at large in the long or even short run. So the best way for this to happen is to pass laws making things illegal or costly for people to do so THEY STOP FUCKING DOING IT. It's not a hard equation to figure out.
Man Libertopians are fucking DUMB.
So we need the government to protect us from ourselves?
and then...
You can quit bitching about it.
I think you're missing the point. It's great if one person takes the initiative to not do something that would be harmful to society at large; however unless A WHOLE LOT of people take that step the effect is negligible. The best way for that to happen is not to say "ok everybody, we trust you to do what's right for people at large." Ha. Fucking. Ha. People are selfish, you dopey fucking Tejan public education failure. They're going to do what's best/easiest for them to do NOW, not what's going to benefit society at large in the long or even short run. So the best way for this to happen is to pass laws making things illegal or costly for people to do so THEY STOP FUCKING DOING IT. It's not a hard equation to figure out.
Man Libertopians are fucking DUMB.
So we need the government to protect us from ourselves?
We need the government to protect us from Libertarians.
We need the government to protect us from Libertarians.
We need the government to protect us from Libertarians.
Yes, because none of us care about private property or rights... ::)
1) I want to live in a world where I don't have to breathe shitty air.
2) The Libertarian thinks that his right to make a profit supercedes my right to not die of lung cancer.
3) The government tells the Libertarian to STFU for the good of the society as a whole.
4) The Libertarian whines on the Internet about freedom and the Constitution.
5) Meanwhile, I don't get cancer and have 25 more years of life to laugh at Libertarians.
So...we have to wait until our air becomes unbreathable and people are dying before we take any action? We're not allowed to look at the consequences of our current behaviors and extrapolate out 20, 30, 50 years into the future?
As a Supreme Court justice once said (do Libertarians believe in that branch of our government?), "Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins." But it seems you think you have the right to punch whoever the fuck you want.
Seriously take it down a notch with the fearmongering.
Was it the government's business to end slavery, or should states have been able to continue practicing slavery until they saw the light (no pun intended)?There was no amendment to free slaves when Lincoln made the proclamation nor was it in the constitution.
Why won't anyone ask Paul this at a debate? jeezCause we already know the answer. FoC himself said the civil rights bill was illegal.
if you don't think we have a right to have our pollution reduced currently, then at what point does the government have a right to intervene for the sake of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens?
if you don't think we have a right to have our pollution reduced currently, then at what point does the government have a right to intervene for the sake of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens?
When life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is actually being infringed.
Was it the government's business to end slavery, or should states have been able to continue practicing slavery until they saw the light (no pun intended)?
lets seeif you don't think we have a right to have our pollution reduced currently, then at what point does the government have a right to intervene for the sake of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens?
When life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is actually being infringed.
lets see
When life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is actually being infringed.
Was it the government's business to end slavery, or should states have been able to continue practicing slavery until they saw the light (no pun intended)?
Slavery was on its way out anyway. It took state's laws to keep it. States instituted slave patrols and enacted restrictions on manumission. America is the only country that had to fight a war to end slavery.
lets see
When life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is actually being infringed.
life = polluting the air infringes on this
liberty = pollution infringes on your ability to go where you want and do what you want
pursuit of happiness = not many people are happy when they die from lung cancer
by your logic the govt. NEEDS to take action against CO2.
Dying doesn't infringe on your life?
various animals and fish types are.
Dying doesn't infringe on your life?
Are you dying?
various animals and fish types are.
Dying doesn't infringe on your life?
Are you dying?
various animals and fish types are.
Dying doesn't infringe on your life?
Are you dying?
so we have to wait till global warming is so bad it is killing us and thus impossible to stop do to anything? How does that make any sense.
"These children have to get up at five in the morning... they arrive at school dead tired," said Mr Chavez. "And why? Because of our time."
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html (http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html)
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
:o :o
Cheebs what say you.
so guys whats more funny
foc's batshit insane ideas and the fact he believes them 100%
or
the fact he believes america AGREES with his ideas and ron paul will be the nominee come feb, no question about it?
so guys whats more funnyThe second option, since it is easily falsifiable.
foc's batshit insane ideas and the fact he believes them 100%
or
the fact he believes america AGREES with his ideas and ron paul will be the nominee come feb, no question about it?
Ron Paul supporters in Mobila, Alabama::lol
Ron Paul supporters in Mobila, Alabama:
Charleston, SC – In a meeting of the Libertarian National Committee held this weekend in Charleston, South Carolina, former Congressman Bob Barr proposed a resolution urging Congressman Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.
The resolution passed unanimously and is included below:
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and Congressman Ron Paul share many common principles for liberty and prosperity in America, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party in good standing, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul was previously nominated by the delegates of the Libertarian National Convention to serve as the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul, through the efforts of his current presidential campaign, has ignited a renewed passion for liberty across America, and
WHEREAS, for over 35 years, the members of the Libertarian Party have continually fought for liberty through activism, education and the political process, and
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and its members have remained respectful, and in many cases, supportive of Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and
WHEREAS, the Libertarian National Committee encourages competition in the race for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination and is appreciative of all candidates who make the commitment to run;
NOW THEREFORE, in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee urges Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during Memorial Day weekend of 2008.
FURTHERMORE, The Libertarian National Committee congratulates Congressman Paul for his success in spreading a message of peace, prosperity and freedom and also thanks the thousands of activists and supporters across the United States who have made this unprecedented success possible.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED unanimously by vote of the Libertarian National Committee, the 9th day of December 2007, in the city of Charleston, State of South Carolina, United States of America.
Ron Paul is about as far from corrupt as you can be. You fail drinky. Better find some new material.
LNC resolution to Ron PaulRon Paul has said many times this campaign season he will not run on a third party ticket, that he has already done that (in '88) and will not do it again.spoiler (click to show/hide)Charleston, SC – In a meeting of the Libertarian National Committee held this weekend in Charleston, South Carolina, former Congressman Bob Barr proposed a resolution urging Congressman Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.
The resolution passed unanimously and is included below:
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and Congressman Ron Paul share many common principles for liberty and prosperity in America, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party in good standing, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul was previously nominated by the delegates of the Libertarian National Convention to serve as the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul, through the efforts of his current presidential campaign, has ignited a renewed passion for liberty across America, and
WHEREAS, for over 35 years, the members of the Libertarian Party have continually fought for liberty through activism, education and the political process, and
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and its members have remained respectful, and in many cases, supportive of Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and
WHEREAS, the Libertarian National Committee encourages competition in the race for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination and is appreciative of all candidates who make the commitment to run;
NOW THEREFORE, in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee urges Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during Memorial Day weekend of 2008.
FURTHERMORE, The Libertarian National Committee congratulates Congressman Paul for his success in spreading a message of peace, prosperity and freedom and also thanks the thousands of activists and supporters across the United States who have made this unprecedented success possible.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED unanimously by vote of the Libertarian National Committee, the 9th day of December 2007, in the city of Charleston, State of South Carolina, United States of America.[close]
]Ron Paul has said many times this campaign season he will not run on a third party ticket, that he has already done that (in '88) and will not do it again.
Then what? WIN as a third party? You think that is possible? Because it's even less possible than winning a primary.
How will that happen? Winning the primary? If he does not win the primary you must admit the idea of him winning a third party is 0%. Third parties are incapable of winning. Even one of the most popular presidents of all time, Teddy Roosevelt, couldn't.
It is. If Teddy can't win as a third party. No one can. The electoral system and the various rules passed since is not set up to function with more two parties, it doesn't work.How will that happen? Winning the primary? If he does not win the primary you must admit the idea of him winning a third party is 0%. Third parties are incapable of winning. Even one of the most popular presidents of all time, Teddy Roosevelt, couldn't.
That's kinda a simple way of describing that situation lol
How will that happen? Winning the primary? If he does not win the primary you must admit the idea of him winning a third party is 0%.
How? His supporters aren't traditional republican voters.How will that happen? Winning the primary? If he does not win the primary you must admit the idea of him winning a third party is 0%.
I agree. Ron Paul will win the nomination. If he doesnt, then he will run as a third party and kill any change the GOP has of winning.
How will he win that early state and why? I want real analysis and political argument.
you live in texas. so your obviously skewed in how the country sees him. Its his home state.
How will he win that early state and why? I want real analysis and political argument.
Ron Paul has phenomenal support from people who are not being polled? Why arent they being polled? because they didnt vote n 2004 or they didnt vote republican. A slogan that I like to hear is "Ron Paul cured my apathy" There is a huge support of organized supporters waiting to vote for him and they are Republicans. It's gonna happen cheebs. I dont think traditional polling is treating him fairly. There was some evidence that Ron Paul is being left off of a few phone polls, which is BS.
One thing I can tell you is that Ron Paul supporters are passionate. I cant imagine Guiliani or Romney supporters spending hours writing hand written letter to Iowa independents(something I did last weekend). I dont see any supprt for anyone besides Ron Paul here. I see at least one other ROn Paul bumper sticker a day. I might see an Obama sticker once a month.
you live in texas. so your obviously skewed in how the country sees him. Its his home state.
How will he win that early state and why? I want real analysis and political argument.
Ron Paul has phenomenal support from people who are not being polled? Why arent they being polled? because they didnt vote n 2004 or they didnt vote republican. A slogan that I like to hear is "Ron Paul cured my apathy" There is a huge support of organized supporters waiting to vote for him and they are Republicans. It's gonna happen cheebs. I dont think traditional polling is treating him fairly. There was some evidence that Ron Paul is being left off of a few phone polls, which is BS.
One thing I can tell you is that Ron Paul supporters are passionate. I cant imagine Guiliani or Romney supporters spending hours writing hand written letter to Iowa independents(something I did last weekend). I dont see any supprt for anyone besides Ron Paul here. I see at least one other ROn Paul bumper sticker a day. I might see an Obama sticker once a month.
in which state. Iowa or NH
Ok. Who is the top 3 vote getters in the Iowa caucus come Jan 3rd in your prediction.in which state. Iowa or NH
Every. Single. State.
Iowa is a tough one. Im not sure if he'll win Iowa. Top three for sure. You're gonna be suprised.Why does he poll around 5~% in NH? It's not that polls are wrong. Polls are very accurate.
Probably
Romney, Paul and Huckabee?
As for New Hampshire, Ron Paul is going to win hands down.
Iowa is a tough one. Im not sure if he'll win Iowa. Top three for sure. You're gonna be suprised.Why does he poll around 5~% in NH? It's not that polls are wrong. Polls are very accurate.
Probably
Romney, Paul and Huckabee?
As for New Hampshire, Ron Paul is going to win hands down.
Dean started dropping in the polls before Iowa. Chris Matthews was talking today about how John Kerry was up in the polls in Iowa before the caucus.Iowa is a tough one. Im not sure if he'll win Iowa. Top three for sure. You're gonna be suprised.Why does he poll around 5~% in NH? It's not that polls are wrong. Polls are very accurate.
Probably
Romney, Paul and Huckabee?
As for New Hampshire, Ron Paul is going to win hands down.
I told you why a few posts up?
Why did dean lose if he was polling so high?
What's your point?that people who poll highest win. Like this, our next president:
Cheebs, we have already been down this path before. I think he will win and you dont. Do we really need to keep doing this? Whats your point.(http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/12/470hillary,0.jpg)
Cheebs, we have already been down this path before. I think he will win and you dont. Do we really need to keep doing this? Whats your point.(http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/12/470hillary,0.jpg)
Thumbs up to the media.why? No one loses but you the viewer, since they are not reporting the facts properly. Oh thats right I forgot that you dont care about being fair, only proving the other side wrong.
Things that don't deserve coverage by the media
-Bigfoot
-UFO's
-Ron Paul
None of them effect our lives in any way.
Know who is also real?None of them effect our lives in any way.
Ron Paul is a real person, maybe thats why your head is in your ass.
Alaska polls
Which Republican presidential candidate will you support in Alaska's caucus?
Rudy Giuliani -- 14%
Mike Huckabee -- 22%
John McCain -- 9%
Ron Paul -- 29%
Mitt Romney -- 9%
Fred Thompson -- 12%
Other -- 6%
http://ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7479052
:drudge
I think the media is ignoring him.
Also, you're making some very, veeeeery awesome statements this past page or two FoC. Lots of definite "this will happen" statements that will be exceedingly fun to shove into your face in a month or two and repeatedly remind you that you're a fucking moron.
Also, you're making some very, veeeeery awesome statements this past page or two FoC. Lots of definite "this will happen" statements that will be exceedingly fun to shove into your face in a month or two and repeatedly remind you that you're a fucking moron.
You your fat fuck waste of a life hasnt been able to refute anything I have posted. Your only response is ad homonym attacks or referring to me as "it"
Hows unemployment? Sucks to be the at the nether of human existence doesn't it? When was the last time you were laid. By anything Woman, man or animal? Your fucking grotesque excuse for a body couldn't possibly allow a women to be in the same room.
Your highlight today was probably cleaning your cum stains from your week old boxers and then coming to evilbore to lap up any trolling drinky and god forbid cheebs have left for you. And yet you even fail at trolling. Drinky at least is educated and cheebs tries. You do neither and never will.
Guys, check it out. I think I hurt it's feelings. Well, we know it has feelings now.
http://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifspoiler (click to show/hide)http://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gifhttp://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gif[close]
Actually Im curious, when was the last time you got laid triumph?
The Pollution Solution: Stopping the environment's worst enemy
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=123520&st=0&#entry1249725
:o
I warn you FoC, this board is filled with wackos. Enter at your own risk
How will that happen? Winning the primary? If he does not win the primary you must admit the idea of him winning a third party is 0%.
I agree. Ron Paul will win the nomination. If he doesnt, then he will run as a third party and kill any change the GOP has of winning.
At least he is able to admit a third party cant win an electionHow will that happen? Winning the primary? If he does not win the primary you must admit the idea of him winning a third party is 0%.
I agree. Ron Paul will win the nomination. If he doesnt, then he will run as a third party and kill any change the GOP has of winning.
This is all an elaborate troll. Internet performance art. Has to be.
Nobody has that much cognitive dissonance. Nobody.
What's your point?that people who poll highest win. Like this, our next president:
(http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/12/470hillary,0.jpg)
Hawaiian Luau Pizza with Chicken and Teriyaki sauce
Onion Soup with Cheese Croutons
Bison Chili
BLT Sandwich with Avocado on Sourdough
Rotisserie Chicken
regular grill, deli, and salad services
How will that happen? Winning the primary? If he does not win the primary you must admit the idea of him winning a third party is 0%.
I agree. Ron Paul will win the nomination. If he doesnt, then he will run as a third party and kill any change the GOP has of winning.
This is all an elaborate troll. Internet performance art. Has to be.
Nobody has that much cognitive dissonance. Nobody.
foc, would you be willing to commit to a bet on whether RP will win the Republican nomination? I'll give you 10:1 odds, my $500 against your $50.thats generous. the odss are likely 1000:1.
foc, would you be willing to commit to a bet on whether RP will win the Republican nomination? I'll give you 10:1 odds, my $500 against your $50.thats generous. the odss are likely 1000:1.
well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better. so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.
well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better. so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.actually he has said ron paul will win all 50 primaries.
I asked which early primary he will win. You replied He'll win them all.well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better. so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.actually he has said ron paul will win all 50 primaries.
I did?
I asked which early primary he will win. You replied He'll win them all.well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better. so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.actually he has said ron paul will win all 50 primaries.
I did?
What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?I asked which early primary he will win. You replied He'll win them all.well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better. so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.actually he has said ron paul will win all 50 primaries.
I did?
:lol :lol I hope he does. He probably wont win them all. I take that back.
What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?
What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?
Most consider rudy's campaign dead. It's a battle between Romney and Huckabee.
What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?
You could also ask this question to guiliani...
Huckabee rose practiaclly overnight. You dont think it's possible for Paul?He rose at the start of december. And he rose because of the christian right. Paul has two weeks left to surge in the polls.
Huckabee rose practiaclly overnight. You dont think it's possible for Paul?He rose at the start of december. And he rose because of the christian right. Paul has two weeks left to surge in the polls.
The christian right had not yet picked a candidate till Huckabee rose at the CNN debate and that group picked him.
The fact Huckabee is running almost purely on religion and the fact none of the other GOP candidates act christian enough for the powerful christian right?Huckabee rose practiaclly overnight. You dont think it's possible for Paul?He rose at the start of december. And he rose because of the christian right. Paul has two weeks left to surge in the polls.
The christian right had not yet picked a candidate till Huckabee rose at the CNN debate and that group picked him.
What are you basing all of this on?
The fact Huckabee is running almost purely on religion and the fact none of the other GOP candidates act christian enough for the powerful christian right?
And your basing Paul winning purely on hope.
The fact Huckabee is running almost purely on religion and the fact none of the other GOP candidates act christian enough for the powerful christian right?
So you are basing it on nothing but conjecture. Got it.
And your basing Paul winning purely on hope.
What factual basis are you basing it off of? Rabid supporters? That does not equal a win as dean proved.
And your basing Paul winning purely on hope.
Nope. Althought that does factor a little into it.
What factual basis are you basing it off of? Rabid supporters? That does not equal a win as dean proved.
Dean raised the most money, won the straw polls, and had the most dedicated following. How is Paul BETTER supported than dean?
How about the fact that he will raise more money than any GOP candidate in the last quoter?
The fact that he wins 75% of all the straw polls.
The fact that has a huge dedicated following that will not vote for anyone else.
The fact that the traditional polls have left him off, thus proving they are invalid.
He has real support dude.
Dean raised the most money, won the straw polls, and had the most dedicated following. How is Paul BETTER supported than dean?
No it's not. He could raise 50 million and that wouldn't help him polls. Huckabee has no money yet he is on the rise.Dean raised the most money, won the straw polls, and had the most dedicated following. How is Paul BETTER supported than dean?
He might not be better than dean. Let's wait till after Sunday to discuss any further. Sunday is gonna be a big day for Paul.
No it's not. He could raise 50 million and that wouldn't help him polls. Huckabee has no money yet he is on the rise.
Paul is a dead candidate unless you can find a single poll where he was in the top 3 for either Iowa or NH.
Name one time a candidate raising money had them rise in the polls. Name one. You can't. All those months Obama outraised Hillary Hillary always crushed him in the polls.
No it's not. He could raise 50 million and that wouldn't help him polls. Huckabee has no money yet he is on the rise.
Paul is a dead candidate unless you can find a single poll where he was in the top 3 for either Iowa or NH.
We'll see.
Does it make you mad that I am so confident in our bet?It's like people believing the world is flat. It frustrates me that you are so ignorant and know so little about history and politics.
Does it make you mad that I am so confident in our bet?It's like people believing the world is flat. It frustrates me that you are so ignorant and know so little about history and politics.
The point is his following ISN'T huge. 5% of the country vs. candidates with over 30%.Does it make you mad that I am so confident in our bet?It's like people believing the world is flat. It frustrates me that you are so ignorant and know so little about history and politics.
Believing in candidate that has a huge following will win is EXACTLY like believe the world is flat. ::)
What dont I know about history and politics? Enlighten me.
Paul is called Dr. No because he votes no on bills he says are unconstitutional. Most of the time these bills pass, get signed into law, and never challanged by a court. If they are unconstitutional why do they become unchallanged parts of our government and lives? The mere fact no one questions that they are unconstitutional except one congressman proves to me they are perfectly within the bounds of nat. govt. to make.
I took that a while ago buddy. I was a poli-sci minor for 2 years before I dropped it.Paul is called Dr. No because he votes no on bills he says are unconstitutional. Most of the time these bills pass, get signed into law, and never challanged by a court. If they are unconstitutional why do they become unchallanged parts of our government and lives? The mere fact no one questions that they are unconstitutional except one congressman proves to me they are perfectly within the bounds of nat. govt. to make.
They are unconstitutional, but nobody challenges it because the will isn't there. Most of the stuff the federal government does was not intended and does not need to be done by them. We have already been down this road so I wont go down it again. But I will say that you dont know jack shit about the foundation of the countries laws. Come back here when you take your intro government class at gay boy university.
Come back here when you take your intro government class at gay boy university.
One of the strongest arguments in support of the concept of a "living Constitution" is the fact that the Constitution itself is silent on the matter of constitutional interpretation. Proponents of the living Constitution note that the issue of how to interpret a legal text has spurred ongoing debate for centuries. The Constitutional framers, most of whom were trained lawyers and legal theorists, were certainly aware of these debates; they also would have known the confusion that not providing a clear interpretive method would cause. Had the framers meant for future generations to interpret the Constitution in a specific manner, they could have indicated such within the Constitution itself. The lack of guidance within the text of the Constitution suggests, therefore, that either: a) there was no such consensus, or b) the framers never intended any fixed method of constitutional interpretation. In either case, future generations are free, and in fact compelled, to reexamine for themselves how to properly interpret the Constitution.
Relating to the pragmatic argument, it is further argued that if judges were denied the opportunity to reflect on changes to modern society in interpreting the scope of Constitutional rights, the resulting Constitution either would not reflect current mores and values, or would necessitate a constant amendment process it to reflect our changing society.
Moreover, it has been suggested that a failure to take societal change into account leads to a separate problem: that of stare decisis. A Court that determines that the only proper method of interpretation is to try to reconstruct either the meaning of statutes at the time they were enacted, or the intent of the legislature that enacted it, will inevitably either overrule countless previous Court decisions that it feels were arrived at incorrectly or tie itself into logical knots in trying to make sense of contradictory opinions.
An evolving Constitution also makes sense for those who view the Constitution not as merely law, but as a source of foundational concepts for the governing of society. Of course, laws must be fixed and clear so that people can understand and abide by them on a daily basis. But if the Constitution is more than a set of laws, if it provides guiding concepts which themselves will in turn provide the foundations for laws, then the costs and benefits of such an entirely fixed meaning are very different. The reason for this is simple: if a society locks itself into a previous generation's interpretive ideas, it will wind up either constantly attempting to change the Constitution to reflect changes, or simply scrapping the Constitution altogether. While we remain bound by the rights and powers provided in the Constitution, thus, the scope those rights and powers should account for society's present experiences.
FoC does the federal government have the right to enact child labor laws, or should businesses on the state level be able to decide whether they want to enslave the kiddies or not? Was it Lincoln's job to free* the slaves?he already has said the immancipation proclamation was not legal.
FoC does the federal government have the right to enact child labor laws, or should businesses on the state level be able to decide whether they want to enslave the kiddies or not? Was it Lincoln's job to free* the slaves?he already has said the immancipation proclamation was not legal.
FoC does the federal government have the right to enact child labor laws, or should businesses on the state level be able to decide whether they want to enslave the kiddies or not?What gives the government this right?
Was it Lincoln's job to free* the slaves?
"if a society locks itself into a previous generation's interpretive ideas, it will wind up either constantly attempting to change the Constitution to reflect changes, or simply scrapping the Constitution altogether. "
Why is it a view held by some of our FOUNDING FATHERS you think?
the view that the constitution is a living document and is open for interpretation as society changes and should not be adheered to strictly.Why is it a view held by some of our FOUNDING FATHERS you think?
Why is what?
". The Federalist Party believed in a loose construction of the United States Constitution to allow for some latitude with regards to interpretation of the Constitution. This became commonly known as "The Elastic Clause"."Wow, the federalist party agrees with the modern liberal interpertation of the constution that it should not be strictly adirhered too!
Actually, due to the fact that George Washington approved the national bank, he became a "loose constructionist"
Hamilton’s party, the Federalists, came to be known as "Loose Constructionists"; that is, to construe loosely the Constitution, on the grounds that we are at liberty to do anything that it does not specifically prohibit.
Wow, the federalist party agrees with the modern liberal interpertation of the constution that it should not be strictly adirhered too!
The Anti-Federalists, like FoC's Thomas Jefferson however were of the Ron Paul ilk.
Wow, the federalist party agrees with the modern liberal interpertation of the constution that it should not be strictly adirhered too!
The Anti-Federalists, like FoC's Thomas Jefferson however were of the Ron Paul ilk.
CONGRATUALTIONS!!You just discovered the core disagreement about government in our country.
Yeah but I have George Washington on my side bitch.
I rather have Washington than a slave-fucker.
They are both awesome!But washington is polar opposite of you in constitutional theory. Washington would shoot Ron Paul for being such a fucktard and not getting how govt. works.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
They are both awesome!But washington is polar opposite of you in constitutional theory. Washington would shoot Ron Paul for being such a fucktard and not getting how govt. works.
That doesn't say anything about the constitution.
Washington believed the constitution was a LIVING DOCUMENT not meant to be taking 100% literally and open to changing of reading as time goes by.
That doesn't say anything about the constitution.
Washington believed the constitution was a LIVING DOCUMENT not meant to be taking 100% literally and open to changing of reading as time goes by.
* Pragmatism, the belief that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter.
* Intent, the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.
Presidential Number: 1st
Years he was President: 1789-1797
State Represented: Virginia
Party Affiliation: Federalist
The Federalists wanted a strong central government and had little interest in states' rights. The new party advocated a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution based on the "Necessary-and-proper clause" also known as the Elastic Clause that Hamilton used against Jefferson in arguments over the issue of a national bank
I am still waiting on where Washington said we should have a living document.Fucktard. Read. He was a member and a leader of a party who created that viewpoint while he was president.
Actually, due to the fact that George Washington approved the national bank, he became a "loose constructionist"
In George Washington they had the perfect model: a strong leader who had proved in ... adopted a loose constructionist stance to emphasize the great power of the central government.
"The Federalist Party was made of loose constructionists and led by Alexander Hamilton and George Washington"
"Hamilton's view was “loose constructionist,” and his argument ultimately won over President George Washington"
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html)
Presidential Number: 1st
Years he was President: 1789-1797
State Represented: Virginia
Party Affiliation: Federalist
The Federalists wanted a strong central government and had little interest in states' rights. The new party advocated a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution based on the "Necessary-and-proper clause" also known as the Elastic Clause that Hamilton used against Jefferson in arguments over the issue of a national bankOooo doesn't sound pro-states rights or very strict constructionist on the constitution to me!
In George Washington they had the perfect model: a strong leader who had proved in ... adopted a loose constructionist stance to emphasize the great power of the central government.
"The Federalist Party was made of loose constructionists and led by Alexander Hamilton and George Washington"
"Hamilton's view was “loose constructionist,” and his argument ultimately won over President George Washington"
* Pragmatism, the belief that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter.
* Intent, the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.
he's also refused point blank to say whether or not the government should have chlid labor laws. apparently he thinks it's okay for 7-year-olds to lose fingers in the textile mills! ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY DOLLARHe won't answer questions he is afraid to admit the truth on.
he's also refused point blank to say whether or not the government should have chlid labor laws.
even jefferson, who was the principal author of the declaration of independence and strongly for state's rights, said this:
Jefferson’s quote, "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
BUT BUT BUT BUSINESSES WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS.
Even so Jefferson was pretty strict constructionist, but he was a slave fucker after all!
Still the mere fact he has been taking credit for washington and worshiping him the past year and to see him run away like a fucking baby when presented with the fact washington's political views were liberal, pro-central government, anti-states rights, and loose constitutional interpretation is the highlight of this thread to me. :lol
what if an unscrupulous state tries to lower the work age and workplace safety in order to attract businesses? should that be allowed? are children's lives a free-market commodity?
They lower the fucking legal working age in their state? What else would he mean.
So you're ok with that. Majority rules?
Jesus Fucking Christ(http://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gif)
Jesus Fucking Christ
Washington would spit on ron paul's face for his idiotic views on the constitution. They dont agree on a single issue.(http://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gif)
Hey Gay Boy, Do you like paying into social security knowing you will never see a dime back.I didn't know its impossible that in the next 55 years no president will try and fix it. Thanks for the heads up, hows the time machine treating ya?
No it's not. there should be universal values that transcend the fucking constitution. ITS A FUCKING PIECE OF PAPER.
I didn't know its impossible that in the next 55 years no president will try and fix it. Thanks for the heads up, hows the time machine treating ya?
When I'm president Im going to make an executive order that every citizen give me $100 a year. Then Im going to make it illegal to criticize me. Then im gonna make secret prisons for people who do. Then Im going to throw lawyers in prison if they try to fight me. AFter all out law is just a piece of paper, who needs it..Jesus way to miss the point.
FoC is right guys. STATES should make the most important decisions. I mean I cant think of any example of letting states decide important issues ever caused any problems.
then why in all cases does the central government always have to step in and solve the states mess like with slavery and civil rights?
In both cases nothing got done when it was up to the states, it was a big mess. It took power central government focused presidents to solve both problems by ignoring states rights and issuing national laws.
Jesus fucking Christ. You just said the central government DIDNT need to step in to solve slavery and civil rights?then why in all cases does the central government always have to step in and solve the states mess like with slavery and civil rights?
In both cases nothing got done when it was up to the states, it was a big mess. It took power central government focused presidents to solve both problems by ignoring states rights and issuing national laws.
They dont. We have already been over this.
FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. :lol
No. Because they wanted to keep slavery.FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. :lol
Wow you are so fucking simple. Why are they the bad guys? Because they lost?
No. Because they wanted to keep slavery.FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. :lol
Wow you are so fucking simple. Why are they the bad guys? Because they lost?
I know it wasnt about that fucktard but I brought up the civil war as an example because you said slavery should have been decided by the states.No. Because they wanted to keep slavery.FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. :lol
Wow you are so fucking simple. Why are they the bad guys? Because they lost?
Thats not what the civil war was about. Most High schoolers know that.
This just in Cheebs is NOT smarter than a 5th grader.
Here is a new one for you then. The south was hell bent against civil rights for blacks in the 60's. No chance of it EVER passing on a state level there. Blacks were given rights due to a strong central government.
Should it have been left to the states? States like texas would never have passed it till the 70's if not longer.
Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights! Makes a lot of sense, right?
Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights! Makes a lot of sense, right?
Who decides "human rights." Thats a very arbitrary term.
Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights! Makes a lot of sense, right?You said it better than me. THAT WAS MY POINT.
So you think that minorities having equal rights to white folks was an arbitrary decision? That doesn't make logical sense to you?
So you think that minorities having equal rights to white folks was an arbitrary decision? That doesn't make logical sense to you?
Not at all. Everyone should be treated equally. No one is more important than any other.
But that does not logically follow. How is ethnic cleansing similar to minority rights, in the least?
a civil rights bill for blacks would pass in texas in the mid 60's
Here is a new one for you then. The south was hell bent against civil rights for blacks in the 60's. No chance of it EVER passing on a state level there. Blacks were given rights due to a strong central government.
Should it have been left to the states? States like texas would never have passed it till the 70's if not longer.
It still would have passed without any force from the federal government.
Thats a fucking JOKE. The racism in the south would never let it pass. you honestly thought the south would give blacks civil rights in the 60's with no force at all? What world do you live in where the south wasn't racist in the 60's?
so, in conclusion
all people are equal
but if states want to treat people inequally, that's their deal
corporations > states > people
Thats a fucking JOKE. The racism in the south would never let it pass. you honestly thought the south would give blacks civil rights in the 60's with no force at all? What world do you live in where the south wasn't racist in the 60's?
I never said they were not racist, I am only saying that times WERE changing without the federal government intervening. If noting else the commercialization (A business practice) would have ended for sure.
holy shit. Did you just say corporations would have solved the civil rights issue in the 60's?
Stores DID IN THE 60's!!!! You know what stopped it? LBJ forcing civil rights bill down the souths throat at the national level.holy shit. Did you just say corporations would have solved the civil rights issue in the 60's?
Yes. You think Target would have a sign outside banning black people? :lol :lol
Stores DID IN THE 60's!!!! You know what stopped it? LBJ forcing civil rights bill down the souths throat at the national level.holy shit. Did you just say corporations would have solved the civil rights issue in the 60's?
Yes. You think Target would have a sign outside banning black people? :lol :lol
holy shit. Did you just say corporations would have solved the civil rights issue in the 60's?
Yes. You think Target would have a sign outside banning black people? :lol :lol
capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
Did I say that? But if capitalism defeats racism how come there is a racial divide when it comes to capital?capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
AND THe ONLy WAY BLACK PEOPLE WILL EVER BE EQUAL IS IF THE GOVERNMENT THROWS MONEY AT THEM!!!!
capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
Did I say that? But if capitalism defeats racism how come there is a racial divide when it comes to capital?capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
AND THe ONLy WAY BLACK PEOPLE WILL EVER BE EQUAL IS IF THE GOVERNMENT THROWS MONEY AT THEM!!!!
it isn't but how did capitalism cure racism?capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
Is this why there is large gap between South Asian and white incomes? A difference in outcomes between groups is not in itself evidence of racism, sexism, or xenophobia.
Did *I* say anything so idiotic? Capitalism by itself can not end social problems. And can in fact often exasperate social ills.it isn't but how did capitalism cure racism?capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
Is this why there is large gap between South Asian and white incomes? A difference in outcomes between groups is not in itself evidence of racism, sexism, or xenophobia.
it isn't but how did capitalism cure racism?capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
Is this why there is large gap between South Asian and white incomes? A difference in outcomes between groups is not in itself evidence of racism, sexism, or xenophobia.
I was just saying it to rile FoC up to spurt out nonsenseDid *I* say anything so idiotic? Capitalism by itself can not end social problems. And can in fact often exasperate social ills.it isn't but how did capitalism cure racism?capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
Is this why there is large gap between South Asian and white incomes? A difference in outcomes between groups is not in itself evidence of racism, sexism, or xenophobia.
Nobody is making such a claim. Government action may reduce racism though it certainly cannot cure racism. However, a book--that you endorse--does make a near identical claim about the powers of capitalism to defeat racism.it isn't but how did capitalism cure racism?capitalism defeats racism?
Is that why there is a huge gap between average income for black americans compared to white ones?
Is this why there is large gap between South Asian and white incomes? A difference in outcomes between groups is not in itself evidence of racism, sexism, or xenophobia.
You first tell me how government "Cured" racism. LOL
Lott, as his recent memoir demonstrates, is typical of the kind of Southerner who doesn't think he's a racist and would have apoplexy if anyone suggested that he is, but who still disapproves of the government's role in implementing desegregation; if you ask him, in the right setting in front of the right tobacco-juice-stained crowd, he'll be happy to explain that, while he's happy as a clam that whites and blacks can share the same drinking fountain in Mississippi now, it was a dastardly act for the gummint to force all those good Mississippians to do what they'd never done before but would have been delighted to do, of their own free will, at some point. It's just a shame that the mean ol' gummint made them do it, thus muddying the issue. As a child in Mississippi in the 1970s, I grew up hearing this line of manure from the local grown-ups, who would apply it to everything from the minimum wage to the Clean Water Act to the attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. By forcing them to do the obvious right thing, gummint was leaning on the common people, and it wasn't fair. Heck, the worst thing about it was the suggestion that they had to be forced, by law, to do the obvious decent thing. It was true they'd never done it before, but they had been planning to get around to it, and probably would have done it five minutes after the law had been passed, if gummint hadn't gone and gotten its panties in a bunch.
Why are we even debating about the civil rights act. It's not going anywhere and it's here to stay. I dont think We will be drinking out of separate fountains if Ron Paul is elected president.We would be if he was president in 1960. At least for longer than we did.
Did *I* say anything so idiotic? Capitalism by itself can not end social problems. And can in fact often exasperate social ills.
Why are we even debating about the civil rights act. It's not going anywhere and it's here to stay. I dont think We will be drinking out of separate fountains if Ron Paul is elected president.
In a capitalistic system only one thing reigns supreme. That is money. It doesnt matter where it is coming from or what color your skin is.
I blame this on NyQuil. I had to take a nap before work and...Did *I* say anything so idiotic? Capitalism by itself can not end social problems. And can in fact often exasperate social ills.
Tsk tsk! (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/exacerbate)
NyQuil cares about people.Liar.
Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights! Makes a lot of sense, right?
Who decides "human rights." Thats a very arbitrary term.
Did *I* say anything so idiotic? Capitalism by itself can not end social problems. And can in fact often exasperate social ills.
Tsk tsk! (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/exacerbate)
Jim Cramer is a big Hillary fan you know.
He is. He is on chris matthews sunday show a lot. A few weeks ago this exchange roughly happenedJim Cramer is a big Hillary fan you know.
Doesnt look like it to me.
He is. He is on chris matthews sunday show a lot. A few weeks ago this exchange roughly happened
Matthews: You are a democrat aren't you!
Jim Cramer: Well...yeah but I am not voting in the primary.
Matthews: Come on! At least say who'll you'll support.
Jim Cramer: All I'll say is all the democrats on wall street are putting their money behind Hillary!
I know. I saw it. But he is a democrat and is a big time hillary fan. LAST WEEK he said Hillary will be the best president for wall street out of them all. Cramer is a big time anti-republican democrat.
He is. He is on chris matthews sunday show a lot. A few weeks ago this exchange roughly happened
Matthews: You are a democrat aren't you!
Jim Cramer: Well...yeah but I am not voting in the primary.
Matthews: Come on! At least say who'll you'll support.
Jim Cramer: All I'll say is all the democrats on wall street are putting their money behind Hillary!
Did you watch that video? He basically gave ROn Paul a hand job on the air.
Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's "Mad Money." Predicted Hillary would be the next president in an intervew with the LA Times. Asked if that would be good or bad for the financial markets, Cramer responded: "Real good." Sept. 7, 2007.
The subject was the sub-prime mess, the big unknown still hanging over the financial markets, and hanging over the heads of millions of homeowners who face losing their homes when the lousy loans they signed on to are re-set at higher rates.
So does anybody have any plans to address this problem and if so, whom? According to Cramer, only Hillary Clinton.
I know. I saw it. But he is a democrat and is a big time hillary fan. LAST WEEK he said Hillary will be the best president for wall street out of them all. Cramer is a big time anti-republican democrat.
Edit: Useless to argue now. Hillary website lists Jim Cramer as an official supporter of her campaign
Cramer is pretty close to the Clintons. Its a loyalty thing.
I know. I saw it. But he is a democrat and is a big time hillary fan. LAST WEEK he said Hillary will be the best president for wall street out of them all. Cramer is a big time anti-republican democrat.
Edit: Useless to argue now. Hillary website lists Jim Cramer as an official supporter of her campaign
Then Jim Cramer is a dumb ass, he supports candidates that dont agree with his views.
I know. I saw it. But he is a democrat and is a big time hillary fan. LAST WEEK he said Hillary will be the best president for wall street out of them all. Cramer is a big time anti-republican democrat.
Edit: Useless to argue now. Hillary website lists Jim Cramer as an official supporter of her campaign
Then Jim Cramer is a dumb ass, he supports candidates that dont agree with his views.
Bill Maher is also a fan, despite being (properly) dismissive of Paul at first.He is but he says he wont vote for him. He said he wont take part in the primaries and will vote for whoever the Dems nominate because he said after voting Nader in 2000 he wont ever vote third party again.
Bill Maher is also a fan, despite being (properly) dismissive of Paul at first.He is but he says he wont vote for him. He said he wont take part in the primaries and will vote for whoever the Dems nominate because he said after voting Nader in 2000 he wont ever vote third party again.
The fact remains third parties only do one thing. Cause the party least like the third party to win the election
Perot did it to Bush
Nader did it to Gore.
No he didnt. But if Nader was not on the ballot gore would have won.The fact remains third parties only do one thing. Cause the party least like the third party to win the election
Perot did it to Bush
Nader did it to Gore.
Right. Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to run a stupid campaign, lose his home state and allow the Republican Party to scrub votes in Florida. I bet he liked New Coke, too.
do ron paul distinguished mentally-challenged fellows even understand what freedom is in a society, any why some people find their definition not only noisome but unwelcome
I know. I saw it. But he is a democrat and is a big time hillary fan. LAST WEEK he said Hillary will be the best president for wall street out of them all. Cramer is a big time anti-republican democrat.
Edit: Useless to argue now. Hillary website lists Jim Cramer as an official supporter of her campaign
Then Jim Cramer is a dumb ass, he supports candidates that dont agree with his views.
Ah, so now he's a dumbess for supporting the candidate you don't like. Brilliant
do ron paul distinguished mentally-challenged fellows even understand what freedom is in a society, any why some people find their definition not only noisome but unwelcome
Do you seriously have over 70k posts? Wow.
you know, it'd be hilarious if Ron Paul did win and move over to the gold standard because then all the american corporations would REALLY move out of the country.
I'm not sure what problem a libertarian would have with that mall being a gun-free zone.
OLD. He's over 2 million today which I think puts him close to a meaningless 14 million.
OLD. He's over 2 million today which I think puts him close to a meaningless 14 million.
Psst. Look at the person donating in that picture.
Yeah, I'm sure that's true.
Huckabee would own Hillary :lol
(http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v166/21/73/7926076/n7926076_42031316_4954.jpg):lol :lol
This says everything you need to know about Paul
Does that crate say NAM? Is Ron Paul aware that Vietnam ended over 30 years ago?
(http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v166/21/73/7926076/n7926076_42031316_4954.jpg):lol :lol
This says everything you need to know about Paul
Just noticed the dick on the pole.
C'mon though its a cute picture.
C'mon PD even you can admit this looks like fun! It was such a blast.
:-\C'mon PD even you can admit this looks like fun! It was such a blast.
Halloween was two months ago. Too bad they didn't have any black people picking cotton out there too
:-\C'mon PD even you can admit this looks like fun! It was such a blast.
Halloween was two months ago. Too bad they didn't have any black people picking cotton out there too
PD, at least let me have this day.
If these are the people who kill the neo-con generation in the republican party, so be it
If he runs as a third party candidate, who knows what will happen
yeah. Democrats have totally turned on Ron Paul. They seem to hate him more than Bush lately if you look around. He wouldn't hurt them at all as a third party.
They are, One of two things will happen. Either Ron Paul wins or he doesnt.
If Ron Paul wins then we all enjoy his classic liberalism. If he doesn't win he WILL run as a third party candidate, his supporters will not let him give up. They will sit on his lawn until he runs, when that happens the republicans will not win the white house because the vote will be split.
wait, paulites are pro-corporations but against the north american union.
It's hilarious how little coverage this is getting. No one checks the news online on sundays so whats all the Americans going to see when they pull up their favorite news sources today? Go to CNN's political page.
Top story? Lieberman endorses McCain.
Second story? Key newspaper nods go to McCain, Obama, Clinton.
Paul's down under a bunch without any pictures.
MSNBC Top Story on political page: Candidates scramble to cope with Huckabee
Second is Lieberman and McCain. The Paul story isn't even on the front page of the political section at all. :lol
Lets check out The Politico. The most popular pure politics professional media driven news site. Top story? McCain snags endorsements; Rudy retreats. Followed by Huckabee ramps up game in early states.
OUCH
Lieberman is much more famous than Paul and has a lot more power politically thats why he is a bigger news story. Plus the "shock factor" of him endorsing a Republican.
Lieberman is still liberal on all moral, economic issues, & domestic issues.
Lieberman is still liberal on all moral, economic issues, & domestic issues.
Which is why modern politics is so fucked up. "It's ok that you dissgree with us on 95% of the issues just as long as you declare allegience." Nobody cares about the fucking issues anymore.
You're saying the problem with modern politics is people strictly following their parties, even when they disagree on the issues, right?
You're saying the problem with modern politics is people strictly following their parties, even when they disagree on the issues, right?
Yes.
You're saying the problem with modern politics is people strictly following their parties, even when they disagree on the issues, right?
Yes.
Yet you're using an example of a Democrat crossing party lines to endorse a Republican to prove this!
most of us disagree with ron paul on the majority of his kooky platform.
the gold standard is the least of my concerns when it comes to ron paul. i'm far more concerned about the potential damage that could be done to public education and various regulatory agencies that need to be strengthened, rather than weakened even further, and i don't believe in states' rights (either in ostensible or codified form).
i'm a federalist. i want to see education standardized across the nation and driven by a strong central body, and i want it to be paid for with lots and lots of tax dollars.
FoC some people like having a Department of Education. Imagine that.
They are paying for my best friend's PhD under a program that helps out underrepresented students in post graduate work.
They are paying for my best friend's PhD under a program that helps out underrepresented students in post graduate work.
I meant to say, tell me one thing they do on a local level High school or below.
December 17, 2007
What a day! I am humbled and inspired, grateful and thrilled for this vast outpouring of support.
On just one day, in honor of the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the new American revolutionaries brought in $6.04 million, another one-day record. The average donation was $102; we had 58,407 individual contributors, of whom an astounding 24,915 were first-time donors. And it was an entirely voluntary, self-organized, decentralized, independent effort on the internet. Must be the "spammers" I keep hearing about!
The establishment is baffled and worried, and well they should be. They keep asking me who runs our internet fundraising and controls our volunteers. To these top-down central planners, a spontaneous order like our movement is science-fiction. But you and I know it's real: as real as the American people's yearning for freedom, peace, and prosperity, as real as all the men and women who have sacrificed for our ideals, in the past and today.
And how neat to see celebrations all across the world, with Tea Parties from France to New Zealand. This is how we can spread the ideals of our country, through voluntary emulation, not bombs and bribes. Of course, there were hundreds in America.
As I dropped in on a cheering, laughing crowd of about 600 near my home in Freeport, Texas, I noted that they call us "angry." Well, we are the happiest, most optimistic "angry" movement ever, and the most diverse. What unites us is a love of liberty, and a determination to fix what is wrong with our country, from the Fed to the IRS, from warfare to welfare. But otherwise we are a big tent.
Said the local newspaper (http://www.thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=36475b4d132fc0a1): "The elderly sat with teens barely old enough to vote. The faces were black, Hispanic, Asian and white. There was no fear in their voices as they spoke boldly with each other about the way the country should be. Held close like a deeply held secret, Paul has brought them out of the disconnect they feel between what they know to be true and where the country has been led."
Thanks also to the 500 or so who braved the blizzard in Boston to go to Faneuil Hall. My son Rand told me what a great time he had with you.
A few mornings ago on LewRockwell.com, I saw a YouTube of a 14-year-old boy that summed up our whole movement for me. This well-spoken young man, who could have passed in knowledge for a college graduate, told how he heard our ideas being denounced. So he decided to Google. He read some of my speeches, and thought, these make sense. Then he studied US foreign policy of recent years, and came to the conclusion that we are right. So he persuaded his father to drop Rudy Giuliani and join our movement.
All over America, all over the world, we are inspiring real change. With the wars and the spying, the spending and the taxing, the inflation and the credit crisis, our ideas have never been more needed. Please help me spread them https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate in all 50 states. Victory for liberty! That is our goal, and nothing less.
Sincerely,
Ron
what, did we think paulites were all privileged white kids?
we have called you insane, numerous times, but we have not said it is impossible for a poor asian senior citizen to be a paulite. on that issue, you are wrong.
and "message of freedom"? god you are not stable.
seriously dude, go outside. stop using the internet. don't post too much (couple times a month), and let this thread die. get a social life. even if that means fucking pictures of paul that you cut out of magazines and used pig skin as the lips, go ahead and do that.
Waffles + Bacon + Eggs = Delicious
Then tell me what the department of education is supposed to do? Cause it sure as hell aint making anyone smarter.
the usual lolbertarian concept of "reform" is that you're "rewarding failure" by "throwing money at it"Then tell me what the department of education is supposed to do? Cause it sure as hell aint making anyone smarter.
so because the department is broken, it should be abolished?
Then tell me what the department of education is supposed to do? Cause it sure as hell aint making anyone smarter.
so because the department is broken, it should be abolished? in the past, the doe has been a powerful force *for* teachers and for a standardization of curriculum in a good way, and has provided a much-needed link between primary education and universities. the last 20 years, yeah, it's become a bureaucrazy, and no child left behind was an awful failure. however, my goal is to keep companies and religion OUT of education, and to provide a strong voice for the strengthening of teachers in society and to force -- yes FORCE -- modern secular academia into classrooms. i want standards and expectations for student performance set at a national level. i want the doe repaired, streamlines, and brought back as the powerful institution it was in the 50s and 60s.
what i do NOT want is privatization or support for religious schools. i believe that government's job is not to codify societal "norms", but to implement long-term social values and principles -- such as education -- that are not best left up to individuals. in the real world, the individual is not independent of his society, and without society, he has no freedom at all, because freedom does not exist in a vaccuum. like i said, if you cannot understand the individual's obligation to broader society, then you have no place discussing freedoms. federal education may subtract from your wallet, and it may limit certain individual notions, but in the long run, it opens far more doors and gives a greater commonality among all members of this nation than it would if left wholly up to the determinations of the individual and the completely unenlightened interests of the private sector.
(http://i7.tinypic.com/71mewsk.gif)(http://i7.tinypic.com/71mewsk.gif)
(http://i7.tinypic.com/71mewsk.gif)(http://i7.tinypic.com/71mewsk.gif)
:lol :lol Yea Ok, keep telling yourself that.
so because the department is broken, it should be abolished? in the past, the doe has been a powerful force *for* teachers and for a standardization of curriculum in a good way, and has provided a much-needed link between primary education and universities.
the last 20 years, yeah, it's become a bureaucracy, and no child left behind was an awful, destructive failure. however, my goal is to keep companies and religion OUT of education, and to provide a strong voice for the strengthening of teachers in society and to force -- yes FORCE -- modern secular academia into classrooms. i want standards and expectations for student performance set at a national level. i want the doe repaired, streamlined, and brought back as the powerful institution it was in the 50s and 60s.Thats fine with me, but it's NEVER going to happen by the actions of a federal department. You need local citizens to participate. the Problem with education is parents dont think it's their job to raise their kids anymore, they think it's the governments job to baby sit them.
what i do NOT want is privatization or support for religious schools.Me neither
i believe that government's job is not to codify societal "norms", but to implement long-term social values and principles -- such as education -- that are not best left up to individuals.
in the real world, the individual is not independent of his society, and without society.
federal education may subtract from your wallet, and it may limit certain individual notions, but in the long run, it opens far more doors and gives a greater commonality among all members of this nation than it would if left wholly up to the determinations of the short-sighted reactionary individual and the completely unenlightened interests of the private sector.
but in the long run, it opens far more doors and gives a greater commonality among all members of this nation
:lol :lol Yea Ok, keep telling yourself that.
so because the department is broken, it should be abolished? in the past, the doe has been a powerful force *for* teachers and for a standardization of curriculum in a good way, and has provided a much-needed link between primary education and universities.the last 20 years, yeah, it's become a bureaucracy, and no child left behind was an awful, destructive failure. however, my goal is to keep companies and religion OUT of education, and to provide a strong voice for the strengthening of teachers in society and to force -- yes FORCE -- modern secular academia into classrooms. i want standards and expectations for student performance set at a national level. i want the doe repaired, streamlined, and brought back as the powerful institution it was in the 50s and 60s.Thats fine with me, but it's NEVER going to happen by the actions of a federal department. You need local citizens to participate. the Problem with education is parents dont think it's their job to raise their kids anymore, they think it's the governments job to baby sit them.
I also think that it's pretty stupid that you want to force whatever views onto other people, even if a local school board doesn't agree. This is the problem with socialism and your ilk, you think that whatever view you have is the one and only view and it doesnt matter what other people think. If some shitty school district in Kansas wants to teach creation, let them. their kids will be dumber because of it.
i believe that government's job is not to codify societal "norms", but to implement long-term social values and principles -- such as education -- that are not best left up to individuals.
Then who is it left up to? :lol :lol
in the real world, the individual is not independent of his society, and without society.
This is so fucking stupid drinky. How does society allow us to have our rights?
federal education may subtract from your wallet, and it may limit certain individual notions, but in the long run, it opens far more doors and gives a greater commonality among all members of this nation than it would if left wholly up to the determinations of the short-sighted reactionary individual and the completely unenlightened interests of the private sector.
It lowers the standard bar for everyone. Instead of trying to achieve we just pat our students on the back when they fail and tell them that it's ok not to know algebra when you gradute high School.
Quotebut in the long run, it opens far more doors and gives a greater commonality among all members of this nation
Back this up or get the fuck out.
Drinky, tell me why our students are getting consistently dumber even though the biog federal government is here to teach us all!
you've described exactly was individualism does -- when an individual is allowed to define his/her success, they set the bar low.
Strange how campaign season leads to the usual political drama over taxes. Republicans have learned the hard way that they should never raise them, at least not in ways that are noticeable. They accuse Democrats of plotting secret increases. The Democrats deny it but draw attention to mounting debt and hint that solving the problem will require serious measures. These serious measures might involve sacrifice. The voters are suspicious. And so the battle lines are drawn.
This observation is prompted by the disgusting fact that President Bush is running around the country saying that he will never raise taxes. Meanwhile, he is one of the greatest spenders in history. When it comes to his war, he will spend into oblivion. He has been the same on domestic spending too, but for a few high-profile cases of opposing programs that benefit his political enemies.
If this were the 19th century, the debate and drama would make sense. Some politicians believe that the public's money is up for grabs. Others think that the people ought to keep their own. So it was.
What appears to be battle over fundamental ideology and political philosophy is, however, a complete illusion in our time.
There is one reason: the central bank. This is what has changed everything. No longer are taxes the main way the federal government guarantees its liquidity and funds its empire. If the state had to tax us for everything it spent, the country would be obviously and fiscally bankrupt instead of being covertly and financially bankrupt as it is in fact.
This has been partially true for nearly a hundred years, but the restrictions on the Fed's ability to print all the money the government needs have been systematically eliminated, ever more each year. The more money the state needs, the more it has turned to the Fed to pull its financial trickery.
So today there are two ways the state can extract money from the population: stealing or counterfeiting. The political class favors the latter to the former. What's best for the country and the economy, taxes or credit expansion? That's a tough call. Republicans are right that new taxes can cause recession. Democrats are right that government just can't keep accumulating debt forever without regard to the eventual results.
Arguably, monetary expansion is worse because it breeds the political lie that the state can spend and spend all it wants and never collect. That's the big lie that central banking makes possible. The smaller lies come in the form of promises not to raise taxes. Bush is the overlord of a Fed that keeps driving down interest rates even in the face of the aftereffects of previous credit expansions, such as that in the housing market.
In fact, inflationary credit does have a cost. It diminishes the purchasing power of the dollar. We are being robbed year by year, and it makes no moral difference that we've all somehow gotten used to it. There are also the tremendous economic distortions that come with the practice. Inflationary credit has the effect of subsidizing some sectors beyond sustainable levels and generates waves of entrepreneurial (and consumer) errors. The business cycle itself can be laid squarely at the door of the money temple.
So the real question to ask is who wants to do something to restrain the power of the Fed? The answer is no one but Ron Paul. The Republicans and Democrats love the Fed for its magical capacity to generate resources out of thin air. It is the Fed that guarantees the bonds that the government floats to raise its revenue. It is the Fed that makes it possible for these bonds to not bear any kind of risk premium since, unlike the debt of private corporations and local governments, they are guaranteed against failure.
Ron Paul brings up this issue at every campaign stop. This alone is proof that he is not telling voters only what they want to hear. Who wants to hear about monetary policy? Hardly anyone until he made it an issue.
Now we have a generation of young people who are suddenly aware that there is something profoundly wrong with a system that gives the political classes and the bureaucratic machine a blank check to do whatever they want, while still allowing Republicans to pretend to be fiscal conservatives. His book The Case for Gold is garnering ever-new attention, and rightly so because he presents a rationale and plan for restoring honest money that the people and not the government controls.
What is the strongest case for gold? That it would end inflation and the business cycle? Those are benefits but not the main one. The gold standard would dramatically restrain the state, which is the essence of freedom. It would force the political class to come to us and ask for tax increases whenever it wanted to expand, and thereupon the population would likely say no. This is the reason politicians hate gold.
Remember this when the tax debate gets fired up again. It's true that new taxes would be terrible. It would also be great to cut taxes more. But it is pointless to talk only about this one form of raising revenue when the other form continues to be the great unmentionable subject in American political life. So long as the state spends and piles up the debt, the bill will be paid by someone at some point.
So long as the issue is only about taxes, however, the political class is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Keep them open and follow the money to the source.
And even if they do set the bar low, it's their own fault. Nobody will be there to say "You're still special."okay, I think I am starting to realize you really don't know your own side of the argument.
And even if they do set the bar low, it's their own fault. Nobody will be there to say "You're still special."okay, I think I am starting to realize you really don't know your own side of the argument.
what the fuck does ron paul say has to be done for poor people living in housing projects that can't pay a property tax to provide their local schools with above the bare minimum in funding?
Quoteyou've described exactly was individualism does -- when an individual is allowed to define his/her success, they set the bar low.
Tangent, but this isn't really my experience. Most of my friends who could be labeled as iconoclasts or mavericks have really high standards for themselves. I certainly used to --- when I was 14 and taking college classes on differential equations, I still thought of myself as a loser for some reason, which is pretty funny to look back on now that I actually am a loser. I remember reading Ayn Rand at that time and somehow taking it as a personal attack on myself, identifying with the sub-humans when I could easily have identified with the master race, as many bright nerdy adolescents apparently do, given my supergenius credentials at the time.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/)And even if they do set the bar low, it's their own fault. Nobody will be there to say "You're still special."okay, I think I am starting to realize you really don't know your own side of the argument.
what the fuck does ron paul say has to be done for poor people living in housing projects that can't pay a property tax to provide their local schools with above the bare minimum in funding?
Find out for yourself!
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital.
allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.
people are always free to set the bar wherever they want -- it's just that without society enforcing a high standard of minimum expectations, most people -- who are NOT driven geniuses -- will end up self-justifying wastes of breath,
who are NOT driven geniuses -- will end up self-justifying wastes of breath, like flameofcallandor. imagine if his high school had expected him to know calculus, have studied descartes/hume, and have mastered english grammar as well as a secondary language
Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them.
people are always free to set the bar wherever they want -- it's just that without society enforcing a high standard of minimum expectations, most people -- who are NOT driven geniuses -- will end up self-justifying wastes of breath,
So then how did the human race achieve great things before central planning helped "raise" the bar for us?
people are always free to set the bar wherever they want -- it's just that without society enforcing a high standard of minimum expectations, most people -- who are NOT driven geniuses -- will end up self-justifying wastes of breath,
So then how did the human race achieve great things before central planning helped "raise" the bar for us?
If you didn't realize it, the civilized world was pretty shitty up until like, the industrial revolution, and in my opinion, even after that.
If you didn't realize it, the civilized world was pretty shitty up until like, the industrial revolution, and in my opinion, even after that.
people are always free to set the bar wherever they want -- it's just that without society enforcing a high standard of minimum expectations, most people -- who are NOT driven geniuses -- will end up self-justifying wastes of breath,
So then how did the human race achieve great things before central planning helped "raise" the bar for us?
If you didn't realize it, the civilized world was pretty shitty up until like, the industrial revolution, and in my opinion, even after that.
yeah, uh, civilization kind of began in 1920
If you didn't realize it, the civilized world was pretty shitty up until like, the industrial revolution, and in my opinion, even after that.
But you Cant deny that humans achieved really great things before the industrial revolution.
Also the industrial revolution was brought to us by capitalism. ;)
foc, that link of yours had no points in it. it's all just rhetoric. "the federal govenrment failed so I want to abolish the DoE". He doesn't say how it failed. it's obvious he's just doing all of this for attention cause there's no way his bill would pass.
for poor people housing projects, he offers no help. they basically stay poor and more miserable than everybody else. what a great fuckhead.
I can't believe I read that shit. I ask you for what is his solution and you post rhetoric that's from some jizzsuck speech of his. jesus fuck god.
QuoteMany parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them.
hey PD, what does your mom think of the federal government?
So then how did the human race achieve great things before central planning helped "raise" the bar for us?Great scientific and artistic achievements generally came from an elite, educated class that were supported by property, and by the large, illiterate peasant class that worked the land. 90%+ of the population never went to school, so there was no chance of a George Washington Carver happening.
QuoteMany parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them.
hey PD, what does your mom think of the federal government?
That had nothing to do with her decision lol. It had more to do with her wanting full influence over our education instead of some semi qualified, apathetic person getting under payed and over worked
So then how did the human race achieve great things before central planning helped "raise" the bar for us?Great scientific and artistic achievements generally came from an elite, educated class that were supported by property, and by the large, illiterate peasant class that worked the land. 90%+ of the population never went to school, so there was no chance of a George Washington Carver happening.
The great engineering achievements mostly DID come from central planning. You think the invisible hand was responsible for the Roman aqueducts, roads, bridges, and Colliseum? The Great Wall of China? The pyramids?
Boggles my mind that anyone would think society advanced more quickly in the centuries before the welfare state than it has since.
QuoteMany parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them.
hey PD, what does your mom think of the federal government?
That had nothing to do with her decision lol. It had more to do with her wanting full influence over our education instead of some semi qualified, apathetic person getting under payed and over worked
also JESUS and FREEDOM FROM EVIL SECULAR THOUGHT no doubt
the fucked up thing is that beethoven would mingle with the upper class (invited to dinner with a prince or whatever) but he never made a lot of money. even if he had a chance, he was insane according to what people said so maybe he would have still been poor.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
We all know clinton doesnt celebrate christmas. She celebrates some kind of weird canibal tradition.
They only eat individual portions. No sharing!We all know clinton doesnt celebrate christmas. She celebrates some kind of weird canibal tradition.
Well, if they only eat Libertarians then I don't see the problem.
Clinton's christmas video>>>>>>>>Paul's
[youtube=425,350]yzBvQ9EeF3k[/youtube]
you are just toying with FoC now. He doesn't realize you are going to vote Hillary in the general (no dem primary for us in MI!), dont play with his heart. :lolClinton's christmas video>>>>>>>>Paul's
[youtube=425,350]yzBvQ9EeF3k[/youtube]
Would have been more accurate if each gift also had a price tag on it
Universal Pre-K?? Please :lol :lol Anyone can go to Pre-K if they want. I did.Proof that early education does not improve intelligence.
Universal Pre-K?? Please :lol :lol Anyone can go to Pre-K if they want. I did.
ron paul calls huckabee a fascist.
http://www.newsandpolicy.com/blog/2007/12/ron-paul-when-fascism-comes-it-will-be-wrapped-in.html
:rofl
he says that he believes that commercial had a religious overtone and that fascists would do that sort of thing. that's pretty blunt.
he quoted someone when talking about Huckabee's commercial!
I like how Ron Paul has this magical "but it's not HIS words" barrier between himself and all the stupid stuff he said, or is said in his name
I don't think the commercial had a religious overtone!He talked about Jesus and there was an obvious cross int he background. CNN even showed 6 year olds pointing out the cross. I guess your dumber than the average 6 year old.
but in what way is Paul not calling him a fascist?
the video has an obvious cross. Paul says, in response to that video, that fascism will arrive carrying a cross.
how is that not calling the video fascist?
we aren't disagreeing with paul's message -- we're disagreeing with the clintonian semantic gerrymandering he's pulling.
Paul did not say "Huckabee is a fascist."
But Paul DID say that Huckabee is a fascist.
I think that rubbing placenta all over the flag counts as desecration. :wag
That's actually a nice picture. I have no interest in the Paul candidacy but I like that art.
That's actually a nice picture. I have no interest in the Paul candidacy but I like that art.
What particular part of the picture do you like?
The CIA is badass. :bow
I don't think the CIA would be undirty under Ron Paul. The whole purpose of the organization is to subvert the law; the current administration has just given them a heads up to be more public about their activities.
I don't think the CIA would be undirty under Ron Paul. The whole purpose of the organization is to subvert the law; the current administration has just given them a heads up to be more public about their activities.
He wants to get rid of the CIA. If he could do that or not is another story. At the very least we could get more transperency and maybe asome public oversight to what they do.
We need the CIA, where else would we base our spy movies?
Also, my CIA would still have the secret budget thing going on. Intelligence agencies need that sort of thing.I disagree. We can both agree that our intelligence budget and agencies are way to big yes? We have the FBI, CIA department of homeland security etc...
Things have gotten muddled over the past 50 years, but the FBI and CIA have different purposes.
The CIA not having to answer directly to the public for its budget is one of the reasons it has any chance of being an effective intelligence agency. They can't really go about investigating shit from third parties if what they spend their budget on is public knowledge available to all.
Things have gotten muddled over the past 50 years, but the FBI and CIA have different purposes.
The CIA not having to answer directly to the public for its budget is one of the reasons it has any chance of being an effective intelligence agency. They can't really go about investigating shit from third parties if what they spend their budget on is public knowledge available to all.
Why is this important though? Why part does a secret agency play in a free society.
Because the US isn't the only country on earth?
Why is it important? Go read Wikipedia! Its purpose isn't secret.
Let's shut down our spy network, I'm sure China and Russia will do the same out of respect for Dr. Ronald Paulstein.
Because the US isn't the only country on earth?
Why is it important? Go read Wikipedia! Its purpose isn't secret.
So all the meddeling in south american politics makes us safer? What about all tht Iraq info? Boy that sure was good stuff.
Because I totally said those were important things to do. US Intelligence is not beyond criticism, but to write it off as something we don't need is absolutely daft. And US Intelligence has done much worse things than interfere in central american politics.
1) The number of people that work for the CIA is not known. I have no idea how you make unknown SMALLER.
2) By policy, the CIA isn't meant to be used on US citizens. That policy isn't always followed, though, and there's no real way to enforce it without crippling the efficacy of other CIA operations.
Let's shut down our spy network, I'm sure China and Russia will do the same out of respect for Dr. Ronald Paulstein.Once they move to the gold standard (following our lead 2009) and abolisish their strong federal governments (following our lead 2010) they won't have the tax money to pay for their respective intelligence organizations.
you'd have to be pretty distinguished mentally-challenged to think the main problems in the military today have to do with the CIA.
[youtube=425,350]QqPhrqllHzY[/youtube]Him not nomination win.
Ron Paul own Neil Cavuto
http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_likely_to_win_Kansas_primary (http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_likely_to_win_Kansas_primary)Too bad Kansas's primary has no importance at all.
Ron Paul wins Kansas straw poll 79-0, signs of a future win in the state's primary.
Reading See No Evil (good book, check it out), to paraphrase Robert Baer, the purpose of being a CIA agent is to break laws of other countries. Your goal is to have agents and their recruits give you sensitive information that they'd never have a clue on getting otherwise.Woah. This is perhaps the greatest post in this entire thread.
The CIA does some shady things but modern societies need them. It is almost brain-dead to assume that a nation does not depend on effective intelligence. I guarantee you nations like Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc. all have intelligence agencies that do the same things as the CIA. Not that I condone torture or secret prisons, which is definitely overstepping boundaries, even for an organization like the CIA, but to say that abolishing it would be good is extremely idiotic. Nor would I agree to the CIA being some neutered "organization" that can't actually get information due to all the red tape. The CIA just needs strict limits on dealing with potential unfriendlies. Torture is not necessary because it doesn't even give accurate results. So not only is it controversial, it is a waste of time.
As for the Kansas Straw Poll, it is unlikely that Paul would win. The big ones are Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul is only pulling single digits here in Iowa and the caucus is exactly two weeks away. It would require nothing short of a miracle for him to move from 5% to 30%, the amount he would need to win. Same goes for NH. If he can't get those, he will probably just concentrate on his re-election campaign in Texas. So the next month will definitely be interesting in terms of the mental breakdowns and hilariously tragic spin we will read when Paul gets the same numbers now as he did 6 months ago.
Woah. This is perhaps the greatest post in this entire thread.
I love that FoC keeps linking to info from this way-off states. If a candidate can't win one of the big 4. Iowa, NH, Michigan, and South Carolina their campaign is dead and over.
Ron Paul will have pulled out of the primary and will be focusing on either running for the house or some insane third party general run that will get nowhere and be blocked from the ballots by the two parties like Nader was in '04.
Meaning? FoC will never get a chance in his life to ever vote for Ron Paul in a presidential election. Primary or otherwise.
Reading See No Evil (good book, check it out), to paraphrase Robert Baer, the purpose of being a CIA agent is to break laws of other countries. Your goal is to have agents and their recruits give you sensitive information that they'd never have a clue on getting otherwise.
The CIA does some shady things but modern societies need them. It is almost brain-dead to assume that a nation does not depend on effective intelligence. I guarantee you nations like Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc. all have intelligence agencies that do the same things as the CIA. Not that I condone torture or secret prisons, which is definitely overstepping boundaries, even for an organization like the CIA, but to say that abolishing it would be good is extremely idiotic. Nor would I agree to the CIA being some neutered "organization" that can't actually get information due to all the red tape. The CIA just needs strict limits on dealing with potential unfriendlies. Torture is not necessary because it doesn't even give accurate results. So not only is it controversial, it is a waste of time.
If they say "put together a secret prison," they aren't the ones actually doing it. That is a cross group initiative, which means that some important people must think that it is an acceptable idea.
Meaning? FoC will never get a chance in his life to ever vote for Ron Paul in a presidential election. Primary or otherwise.
so because someone abuses something, we get rid of it?
Ron Paul
Ron Paul doesn't think you should have to pay taxes. That idea, along with a host of others geared towards the younger vote (he also wants to abolish the war on drugs) and you've got an Internet king-in-the-making whose YouTube presence has drawn in viewers by the millions even without an Obama Girl singing his praises. It's no surprise that he raised $4.2 million in one day on the Web (a record), $10 million in the third quarter alone, and is the single-most searched candidate online. Now, the Republican congressman from Texas has to find a way to translate that success into votes in a political climate where any association with the George W. State fuels already enflamed angst.
Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., gossip blogger (perezhilton.com) and "Queen of All Media," made headlines this year by announcing the death of Cuban President Fidel Castro. Whether there's some kind of Weekend at Bernie's thing going on there, Castro still claims to be alive. But in the world of online gossip, it's never a good idea to let the facts get in the way of good page views, and on that subject, Lavandeira is a master. Who knew that by drawing fourth grade-level insults on celebrity photos (white dots below Christian Slater's nose, "Gay Face" next to Paris Hilton's new boyfriend), gossip mongers and advertisers by the millions—not to mention VH1—would come calling. It only gets more ridiculous on YouTube, where he regularly broadcasts his latest whims and sing-alongs.
FoC know who else is on that list?
Perez Hilton
http://men.msn.com/staticslideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=5864039&imageindex=8
I don't think the CIA would be undirty under Ron Paul. The whole purpose of the organization is to subvert the law; the current administration has just given them a heads up to be more public about their activities.
FoC know who else is on that list?
Perez Hilton
http://men.msn.com/staticslideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=5864039&imageindex=8
:hans1 :hans1 :hans1 :drudge
Most Influential Men of 2007
Most Influential Men of 2007
Most Influential Men of 2007
Most Influential Men of 2007
Most Influential Men of 2007
Paul was influential, no point in arguing over shit like that. So was PerezPerez Hilton in 2008!
It doesn't mean he'll get 5% of the vote in Iowa or NH
Who's idea was it to give Osama Bi Laden weapons and training? Was that the CIA. Sounds like a smart group of guys.
Oh come on FoC, you're not that dumb. My blood boils when 911 truthers pull the "bubububu the CIA funded Bin Laden!" card. It fits their argument when used out of context (and in hindsight). Bin Laden was trained and supported in order to repel Soviet forces in Afghanistan, which was sort of like their version of Vietnam. At one point he respected the US, but after we "invaded" Saudi Arabia he cut all ties and fucked us over.
It was the good idea at the time. No one knew that Bin Laden would turn on us. All that mattered then was stopping the Soviets.Oh come on FoC, you're not that dumb. My blood boils when 911 truthers pull the "bubububu the CIA funded Bin Laden!" card. It fits their argument when used out of context (and in hindsight). Bin Laden was trained and supported in order to repel Soviet forces in Afghanistan, which was sort of like their version of Vietnam. At one point he respected the US, but after we "invaded" Saudi Arabia he cut all ties and fucked us over.
Im not a 9/11 truther, but we did fund Bin Laden to fight the soviets. Something that wasnt a good idea in hindsight.
Who's idea was it to give Osama Bi Laden weapons and training? Was that the CIA. Sounds like a smart group of guys.
Jihad in Afghanistan
Bin Laden's wealth and connections assisted his interest in supporting the mujahideen, Muslim guerrillas fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. His old teacher from the university in Jeddah, Abdullah Azzam, had relocated to Peshawar, a major border city of a million people in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. From there, Azzam was able to organize resistance directly on the Afghan frontier. Peshawar is only 15 km (9.3 miles) east of the historic Khyber Pass, through the Safed Koh mountains, connected to the southeastern edge of the Hindu Kush range. This route became the major avenue of inserting foreign fighters and material support into eastern Afghanistan for the resistance against the Soviets.
After leaving college in 1979 bin Laden joined Azzam[81][82] to fight the Soviet Invasion[83] and lived for a time in Peshawar.[84] According to Rahimullah Yusufzai, executive editor of the English-language daily The News International in 2001 "Azzam prevailed on him to come and use his money" for training recruits, reported Yusufzai.[85] In the early 1980s, bin Laden lived at several addresses in and around Arbab Road, a narrow street in the University Town neighborhood in western Peshawar, Yusufzai said. Nearby in Gulshan Iqbal Road is the Arab mosque that Abdullah Azzam used as the jihad center, according to a Reuters inquiry in the neighborhood.
By 1984, with Azzam, bin Laden had established a Saudi Arabian funded organization named Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK, Office of Order in English), which funneled money, arms and Muslim fighters from around the Arabic world into the Afghan war. Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune[86] paid for air tickets and accommodation, dealt with paperwork with Pakistani authorities and provided other such services for the jihad fighters. In running al-Khadamat, bin Laden set up a network of couriers traveling between Afghanistan and Peshawar, which continued to remain active after 2001, according to Yusufzai. It was during this time that Bin Laden met his future al-Qaeda collaborator, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a member and later head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Alleged CIA involvement
Main article: Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden
Whether Osama bin Laden and his group are "blowback" from the American CIA's "Operation Cyclone" to help the Afghan mujahideen, is a matter of some debate.
Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, has written that Bin Laden was, "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies" and that the mujahideen that formed Al-Qaida were "originally ... recruited and trained with help from the CIA".[87]
However, CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, calls the idea "that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."[88]
Bergen and others maintain the U.S. aid was given out by the Pakistan government, that it went to Afghan not foreign mujahideen, and that there was no contact between the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) and the CIA or other American officials, let alone, arming, training, coaching, indoctrination, etc.
There is some evidence.
I'm willing to be wrong but I need to see the hard facts. I need to see proof that even a single penny was exchanged between Bin Laden and the CIA.
At a summit meeting at the end of July, top US officials announced a deal to send major new weapons systems to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and other governments in the Middle East to counterbalance Iran's growing influence there.
Voigt wondered whether it was a wise move. "The region is not suffering from a lack of arms, but from a lack of stability," he said. "I have strong doubts whether stability could be achieved with these weapons."
But such arms deals have a long tradition in Washington. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" was a maxim of several US governments during the Cold War. Washington's foreign policy often sanctioned selling weapons to questionable regimes promising to help contain the communist threat regardless of the potential consequences.
The deals frequently ended as debacles: US soldiers have all too often stared down the barrels of guns their own government sold to the armies of countries that used to be their supposed allies. The convoluted US-Iranian relationship is a textbook example of such policies.
More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.
The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.
"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
But does he have an Emmy?
Seriously, you're using your political affiliation to sort out your beliefs on physical sciences. That doesn't strike you as wrong?
You know for every 400 scientists who deny man made global warming there is 4,000 who say it's man made.
Denying man made global warming is very comparable to calling the earth flat. Both are idiotic beliefs with no basis from the majority of the science community.You know for every 400 scientists who deny man made global warming there is 4,000 who say it's man made.
So then should we even discuss it? Or should we follow Al Gore and just claim that denying man made global warming is like saying the earth is flat.
Denying man made global warming is very comparable to calling the earth flat. Both are idiotic beliefs with no basis from the majority of the science community.You know for every 400 scientists who deny man made global warming there is 4,000 who say it's man made.
So then should we even discuss it? Or should we follow Al Gore and just claim that denying man made global warming is like saying the earth is flat.
So we should question evolution too? Question gravity?Denying man made global warming is very comparable to calling the earth flat. Both are idiotic beliefs with no basis from the majority of the science community.You know for every 400 scientists who deny man made global warming there is 4,000 who say it's man made.
So then should we even discuss it? Or should we follow Al Gore and just claim that denying man made global warming is like saying the earth is flat.
So sceine should just close the case and never ask why again. Maybe that sounds like sciense in your liberal mind, but not in mine. We should akways ask questions and always be skeptical.
So sceine should just close the case and never ask why again. Maybe that sounds like sciense in your liberal mind, but not in mine. We should akways ask questions and always be skeptical.
So we should question evolution too? Question gravity?Denying man made global warming is very comparable to calling the earth flat. Both are idiotic beliefs with no basis from the majority of the science community.You know for every 400 scientists who deny man made global warming there is 4,000 who say it's man made.
So then should we even discuss it? Or should we follow Al Gore and just claim that denying man made global warming is like saying the earth is flat.
So sceine should just close the case and never ask why again. Maybe that sounds like sciense in your liberal mind, but not in mine. We should akways ask questions and always be skeptical.
So we should question evolution too? Question gravity?Denying man made global warming is very comparable to calling the earth flat. Both are idiotic beliefs with no basis from the majority of the science community.You know for every 400 scientists who deny man made global warming there is 4,000 who say it's man made.
So then should we even discuss it? Or should we follow Al Gore and just claim that denying man made global warming is like saying the earth is flat.
So sceine should just close the case and never ask why again. Maybe that sounds like sciense in your liberal mind, but not in mine. We should akways ask questions and always be skeptical.
YES. Question everything.
YES. Question everything.
Which is why you're willing to accept a report by Republicans, who have a less than stellar track record regarding the environment?
Yeah. He likes to say he "owned Gore" with his proof he is refusing to question about the non-existence of man made global warming. Rather hypocritical of him.
that report has been rewritten and re-edited countless times and in various other permutations by the same group of exxon-mobil funded shitheels. they keep adding a few names from the fringe scientific community, but it's been circulating in various forms since 2003. yes, we've all read it at some time or another. it's crap.
I love that they can only come up with 400 scientiststo back up their claim since 2003. I bet I could find 400 scientists to back up any claim ever as long as I had the money the Republican Party has.
Yeah. He likes to say he "owned Gore" with his proof he is refusing to question about the non-existence of man made global warming. Rather hypocritical of him.
Im questioning it, my point was that we shouldnt be so strict about global warming like Al Gore. He has said that noone should question global warming.
Yeah. He likes to say he "owned Gore" with his proof he is refusing to question about the non-existence of man made global warming. Rather hypocritical of him.
Im questioning it, my point was :lol :lol
you're not questioning shit. al gore was just doing some typical political grandstanding. where were you when ron paul was trying to weasel out of his own hyperbolic grandstanding re: christianity and fascism? oh yes, you were defending it.
DO NOT EVER DISCUSS FREE-THINKING AGAIN. please do the honest thing for once and note that you are enrolled in the cult of ron paul wholesale.
Yes quoting one famous quote on a news show is exactly like what al gore does. :lol :lol
FoC read this if you truely have an open mind on the issue: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Within the first answer they mention the gold standard.
FoC read this if you truely have an open mind on the issue: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Within the first answer they mention the gold standard.
:lol :lol :lol
http://www.environmentaldefense.org
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
Do you have any links that arent so biased?
so your link written by republicans had no bias at all?FoC read this if you truely have an open mind on the issue: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Within the first answer they mention the gold standard.
:lol :lol :lol
http://www.environmentaldefense.org
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
Do you have any links that arent so biased?
FoC read this if you truely have an open mind on the issue: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Within the first answer they mention the gold standard.
:lol :lol :lol
http://www.environmentaldefense.org
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
Do you have any links that arent so biased?
I take everything I said back. I saw this cute sad picture of a polar bear on a melting ice cap and now I am a believer. Who will save the polar bears and penguins. We need carbon taxes on everyone and everything and then we need the government to force us all to do stuff. It's the only way to save human kind. Save us from ourselves!!!How do you feel about the new law that bans incandescent lightbulbs? passed in congress, signed into law by bush.
I take everything I said back. I saw this cute sad picture of a polar bear on a melting ice cap and now I am a believer. Who will save the polar bears and penguins. We need carbon taxes on everyone and everything and then we need the government to force us all to do stuff. It's the only way to save human kind. Save us from ourselves!!!How do you feel about the new law that bans incandescent lightballs? passed in congress, signed into law by bush.
It was part of a recent energy bill. It bans the lighbulb used by the majority of american households due to it's impact on global warming.I take everything I said back. I saw this cute sad picture of a polar bear on a melting ice cap and now I am a believer. Who will save the polar bears and penguins. We need carbon taxes on everyone and everything and then we need the government to force us all to do stuff. It's the only way to save human kind. Save us from ourselves!!!How do you feel about the new law that bans incandescent lightballs? passed in congress, signed into law by bush.
Was this part of the gas bill? I didnt read about the light bulb stuff.
It was part of a recent energy bill. It bans the lighbulb used by the majority of american households due to it's impact on global warming.
Helping the environment is a waste of time?It was part of a recent energy bill. It bans the lighbulb used by the majority of american households due to it's impact on global warming.
Sounds like a colossal waste of legislation.
The new rules are expected to save consumers $40 billion in energy and other costs from 2012 to 2030, avoid construction of 14 coal-fired power plants, and cut global-warming emissions by at least 51 million tons of carbon annually, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Helping the environment is a waste of time?
The new rules are expected to save consumers $40 billion in energy
I'm all about helping the environment, but don't fuckin' tell me what to do Big Brother. :punch
I'm all about helping the environment, but don't fuckin' tell me what to do Big Brother. :punchYou're leaving that up to Jesus.
"As you know, Ron--like freedom--is popular" wow. :lol
I can. Ron Paul isn't popular.:sp0rsk1
Hillary Clinton? Popular
Barack Obama? Popular
Ron Paul? Not so much.
I can. Ron Paul isn't popular.:sp0rsk1
Hillary Clinton? Popular
Barack Obama? Popular
Ron Paul? Not so much.
Lets see. Does Paul raise more money than Hillary and Obama? No. Does he do better in polls? No.
It's fun to dream when the dreams are good dreams overall. Dreams are the way our imaginations help us to formulate what we want to happen in our lives and how we can go about making them happen.
As I dream about the coming primaries, I am influenced by all of the comments I've read and heard online by Ron Paul supporters. There's so much enthusiasm, so much solid belief that their candidate is going to surprise everyone. I'd love to see him succeed. Please note: the following story is fictitious. It is a dream, not a prognostication. It is also not the only way events can play out. Not by a longshot!
The dream starts January 3, 2008 in the living rooms and meeting halls of Iowa, where Republicans gather to anoint Mike Huckabee as their standard bearer. To no one's surpise, he wins the Iowa caucus. What surprises everyone (except for a Republican analyst in Atlanta, a talk radio broadcaster in Des Moines, and a nation of Paulites) is that Ron Paul finishes third, nudging out Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Suddenly, the major media are all talking about the Ron Paul surprise. The Congressman himself expresses delight at the result, saying that America's hunger for freedom is turning into a revolution, and his words are carried on all national TV news networks.
The Primary Bomb
The surprise is just beginning. Just five days later, Paul absolutely stuns the political world by winning the New Hampshire primary, nudging out Mitt Romney who was widely expected to take that contest hands down. Analysts keep emphasizing how big an upset this is for the Romney campaign rather than saying anything substantial about Ron Paul's candidacy, but once again Ron Paul's name is on the lips of every newscaster. Critics write off his success as a one-off that won't be so easily repeated in Michigan or South Carolina.
Meanwhile, Paulites around the country are absolutely frenetic with excitement. Take the December 2007 levels of Paulite activity and double it, and you still wouldn't come close to the electrical current running throughout the country on January 9th. Internet searches for Ron Paul break all previous political records. "Google Ron Paul" becomes a household term in a matter of days, and Alexa reports that ronpaul2008.com has suddenly jumped into the top 10 most visited websites in the world, from a previous ranking of around 7,000th on their list. Ron Paul signs start sprouting up everywhere: on bridges, on lampposts, in front yards, and even in full page newspaper ads. Deep-pocketed Larry Lepard-like investors in liberty buy the ads out of their own cash reserves like Lepard did with the USA Today ad in November 2007.
Ron Paul meetup groups around the country and around the world see sudden spikes in their membership. Hundreds of thousands of people who had been either sitting by the sidelines or didn't even know much about the candidate have suddenly decided that Paul's their boy. Reports start filtering in from around the country about packed houses at meetup meetings in every state. Bloggers from around the world start getting into the act, and suddenly all the foreign media are riveted to the story that there may be a revolution brewing in America.
The Federal Election Commission announces that they are going to begin a serious investigation of many of the ways that Paulites are supporting their candidate to discover if campaign finance laws are being flouted, but the news does little more than to stimulate further activity as it becomes evident that the FEC doesn't really know where to start. There's just so much activity to investigate, and they don't have enough staff to do it. So the agency head decides that they'll target the most visible elements of the movement, picking a handful to investigate in depth with their limited resources. The grassroots respond as Paul supporters with law degrees publicly jump into the fray and offer to defend anyone the FEC investigates on a pro bono basis. One such attorney doesn't wait and files for a class action injunction to prevent the FEC from investigating at all. The court refuses to grant the injunction, but the message received by the FEC is clear. A website called legalbomb2008.com is quickly launched to raise legal funds to defend anyone targeted by the FEC, and it raises $1 million in its first day of existence. The FEC quickly realize that if they decide to come after some of the Paulites, the rest will respond to give the FEC the fight of their lives.
Meanwhile, pollsters are all taking a second look at their poll scoring methodologies, having been forced by the results to admit that their standard formulas for deciding who likely voters will be, need to be adjusted. Paulites laugh and in some cases jeer with delight at the news.
Activism in Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida suddenly shoots through the roof in anticipation of those upcoming primaries that are next on the calendar, but the media all focuses on February 5th, "Super Duper Tuesday" when 42% of all available Republican delegates are chosen in 22 states. Rudy Giuliani is still considered the odds-on favorite that day, but now the pollsters are putting their newly-tuned polls in the field as quickly as possible to discover what we can expect will happen. Paul ends up doing surprisingly well in Michigan and wins Nevada outright, but his weaker performances in Florida and South Carolina give fuel to his opponents on the news networks.
Super Duper Tuesday
The day before Super Duper Tuesday, USA Today puts out poll results that show Ron Paul is running in first or second place in 12 out of 22 Super Duper Tuesday primary states. Other pollsters offer different readings on the race, and commentators are absolutely beside themselves as they try to explain and document the sudden Paul surge. Fox News alternates between reporting the new polling results and running Sean Hannity commentaries saying how bad a Paul nomination would be for the Republican Party as he leads the fight to broadcast every single report he can find about white pride extremists and other undesirables who have sent money into the Paul campaign or supported the campaign with their websites. The major media pick up the stories which dominate the news right up until February 5th. The question everyone asks is: can Paul survive his own supporters?
Super Duper Tuesday arrives. Activity is off the charts. Demonstrations, rallies, and marches have spontaneously formed in all major cities of the Super Duper Tuesday states. Some didn't do their due diligence and arrange parade permits, and the news channels carry repeated reports of police arresting Paulites who queue up with their wrists extended, daring the police to arrest them while other Paulites gleefully make noise and posture for the TV cameras. One Paulite is recorded on camera shouting, "Wherever I'm standing is a free speech zone!" He is later reported by newscasters to be the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.
Speculation runs rampant in newscasts and newspapers as record numbers of Republicans stream to the polls. Some prognosticators point out that high turnout is probably good for the Paul campaign, but others scoff saying that this is actually a reaction to the Paul ascendancy as loyal Republicans rally to save their party from the upstart and his minions.
Controversy In The Results
Finally, the polls close and the results start rolling in. By the end of the night, Ron Paul has won five of the 20 states, finishing second or third in all of the rest. Cries of "fraud" are raised by Paulites across the country, many of whom end up on national TV claiming that the electronic voting systems were rigged. What follows is a week's worth of stories and investigations about how Republican officials are claiming that the results are legitimate and that none of the results could have been tampered with. Some of the Paulite grassroots attorneys are seen emerging again, filing lawsuits to ask the courts to overturn the results of those primaries. The courts end up refusing to do that in all states except Massachusetts, where a judge issues an injunction preventing the Secretary of the Commonwealth from certifying the primary results until a full investigation can be carried out.
Meanwhile, the calendar keeps on moving. The Virginia, Maryland, and DC primaries come up a week later. Paul takes the Virginia and DC primaries and finishes second in Maryland.
At this point Rudy Giuliani maintains a narrow lead in the delegate count. Huckabee is second, and Paul is running third. Mitt Romney considers dropping out of the race, having been embarrassed by his results in the states he was supposed to win easily. However, he has enough delegates committed to him that he decides to persevere. The campaigns of the other candidates are effectively over. One by one they have all withdrawn from the race after Super Duper Tuesday. It's now considered a three-man race, with almost no pundits giving Romney any chance of surviving.
CBS's 60 Minutes airs a widely viewed program that reveals recently discovered weaknesses in electronic voting systems and features a hacker who demonstrates on national TV how he successfully broke into a computerized voting test program and changed the voting results recorded in that computer. The computer in question was never actually used in a primary, but word quickly spreads that the now famous hacker actually broke into and changed the computers that recorded the California and Arizona primary results. This story remains an urban legend for years to come.
Diebold and ES&S threaten to file suit against CBS for revealing trade secrets. Their respective owners, brothers Bob and Todd Orosevich become household names as the country comes to realize that 80% of electronic voting is controlled by a single family. CNN reports on ties between the Orosevich family and the Bush family, which gets wide airplay around the world.
By the time we get to March, the Republican Party is in chaos. For the first time in decades, their candidate for president has not yet been anointed. Ron Paul wins his home state of Texas while finishing second to Giuliani in Ohio. Huckabee's campaign is fading a bit, but he's still got a large portion of the delegates under his belt. It is now clear even before the Pennsylvania primary arrives that the convention is going to be deadlocked. Giuliani will be a few votes away from winning, but no one can win on the first ballot. It's going to be a dogfight in Minneapolis the first weekend of September. Pundits are predicting a cakewalk for Hillary Clinton who has easily won the Democratic nomination by this point. She is widely expected to win over a fractured Republican Party in November. Talk of the first female president in history dominates the headlines. Many commentators predict that this is the end of the long-standing alliance between the religious right and other factions of the Republican rank-and-file.
The Revolution Continues To Grow
Paul-like candidates for Congress begin to emerge to challenge in both the Republican and Democratic primaries at the congressional level. The latest rage is for candidates to announce that they are running to provide support for Ron Paul and his proposals in Congress once he is elected President. A number of senate candidates with similar leanings are added to the fray. In a few states where incumbents have already sewed up their nominations, candidates from the Libertarian and Constitution parties emerge saying they'll be Paulist representatives in Congress. Talk runs rampant of Paul running as a third party candidate if he isn't nominated, but the candidate himself continues to deny any truth to the rumors.
Speaking of third parties, in May the Libertarians surprise everyone, including many of their own members by voting at their convention to nominate Ron Paul for president on the Libertarian ticket, ignoring the fact that Dr. Paul continues to refuse to run as an independent or third party candidate. This action is taken in response to the Constitution Party who also nominated Dr. Paul to head their ticket the month before. Critics of the move in both parties charge that it could undermine their current and future ballot access status, since most states don't permit the candidate to appear on more than one line of the ballot. Debate among third party supporters is now raging as to which of the two parties is the "true" supporter of the Constitution, while peacemakers attempt to argue that the two parties should be working together for a common cause rather than fighting among themselves. Eventually, cooler heads prevail and a cross-party committee is organized to coordinate efforts for Dr. Paul, should he lose the Republican nomination. Once again, Dr. Paul refuses to commit to run on any ticket other than the Republican ticket.
Another group of Paulites concludes that neither of the two third parties can ultimately be effective as an alternative platform for Ron Paul to run on, and they organize an independent campaign to get Dr. Paul on the ballot in as many states as possible. They form the Ron Paul Revolution party and beginning passing around petitions to get him on state ballots and hastily call a national convention to nominate him. Thus, as we approach the Republican convention in September, Dr. Paul has been nominated by three parties, but the Republican nomination he desires is still outside his grasp.
The Political World Turns Upside Down
One week before the Republican convention, the Giuliani and Huckabee campaigns make a stunning announcement. Mike Huckabee has decided that it's more important to hold the Republican Party together and reunite it for the run in November than it is for Huckabee to continue to try to win the nomination outright. Recognizing that Giuliani is still the favorite to win in a brokered convention because of his large delegate lead, he and Giuliani cut a deal to make Huckabee his Vice-Presidential nominee. He throws his support behind Giuliani, thus assuring a second ballot win for the Giuliani campaign.
Paulites around the country are angered and outraged by the betrayal. Rallies and demonstrations spring up in cities and towns across the nation in protest. An army of his supporters descend on Minneapolis to stage ongoing protests at the Republican convention.
Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, a growing block of voters that normally vote Democratic are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Clinton juggernaut, particularly among the anti-war faction. They call for Paul to run as an independent and for the country to unite against the two major parties in backing his candidacy. The move is controversial within the voting bloc, and some refuse to participate, fearing they would lose leverage in a likely Clinton administration. But as the days wear on, it becomes increasingly clear that this block, too, is fractured.
The three third parties announce in mid-September that they have hammered out an agreement whereby Dr. Paul, who after the Giuliani/Huckabee announcement sees the writing on the wall, decides that it was time to step out as an independent. Using a hodge-podge of ballot access already attained by the Constitution and Libertarian Parties, with additional access obtained by the new Ron Paul Revolution party (which didn't have time anyway under existing election law to get on the ballots in all 50 states), the Paul campaign launches as an independent third party candidacy. The Republican and Democratic parties’ attorneys file lawsuits, saying that the candidates’ votes can’t be counted from three different parties. After much legal wrangling, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Paul campaign using the three third party arrangement is Constitutional and should not be blocked.
I'll stop the story of my dream here and let you fill in your own ending. Instead of telling you my ending, I'll just say this. In my dream, for the first time in 48 years, the televised presidential debates actually mean something.
As for the ending of the story, I'll leave that to you.
Good job ignoring the poll numbers part of my post.Lets see. Does Paul raise more money than Hillary and Obama? No. Does he do better in polls? No.
So your definition of popularity is raising more money. Than Paul is the most popular GOP candidate this quarter. Not bad!
Surprise! I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and I contend that even if you are a devoted adherent of the Democratic Party, your best strategy is to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Since Ron Paul is an honorable man, and the rest of the Republicans are scum, you face the risk of another stolen election, as with George Bush, if Ron Paul is not the Republican candidate. You can still vote for Obama come fall, and rest assured that the Republican machine will be supporting the Democratic candidate, since they dislike Ron Paul much more than any Democrat. Is the choice between Hillary and Obama more important than ensuring we don't get another mini-Hitler?
Of course, I think Ron Paul is the clear first choice, and that he has an excellent chance of winning the nomination. He's raising lots of money: last Sunday, he set an all-time, all-party, all-candidate record of $6 million in one day, and over $18 million for the quarter. He has thousands of enthusiastic, self-directed (!) volunteers. The failure of the polls to reflect his true strength may mean the end of polling as a propaganda tool. You'll know if I'm right after New Hampshire. (I only expect a third-place in Iowa.) He will be one of very few who can afford a 50-state primary campaign. It's pretty funny – the other Republicans (who think computers are for secretaries) keep asking him who he hired to run his Internet campaign. The answer is, he doesn't run it; it runs itself. The one-day money-bombs just for fun, the Ron Paul blimp, it's all totally independent.
In my opinion, the most important point is to stop the war. Only Ron Paul qualifies as a serious anti-war candidate (Kucinich put Party loyalty ahead of principle to support Kerry, and his campaign is going nowhere). Much of the hard-core anti-war left already supports Ron Paul, and more members of the military have contributed to his campaign than all other candidates of both parties combined (soldiers have a vested interest in peace!).
Second most important is the restoration of civil liberties, including habeas corpus. Again, Ron Paul is the right choice. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and all the rest. If he loses, I'll see you in Guantanamo: at least one neocon has suggested rounding up Ron Paul supporters as "domestic terrorists" (of course, it is only the government that is terrified), and you're probably on the list too, though for other reasons.
Third most important is to save the economy, and here he really shines: He actually understands the banking system; he's written books on the subject. Curiously, it turns out that lots of leftists already know the Federal Reserve is a rip-off. Unfortunately, it's too late to prevent the collapse of the dollar.
If you examine the position of Ron Paul on immigration very carefully, you will find that at the heart of it is cutting off federally mandated welfare to illegals. His rhetoric is such as to get the support of the anti-immigration Republicans, barely. Still, it's the major gripe of the libertarian faction with his views. Libertarians are split on abortion, but since he would just take the Fed out of the loop ("it's not in the constitution" is his mantra), pro-choice libertarians can live with his anti-abortion sentiments (he is a baby doctor, after all). Having to go out-of-state to get an abortion is not as serious as murdering a million Iraqis, and I'm confident that most of our hard-working illegal aliens are quite competent to cope with the border nonsense. Plus, the poorer immigrants will suffer more from the inevitable economic recession (which may turn into the "Greater Depression"), which will drag on for years without a Ron Paul win.
Peggy and I have changed our voter registration to Republican so we can vote for Dr. Paul in the primary. Actually, Ron's views match Peggy's almost perfectly, what with his concern for people who have been made dependents of the government. I'm willing to rely on private charity.
It's easy to learn more. Peggy was one of the many who independently invented the bumper-sticker "Google Ron Paul." Also, the website where I work has been publishing Ron Paul's speeches and essays for years, and they are all available in our archive. I was just reviewing an old article from right after 9/11, and he was absolutely prescient in predicting the war and the attacks on civil liberties. Oh yeah, he's scheduled to be on Meet the Press this Sunday, if you prefer video.
I had reached the point of telling my kids to think about leaving the country – as I understand it, many of your father's relatives waited too long to get out of Austria. Ron Paul's success has given me hope.
"I had reached the point of telling my kids to think about leaving the country – as I understand it, many of your father's relatives waited too long to get out of Austria."
Whoa there.
..."I had reached the point of telling my kids to think about leaving the country – as I understand it, many of your father's relatives waited too long to get out of Austria."Wow :lol
Whoa there.
December 22, 2007And yet Zogby is an organization that is mocked amongst the political elite. When someone sourced a Zogby poll on hardball Chris Matthews laughed and said Zogby is a joke. And he is
Zogby on the Coming Ron Paul Smackdown
Pollster John Zogby: "Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."">Pollster John Zogby: "Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is 'Live Free or Die.'"
I love Pro Ron Paul propaganda.What other group describes a dream outcome in terms of web page hits and meetup.com group numbers? :lol
(http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l207/fgsfdsfargeg/rp_ronpaul_supersmashbrosbr.jpg)
He's in SSBB!
Just like Super Smash Brothers, Paul is simplistic and has little depth.(http://www.paulunteer.com/images/PaulOwnsMcCain.gif)
FoC if you guys want Paul to be taken seriously you gotta stop treating him with the same respect of LOLCATS with all the photoshops. It degrades him and makes his candidacy seem even less serious.
FoC if you guys want Paul to be taken seriously you gotta stop treating him with the same respect of LOLCATS with all the photoshops. It degrades him and makes his candidacy seem even less serious.
Yea my grandma said she wouldnt vote for paul because of crappy internet photoshops. Its affecting MILLIONS of americans. ::)
FlameOfCallandor turned White Man away from libertarianism. And his photoshops had nothing to do with it.
I highly doubt millions of Americans will even vote for Paul.
TVC was never a libertarian. He was just confused about himself....okay the popcorn's gotten stale I'll make another batch.
FlameOfCallandor turned White Man away from libertarianism. And his photoshops had nothing to do with it.
TVC was never a libertarian. He was just confused about himself.
Yeah I was talking about this thread. He posts "serious" articles then goofy photoshops. you cant get anyone to take you seriously like that.
Yeah I was talking about this thread. He posts "serious" articles then goofy photoshops. you cant get anyone to take you seriously like that.
Yeah I was talking about this thread. He posts "serious" articles then goofy photoshops. you cant get anyone to take you seriously like that.
90% of the people here have already decided to not be open to Ron Paul. Not posting photoshops wouldnt have made a difference.
Yeah I was talking about this thread. He posts "serious" articles then goofy photoshops. you cant get anyone to take you seriously like that.
90% of the people here have already decided to not be open to Ron Paul. Not posting photoshops wouldnt have made a difference.
Most people tend to be closed-minded and refuse to hear any good points that contradict their world views. But, you are no different.
Yeah, sure you were. Nobody is buying that.Yeah I was talking about this thread. He posts "serious" articles then goofy photoshops. you cant get anyone to take you seriously like that.
90% of the people here have already decided to not be open to Ron Paul. Not posting photoshops wouldnt have made a difference.
Most people tend to be closed-minded and refuse to hear any good points that contradict their world views. But, you are no different.
Which is why I used to consider my self a democrat and now I dont. Right? right?
Yeah, sure you were. Nobody is buying that.Yeah I was talking about this thread. He posts "serious" articles then goofy photoshops. you cant get anyone to take you seriously like that.
90% of the people here have already decided to not be open to Ron Paul. Not posting photoshops wouldnt have made a difference.
Most people tend to be closed-minded and refuse to hear any good points that contradict their world views. But, you are no different.
Which is why I used to consider my self a democrat and now I dont. Right? right?
Yeah I was talking about this thread. He posts "serious" articles then goofy photoshops. you cant get anyone to take you seriously like that.
90% of the people here have already decided to not be open to Ron Paul. Not posting photoshops wouldnt have made a difference.
Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day. :lolWe didn't need to fight a war with the Germans either. They would have gotten around to closing down Auschwitz on their own.
The free market would have solved the holocaust if we just gave it a chance!Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day. :lolWe didn't need to fight a war with the Germans either. They would have gotten around to closing down Auschwitz on their own.
The invisible hand would have pulled Jews right out of the ovens.The free market would have solved the holocaust if we just gave it a chance!Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day. :lolWe didn't need to fight a war with the Germans either. They would have gotten around to closing down Auschwitz on their own.
FoC if you guys want Paul to be taken seriously you gotta stop treating him with the same respect of LOLCATS with all the photoshops. It degrades him and makes his candidacy seem even less serious.
Yea my grandma said she wouldnt vote for paul because of crappy internet photoshops. Its affecting MILLIONS of americans. ::)
Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day. :lol
That is why I think you don't listen to arguments that contradict your worldview. Whether that worldview is new or not is inconsequential.
Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day. :lolWe didn't need to fight a war with the Germans either. They would have gotten around to closing down Auschwitz on their own.
Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day. :lol
We are the only country that fought a war to end slavery. A war that resulted in 600,000 deaths was probably not needed.
The war wasn't fought to end slavery, and I think you admitted that earlier in this thread. JeezYou are right, but I was replying to the context of gay boys statement.
If we weren't attacked at Pearl Harbor, should the US have entered WWII?No
No
That is why I think you don't listen to arguments that contradict your worldview. Whether that worldview is new or not is inconsequential.
Um no, I have responded to most here and put up with alot more shit than most people would
Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day. :lolWe didn't need to fight a war with the Germans either. They would have gotten around to closing down Auschwitz on their own.
Except he said WW2 was justified. You fail yet again.
Paul contends that Lincoln did not have go to war. But Lincoln did not cause the war and his stance on slavery was not even very progressive (he didn't want it to spread to territories where it didn't already exist).
My question is FoC, if Japan did not attack us on Pearl Harbor why should we have not gone over?IF we arent provoked then why should we go to war? We were helping out the allied war effort without committing any soldiers.
Hitler was quickly taking over Europe and killing Jews/Gypsies/etc in massive amounts. Why should we allow that to go on? France had fallen and England was struggling.China took over tibet and we didnt do shit, guess what? the world goes on.
What constitutional basis to not go to war with the Nazi's if we weren't attacked first is there that out ways the the sense of humanity and the drive to stop the evil actions of Hitler?Your definition of war then becomes very arbitrary. If its not for self defense then you have to be for pre emptive strike which then says that the korean war, vietnam war and the Iraq war were all worth American soldier's life.
Also when the south seceded we should have just let them form their own nation? That is completely absurd.
The union HAD to stay together. When the south seceded they in a way declared war, they threw the first stone with that action
Hitler was quickly taking over Europe and killing Jews/Gypsies/etc in massive amounts. Why should we allow that to go on? France had fallen and England was struggling.
Again, it was the South who fired the first shot.
Paul contends that Lincoln did not have go to war. But Lincoln did not cause the war and his stance on slavery was not even very progressive (he didn't want it to spread to territories where it didn't already exist).
Yes he did, he could have let the south succeed from the union. Something that every state should be able to do. Just look up the definition of the word state. What you are saying is that it was worth over 600,000 american deaths to shave a few years off of slavery. If you use that argument for slavery then you have to be for the Iraq war, since it only cost a few thousand american soldiers to free the Iraqi people.
Anyway, I see that you have yet to read your new logic book. Shame. The two situations are not comparable. Iraq isn't a part of the United States and the Iraqi's were not slaves. They lived in an undemocratic country but they were not treated as sub-human property to be bought and sold by a supposed superior race. Since Iraq was not seceding from the rest of America and did not have slaves the two situations are not analogous.
The word you were looking for is seceded, not succeed.
Im not arguing that the Nazis or slavery was a good thing, Im arguing that the way in which america ended slavery was clearly not the right thing. Every other country in the civilized world ended it without a war. I guess america is special?
Im not arguing that the Nazis or slavery was a good thing, Im arguing that the way in which america ended slavery was clearly not the right thing. Every other country in the civilized world ended it without a war. I guess america is special?
Except that you just said, not 10 posts ago, that Lincoln should have let the south secede and become their own nation, where they would have undoubtedly continued slavery since it was in their economic interest. So ipso facto, you don't have a problem with slavery.
Im not arguing that the Nazis or slavery was a good thing, Im arguing that the way in which america ended slavery was clearly not the right thing. Every other country in the civilized world ended it without a war. I guess america is special?
O RLY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion)
Large-scale organized violence in order to achieve a political goal is the DEFINITION of a war, kid.
The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) was the most successful of the many African slave rebellions in the Western Hemisphere. It established Haiti as a free, black republic, the first of its kind. At the time of the revolution, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue. By means of this revolution, Africans and people of African ancestry freed themselves from French colonization and from slavery.
My post from yesterday:QuoteThe Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) was the most successful of the many African slave rebellions in the Western Hemisphere. It established Haiti as a free, black republic, the first of its kind. At the time of the revolution, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue. By means of this revolution, Africans and people of African ancestry freed themselves from French colonization and from slavery.
Explain to me at all how this squares with your "everyone else ended slavery peacefully."
Look, you obviously don't know anything about the relevant history and you're not interested in learning about the relevant history. You just heard Ron Paul say something, assumed it must be right, and worked backwards from there.
At least spend 30 minutes skimming Wikipedia so you can fake some lay expertise on the subject.
A person can change his opinions, but that does not mean he is open and responsive to new ideas and arguments. People change their minds, but not necessarily for rational reasons. So even if you have changed your political outlook (something no one believes) you can still be closed minded and non-responsive to logical discourse. The fact of the matter is that ideological converts are often the most pigheaded people of all.
Whenever someone has constructed a cogent argument against Ron Paul, or one of his policies, or libertarianism in general you have ignored it. That is why I think you don't listen to arguments that contradict your worldview. Whether that worldview is new or not is inconsequential.
QuoteThe Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) was the most successful of the many African slave rebellions in the Western Hemisphere. It established Haiti as a free, black republic, the first of its kind. At the time of the revolution, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue. By means of this revolution, Africans and people of African ancestry freed themselves from French colonization and from slavery.
Explain to me at all how this squares with your "everyone else ended slavery peacefully."
Look, you obviously don't know anything about the relevant history and you're not interested in learning about the relevant history. You just heard Ron Paul say something, assumed it must be right, and worked backwards from there.
At least spend 30 minutes skimming Wikipedia so you can fake some lay expertise on the subject.
Apparently you do. The means of preserving slavery was worth the ends of avoiding those deaths.
I still think that 600,000 deaths is alot of people. I dont subscribe to "The ends justify the means"This is a prosaic point. Of course 600,000 deaths is a lot.
No, he's giving you a more honest perspective.Apparently you do. The means of preserving slavery was worth the ends of avoiding those deaths.
What the fuck? Way to twist words around.
600,000 deaths was not worth ending slavery a few years/decades early.
So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?So we went to Iraq to free a race of slaves? I'm confused.
No, he's giving you a more honest perspective.
So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?So we went to Iraq to free a race of slaves? I'm confused.
Secession and maintaining--even enlarging the slave trade--can also be seen as ends. He's simply pointing out that you are laying the blame for the deaths on only one party. While it is more justifiable to turn the situation around.
No, he's giving you a more honest perspective.
How is it more honest? It's just saying his side of the argument. And by his logic you can use that phrase for anything in the world. Most of the time when people say "the ends justify the means" the "ends" part of it usually involves doing something.
More... I suppose. But the civil war wasn't started to end slavery. It was to stop secession (which was primarily motivated by slavery).So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?So we went to Iraq to free a race of slaves? I'm confused.
Same moral argument. We went to Iraq to free people. If they were slaves would the Iraq war be even more justified?
More... I suppose. But the civil war wasn't started to end slavery. It was to stop secession (which was primarily motivated by slavery).
Quick rundown.
European slavery was mostly practiced, then ended, centuries before the American Civil War. It ended when feudal lords gradually replaced it with serfdom, and it did not involve importing workers from a different race/ethnic group.
There was some race-based slave trade in the UK in the 1700's, but Britain's domestic economy was NEVER anywhere near as reliant on slave labor as that of the American South. No contemporary European country's economy was.
The places that did rely on slave labor were colonies like those in the Caribbean and South Africa. Those places did not voluntarily abolish slavery because it was wrong. They did it when their imperial masters in England and France told them to.
None of these situations show how slavery could have been ended in the South. Local barons and viscounts would replace it with serfdom? A court appeal would show it to be illegal, despite being codified into law? England would tell them to just knock it off?
To say that there was some great European precedent for peacefully abolishing slavery that could somehow have applied to the American situation is just WRONG. It's simply not true.
So then do you think that states should not be allowed to succeed and if they do its worth going to war over?
taliking points > historical context.
More... I suppose. But the civil war wasn't started to end slavery. It was to stop secession (which was primarily motivated by slavery).
Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?
Pick your poison:
(http://images.politico.com/global/071031_hillary_rudy1.jpg)
Slavery was abolished over 140 years ago in the United States. Slavery probably wouldn't be around today, but we can not be sure. However we can be sure that slavery would have lingered in the south well after 1865. And likely well into the twentieth century.
Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?
Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?
We wouldn't, no. But would have taken DECADES. If not more than 50 years for it to fully go away. Which is unimaginable and impossible accept.
Slavery was abolished over 140 years ago in the United States. Slavery probably wouldn't be around today, but we can not be sure. However we can be sure that slavery would have lingered in the south well after 1865. And likely well into the twentieth century.
Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?
And in your view slavery going on for 30-50 more years WASN'T worth dying for? You are a sick human being if you think that.Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?
We wouldn't, no. But would have taken DECADES. If not more than 50 years for it to fully go away. Which is unimaginable and impossible accept.
So in your opinion it was worth 600,000 lives to end it a few decades early.
So then the argument comes down to how many american lives it was worth to end slavery early.
And in your view slavery going on for 30-50 more years WASN'T worth dying for? You are a sick human being if you think that.:lol :lol :lol Yea im sure all those poor drafted soldiers and all the Irish immigrants were really fighting for what the believed in.
Those thousands died for something they believed in and died for a honorable cause that america is far better for.
FoC: Do you think if the Civil War had not been fought, those 600,000 soldiers would be alive today?
You're the one pimping Ron Paul's European solution. So explain to me how it would have worked. Just which European model was going to be followed? I'd like to know.
And FoC answer malek. Those lives would never had been lost if the south did not secede. Was it worth seceding to lose those lives?
Since the war wasn't started in an effort to end slavery, stop asking these loaded questions. Mandark's question is more honest; was it worth all the lives in an attempt to secede in order to maintain slavery?
wasn't some war of candy canes
You are asking a disingenuous question though. It's like asking, 'was it worth all those lives Roosevelt to start WWII?'
Since the war wasn't started in an effort to end slavery, stop asking these loaded questions. Mandark's question is more honest; was it worth all the lives in an attempt to secede in order to maintain slavery?
No. But im not arguing that it was.
You are asking a disingenuous question though. It's like asking, 'was it worth all those lives Roosevelt to start WWII?'
Asking whether the deaths are warranted is justified. I think how you are asking it is unjustified.You are asking a disingenuous question though. It's like asking, 'was it worth all those lives Roosevelt to start WWII?'
Why cant it be a serious question? Are we to just assume that all deaths in war are valid?
You supported Ron Paul's assertion that there was a peaceful alternative way to end slavery, based on a European model.
Please explain how that would have worked.
Asking whether the deaths are warranted is justified. I think how you are asking it is unjustified.You are asking a disingenuous question though. It's like asking, 'was it worth all those lives Roosevelt to start WWII?'
Why cant it be a serious question? Are we to just assume that all deaths in war are valid?
You supported Ron Paul's assertion that there was a peaceful alternative way to end slavery, based on a European model.
Please explain how that would have worked.
.
Cause just a few posts ago you were spouting off on how every other country got rid of slavery without a war so why couldn't we just do that.
How was I asking it.
Ignorance standing tall in the face of uncertainty.Cause just a few posts ago you were spouting off on how every other country got rid of slavery without a war so why couldn't we just do that.
Nope, I still stand by it.
Cause just a few posts ago you were spouting off on how every other country got rid of slavery without a war so why couldn't we just do that.
Nope, I still stand by it.
So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?
It is illegal to secede according to the constitution. that therefore makes it legal to get that state back. besides, the south attacked the Union first. dumbass, there was a fort in Charlotte's harbor (one of the major southern cities) and the southerners were pissed off that it was there so they attacked the fort. that officially started the war.Was about to post this
as for whether slavery would have stopped, not for around 70 years. definitely well over 50. having slaves still gives you a huge advantage in manufacturing capability. after the industrial revolution, you could send the slaves to factories (and the conditions in the factories and boarding houses were barely above slave conditions).
and yes, the lives were worth it going by your cock-sniffing piece of llama shit logic because it was a legal war according to the constitution.
Hitler was quickly taking over Europe and killing Jews/Gypsies/etc in massive amounts. Why should we allow that to go on? France had fallen and England was struggling.China took over tibet and we didnt do shit, guess what? the world goes on.
FoC finds a way to, like, sing the praises of slavery and Hitler. merry christmas!That's going too far.
actually, Raoul, if for a christmas present you could lock this thread for 24 hours, so it doesn't ruin our 25th, that would be awesomeSounds good to me.
Fucking horrible analogy. wtf
The south's entire economy was dependent of slavery - there was no way they were going to give up slavery on their own. I'd bet they would have continued slavery into the early 20th century if given the option. That may be fine for you FoC, but not for me.
Feel free to lock i permanently.
I dont think foc/paul is for slavery and is pro-hitler but it shows the faults of the belief system if their strict dogma would allow hitler to run loose and slavery to go on un-checked.
Feel free to lock i permanently.
No way, chachi. We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames. What was the point of leaving it open so long if we don't have it around for the good part?
No way, chachi. We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames.
No way, chachi. We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames.
Also, Iowa isnt the only state in the U.S.
Fucking horrible analogy. wtf
Why?
Your argument style:
A and B are similar in some respects so C should treat A and B equally in all respects.
Can you not see how the Tibet situation and the Holocaust differ and how this difference might cause America to act differently?
that very same week is NH though (only 5 days later). And you proclaimed he will win NH. And you also admitted if he doesnt win either his campaign failed. So yes, in less than two weeks your candidate will either rise or be dead.No way, chachi. We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames.
Also, Iowa isnt the only state in the U.S.
Because... of the differences. What is going on in Tibet is horrible, but it is not on the same scale as what happened in Europe and Asia in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Also starting a war with China would cause far, far, far, far more harm and death than leaving China alone in Tibet.Your argument style:
A and B are similar in some respects so C should treat A and B equally in all respects.
Can you not see how the Tibet situation and the Holocaust differ and how this difference might cause America to act differently?
I do see how they are different, but I dont see how you can argue against aggression in one place but not argue to stop aggression in another.
And you proclaimed he will win NH.
And you also admitted if he doesnt win either his campaign failed.
Because... of the differences. What is going on in Tibet is horrible, but it is not on the same scale as what happened in Europe and Asia in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Also starting a war with China would cause far, far, far, far more harm and death than leaving China alone in Tibet.
So come on. You'll honestly be predicting he'll win it all after all the early primaries come and he doesnt win any?
Countries don't go to war against aggression anymore than they go to war against the reification fallacy!Because... of the differences. What is going on in Tibet is horrible, but it is not on the same scale as what happened in Europe and Asia in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Also starting a war with China would cause far, far, far, far more harm and death than leaving China alone in Tibet.
So you are only for stopping aggression in some instances, not all? What are the exact parameters of aggression before we can intervene with force and american soldiers?
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
Just because I don't think that there are simple and exact parameters that dictate exactly when and where a nation should go to war does not mean that the decision is completely arbitrary. For instance, my reasons why America should not go to war with China are not arbitrary. Such a war would cause millions of deaths and untold suffering while preventing relatively few deaths. Not really arbitrary.
Evilbore= Bill Kristol. :othe north couldnt buy the slaves and free them. the south would not sell all of them, they needed them for farming. what an idiot paul is
[youtube=425,350]0rduigENzHo[/youtube]
Evilbore= Bill Kristol. :oEvilbore on the civil war = most people who aren't crackpots.
When should we go to war and we should we not go to war?
:lol :lol :lol Why wouldn't they sell slaves? isn't that what the did? They treated them like property? So if someone were to offer a fair price for your property why wouldnt you sell?
the north couldnt buy the slaves and free them. the south would not sell all of them, they needed them for farming. what an idiot paul is
:lol :lol :lol Why wouldn't they sell slaves? isn't that what the did? They treated them like property? So if someone were to offer a fair price for your property why wouldnt you sell?
the north couldnt buy the slaves and free them. the south would not sell all of them, they needed them for farming. what an idiot paul is
I already told you I can't give you a simple answer. My inability to provide you with such an answer does not mean such a decision is arbitrary.
They would not sell all of their slaves to the north. Not a chance. They only sell the slaves they are using.
you honestly think they'd sell ALL the slaves and let their plantations go to ruins?They would not sell all of their slaves to the north. Not a chance. They only sell the slaves they are using.
You're such an idiot.
QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
Situational != arbitrary. Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.
You can't be this obtuse.QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
Situational != arbitrary. Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.
Then define when it's ok to go to war.
You can't be this obtuse.QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
Situational != arbitrary. Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.
Then define when it's ok to go to war.
You can't be this obtuse.QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
Situational != arbitrary. Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.
Then define when it's ok to go to war.
Then you leave it up to the whim of the leader at the time. You cannot say the Iraq war was not justified if you cannot say when we should and should not go to war.
Can't I simply point out why the Iraqi wasn't justified. Or why another war is or is not justified on its own terms? Why do you need a simple precept.You can't be this obtuse.QuoteWhy do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.
So going to war should be completely arbitrary?
Situational != arbitrary. Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.
Then define when it's ok to go to war.
Then you leave it up to the whim of the leader at the time. You cannot say the Iraq war was not justified if you cannot say when we should and should not go to war.
Paul does no better when he says he'll be led by the whim of Congress--a Congress, note, which did not oppose the war in Iraq.
Can't I simply point out why the Iraqi wasn't justified. Or why another war is or is not justified on its own terms? Why do you need a simple precept.
Can't I simply point out why the Iraqi wasn't justified. Or why another war is or is not justified on its own terms? Why do you need a simple precept.
All Im saying is this, if you cannot dicide when and when not to go to war then you cannot be mad when someone goes to war on a similar note as one you do support (pre-emptive strike)
I can decide, just on a situational basis. So if I don't think a particular war is justified for specific reasons--which I am more than capable of articulating--then I have plenty of right to get upset.
If you were correct, then because I am unable to give you simple and definite rules for when it is correct to go to war then I could not get upset over a war fought between two countries over a religious doctrinal dispute, for example.Unless you say that all wars fought over religious doctrinal disuputes are bad.
It is now one week until the Iowa GOP Caucus.FoC said earlier as long as he gets in the top 5 it's a "win".
I suggest that Ron Paul fans begin drafting their elaborate excuses as to why Paul lost now. You will be competing with hundreds of Joo-Mason conspiracy theories, you might as well get the lead on the rest.
Who's Duncan Hunter? :lolExactly.
Then if you can decide on a situational basis, you give the leader of our country the power to decide on a situational basis, something he exercised.
Unless you say that all wars fought over religious doctrinal disuputes are bad.
Who's Duncan Hunter? :lol
so why do you like hunter?
I just like him because he is a gun nut and thinks that the solution to every problem is to essentially use guns.well that's actually pretty awesome. lol.
What is this thread about?
Would Rudy have got this far if he wasn't there at 9/11 just doing the job required of him?
Hey gay boy, lay out the terms of the bet again.Yeah, there is two bets.
It's Ron Paul above 105 in Iowa and winning any state right?
Mine is that if he gets over 10% in Iowa I buy you a book (I have no idea why you picked that as your winning lol), if he gets under 10% you leave EB.
And you made a separate bet with Raoul (or Mandark, one of those two) that you'll leave EB if he does not win at least one state.
Lets make a bet. And I won't even have it for winning either!
If Ron Paul gets more than 10% in the first and most important primary (Iowa) I will leave EB forever. If he gets less than 10% you leave. Are you so sure of your man that he can make that tiny of a number?
Did you read the rest of the topic? FoC decided my loss instead would be he wants me to buy him a book for some reason. But its over. Its EXACTLY 10%. Plus FoC claimed he'd get third. FoC has ran away now that the Paul campaign closed shop.Lets make a bet. And I won't even have it for winning either!
If Ron Paul gets more than 10% in the first and most important primary (Iowa) I will leave EB forever. If he gets less than 10% you leave. Are you so sure of your man that he can make that tiny of a number?
Plz, let it be like 10.1%, please, Jesus.
The EB vs. Paul fight has ended and FoC has abandoned it in embarrassment.
I think this thread may be worthy to even be moved to the hall of fame.
My guess is he won't come back. If Paul did get third he'd be here predicting a NH victory. FoC seems to rather run away than admit his insane predictions never came true.
True. At gaf there is a Paulite saying it's not over and he could win Alaska and Montana and get some momentum. :lol
Huh? His campaign died last night.True. At gaf there is a Paulite saying it's not over and he could win Alaska and Montana and get some momentum. :lol
I'm all for that, and NH too. :hyper
Gay Boy
Enchanted: 10/10
Paul doesn't have much of a chance anymore, his best bet is to win a few states and get some delegates.he didnt get over 10% kid. He had exactly 10%.
Although i did win the bet.
Also, don't blame me if Huckabee becomes persident.
Paul doesn't have much of a chance anymore, his best bet is to win a few states and get some delegates.he didnt get over 10% kid. He had exactly 10%.
Although i did win the bet.
Also, don't blame me if Huckabee becomes persident.
Over 10%. It's why Ichi was constantly hoping he'd get over 10% when he was stuck with 10% last night.Paul doesn't have much of a chance anymore, his best bet is to win a few states and get some delegates.he didnt get over 10% kid. He had exactly 10%.
Although i did win the bet.
Also, don't blame me if Huckabee becomes persident.
I thought the bet was double digits?
So are you now ready to admit that a large majority of Americans don't give a shit about Ron Paul's ludicrous ideas?
just an fyi, mods arent here to enforce dumb little bets. if you dont think someone will follow through, dont make the bet.I am not going to beg for FoC to leave now that his candidate didnt get over 10%. If a mod bans him for not winning the bet that's his loss but I am not going to campaign for it. I am glad he is wise enough to admit Paul's campaign is basically over.
I'm ok with being banned.
whats worse than being banned? :lolI'm ok with being banned.
No FoC, after all the crap you've flung at this board about yer poo poo candidate, being banned is honestly too good for you
I'm ok with being banned.
No FoC, after all the crap you've flung at this board about yer poo poo candidate, being banned is honestly too good for you
I'm ok with being banned.
No FoC, after all the crap you've flung at this board about yer poo poo candidate, being banned is honestly too good for you
:lol :lol :lol Wut wut in the butt?
you called us all idiots for denying Paul would win. Just a month ago you claimed he'd WIN Iowa and that all of us are stupid for believing polls.
If he gets banned he gets to run off and continue to be oblivious, at least here we can needle him about it till we break him down
you told us polls were WRONG cause young people use cellphones. the polls were pretty much EXACTLY spot on and their was a huge youth turn out.
you called us all idiots for denying Paul would win. Just a month ago you claimed he'd WIN Iowa and that all of us are stupid for believing polls.
What? I dont think so.
you told us polls were WRONG cause young people use cellphones. the polls were pretty much EXACTLY spot on and their was a huge youth turn out.
which means pauls 4-5% nationally only ahead of duncan hunter is true. People don't like him.you told us polls were WRONG cause young people use cellphones. the polls were pretty much EXACTLY spot on and their was a huge youth turn out.
guess they were right.
which means pauls 4-5% nationally only ahead of duncan hunter is true. People don't like him.you told us polls were WRONG cause young people use cellphones. the polls were pretty much EXACTLY spot on and their was a huge youth turn out.
guess they were right.
which means pauls 4-5% nationally only ahead of duncan hunter is true. People don't like him.you told us polls were WRONG cause young people use cellphones. the polls were pretty much EXACTLY spot on and their was a huge youth turn out.
guess they were right.
Ok whats your point.
you didnt think Obama was gonna win either. You arent exactly running with a good track record either.I didn't but I didn't claim people were idiots and were going to be "owned". Which you did.
you didnt think Obama was gonna win either. You arent exactly running with a good track record either.I didn't but I didn't claim people were idiots and were going to be "owned". Which you did.
Although I doubt Paul will be able to handle McCain, Romney, or Huckabee, it is likely he will get over 10% but he will still be 4th place at the very best.
this isn't 4chan. People actually LIKE eachother here. Mostly. You came in here to do one thing. Cause shit and insult people who didn't agree with you. Which is why when you were wrong the whole board is laughing.you didnt think Obama was gonna win either. You arent exactly running with a good track record either.I didn't but I didn't claim people were idiots and were going to be "owned". Which you did.
You realize this is the internet right? Not a civil discourse on current events.
I dont think Huckabee will get top three in NH, but what do i know. All the fucking jesus freaks are gonna trip over their feet getting to the polls to suck his dick.and jesus freaks have a strong base in the republican party thanks to Reagan. Reagan created this religious right wing that has grown and grown.
and jesus freaks have a strong base in the republican party thanks to Reagan. Reagan created this religious right wing that has grown and grown.
parties always change over timeand jesus freaks have a strong base in the republican party thanks to Reagan. Reagan created this religious right wing that has grown and grown.
It's gonna destroy the republican party if Huckabee gets the nomination. He's pro-Tax, Pro-amnesty etc... It's not even the same fucking party anymore.
parties always change over timeand jesus freaks have a strong base in the republican party thanks to Reagan. Reagan created this religious right wing that has grown and grown.
It's gonna destroy the republican party if Huckabee gets the nomination. He's pro-Tax, Pro-amnesty etc... It's not even the same fucking party anymore.
Can we at least agree that Ron Paul would be a better candidate than HuckaWho cares? His campaign is over, no need to talk about him anymore.
Who cares? His campaign is over, no need to talk about him anymore.
Who cares? His campaign is over, no need to talk about him anymore.
Im trying to reach out, be friendly and reconcile. :-\
No need to kick me while im down.
learn to talk about the election and politics with the candidates that remain. Just drop paul and discuss whats really going on.
but why? You admit he cant win, whats the point?learn to talk about the election and politics with the candidates that remain. Just drop paul and discuss whats really going on.
He is still in the race. I can still talk about him.
but why? You admit he cant win, whats the point?learn to talk about the election and politics with the candidates that remain. Just drop paul and discuss whats really going on.
He is still in the race. I can still talk about him.
I cant think of anything stranger in the last 50 years of primary politics.but why? You admit he cant win, whats the point?learn to talk about the election and politics with the candidates that remain. Just drop paul and discuss whats really going on.
He is still in the race. I can still talk about him.
I didnt admit he cant win, I jsut said that it got even harder than it was before which was already an uphill battle. It probably wont happen, but if it did than it wouldnt be the strangest thing to ever happen in politics.
Who cares? His campaign is over, no need to talk about him anymore.
Im trying to reach out, be friendly and reconcile. :-\
No need to kick me while im down.
in the spirit of reconciliation I will admit I'd rather vote for Ron Paul than Huckabee. however I WILL vote for OBAMA
God, I hate the primary system. We are deciding our candidates because of a handful of small ass states.
uhh... Ron Paul is only saying that we should follow the constitution. He's not saying we should follow Jesus.and america laughed at him.
uhh... Ron Paul is only saying that we should follow the constitution. He's not saying we should follow Jesus.
uhh... Ron Paul is only saying that we should follow the constitution. He's not saying we should follow Jesus.and america laughed at him.
Likeability wise and that is very very very hard to do, its a shitty field I'd say out of the remaining front runners:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee
No need to rank the rest
uhh... Ron Paul is only saying that we should follow the constitution. He's not saying we should follow Jesus.
no shit? i'm merely pointing out that you and the jesus freaks have something in common -- blind faith in a candidate who preaches DOGMA, not practical solutions, and that you believe your dogma comprises what is best for america
Clearly he needs more blimps.uhh... Ron Paul is only saying that we should follow the constitution. He's not saying we should follow Jesus.and america laughed at him.
No they didnt. Most of america doesnt even know about him.
and signs over freeway overpasses. can't underestimate those.
abolishing the fda/doe/fed reserve bank are hardly practical ideas, and the gold standard is straight-up religious mumbo-jumbo mysticism.
FoC, I suggest you consider supporting another candidate. maybe not as much as Paul, but at least make your support go to somebody with a chance.
Well, at least change your avatar. How about "We Lament Ron Paul"
why?
okay, don't vote. you could at least keep political discussion here on a realistic track though.
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.
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.
so says the guy who claimed we'd be "OWNED" today.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.
Why does our military need an air force? We won the Spanish-American War fine without them.
unlike NASA amirteWhy 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 amirteThe hubble telescope helps us spy on commies!!!!!
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.
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.
No, in terms of who I'd like to see president:
1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. MIA
Obama:
6/10 on issues
5/10 in blackness
Good Lord but PD is dumb.
Good Lord but PD is dumb.
This is true. The irony of him trying to rank someone's blackness, however, is delicioso.
Who I'd like to see president:Pretty much. Though like someone said earlier he needs to elaborate more.
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
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!
Chelsea Clinton 7/10
(http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/2175/chelseaclintonnr9.jpg)
Looks like daddy taught her well
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.
Mandark, do you have a setting other than "self-righteous douchebag" you can set yourself to?
Hey, it looks like no one's getting their candidate of choice.Huh? On the dem side the internet darling is winning.
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.
(http://www.yesIputyouinthesamecategoryasFoC.com/becauseyouearnedit/thatswhy.html)
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.
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.
why do you not support universal healthcare, pdI know thats pretty wtf to me too.
in what bizarre universe would corporations implement universal healthcare, especially for the unemployed, sick, insane, or elderly?
in what bizarre universe would corporations implement universal healthcare, especially for the unemployed, sick, insane, or elderly?
in what bizarre universe would corporations implement universal healthcare, especially for the unemployed, sick, insane, or elderly?
in what bizarre universe would corporations implement universal healthcare, especially for the unemployed, sick, insane, or elderly?
If you are so worried about these folks why dont you give money to a non-profit organization to help them.
in what bizarre universe would corporations implement universal healthcare, especially for the unemployed, sick, insane, or elderly?
What does that have to do with anything? We cant force people to help themselves. People need to help their own self.
You keep saying this will be the solution in your free market libertopia, but as it is right now not enough people do contribute to non-profits to help everyone in need
lolz it's not our job to help people to help themselves lolz
some people can't help themselves (sick, insane, elderly, handicapped, distinguished mentally-challenged), nor should everybody feel obligated to help themselves according to one particular doctrine/ethos of life.
Whatever happened to your tenet of individualism -- or is that only the case when the individual makes lifestyle decisions that agree with yours, cultist? why should ANYONE be denied access to medical care?
I was about to type up a nice big, long post, but then I remembered who I'm talking at here, so I'll just say
I was about to type up a nice big, long post, but then I remembered who I'm talking at here, so I'll just say
Or because you cant, you're argument basically comes down to socialism.
I was about to type up a nice big, long post, but then I remembered who I'm talking at here, so I'll just say
Or because you cant, you're argument basically comes down to socialism.
healthcare brought to us by bush administration cronies? don't we have only a year left of that? previous presidents have run very tight ships for governmental organizations and bodies.
it is the governments job to assure the well-being of its citizenry -- if you disagree, well, hell, why do you want a standing army? do we need a NANNY to shoot at those mean old bad guys? why not let the local governments and states decide if they agree to repel or side with invaders? hell, let the people maintain their own militias and weaponry!
you are nothing without everyone else in your broader community and society.
you cannot be rich without other people. you cannot be smart, or famous, or accomplished without other people. you cannot thrive without other people. hence, you give up "freedoms" and resources to support them, and health care is a very fundamental component of that supportSo we should do anything that, keeps our nation healthier? What about torture? I bet we could find solid arguments for torture keeping us safer, certainly the will of the people after 9/11 was what brought us in Iraq. That was argued that it was in our national safety, was that a good idea?
and it's appalling that we pretend that we should rely on charity, and not EVERYONE, to support it seeing as we ALL directly AND indirectly benefit from a healthy society.
Oh I can,
your argument "basically comes down to" libertarianism, which, as an -ism -- i.e. political and doctrinal dogma as unreasoned and unsupported save for its nice epistemological package -- is at best EQUALLY distinguished mentally-challenged as socialism, and it worst, even more so.
No my argument comes down to free markets and choice. Something you dont seem to like. I guess we should just force stuff on to you because its the will of the people.
Git R Dune
I think its funny that you are calling me a racist with nothing to back it up. :lol Go ahaed keep calling it to me. It would be like me saying that your life isnt worthless.
1. You realize im not a fan of bush right? And you do realize that current healthcare existed before bush.
2. Actually the reason we will never be invaded is because of our right to own guns. My history professor told me that when Mcarthur was in Japan after WW@ he asked why they didnt invade America. Their answer? It would be a door to door fight. Our Right to won guns is the reason our country will never be felled by a foreign invasion.
3. Maybe you arent, but I feel fine being able to choose my communities.
4. So we should do anything that, keeps our nation healthier? What about torture? I bet we could find solid arguments for torture keeping us safer, certainly the will of the people after 9/11 was what brought us in Iraq. That was argued that it was in our national safety, was that a good idea?
5. Why can't I chose what I benefit from? Isnt that what freedom is? Choice.
No my argument comes down to free markets and choice. Something you dont seem to like. I guess we should just force stuff on to you because its the will of the people.
Hey guess what? The majority of americans believe in God. I guess according to drinky we better teach god in school!
No my argument comes down to free markets and choice. Something you dont seem to like. I guess we should just force stuff on to you because its the will of the people.
Dont forget Franklins analogy.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. "
“You want to know about voting. I’m here to tell you about voting.
“Imagine you’re locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun. And you ain’t allowed out until you all vote on what you’re going to do tonight.
“You like to put your feet up and watch ‘Republican Party Reservation’ [a TV soap]. They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed.
“So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades.
“That’s voting. You’re welcome.”
Actually the reason we will never be invaded is because of our right to own guns. My history professor told me that when Mcarthur was in Japan after WW@ he asked why they didnt invade America. Their answer? It would be a door to door fight. Our Right to won guns is the reason our country will never be felled by a foreign invasion.
Universal Healthcare is good for the following reasons apart from altruistic reasons pointed out before:I am for universal health care, but I think your points are weak.
1) Health Insurance rarely covers everything. Those who are 'easing the burden' and who pay taxes for Universal Healthcare also benefit from it.
2) Markets. The first reason is the middle/upper class who without a healthcare safety net would be less inclined to spend within the market and rather save for a rainy day. The second are the poors, since if the poors get sick where is your labour force going to come from? Lastly companies like GM who would greatly reduce their health care debt and thus be competitve in the market again e.g. creation of jobs etc.
Actually the reason we will never be invaded is because of our right to own guns. My history professor told me that when Mcarthur was in Japan after WW@ he asked why they didnt invade America. Their answer? It would be a door to door fight. Our Right to won guns is the reason our country will never be felled by a foreign invasion.
:lol
You're an idiot, your history professor is an idiot, and Macarthur was an idiot.
Universal Healthcare is good for the following reasons apart from altruistic reasons pointed out before:I am for universal health care, but I think your points are weak.
1) Health Insurance rarely covers everything. Those who are 'easing the burden' and who pay taxes for Universal Healthcare also benefit from it.
2) Markets. The first reason is the middle/upper class who without a healthcare safety net would be less inclined to spend within the market and rather save for a rainy day. The second are the poors, since if the poors get sick where is your labour force going to come from? Lastly companies like GM who would greatly reduce their health care debt and thus be competitve in the market again e.g. creation of jobs etc.
1. Universal health care doesn't cover everything either. Countries do not have infinite resources so they do not cover everything.
2. I don't see why the rich would be more inclined to spend with universal health care. In order to be fiscally responsible you would have to raise their taxes by an amount that is far great than what they actually spend on medical insurance at the moment. So, if anything, they would have less to spend.
I wasn't aware that the US had a labor shortage because of health care.
Some companies might benefit and some companies that do not have large health expenses might not because of the increased taxes which would likely be needed.
I am for universal health care, but I think your points are weak.1. I'm not sure you're point is correct. Universal Healthcare should cover non-elective procedures. You may have to wait a few hours/months/years or not necessarily receive the best treatment but in the end you do.
1. Universal health care doesn't cover everything either. Countries do not have infinite resources so they do not cover everything.
2. I don't see why the rich would be more inclined to spend with universal health care. In order to be fiscally responsible you would have to raise their taxes by an amount that is far great than what they actually spend on medical insurance at the moment. So, if anything, they would have less to spend.
I wasn't aware that the US had a labor shortage because of health care.
Some companies might benefit and some companies that do not have large health expenses might not because of the increased taxes which would likely be needed.
2. I don't see why the rich would be more inclined to spend with universal health care. In order to be fiscally responsible you would have to raise their taxes by an amount that is far great than what they actually spend on medical insurance at the moment. So, if anything, they would have less to spend.
What did you guys think of Obama healthcare plan at the debate lsat night? Is doesn't include everyone... It leaves out people who dont want to be insured. OMG thats fucking terrible, how dare people choose for themselves!!! Only the government can choose for them.
The thing about FoC is that if you go to other internet boards, they are saying the exact same things he is. All Ron Paul fans are so eerily lockstep that Ron Paul's fanbase resembles more of a cult than grassroots support.
This is why FoC gets ruined in every debate. Once he runs out of Ron Paul talking points, he has no more material to go by so he either tries to derail the thread or he ducks out for a day until the subject matter changes.
Instant Ron Paul posts. Insert these babies into every debate:
The founding fathers believe that ______
______ is bad. It is socialism.
Let the free market decide the fate of _______
No ____ happened in the past. Only when government intervention took place did ____ happen. Government creates problems more than solves.
I'm more scared of the government than _______
Ayn Rand is better than _______
_________ is just liberal trash.
_________ is what the (Illuminati/Bilderbergs/people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation) want you to think.
mob of ron paul supporters chase sean hannity through the streets saying fox news sucks.
Do you disagree?would I be part of a mob shouting that at sean hannity while chasing him?
would I be part of a mob shouting that at sean hannity while chasing him?
LOOKS LIKE RON PAUL FINISHES FIFTH, BEHIND A GUY WHO DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER CAMPAIGNING
Apparently FlameOfCallandor visited Miami recently. An overpass near where I live has Ron Paul graffiti all over it. :-\
Apparently FlameOfCallandor visited Miami recently. An overpass near where I live has Ron Paul graffiti all over it. :-\
Apparently FlameOfCallandor visited Miami recently. An overpass near where I live has Ron Paul graffiti all over it. :-\
Nice! Im really curious about what all of us are going to do after Ron Paul loses.
I dont think so.Say its Hillary vs. McCain or Huckabee (the likely outcome)
i'm not sure if even *i'd* vote for hillary! if i do, it will be because huckabee is running against her
I'd rather have Huckabee than Hillary any day of the week. He was actually ok in the last debate.
LOOKS LIKE RON PAUL FINISHES FIFTH, BEHIND A GUY WHO DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER CAMPAIGNING
Yea I know it sucks. But do you really want guiliani to win?
You're the one gloating over Guiliani beating Ron Paul. I would say that there isnt much to be happy about in that situation.
I'd rather have Huckabee than Hillary any day of the week. He was actually ok in the last debate.
You would rather have a fascist president?
so you're moving your pony from the gold standard cult to the young earth one? from OMG FREEDOM to OMG BIBLE PUT THEM GAYS IN CAMPS just because gloating forum democrats pissed you off?
You would rather have a fascist president?
No, but apparently more Americans would.
Actually I cant believe I asked you that. Of course a socialist wouldnt have a problem with a fascist leader.
so you're moving your pony from the gold standard cult to the young earth one? from OMG FREEDOM to OMG BIBLE PUT THEM GAYS IN CAMPS just because gloating forum democrats pissed you off?
i dont give a shit about the bible. But I would rather have him than Hillary.
Actually I cant believe I asked you that. Of course a socialist wouldnt have a problem with a fascist leader.
he's pointing out that your candidate is LESS POPULAR than even a crazy old nazi fuckbag like giuliani. this should not be taken as support for giuliani in any way, but rather a note at JUST HOW FUCKIN' KOOKY-ASS RON PAUL is.
so you'd support a bible-fueled fascist over a big-business establishment dino?
fascists and libertarians are just different sides of the same extremist coin to the sane, kiddo
fascists and libertarians are just different sides of the same extremist coin to the sane, kiddo
Somehow smaller government is the same coin as consolidation and growing of power of a state.
??? ???
and what have the supporters of "fascism" as you perceive it done in these primariesPatriot act, suspending habeas corpus, an everlasting war. All these things are what the other republicans and most democrats support. I'm against that. If it takes a few "extreme" events such as chasing a dude that supports these ideals down a street than I am all for it.
interesting that you prefer extremists to moderates, though
Huckabee is a psychotic God-tard.
the bible doesn't leave much wiggle room when it comes to the legislation of civil behavior.
Not all evangelicals are fucktards who want to mix government and religion.
Not all evangelicals are fucktards who want to mix government and religion.
evangelical folks don't believe in small government, dingdong.
Not all evangelicals are fucktards who want to mix government and religion.
but all evangelicals are fucktards -- the majority who want to mix government and religion are simply an academic distinction.
We are witnessing the nascent stages of a party line republican here.
We are witnessing the nascent stages of a party line republican here.
While they both stink, give me an evangelical republican over a socialist any day.
so you'd take religious fascism over democratic socialism? way to piss in freedom's mouth, hypocrite!
yeah, you're in the formative stages of becoming a party-line republican.
How is she not a socialist?
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community
a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
PEEDEE how do you feel about Triumph saying you arent black enough?
Quotea socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
-Winston Churchill
Huckabee is about the worse outcome we could have from this race. God help us if that loon gets in.
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill
You need to watch yourself with these Reader's Digest arguments from historical authority.
I'm saying that you should stop quoting other people, and try to form your own sentences.
Something is not more or less valid because some admired historical figure said so.
I just found out about the racism in Paul's newsletters. there's no way he would have not known about that much racism in his own newsletter for that long a period of time.
I just found out about the racism in Paul's newsletters. there's no way he would have not known about that much racism in his own newsletter for that long a period of time.
there's no way he didn't know about it.
there's no way he didn't know about it.
here's an ignorant question that i would like an answer to - prefaced that i am a distinguished mentally-challenged fellow at politics and how the process worksI think they're allowed to keep it for themselves? I'm not sure. But that would explain why there's a $15,000 limit to how much you can donate.
Ron Paul is raising all this money, people are donating to this guy, breaking records, he must be doing great right? Are those donations basically funding his "workers" unlike...
Rudy Guilani, who is apparently broke as a joke, with people working for free
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/11/post_272.html
Ron Paul loses, he's back to square one
What happens to all those donations? Does he keep them? Stash it away for next time? I hope I worded that right
I just think, that if I were to donate all my time and resources to this guy and just lose, it seems like a big waste in the end and I find out I can't even pay my car bill now because I donated to "freedom" and Ron Paul
I think they're allowed to keep it for themselves?
You can't post that gibberish without answering my distinguished mentally-challenged fellow question
I doubt he needs any help winning his district and I really doubt he wants to donate anything to the GOP. He might just donate it all to the libertarian party. lol
He probably will finish third by default in this race. He isnt dropping out any time soon.by constantly getting 5th?
He probably will finish third by default in this race. He isnt dropping out any time soon.
Romney might drop out after Michigan. Huckabee is the gayest candidate ever and conservatives hate him. McCain will probably win.wow, gay? What a awesome term to describe someone. Huckabee did better than Paul in every state so far and will in MI, SC, and Florida.
Romney might drop out after Michigan. Huckabee is the gayest candidate ever and conservatives hate him. McCain will probably win.
i saw my first ron paul sign on the side of the road today
this must be what it felt like in feardotcom when the ghosts started leaking into the real world from the internet
The race isnt over yet. He still has money unlike some candidates. If anything Thompson and Guiliani should drop out first.so he'll magically have a comeback on Feb 5th in 2 weeks? Because the race is more or less over after that.
No, I no he doesnt have a real chance of winning, but stop acting like the republican side is over. If Guiliani and Thompson are still in the race than so is Ron Paul.I don't consider either of those 2 (thompson and rudy) at having any serious shot at the nomination. Nor do I think Romney can. It'll be either McCain or Huckabee. SC will make that more clear of which of the two has the better shot.
I have to say I'm impressed by Paul's showing. He never had a shot at winning, but he's doing a lot better than I thought he possibly could --- beating Giuliani?! Has any libertarian candidate generated this much interest before? Despite Paul's crazier positions and his support from unsavory characters like the American Nazis and FoC, his success as one of the few genuinely antiwar candidates is probably a good sign.to be fair Rudy is barely campaigning in early states. He is focused on Florida, Paul won't come close to how Rudy does there.
You've got a support base that molds its ideas to fit its leaders rather than the other way around, a willingness to swallow any crackpot rejection of conventional knowledge, no long-term infrastructure to support a movement past the election, etc.Lawl. no.
to be fair Rudy is barely campaigning in early states. He is focused on Florida, Paul won't come close to how Rudy does there.
This has been coming for ages. Anyone who did not buy GOLD Bullion over the last few years is not looking closely enough at ALL the markets. Yes gold shares are down big, but solid, in your hand, GOLD is still holding up well thank you very much. Its down just a touch as a few holders sell to meet margin calls on paper money. The world currency printing presses are working overtime and inflation is here to stay. The US Fed will try to print its way out of this one and cause a financial Tsunami. GOLD is the only way to retain real wealth and buying power. On top of that you can buy and sell TAX FREE. Look at the graphs, GOLD is the only thing holding up. If you havn't got a couple of dozen ounces, you are set for the poor house. Oh by the way, property is next on the list so all you property investors watch out, your going to be bitten hard. Nothing goes up forever. Following the heard is a sure fire way to loose. When GOLD is the topic of discussion at BBQ's I will be selling.Looks like Gold Standard advocates aren't only in the US. :lol
Posted by: Steve of Adelaide 4:11pm today
Comment 346 of 353
I dont think gold will mean anything until we're all living in the Max Max universe and trading teeth for spare tires.