Even the conspiracy nuts love him?! I love him to though ;)
Honestly I'd vote for him. I do think Obama has done some good things too i'm not all hurf durf I only vote for such party everytime. I vote whichever party I can agree with most at the time and this time its Ron Paul.
Why would you ever use a clip filled mostly by Alex Jones? The guy is just as crazy as most of the republicans that attempt to hold office, and the vast majority of facepunch agrees that republicans are batshit crazy. This guy is pro-life creationist, [url=http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/]he doesn't believe evolution[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]doesn't believe in separation of church and state[/url], [url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html]wants to KEEP don't ask don't tell[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html]believes the states should be able ban anal sex[/url], and many more bat-shit insane conservative things that I could find direct quotations of him for. The guy is a republican through and through.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31882533]Why would you ever use a clip filled mostly by Alex Jones? The guy is just as crazy as most of the republicans that attempt to hold office, and the vast majority of facepunch agrees that republicans are batshit crazy. This guy is pro-life creationist, [url=http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/]he doesn't believe evolution[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]doesn't believe in separation of church and state[/url], [url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html]wants to KEEP don't ask don't tell[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html]believes the states should be able ban anal sex[/url], and many more bat-shit insane conservative things that I could find direct quotations of him for. The guy is a republican through and through.[/QUOTE]
Well he is the best the Republicans got, he want to stop war, he hates the federal reserve, he want liberty like the us had before.
I don't care if he is evolutionist and christian. Look at what we have to pick.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31883156]Well he is the best the Republicans got, he want to stop war, he hates the federal reserve, he want liberty like the us had before.
I don't care if he is evolutionist and christian. Look at what we have to pick.[/QUOTE]
What are you actually smoking? Do you even know what the word "liberty" means? The guy believes states have the right to tell you how to have sex, and you think he stands for liberty? Liberty is not some kind of word that means "awesome", you can't be for taking away rights and freedoms and be for "liberty".
He's gonna get elected how every president in America does.
American Idol style popularity contest with no regard to what he's actually saying. :downs:
Elspin, I was gonna get one you for just coming in here to rate people dumb without reading their posts, but then I realized they earned every box. Good on you.
Who is Ron Paul anyways
Thanks Elspin for sharing your boxes, even though I have never posted my opinion on this subject in this
thread.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31883237]What are you actually smoking? Do you even know what the word "liberty" means? The guy believes states have the right to tell you how to have sex, and you think he stands for liberty? Liberty is not some kind of word that means "awesome", you can't be for taking away rights and freedoms and be for "liberty".[/QUOTE]
No he believes in that's it up to the state to choose, he also support individual liberty and a free market.
But i agree with you, perhaps some people enjoy airport security and lobby groups that run the country.
Air secruity might laugh at your tiny balls, but Ron Paul won't be hinding under a homosexual couples bed.
[QUOTE=Thugaim;31883724]Thanks Elspin for sharing your boxes, even though I have never posted my opinion on this subject in this
thread.[/QUOTE]
Ratings can be changed by re-rating the post, if I was mistaken in thinking you're for him then I'll change it.
[editline]22nd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31884030]No he believes in that's it up to the state to choose, he also support individual liberty and a free market.
But i agree with you, perhaps some people enjoy airport security and lobby groups that run the country.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit. Your post says "Yeah he thinks the government should have control! But I'm sure people like YOU enjoy the government control on the airport!".
You actually stated that it's a good thing that the state should be given the right to control your personal life, then went on to say people like me lobby for state control. Figures why you're supportive of this guy, you don't even know what your platform is.
[QUOTE=Shellman Deluxe;31883690]Who is Ron Paul anyways[/QUOTE]
A dude running for president in the US, he wants to do good but has no idea on how to run a country.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31884041]Ratings can be changed by re-rating the post, if I was mistaken in thinking you're for him then I'll change it.
[editline]22nd August 2011[/editline]
Holy shit. Your post says "Yeah he thinks the government should have control! But I'm sure people like YOU enjoy the government control on the airport!".
You actually stated that it's a good thing that the state should be given the right to control your personal life, then went on to say people like me lobby for state control. Figures why you're supportive of this guy, you don't even know what your platform is.[/QUOTE]
Of course, major questions differ from state to state. I see no problem with that.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;31884078]A dude running for president in the US, he wants to do good but has no idea on how to run a country.[/QUOTE]
Lets elect a dude that want to stop the war, get the Nobel peace prize and then take part of another war.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31884030]Air secruity might laugh at your tiny balls, but Ron Paul won't be hinding under a homosexual couples bed.[/QUOTE]
...So now you're on to bashing homosexual couples, and making crude reference's to my genitals.
bush sucked,obama sucks,and if this guy sucks imma just give up.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31884109]...So now you're on to bashing homosexual couples, and making crude reference's to my genitals.[/QUOTE]
When did i bash homosexual couples? :P And airport scan't just see your balls they can see everyones.
I just think it's more important to remove the secruity anti terrorist bullshit first. People can have all the anal sex they want.
He also want to make drugs legal.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31884098]Of course, major questions differ from state to state. I see no problem with that.[/QUOTE]
That's not the problem, the problem is you literally had two sentences in your post, one with the message:"Government control is good! Go Ron Paul!" and the second one with the message "People like you want government control!". It's nutty. You don't even know what YOU'RE saying, better yet the ability to investigate a political candidate.
I'm against the ridiculous airport security, but even more than that I'm against a government trying to define what is and isn't okay in your bedroom.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31884241]That's not the problem, the problem is you literally had two sentences in your post, one with the message:"Government control is good! Go Ron Paul!" and the second one with the message "People like you want government control!". It's nutty. You don't even know what YOU'RE saying, better yet the ability to investigate a political candidate.
I'm against the ridiculous airport security, but even more than that I'm against a government trying to define what is and isn't okay in your bedroom.[/QUOTE]
I just think it's more important to remove bat shit insane stuff like the patriot act and other omfg terrorist restrictions. Ron Paul is the best candidate i seen for that, however i agree that whatever sexual desires should be up to the individual.
If you can fix them both, i will vote on you.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31884186]When did i bash homosexual couples? :P And airport scan't just see your balls they can see everyones.[/QUOTE]
What does airport security being able to see everyones balls have to do with anything. As for bashing homosexual couples you're going on about how Ron Paul's not afraid to stand up, he's not "Hiding under a homosexual couple's bed". Well, actually, you said "Hinding" but I'm fairly sure you meant "Hiding". Correct me if I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31884186]I just think it's more important to remove the secruity anti terrorist bullshit first. People can have all the anal sex they want.
He also want to make drugs legal.[/QUOTE]
Uh... that's the point. Ron Paul is saying that it's the states right to limit you from doing just that. In fact, not only that, Ron Paul believes it's the state's right to regulate you from doing just about anything in the bedroom, and then paradoxically states that he's about freedom.
I'm not gonna deny that he's got a few good platforms, ending prohibition and the wars are two big things that a lot of us agree on, but the rest of his platform is batshit insane policies that are on par with 1984. For christs sake he thinks it's alright to have STATE ENFORCED RELIGION. He does not believe in [b]SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE[/b]
@Elspin:
read the constitution (10th amendment)
thank you idiot
[QUOTE=semite;31884551]@Elspin:
read the constitution (10th amendment)
thank you idiot[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government [b]nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution[/b] are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [b]applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.[/b][/QUOTE]
Wasn't this guy a joke a few years back?
[img]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-4/ron-paul-sad.jpg[/img]
Sad :(
Chose between a libertarian christian (R. Paul), a corporate mormon (M. Romney) or a ignorant soccermom (M. Bachmann), America.
[QUOTE=Thugaim;31907604]Chose between a libertarian christian (R. Paul), a corporate mormon (M. Romney) or a ignorant soccermom (M. Bachmann), America.[/QUOTE]
or Obama, best out of all of them, even if he isn't the best fixer, I think those other candidates will hurt America just like bush did.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31882533]This guy is pro-life creationist, [url=http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/]he doesn't believe evolution[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't understand why this matters unless you can somehow prove he's going to pull a Bachmann and try to force everyone to have his beliefs. But if you understand Libertarianism which is essentially classic liberalism, it should be obvious that he would do nothing to force his beliefs on you as ideals dictate society based on voluntary action and he makes this belief pretty clear.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31882533][url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]doesn't believe in separation of church and state[/url]
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html]believes the states should be able ban anal sex[/url],[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you don't understand that what you have come to understand church and state to mean is not at all in the Constitution, and even it if was, it would only apply to the Federal Government. This is shown quite clearly in all court cases prior to 1890. If base constitutional law on history, you should believe the same. Look into the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
The first article you give is also quite a bad example as the government not permitting religious actives would be an infringement upon the very notion that you're saying he does not support. A lot of what he's complaining about here is more the politically incorrect notion, but also a bit about the movement to ban prayer and religious stuff in public areas. He certainly does not endorse government endorsement of religion. Also on the issue of school prayer put forward a bill that would prohibit public schools from class led prayer, but would not prohibit individuals from praying on their own.
What's also good to understand is that he believes in more of local governance in that communities should have their own standards. There would still be issues, but they would instead be on a local level as opposed to on a national level,
Like most people you only accept an overreach of Federal Power when you agree with it, which is quite the moral hazard as you establish that rules can be broken if they benefits my cause. Regardless of whether you cause is worthy or not, your cause unlawfully being put through gives president for other unlawful causes being put through that you may not agree with at all.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31882533][url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html]wants to KEEP don't ask don't tell[/url][/QUOTE]
Did you even read your own source or do you lack the ability to read past the first sentence.
[quote]PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy.
And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups.
We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.
So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.
But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.
So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.[/quote]
I think that's enough to be said.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31882533]The guy is a republican through and through.[/quote]
Not exactly how that is true because he's always been seen as far from a Republican until recently when Republicans have become more like that. Even then, what Republican politician is arguing for
-ending the war on drugs
-allowing prostitution
-ending the wars
-withdrawing troops from foreign soil
-a different monetary policy
-the end of subsides
-the end of government enabled marriage
-not using force to change people or their habits
I can go on, but as usually, people that do this stuff are usually misinformed or don't understand his beliefs, especially regarding marriage. I'm guessing you'll bring up the news paper articles and claim he's a racist.
Also, I shouldn't need to clarify this, but Alex Jones isn't a good source to listen to.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31883237]What are you actually smoking? Do you even know what the word "liberty" means? The guy believes states have the right to tell you how to have sex, and you think he stands for liberty? Liberty is not some kind of word that means "awesome", you can't be for taking away rights and freedoms and be for "liberty".[/QUOTE]
You're making a straw man argument because you're painting to picture as though that being in support of states rights is being in support of what the state does. You'd only have a point if the reason he has against the Federal Government overturning that law was that he believed that anal sex should be banned, but his opposition is clearly to an overreach of the Federal Government.
A bad comparison to make is being in favor of free speech, and affirming that the WBB has the right do and say what they do. Most people are rational enough to know that you be affirming their right that you aren't condoning their principals, yet people seem to not realize that this matter is the same issue.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31884488]Uh... that's the point. Ron Paul is saying that it's the states right to limit you from doing just that. In fact, not only that, Ron Paul believes it's the state's right to regulate you from doing just about anything in the bedroom, and then paradoxically states that he's about freedom.
I'm not gonna deny that he's got a few good platforms, ending prohibition and the wars are two big things that a lot of us agree on, but the rest of his platform is batshit insane policies that are on par with 1984. For christs sake he thinks it's alright to have STATE ENFORCED RELIGION. He does not believe in [b]SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE[/b][/QUOTE]
You are pulling a strawman again. I've already addressed this, but I'll just say that he's a Constitutionalist and follows it quite close. In the second paragraph you're just making hyperbole. I can do the same with a similar principal. I assume you support free speech, which must mean that you agree with NAMBLA since your position enables them to say those things. If you were opposed to what NAMBLA advocates, you'd be rational and opposed freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=labbet;31908090]or Obama, best out of all of them, even if he isn't the best fixer, I think those other candidates will hurt America just like bush did.[/QUOTE]
No, Obama is a lying smooth talking scumbag, he didn't pull out of countries like he said he would and started even more conflicts and pulling free healthcare in a recession is fucking bullshit.
Although, this infowars guy has made alot of mistakes that sort of revealed he was an agressive maniac (ie screaming) but he's right about this. Or at least half right, especially about what the media is doing, because there's no other explanation.
[QUOTE=Elspin;31884955]idiocy[/QUOTE]
Your post explains nothing and only perpetuates your misinformed idiocy. Furthermore, I would like to state that you got your ass handed to you by Pepin.
The founders were very clear about separation of church and state. You can find out more about it from this series of videos:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITmKiGwapk4[/media]
It's obvious that you are just an angry 14 year old faggot. Please refrain from posting until you can properly inform yourself. Thank you, and goodnight.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming, again" - Autumn))[/highlight]
Ron Paul for president seems like it's been a running joke for a while....and it coul be reality?! wat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
