• Rand Paul to Declare Presidential Bid
    90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megadave;47474339]People rate this disagree, but can they name someone better?[/QUOTE] Depends what you mean. Better, in terms of doing a better job? There's probably a lot of republicans who would do a better job, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do a shit job. Republicans are fucking nuts.
Lol, on facepunch, anyone who isn't liberal as fuck is deemed a 'nut-job' because only on facepunch are people capable of having the [I]wrong opinion[/I].
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475471]Lol, on facepunch, anyone who isn't liberal as fuck is deemed a 'nut-job' because only on facepunch are people capable of having the [I]wrong opinion[/I].[/QUOTE] If you want to ban abortion you're a retard, end of, it's nothing to do with liberal or republican, bad ideas are just bad ideas.
This is fucking great news. I could get behind a new and reformed (and non-shitty) Republican party with libertarian ideals
Well for one thing about Rand Paul and these "Libertarian Republicans". They seem to take a better step towards moving forward compared to the rest of the GOP. Who all want to be stuck in the 50s. But still there is a few down sides, but hopefully, a small step forward is better more than anything.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47475491]If you want to ban abortion you're a retard, end of, it's nothing to do with liberal or republican, bad ideas are just bad ideas.[/QUOTE] I would find it more retarded to deem someone a nut-job for not sharing your opinion. In a place like America where 'freedom' is flaunted, it's pretty ironic that everyone cries when someone expresses an alternate view. It's a shame that when there's finally a slight shift to left from the Republicans, all people can do is call them out on all of their faults. I don't see people doing that with Obama or the Democrats when there's an actual issue with them.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475520]I would find it more retarded to deem someone a nut-job for not sharing your opinion. In a place like America where 'freedom' is flaunted, it's pretty ironic that everyone cries when someone expresses an alternate view. It's a shame that when there's finally a slight shift to left from the Republicans, all people can do is call them out on all of their faults. I don't see people doing that with Obama or the Democrats when there's an actual issue with them.[/QUOTE] Where did I call him a nutjob again?
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475471]Lol, on facepunch, anyone who isn't liberal as fuck is deemed a 'nut-job' because only on facepunch are people capable of having the [I]wrong opinion[/I].[/QUOTE] Bullshit, people on facepunch can range pretty far right on some issues, most notably gun control [editline]7th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475520]I would find it more retarded to deem someone a nut-job for not sharing your opinion. In a place like America where 'freedom' is flaunted, it's pretty ironic that everyone cries when someone expresses an alternate view. It's a shame that when there's finally a slight shift to left from the Republicans, all people can do is call them out on all of their faults. I don't see people doing that with Obama or the Democrats when there's an actual issue with them.[/QUOTE] Freedom means freedom to disagree with someone and call them a nutjob. It also means freedom to be disagreed with. Nobody is under any obligation to give your wackjob opinions any creedence. And Rand Paul is not a shift to the left; libertarians are even more far right than republicans. Even so, Rand Paul is HARDLY a libertarian in any way. opposes abortion, opposes gay marriage, opposes drug legalization. He's a "libertarian" in two senses: He wants to end the federal reserve (dumbass) and he wants to give the states all the power (even dumber... ass...)
[QUOTE=proboardslol;47475558]Bullshit, people on facepunch can range pretty far right on some issues, most notably gun control[/QUOTE] I wouldn't neccessarily say that gun control is an issue that you can slam on a spectrum. I would argue that it would be more down to a type of person more than anything. I'm right winged but I hate the idea of people being able to own a gun.
That moment when people are taking issue with the fact that Rand Paul is actually trying to force moral policing on the US about LGBT issues and then trying to shrink portions of the government that are required for upward mobility. [B]Like fucking education.[/B]
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47475549]Where did I call him a nutjob again?[/QUOTE] You called him a retard; the implication was agreement with those that had called him a nut-job. You're just being picky.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475585]I wouldn't neccessarily say that gun control is an issue that you can slam on a spectrum. I would argue that it would be more down to a type of person more than anything. I'm right winged but I hate the idea of people being able to own a gun.[/QUOTE] Gun control is absolutely a right wing issue here in the USA. Even so, we're discussing politics in theory without bringing any kind of real world impact into account. On pauls ideas specifically, he is anti-gay, anti-drug legalization, and anti-abortion. These three beliefs have dangerous consequences. I don't like the modern conception of politics as a game for everyone to have an equal opportunity at in which all opinions are to be respected and accounted for; some opinions, whether objectively or subjectively in my own view, are wrong. And politics is the domain in which real life peoples' real lives are affected, and if I believe that someone else's belief is going to hurt other people because their political opinions are anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-drug, I shouldn't be kind or respectful of those beliefs, I should say exactly what I believe about those beliefs: That those beliefs are flat-fuck nuts and should be buried along with the career of whoever espouses them. Politics is a zero-sum game. American politics especially.
I've always had that feeling about people who are anti-gun.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475629]You called him a retard; the implication was agreement with those that had called him a nut-job. You're just being picky.[/QUOTE] Nah, nutjob implies he's crazy, what I implied was that he had the intelligence of a howler monkey. Like I said, the guy wants to get rid of abortion because he disagrees with it on moral grounds, which is awesome until you realise people will still attempt to abort through fistfuls of pills, staircases, coat hangers and back alley abortionists. Yay for lurching backwards, yay for being a retard, yay for Rand Paul. [editline]7th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Megadave;47475642]I've always had that feeling about people who are anti-gun.[/QUOTE] That's neat, but this is the running of a country, feeling shouldn't even begin to enter into the equation.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;47475631]Gun control is absolutely a right wing issue here in the USA. Even so, we're discussing politics in theory without bringing any kind of real world impact into account. On pauls ideas specifically, he is anti-gay, anti-drug legalization, and anti-abortion. These three beliefs have dangerous consequences. I don't like the modern conception of politics as a game for everyone to have an equal opportunity at in which all opinions are to be respected and accounted for; some opinions, whether objectively or subjectively in my own view, are wrong. And politics is the domain in which real life peoples' real lives are affected, and if I believe that someone else's belief is going to hurt other people because their political opinions are anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-drug, I shouldn't be kind or respectful of those beliefs, I should say exactly what I believe about those beliefs: That those beliefs are flat-fuck nuts and should be buried along with the career of whoever espouses them. Politics is a zero-sum game. American politics especially.[/QUOTE] Not sure how anti-drug leagalisation could possibly have 'dangerous consequences'. Sure, you might like drugs but I think 'dangerous consequences' is a vast overstatement if not entirely false.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475656]Not sure how anti-drug leagalisation could possibly have 'dangerous consequences'. Sure, you might like drugs but I think 'dangerous consequences' is a vast overstatement if not entirely false.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate[/url] Did you know that the US has less than 5% of the world population, but 24% of the worlds prison population? That's higher incarceration rates than [b]North Korea[/b]. Is it because Americans commit more crimes than other countries? Technically. [url=http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/prisons_and_drugs#sthash.uMC7GHj4.dpbs]Because half of the prisoners in federal prison are there for drug offenses[/url]. Despite what might be seen as an extremely successful incarceration rate, [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx]drug offenders have a 76.9% recidivism (likeliness to go back to jail) rate[/url], indicating that Jailtime does not in fact prevent future drug use. In fact, [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/08/14/we-cant-afford-to-ignore-drug-addiction-in-prison/]some people who go to jail for non-drug related charges become addicted to drugs while [b]IN[/b] Jail[/url] The disastrous consequence is that Ronny Reagan and Maggy Thatcher's worldwide war on drugs has utterly failed, and has in fact made addiction a worse problem. Legalizing drugs and treating addiction as a public health issue rather than a crime is how you cure addiction.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;47475734][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate[/url] Did you know that the US has less than 5% of the world population, but 24% of the worlds prison population? That's higher incarceration rates than [b]North Korea[/b]. Is it because Americans commit more crimes than other countries? Technically. [url=http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/prisons_and_drugs#sthash.uMC7GHj4.dpbs]Because half of the prisoners in federal prison are there for drug offenses[/url]. Despite what might be seen as an extremely successful incarceration rate, [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx]drug offenders have a 76.9% recidivism (likeliness to go back to jail) rate[/url], indicating that Jailtime does not in fact prevent future drug use. In fact, [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/08/14/we-cant-afford-to-ignore-drug-addiction-in-prison/]some people who go to jail for non-drug related charges become addicted to drugs while [b]IN[/b] Jail[/url] The disastrous consequence is that Ronny Reagan and Maggy Thatcher's worldwide war on drugs has utterly failed, and has in fact made addiction a worse problem. Legalizing drugs and treating addiction as a public health issue rather than a crime is how you cure addiction.[/QUOTE] In addition, Portugal sets a great example of the results of decriminalization of drugs being positive, as highlighted in [URL="http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight"]this article.[/URL] I'm sure you've all seen this before, but I think it's still worth noting.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475471]Lol, on facepunch, anyone who isn't liberal as fuck is deemed a 'nut-job' because only on facepunch are people capable of having the [I]wrong opinion[/I].[/QUOTE] The general gist I get from the Republican party in general is they would love to suppress the rights of everyone who isn't a white straight male. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative and everything to do with the fact that everyone should be treated equally, at least to me. The US's two party system results in a limited selection of poor choices; the Republican party just tends to be the one that, if you care about equal rights for everyone, is objectively worse.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47475833]The general gist I get from the Republican party in general is they would love to suppress the rights of everyone who isn't a white straight male.[/QUOTE] Fuckin hilarious
[QUOTE=-nesto-;47475891]Fuckin hilarious[/QUOTE] It was official party policy for a while. Democrats passed civil rights acts, republicans blocked them. That party from the 1960s and 1970s is the same republican party today, though of course less radical. The republican party didnt fire everyone involved and put in new, progressive people since then, they just simply evolved and understood that racist opinions aren't tolerable in modern society. Someday they'll realize that misogynist, transphobic, and homphobic opinions aren't tolerated either and they'll be in line with whatever legislation comes about to protect those groups. The republicans are always dragging their feet into the ground while the democrats drag them forward
Rand heavily supports Plan B and birth control BTW. It's not like he is against informing the public, he is against what he percieves as killing babies. I can also guarantee you there is no fucking way he can nationally enforce a 100% ban on abortion. Same with same-sex marriage. At worst he vetoes everything like a dick and it gets left up to Supreme Court who pushes it through. Rand is catering to the conservatives with this religion shit; he's actually very fucking moderate for a Republican.
I'd rather see Hillary Clinton in the oval office than this prick
[QUOTE=proboardslol;47475953]Democrats passed civil rights acts, republicans blocked them.[/QUOTE] Dems tried way harder to block civil rights than Repubs. [QUOTE]When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) Breakdown of votes by party House D-152–96 (61–39%) R-138–34 (80–20%) Senate D-46–21 (69–31%) R-27–6 (82–18%)[/QUOTE] Whoa, look at those horrible racist Republicans dragging their feet while the Dems drag forward :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=-nesto-;47476070]Dems tried way harder to block civil rights than Repubs. Whoa, look at those horrible racist Republicans dragging their feet while the Dems drag forward :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] The difference between the Southern Democrats of yesteryear and modern democrats is massive. They're barely comparable. Similarly, the difference between pre-Regan Republicans and post-1990s Religious Right Republicans is equally incomparable. You'd have to be pretty deaf to the words that spill out of the Republicans' mouths to believe that the party isn't full of horribly bigoted and close-minded people.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;47476070]Dems tried way harder to block civil rights than Repubs. Whoa, look at those horrible racist Republicans dragging their feet while the Dems drag forward :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] That was before the southern shift, today's republicans come from those democrats. Know your american history
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47474837]You could just not vote republican. I mean, just stating the obvious for the sake of it, but you really could just not vote for the party who could be outclassed by a selection of exceptionally average 5 year olds.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't believe that the federal government is the solution to every problem, nor do I take liberties with my interpretation of the constitution. Democrats are not an option for me it looks like.
personally I don't like the guy but depending on whose running I may be forced to vote for him. I'm seriously done with the two party system of one side trying to cockblock the other and nothing getting done.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47475520]I would find it more retarded to deem someone a nut-job for not sharing your opinion.[/QUOTE] This is some absolute grade-a partisanship. There's a natural lack of mainstream politicians who want to ban gay marriage and prohibit first trimester abortions and you take that as a sign that something is wrong with society.
[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;47476132]The difference between the Southern Democrats of yesteryear and modern democrats is massive. They're barely comparable. Similarly, the difference between pre-Regan Republicans and post-1990s Religious Right Republicans is equally incomparable. You'd have to be pretty deaf to the words that spill out of the Republicans' mouths to believe that the party isn't full of horribly bigoted and close-minded people.[/QUOTE] Just saw this, figured I'd screen-cap it because it pretty much embodies that last statement. This was in response to a post along the lines of "liberals are pissed at a pizza shop but not at ISIS throwing gays off a building lolk libtards" [img]http://i.imgur.com/nBuNy15.jpg[/img] So to all the people who still believe the Republicans don't stand a chance in hell at winning the next election, look upon this grab, and weep. (I know I did, and this was one of the least painful comment strings for that post) Remember, those types of people are the same types of people who gave us our Republican-majority House and Senate.
Rand Paul is hardly 'libertarian.' He just uses the word because his father, a real libertarian, gained a lot of support for his beliefs. That being said, Rand is no Ron.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.