Ron Paul pleases supporters at rally with his ideas of liberty - Polidicks

How did this become an argument over internet censorship and child porn?

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;34787653]How did this become an argument over internet censorship and child porn?[/QUOTE] Arguments over the internet seem to always come to one of four things: economics, censorship, religion, or piracy. It used to be three, but then SOPA and the rest came up and added censorship to the mix.

Oh right, people who think we're in an ideal world. Yeah, censorship is unavoidable.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;34782770]Race is incorrect, an employee of his doing something who he then fires is not the same as him, abortion he wants the states to decide on. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwUAk3bAeoE&feature=channel_video_title[/media][/QUOTE] Oh look. It's [I]this[/I] video again. Well let me debunk this video. On the newsletters: While no one can say with certainty that Paul authored the racist portions or is a racist, he defended their contents in 1996 and didn't deny authorship until 2001, when he said he wished he'd denied authorship. He, during this election, has been blatantly lying about and downplaying the newsletters, whether he wrote them or not. On abortion: This falls under my biggest genuine problem with Ron Paul, and why, even if I did agree with his views, I wouldn't vote for him. He's a hard core state's righter. After taking away a bunch of useful powers from the Federal government and handing them over to the states, he'd most likely sit on his thumb saying that on a variety of issues his hands would be tied by state's rights. Not to mention as a strict constructionalist he's going to let congress have most of the power, and does anyone here really want congress to have more power? State's rights is a moribund issue that is a cop-out answer to national problems. We're not a confederation, we're a nation. On war (or more specifically the author's view on imminence of a third world war): ... Ok now that I'm done laughing at that again, let me explain why that's hilarious. 1. Obama is hardly a Pro-War candidate. The Republican ones do indeed support war with Iran, but Obama? He's sent letters to them saying he's fine with a peaceful nuclear program and repeatedly stated he wants peace and diplomacy. Israel is the one doing the Sabre rattling, and if we go to war with Iran it'll be by their decision. Obama is standing by our ally, or at least saying he will (I hope we leave Israel out to dry), he's not warmongering. I'm not sure if Obama has made any commitment to go to war if Israel does anyway. 2. The implication is that Russia/China will go to war with us if we invade Iran. Apparently this author learned foreign policy from Battlefield 3 or something, because there's no way that's going to happen. China has shown increasing hostility towards Iran, and I really don't see any evidence that Russia will go one way or the other. Neither would go to war with us anyway, because in a global economy if you start blowing people in a nation as large as America up you're either blowing up your best producers or your best consumers. It just doesn't make sense for this to happen. This video shows that the author's view on Ron Paul is based primarily on his incredibly poor assumptions about foreign policy, and therefore this video and others by the author should be disregarded until he debunks his own views on the subject.

This debate has been going well and all, but it would be better if we talked about Abortion more. (I'm kidding now) And also, Ron Paul would simply worsen the problem of Corporate Personhood in this country. Corporations and Fetuses will have more rights than people at this rate.

[QUOTE=person11;34788607]This debate has been going well and all, but it would be better if we talked about Abortion more. (I'm kidding now) And also, Ron Paul would simply worsen the problem of Corporate Personhood in this country. Corporations and Fetuses will have more rights than people at this rate.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul said he believes that corporations aren't people so I don't see how he could worsen corporate personhood

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34789662]Ron Paul said he believes that corporations aren't people so I don't see how he could worsen corporate personhood[/QUOTE] His policies will allow corporations to gain even more power than they have now by offloading things that should be done by governments onto private corporations. Whether he thinks they are people are not does not matter.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34786897] But I will say that things like internet censorship (that are happening [i]right now[/i]) are more important than abortion laws that will almost certainly not happen on a federal basis any time soon.[/QUOTE] that's pretty easy to say for a male who goes on the internet.

[QUOTE=person11;34790402]His policies will allow corporations to gain even more power than they have now by offloading things that should be done by governments onto private corporations. Whether he thinks they are people are not does not matter.[/QUOTE] So are you saying that he'll treat corporations better than Mitt Romney, who was a CEO?

[QUOTE=person11;34790402]His policies will allow corporations to gain even more power than they have now by offloading things that should be done by governments onto private corporations. Whether he thinks they are people are not does not matter.[/QUOTE] [img]http://th220.photobucket.com/albums/dd194/ocbw/smilies/th_backpedal.gif[/img] First you said he'll make corporate personhood worse, then as soon as you learn he wouldn't, you say corporate personhood doesn't even matter.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34789662]Ron Paul said he believes that corporations aren't people so I don't see how he could worsen corporate personhood[/QUOTE] is stick it in her pooper like your fitness coach or something

[QUOTE=Cone;34791782]is stick it in her pooper like your fitness coach or something[/QUOTE] Who cares if he goes insane with the ratings? Look what I found on his profile. [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/veryimpressive.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Sanius;34787014]I'd rather have control over my own body than be able to look at pictures of cute cats all day. Human rights come first.[/QUOTE] are you saying that freedom of information and speech aren't human rights

[QUOTE=Sector 7;34792017]are you saying that freedom of information and speech aren't human rights[/QUOTE] Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;34792017]are you saying that freedom of information and speech aren't human rights[/QUOTE] is this a serious post?

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34791699][img]http://th220.photobucket.com/albums/dd194/ocbw/smilies/th_backpedal.gif[/img] First you said he'll make corporate personhood worse, then as soon as you learn he wouldn't, you say corporate personhood doesn't even matter.[/QUOTE] I was not relating Corporate Personhood to the belief that corporations are people. I was using it to mean an environment in witch corporations are not constrained by any regulations. So I still think he would make it worse, and that it matters in that way.

[QUOTE=person11;34793071]I was not relating Corporate Personhood to the belief that corporations are people. I was using it to mean an environment in witch corporations are not constrained by any regulations. So I still think he would make it worse, and that it matters in that way.[/QUOTE] ...corporate personhood is the idea that corporations are people and deserve the same rights as people

[IMG]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/first_post.png[/IMG] Relevant to first page

[del]wait you mean I can get $20 an hour for my sulfurous social commentary? god damn[/del] [h2] SAVE AMERICA VOTE RON PAUL[/h2]

[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1165200"]Ah, crap I dropped something.[/URL]

While he has no chance of becoming the republican nominee, I wish he could become it to see a debate between him and Obama.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;34795935]While he has no chance of becoming the republican nominee, I wish he could become it to see a debate between him and Obama.[/QUOTE] If nothing else, he'd kick Obama's ass about the wars instead of circlejerking about them like the other candidates would. Of course, Obama would proceed to change the topic to something else.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34796932]If nothing else, he'd kick Obama's ass about the wars instead of circlejerking about them like the other candidates would. Of course, Obama would proceed to change the topic to something else.[/QUOTE] Oh cool, more unsubstantiated claims about Obama from a Paul supporter! Don't see those often!

[QUOTE=3noneTwo;34781928]Have [i]any[/i] of the campaign runners said anything about higher wages to match the current state of living? Like, say, to a [i]two-digit[/i] number instead of the current $7.25 federal minimum? It'd be nice to see the US reaching wage rates that are comparable to Australia's "$15.50 / $589.30 per week" or something.[/QUOTE] Late, but... Whilst I entirely agree that the US minimum wage is disgustingly low, please keep in mind that in Australia, [i]everything[/i] is much more expensive than in America. Consumer goods are regularly twice or three times the price of goods in America; things like houses far more so. Teenagers who get the minimum wage and who are students still struggle to live if they're not living at home, because living in Australia is incredibly expensive, particularly if you live in Sydney or Melbourne (the two most popular cities of Australia), which are two of the most expensive cities in the world. For example, it generally costs about $250 - $300 for a student (who is going to be earning close to minimum wage) to rent a one-room student for a week. Actual small one-bedroom apartments generally cost at least $350 a week if you're anywhere near the city, which is where most universities are. Please keep that in mind when you say we're earning "$589.30 per week" (which would mean you'd have to be working full-time, which means you couldn't be studying). [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;34792017]are you saying that freedom of information and speech aren't human rights[/QUOTE] You're setting up a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be that you either support a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, or access to the internet. There are plenty of politicians who support both. Why is why I find people who justify their love for Ron Paul as, "Well, he's the best the GOP has!" So, um, don't support the GOP if you find their politics abhorrent.