Ron Paul WINS a Caucus - Polidicks

[QUOTE=nemmises5;35117503]Obama is one of the worst presidents ever elected. Obama is a bastard. I don't wan't any GOP candidate to be president but ron paul is STILL better than Obama IMO[/QUOTE] You will, of course, explain how you came to this conclusion, right?

[QUOTE=scout1;35117537]You will, of course, explain how you came to this conclusion, right?[/QUOTE] Bonus: do not use the word Socialism. Obama is anything but.

[QUOTE=nemmises5;35117503]Obama is one of the worst presidents ever elected. Obama is a bastard. I don't wan't any GOP candidate to be president but ron paul is STILL better than Obama IMO[/QUOTE] What about George Bush?

Oh my congratulations, the Virgin Islands Caucus. Surely that will secure him the nomination! He still can't say "I've won a state", though. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] Also, terrible source.

Knowing Ron Paul supporters, if this was the first caucus in the US they'd be celebrating their nationals victory party right now.

at 1:42 in the morning? sure why not. lets start with this, Obama promised many things but almost none of them came through his presidency. (you could also blame that on congress) under him the NDAA was passed. under him the Patriot Act was extended. taxes were raised on the wrong goddamn demographic. he is socialistic. and if he gets re-elected our economy will tank. again. the election is a no win situation for the entire fucking country. but people for some oddball reason still have faith in him. it's idiotic. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Banhfunbags;35117574]What about George Bush?[/QUOTE] as I said, "one of the worst"

Didn't he say not to use the word socialist?

[QUOTE=nemmises5;35117625]at 1:42 in the morning? sure why not. lets start with this, Obama promised many things but almost none of them came through his presidency. (you could also blame that on congress) under him the NDAA was passed. under him the Patriot Act was extended. taxes were raised on the wrong goddamn demographic. he is socialistic. and if he gets re-elected our economy will tank. again. the election is a no win situation for the entire fucking country. but people for some oddball reason still have faith in him. it's idiotic. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] as I said, "one of the worst"[/QUOTE] Bonus points. Calling him a socialist with improper grammar!

fuck grammar. it's late and I've got a state test to take tomorrow (no thanks to our dear ex -leader GWB) I'll come back when I can mount an actual thought out proper argument.

I'll give him a good pity clap

[QUOTE=nemmises5;35117625]at 1:42 in the morning? sure why not. lets start with this, Obama promised many things but almost none of them came through his presidency. (you could also blame that on congress) under him the NDAA was passed. under him the Patriot Act was extended. taxes were raised on the wrong goddamn demographic. he is socialistic. and if he gets re-elected our economy will tank. again. the election is a no win situation for the entire fucking country. but people for some oddball reason still have faith in him. it's idiotic. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] as I said, "one of the worst"[/QUOTE] 1. Not all presidents are wizards who can magically wish everything into law. Obama could not do everything he wanted because of the Senate's filibustering. I will actually quote Ron Paul on this: at one point he said that he "was not running to be the King" (as I said, what worries me about Ron Paul is his intelligence). 2. The NDAA was passed, once again, by Congress, and was impossible to Veto. Veto-ing it in vain would have been a huge political risk, especially when he needed Congress' support on other issues. Also, the NDAA only targets non-US Citizens. I still do not like the NDAA (and neither does Obama by the way), but there is no point in exaggerating its effects. 3. Only a few provisions of the Patriot Act are still in effect, such as Terrorism being an act of War, wire-tapping (with a warrant only), and a few others. 4. Obama has not raised taxes for anyone. Though I do think there will be a tax for expensive healthcare plans of 40% starting in 2014, but that will only apply to those rich enough to afford so-called "Cadillac Plans". 5. How would the economy sink again under Obama? If anything, he is the only guy who can keep it all together. 6. As I said, Obama is far from being a Socialist. The Healthcare law he passed was based partially on a bill that Newt Gingrich helped write in 1994, and the one that Romney passed on Massachusetts. All that being said, I hate how Obama handled Bradley Manning. I am OK with his wish to keep certain documents hidden, but I hate the idea of that poor guy languishing in solitary confinement over leaking a video... I also do not like how Obama has barely mentioned Occupy Wall Street in any of his speeches recently, but I suppose that is simply a political move to avoid controversial topics.

[QUOTE=nemmises5;35117625]Obama promised many things but almost none of them came through his presidency.[/QUOTE] That excuse is getting old. I can't find a link but there was a list showing everything he promised and he went through with most of them.

[QUOTE=KillaGunna24;35117747]That excuse is getting old. I can't find a link but there was a list showing everything he promised and he went through with most of them.[/QUOTE] He compromised on half of his promises (which is what a good politician does), passed a quarter of them, got stalled on a few of them, and broke the rest. It is a good record, in my opinion.

Quote from my girlfriends dad "I'm voting for Santorum because hes going to get our economy back on track and is the most conservative republican running, and i hate obama, hes a socialist" I'm ashamed.

[QUOTE=person11;35117219]I am happy he won something, but I still think he is the worst candidate. He is just as socially conservative as Santorum, but has the smarts and experience to actually implement and argue his insane plans. The fact that he is worse than Santorum (but sounds much better than the other 3 candidates), yet somehow appeals to young liberals (who are ignorant), is a sign that he is the most dangerous candidate. I can't wait until this election is over so I don't have to talk about him for another couple of years.[/QUOTE] That is probably the single dumbest assumption of Ron Paul's candidacy I've ever heard. Nothing you said is true, unless you count his bias towards abortion control (which is due to a traumatizing experience, not because of the bible) So the only "ignorant liberal" in this thread is you

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;35117775]That is probably the single dumbest assumption of Ron Paul's candidacy I've ever heard. Nothing you said is true, unless you count his bias towards abortion control (which is due to a traumatizing experience, not because of the bible) So the only "ignorant liberal" in this thread is you[/QUOTE] I claimed that he is intelligent, but has the same views as Santorum on social issues, making him more dangerous in my mind than Santorum. Obviously, the amount of danger is simply based on social conservatism, and if you do not mind that part of him, than you can disagree with me on that. You can't really disagree with me on the fact that he knows what he is doing (I am assuming you are a fan), hates abortion, and is a Conservative on many other social and fiscal issues. I also said that he sounds a lot better than the other 3 Republican candidates, especially during debates. You probably would agree with me on that as well. As for the "Ron Paul is only liked by ignorant Liberals who are disenfranchised and disillusioned by Obama but do not understand how Conservative he is" comment, I already admitted that I was generalizing way too much on that front. Also, I could not care less why he is against Abortion: as long as he wishes to legally limit or restrict it in any way, I will not stop criticizing him for that.

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;35117775]That is probably the single dumbest assumption of Ron Paul's candidacy I've ever heard. Nothing you said is true, unless you count his bias towards abortion control (which is due to a traumatizing experience, not because of the bible) So the only "ignorant liberal" in this thread is you[/QUOTE] Are you honestly defending the guy that claims that we don't need a board of education or a department of agriculture? Recently he said the massive amount of tornado victims in the south don't need government support because they should have had insurance instead and then compared tornadoes to fucking hurricane Katrina. Or the fact that he says that AIDS is actually a cover up from the government that the real source of AIDS is not from just shared needles or unprotected sex, but just purely homosexuals. The man is a fucking lunatic and the only reason he doesn't get as much media is because not even fox news likes him.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;35117849]Are you honestly defending the guy that claims that we don't need a board of education or a department of agriculture? Recently he said the massive amount of tornado victims in the south don't need government support because they should have had insurance instead and then compared tornadoes to fucking hurricane Katrina. Or the fact that he says that AIDS is actually a cover up from the government that the real source of AIDS is not from just shared needles or unprotected sex, but just purely homosexuals. The man is a fucking lunatic and the only reason he doesn't get as much media is because not even fox news likes him.[/QUOTE] I won't even argue why that post is dumb, you can't change the minds of ignorant people who are too incompetent to know it. And for the record, I wouldn't give them any money either. Guess I'm a lunatic! (I would if it meant we stopped giving money to places like syria and pakistan/israel, but we all know that won't happen. Also nice out-of-context quote from his newsletters or something. Yes I'll defend him, because clearly unlike you people, I've taken the 10 minutes to do my own research. News corp. won't support him ever because he wants to take away their tax breaks and remove the regulations that keep them on top of the world)

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;35117919]I won't even argue why that post is dumb, you can't change the minds of ignorant people who are too incompetent to know it. And for the record, I wouldn't give them any money either. Guess I'm a lunatic! (I would if it meant we stopped giving money to places like syria and pakistan/israel, but we all know that won't happen. Also nice out-of-context quote from his newsletters or something. Yes I'll defend him, because clearly unlike you people, I've taken the 10 minutes to do my own research. News corp. won't support him ever because he wants to take away their tax breaks and remove the regulations that keep them on top of the world)[/QUOTE] The "I won't even argue why that post is dumb, you can't change the minds of ignorant people who are too incompetent to know it" argument is the dumbest one in the book. Explain why we are wrong. I would love to be turned into a Ron Paul fan. I would love it to death. Give me your reasoning instead of insulting us. What about codemaster85's post is wrong? [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] We, as individuals, are not required to give money to the victims of every natural disaster. The government, however, is an entity that is in place -at minimum- to protect her people. If the government avoids paying for that, what is the point? You can avoid donating to them, I am ok with that; what I am not ok with is supporting a candidate that believes that the government should not give aid to the needy.

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;35117919]I won't even argue why that post is dumb, you can't change the minds of ignorant people who are too incompetent to know it.[/QUOTE] The key to winning an argument; insult the other person and say their posts are dumb. Also doubles as a good way to save effort not setting up a response in return. We need Contag and his political expertise in here.

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;35117919]I won't even argue why that post is dumb, you can't change the minds of ignorant people who are too incompetent to know it. And for the record, I wouldn't give them any money either. Guess I'm a lunatic![/QUOTE] its not all money you idiot, its food and shelter. there's a difference to a tornado and a hurricane, hurricanes are predictable. With a tornado there is only a 5 minute warning and the damage is much more catastrophic. You sound like the typical voter that doesn't do any research on the candidate before voting and only listens to the good parts. here are some of his crazy and racist theories: [url]http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/10-shocking-quotes-from-ron-pauls-newsletters.php[/url] [url]http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/Ron-Paul-Quotes.htm[/url] [QUOTE]"How about getting rid of the Department of Education and Department of Agriculture. Just go down the list. Get rid of it. Cut the budget in half. Everything that's not constitutional. That's a good place to start." –MSNBC interview, 2009 "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?" -1990 newsletter 2. “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)” -Direct mail ad promoting Paul’s newsletters, written from Paul’s perspective, 1993 [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=richard9311;35117052]Again, I don't like Ron Paul as a candidate. However, I really think all of this media coverage ignoring him is highly unfair, and just makes me frustrated.[/QUOTE] dude. he's been in last place the entire time and at one point the media gave him a good bit of attention. face it, people don't like ron paul, and no amount of media attention changes that. also, the supposed lack of media attention is just the free market at work! rational actors and all that lmao

I think all candidates in the US presidential elections are awful except Obama. Because re-electing Obama atleast shouldn't make matters any worse. Edit: Cornell university has claimed after it's research that the biggest flaw in democracy is that most of the voters are too unsophisticated (and sometimes unintelligent) to recognise good ideas. This can lead to mediocre leaders with good rhetoric or populistic views being always elected.

Hell, I am even willing to have an argument with a smart and well-spoken Ron Paul supporter. I am only a 19 year old Liberal college student, I am pretty sure Ron Paul himself would kill me in a debate over this stuff, even though I know I am right. Ron Paul would not avoid arguing by calling me dumb.

here is the article about the tornado outbreak with RP: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-wants-tornado-victims-fend-themselves-211200352.html[/url]

[QUOTE=person11;35118013]Hell, I am even willing to have an argument with a smart and well-spoken Ron Paul supporter. I am only a 19 year old Liberal college student, I am pretty sure Ron Paul himself would kill me in a debate over this stuff, even though I know I am right. Ron Paul would not avoid arguing by calling me dumb.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul is just as good as Obama in my opinion. Obama's cons are just not talked about Obama is just smarter and knows how to manipulate things to get his way, and the amount of shit he ignores scares the hell out of me. (i.e. cruel punishment of Bradley Manning, corruption in the drug war, ignoring that he went to Washington to change the status quo but all he really did was reinforce it, ignoring failure of middle east wars, ignoring gas prices, basically ignoring SOPA/pipa etc)

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;35118083]Ron Paul is just as good as Obama in my opinion. Obama's cons are just not talked about Obama is just smarter and knows how to manipulate things to get his way, and the amount of shit he ignores scares the hell out of me. (i.e. cruel punishment of Bradley Manning, corruption in the drug war, ignoring that he went to Washington to change the status quo but all he really did was reinforce it, ignoring failure of middle east wars, ignoring gas prices, basically ignoring SOPA/pipa etc)[/QUOTE] Obama does not want to eliminate entire government institutions, nor does he want to privatize and value things that should be rights. Obama supports things like Abortion and LGBTQ rights and is willing to reinforce them on a federal level. Obama is not as good a manipulator as you think he is, since he did not manage to get us Universal Healthcare, nor could he manage any Immigration Reform. If he gets his sway over the people, than why did his Approval Rating hover at around 40% for awhile? As for Bradley Manning and the drug war, I agree. I wish he could have done a better job with that, but some things are impossible. He recognized that trying to get into those issues would have put all his other projects in danger. PIPA and SOPA were stopped already, and Obama did a good job of not getting involved in that. If he had come out on either side, he would have been attacked by the other side. As for the Status Quo, Obama did not reinforce it, he simply became a victim of it. I do not think that Obama is a perfect President. I do know that he makes basic decisions about social rights that I can agree with, and that he has not fucked up on anything major yet.

From what I can see, how things would play out if all of these candidates got their way - Mitt Romney: Government is run corporate-style, crushing the poor and propping up american industry and vapid consumerism (moreso than now) The nation collapses in upon itself due to economic mismanagement. Rick Santorum: Attempts to create oppressive theocracy. The nation implodes due to the sheer gravity of the executive branch's level of insanity. Newt Gingrich: Bush-era mediocrity and horrible decision making, with more moon-bases and extramarital affairs. The country crumbles. Ron Paul: Libertarians and moderate republicans satisfied... Also, economic stagnation and collapse. Fuck the republican party and the elephant it rode in on.

I wish America had a decent method of voting for independents. Instead of acting like they don't exist as far as media is concerned. Which side of the coin will you choose? The donkey or the Elephant? Ultimately its the same coin.

[QUOTE=person11;35118118]Obama does not want to eliminate entire government institutions, nor does he want to privatize and value things that should be rights. Obama supports things like Abortion and LGBTQ rights and is willing to reinforce them on a federal level. Obama is not as good a manipulator as you think he is, since he did not manage to get us Universal Healthcare, nor could he manage any Immigration Reform. If he gets his sway over the people, than why did his Approval Rating hover at around 40% for awhile? As for Bradley Manning and the drug war, I agree. I wish he could have done a better job with that, but some things are impossible. He recognized that trying to get into those issues would have put all his other projects in danger. PIPA and SOPA were stopped already, and Obama did a good job of not getting involved in that. If he had come out on either side, he would have been attacked by the other side. As for the Status Quo, Obama did not reinforce it, he simply became a victim of it. I do not think that Obama is a perfect President. I do know that he makes basic decisions about social rights that I can agree with, and that he has not fucked up on anything major yet.[/QUOTE] "make all kids go to school without the opportunity to drop out until they hit 18 no matter what" "the morning after pill should be restricted to people 18+" If he was afraid of being attacked for picking a side on something as important as SOPA, then he shouldn't have become president. Yes, it was stopped, but no thanks to him other than some generic "statement" from the whitehouse (yes, the same people who ignore your change.org petitions). I don't give a shit what he was a "victim" of, the same way nobody cares that RP was a "Victim" of blatant media blackouts and voter fraud. And by manipulate I meant lie to the media about diplomatic things like how Osama Bin Laden wasn't buried at sea, but was actually flown back to the USA. There is a ton of bullshit that you people ignore, but you criticize and write off decent people like Ron Paul for things he "allegedly" said 30 years ago. I know I'm missing some good examples, but I don't have the time to go to some Politifact-like blog source to dig up all of the crap he's let us down on right now. (note: I do not agree with rp on slashing gvt agencys/departments, but thats not the point)