[QUOTE=KorJax;35122863]I'm gay actually but nice try
Sorry but when it comes to politics I frankly don't rate gay marriage and abortion anything more than minor issues that I am in favor for, and if you base your entirely political ideaoligy on such minor bullshit then you're part of the political problem in America
Especially since lets not kid ourselves - you don't change culture because it becomes law. Fact of the matter is it is in America's culture to be against federal law for gay marriage and for abortion and as long as the majority are against that there is nothing you can do. Wish for a better future? It'll happen naturally when the old-style conservatives from the baby boomer generation and older all die off and the current generation "grows up".[/QUOTE]
Yep, the same way it was "in America's culture" not to let minorities vote, or have legalized abortion at all. And by the way, a majority of Americans do support gay marriage legalization.
[QUOTE=The golden;35122799]Uh, you don't make claims like that and then [I]ask people to prove what you're saying is not true.[/I] It doesn't work like that. If you cannot come up with some proof to hold up your argument then why should we take what you say seriously.[/QUOTE]
I know he's wrong and all, Obama is far from socialist, but to be fair I always see people shitting on Paul without backing it up. You'll see one sentence claims with winners and that's it. It just seems that if you want to speak against the President or the Democratic party (and no, I'm not endorsing the Republican party, Libertarianism, or what have you) that you'll get hogtied and gang raped while if you do the opposite you get a free pass to coolville, not that it's hard to shit on the fundamentalists that've been destroying our freedoms while preaching for small government. I wish this was all a big joke because the Republican party is full of shit that you'd think you'd only see in a dark satire.
[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]
You spoke so many words yet, ultimately, said almost nothing. If you want to see how many promises Obama has kept vs broken, check: [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url]
[QUOTE=Laferio;35117225]things like abortion aren't the things that are completely fucking the US over right now.[/QUOTE]
haha
[QUOTE=KorJax;35122863]I'm gay actually but nice try[/QUOTE]
Then I'm sorry you hate yourself. That our toxic culture did this to you, made you think you should ever sacrifice personal rights because it was the only option, that it is a requirement someone always be fucking you over, and your only choices are over what you'd rather be fucked over by.
His point is solid, because you are, mentally, behaving as a conservative straight male. Your "political beliefs" are a blend of odious doublethink only that group can swallow. You believe demanding your rights is a "problem" when it's supposed to be what this country was founded on, that you cannot "change culture" through law despite this country having done so from slavery to the civil rights movement and onward, that if you wait long enough the old idiots will die, ignoring the fact that they are simply creating more old idiots like, well, yourself.
Wake the fuck up.
Ron Paul is now two inches taller!
I like some of his policies but I'd rather stay away from a pre-industrial economic philosophy.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35125815]Then I'm sorry you hate yourself. That our toxic culture did this to you, made you think you should ever sacrifice personal rights because it was the only option, that it is a requirement someone always be fucking you over, and your only choices are over what you'd rather be fucked over by.
His point is solid, because you are, mentally, behaving as a conservative straight male. Your "political beliefs" are a blend of odious doublethink only that group can swallow. You believe demanding your rights is a "problem" when it's supposed to be what this country was founded on, that you cannot "change culture" through law despite this country having done so from slavery to the civil rights movement and onward, that if you wait long enough the old idiots will die, ignoring the fact that they are simply creating more old idiots like, well, yourself.
Wake the fuck up.[/QUOTE]
I don't think someone saying that the federal government shouldn't have as much power makes them a conservative. No government should have the power to decide on things like marriage and abortion.
[QUOTE=The golden;35122932]What you do or do not value as a political matter is a purely subjective thing. What you're essential doing is insulting someone whose political views you don't agree with, which is quite childish.
Personally, I value women's and homosexuals rights rather highly, as I do all forms of human rights. But according to you, I'm creating problems by doing that. Right-o[/QUOTE]
No, I'm just saying that I think it's irresponsible to base your entire political ideoligy around social issues, because last I checked those things aren't outright illegal and gay people (including me) and women (including people like my sister) aren't strugging for their rights as a whole in any serious manner to warrent my entire vote resting on such matters.
Terrible/no ideas to recover economy? Who cares they support gay marriage!!!
Political ideology and foreign policy plans are really spot on? Fuck that guy, he doesn't want to vote a bill to force abortions to be legal nationally!!
This isn't the fucking bachellor, it's your goddamn government. While forcing issues like Gay Marriage to be legal nationally is [I]nice[/I], to assume that it is more important of an issue to consider, compaired to great economic or political issues we have is completely insane. Armchair politics thrives on support from social issues because it is exactly what people can identify with the most. Even though, realistically speaking, forcing national marriage for gay people won't actually do anything to solve real issues involving the economic, public, and political sphere of things.
And Gay people aren't repressed. Yes, we are the new minority group under the spotlight. We're not going through NEARLY the same kind of abuse, mistreatment, and discrimination that black people went through before the civil rights movement. That was a very legitimate concern for the saftey and welfare of minority groups everywhere.
The biggest issue gay people face today on the otherhand as far as civil rights go is the right to marry. I support that right for sure, but it's almost borderline a non-issue politically, epsecially since there aren't any laws in place nationally that makes that right illegal anyways. To discard a political candidate purely on the fact that he's not going to push for a law that allows gay people to marry, just is compeltely silly.
[editline]13th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35125815]Then I'm sorry you hate yourself. That our toxic culture did this to you, made you think you should ever sacrifice personal rights because it was the only option, that it is a requirement someone always be fucking you over, and your only choices are over what you'd rather be fucked over by.
His point is solid, because you are, mentally, behaving as a conservative straight male. Your "political beliefs" are a blend of odious doublethink only that group can swallow. You believe demanding your rights is a "problem" when it's supposed to be what this country was founded on, that you cannot "change culture" through law despite this country having done so from slavery to the civil rights movement and onward, that if you wait long enough the old idiots will die, ignoring the fact that they are simply creating more old idiots like, well, yourself.
Wake the fuck up.[/QUOTE]
You have something way to far up your ass. Nice use of weasel words and talking about something that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Very politically American of you!
My point was simply the fact that I don't consider social issues more important than economic/political ones. I'd love to vote for a guy who is in support of gay marriage, abortions, has a good economic plan and good political sense. But would I drop support of a candidate running for office, who has a good idea for economics and politics (not saying Ron Paul does this), just because he doesn't want to vote in favor for a national gay marriage law? Of course not.
Voting purely on social issues (that never get passed as law, I might add) is a fundamentally wrong propaganda ad tactic used heavily in American politics. It's a tactic they use to draw in voters, and it's part of the reason why the American political system is criticised compaired to something like Britain - majority of party tactics to gain support are designed not to inform people of political issues, but to get people to bandwagon on social issues instead, because it's easier to get votes that way.
I'm not repressed, I don't sacrifice my rights, and I don't feel like I couldn't do anything. If I really had the desire to marry I could always get a marriage done in a state that supports it. Is this ideal? Of course not. It's silly that I can't get married anywhere.
Does it actually impact my wellbeing, my ability to live my life safely and comfortably with security, and does it infringe on my rights as a citizen in everyday life compared to someone else? No, it does not. It means in many states, I can't get a certificate that says I'm married. Bullshit? Yeah. Politically/economically/socially important enough to completely dismiss a political candidate because he didn't say he would pass a national marriage law? No.
So it doesn't matter to you, therefore it shouldn't matter at all?
Yeah, sorry, you're not the only gay person in the country.
[QUOTE=KorJax;35126039]No, I'm just saying that I think it's irresponsible to base your entire political ideoligy around social issues, because last I checked those things aren't outright illegal and gay people (including me) and women (including people like my sister) aren't strugging for their rights as a whole in any serious manner to warrent my entire vote resting on such matters.
Terrible/no ideas to recover economy? Who cares they support gay marriage!!!
Political ideology and foreign policy plans are really spot on? Fuck that guy, he doesn't want to vote a bill to force abortions to be legal nationally!!
This isn't the fucking bachellor, it's your goddamn government. While forcing issues like Gay Marriage to be legal nationally is [I]nice[/I], to assume that it is more important of an issue to consider, compaired to great economic or political issues we have is completely insane. Armchair politics thrives on support from social issues because it is exactly what people can identify with the most. Even though, realistically speaking, forcing national marriage for gay people won't actually do anything to solve real issues involving the economic, public, and political sphere of things.
And Gay people aren't repressed. Yes, we are the new minority group under the spotlight. We're not going through NEARLY the same kind of abuse, mistreatment, and discrimination that black people went through before the civil rights movement. That was a very legitimate concern for the saftey and welfare of minority groups everywhere.
The biggest issue gay people face today on the otherhand as far as civil rights go is the right to marry. I support that right for sure, but it's borderline a non-issue, epsecially since there aren't any laws in place nationally that makes that right illegal. To discard a political candidate purely on the fact that he's not going to push for a law that allows gay people to marry, just is compeltely silly.
[editline]13th March 2012[/editline]
You have something way to far up your ass. Nice use of weasel words and talking about something that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Very politically American of you!
My point was simply the fact that I don't consider social issues more important than economic/political ones. I'd love to vote for a guy who is in support of gay marriage, abortions, has a good economic plan and good political sense. But would I drop support of a candidate running for office, who has a good idea for economics and politics (not saying Ron Paul does this), just because he doesn't want to vote in favor for a national gay marriage law? Of course not.
Voting purely on social issues (that never get passed as law, I might add) is a fundamentally wrong propaganda ad tactic used heavily in American politics. It's a tactic they use to draw in voters, and it's part of the reason why the American political system is criticised compaired to something like Britain - majority of party tactics to gain support are designed not to inform people of political issues, but to get people to bandwagon on social issues instead, because it's easier to get votes that way.
I'm not repressed, I don't sacrifice my rights, and I don't feel like I couldn't do anything. If I really had the desire to marry I could always get a marriage done in a state that supports it. Is this ideal? Of course not. It's silly that I can't get married anywhere.
Does it actually impact my wellbeing, my ability to live my life safely and comfortably with security, and does it infringe on my rights as a citizen in everyday life compared to someone else? No, it does not. It means in many states, I can't get a certificate that says I'm married. Bullshit? Yeah. Politically/economically/socially important enough to completely dismiss a political candidate because he didn't say he would pass a national marriage law? No.[/QUOTE]
But he is psychotic with his economic plan. Does "lets go back to the gold standard" ring a bell? Social issues are just as bad as economic issues. If you dont know ron paul wants to give full power to the states. This is a extremely bad bad [B]BAD[/B] idea. States like arizona will be have no bounds with their social laws and they can outright restrict abortion, birth control, minority rights, and gay or same sex marriage. Social issues are in a balance with economic issues.
[editline]13th March 2012[/editline]
Put it this way, i would love in a nice economy boom, but i dont want to live in it if i didnt have as many rights.
I wish the government would collapse already so someone who is worthy of running a country can run this shit.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;35126417]But he is psychotic with his economic plan. Does "lets go back to the gold standard" ring a bell? Social issues are just as bad as economic issues. If you dont know ron paul wants to give full power to the states. This is a extremely bad bad [B]BAD[/B] idea. States like arizona will be have no bounds with their social laws and they can outright restrict abortion, birth control, minority rights, and gay or same sex marriage. Social issues are in a balance with economic issues.
[editline]13th March 2012[/editline]
Put it this way, i would love in a nice economy boom, but i dont want to live in it if i didnt have as many rights.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I think you are reading my political standpoints wrong
I don't support Ron Paul because I don't think his economic plans are a good idea. I like his economic [I]mindset[/I] (cut bullcrap) but I don't think he's a good idea simply because he wants to completely neuter federal spending on all fronts, including very important ones such as education, infrastructure, etc. I also think nationalized healthcare will completely fix the broken medical situation in our country, and standardize the bullshit involved with it (but this will be almost impossible to do because doctors make so much here, they have a very vested interest in keeping the staus quo).
The things I do like Ron Paul for is what he represents as a politician, and because of his foreign policy. I don't think I'd vote for him, but I like the idea of someone like him getting more support. It shows that the country is slowly starting to get sick of the bullshit on the republican side and democratic side, and I hope we get more politicians down the line that are like him in that sense, even if I can't agree or support a lot of his positions (meaning, I hope we get more "honest" politicians who are reasonably intelligent and able to argue their points well without coming off like a sniveling loaded-questions bastard). He's the only politician I know right now who I don't support but at the same time respect his opinion.
My point I was making wasn't directed in support of Ron Paul, it was simply arguing against the mindset that one should rank social issues that don't affect or endanger the welfare and rights of the people in this country over very serious political and economic issues. For that reason I also can't support candidates that (for example) push for gay marriage to be illegal. But if a candidate takes a neutral "status-quo" stance on it, I'm not going to adopt the childish "If he's not with us, he's against us!!!" mindset.
We are reading it perfectly clear.
And you are wrong.
And Ron Paul eats bananas horizontally!
I don't hate Obama. I just think Republicans should consider their choice more carefully.
It's easy to hate Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum.
But I'm pretty bipolar when it comes to Ron Paul. Mostly because every time see him support something that makes me hate him, the other 3 stooges do something even worse.
For example, he wants to take us out of the U.N. On a normal day, I'd dismiss him as a crazy fool.
However, the other 3 GOP candidates seem hell bent on starting a war with Iran.
Another part is that he wants to take a chainsaw to the government all in the name of lowering the debt, which he would accomplish, almost as much as Obama's 2013 budget, but with more unwanted side effects.
However, the other 3 GOP candidates would screw over everyday people while at the same time [B]increasing[/B] the debt, not raise it.
This is why I will never understand people who support Mitt Romney.
"Well, he's a business man so he'll know what he's doing."
What? Businessmen trying to make as much money as possible are what threw this country in the shitter and you want to make one [B]president[/B]? What's wrong with you?
But, after how quickly the Republicans threw out John Huntsman, it seems they're determined to lose as hard as possible.
Given that Ron Paul won't win the nomination, I'm supporting Obama for his re-election, despite any flaws. But is it so bad that I support a candidate who actually has some amount of reasoning to his beliefs, rather than it being based on what's politically profitable or what the Bible says? Keep in mind I never supported Ron Paul for president, I just wanted him to win the nomination, just to see what would happen if a man who wasn't just another corrupt Republican tried to go against Obama.. An experiment, essentially.
It's gonna be a lukewarm reelection, but at least we'll be safe in the knowledge a man like Santorum didn't get in office.
[editline]13th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=person11;35127575]
And Ron Paul eats bananas horizontally![/QUOTE]
Why do you keep making these posts? I'm not getting the elaborate joke here.
[QUOTE=KorJax;35126039]Voting purely on social issues (that never get passed as law, I might add) is a fundamentally wrong propaganda ad tactic used heavily in American politics. It's a tactic they use to draw in voters, and it's part of the reason why the American political system is criticised compaired to something like Britain - majority of party tactics to gain support are designed not to inform people of political issues, but to get people to bandwagon on social issues instead, because it's easier to get votes that way.[/QUOTE]
It works because nimrods like you consider it a point of compromise. Grow a spine, kid.
Yeah, it's nice that you don't feel oppressed because you're not an adult with a job and responsibilities and have to worry about whether or not you can write enough bullshit contingencies in your will to provide for a significant other when you croak, don't have to worry about the fact that you couldn't raise a family because you're legally banned from adoption. Think forward, look at where you're standing, and pull your head out of your ass.
[QUOTE=KorJax;35127362]But if a candidate takes a neutral "status-quo" stance on it, I'm not going to adopt the childish "If he's not with us, he's against us!!!" mindset.[/QUOTE]
The status quo is broken. This is not an acceptable state. You either realize it or you're part of the problem.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35129854]I don't hate Obama. I just think Republicans should consider their choice more carefully.
It's easy to hate Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum.
But I'm pretty bipolar when it comes to Ron Paul. Mostly because every time see him support something that makes me hate him, the other 3 stooges do something even worse.
For example, he wants to take us out of the U.N. On a normal day, I'd dismiss him as a crazy fool.
However, the other 3 GOP candidates seem hell bent on starting a war with Iran.
Another part is that he wants to take a chainsaw to the government all in the name of lowering the debt, which he would accomplish, almost as much as Obama's 2013 budget, but with more unwanted side effects.
However, the other 3 GOP candidates would screw over everyday people while at the same time [B]increasing[/B] the debt, not raise it.
This is why I will never understand people who support Mitt Romney.
"Well, he's a business man so he'll know what he's doing."
What? Businessmen trying to make as much money as possible are what threw this country in the shitter and you want to make one [B]president[/B]? What's wrong with you?
But, after how quickly the Republicans threw out John Huntsman, it seems they're determined to lose as hard as possible.
Given that Ron Paul won't win the nomination, I'm supporting Obama for his re-election, despite any flaws. But is it so bad that I support a candidate who actually has some amount of reasoning to his beliefs, rather than it being based on what's politically profitable or what the Bible says? Keep in mind I never supported Ron Paul for president, I just wanted him to win the nomination, just to see what would happen if a man who wasn't just another corrupt Republican tried to go against Obama.. An experiment, essentially.
It's gonna be a lukewarm reelection, but at least we'll be safe in the knowledge a man like Santorum didn't get in office.
[editline]13th March 2012[/editline]
Why do you keep making these posts? I'm not getting the elaborate joke here.[/QUOTE]
To take the aggressive edge off the thread, and because the video is hilarious and accurate satire of Ron Paul.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;35117102]mr. "fuck the federal government" ron paul tried to pass federal legislation banning abortion. honesty and integrity indeed.[/QUOTE]
Actually if you read the fucking bill he introduced instead of being a tool and repeating bullshit pulled out of someone's asshole, the bill in question would have kicked the issue of Abortion down to the State Level and PROHIBITED the Federal Government from banning, limiting, or regulating abortion, and remove the Federal Court's jurisdiction effectively banning the Federal Government, except for the Legislature to repeal the measure, from having any hand in the issue at all.
[editline]13th March 2012[/editline]
[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2533:[/url]
[QUOTE=H.R.1096; Introduced by Mr. PAUL of Texas, 3/15/2011]
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
[B][I] [U]`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates-[/U]-
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.[/I][/B]
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.[/QUOTE]
And before you point out Section 2, Section 2 is as legally powerful under federal law as the preamble to the Canadian Constitution which effectively establishes a Theocracy if read literally.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;35131126]Actually if you read the fucking bill he introduced instead of being a tool and repeating bullshit pulled out of someone's asshole, the bill in question would have kicked the issue of Abortion down to the State Level and PROHIBITED the Federal Government from banning, limiting, or regulating abortion, and remove the Federal Court's jurisdiction effectively banning the Federal Government, except for the Legislature to repeal the measure, from having any hand in the issue at all.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah because he knows that most states will ban it.
Why should issues that affect everyone in the country be left to states to decide? The federal government should decide national issues like this.
Frankly, giving more power to the states is a fucking awful idea. States rights as a concept is a bad idea.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;35117142]hahaha calling obama a bastard compared to paul[/QUOTE]
hahaha he is.
vote ron paul if you literally want Goldmember for your president
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35133920]vote ron paul if you literally want Goldmember for your president[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;lM1OwEK1dec]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM1OwEK1dec[/video]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35133981][video=youtube;lM1OwEK1dec]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM1OwEK1dec[/video][/QUOTE]
i love that video. man imagine how good it would be if someone brought up his gold standard thing in a debate or something and he said 'i love goooooooooooooold' hahaha
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35132398]hahaha he is.[/QUOTE]
ty for the enlightening post that highlights just how good of a person paul is
we all know you ride the paul cock hard already thanks for posting :)
[QUOTE=Broseph_;35131126]Actually if you read the fucking bill he introduced instead of being a tool and repeating bullshit pulled out of someone's asshole, the bill in question would have kicked the issue of Abortion down to the State Level and PROHIBITED the Federal Government from banning, limiting, or regulating abortion, and remove the Federal Court's jurisdiction effectively banning the Federal Government, except for the Legislature to repeal the measure, from having any hand in the issue at all.
[/QUOTE]
you act as if handing abortion off to the states is a good thing. which is wrong
[QUOTE=Lazor;35143471]you act as if handing abortion off to the states is a good thing. [b]which is wrong[/b][/QUOTE]
That's subjective. It's down to personal opinion whether abortion is morally wrong or not.
which is why trying to regulate it makes you a bad person.
there's probably like 10 pro-life people that give an actual damn about all the death that occurs unjustly post-birth
[QUOTE=MBB;35143534]That's subjective. It's down to personal opinion whether abortion is morally wrong or not.[/QUOTE]
It's not down to opinion, it's up to the facts. When abortion was illegal, you had back-alley abortionists where patients were likely to die or people spending most of their savings to go all the way to Switzerland to have an abortion. People should at least be perfectly fine with abortion if the woman was raped or will die if she gives birth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
