[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34066506]Is this legit? He might as well say "If elected I will implode this country".[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's a piss take.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34058768][img]http://content.screencast.com/users/Kopimi/folders/Jing/media/b1c26596-0278-4951-8d0b-f0bc7433a51f/2012-01-04_2216.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Damn, the only moderately sane guy has 0.6%?
This country man...
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34067282]Damn, the only moderately sane guy has 0.6%?
This country man...[/QUOTE]
The most sane candidate I've ever seen isn't even on the list, man.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34058802]Obama doesn't deserve a re-election and he just keeps on proving that. Unfortunately no one else seems like a good alternative.
I probably won't vote since voting for Obama would make me feel like I approved of his decisions.[/QUOTE]This reminds me of what I overheard during our last election; "I'm not voting for Obama, I'm voting against McCain."
[QUOTE=rilez;34058815]So how is Santorum's dumbass nephew any more credible than the young stoner voters that support Paul[/QUOTE]
Calling someone who disagrees with you a dumbass isn't a very good way to argue.
[quote]"Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.”[/quote]
Love him or hate him, this is pretty accurate.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/opinion/29brooks.html[/url]
Interesting article on Santorum from 2006.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34067439]Calling someone who disagrees with you a dumbass isn't a very good way to argue.[/QUOTE]
He's going against his own family to support someone who honestly isn't a much better choice.
Not trying to argue anything. I just think he's dumb.
[QUOTE=rilez;34067626]He's going against his own family to support someone who honestly isn't a much better choice.
Not trying to argue anything. I just think he's dumb.[/QUOTE]
I just find it very condescending of you to simply dismiss someone off as "dumb" because they have a different opinion. I also find it quite insulting that you try and degrade the legitimacy of younger voters who may support Ron Paul, such as myself, by providing a false stereotype claiming excessive drug use.
If you don't want to argue, don't start an argument.
[QUOTE=rilez;34067626]He's going against his own family to support someone who honestly isn't a much better choice.
Not trying to argue anything. I just think he's dumb.[/QUOTE]
why do i have a feeling that if ron paul's family started going against him you'd praise them for voting for who they believe in rather than family
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068436]why do i have a feeling that if ron paul's family started going against him you'd praise them for voting for who they believe in rather than family[/QUOTE]
I don't think there's anyone worth voting for in 2012. I'd rather see them support their family. As much as I dislike Ron Paul, I dislike him as much as I dislike the rest of the GOP. I'm tired of disillusioned progressives thinking Paul is someone he's not.
Call it what you will. I don't think it's condescending to make statements about people that support objectively poor ideologies like Paul's. Maybe they're not stoners, (which was a joke, but obviously wasn't taken that way) but they don't seem to care about issues that matter. I think that's dumb. Sorry. That's all I'll say about it.
[QUOTE=rilez;34068810]I don't think there's anyone worth voting for in 2012. I'd rather see them support their family. As much as I dislike Ron Paul, I dislike him as much as I dislike the rest of the GOP. I'm tired of disillusioned progressives thinking Paul is someone he's not.
Call it what you will. I don't think it's condescending to make statements about people that support objectively poor ideologies like Paul's. Maybe they're not stoners, (which was a joke, but obviously wasn't taken that way) but they don't seem to care about issues that matter. I think that's dumb. Sorry. That's all I'll say about it.[/QUOTE]
i don't support ron paul and i'm not trying to be a cunt, i just don't think criticizing someone for not blindly voting for your family rather than voting for who you believe in is something you're only doing because you hate paul so much. either that or you actually think voting for family rather than who you think is a suitable candidate is good, which is equally bad.
[QUOTE=rilez;34068810]Call it what you will. I don't think it's condescending to make statements about people that support objectively poor ideologies like Paul's. Maybe they're not stoners, (which was a joke, but obviously wasn't taken that way) but they don't seem to care about issues that matter. I think that's dumb. Sorry. That's all I'll say about it.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that much of your argument is based off of brash generalizations. Personally, I find it rather insulting that you can dismiss an opposing viewpoint as a perceived lack of intelligence. Attacking the character of your opponent does nothing to further your argument.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068973]i don't support ron paul and i'm not trying to be a cunt, i just don't think criticizing someone for not blindly voting for your family rather than voting for who you believe in is something you're only doing because you hate paul so much. either that or you actually think voting for family rather than who you think is a suitable candidate is good, which is equally bad.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure. I respect the fact that he wants to end the status quo in Washington. His recognition of individual liberty is good, but I think he's placing his faith in the wrong person.
To me, they're both bad candidates, but for different reasons. Is it better to vote for Paul in that situation? His nephew might think Paul is a better choice, but is he really? It's not like he's completely changing his political views... he's just voting for another Republican.
I would say I respect his ability to vote for someone else, but I don't think it's a very wise decision.
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34069069]It seems to me that much of your argument is based off of brash generalizations. Personally, I find it rather insulting that you can dismiss an opposing viewpoint as a perceived lack of intelligence. Attacking the character of your opponent does nothing to further your argument.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Ron Paul has a very strange definition of "liberty". He's not afraid to push his belief in individual liberty to the extreme (Civil Rights act) but when it comes down to controversial liberties, he thinks they should be determined by States??? Shouldn't a Libertarian support individual liberty across the board? He's a hypocrite, and yet people tout his recognition of liberty. This is not his only problem, but it is one of the biggest ones.[/quote]
I've attempted to explain Ron Paul's fallacies to his supporters in the past, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. His definition of liberty and his economic policies are two huge problems for me.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34058768][img]http://content.screencast.com/users/Kopimi/folders/Jing/media/b1c26596-0278-4951-8d0b-f0bc7433a51f/2012-01-04_2216.png[/img]
snowballs chance in hell![/QUOTE]
Who the fuck is Buddy Roemer? He's even more unknown than Huntsman.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34069356]Who the fuck is Buddy Roemer? He's even more unknown than Huntsman.[/QUOTE]
He did an AMA on reddit, seemed to have a few good ideas, which means automatic disqualification from the GOP
[QUOTE=rilez;34069276]I've attempted to explain Ron Paul's fallacies to his supporters in the past, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. His definition of liberty and his economic policies are two huge problems for me.[/QUOTE]
I don't mind that you have a problem with his policy, but you were very ignorant in your prejudice of Ron Paul supporters. I found it particularly insulting when you tried to classify all Ron Paul supporters as unintelligent stoners, while you contrasted that the Obama supporters from the same demographics are all reasonable people.
[QUOTE=rilez;34059014]The key difference being Ron Paul supporters that fall within that age group are legitimately retarded.
Young voters who voted for Obama in 08' weren't voting for a nutter (and weren't necessarily the same people that now support Paul). They didn't get the massive amounts of positive change they were expecting (which some now expect from Paul) but they didn't get much negative change either.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rilez;34058815]So how is Santorum's dumbass nephew any more credible than the young stoner voters that support Paul[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34069488]I don't mind that you have a problem with his policy, but you were very ignorant in your prejudice of Ron Paul supporters. I found it particularly insulting when you tried to classify all Ron Paul supporters as unintelligent stoners, while you contrasted that the Obama supporters from the same demographics are all reasonable people.[/QUOTE]
I apologize. I was having a bad night last night, and that wasn't fair. I can't support Ron Paul or his supporters, but that wasn't a fair generalization to make, and it was also worded very poorly. I only meant the stoner thing as a joke.
[QUOTE=rilez;34069692]I apologize. I was having a bad night last night, and that wasn't fair. I can't support Ron Paul or his supporters, but that wasn't a fair generalization to make, and it was also worded very poorly. I only meant the stoner thing as a joke.[/QUOTE]
Ah, well that's fair enough.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34069356]Who the fuck is Buddy Roemer? He's even more unknown than Huntsman.[/QUOTE]
He's a moderate Republican whose main ideas have to do with ending lobbying and corruption
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34058746]It kind of puzzles me how the big debate on this forum is around Ron Paul when he really doesn't have a fighting chance against a couple of the other Republicans anyways.
You'd think the sensationalism would be around the Republicans who have a chance of winning.[/QUOTE]
he lost by 2% in Iowa, how is that not a chance of winning considering the Mormon only edged out Rick Scrotum by exactly 20 votes
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;34066015]I am somehow both utterly baffled and not at all surprised that people are still supporting Paul despite the fact that he's shown time and time again that he's a racist. I seriously doubt that any policies could ever redeem someone who has defended racist newsletters and essentially refuses to redact his statements, even when pressed to.?[/QUOTE]
He has already said he disavows the racist news letter.
Also why should he redact anything? Wouldn't doing that basicly be redundant and hypocritical considering he can't deny he said it and that if he can cave to censor his self, what is keeping him from being pressured into censoring other people once in higher office
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34067282]Damn, the only moderately sane guy has 0.6%?
This country man...[/QUOTE]
Huntsman has been focusing on New Hampshire, he didn't do shit in Iowa.
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
[quote]he lost by 2% in Iowa, how is that not a chance of winning considering the Mormon only edged out Rick Scrotum by exactly 20 votes[/quote]
lmao Paul isn't going to win. Once candidates start dropping out it's going to be a fucking landslide against him.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.