Ron Paul's partisans dig in after strong showing in Minn. caucuses - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34621373]The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it left the government with no judicial branch and a laughably weak executive branch.[/QUOTE] Which is what Ron Paul wants to do. He wants state rights to trump federal rights. Which is actually against the constitution.

Want to see him win the nomination but not the presidency so Obama actually has to work to get votes.

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;34621397]Which is what Ron Paul wants to do. He wants state rights to trump federal rights. Which is actually against the constitution.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment][B]This amendment limits the power of the federal government. Powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. The powers reserved to the states are not listed in the Constitution.[/B][/QUOTE] The States can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't conflict with the federal government. The federal government allowing the states more freedom is perfectly constitutional. The states taking it for themselves is not.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34621292]Which contradicts [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm"]previously[/URL] [URL="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html"]posted[/URL] stuff. So what your post is saying is he's either doing this political thing that's come to be known as "flip-flopping", [I]or he's a colossal idiot that contradicts himself.[/I][/QUOTE] Politicians tend to do that. Ironic with him since he's apparently famous for "sticking by what he says and doesn't change his views with the current times", or something among those lines, but I only view him as a contradicting politician, not a bigoted one. I'm curious though, how do you view that second source as contradicting? Were you referring to this: [quote][B]How would your faith shape the way you approach social issues, such as same-sex marriage?[/B] Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament. I think it should be biblical, and politically I don't like to fight with people who disagree with me, as long as they don't force their views on me. So for that reason, I think the real solution to some of this argument is to have less government, rather than government dictating and forcing understanding on different people. I don't think much can be achieved. As I mentioned in my talk, Christ doesn't come and beg and plead for more laws. He pleads for more morality, and I think that's very important.[/quote] or was there something I missed? [QUOTE=Bones85;34621286]Yes, he does. [I]He opposes gay marriage, and he clearly stated that[/I]. In addition to that, he supports the Defense of Marriage Act and also cosponsored a bill that bars federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. If that's not bigoted to you then I don't know what is.[/QUOTE] Mind sharing this "clear statement?"

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34621601]Politicians tend to do that. Ironic with him since he's apparently famous for "sticking by what he says and doesn't change his views with the current times", or something among those lines, but I only view him as a contradicting politician, not a bigoted one. I'm curious though, how do you view that second source as contradicting? Were you referring to this: or was there something I missed? Mind sharing this "clear statement?"[/QUOTE] He doesn't know his history, divorce came from the British King wanting to leave his wife. And the Vatican was BASICALLY the European central government during the middle ages. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] Ron Paul would make an excellent adviser or right hand man. But not a leader.

Same thing happened with teddy roosevelt. They split the party so the democrats won the election.

[QUOTE=Cone;34620447]Giving states individual rights only gives them more power. This means that, should someone stupid or otherwise malignant become state governor (which is much more likely than it is a president to be as it draws less attention), people will suffer. I'd rather have a single competent leader than loads of potential leaders, sixty percent of which will deny my rights.[/QUOTE] "fuck what the constitution says, fuck state rights, what if we elect someone stupid?" you have WAY more control over your state government than the federal government, placing an emphasis on states rights gives people more interaction with their government and not only that, IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL any rights not given to the federal government fall to the states, deal with it

[QUOTE=Falchion;34620630]For the love of god don't vote a republican for president.[/QUOTE] Well'p looks like I'm voting for the republican that gets the nominee.

I'm surprised there are so many anti-Paul FP'ers. We're supposed to be the informed youth yet there are so many of you essentially advocating big government. You want more government in your life? Cool, vote for one of the many corporate backed puppets that will surely do what's best for you. However, those of us that don't want four more years of government expansion, wars, and a crumbling economy will be voting for Ron Paul.

[QUOTE=Shoe Phone;34623243]We're supposed to be the informed-[/QUOTE]Yes, which is why I refuse to vote for someone like Ron Paul. Why the fear of "Big Government"? It's a major conservative bogeyman, filled with half-truths and out right lies. The entire thing is based in misrepresented information and paranoia. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] My problem isn't with "Big Government" but with Corrupt Government, one that doesn't work for the people. Corruption is what is wrong, not "Big Government". It is not an intrinsic element of a strong federal government, its an issue regardless of the size and level of the government.

[QUOTE=Shoe Phone;34623243]I'm surprised there are so many anti-Paul FP'ers. We're supposed to be the informed youth yet there are so many of you essentially advocating big government. You want more government in your life? Cool, vote for one of the many corporate backed puppets that will surely do what's best for you. However, those of us that don't want four more years of government expansion, wars, and a crumbling economy will be voting for Ron Paul.[/QUOTE] Wow, anyone who is actually informed knows Ron Paul is just a wolf in sheep's clothing, read the thread.

[QUOTE=Shoe Phone;34623243]We're supposed to be the informed youth yet there are so many of you essentially advocating big government.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that because I'm informed I should be against social "safety nets", non-private education and income tax? Yeah, whatever you say Mr. "Informed". [QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34621601]or was there something I missed?[/QUOTE] [quote][B]Along those lines with marriage, if you were on the state level for something like Proposition 8, would you vote for or against?[/B] Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.[/quote]

I say lets make Bill Gates President, and while we are at it Neil deGrasse Tyson can be VP. Think about it, No one could bribe Gates. We would have better education and more funding for NASA.

[QUOTE=imptastick;34624220]I say lets make Bill Gates President, and while we are at it Neil deGrasse Tyson can be VP. Think about it, No one could bribe Gates. We would have better education and more funding for NASA.[/QUOTE] But wouldn't he try and make our political systems bloated and slow? :v:

ooo yaa

[QUOTE=Bones85;34620472]Wrong. Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), stated in an Aug. 25, 2007 interview with John Lofton titled "Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul on God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; and Much More" on The American View: He specifically stated that he would have voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act had he been in Congress at the time:[/QUOTE] He changed his opinion on the death penalty, he elaborated during a debate

I want a president who's not afraid to reform SSA benefits, Nor is afraid to reform welfare. The bloated programs of the past need to go, With a futurist plan put into it's stead. I want a universal healthcare program that will rival that of Scandinavia's and other countries, Because as it stands it makes no sense for the rich to be treated better than the poor. I believe that the he should issue executive orders against PAC money and other "incentives" being used in congress, Use a more streamlined voting design afterwards. Not only that, environmental actions should be made to not stop global warming, Rather reverse it. When my dad first started doing smog checks, atmospheric oxygen levels were at 21.24%. They're now at 20.13%. Plant trees, Limit using wood and other materials, Finding a way to incorporate all this into a city or town setting. Think of a gigantic city underneath a thousand trees. I know i hope too much but what we need is social upheaval, and redistribution, Not a bunch of acts like they're doing now. They'd rather pussyfoot around the problem than to attack it head on. If they don't do it. In about another 18 years i will, I understand that it wouldn't be a quick change, But we need to adapt in order to survive the problems we have now. As it stands we're a crippled country honestly. Social imbalance and wealth distribution is causing it to get worse. That's honestly all i can say about the social economic problems i see today.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;34625659]I want a president who's not afraid to reform SSA benefits, Nor is afraid to reform welfare. The bloated programs of the past need to go, With a futurist plan put into it's stead. I want a universal healthcare program that will rival that of Scandinavia's and other countries, Because as it stands it makes no sense for the rich to be treated better than the poor. I believe that the he should issue executive orders against PAC money and other "incentives" being used in congress, Use a more streamlined voting design afterwards. Not only that, environmental actions should be made to not stop global warming, Rather reverse it. When my dad first started doing smog checks, atmospheric oxygen levels were at 21.24%. They're now at 20.13%. Plant trees, Limit using wood and other materials, Finding a way to incorporate all this into a city or town setting. Think of a gigantic city underneath a thousand trees. I know i hope too much but what we need is social upheaval, and redistribution, Not a bunch of acts like they're doing now. They'd rather pussyfoot around the problem than to attack it head on. If they don't do it. In about another 18 years i will, I understand that it wouldn't be a quick change, But we need to adapt in order to survive the problems we have now. As it stands we're a crippled country honestly. Social imbalance and wealth distribution is causing it to get worse. That's honestly all i can say about the social economic problems i see today.[/QUOTE] This guy is doing some awesome work in blending sustainability in a city environment. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogXT_CI7KRU[/media] sadly I dont think any of the politicians we currently have will be able to do this drastic restructure you suggest, although I agree we at least need to start some changes.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;34625659]I want a universal healthcare program that will rival that of Scandinavia's and other countries[/QUOTE] Population of Nordic countries: 25,251,000 Population of the USA: 312,991,424 Creating social service programs with the idea of beating other countries in mind will never ever work. There's just too many people.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;34625876]Population of Nordic countries: 25,251,000 Population of the USA: 312,991,424 Creating social service programs with the idea of beating other countries in mind will never ever work. There's just too many people.[/QUOTE] I meant as in the care we give. They have unrivaled healthcare in those countries. Another thing is give grants to children who want to go into scientific or healthcare fields. My grandfather worked at JPL during the 60's after he graduated college with a grant for science.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34620137]He's Einstein compared to the other Republicans running.[/QUOTE] Bush is Einstein compared to the other republicans running. It's not a very high bar.

too bad the votes are rigged

90% of the users who were involved in this thread should feel embarrassed and just end their posting career here at Facepunch. Go join a community more suitable for your declining intellectual needs (i.e. 9gag/funnyjunk) Stop pretending that Ron Paul is the new Rick Santorum, because he's fucking not. He should definitely be the republican nominee, but we all know the establishment would never allow that to happen on their watch.

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;34626911]90% of the users who were involved in this thread should feel embarrassed and just end their posting career here at Facepunch. [B]Go join a community more suitable for your declining intellectual needs (i.e. 9gag/funnyjunk)[/B][/QUOTE] [I]I'll take that to heart, "Stick it in her pooper"[/I]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34623361]Yes, which is why I refuse to vote for someone like Ron Paul. Why the fear of "Big Government"? It's a major conservative bogeyman, filled with half-truths and out right lies. The entire thing is based in misrepresented information and paranoia. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] My problem isn't with "Big Government" but with Corrupt Government, one that doesn't work for the people. Corruption is what is wrong, not "Big Government". It is not an intrinsic element of a strong federal government, its an issue regardless of the size and level of the government.[/QUOTE] Government naturally becomes corrupt, and big government always becomes corrupt.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620403] Yes, because it's a state's right to decide on abortion, not the federal government.[/QUOTE] That makes no sense, if it's a state's right then why did he introduce a bill that would make it illegal nationwide? Also do you have any idea what happens when you destroy public education and the U.S. dollar? Total f---ing anarchy!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34628810]Government naturally becomes corrupt, and big government always becomes corrupt.[/QUOTE]That's the best you could do?

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34620137]He's Einstein compared to the other Republicans running.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? Newt Gingrich is the findest mind of this generation! ... TO THE MOON!!!!!!

Ok, let's remove Obama from the equation for now. We're dealing with just the Republican nominees. If you [B]had[/B] to pick just one, who would it be? Use the ratings to pick. Friendly = Romney Late = Newt Optimistic = Santorum Useful = Ron Paul

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34628810]Government naturally becomes corrupt, and big government always becomes corrupt.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that government will inevitably become irreparably corrupt, or already is? Well that's bollocks right out of the starting gate.