I wish Ron Paul wasn't in the debates [Archive]

View Full Version : I wish Ron Paul wasn't in the debates

Pages : [1] 2

Against Miik!

01-05-2008, 11:22 PM

Yeah, thats right. I said it. After watching the ABC forum tonight, I am glad he will not be in the Fox News forum. Especially in the forum set up, its basically just the rest of the candidates ganging up on him. He will make a point, and the rest of the candidates basically shoot back with a "o thats dumb" type statement. Regardless of who is right, whenever its 1 against 5, the 1 is gonna come out looking like a fool every time.

What Ron needs to do is, and according to an article I read he is, is use that money to buy some tv time, like an hour or half hour spot, and rationally explain his views, given the time they need to be explained. Unlike the other candidates who have no substance, it takes a little bit of time to explain the role of the Federal Reserve, or why other government agencies are bad. Its not a matter of wrong or right. Its just a way for him to level the playing field.

I think by him being excluded from the debates, he will get more positive coverage than he would by being in the debate. It will get his name out there more, and more people will look him up the net, or watch his TV spot. So I would like to thank Fox News for there positive effect on his campaign.

Interestingly enough, it seems that some of the Fox pundits believe there network is in the wrong. Take Ron Paul out of the conversation completely, and put any other name or candidate in there, and this here is probably the most coherent and sensible thing I've ever seen on Fox News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_XBgzHxQs

Akira

01-05-2008, 11:34 PM

I didn't really get that.
He needs to be in the debates to get face time.

Now Richardson on the other hand was just funny in the debates. It was almost cute. He would say something about his governing experience, and I would just think "that's nice, but you got 2% in Iowa."

If he's smart he'll drop out the day after New Hampshire.

Against Miik!

01-05-2008, 11:43 PM

If I here the word change in a democratic forum one more time I'm gonna off myself

Det_Nosnip

01-05-2008, 11:44 PM

What Ron Paul needs to do is to drop out and then fall on a sword.

Akira

01-05-2008, 11:52 PM

If I here the word change in a democratic forum one more time I'm gonna off myself

Oh. My. God.

I thought almost the exact same thing, only I wanted to kill someone else.

I mean good lord. The moderator (awful mods by the way) asked at least two questions about change. Each time I pretty much started yelling at the TV about how change is a stupid buzzword with no relevance to the real world whatsoever.

There were points during the debates where I seriously wanted to cry thinking about how screwed this country is. Like when the Republicans were talking about the debates, they were constantly interrupting and throwing insults and dodging questions. Is our country run by five year olds?

Against Miik!

01-05-2008, 11:52 PM

You are way behind the times when even Fox News is admitting he a force in the election. He deserves the same respect the rest of the candidates get, if that means anything.

Is our country run by five year olds?

yes

Akira

01-05-2008, 11:55 PM

I didn't notice the ganging up, but I didn't start watching the Republicans until 8 because I was watching the Redskins/Seahawks game.
Washington sucks and pretty much gave the game to Seattle.

Amit

01-05-2008, 11:56 PM

except he's a complete moron

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 12:02 AM

your just pissed because he's allegedly a racist

I didn't notice the ganging up, but I didn't start watching the Republicans until 8 because I was watching the Redskins/Seahawks game.
Washington sucks and pretty much gave the game to Seattle.

Honestly that was probably a more fairly run event.

Akira

01-06-2008, 12:02 AM

The debates were such a joke.
And Ron Paul is kind of a nut.

Amit

01-06-2008, 12:06 AM

your just pissed because he's allegedly a racist

i didn't even hear anything about this

although it is amusing that such an issue is the first thing you assume

gg whitey

he's a moron because he doesn't believe in evolution and thus, is clearly not fit for holding any sort of power

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 12:09 AM

I was joking Amit. Heres why the evolution thing doesn't matter. First off, none of the other republican candidates believe in evolution. Secondly, he doesn't believe in imposing his beliefs on others, as a libertarian. He has not mentioned religion once. He considers himself a religious person, but is in no way using it to win the election, as others are doing. I don't see that changing once he gets into office.

Well at least he is truthful. Politifact.com, a very fairly run website, rated him the most truthful candidate thus far by a long shot.

I don't think he is a nut, relatively. And I'm not kidding, even if some of his methods may not be plausible. We all know Rudy and Romney are nuts. McCain said yesterday that he would be fine with staying in Iraq for the next hundred years. Every other candidate is in favor of upping the military industrial complex. Every other candidate is shady when it comes to illegal immigration. The other candidates are just as nuts, because they don't really want to change (sry) anything. We have gotten so used to the way things are we forget that we live in crazy times. Whats crazier? Staying with this obviously failed foreign policy? Continuing our crazy deficit spending? Allowing our dollar to crash? I think these things are nutty.

Amit

01-06-2008, 12:11 AM

not believing in evolution makes you completely mentally retarded and unfit for running for any political position

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 12:13 AM

Ron Paul's funny. I loved how they kept saying "okay, I'm trying to understand your position" and he would respond by being condescending, because Fred Thompson was being all smug.

I loved what he was saying about inflation. And although I'm not totally on board with everything he wants to do, he is definitely much more real than the other candidates, and understands how to be a conservative.

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 12:16 AM

Yeah, when talking about inflation, Thompson acted as if our dollar isn't deflating in value and like printing more money when we need it is ok. Its called basic supply in demand you ****ing corpse.

And I hate how Romney, in the talk about foreign policy, kept referring to al Qaeda's assassination of Bhutto. I'm glad Ron Paul didn't say it, because it would be political suicide, but I'm pretty sure Paul is aware that the assassination was the work of Musharraf.

Amit

01-06-2008, 12:17 AM

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 12:19 AM

I think not taking a candidate seriously because of something as minute as that is kinda foolish.

Mr. Ron

01-06-2008, 12:19 AM

i didn't even hear anything about this

although it is amusing that such an issue is the first thing you assume

gg whitey

he's a moron because he doesn't believe in evolution and thus, is clearly not fit for holding any sort of power
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^X's infinity

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 12:35 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwlKyz6LvU

Amit

01-06-2008, 12:42 AM

I think not taking a candidate seriously because of something as minute as that is kinda foolish.

but it isn't minute at all

what are you having trouble with understanding about this

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 12:46 AM

Yeah, disbelief in evolution just shows you're willing to ignore reality to support your ideology.

That's dangerous.

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 12:47 AM

Amit

01-06-2008, 12:48 AM

Yeah, disbelief in evolution just shows you're willing to ignore reality to support your ideology.

That's dangerous.

exactly

Det_Nosnip

01-06-2008, 01:41 AM

Uhh I'm not having trouble at all. But there are far worse ways of being unfit to run for office. I'd rather have someone like Paul not believing in evolution than a corrupt pseudo moderate socialist bitch like Hillary.

Hmm. Sorry, can't see your position at all.

If RP thought the world was flat, would you vote for him?

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 01:50 AM

Valhall

01-06-2008, 01:59 AM

Edwards believes that 400$ haircut looks good.

I hope he dies in a fiery plane crash for that one, haha..

Amit

01-06-2008, 02:11 AM

My point is, all candidates believe stupid stuff, and it shouldn't be limited to religion. I don't believe in creationism, but I think its the same thing as somebody believing socialized medicine doesn't work. But not believing in evolution is a dumb thing to write off a candidate for, even more so when they have no intention of imposing there beliefs on you.

Governments with hindu leaders believe they will be reincarnated. Governments with muslim leaders believe there are virgins waiting for them in heaven. Are they bad leaders? Maybe. But does it have any direct relationship to the fact that they believe these things? No.

your comparisons to religion or socialized healthcare or haircuts don't work with evolution

Valhall

01-06-2008, 02:15 AM

mattspurplepen

01-06-2008, 02:16 AM

ron paul does seem like a bit of a moron. I'm not a republican but i would probably vote for like mccain if i was or just not vote at all. i dont think the democrats have good leaders really either but i'd give them a chance considering republicans have ****ed stuff up this past presidency. I'd like someone who believes in creating stable jobs, avoids war, allows people their freedom, looks after the poor to some degree because who else is going to help people that have nowhere to go, single parents with children, all dat shiz. dont think any of the candidates are in my general region

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 02:22 AM

Just so you know welfare programs don't really take care of the poor. But if you want to avoid wars, promote freedoms, and understand that a sound monetary policy and controlling spending will allow everybody to prosper, then Paul is your man.

Benjamin Franklin realized the quality of American life declined when the government lost the power to regulate currency. So why can't we?

your comparisons to religion or socialized healthcare or haircuts don't work with evolution

sez Amit so I guess so

Det_Nosnip

01-06-2008, 02:23 AM

No. But thats a dumb comparison.
Mmm...actually, it's a perfect one.

First off, the entire Republican field doesn't believe in evolution.
Pretty good reason not to vote Republican, if you ask me.

Even worse, Romney believes in Mormonism.
I agree...which is why I would never vote for Romney.

Giuliani believes in a stupid foreign policy.
That's a steep step away from not believing in evolution.

Obama believes his health care package will actually cover all Americans. Hillary believes she's actually an agent of change. Edwards believes that 400$ haircut looks good.
All of these are perfectly acceptable coming from people WHO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

My point is, all candidates believe stupid stuff, and it shouldn't be limited to religion. I don't believe in creationism, but I think its the same thing as somebody believing socialized medicine doesn't work. But not believing in evolution is a dumb thing to write off a candidate for, even more so when they have no intention of imposing there beliefs on you.

Governments with hindu leaders believe they will be reincarnated. Governments with muslim leaders believe there are virgins waiting for them in heaven. Are they bad leaders? Maybe. But does it have any direct relationship to the fact that they believe these things? No.

Stop looking for, as I said, minute details to write off Ron Paul when you can't find anything else. O wait, I forgot, he's nuts. Never mind.

Actually, just about every single one of his positions is a good reason to write off Ron Paul...not believing in Evolution is just the most ridiculous.

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 02:27 AM

Paul doesn't believe in evolution?

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 02:28 AM

This is just so dumb I'm not even going to argue this. If belief in evolution is all of a sudden the benchmark for become a president, thats fine I guess. I mean, better they believe in evolution and be flawed in just about every other way than, God forbid (non pun intended), believe in creationism and maybe be able to help this country.

Colonies More Prosperous Than The Home Country

Before the American War for Independence in 1776, the colonized part of what is today the United States of America was a possession of England. It was called New England, and was made up of 13 colonies, which became the first 13 states of the great Republic. Around 1750, this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin was able to write:

“There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread.”

When Benjamin Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation: the working population of this country was gnawed by hunger and poverty. “The streets are covered with beggars and tramps,” he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes.

His friends replied that England was a prey to a terrible condition: it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually believed, along with Mathus, that wars and plague were necessary to rid the country from man-power surpluses.

Franklin’s friends then asked him how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses, and how they could overcome this plague of pauperism. Franklin replied:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”

Thanks To Free Money Issued By The Nation

His friends could not believe their ears, and even less understand this fact, since when the English poor houses and jails became too cluttered, England shipped these poor wretches and down-and- outs, like cattle, and discharged, on the quays of the Colonies, those who had survived the poverty, dirtiness and privations of the journey. At that time, England was throwing into jail those who could not pay their debts. They therefore asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies. Franklin replied:

“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

The Bankers Impose Poverty

The information came to the knowledge of the English Bankers, and held their attention. They immediately took the necessary steps to have the British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and then ordered them to use only the gold and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the English bankers. Then began in America the plague of debt-money, which has never since brought so many curses to the American people.

The first law was passed in 1751, and then completed by a more restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that one year after the implementation of this prohibition on Colonial money, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work. The circulating medium of exchange had been reduced by half.

Franklin added that this was the original cause of the American Revolution - and not the tax on tea nor the Stamp Act, as it has been taught again and again in history books. The financiers always manage to have removed from school books all that can throw light on their own schemes, and damage the glow that protects their power.

Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American independence, wrote it clearly:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.”

This point of view of Franklin was confirmed by great statesmen of his era: John Adams, Jefferson, and several others. A remarkable English historian, John Twells, wrote, speaking of the money of the Colonies, the Colonial Scrip:

“It was the monetary system under which America’s Colonies flourished to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: ‘Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.’”

John Twells adds:

“In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and assets its rights.”

Another writer, Peter Cooper, expresses himself along the same lines. After having said how Franklin had explained to the London Parliament the cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, he wrote:

“After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act.”

Today, in America as well as in Europe, we are under the regime of the Scrip of the Bankers instead of the scrip of the nation. Hence the public debts, everlasting interest charges, taxes that plunder purchasing power, with the only result being a consolidation of the financial dictatorship.

There is only one cure for America’s ultimate financial collapse and that is for Congress to exercise Clause 30 of the “Federal” Reserve Act, buy the outstanding shares of stock, shut down this unconstitutional system and sell off their assets to reimburse the people of this nation for this unspeakable theft of their wealth. This is the first installment of postings on this issue, new ones will be put up as soon as manpower allows.

Interesting little story

mattspurplepen

01-06-2008, 02:29 AM

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 02:33 AM

doesn't paul want to reduce taxes quite a bit? That sounds bad any way you look at it, you can't just give up responsibility to a country i mean sure taxes must suck but they provide education, and all that other good stuff. i'm mainly a douchebag about religious people and republicans in general because many seem greedy, not that democrats don't but at least some of them might try to help out others. plus i am pro choice and i'm pretty sure ron paul differs there, thats a big issue you cant decide what a woman should do and know what the circumstances are.

He wants to reduce federal taxes. A little known fact is that the federal income tax does not actually pay for any of the services we expect. It goes to pay off debts, both national, and the debt that the banks owe the fed. There isn't a dime left to go to services. Education, roads, police force, all these things we think taxes go to pay for, are done at the local level, which Paul believes is the way it should be. It's just the income tax he wants to get rid of mostly.

Det_Nosnip

01-06-2008, 02:34 AM

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 02:34 AM

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 02:36 AM

Yeah, I guess you are right. I'll vote for a one of the neo cons in the rest of the Republican field. They've done a lot of good these last seven years...o wait.

No thats stupid I'll vote for a democrat. I mean, look at all the great things they have accomplished since they took control of Congress! Getting us out of the war, working towards a balanced budget...o wait

Maybe its time for a new direction? Or...naw, that just sounds, well idiotic

mattspurplepen

01-06-2008, 02:38 AM

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 02:40 AM

haha well i just turned 18 but thanks, i'm not trying to sound incredibly smart for some losers on the internet i'm just extremely bored. if you honestly believe in the two party system you seem pretty dumb

Nice response to that. Seriously, politics is a heavy subject, so just hang around a while and learn some stuff. You are right that the two party system is dumb.

edit: actually, don't hang around. Most we just call each other dumb. This is mostly done by mods. We get a lot accomplished though :rolleyes:

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 02:45 AM

haha well i just turned 18 but thanks, i'm not trying to sound incredibly smart for some losers on the internet i'm just extremely bored. if you honestly believe in the two party system you seem pretty dumb

Uh I don't remember talking about the two party system but sure, okay.

Against Miik, you're not seriously suggesting change for the sake of change are you?

Valhall

01-06-2008, 02:46 AM

edit: actually, don't hang around. Most we just call each other dumb. This is mostly done by mods. We get a lot accomplished though :rolleyes:

Haha.

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 02:48 AM

Uh I don't remember talking about the two party system but sure, okay.

Against Miik, you're not seriously suggesting change for the sake of change are you?

Hell's no. I believe I mentioned that on the first page, that the rhetoric makes me sick. But not all change is for the sake of change. Some change is just called progress. Changes are needed when something is broken. We don't put our hand on a hot stove again after doing it once and finding out it burns us. Thats called insanity.

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 02:52 AM

It's equally insane to vote for Ron Paul just because you can't imagine him doing any worse than the president of the last 7 years. What about other parties?

Valhall

01-06-2008, 02:55 AM

It's equally insane to vote for Ron Paul just because you can't imagine him doing any worse than the president of the last 7 years. What about other parties?

Honestly, you can't work with what you don't have. Realistically, we have to accept that we're going to have either a democrat or a Republican in office; therefore, based on the experience of the past 7 years, we might want to go the other direction.

However, on the same hand, we've gone back and forth the entire duration of this countries existence, so I don't know that there's a solution (barring complete revolution, which I'm not going to incite. The Patriot Act might have secret service agents at my door if I start talking that way on here :rolleyes:).

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 02:56 AM

He technically is in another party, but realizes the chips are so stacked against third parties he decided to run Republican this time around. He ran as a libertarian in 88.

I'm not supporting Ron Paul just because he is different. I discovered Libertarianism long before I discovered Ron Paul. It was dumb luck that he is the manifestation of a few (not all) of the views I previously held.

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 03:01 AM

Yeah, I kind of want to get behind Ron Paul, but I just can't. I love his economic positions but I'm not sure if I even like social conservatism. It's hard to find a good candidate with this mindset.

Honestly, you can't work with what you don't have. Realistically, we have to accept that we're going to have either a democrat or a Republican in office; therefore, based on the experience of the past 7 years, we might want to go the other direction.

However, on the same hand, we've gone back and forth the entire duration of this countries existence, so I don't know that there's a solution (barring complete revolution, which I'm not going to incite. The Patriot Act might have secret service agents at my door if I start talking that way on here :rolleyes:).

The only reason we're guaranteed not to have a third party president is because people think the way you do and don't have the courage to vote the way they want or think for themselves. And voting Democrat just to "go the other direction" is stupid, it should be about the individual candidate.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 03:04 AM

The only reason we're guaranteed not to have a third party president is because people think the way you do and don't have the courage to vote the way they want or think for themselves. And voting Democrat just to "go the other direction" is stupid, it should be about the individual candidate.

I simply refuse to vote, because I don't even support the independants half the time. Think about it. If everyone quit voting blindly or voting because they felt like they didn't have a choice and just stopped voting, it would eventually force things to change. There would come a point where politicians/political parties would realize "wtf? absolutely no one is voting these days" and perhaps they would rethink thier policies and start actually representing the people.

I was just explaining where I think he's coming from, but I also made the point that even that doesn't work :thumb:

Against Miik!

01-06-2008, 03:06 AM

Actually its because after Perot had a good showing in 1992, the Republican and Democratic committees got together, for once, and created rules for the debates that make it harder for third parties to be included in the debates.

The American two-party system is the result of the way elections are structured in the United States. Representatives in the Congress and in state legislatures are elected to in single-member districts where the individual with the most votes wins. Because only one party's candidate can win in each district, there is a strong incentive for political competitors to organize themselves into two competing "teams" or parties. By doing so, party members and their candidates maximize their chances of winning elections. (In some countries where there are multi-member districts, parties that win smaller percentages of the vote can often win legislative representation. Consequently, in such systems, there is an incentive to form smaller "third" parties.) Other features of the American system of elections, such as campaign finance rules, the electoral college and rules giving party candidates ballot access further solidify the two-party system in the United States.

The same features of the American system that have encouraged a two-party system also serve to discourage the emergence of third parties. When third parties have emerged in American political history, their successes have been short-lived. In most cases, the issues or ideas championed by third parties have been "stolen" by the candidates of one of the two major parties. Sometimes the issue position taken by the third party is even incorporated into the platform of one of the existing parties. By doing so, the existing party generally wins the support of the voters that had been the support base of the third party. With no unique issues to stand on and depleted voter support, third parties generally fade away.

So don't be dumb, lol

Danger Bird

01-06-2008, 03:10 AM

I simply refuse to vote, because I don't even support the independants half the time. Think about it. If everyone quit voting blindly or voting because they felt like they didn't have a choice and just stopped voting, it would eventually force things to change. There would come a point where politicians/political parties would realize "wtf? absolutely no one is voting these days" and perhaps they would rethink thier policies and start actually representing the people.

I was just explaining where I think he's coming from, but I also made the point that even that doesn't work :thumb:

agreed

Smokey D

01-06-2008, 07:48 AM

Interesting little story

But historically inaccurate and economically nonsensical. Also, completely retarded in how it compares a post-industrial first world economy of an established state to a burgeoning growth by growth economy of a newly established colony.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 08:17 AM

I didn't really get that.
He needs to be in the debates to get face time.

Miik is right about the effect of it. He'd actually have had a (much) easier time in the Democrat debate.

Now Richardson on the other hand was just funny in the debates. It was almost cute. He would say something about his governing experience, and I would just think "that's nice, but you got 2% in Iowa."

Richardson was too long-winded. The Democrat debate was considerably less interesting and compelling than the Republican one.

If he's smart he'll drop out the day after New Hampshire.
Yes.

There were points during the debates where I seriously wanted to cry thinking about how screwed this country is. Like when the Republicans were talking about the debates, they were constantly interrupting and throwing insults and dodging questions. Is our country run by five year olds?

I wouldn't say constantly. You have to realize that Mitt Romney has been waging an incredibly well funded, incredibly dishonest campaign, attacking McCain and Huckabee relentlessly. His campaign put out an untrue rumor about Thompson just before the Iowa debate, to knock down his numbers. So, they finally made him pay for it.

Ron Paul's funny. I loved how they kept saying "okay, I'm trying to understand your position" and he would respond by being condescending, because Fred Thompson was being all smug.

I actually liked Fred Thompson there, I think he did a good job. He ruined Romney's health care claims.

your comparisons to religion or socialized healthcare or haircuts don't work with evolution

Again, everyone should care much more about the candidate's position on health care, international relations and national security, than their belief in evolution.

If you'd sooner vote for someone who agrees with you on evolutionary biology and has bad ideas on health care and security, than someone who doesn't believe in evolution but has well developed and thorough ideas for health care and security, then you should be voting for the president of the science club and not president of the United States.

beso negro

01-06-2008, 09:06 AM

the evolution thing is a non issue

Ron never said he was a creationist, he just doesn't "accept" evolution as a theory. he doesn't accept creationism either. it doesn't matter and i find it hilarious that people actually care tbh.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 09:27 AM

Uhh I'm not having trouble at all. But there are far worse ways of being unfit to run for office. I'd rather have someone like Paul not believing in evolution than a corrupt pseudo moderate socialist bitch like Hillary.Hilary isn't a socialist, dammit. Why the hell do people keep saying she is???

YouGottaBeCrazy

01-06-2008, 09:34 AM

I don't know, but she is a bitch.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 10:18 AM

the evolution thing is a non issue

yes.

Akira

01-06-2008, 10:23 AM

Hilary isn't a socialist, dammit. Why the hell do people keep saying she is???

People are stupid.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 10:27 AM

People are stupid.Yeah.

Ron Paul 08

Hababi

01-06-2008, 10:29 AM

Yeah.

Ron Paul 08

If only they'd let Gravel into the Democrat debate :\

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 10:32 AM

If only they'd let Gravel into the Democrat debate :\Huh? Screw Gravel, he was a nonentity from day one.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 10:33 AM

Huh? Screw Gravel, he was a nonentity from day one.

It's not as if Ron Paul stands a chance to get the Republican nomination, either. Gravel could've made things interesting.

Det_Nosnip

01-06-2008, 10:34 AM

However, on the same hand, we've gone back and forth the entire duration of this countries existence, so I don't know that there's a solution (barring complete revolution, which I'm not going to incite. The Patriot Act might have secret service agents at my door if I start talking that way on here :rolleyes:).

Yeah, because they honestly give a crap about some 15 yr old metalhead kid from Arizona. :rolleyes:

Maybe if you were Muslim...

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 10:34 AM

It's not as if Ron Paul stands a chance to get the Republican nomination, either. Gravel could've made things interesting.Interesting isn't the word I'd use to describe him. Kucinich would be better.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 01:17 PM

I don't really get it. He was only 3% off from the next closest candidate and he's MILES ahead of a lot of the other people out there. He's got opinions and these debates are about swaying people to vote for you and getting your opinion and voice out there so people KNOW what you're saying and what you believe.

And so now they're going to simply throw him out of it? He no longer has the same chance as any of these other people. Its rediculous! He deserves as much a chance to sway the people of America to vote for him as anyone else, and yet just because he was a mere 3% behind TWO of the other candidates he's now out completey?

Hababi

01-06-2008, 01:20 PM

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 01:22 PM

I'm getting quite sick of hearing about Ron Paul.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 01:24 PM

Steve: Explain a bit more, I'm not overly into Politics so if its a Political term I don't get it lol.

Dropper: I wouldn't vote for him myself, if I could vote and lived in America my vote would be for Obama, but I still think Ron Paul has as much a right to voice his opinions in a debate.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 01:27 PM

I wouldn't vote for him myself, if I could vote and lived in America my vote would be for Obama, but I still think Ron Paul has as much a right to voice his opinions in a debate.I know. But I guess there's a certain percentage that had to be made to participate in the debate, and he fell just short of it. It's unfair, I know.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 01:40 PM

Steve: Explain a bit more, I'm not overly into Politics so if its a Political term I don't get it lol.
In other words, Ron Paul has a very low max out level in terms of possible support. Only so many people will be swayed by isolationist and gold standard rhetoric; most people will never, ever support it.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 01:43 PM

In other words, Ron Paul has a very low max out level in terms of possible support. Only so many people will be swayed by isolationist and gold standard rhetoric; most people will never, ever support it.
Well yes but I think that in a situation where he's that close to TWO of the people they let in is it really that much to put another chair in the room?

I mean he obviously has support, and he's only off by 3% of HALF of the people they let in.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 01:45 PM

I don't get this gold standard BS. What are the purported advantages of returning to the gold standard?

Kage

01-06-2008, 01:46 PM

J Rad

01-06-2008, 01:46 PM

I wish Ron Paul wasn't in the debates

Hey me too, but not because "it's not fair waa waa", but because he doesn't deserve to be included.

J Rad

01-06-2008, 01:48 PM

Isolationist? Where'd you get that?

He has a non-interventionist foreign policy and wants to pull out of NATO and the UN. What isn't isolationist about that?

Kage

01-06-2008, 01:50 PM

Getting rid of an absurd foreign policy and focusing on domestic problems (ie, or own business) while encouraging diplomacy and free trade with other countries isn't isolationist, it's sensible.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 01:52 PM

Pulling out of NATO and the UN isn't sensible, it's nuts.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 01:54 PM

Agreed.

Pulling out of NATO and the UN is just asking to be invaded in some way eventually. I dunno' its just generally not a good call.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 01:57 PM

Yeah, because they honestly give a crap about some 15 yr old metalhead kid from Arizona. :rolleyes:

Maybe if you were Muslim...

What the bloody hell are you talking about? The majority of the people in this country have ideals that come from both major political parties, which is why we continue to go back and forth and get nothing accomplished. It's not a difficult concept. And of copurse they don't give a **** about any one particular person. That's why I said it would take massive amounts of people to really make any kind of a difference.

If you don't have a valid point that has anything to do with what I'm saying, don't bother saying anything at all. Seriously, how did you become a mod?

By the way, I'm 23 :thumb:

Det_Nosnip

01-06-2008, 02:01 PM

Yikes. Grow up, then.

I was talking about your (hopefully facetious) fear of being broken in by secret service agents.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 02:05 PM

Pulling out of NATO and the UN isn't sensible, it's nuts.

And it's textbook isolationism.

"Wanting to isolate us from the rest of the world isn't isolationism..."

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 02:08 PM

You don't have to be isolationist to not have a crazy foreign policy.

There's this thing called multilateralism.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 02:25 PM

Yikes. Grow up, then.

I was talking about your (hopefully facetious) fear of being broken in by secret service agents.

I'm sure you could have told by my " :rolleyes: " that I was being sarcastic.

However, a lot of truth is said in jest. Did you not see the flare up over some 12 year old girl who had a banner on her myspace page that said "Kill Bush". Secret Service agents pulled her out of school to interrogate her, fearing she was part of a "terrorist" plot.

Seriously. A preteen on myspace has SS agents at the door over a "terrorist plot". :rolleyes:

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 02:26 PM

Seriously. A preteen on myspace has SS agents at the door.I didn't know the SS was still active in America.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 02:27 PM

Secret Service, read the whole post and quit trying to be funny.

YouGottaBeCrazy

01-06-2008, 03:25 PM

I'm sure you could have told by my " :rolleyes: " that I was being sarcastic.

However, a lot of truth is said in jest. Did you not see the flare up over some 12 year old girl who had a banner on her myspace page that said "Kill Bush". Secret Service agents pulled her out of school to interrogate her, fearing she was part of a "terrorist" plot.

Seriously. A preteen on myspace has SS agents at the door over a "terrorist plot". :rolleyes:

I wouldn't worry about it.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 03:28 PM

I didn't know the SS was still active in America.

I was under the impression that it was more or less the center piece of America. :rolleyes:

But seriously, I do agree that things can get outa' hand. For example that 12 year old girl thing. Its retarded as hell. I really don't follow their train of thought all the time.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 03:31 PM

You don't have to be isolationist to not have a crazy foreign policy.

This.

gregulus

01-06-2008, 03:39 PM

But really, I don't see what advantages returning to the gold standard has over the federal reserve. If the influx of gold slows or stops, it seems that that would have serious economic repercussions that no one would be able to counter.

I will be the first to admit, though, that I know very little about the Gold Standard.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 03:41 PM

I know little about it but I think its just a short term solution to try and stop them from having a not so high dollar anymore. I think the Canadian dollar is worth more now than the American.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:11 PM

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 05:12 PM

good they should send her to gitmo for a few days."I'm a moderate!"

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:19 PM

"I'm a moderate!"

yeah and she's immoderate.

gitmo!

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 05:31 PM

yeah and she's immoderate.

gitmo!What the hell is wrong with you

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:32 PM

What the hell is wrong with you

it's not about me, it's about what's wrong with her. nothing a little gitmo won't solve, now that abu ghirab is closed.

malaise

01-06-2008, 05:33 PM

He was getting it from all sides last night. He was making some good points, but just got shut out.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 05:34 PM

it's not about me, it's about what's wrong with her. nothing a little gitmo won't solve, now that abu ghirab is closed.Are you drunk

Valhall

01-06-2008, 05:41 PM

it's not about me, it's about what's wrong with her. nothing a little gitmo won't solve, now that abu ghirab is closed.

Do you seriously feel threatened by a 12 year old girl's myspace?

Christ, she's a child, she's going to say dumb ****.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:44 PM

Are you drunk
no

so she's 12. what if she threatened to kill a classmate? would people just say, "oh she's only 12."

she needs to have an early lesson in responsibility.

Do you seriously feel threatened by a 12 year old girl's myspace?

she didn't threaten me. she threatened george bush.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 05:46 PM

she didn't threaten me. she threatened george bush.

OMG. Screw Al-Qaida, we need to be on the lookout for 12 year old girls with big mouths on Myspace!

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:47 PM

OMG. Screw Al-Qaida, we need to be on the lookout for 12 year old girls with big mouths on Myspace!

no we have a lot of other agencies to take care of Al Quaida.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 05:48 PM

no

so she's 12. what if she threatened to kill a classmate? would people just say, "oh she's only 12."

she needs to have an early lesson in responsibility.a preteen girl could kill the president

Valhall

01-06-2008, 05:49 PM

no we have a lot of other agencies to take care of Al Quaida.

Lol. Well, I guess we can focus more attention on preteen girls then. :rolleyes:

Christ, my dog could kill the president. I think we need the secret service to be on the lookout for killer dogs. :rolleyes:

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:51 PM

a preteen girl could kill the president

a preteen girl can't?

Lol. Well, I guess we can focus more attention on preteen girls then. :rolleyes:

preteen girls that threaten to kill the president.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 05:51 PM

AMERICA

Never fear - Steve is here! He's so moderate he's prepared to send preteen girls to a Cuban prison camp at the drop of a hat.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:54 PM

AMERICA

yup in America it's illegal to threaten to kill the president.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 05:55 PM

yup in America it's illegal to threaten to kill the president.where does it say that

more specifically where does it say you should send the perpetraitors to a cuban prison camp

Hababi

01-06-2008, 05:57 PM

where does it say that

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/65mcrm.htm

more specifically where does it say you should send the perpetraitors to a cuban prison camp

Well you have to send them somewhere.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:02 PM

Well you have to send them somewhere.to guantanamo

I'm sorry, but you've gone too far this time. This is even worse than Homotopia.

You're not a moderate. You're a nut.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 06:06 PM

to guantanamo

I'm sorry, but you've gone too far this time. This is even worse than Homotopia.

You're not a moderate. You're a nut.

It took you a while to come to the conclusion that we've all known forever.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 06:06 PM

to guantanamo

I'm sorry, but you've gone too far this time. This is even worse than Homotopia.

I disavow 'homotopia'

but scaring straight a stupid 12 year old? that's a brilliant idea.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 06:08 PM

It took you a while to come to the conclusion that we've all known forever.

I and maybe tway rate overly long lame idiotic nuts generously, you or u.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:09 PM

I disavow 'homotopia'

but scaring straight a stupid 12 year old? that's a brilliant idea.When was the last time you went on a date?
It took you a while to come to the conclusion that we've all known forever.
I thought he'd changed. I really did.
I and maybe tway rate overly long lame idiotic nuts generously, you or u.Huh?

Surtr

01-06-2008, 06:11 PM

When was the last time you went on a date?
I thought he'd changed. I really did.
Huh?

Nope.

He's more or less convinced that its pretty moderate to believe a 12 year old girl could kill the president because she posted a banner on her MySpace.

I and maybe tway rate overly long lame idiotic nuts generously, you or u.

Making any logical sense doesn't seem to be high on the ladder either.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:13 PM

I'm a moderate.

gregulus

01-06-2008, 06:15 PM

Wait, I took a long leave of absence. What the **** is Homotopia?

Det_Nosnip

01-06-2008, 06:16 PM

lol @ Serenity. Funny ****, man. :D

Hababi

01-06-2008, 06:25 PM

Making any logical sense doesn't seem to be high on the ladder either.

You missed the point.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:26 PM

Wait, I took a long leave of absence. What the **** is Homotopia?Steve's plan to round up and exile all of America's homosexuals.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 06:28 PM

You missed the point.

Surtr

01-06-2008, 06:29 PM

Steve none of us can read gibberish sadly (Or perhaps not so sadly..) so would you so kind as to explain this "point" that we've all "missed"?

Akira

01-06-2008, 06:33 PM

no we have a lot of other agencies to take care of Al Quaida.

Like the Afghan warlords, right?

Hababi

01-06-2008, 06:34 PM

Steve none of us can read gibberish sadly (Or perhaps not so sadly..) so would you so kind as to explain this "point" that we've all "missed"?

Look at the letters first.

Like the Afghan warlords, right?

Sounds good to me.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:35 PM

None of us get it so just explain yourself dammit.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 06:39 PM

None of us get it so just explain yourself dammit.

I've given you the key

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:48 PM

I've given you the key:eek:

And I thought you were just drunk.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 06:48 PM

The key to lock up preteen girls!
:lol:

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:50 PM

I and maybe tway rate overly long lame idiotic nuts generously, you or u.

YouGottaBeCrazy

01-06-2008, 06:53 PM

o shi

Hababi

01-06-2008, 06:57 PM

I and maybe tway rate overly long lame idiotic nuts generously, you or u.

winner

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 06:58 PM

As usual.

I'm a moderate. I want to send Steve to Conservatopia.

Valhall

01-06-2008, 06:58 PM

Haha.

gregulus

01-06-2008, 07:10 PM

Steve's plan to round up and exile all of America's homosexuals.

oof.

Hababi

01-06-2008, 07:36 PM

As usual.

It took you long enough :evil:

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 07:44 PM

It took you long enough :evil:
I always prevail in the end.

Because I'm a moderate.

YouGottaBeCrazy

01-06-2008, 08:17 PM

you're a commie bastard and a terrorist. gtfoomcyfcbt

Det_Nosnip

01-06-2008, 09:35 PM

lol.

Smokey D

01-06-2008, 09:37 PM

Guys, Steve just owned you guys for like 3 pages.

Iskandar

01-06-2008, 09:54 PM

Guys, Steve just owned you guys for like 3 pages.I got him in the end.

Mr. Ron

01-07-2008, 11:24 AM

I and maybe tway rate overly long lame idiotic nuts generously, you or u.

I see what you did there.

gregulus

01-07-2008, 11:56 AM

I see what you did there.

eagle eyes.

Mr. Ron

01-07-2008, 11:58 AM

Basically.

ringworm

01-07-2008, 12:00 PM

No. But thats a dumb comparison. First off, the entire Republican field doesn't believe in evolution. Even worse, Romney believes in Mormonism. Giuliani believes in a stupid foreign policy. Obama believes his health care package will actually cover all Americans. Hillary believes she's actually an agent of change. Edwards believes that 400$ haircut looks good.

My point is, all candidates believe stupid stuff, and it shouldn't be limited to religion. I don't believe in creationism, but I think its the same thing as somebody believing socialized medicine doesn't work. But not believing in evolution is a dumb thing to write off a candidate for, even more so when they have no intention of imposing there beliefs on you.

Governments with hindu leaders believe they will be reincarnated. Governments with muslim leaders believe there are virgins waiting for them in heaven. Are they bad leaders? Maybe. But does it have any direct relationship to the fact that they believe these things? No.

Stop looking for, as I said, minute details to write off Ron Paul when you can't find anything else. O wait, I forgot, he's nuts. Never mind.
123 dude

He wants to reduce federal taxes. A little known fact is that the federal income tax does not actually pay for any of the services we expect. It goes to pay off debts, both national, and the debt that the banks owe the fed. There isn't a dime left to go to services. Education, roads, police force, all these things we think taxes go to pay for, are done at the local level, which Paul believes is the way it should be. It's just the income tax he wants to get rid of mostly.
again, 123
I'm getting quite sick of hearing about Ron Paul.
that scares me about you
have you bothered listening to more than just excerpts and soundbytes of his?
he has consistantly pwned every debate I have seen him in lately

anyone who thinks he's nuts IS nuts tbo, of course, I dont even agree with him 100%, but how is that even possible

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 12:47 PM

that scares me about you
have you bothered listening to more than just excerpts and soundbytes of his?
he has consistantly pwned every debate I have seen him in latelyI'm not sick of hearing him, I'm sick of hearing his fanboys.:)

I heard him in the New Hampshire debates last night. He was spot on about foreign policy, and all the other candidates shouted him down, making him look stupid. I felt kind of bad for him.

ringworm

01-07-2008, 12:54 PM

I'm not sick of hearing him, I'm sick of hearing his fanboys.:)
lol, how come the supporters of the other candidates arent called fanboys?
we're just trying to get people to really listen to him instead of letting people fall for the rhetoric designed to void his stance
and all the other candidates shouted him down, making him look stupid. I felt kind of bad for him.
eh, I think thats why support keeps growing, he's right and everyone else just tries to pwn him, but all they have are condesending insults, not real answers for his absolute solutions

Illmatic

01-07-2008, 12:57 PM

ok I watched part of that Fox News Republican forum last night and I have to ask: do Republicans really care about anything other than taxes? the half-hour I watched was devoted to these guys babbling about taxes.

ringworm

01-07-2008, 12:59 PM

well, if you've actually been paying them for a really long time and watched them rise, then yeah, its pretty important, hardly the MOSt important issue, but pretty high on the pole

Illmatic

01-07-2008, 01:01 PM

well, if you've actually been paying them for a really long time and watched them rise, then yeah, its pretty important, hardly the MOSt important issue, but pretty high on the pole

I know that, I haven't been paying taxes for a long time but I'm doing it now.

but if I know anything about half these guys it's that if they do lower taxes they're just going to spike the fees for every public service (just like Romney did when he was the governor of MA)

and I would like to hear their opinions on something else...hearing all the Republican candidates argue over who really cuts taxes and who actually raises them sometimes pretty much just reinforces my ideas about how petty most Republicans are.

and taxes really aren't the biggest issue for a lot of voters, especially the ones that don't make enough money for tax breaks to really matter all that much.

ringworm

01-07-2008, 01:24 PM

but if I know anything about half these guys it's that if they do lower taxes they're just going to spike the fees for every public service (just like Romney did when he was the governor of MA)
and if the government wasnt so involved in every aspect of your life, they couldnt raise anything or even need such a large budget to tax you with
and I would like to hear their opinions on something else
lol, well quit watching Fox News then silly :)

I've seen some great vids from all kinds of other platforms and sources
This is why I like Ron Paul, he talks about only important issues, I guess thats why he doesnt get invited to many discussions, lol
and taxes really aren't the biggest issue for a lot of voters,
again, Ron has covered almost every topic, only the "frontrunners" are beating a dead horse.
especially the ones that don't make enough money for tax breaks to really matter all that much.
this just reinforces my ideas about how petty everyone else is, I love how easy it is for so many to talk about how someone elses earnings could help them out so much

But people fail to realize why everything is so expensive in the first place.

Illmatic

01-07-2008, 01:30 PM

this just reinforces my ideas about how petty everyone else is, I love how easy it is for so many to talk about how someone elses earnings could help them out so much

that's putting words in my mouth.

But people fail to realize why everything is so expensive in the first place.

relative cost and supply and demand and all that stuff

ringworm

01-07-2008, 01:31 PM

that's putting words in my mouth.
lol, I didnt mean it so specifically

relative cost and supply and demand and all that stuff
well, that too :)

Valhall

01-07-2008, 02:08 PM

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 02:15 PM

and if the government wasnt so involved in every aspect of your life, they couldnt raise anything or even need such a large budget to tax you withThe biggest problem is America's militarist stance. I heard some of the Repubs talking about a "huge military buildup" and adding 300 000 more troops or whatever. All I could think was, ****, don't these guys know how expensive this would be? They talk about cutting taxes and government spending and don't seem to realize the irony that defence takes up half of the budget.

YDtoad

01-07-2008, 02:19 PM

From what I saw of Ron Paul in the New Hampshire debates, I'm less than impressed.

I'm also realizing what an incredible weasel Mitt Romney is. I like his "hardcore" stance on immigration, but God knows that'll change given another week or a different opinion poll.

McCain has been the most consistent, and in my oopinion, therefore the most trustworthy of leading our nation, even if you disagree with some of his policies...

I agree about McCain. He is experienced and competent. I'll vote for him against anyone.

If Mitt Romney had run an honest campaign, I would probably be open to supporting him. He's a very good businessman and I think he's good at analytical decision making. Unfortunately, he's running the most Machiavellian campaign I've seen.

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 02:21 PM

Mitt Romney scares me.

ringworm

01-07-2008, 02:23 PM

The biggest problem is America's militarist stance. I heard some of the Repubs talking about a "huge military buildup" and adding 300 000 more troops or whatever. All I could think was, ****, don't these guys know how expensive this would be? They talk about cutting taxes and government spending and don't seem to realize the irony that defence takes up half of the budget.
oh yeah, I am totally on board with severe cuts in military spending, trust me, that is about the only problem I have with "most" republicans

that alone would fix many of our lopsided problems
I agree about McCain. He is experienced and competent. I'll vote for him against anyone.
wow, that just amazes me, I'd vote for anyone besides him, especially after he felt the need to go after a nut like Romney the other night, he made himself look even less credible

he just rides on the tails of preventing terror and national safety too much for my liking

Mr. Ron

01-07-2008, 02:24 PM

Mitt Romney scares me.

Whenever I look at him, he reminds me of Lex Luther, but with hair.

YDtoad

01-07-2008, 02:32 PM

wow, that just amazes me, I'd vote for anyone besides him, especially after he felt the need to go after a nut like Romney the other night, he made himself look even less credible

Some people thought that he didn't do himself well in the ABC debate. Honestly, I liked his performance and I liked that he called Mitt Romney out on the lies and distortions he's been running on.

he just rides on the tails of preventing terror and national safety too much for my liking

I suppose that point can be made, but that doesn't bother me too much. McCain is the Republican most talking about curbing global warming, which is a significant and brave thing.

Illmatic

01-07-2008, 04:05 PM

If Mitt Romney had run an honest campaign, I would probably be open to supporting him. He's a very good businessman and I think he's good at analytical decision making. Unfortunately, he's running the most Machiavellian campaign I've seen.

did you pay attention to him when he was the governor of Massachusetts? he's always been like that.

Futue te Ipsum

01-07-2008, 06:34 PM

Nice response to that. Seriously, politics is a heavy subject, so just hang around a while and learn some stuff. You are right that the two party system is dumb.

edit: actually, don't hang around. Most we just call each other dumb. This is mostly done by mods. We get a lot accomplished though :rolleyes:most of you are dumb tbh.

and yeah, people ignoring evidence because it's against their beliefs is a ****ing good reason not to vote for somebody. It extends much further than just evolution you know. Ask your local creationist what they think about climate change and I bet 90% of them will say "oh yeah liberal lie" due to their ignorance of evidence.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 08:15 PM

wow, that just amazes me, I'd vote for anyone besides him, especially after he felt the need to go after a nut like Romney the other night, he made himself look even less credible

Some people are to blind to see what a flipflopping, weasely idiot Romney is. There's nothing wrong with calling him out.

Like I said, McCain is the ideal candidate. Even if you don't agree with all of his policies, he has the best combination of experience, consistency, and truthfulness that is needed to lead the nation.

All of the Democratic candidates scare me, tbh.

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 09:03 PM

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:09 PM

It doesn't matter if he's consistent if I disagree with nearly all of his policies.

Honestly it just seems a little shallow when people focus on whether the candidate is honest or will "be a good leader."

Well, if you disagree with nearly all of his policies, it's a little different lol. Obviously more has to go into it than honesty.

I happen to agree with a lot of his policies. I wish he was a little tougher on things like illegal immigration, but for that I would have to go with Romney, the resident weasel, and I really don't want that.

gregulus

01-07-2008, 09:14 PM

Well, if you disagree with nearly all of his policies, it's a little different lol. Obviously more has to go into it than honesty.

I happen to agree with a lot of his policies. I wish he was a little tougher on things like illegal immigration, but for that I would have to go with Romney, the resident weasel, and I really don't want that.
I thought you said you weren't really conservative?

Hababi

01-07-2008, 09:15 PM

Well, if you disagree with nearly all of his policies, it's a little different lol. Obviously more has to go into it than honesty.

I happen to agree with a lot of his policies. I wish he was a little tougher on things like illegal immigration, but for that I would have to go with Romney, the resident weasel, and I really don't want that.

How is Romney's plan on illegal immigration better?

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:19 PM

How is Romney's plan on illegal immigration better?

I didn't say it was better; that's a matter of personal opinion. I said I agree with his most recent hardcore stance on it. Load 'em up, send 'em back. No tolerance.

The problem is, his stance changes every week.

I thought you said you weren't really conservative?

For the last goddamn time, I don't give a toss about titles or partisan crap, I don't care what you call it, I believe what I believe. Some of my beliefs are considered conservative, others are considered liberal, and even that depends on what country you're in. I don't refer to myself as anything.

gregulus

01-07-2008, 09:20 PM

I didn't say it was better; that's a matter of personal opinion. I said I agree with his most recent hardcore stance on it. Load 'em up, send 'em back. No tolerance.

The problem is, his stance changes every week.

So they can jump the border again and we have to spend even more money sending the back?

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 09:22 PM

All of the Democratic candidates scare me, tbh.Why?

Hababi

01-07-2008, 09:22 PM

I didn't say it was better; that's a matter of personal opinion. I said I agree with his most recent hardcore stance on it. Load 'em up, send 'em back. No tolerance.

Why is it better for us to send people who are here doing honest work that the American citizens aren't doing otherwise?

It's neither economically wise nor morally acceptable to remove a significant chunk of the work force of California, Arizona, New Mexico and elsewhere, after years of essentially giving them a blank pass to come here and work.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:22 PM

So shoot them on thier way over, and send the bodies to the Mexican capitol with a note saying, "we're serious"...

@gregulus

Edit: there's a thread for this discussion specifically; I've made all my points there. I was asked why I supported Romney's "latest" policy change, I answered...because it's tougher.

Why?

Because one has little experience, another, well, we've been down her road before, and for all of them, thier socialist liberal idealistic overspending crap is too much for me to bear.

Smokey D

01-07-2008, 09:33 PM

Erm, the last Clinton road we went down yielded the largest surplus in history.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:36 PM

Erm, the last Clinton road we went down yielded the largest surplus in history.

And also let Osama Bin Laden free after he was offered to us in cuffs, created the most ridiculous gun laws to date, didn't get us anywhere on abortion, and spent money bombing random countries which proved out to not prevent something like 9/11 after all. Haha, tell me, really, what did bombing Sudan accomplish?

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 09:36 PM

Because one has little experience, another, well, we've been down her road before, and for all of them, thier socialist liberal idealistic overspending crap is too much for me to bear.None of the candidates are socialist. Not even Kucinich.

Hababi

01-07-2008, 09:37 PM

And also let Osama Bin Laden free after he was offered to us in cuffs, created the most ridiculous gun laws to date,

What would those be?

and spent money bombing random countries which proved out to not prevent something like 9/11 after all. Haha, tell me, really, what did bombing Sudan accomplish?

Erm dude that's where Osama Bin Laden was.

ringworm

01-07-2008, 09:39 PM

i think i have been conditioned to despise Clinton, even though now I see he did a nice job and everyone seemed to prosper

i still like Paul, but unless he gets in, I wont vote Rep this year, the others just sicken me

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:39 PM

What would those be?

Erm dude that's where Osama Bin Laden was.

That wasn't his reasoning at the time. His reasoning was that there were factories there capable of making WMDs.

Oh, and by the way, if Clinton tried so hard to get Bin Laden,

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/clinton-administration-turned-down-10-chances-to-get-osama/

Read through the whole thing. Ah, yes, the strength of a Clinton....NOT.

gregulus

01-07-2008, 09:40 PM

So shoot them on thier way over, and send the bodies to the Mexican capitol with a note saying, "we're serious"...

@gregulus

Yep, that's morality for you. Not to mention economically sound.
Because one has little experience, another, well, we've been down her road before, and for all of them, thier socialist liberal idealistic overspending crap is too much for me to bear.
Why do you always call the Democrats socialist? You sound like Sean Hannity and rich old men.

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 09:41 PM

Why do you always call the Democrats socialist? You sound like Sean Hannity and rich old men.The Democrats are centrists, really.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:42 PM

The U.S. doen't exist to fix Mexico's problems for them, tbh, or to take care of thier people or to consume thier drugs.

gregulus

01-07-2008, 09:43 PM

The Democrats are centrists, really.

They support helping people out. They're reds. I bet Hilary Clinton has a hammer and sickle tattoo over her heart.

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 09:43 PM

They support helping people out. They're reds. I bet Hilary Clinton has a hammer and sickle tattoo over her heart.Lol.

gregulus

01-07-2008, 09:45 PM

The U.S. doen't exist to fix Mexico's problems for them, tbh, or to take care of thier people or to consume thier drugs.

Is it me, or am I sensing a bit of racism here?

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:46 PM

Drugs have nothing to do with racism. 3/4 of the heroin and cocaine consumed in the U.S comes across the Mexican border along with the illegals..

McP3000

01-07-2008, 09:47 PM

The Democrats are centrists, really.
Ok stop with the political compass bullshit. Im sick of it. We all know Edwards is a centrist compared to Sweden, but in America he's liberal.
I mean im a liberal scumbag compared to Hitler, that doesn't mean i'm not relatively conservative.

gregulus

01-07-2008, 09:47 PM

Drugs have nothing to do with racism. 3/4 of the heroin and cocaine consumed in the U.S comes across the Mexican border along with the illegals..

I would better believe that the heroin and cocaine comes more from the actual drug pushers than illegal immigrants wanting to work.

McP3000

01-07-2008, 09:49 PM

I would better believe that the heroin and cocaine comes more from the actual drug pushers than illegal immigrants wanting to work.
That doesn't mean they don't cross the border illegally to transport them. Because...they do.

Hababi

01-07-2008, 09:49 PM

That wasn't his reasoning at the time. His reasoning was that there were factories there capable of making WMDs.

Oh, and by the way, if Clinton tried so hard to get Bin Laden,

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/clinton-administration-turned-down-10-chances-to-get-osama/

Read through the whole thing. Ah, yes, the strength of a Clinton....NOT.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Smokey D

01-07-2008, 09:49 PM

And also let Osama Bin Laden free after he was offered to us in cuffs

No one knew how bad he was gonna turn out.

created the most ridiculous gun laws to date

Good man.

didn't get us anywhere on abortion

You guys got that **** sorted out in 1978.

and spent money bombing random countries which proved out to not prevent something like 9/11 after all. Haha, tell me, really, what did bombing Sudan accomplish?

Not much, probably. But it's not very important to whether Clinton was successful.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:50 PM

I would better believe that the heroin and cocaine comes more from the actual drug pushers than illegal immigrants wanting to work.

Drug pushers which are illegal, crossing the border unchecked which is illegal (and a dangerous security issue), and usually subcontracting to drug dealers in the U.S. (of which the majority of those just under the cartels in rank are also illegal).

McP3000

01-07-2008, 09:50 PM

Clinton is overrated. He got the upturn of a cyclical economy. Sure he did some good, but not the democrats savior.
But then again he was the last president before Bush.

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 09:51 PM

Ok stop with the political compass bullpoop. Im sick of it. We all know Edwards is a centrist compared to Sweden, but in America he's liberal.
I mean im a liberal scumbag compared to Hitler, that doesn't mean i'm not relatively conservative.My frame of reference is Western politics. It doesn't make sense to talk about what's considered liberal and conservative in each individual country. In the Soviet Union, Lenin would have been liberal compared to Stalin.

Hababi

01-07-2008, 09:53 PM

Drug pushers which are illegal, crossing the border unchecked which is illegal (and a dangerous security issue), and usually subcontracting to drug dealers in the U.S. (of which the majority of those just under the cartels in rank are also illegal).

According to Chertoff, roughly 2 million of the 11-12 million illegal immigrants in this country are guilty of crimes relating to drugs, gang activity, etc.

Well, then you have the rest of the people. They're picking fruit and vegetables, they're cleaning homes and washing dishes, doing jobs that Americans won't take for the market wage. They're a net gain for the American economy. They're not hurting anyone.

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 09:53 PM

And also let Osama Bin Laden free after he was offered to us in cuffs, created the most ridiculous gun laws to date, didn't get us anywhere on abortion, and spent money bombing random countries which proved out to not prevent something like 9/11 after all. Haha, tell me, really, what did bombing Sudan accomplish?

You're lost if you think 9/11 was Clinton's fault

Iskandar

01-07-2008, 09:54 PM

Well, then you have the rest of the people. They're picking fruit and vegetables, they're cleaning homes and washing dishes, doing jobs that Americans won't take for the market wage. They're a net gain for the American economy. They're not hurting anyone.Do they get minimum wage?

Hababi

01-07-2008, 09:57 PM

Do they get minimum wage?

A lot of the time they do. There are instances of insane exploitation, but these are mostly isolated incidents.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 09:57 PM

According to Chertoff, roughly 2 million of the 11-12 million illegal immigrants in this country are guilty of crimes relating to drugs, gang activity, etc.
.

The point is, the higher ranking criminals in drug rings in the U.S. are typically working with illegals, if they aren't illegal themselves.

Even so, 2 million isn't a number that should be okay, and it's a relatively high percentage, don't ya think?

Kage

01-07-2008, 09:59 PM

That's a whopping 17%

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 10:00 PM

If illegals don't deliver drugs someone else will

Dude can I buy some crack?
Nah, Romney's in office
Okay I guess I'll get a job

Hababi

01-07-2008, 10:04 PM

The point is, the higher ranking criminals in drug rings in the U.S. are typically working with illegals, if they aren't illegal themselves.

Well yeah because that's where a lot of the drugs come from.

Even so, 2 million isn't a number that should be okay,

What do you mean?

and it's a relatively high percentage, don't ya think?

I don't care about percentages, I care about the 9 million people who are needlessly, cruelly, and unjustly demonized.

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 10:06 PM

Zero this is quite the opposite of what I'd expect from you

Valhall

01-07-2008, 10:09 PM

What do you mean?

I mean what I said. 2 million people commiting crime that isn't here legally in the first place isn't "okay". Honestly, one person committing a crime that isn't here legally in the first place isn't "okay".

Hababi

01-07-2008, 10:10 PM

Zero this is quite the opposite of what I'd expect from you

people keep on presuming the total opposite of what my views are on immigration :(

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 10:11 PM

That doesn't justify cracking down on those that are behaving themselves though

(to val)

and sorry zero I didn't know you had such a compassionate side

Hababi

01-07-2008, 10:11 PM

I mean what I said. 2 million people commiting crime that isn't here legally in the first place isn't "okay". Honestly, one person committing a crime that isn't here legally in the first place isn't "okay".

Yeah and John McCain, who you criticized, has said loud and clear that his first priority would be getting those 2 million out of the country and keeping them out. None of the three main Democrats oppose this. So your point is moot.

And yes, this has nothing to do with the other 9 million.

Hababi

01-07-2008, 10:14 PM

That doesn't justify cracking down on those that are behaving themselves though

(to val)

and sorry zero I didn't know you had such a compassionate side

I am a compassionate conservative. :chug::D

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 10:17 PM

lol nice

Det_Nosnip

01-07-2008, 10:22 PM

I am a compassionate conservative. :chug::D

Bush?! :eek:

Valhall

01-07-2008, 10:23 PM

That doesn't justify cracking down on those that are behaving themselves though

(to val)

Yea, because they need to get in line along with those who are already peacefully waiting thier turn to get in legally. They don't have a right to get here sooner or more easily than anyone else.

Hababi

01-07-2008, 10:24 PM

Yea, because they need to get in line along with those who are already peacefully waiting thier turn to get in legally. They don't have a right to get here sooner or more easily than anyone else.

They are here. They've been here, for years. They're members of their communities and contributors to society.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 10:26 PM

They are here. They've been here, for years. They're members of their communities and contributors to society.

Only because of the they thought they had a right to get here quicker and easier than everyone else in thier same position who waited thier legal turn.

Nobody has more of a right to get here than anyone else, and there's a right way to go about it.

Smokey D

01-07-2008, 10:28 PM

If no body has more of a right than anyone else, then legals have no more right than illegals.

Hababi

01-07-2008, 10:29 PM

Only because of the they thought they had a right to get here quicker and easier than everyone else in thier same position who waited thier legal turn.

You know why? Because the government has maintained de facto amnesty for years. The message has been clear: get around border security, keep your nose clean, and you probably won't face much trouble from the law. Why? Because the government understands the necessity of the labor. Changing that now would be hypocritical, and economically ridiculous.

Nobody has more of a right to get here than anyone else, and there's a right way to go about it.

Yeah and that isn't deporting millions of hardworking people.

Valhall

01-07-2008, 10:32 PM

Yeah and that isn't deporting millions of hardworking people.

Well, there should be no problem with all of them coming forward, identifying themselves, and making it known that they are hardworking and not causing trouble.

At the very least deportation of all the criminals/gang members that are illegal is a must. The rest is arguable til the cows come home.

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 10:32 PM

That's exactly what McCain wants

Hababi

01-07-2008, 10:33 PM

Well, there should be no problem with all of them coming forward, identifying themselves, and making it known that they are hardworking and not causing trouble.

At the very least deportation of all the criminals/gang members that are illegal is a must. The rest is arguable til the cows come home.

Ok but now you're talking about the McCain plan, not the Romney plan.

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 10:37 PM

Steve you old bleeding heart you

Valhall

01-07-2008, 10:38 PM

Ok but now you're talking about the McCain plan, not the Romney plan.

The McCain plan is necessary at the very least is what I'm saying, but I can argue for the Romney plan forever...that's what we've been doing anyway lol.

McP3000

01-07-2008, 11:15 PM

Ron Paul was just on Jay Leno and i fell in love with him again.

He also said the Democrat he likes the most in Kucinich

wtf

Knifeboy

01-07-2008, 11:21 PM

of course the democratic candidate he likes the best is the only one who would lose the presidency if he got nonimated ;)

Danger Bird

01-07-2008, 11:26 PM

The McCain plan is necessary at the very least is what I'm saying, but I can argue for the Romney plan forever...that's what we've been doing anyway lol.

The Romney plan is just get rid of all of them whether they deserve it or not and then deal with them the exact same way again when they come back.

McP3000

01-07-2008, 11:29 PM

of course the democratic candidate he likes the best is the only one who would lose the presidency if he got nonimated ;)
He said he often talks to him over social and foreign policy. They are often the only two that vote against more spending in Iraq.

ringworm

01-08-2008, 08:32 AM

i hate i missed him on Leno :/

Amit

01-08-2008, 08:35 AM

gregulus

01-08-2008, 09:20 AM

wait so if they're here legally then it's okay

oh sweet brb murdering valhall

Don't make him look down the barrel of a gun, rape his goldfish, put a blunt knife at his throat, or walk across any border he puts up between you and him without his permission. He'll shoot you.

Also, don't do it if he is in Wyoming.

The Flying Barron

01-08-2008, 12:20 PM

Ron Paul speaks the truth. He needs to get his ideas out without those neo-con dogs ragging at him all the time.

Knifeboy

01-08-2008, 12:22 PM

hey werent you that crazy nazi/fascist

The Flying Barron

01-08-2008, 12:25 PM

hey werent you that crazy nazi/fascist

Yes, I was.

Knifeboy

01-08-2008, 12:25 PM

cool

welcome back!

The Flying Barron

01-08-2008, 12:29 PM

cool

welcome back!

Thanks.

gregulus

01-08-2008, 01:04 PM

Thanks.

since your a ron paul fan, i take it you've given up your fascist leanings?

ron paul has said some racist things, though. are you a racist?

YouGottaBeCrazy

01-08-2008, 01:06 PM

ron paul has said some racist things, though.

Like what?

ringworm

01-08-2008, 01:08 PM

just enough for people that hate him to hate him more

gregulus

01-08-2008, 01:18 PM

Like what?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

Against Miik!

01-08-2008, 01:18 PM

As far as I know, all those allegations of racism have been debunked. It wouldn't make sense that he is a racist, given his message of liberty and personal freedoms and civil liberties and such.

ringworm: heres Ron Paul on Leno

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-pxdmNzKNfU

part II link is under 'about this video' section

Knifeboy

01-08-2008, 01:21 PM

I'm sure Ron Paul isn't a complete nonracist, he's too old for that, considering where he grew up
but I do agree that it doesn't really seem like racism affects his policies
He's a liberterian to the bone, regardless of racism

gregulus

01-08-2008, 01:25 PM

Him not acting on his prejudices in regards to politics doesn't mean his prejudices are right.

However, I don't think we really need to worry about him wanting to enact racist legislation. I was just asking Red Barron if he was racist because I was curious.

Against Miik!

01-08-2008, 01:30 PM

Well anybody who claims to be a complete nonracist is completely a liar. I am sorry, but I guarantee every candidate in the field is a racist in some way, be it their social policies, or their wanting to blow Muslims back to the stone age. Lets assume for a second that they are all just a little wee bit racist, because they probably are. Would you want somebody who acts on those feelings? Or someone who doesn't?

All theoretical btw, so lets not make a big thing of it.

gregulus

01-08-2008, 01:32 PM

Against Miik!

01-08-2008, 01:37 PM

You are saying that our war, that is not against terrorism, but against a Muslim way of life that does not concern us, isn't racist?

Are you saying that the de facto segregated neighborhoods and unequal education systems in the big cities these candidates represent isn't racist?

You don't have to go around wearing a white hood to be a racist. And even if they aren't racist, the only other explanation for some of these things is ignorance, which is just as bad.

ringworm

01-08-2008, 01:40 PM

ringworm: heres Ron Paul on Leno
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-pxdmNzKNfU

part II link is under 'about this video' section
THANKS

its so sad to see the only candidate worthy of representing us falling so far behind people with no sense of representation

McP3000

01-08-2008, 01:40 PM

Yeah, just about everyone ever has had some sort of pride in their race over others.

The Flying Barron

01-08-2008, 01:49 PM

since your a ron paul fan, i take it you've given up your fascist leanings?

ron paul has said some racist things, though. are you a racist?

No, I am not fascist but it doesn't mean I wouldn't support fascism, and no I'm not racist. I also like the quote from your link. "I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist" Sorry, but that made me laugh, considering the only vicious and contemptible people are the neo-cons. I never even heard of such blatantly slanderous allegations against Ron Paul, but I'm not surprised due to the huge smear campaign against him.
USA needs a drastic foreign-policy change.

Iskandar

01-08-2008, 03:05 PM

He said he often talks to him over social and foreign policy. They are often the only two that vote against more spending in Iraq.They have a lot in common, actually. Both are liberal and strongly anti-war. They share a common enemy in the neo-cons. They simply disagree on economics.

(*The Noonward Race*)

01-08-2008, 03:16 PM

i like ron paul and would vote for him no matter how racist he is. his voting record and the way he thinks are more valuable.

his theory about the monetary system will tempered by his advisors, and the entire bureaucracy, they wont let him destroy the country and he probably won't anyway.

he seems to be the only one really about "change"

for the sake of foreign policy and for the sake of spending i would support him.

Against Miik!

01-08-2008, 04:02 PM

gregulus

01-08-2008, 04:24 PM

Can't get behind dismantling the Dept of Education, huge tax cuts, and leaving civil liberties up to the states.

I really, really like his foreign policy, though.

YouGottaBeCrazy

01-08-2008, 04:27 PM

What are Paul's views on Education?

Iskandar

01-08-2008, 04:28 PM

What are Paul's views on Education?Probably something along the lines of abolishing the Department of Education and replacing it with private school vouchers.

gregulus

01-08-2008, 04:37 PM

Probably something along the lines of abolishing the Department of Education and replacing it with private school vouchers.

It is this, actually.

I can only imagine this hitting the less well off school districts extremely hard.

Smokey D

01-08-2008, 05:13 PM

His monetary policy wouldn't destroy the country. It would just only be possible after some other serious changes. What will destroy this country is the current trend our currency is on. Do we think that just because its the United States that the currency is invincible? Because its not. Actually, the currency was quite stable until the creation of the fed. Since then, its value has dropped quite a bit.

It really would destroy the currency. And gold wouldn't give it much more stability. And there isn't enough gold to back the dollar. And the dollar is being outperformed by other currencies based on fractional reserve banking. And it's picked to enjoy an upswing this year.

And why the hell are you comparing the dollar to pre-fed inflation? That's just stupid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7175449.stm

Against Miik!

01-08-2008, 05:35 PM

Well I am no economist or anything. All I can do is use whatever common sense God gave me. So I look at this graph released by I forget who, and it showed the price over the years of oil in 3 currencies, those being the dollar, the euro, and gold. What I saw was the price sky rocketed around the, again I forget what year since I don't have it in front of me. It went up the most in dollars, and a little less in euros. In gold however, the price has stayed the same, even as we see it 100$ a barrel. That, to me, is empirical evidence that the problem isn't things getting more expensive, exactly, but that the dollar is losing its value at an alarming rate.

Its true, that currently, there would not be enough gold to back the dollar. But that is the simple price we pay for, basically, having too many dollars. Are you insinuating, basically, that we have come to far to turn back now, as far as the currency goes?