Is Ron Paul The Kucinich of the Republican Party?

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
no, not what i was doing at all. was busting bucks chops for making fun of people for things they have no control over, like being ugly, or not being able to keep a boner for a half hour.

maybe you should lay off the skidoo fumes. it might be affecting your sense of humor.

btw not 70, 48, with a slightly enlarged prostrate....since you asked.....

so take your shots at my prostrate. its something i have total control of....duh.
actually, if you would have properly taken care of it, ... ;)

you don't think i'm laughing?
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
the focus you all give ron paul is proof of where this is all going.


look, a shiny thing!!!!


LOL :eyesmoke:

i'm ugly and dumb on 2 stroke fumes with a limp dick and sick children, and i'm still not voting for ron paul.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I don't think RP 's wife is ugly, she is just old.
Remember Kathleen Turner? Blonde Bombshell?


Look what Age does to you.....



I wonder what RP's wife looked like 50 years ago.
Doesn't matter. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; plus it doesn't (shouldn't) factor in politics. Those who use that as a barometer of political philosophy are ignorant imbeciles.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
He is honest Just like Ron Paul
And then there is Nader
He is honest just like Ron Paul

Unfortunatly for them the vast majority of people do not agree with their fringe views
fringe views like following the Constitution, living within your means, don't get involved in wars that have nothing to do with our national security.
You're retarded right?
 

Smirgen

Well-Known Member
fringe views like following the Constitution, living within your means, don't get involved in wars that have nothing to do with our national security.
You're retarded right?
Following the Constitution is pretty fringe nowdays, just look at how many people on here are scared of it if not Ron Paul.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
fringe views like following the Constitution, living within your means, don't get involved in wars that have nothing to do with our national security.
You're retarded right?
he only likes parts of the constitution, the rest he wants to change, like the 14th and 16th amendments.

living document that evolves? i thought that shit was for libtards like me.
 

laughingduck

Well-Known Member
Sure, if 2/3 of the folks agree, it can be changed to whatever they want. Till then, it needs to be followed. The problems come when it gets stretched to what it could mean, instead of reading it in the context that it was wrote.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Sure, if 2/3 of the folks agree, it can be changed to whatever they want. Till then, it needs to be followed. The problems come when it gets stretched to what it could mean, instead of reading it in the context that it was wrote.
Do you agree with the part of the constitution that sets up the Judicial branch that decides these things? And if so. Whos opinion is more relevant? Yours or theirs?
 

munch box

Well-Known Member
he only likes parts of the constitution, the rest he wants to change, like the 14th and 16th amendments.

living document that evolves? i thought that shit was for libtards like me.

Obama has a total disregard for the constitution all together. You forgot to mention the 2nd and 10th ammendments. Just like most other countries on earth, the second ammendment threatens his idea of creating a perfect government. How can tyranny possably flourish with the 2nd ammendment in the way? It must be stopped in order for Obama's plans to execute properly...
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Obama has a total disregard for the constitution all together. You forgot to mention the 2nd and 10th ammendments. Just like most other countries on earth, the second ammendment threatens his idea of creating a perfect government. How can tyranny possably flourish with the 2nd ammendment in the way? It must be stopped in order for Obama's plans to execute properly...
And what exactly has he done to restrict the 2nd amendment

Be Specific
 

laughingduck

Well-Known Member
The judicial branch does not write or change the constitution, they interpret the constitution. The legislative branch has the authority to change it.
Do you agree with the part of the constitution that sets up the Judicial branch that decides these things? And if so. Whos opinion is more relevant? Yours or theirs?
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
he only likes parts of the constitution, the rest he wants to change, like the 14th and 16th amendments.

living document that evolves? i thought that shit was for libtards like me.
No he doesn't want to change it, he wants it interpreted like the founders intended. Small federal government.What parts of the 14th and 16th are you referring too?

It called a living document by the "all knowing ones" who refuse to use the rightful authority, amendments, to change it.
 
Top