ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
I think the issue here is they have been talking about this shit for years now. Its old. More people should be like good guy Greg here. Why dont you go count the amount of Ron Paul threads started by our libertarian leaning community here. It never ends. I mean with the exception of Uncle Bucks Ron Paul losing thread there are at least 7 Ron Paul threads in the first 3 pages on top of all of the anti-Obama conspiracy threads too (Most posting in those are also Ron Paul supporters).edit- I can only speak for myself but thats whats grinds my gears about it. Its a constant shit storm of a misled Ron Paul supporter version of American exceptionalism. Here's 16 pages of Ron Paul threads. ENJOY! https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=20429530&pp=I bet if you searched Obama in our search engine youd see 90% threads are bashing him, also made by non Obama supporters who have a tendency to make Ron Paul threads. https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=20429540 Go ahead click it You wont see very many supportive Obama threads. Maybe were on to a pattern here
Or maybe this is just a website that tends to lead to more radical views then the mainstream either way on the pendulum and it just so happens thats the case here, besides most of the moderates on this website never venture into the politics forum. For obvious reasons.
Hey! watch yourself Greg is a good guy. The fact is no other group constantly feels the need to wave the flag of their favorite politician constantly implying conspiracy against anyone not Ron Paul. Ron Paul has double talked more then Obama or Romney [Hes been doing it for decades remember ]. When its all said and done hes just going to go back to Texas counting his campaign money from his "revolution"Heres a classic. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron PaulAmen!
1) Reread what I said, I said radical FROM THE MAINSTREAM. My views make sense to me also but I would agree with the statement that my views are outside of the mainstream thought. 2) Keep waiving then cant wait till November. 3)Ron Paul just said the church was supposed to take precedent over government which was NOT what the founding fathers wanted. The founding fathers had problems with the church but saw the job that religion did for society when setting certain moral expectations therefor it was inherently good but was not to interfere with the federal government directly. That would be a friendly theocracy, pretty sure thats not what they were going for.He may be fighting against a "police state" but hes trying to replace that with a church state.and btw what is your definition of being left out of the debate for 50 years. I can honestly say that you were not voting on the criteria of libertarian-ish frameworks in every election since you were 18. Unless your first vote was 2008. I know you were voting for them other guys in your past and not being left outside of the mythical political debate.
This guy^ Having a penis is cool isnt it? Im glad I dont have to personally worry about this since I do not have a vagina, but for the time being I guess your the best person to make decisions about not penises. I bet if the government made you have a colonoscopy every year without your choice you would be on libertarian fire!
Its not the worst thing about him and you know that.Interesting opinion I found online. The Cost of WarRepresentative Paul has advocated on many occasions that the United States should bring our troops home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because such action is a violation of state sovereignty (a subject to be discussed later) and the costs are bankrupting this country. Yet, Rep. Paul takes it a step further and demands that the United States stand down in places like Europe and South Korea, and that we should downgrade our military to a national defense force, essentially cutting our defense forces in half.Yes, such a policy would save the United States government, and US taxpayer, hundreds of billions of dollars every year, but it also has another cost. In a world where China is building their navy, air force and nuclear stockpile, where North Korea will sell their technology to the highest bidder, and where Iran is beginning to expand their influence into the Western hemisphere it is a poor time for America to begin weakening itself militarily. Though Mr. Paul advocates that technology enables us to minimize our forces, he also fails to realize that the size of our forces is also deterrence. The ability to take the fight to the enemy, and crush his will no matter where he resides, has been an effective deterrence through out the years, and as China begins to grow their forces, a larger, more technologically advanced force would be needed should China decide to flex its muscles. Granted this argument is was the justification for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), but international scholars would argue that MAD was what ultimately kept the Cold War cold, and what bankrupted the Soviet Union.Another president pursued such a policy when he was first elected. He decimated the US Army and Navy all in the name of economics. His policy had such a negative affect that when the United States was finally forced into war by the actions of a hostile foreign navy, there were only a handful of Army Division, a dozen airplanes, and maybe a few dozen battleships. The United States was woefully prepared for their response when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and the president who desired to downgrade our military to a national defense force because the country couldn’t afford it was FDR.Yes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost money, and American prestige over seas; however, American prestige has not been good in foreign countries for some time, and would not have improved had we never invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the cost of maintaining a standing military, even in a time of war, according the nonpartisan CBO is approximately 4% of GDP. Entitlements and Social Security take up over 60% of GDP, and the cost is climbing. It seems that perhaps the real threat to the United States’ national security is not maintaining the best trained fighting force this world has ever seen, but in making social promises we can’t afford or keep.http://www.voicesempower.com/debunking-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-fp-part-1-the-cost-of-war/
You dont have to be a republican. Your advocating the same social issue that they are mocking in the video. Therefor in this case you are included with the Republicans ON THIS ISSUE because you agree with them through the attitude you seem to display in your post about female rights. Jesus, critical thinking.
Herp, If you allowed the preventative care and education to get funded then there would be many times less abortions then there are today. You cant legislate morality. It just doesn't work, its been proven again and again (You can get life sentences for shooting and killing someone but people still shoot and kill people). Go ahead put it on the books, abortions will still happen and will be severely unregulated. Being as Dr. Paul took a Hippocratic oath I believe he would be more interested in the best interest of the people he sees (keeping it legal so that it can be done safely and under the right care not a girl pushing her stomach on a rail or drinking till she aborts it), BUT LIKE I SAID PREVENTATIVE EDUCATION AND CARE IS HOW YOU DEAL WITH IT cause then a majority of those abortions wouldnt even be possible because pregnancy rates go down in the first place. Just like Ron Paul would rather treat hard drug users as public health issue and not a criminal issue. More pregnancies would be legitimate and a severe drop in unexpected pregnancies would happen then a drop in abortions because there are less unready mothers. Your simply using reactionary policy instead of actual addressing the ACTUAL problem. Keep beating around the bush, you wont get anywhere. Thats that Ron Paul version of american exceptionalism at work again. Holding people up as against a ideology through law, believing that everyone will drop to their knees and see the light of Ron Paul's "correct" way of dealing with the world. How is that any different then reconstruction in the south that failed terribly after the civil war. We tried to impose morality and social standards and were pushed out and most of the "official" morality in the south wasnt fixed till the middle of the 1900s. also another fun way to look at things. "Similarly, Paul’s positions on civil liberties issues aren’t actually about civil liberties as we understand them; they’re about his opposition to Federal authority. (An opposition that is somewhat conditional, it should be noted.) For example, in talking about the death penalty, he makes clear that he opposes it only at the Federal level. His opposition to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Drugs, and domestic surveillance come from the same root as his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He has no real objection to states violating the rights of their citizens; it’s only a problem if the Feds do it."http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/12/28/debunking-the-ron-paul-cares-about-civil-liberties-myth/
Extension on first part.Thats that Ron Paul version of american exceptionalism at work again. Holding people up as against a ideology through law, believing that everyone will drop to their knees and see the light of Ron Paul's "correct" way of dealing with the world. How is that any different then reconstruction in the south that failed terribly after the civil war. We tried to impose morality and social standards and were pushed out and most of the "official" morality in the south wasnt fixed till the middle of the 1900s.Second part.The feds cant violate the constitution technically either. The issue is if we get rid of federalism as we know it we then have even more surface area for destruction from within on the social level. 50 different states possibly doing 50 different things. It would be worse then the gridlock we get in the legislature today. We wouldnt need states rights if everyone actually voted for their national representatives and took part in the wing of the government that was actually given the most power to in the founding of our country.States rights is just another minority vs majority argument. So the only way you can do win that argument is finding common ground with the other people across the country. If people actually took part in the political process we could easily mobilize a couple states to get shit done in Washington though our representatives, we have ALL of this technology to communicate but no one cares enough to use it right way on the part of the majority of voters.
Ok so your telling me you want a smaller government in every aspect except you still want them to decide how you live your life morally. Isnt that still similar to shariah law or even communism?and the issue is hes justifying direct influence from the church on the state. Thats a no no.
"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429P.S. I dislike Jefferson but he sure does make sense up there.
Discipline - The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.
Gridlock is what breeds the issues that started what you and Mr Paul are arguing against anyways. It breeds partisanship and then when a party gets the majority they go as extreme as their base wants them to killing any chance of actual progress for the majority of citizens instead of the majority of legislators.
And thats where you got in on the conversation with the copy paste king stuff. The only things I injected randomly (I guess you could say) were in green but they were just continuing my points that Ron Pauls plan for American wind down around the world is not smart in a world of collective security and is not the smartest choice in a globalized world. Then the article about how Ron Paul actual cares little about civil liberties. If still want me to be your king I can do it for you though I dont want to break your delicate fantasy, I wont be a jerk and ruin it.Sorry not condone, I meant decide. I apologize. It was the heat of the moment. Also please see above as I have added more. Ill try to cut down on that but im not trying to post a million times on one page. and fyi Derp-A word utterred when one screws up. origin: Matt Stone and Trey Parker in BASEketball. Used as an interjection
(I didnt highlight my quote of Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson but I figured that would be allowed here)
Im not trying to get you to see between the lines. Ive laid out my argument in my own words with plenty of information. Secondly I was not referring to you in the post you commented on here. That was to my Brah over there.Actually, I was hoping you would copy and paste more because I have been reading some of your posts over and over and I am having a difficult time understanding you. I have this problem sometimes myself, especially when I am trying to be cryptic and hoping that someone will read between the lines and "get it".
I'm sure it was clear in your head when you wrote it but it's not coming across clearly.