deprave
New Member
lol damn I should rolled with that when he said the "womens right to choose" bullshit in the op...should of just wrote about how Ron Paul supports legal prostitution lol
Erpsssarwtc
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
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 only reason ron paul threads become so long is because the people who love to hate him really, they would just die off immedietly without any discussion if there wasn't like the 4 people on here who passionately hate him and troll the threads, aside from that Ron Paul threads are created because of current events, when there is nothing new with Ron Paul then there isn't Ron Paul threads, the threads only stay on the front page because they are actively trolled, its not so much the supporters that are "beating a dead horse" but the haters, the haters are also the ones who repeat the exact same shit over and over. How many times are you going to post that picture of "Greg" and tell people to shut the fuck up? Really? You STFU
This is illustrated by looking at the Ron Paul threads that don't have haters posting in them, they get a few responses and immedietly die off, there is a few of them like that, they must of took place while unclebuck was on vacation.
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.
[video=youtube;s66bTshO1jM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66bTshO1jM[/video]
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 Paul
Amen!
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
You say radical, I say common sense. At least I know the difference between then and than.
If you felt that you had been left out of the debate for the last 50 or so years, you might feel the need to wave something, too.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
Yeah, I like that one, too.
ooooooooooooh, look out, Ron Paul voices his view of the founding fathers... so much for free speech, huh? Maybe you prefer to prostrate yourself before the alter of the state?. — Ron Paul
Amen!
I don't hear Obamney invoking the founding fathers and if they did, they probably got it wrong.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the mother, the person who owns the baby. what's so hard to understand about this?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
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.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
That's slavery. I didn't know you advocated slavery. Very revealing about you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how is it slavery to let individuals make choices about what to do with their own bodies?
i think you woke up on the stupider side of the bed today instead of merely the stupid side.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
1) I wasn't sure what you meant, so we will agree that the mainstream thinking in the US is wrong. I can live with that.
2) and beyond, this doesn't end in November.
3) Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion. At least he is honest about it, much more refreshing than​ Obamney, et al, that only say what they think everybody wants to hear. If that's the worst thing about him, I can live with that.
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
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!
[video=youtube;s49HkpsbHmM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s49HkpsbHmM[/video]
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Nice try but I am not a republican.
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
Its not the worst thing about him and you know that.
Interesting opinion I found online.
The Cost of War
Representative 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’s-fp-part-1-the-cost-of-war/
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
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.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Because I'm against murdering innocent lives?
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
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/
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
First paragraph I'm about 99% agreement. The second paragraph, it is disingenuous to say that he doesn't care if the states violate and individual's rights. There IS a difference between federal authority and states rights but states cannot violate the Constitution.
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
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.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
If you think RP's opinions are equal to legislating morality then you don't understand him. What's wrong with gridlock? I like it when the bastards get slowed down in their effort to pass more knee jerk legislation. Other than tax cuts, what have they done in the last (insert number of your choice) years that is for the benefit of "we the people"?