Ron Paul 2008

Master_Debater
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul 2008

Ron Paul has been shaking up the scene of the republican party debates lately with his open opposition to the war in Iraq, big government, and the curtailing of constitutional rights. He's a pro-lifer (His greatest flaw in my view) but he thinks it should be left to the states, and besides, the president doesnt have any serious influence over that anyway. He was the libertarian party candidate in '88 and has been a congressman from Tesxas for 10 terms. He's also a doctor (obstetrician) by trade, meaning he's a pretty smart guy.

 

Take a look at his statements in the first two republican debates, he's the only real conservative on the stage in either one.

First Debate: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FPaFWUaF-uA

Second Debate: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hy6yjenLf4o

And he was just interviewed on CNN and took the opportunity to bash Guliani for his statement about 9/11. He brought up the fact that the 9/11 commission report agreed with him and that Guliani really ought to read it before running on the "I was mayor on 9/11, vote for me" platform.

 

I encourage everyone to consider voting for him in the primaries, I'm going to register republican just to do it. He may just be what we need to wake the republicans up to how far they've drifted from their real mission.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - Voltaire


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
AtheistInWonderland

AtheistInWonderland wrote:
Mr Xc wrote:
If you want to fix the national debt, look for someone who understands that our dollar is severely overvalued due to how the federal reserve has lied about our economic performance and currency status. Government spending is part of the debt, but because our money has not been devalued to reflect our true economic performance and ability to service debt, it is cheaper to buy things in China than make them at home. It is more than just wages being cheaper in China. Because our currency is propped up, our imports are much cheaper than what they should be and our exports are much more expensive than what they should be. This creates a huge economic bubble that will cause a painful burst as it continues to go uncorrected. Taxing all people in the US will not undo this bubble, so we need someone who understands this economic condition to correct it.


And this knowledge that I have obtained on an RRS forum is not avaliable to any other candidate? Are there candidates who fail to see the issue? I am not too up on economics, but I understand what you're saying and assuming it's correct I am sure that other candidates know what's going on.

Unfortunately detailed knowledge about how our economy really works is rare because it is filled with misunderstandings and the performance is measured with inaccurate numbers, so if this currency bubble were to pop soon, it will be a big surprise to many. Unfortunately, it potentially could produce a recession about the size of the Great Depression in terms of severity and length if the bubble were to burst all at once. I hope for a more smooth landing, which I think will happen (although not as smooth as I would like). Basically, it is up to other countries such as China. When they stop refinancing our short term debt, then we will start having trouble. There is dispute about whether this will result in hyperinflation or deflation. Typical stock market crashes are accompanied by deflation, but when currency is inflated like ours is you tend to have inflation. I need to study it more; I am already reading several books about the issue.

Just look at how the subprime issue (not an accurate name; more like poor lending standards and practices throughout the banking industry, including prime loans) surprised people. Many people thought it would be contained to activity in April/May 2007, but the accepted size and scope of it continues to get worse to this day. If people truly had accurate numbers and a good understanding of how our economy works, then they would have not been so far off on this relatively small issue.

Some of the candidates did not understand how blowback is produced by our foreign policy and how it negatively affects us, so I would check for that understanding when picking our next president as well. Anyone who says that terrorists hate us for our freedom fails this test.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr. XC wrote:

Mr. XC wrote:

Gauche wrote:
If this video of his is so dynamite he can just explain it, because I'm not understanding this line or argumentation anyway. If you cut taxes you are trying to create a theocracy????

I do not see how the video provides facts that support his conclusion; so yes, I would like to hear from him how that video supports his argument without leaving gaps of missing logic.

By the way, thank you for your posts. I am glad that there are others who understand the issues and are willing to help put forth good arguments.

Yes, a shred of evidence to support his conclusion would be nice.
Thank you for this. I was not ignoring this post I was just a little taken aback by the direction of this discussion. I mean, I can see saying that somebody is anti-abortion or that they are bad on church/state issues but saying that they want to create a theocracy is way out of left field. It's outlandish, bordering on libel, and hardly worth addressing I just want him to post as much as he can so anyone who reads this can see just how baseless his claims really are.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Mr Xc wrote: I watched the

Mr Xc wrote:
I watched the first 10 minutes of the video. That part did not tell me anything that I did not already know. Due to its length, I prefer that you summed up what bits of logic that you were using to support your arguments. I appreciate that you provided that logic, which I am examining below.


I did no justice to help you understand the Dominionist agenda. I am sorry I don't have a good way with words. For those following along and who are interested, watch the video(Especially 18 minutes in and beyond). It's from a Cornell University professor..it's not like I am making this stuff up.

I just found out another tidbit. Gary North, who is Rushdoony's son-in-law and a Christian Reconstructionist himself, served on Ron Paul's house staff. I know this doesn't mean anything really other than you at least assume that Ron Paul knows about Rushdoony and had nothing against having a Christian Reconstructionist on his staff.

Mr Xc wrote:
This does not reflect our discussion. If services are moved from federal to state, your federal taxes decrease and your state taxes go up. All logic dependent on "lower federal taxes = less services between federal and state" being true becomes invalid, but I will address them individually anyway.


So Ron Paul is not for tax cuts? That's not what I read on his site.

Whatever is done to lessen the importance of government is a victory in Rushdoony's plan.

RJ Rushdoony wrote:
"Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had."


Mr Xc wrote:
I proved that the premise is not necessarily true. If you do not want the church to fill the void, vote that the state fills the void.


Anything we put up for a vote, especially in red states, is bound to benefit the church when the church is concerned.

To Gauche - You have resorted to theist-like tactics by attacking my character rather than my arguments. I have nothing else to say to you other than that I am not saying that Ron Paul necessarly wants to create a theocracy. He may not even understand that some of his ideas will push us into conditions where transistion to a theocracy will be much easier. This is Rushdoony's plan and it's been at work for years already. If you don't know about his plan then I can see where you might consider my claims baseless, but I do know about Rushdoony's plans and see Ron Paul moving right along with them full steam ahead.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I haven't attacked your

I haven't attacked your character at all and I wouldn't. You've made some very very serious accusations against a man's character yet you are extremely light on evidence. Where I come from that's called defamation brother. And you accuse me of theist like tactics. I think I've been very restrained considering the hyperbole you've injected into this discussion. Please offer something of substance and I will retract my statement that your accusations are outlandish and bordering on libel. Given Ron Paul's decades of public service I'm sure it won't be difficult if you are correct.

Of couse under a Ron Paul presidency you would have the right to say all these things because it wouldn't be a theocracy. But I have to go to a doctors appointment so I'll continue this later if you accept my apology. If not good luck in your endeavors except this one.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote: I like

LeftofLarry wrote:
I like ron paul except for three little MAJOR facts, that he's pro-life, a baptist and is extremely pro corporate control of everything.

His pro-life stance would mean nothing with him as President. He's not in favor of turning it into national legislation. His religious affiliation shouldn't have any merit on his political viewpoints, but you're certainly entitled to disagree with someone for their religious views; I won't knock ya on that one. The last one -- the one that seemed to concern you the most -- is wrong. Ron Paul hates corporatism and greatly emphasizes a distinction between corporatism and capitalism. There's a big difference, and one that is often misunderstood today. Corporatism can ONLY exist with government aid. Corporatism necessarily implies that the government enables it. No, that's not to say that the government is standing out of the way of corporations, and letting them run amok; quite the opposite actually. The corporations only exist because of government interference in the market.

Ron Paul has said in multiple interviews that he does not favor corporatism. Corporatism just skirt tales around socialism. It's government-sanctioned ologopolization, as opposed to socialism, which is goverment-run monopolization. That's not to mention that corporatism leads to cartels as well. Neither corporatism nor socialism are good, and Ron Paul is against both systems. 

-dumpydooby


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. XC, please wake up and

Mr. XC, please wake up and smell the coffee.

 "Voting is the answer to all of our troubles."

Voting is the CAUSE of all of our troubles.  We had elections in Iraq.  People will vote to slice their own throats in terms of freedoms if it allows them to remain a theocracy.

 Mom and Pop Trailer Trash get the same exact right to vote that you do, XC.  Guess what?  They don't care about the same issues that you do.  They don't even know what the issues are.  They just saw an ad on TV paid for by the fundamentalists and the dominionists, and they think that's a peachy keen idea.

Ma and Pa NASCAR fan went to church and their pastor told them to vote a certain way, because it's what Christ would do.  How are you going to stop this from happening?

Democracy in and of itself is a perversion - where the minority is always being raped by the majority.  The only check on democracy IS democracy itself - which means that the minority NEVER gets a voice.  

Don't tell me how voting in a state election will solve any problems when a state is as backward and worthless as Mississippi (as an example).  States still have laws on their books that atheists can't vote.  Some states still have laws on their books that prevent interracial marriage.

Explain to me how your position remains coherent when applied to the outside world? 

 

 

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy wrote:Explain

Family_Guy wrote:
Explain to me how your position remains coherent when applied to the outside world?

Because I have yet to hear a more coherent position. Can you propose a better one? I would love to hear it.

By the way, I never said "Voting is the answer to all of our troubles" or anything with that conclusion. This thread is difficult enough to follow without people creating straw men.

I acknowledge that people may get what they vote for, which may not be what you want. I know that troubles people who hold a minority position, such as us when it comes to our views on religion, but that is what the Constitution and other documents at the federal level are for; to protect people's rights. I never said that states would have all the power and people would be able to vote for anything on the state level. Our founding fathers worked most of this stuff out.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Sorry but i'm hardcore

Sorry but i'm hardcore democrat.

 

if a monkey was the democrat canidate id still vote for him instead of the republican,


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul is WAYYYYYY to far

Ron Paul is WAYYYYYY to far to the right for my tastes. I'm pretty much a Socialist.


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
I actually do not mind a

I actually do not mind a socialism; at the state level.  My vision of an ideal United States would be a tiny federal government with someone like Ron Paul as president and states like California leading the way in universal health care.  If it works, other states will copy it.  If it sucks, hopefully others will take what works.  If a state wants to be libertarian, let them.  Diversity rules.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I have heard recently that

I have heard recently that Ron Paul is opposed to net neutrality. Although I still feel that he is the best candidate this is very disappointing. Without net neutrality sites like this would probably not be possible and the success that Ron Paul has had so far would likely not have been possible either. If anyone who supports a democratic candidate (or any other candidate for that matter) would like to compare that person's voting record to Ron Paul's I would be happy to help you embarrass that candidate in a public forum.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
His views on the Internet

His views on the Internet begins in the first video at 4:37. Basically, he has more trust that the free market will work it out than the government regulating only what it should. That is not to say that he thinks the markets will successfully work it out, they may not; but supporting net neutrality may encourage the government to try to regulate other things about the Internet (think about what the FCC has become and apply that to the Internet), which may not be in our favor in the long run. My view on his Internet non-regulation is kind of mixed as well. At least we do not have to worry about him taxing it or policing it. Maybe we are better off with that kind of thinking. At least his principles are consistent.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/g4/

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Net Neutrality =

Net Neutrality = Regulation

Ron Paul appears to be against any sort of regulation. I've been a libertarian for a long time but I don't think I would take it as far as Ron Paul.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm generally against

I'm generally against "leaving things to the states." The states can't pave fucking roads. It might work if you live in a decent state, but if you live in the deep south or midwest you'd pretty much be fucked. I could see them setting up a Christian Taliban-like thing in some of those states. And look how well leaving things to the states worked for slavery and civil rights...

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I'm

MattShizzle wrote:
I'm generally against "leaving things to the states." The states can't pave fucking roads. It might work if you live in a decent state, but if you live in the deep south or midwest you'd pretty much be fucked. I could see them setting up a Christian Taliban-like thing in some of those states.

Quote:
"Mr. Speaker, democracy works best when the American electorate is engaged and informed."
--Melissa Bean

I think that there are good reasons for having 50 states instead of one.  One of those reasons is to serve its voters. And you are correct, in our democracy, having uninformed citizens harms us. However, I do not think the solution is to violate the checks and balances that our founding fathers wisely setup for us. I think educating the voters is a much better alternative than leaving everything to people who are are often more influenced by special interest groups.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Health Care industry, along with many other industries, have lobbyists that will likely make whatever socialized health care system that is designed at the federal level benefit the industries. I think the states will have much better success at creating socialized health care that works in the favor of the people.

Before we can expect a federal health care system that is designed to benefit its citizens, we should push to remove any influence on our government that represents corporations. The only entities that should be influencing our government should be voters. Voters are sometimes CEOs of companies, but their voice should be just as influential as their employees, customers, and other voters. Until the general public has more influence than the lobbyists, I expect programs that benefit the most powerful lobbyists.

MattShizzle wrote:
And look how well leaving things to the states worked for slavery and civil rights...

The Bill of Rights is a federal document. I am not suggesting moving human rights to the state level.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I like Ron Paul, if for no

I like Ron Paul, if for no other reason than seeing the horrified looks on the faces of the other GOP candidates at the debates.  His clash with Giuliani over 9/11 was classic.  He stands a much better chance as a Republican, but still no chance.  I'm a registered Libertarian, so I'd probably vote for him if he got the nomination. 


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I'm feeling

Sapient wrote:

I'm feeling good vibes about Ron Paul.

Vibes are irrational.

 

 

Kidding! 


noncohort (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul is anti-war and

Ron Paul is anti-war and pro-civil liberties. Everything else I disagree with him on. I can get those things plus universal health care from a Democrat. Therefore I won't support him.

He doesn't have a chance in hell in winning the primary anyways. He got crushed at the Ames straw poll in Iowa. So either his support is very shallow or his campaign lacks logistical skills dispite the energetic young people hollaring all over the Internet in support of him.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
noncohort wrote: Ron Paul

noncohort wrote:

Ron Paul is anti-war and pro-civil liberties. Everything else I disagree with him on. I can get those things plus universal health care from a Democrat. Therefore I won't support him.

HA! Sure you can. In rhetoric. Haven't you ever heard that politicians lie? They'll say the damnedest things to get themselves into office and do jack shit once they're there. Ron Paul on the other hand has been shown to be the most consistent and principled politician at the national level. He's the only one that has a history of actions to back up his words.


noncohort (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You called every polititian

You called every polititian a liar except Ron Paul. That was an interesting argument.

Ron Paul doesn't stand up for civil liberties because he couln't be bothered to vote on the the important FISA revision bill (S 1927). The bill gives the president the powers to wiretap any domestic to international communications without a warrant even if it doesn't involve terrorism. The bill passed and was signed by the president.


MyDogCole
MyDogCole's picture
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-05-03
User is offlineOffline
I'm amazed at how many of

I'm amazed at how many of you have been fooled into a false idea of what Ron Paul is all about.

 

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." ~ Ron Paul

[State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. -- Thomas Jefferson]


"Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion." ~ Ron Paul

[God was intentionally left out of the Constitution! And the DOI only mentions a creator, but explicitly states it to be "nature's god" of the Deists who prepared the document -- NOT the vengeful, jealous, and murdering god of revelation.]

"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England..." ~ Ron Paul

[Writings by Madison and the other architects of the Constitution made it clear that the "wall of separation" was to be applied in both directions.]

Ron Paul is dead wrong on all accounts! I would never vote for this man.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~ Abraham Lincoln


MyDogCole
MyDogCole's picture
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-05-03
User is offlineOffline
A look at this Political

A look at this Political Compass chart and you'll find Paul nearly as far to the right as you can get! And he actually falls into the authoritarian quadrant, not the libertarian.

 

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/08/the-map-of-poli.html

 

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~ Abraham Lincoln


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
MyDogCole wrote:

MyDogCole wrote:
Ron Paul is dead wrong on all accounts! I would never vote for this man.

If he's wrong on ALL accounts, then howcome you only mention religion - something which, by the way, he would never legislate anyway.

Quote:
A look at this Political Compass chart and you'll find Paul nearly as far to the right as you can get! And he actually falls into the authoritarian quadrant, not the libertarian.

Can you name ONE thing about him that's authoritarian?

 

 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
noncohort: One fucking bill

noncohort: One fucking bill on which his vote wouldn't have even mattered is the best you can do? You're just looking for any excuse.

MyDogCole: There are more things to consider than whether your politician is an atheist or not, fuckass. I am a libertarian first, atheist second. Nobody has ever said Ron Paul was an atheist or secular or anything of the sort, how do we have a false idea of what Ron Paul is about?

The "political compass" is a worthless excuse for a test. I don't take anybody seriously who takes that test seriously. "Left and right" is a false dichotomy. It took me almost a year talking to political radicals to appreciate how much this is so but it is true. The only true political dichotomy is liberty vs authority.

Ron Paul was good enough that the Libertarian Party ran him for President once. That qualifies him as the most libertarian politician that is relevant in national politics.

You're doing the same stupid shit noncohort is doing. You don't have a single good REASON to dislike Ron Paul. What you have are EXCUSES. You arrived at the conclusion that you don't like Ron Paul independently of your ability to reason, and now you're looking to rationalize it. You don't have to convince anybody but yourself and you seem to have succeeded at not convincing anybody but yourself and anybody else looking for an excuse to dislike Ron Paul.

For the record, I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic, but I will defend him against absolute stupidity like this. I won't vote for him, I won't donate to his campaign, I won't urge others to vote for him, but you're just being a retard. 


MyDogCole
MyDogCole's picture
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-05-03
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:

Zhwazi wrote:

MyDogCole: There are more things to consider than whether your politician is an atheist or not, fuckass. I am a libertarian first, atheist second. Nobody has ever said Ron Paul was an atheist or secular or anything of the sort, how do we have a false idea of what Ron Paul is about?

The "political compass" is a worthless excuse for a test. I don't take anybody seriously who takes that test seriously. "Left and right" is a false dichotomy. It took me almost a year talking to political radicals to appreciate how much this is so but it is true. The only true political dichotomy is liberty vs authority.

Ron Paul was good enough that the Libertarian Party ran him for President once. That qualifies him as the most libertarian politician that is relevant in national politics.

You're doing the same stupid shit noncohort is doing. You don't have a single good REASON to dislike Ron Paul. What you have are EXCUSES. You arrived at the conclusion that you don't like Ron Paul independently of your ability to reason, and now you're looking to rationalize it. You don't have to convince anybody but yourself and you seem to have succeeded at not convincing anybody but yourself and anybody else looking for an excuse to dislike Ron Paul.

For the record, I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic, but I will defend him against absolute stupidity like this. I won't vote for him, I won't donate to his campaign, I won't urge others to vote for him, but you're just being a retard.

What are you, a comedian?!?

Heh, your arguments for favoring him are "good reasons", and everyone else's arguments for opposing him are "only excuses"! WTF?!? You're a fucking idiot!

Don't look now, but you ARE indeed a Paul fanatic, with a heavy dose of delusion thrown in. I'd bet you're doing a sufficient amount of lying here as well to hold on to your own dogmatic support of him. Just like any run-of-the-mill religionist.

The Political Compass is well-known as one the best measurements/tools out there for evaluating political views. You don't think so. Fine, that's your prerogative. But that doesn't make you an authority on its worth, only another politcal hack with an agenda who doesn't like what it has to publicly say about "your guy".

With the fast creeping theocracy coming to pass in this country, you better damn well know that I am absolutely an atheist FIRST -- #1 -- this coming election! That is MY priority from now on. You go ahead and vote for another rich white Xtian Repuke who thinks the "Wall of Separation" is a lie, just as all the other Repukes do, who would surely prefer to rule by biblical law.

With shit like this happening with our laws:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Alkws52A3yw

 

there is NO WAY I'd vote for Ron Paul based on the untruths and bullshit lies that come FROM HIS OWN MOUTH!

 

 

 

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~ Abraham Lincoln


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
lets compare the voting

lets compare the voting record of ron paul to the voting record of the person you support. If ron paul is so terrible then this should be a great opportunity for you to show everyone just how bad he is and how good the person you support is.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
MyDogCole wrote: What are

MyDogCole wrote:
What are you, a comedian?!?

Heh, your arguments for favoring him are "good reasons", and everyone else's arguments for opposing him are "only excuses"! WTF?!? You're a fucking idiot!

I don't favor him. I just don't hate him as much. He's still a damn politician. But he's the least hypocritical politician running by a long shot. 

Quote:
Don't look now, but you ARE indeed a Paul fanatic, with a heavy dose of delusion thrown in. I'd bet you're doing a sufficient amount of lying here as well to hold on to your own dogmatic support of him. Just like any run-of-the-mill religionist.

I know Ron Paul fanatics. Lots of them. I am not one of them. 

Quote:
The Political Compass is well-known as one the best measurements/tools out there for evaluating political views.

What's your standard of quality? The left-right dimension is a useless one. The question of left vs right is a mere question of rhetoric, not of actual values. It's a percieved product of differences on different parts of the free-slave dimension, it's not a measurable dimension in and of itself. There are much better political tests out there which don't suffer from this problem by using a nolan chart instead of the "political compass" chart.

Quote:
You don't think so. Fine, that's your prerogative. But that doesn't make you an authority on its worth, only another politcal hack with an agenda who doesn't like what it has to publicly say about "your guy".

I don't have a "guy". I only stand for myself. Ron Paul can go get himself assassinated for all I care. The other politicians should join him. I'm not pro-Ron Paul, I'm just anti-stupid.

Quote:
With the fast creeping theocracy coming to pass in this country

Hahah. Sure. There is no country, if there was, I don't know which "this" is, and if I did, I wouldn't say it was theocratic at all, and how can something creep fast? Isn't that contradictory?

SPOILER: Politics is a lie. Political rhetoric like you just used has more implicit lies in it than you know of.

Atheists like you drive me nuts. So worried about the church you're not paying any attention to the fact that the state is a church. 

Quote:
you better damn well know that I am absolutely an atheist FIRST -- #1 -- this coming election!

Good luck voting atheist at the national level. 

Quote:
That is MY priority from now on. You go ahead and vote for another rich white Xtian Repuke who thinks the "Wall of Separation" is a lie, just as all the other Repukes do, who would surely prefer to rule by biblical law.

How dare you imply that I'm stupid enough to vote. 

Quote:
With shit like this happening with our laws...there is NO WAY I'd vote for Ron Paul based on the untruths and bullshit lies that come FROM HIS OWN MOUTH!

Yet you see no problem with all the untruths and bullshit lies that are inherent in politics. Be consistent. If you don't like untruths and bullshit lies you'd have to join me in opposition to all politicians, and if you did that you'd find that more politicians are full of a lot more shit than Ron Paul.