This Man should of been President.

[Ethereal]

 

[BENNY_BLANCO1]

Not in the case of Ron Paul.

Nor if you're a supporter of the union, the economic system, and way of life in the United States.

Is that why our current president and the previous one support taking away rights of citizens?

Waiting around for the election season isn't going to change things that much, atleast not when it comes to voting for the president. You wait and on the ballot is two choices that you can't decide who is the lesser of the two evils. The other ones have no chances because they're kept out of the debates and the media ignores them due to their own bias.

Getting more people critical of the system to vote still will only go so far because it's an uphill battle. The majority of voters seem to be ignorant and the news promotes a two party system while not keeping people informed about what matters due again to bias, or financial factors (eg an important story that affects us more might get dropped for an unimportant story that's "hot"), then theres the constant media bombardment of unimporant bullshit everywhere you look.

 

[ColdBlooded]

Is that why our current president and the previous one support taking away rights of citizens?

The "rights" of individual citizens have nothing to do with preserving the union, the economic system, nor way of life in the United States.

Waiting around for the election season isn't going to change things that much, atleast not when it comes to voting for the president. . . . etc etc etc . . . . blah blah blah . . . .

Collapse is the one that said crazy fool Paul should have been president. I don't recall myself advocating for any of them in this thread or any other thread for that matter. Nor did I say anything about supporting either major party or voting so I'm not sure where you ended up on that tangent.

 

[ColdBlooded]

why dont you specify why he wouldnt be a better president than Obama

I disagree with almost everything he says and with EVERYTHING when his reasoning is taken into consideration.

It isn't about him being better or worse than Obama it is about him not being good at all.

 

[HERESY]

^^^ How is he not good at all?

 

[ColdBlooded]

I don't believe that any of what he says he would do or wants to see done are good for the people of this country. None.

 

[HERESY]

I don't believe that any of what he says he would do or wants to see done are good for the people of this country. None.

How does your opinion/what you believe show he isn't good at all? Collapse listed several things suggesting what he stands for. These things, according to Collapse are less spending, less taxes, bringing home the troops, getting rid of the Federal reserve, not bailing out banks or corporations, saying fuck the FCC and saying fuck the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Again, based on what Collapse said about the guy, you're going to honestly sit here and say some, or all, of these things are not good for the country?

 

[ColdBlooded]

Again, based on what Collapse said about the guy, you're going to honestly sit here and say some, or all, of these things are not good for the country?

None of them are when you consider his reasoning. That is (one of many reasons) he's a joke in politics and stands no chance of winning a national election ever.

Heresy tell me something you like about Ron "Crazy Man" Paul and I'll tell you why I believe it is bad.

 

[HERESY]

None of them are when you consider his reasoning. That is (one of many reasons) he's a joke in politics and stands no chance of winning a national election ever.

So what exactly is his reasoning? Is he saying all of this because he wants to be the ruler of the world? Saying it so he can get $3 off coupons from Round Table Pizza?

Heresy tell me something you like about Ron "Crazy Man" Paul and I'll tell you why I believe it is bad.

1. Collapse already stated what he stood for and you've yet to disprove him, so why would I need to tell you something I like about the man? This is what you should be concerned with, "why dont you specify why he wouldnt be a better president than Obama"

2. I don't give a shit about Ron Paul, John Paul, John, Paul or any person running for a national election. I do not like ANY of these people, so telling you what I like about them is the same as asking an atheist, "Which book do you prefer reading, the Bible or the Koran?"

 

[ColdBlooded]

So what exactly is his reasoning? Is he saying all of this because he wants to be the ruler of the world? Saying it so he can get $3 off coupons from Round Table Pizza?

Depends on the answer. There are so many facets that need to be covered.

1. Collapse already stated what he stood for and you've yet to disprove him, so why would I need to tell you something I like about the man? This is what you should be concerned with, "why dont you specify why he wouldnt be a better president than Obama"

Pick one. I've pointed some out in the past. Contrary to Ron Paul himself there is depth to answering these questions and some cute little youtube styled answer doesn't cut it. If I'm going to type a multi page rebuttal for your entertainment then it should be something you've got some interest in reading. Threads about Ron Paul being the only way to stop the illuminati or how he's such a boss or some lame clip of him being retarded really don't call for more than a one line reply about how he's a crazy person.

I'm open to political questions and how things work, but they have to be done with some intelligence at least.

 

[HERESY]

Depends on the answer. There are so many facets that need to be covered.

Depends on the answer? You're the one saying the man is a nutcase, and fool. Remember, you're the one suggesting that based on his reasoning, what he stands for is not good for the country. Therefore, it should be up to you to explain what this reasoning is and provide evidence for it.

Pick one.

I like his combover. Now are you going to sit here and tell me why his combover is bad? I shouldn't have to pick anything when Collapse gave you a list suggesting why Ron Paul was good, or in his words, the opposite of Obama. However, since you asked twice I'll play your game. Bringing home the troops, why is this a bad idea for the american people?

Contrary to Ron Paul himself there is depth to answering these questions and some cute little youtube styled answer doesn't cut it.

And I'm not expecting you to provide a cute little youtube styled answer which is why I'm asking you what I'm asking you.

If I'm going to type a multi page rebuttal for your entertainment then it should be something you've got some interest in reading.

You aren't going to type anything for me, Collapse is the one that asked you to type a rebuttal. I'm just trying to figure out why you haven't done it yet, maybe the two of you don't get along? I don't know...

In regards to having an interest in reading it, yes, I have an interest in damn near every thread I reply in. I even have interest in threads I don't reply to, however, my interest does not, and will not, ever morph into me taking part in the political spectrum.

Threads about Ron Paul being the only way to stop the illuminati or how he's such a boss or some lame clip of him being retarded really don't call for more than a one line reply about how he's a crazy person.

Maybe so, but the things Collapse listed have little to do with that.

I'm open to political questions and how things work, but they have to be done with some intelligence at least.

Is this directed at Collapse or myself?

 

[ColdBlooded]

Are you a joke or are you seriously for real? If you don't care get the fuck out. And if you really care try using the search function for a change instead of the quote button cuz I'm not convinced.

 

[HERESY]

Are you a joke or are you seriously for real?

"That's a question you should ask yourself..."--Optimus Prime, Transformers the Movie, 1986.

If you don't care get the fuck out.

If I don't care about what? Be specific because you aren't making much sense right now. BTW, before you go barking orders, and telling me I should get the fuck out, maybe YOU should read the rules first:

2). No insulting or attacking members without contributing to the topic or explaining why you’re insulting a member. In other words- I don’t care if you insult other members as long as you stay within topic or can back your shit up with some sort of logic. You cannot reply with “you’re gay” or “you suck”, etc. Again, add some meat to your posts.

Let us move on.

And if you really care try using the search function for a change instead of the quote button cuz I'm not convinced.

If I really care about what? Should I be more concerned with the thread flowing, and reading an intelligent exchange between two people (something you don't seem to be willing to engage Collapse in), or should I care about what puppet or pawn the global elite place in office (something you and Collapse engage in?)

When you find the answer, you can tell me in PM or you can list it here, but until you do so, don't suggest I use the search function, or even tell me why you are or aren't "convinced" (as if I really give a damn about your convictions.)

 

[ColdBlooded]

You seriously just quoted Optimus Prime at me? I think that answered my question about you being a joke.

You're not here[this thread] for any constructive reason. I seems as though you're here[this forum] to use the quote option as many times as possible in a thread and try take singular lines out of context as often as possible and run around in circles with people because, I assume, it some how makes you feel good.

You have shown no real interest in this thread other than that. So if you don't care get the fuck out. (maybe you can quote some other forum "rule" for me again).

 

[HERESY]

You seriously just quoted Optimus Prime at me? I think that answered my question about you being a joke.

No, it's sarcasm and me taking your silly question as a joke.

You're not here[this thread] for any constructive reason.

False. I'm being constructive right now, but if you pay attention, you're the one attacking people and getting all defensive.

You're here[this forum] to quote shit try and take it out of context as often as possible and run around in circles with people because, I assume, it some how makes you feel good.

False. I don't quote shit and try to take it out of context. I quote shit, ask those being quoted about their words and allow them to elaborate or clarify. I don't run arround in circles but often find myself repeating the same questions over and over because the other person (people such as yourself) use fallacies, word-jugglery and bottle-spinning to avoid them. And contrary to what you may believe, which is something I couldn't care less about, there are no intrinsic motivations for doing what I truly do.

You have shown no real interest in this thread other than that.

False. I asked you a very logical question, a logical question which was derived from your own words, and even told you I would play your game and "pick one." However, these things appear to escape your version of reality, and you've somehow twisted it and made it seem as if I'm the antagonist here--I'm not.

So if you don't care get the fuck out. (maybe you can quote some other forum "rule" for me again).

If you don't care about Ron Paul being president, why don't you do us a favor and give a logical reason as to why you don't. If not, why don't YOU get the fuck out? You are the same person who said, "I'm open to political questions and how things work, but they have to be done with some intelligence at least.", yet you aren't exactly walking the walk here.

Oh yeah, since you asked nicely:

2). No insulting or attacking members without contributing to the topic or explaining why you’re insulting a member. In other words- I don’t care if you insult other members as long as you stay within topic or can back your shit up with some sort of logic. You cannot reply with “you’re gay” or “you suck”, etc. Again, add some meat to your posts.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Just dig up the Ron Paul thread Rictus so we can see where you stand. Im interested myself.

 

[mocheezkc]

Fucc Obama,,,, Im supporting Ron Paul..... Ride or Die Paul in 2012...... Ron Paul is my dude, where do i get sum promo materials at????? I'm with Ron Paul, who You Wit????? Hmmmmm...... "Im Wit, Ron Paul!!! Who U Wit????.....lol.......

 

[ColdBlooded]

Just dig up the Ron Paul thread Rictus so we can see where you stand. Im interested myself.

some quotes quickly:

If I wanna sell kiddie porn, AKs, and magical puff dragons there should be no one stopping me.

Doug Moe: Historical Society reveals Ron Paul's incendiary past Doug Moe — 1/11/2008 6:58 am http://www.madison.com/tct/news//index.php?ntid=266699 EVERY ONCE in a while the old ways surface and trump the technology train. It happened this week on a national scale, and the Wisconsin Historical Society was in the middle of it. What happened was that a journalist from the New Republic, James Kirchick, on Tuesday posted a story on the magazine's Web site about newsletters written in the 1980s and 1990s under the name of Ron Paul, a Texas congressman who is now running for the Republican nomination for president. "What they reveal," Kirchick wrote of the Paul newsletters, "are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing -- but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics." Kirchick noted that the Ron Paul Freedom Report was archived online only back to 1999. But at two libraries in the United States -- at the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison -- Kirchick was able to find earlier newsletters that contain the incendiary material. The New Republic piece has created a firestorm. Historical Society librarians spent several hours Wednesday finding and faxing portions of the newsletters to CNN, which was planning to explore the controversy on its "Situation Room" show Thursday. Paul has issued a statement saying that although the newsletters went out under his name, he did not pay attention to the content and denounces it today. Kirchick, a New Republic associate editor, first contacted Wisconsin Historical Society circulation librarian Laura Hemming in November. The Historical Society has Paul newsletters under four titles: Ron Paul Investment Letter; Ron Paul Political Report; Ron Paul Survival Report; and Ron Paul's Freedom Report. At the time, the Historical Society's Paul newsletters were not microfilmed and were stored off site. Because of Kirchick's query, and Paul's presidential candidacy, the society has since put them on microfilm. Kirchick was then able to obtain them through an interlibrary loan. The newsletters attacked Martin Luther King Jr.; praised the KKK's David Duke; championed quarantining people with AIDS; bashed Israel, "an aggressive, national socialist state"; and supported the right-wing, anti-government militia movement in the United States. Why were these newsletters collected in Madison and almost nowhere else? Because the Wisconsin Historical Society in general and its longtime librarian Jim Danky in particular have worked diligently to catalog all manner of seemingly fringe publications, because as this week demonstrates, you never know what may one day be important. "We acquired them because we try to cover politics comprehensively," Danky told me Thursday. They have perhaps the best collection anywhere of leftist, underground publications. And the Historical Society's collection from the political far right was praised in an essay by Chip Berlet in the Sesquicentennial Issue of the Wisconsin Magazine of History. Berlet, who is with Political Research Associates in Massachusetts, wrote: "There are other collections at libraries and archives around the country, but none offer the range and depth of the collection combined with the cheerful staff knowledge and painless retrievability. The society's periodical collection is a national treasure as far as our staff is concerned, and we mine it frequently. Where else can you find a librarian who asks if the particular type of hate-group newsletter you are looking for is Ku Klux Klan, racial nationalist, neo-Nazi, Third Position, homophobic or Christian Identity?" Paul's statement this week, posted on his campaign Web site, concluded with this: "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine fulltime, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

This guy is a waste of human resources and does us all harm just by taking up valuable air that could be used by the rest of us for breathing. He has been explained and explained and explained on this forum. He is a total non-factor to everyone except for internet fan boys that continually flood this forum with his mindless bullshit. They are out their looking for answers to complicated questions, for which, initially, they should be commended, but instead they settle for a simple answer. They find someone who gives them a simple answer to the question and forms it in a way they want to hear - boom that's the way shit is. That's how all these "conspiracy theories" propagate. People are searching for answers to extremely complex questions with answers that aren't always fun to hear. So rather than exploring all the angles; the answer that is most simplistic yet, most encompassing, is what they start to believe. i.e. NAU, illuminati, CFR, etc. as the end all be all answer. Ron Paul feeds into that mentality. An answer about why Ron Paul's economic policy is so fucked up touches on history, economics, politics, international systems, political theory, labor relations, sociology, etc. But it seems appealing for someone searching for a simple answer to a complex question - less taxes & less government means more money and "freedom" for you. Even though it really doesn't mean that, on the surface and to the person not willing to take the time and effort to find out why, it sounds like a good idea.

• His “ideas” are devoid of critical thought, fact, or historical perspective.

Example: He is a proponent of deregulation – government imposed restrictions upon business that he believes should be removed. The reason much of the regulations were placed on businesses have historical basis and are due to the great deal of harm they have caused the people of this country and the world. Regulations were imposed to prevent monopolies, curb child labor, create worker safety, protect the environment, etc, etc, etc. We all have experience or at least heard stories of businesses exploiting child labor, lack of work place safety, environmental damage, but imagine what would happen if there weren’t laws to punish companies for this behavior or at least make them think twice about doing it? That’s the way things used to be and Ron Paul in his infinite genius wants to let businesses run over the American people because he believes the market responds to the people rather than to profits. i.e. HE”S CRAZY. Read Grapes of Wrath or The Jungle – they will give you a perspective on how things used to be before there were these types of protections that Ron Paul wants to do away with. I’ve said before: “I disagree with almost everything he says and with EVERYTHING when his reasoning is taken into consideration.” Because it’s a great sound bite to say “I want the government out of private citizens lives.” Hurray! Not many people can argue with that. But when you look at his reasoning behind his comments he believes the government should be out, but thinks its fine if corporations then slide in. If you told people “Hey I think it would be a great idea to let AT&T run the freeway system in the country from now on – instead of taxes from the government they’ll send you a bill instead.” How many people would jump for joy? Not many people who’ve ever used AT&T phone service probably. Imagine if they were in charge of the roads too. People want government out of their lives sure, but that comes at a huge cost. When given the alternative of a corporation filling that void people are equally if not more turned off. And rightfully so. The whole point behind that sentiment is they don’t want ANYONE poking into their lives as much. Ron Paul’s hands off business mentality would do nothing to prevent business from sliding into the voids created by a lack of government, in fact, they would encourage them. The reason we have the massive government we have now – open to the criticisms that it receives – is because businesses have FAILED that job in the past and government alternatives HAD TO BE created to resolve the mess created. Do a search for the last piece of legislation he sponsored or co-sponsored that got passed by the house. It was over 4 years ago AT LEAST. Look at the type of legislation he sponsors – he proposes cutting government waste left and right in his cute little videos and sound bites on TV, but nearly all of his sponsored legislation is government waste. This guy doesn't get elected in his district due to his youtube popularity. He does it the same way all his corrupt buddies in congress do it. By bringing pork back to his constituents. Plane and simple. He’s a fucking farce.

I think CB and I did a fairly decent job explaining why Ron Paul is a douchebag: 2-0-Sixx wrote:

I don't think he is. As I said before, to me he seems to be playing a similar role of Dennis Kucinich, but for the Republicans, which is to appeal to some of the disenfranchised and anti-Iraq war crowd and bring them to the Republican party. Why else is he running as a Republican? Why not an independent, or libertarian? Plus, I don't agree with his views. Yes, he has said some neat things, Whoopty doo, who hasn't? He supports free trade. Free market health care. Tighter border security. School prayer. He has defined embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw stem cell research and says Roe v. Wade should be overturned. plus he's probably a racist as well.​

ColdBlooded wrote:

Why would I vote for him? I disagree with almost everything he says and with EVERYTHING when his reasoning is taken into consideration.​

....

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

^^^

Bringing home the troops, why is this a bad idea for the american people?

 

[ColdBlooded]

^^^

Bringing home the troops, why is this a bad idea for the american people?

That one is deep and I'll get to it eventually, but don't have all the time right now. Like has been said when his reasoning is taken into consideration is when seemingly positive ideas like this become quite the opposite. I for example believe disengagement from Iraq is a good idea, but I believe it is a bad idea when Ron Paul reasoning is applied.

His reasoning is mainly two fold - 1) isolationism and disengagement from the world and 2) privatization and the replacement of the state with the corporation. But like I said I don't have the time to go into those right now.