I will vote for Obama because it is crucial, to my mind, that the current crop of Republicans be stopped.
Sorry, Jonny, but that's about as smallminded as it gets, especially when Ron Paul isn't really even a Republican. Hopefully, once he starts running as an independent, you and many others who think like you will reassess.
There is no way Paul will ever get my vote and you are out of your mind if you think he has a snowball's chance in hell of anything else.
Read up on the John Birchers dude. You are on the damn tennis court thinking that it's left field. Beyond mainey.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Like I don't know about the John Birch Society. Oh no, he spoke to them. Did he also have a dream of a blue turtle?
I will vote for Obama because it is crucial, to my mind, that the current crop of Republicans be stopped.
Sorry, Jonny, but that's about as smallminded as it gets, especially when Ron Paul isn't really even a Republican. Hopefully, once he starts running as an independent, you and many others who think like you will reassess.
Haha! Another example of Paul being full of it. He's running as a Repub. but isn't really a Repub! Too rich. This one goes up there with claiming to be for personal choice, yet being anti-Abortion, and claiming to be in favor if term limits, yet serving 12 years.
Yes, let's see him run as an independent. He doesn't have the guts.
Nobody's minds get changed on here cuz everyone is so dug in. It's ridiculous. It's not people listening and saying "Hmm, you might be right, I never thought of it that way." It's just arguing and a waste of all participants' time and keystrokes.
Nobody's minds get changed on here cuz everyone is so dug in. It's ridiculous. It's not people listening and saying "Hmm, you might be right, I never thought of it that way." It's just arguing and a waste of all participants' time and keystrokes.
Sayin.
Nothing gets resolved. Its just a one-up-manship show. And it always morphs into insults.
Thanks for posting. As a leftist Euroman, the strong anti-Ron Paul sentiment I see among progressive/liberal types around here, too, is surprising (even disturbing?).
"meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest."
Dudes acting like Obama is "good" and Ron Paul is "evil" need to pull their heads out their behinds.
"His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate ??? not the Democrat ??? who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate"
Thanks for posting. As a leftist Euroman, the strong anti-Ron Paul sentiment I see among progressive/liberal types around here, too, is surprising (even disturbing?).
"meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest."
Dudes acting like Obama is "good" and Ron Paul is "evil" need to pull their heads out their behinds.
Tell me how your European leftist sensibilities feel about only being able to see a doctor if you can afford it, how about worker's rights being thrown out the window (no minimum wage law, no worker safety laws, no child labor laws), no student aid, no free schooling, no laws that protect the enviornment or to curb pollution. A society that is controlled by business? A society that no longer takes care of the disabled and elderly? THAT appeals to a leftist sensibility? The one thing I have not heard from the libertarian/Paul/ "leave it up to the states crowd" is how the states are to pay for this new financial burden of education, social safety nets, health care, pollution control with no federal help...as it is "unconstitutional" for the federal government to provide these things. If it is left up to the states to be the sole providers of these important things then taxes will be raised to extremely high levels or the states will decide not to support them, thus sending illiteracy, homeless, poverty, pollution and crime rates soaring. It seems all the Paulbots think their taxes will disappear...the drug war will end (it may on the federal level, but remember it is "up to the states", so with the privitazation of prisons becoming a big revenue stream for states, I see local governments needing a steady stream of criminals, so maybe the dea going away, but your city's drug task force isn't going away.) and life will be great. I don't see how this "libertarian" ideal is supposed to be better as it makes for a more divisive "the haves and the have not" society.
From a non-US perspective it's kind of hard to understand how Paul inspires such fervor among his supporters but I presume the rest of the Republican field has a lot to do with it - especially looking at the crazy 'oh god anyone but Romney' candidates that were leading the polls every other week.
I can't say that I'm a fan of your political system but it sure is entertaining. So carry on I guess?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Thanks for posting. As a leftist Euroman, the strong anti-Ron Paul sentiment I see among progressive/liberal types around here, too, is surprising (even disturbing?).
"meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest."
Dudes acting like Obama is "good" and Ron Paul is "evil" need to pull their heads out their behinds.
Tell me how your European leftist sensibilities feel about only being able to see a doctor if you can afford it, how about worker's rights being thrown out the window (no minimum wage law, no worker safety laws, no child labor laws), no student aid, no free schooling, no laws that protect the enviornment or to curb pollution. A society that is controlled by business? A society that no longer takes care of the disabled and elderly? THAT appeals to a leftist sensibility? The one thing I have not heard from the libertarian/Paul/ "leave it up to the states crowd" is how the states are to pay for this new financial burden of education, social safety nets, health care, pollution control with no federal help...as it is "unconstitutional" for the federal government to provide these things. If it is left up to the states to be the sole providers of these important things then taxes will be raised to extremely high levels or the states will decide not to support them, thus sending illiteracy, homeless, poverty, pollution and crime rates soaring. It seems all the Paulbots think their taxes will disappear...the drug war will end (it may on the federal level, but remember it is "up to the states", so with the privitazation of prisons becoming a big revenue stream for states, I see local governments needing a steady stream of criminals, so maybe the dea going away, but your city's drug task force isn't going away.) and life will be great. I don't see how this "libertarian" ideal is supposed to be better as it makes for a more divisive "the haves and the have not" society.
Don't forget that most of all, if Paul is elected...THE SKY BE FALLING, THE SKY BE FALLING!
Thanks for posting. As a leftist Euroman, the strong anti-Ron Paul sentiment I see among progressive/liberal types around here, too, is surprising (even disturbing?).
"meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest."
Dudes acting like Obama is "good" and Ron Paul is "evil" need to pull their heads out their behinds.
Tell me how your European leftist sensibilities feel about only being able to see a doctor if you can afford it, how about worker's rights being thrown out the window (no minimum wage law, no worker safety laws, no child labor laws), no student aid, no free schooling, no laws that protect the enviornment or to curb pollution. A society that is controlled by business? A society that no longer takes care of the disabled and elderly? THAT appeals to a leftist sensibility? The one thing I have not heard from the libertarian/Paul/ "leave it up to the states crowd" is how the states are to pay for this new financial burden of education, social safety nets, health care, pollution control with no federal help...as it is "unconstitutional" for the federal government to provide these things. If it is left up to the states to be the sole providers of these important things then taxes will be raised to extremely high levels or the states will decide not to support them, thus sending illiteracy, homeless, poverty, pollution and crime rates soaring. It seems all the Paulbots think their taxes will disappear...the drug war will end (it may on the federal level, but remember it is "up to the states", so with the privitazation of prisons becoming a big revenue stream for states, I see local governments needing a steady stream of criminals, so maybe the dea going away, but your city's drug task force isn't going away.) and life will be great. I don't see how this "libertarian" ideal is supposed to be better as it makes for a more divisive "the haves and the have not" society.
Don't forget that most of all, if Paul is elected...THE SKY BE FALLING, THE SKY BE FALLING!
Tell me , old wise one, how the states are to support these programs when the federal government can't do it under a Paul presidency?
Crickets.
Also, for a tin-hatted lizard person sentry, you have a lot of nerve shouting out, " the sky is falling". I think we have all been in jumpsuits and slaving away in a police-state salt mines according to you because Obama got elected.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Tell me , old wise one, how the states are to support these programs when the federal government can't do it under a Paul presidency?
Crickets.
Crickets because tell us how Lone Wolf Paul is going repeal any of that from the mere office of president.
Also, for a tin-hatted lizard person sentry, you have a lot of nerve shouting out, " the sky is falling". I think we have all been in jumpsuits and slaving away in a police-state salt mines according to you because Obama got elected.
One, I voted for Obama. Two, the crtitiques made against Obama's presidency are based on facts that have actually happened and they are very specific. But it takes removing your palms from your ears for you to actually hear them, I suppose.
Tell me how your European leftist sensibilities feel about only being able to see a doctor if you can afford it, how about worker's rights being thrown out the window (no minimum wage law, no worker safety laws, no child labor laws), no student aid, no free schooling, no laws that protect the enviornment or to curb pollution. A society that is controlled by business? A society that no longer takes care of the disabled and elderly? THAT appeals to a leftist sensibility?
I mentioned my own background simply to underline that even though I certainly do not agree with e.g. Paul's stances on the stuff you mentioned, I'd be exhilarated if a presidential candidate (left, right or center) with a marginal chance of running for president was saying some of the stuff RP is saying.
And this may seem a bit utilitarian to say this, but Paul's influence, though potentially destructive domestically, could have far-reaching (positive) consequences globally. Obama's re-election will just reinforce the status quo, and that's why I expect Obama will win.
How anybody could even attempt to take this nutcase serious is beyond me. Even most right wing talk radio crazies are calling Ron Paul crazy. But hey, at least he's endorsed by the nazi party.
Tell me , old wise one, how the states are to support these programs when the federal government can't do it under a Paul presidency?
Crickets.
Crickets because tell us how Lone Wolf Paul is going repeal any of that from the mere office of president.
so the laundry list of scary shit he purports to want to do when he becomes president is fine, because he obviously won't be able to get that shit done, but somehow the things he says hes gonna do that you do endorse will get accomplished no problemo ?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
thrope said:
HarveyCanal said:
Tell me , old wise one, how the states are to support these programs when the federal government can't do it under a Paul presidency?
Crickets.
Crickets because tell us how Lone Wolf Paul is going repeal any of that from the mere office of president.
so the laundry list of scary shit he purports to want to do when he becomes president is fine, because he obviously won't be able to get that shit done, but somehow the things he says hes gonna do that you do endorse will get accomplished no problemo ?
I'd vote him in on the foreign policy things he can get done alone.
Not going to war against the wishes of Congress, not illegally bombing Pakistan and such with drones, etc.
Not writing shitty executive orders and the balls to actually veto shitty legislation would be good too.
He can do those things.
But he can't just go, I personally don't like welfare nor abortion, so poof, they are now gone. That is fantasyland alarmism right there.
Tell me , old wise one, how the states are to support these programs when the federal government can't do it under a Paul presidency?
Crickets.
Crickets because tell us how Lone Wolf Paul is going repeal any of that from the mere office of president.
so the laundry list of scary shit he purports to want to do when he becomes president is fine, because he obviously won't be able to get that shit done, but somehow the things he says hes gonna do that you do endorse will get accomplished no problemo ?
I'd vote him in on the foreign policy things he can get done alone.
Not going to war against the wishes of Congress, not illegally bombing Pakistan and such with drones, etc.
Not writing shitty executive orders and the balls to actually veto shitty legislation would be good too.
He can do those things.
But he can't just go, I personally don't like welfare nor abortion, so poof, they are now gone. That is fantasyland alarmism right there.
Except he can appoint supreme court justices that share his views and that kind of "alarmist" shit can become reality in the not so distant future.
Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have made their statements attacking Blacks and the poor.
In George Wallace's first run for governor he was endorsed by the NAACP, his opponent was endorsed by the KKK.
Wallace lost. After the lost he said, "...I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."
idk, if you people don't see the significance of at least having the shit paul rides for being debated when there's absolutely no fucking way it would be otherwise then we truly are hopeless. let obama try to dodge signing 4th and 6th amendment crushing legislation into law and if our country is okay with that kind of shit happening then we all deserve what we get.
I am all for debating Paul's points.
But I don't dismiss him or call him crazy.
RE: Z's article on Progressives and Paul.
Ron Paul, on the surface, seems to support many of the same things Progressives support.
Occasionally for the same or similar reasons, often for very different reasons.
The one that people here often mention is Paul's opposition to foreign intervention.
Paul opposed the US going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Granada... not because he opposes war, only because the Congress never declared war. He would invade Iran (as he recently told a crowd in Iowa) if the congress declared war on Iran. The same is true for Haiti.
Pretty much right down the line it is not that Paul believes the same things that progressive believe, it is that his policies would be similar to policies that progressive would like to see.
I am all for debating Paul's points.
But I don't dismiss him or call him crazy.
RE: Z's article on Progressives and Paul.
Ron Paul, on the surface, seems to support many of the same things Progressives support.
Occasionally for the same or similar reasons, often for very different reasons.
The one that people here often mention is Paul's opposition to foreign intervention.
Paul opposed the US going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Granada... not because he opposes war, only because the Congress never declared war. He would invade Iran (as he recently told a crowd in Iowa) if the congress declared war on Iran. The same is true for Haiti.
Pretty much right down the line it is not that Paul believes the same things that progressive believe, it is that his policies would be similar to policies that progressive would like to see.
I think this is a bit wrong. He's stated before that Constitution called for staying out of foreign "entanglements" (I believe he called them) and that it's not for the president to call for going to war. I was under the impression he believes in keeping the US out of any foreign wars. Like the US had been doing (For the most part) up until WWII.
I am all for debating Paul's points.
But I don't dismiss him or call him crazy.
RE: Z's article on Progressives and Paul.
Ron Paul, on the surface, seems to support many of the same things Progressives support.
Occasionally for the same or similar reasons, often for very different reasons.
The one that people here often mention is Paul's opposition to foreign intervention.
Paul opposed the US going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Granada... not because he opposes war, only because the Congress never declared war. He would invade Iran (as he recently told a crowd in Iowa) if the congress declared war on Iran. The same is true for Haiti.
Pretty much right down the line it is not that Paul believes the same things that progressive believe, it is that his policies would be similar to policies that progressive would like to see.
I think this is a bit wrong. He's stated before that Constitution called for staying out of foreign "entanglements" (I believe he called them) and that it's not for the president to call for going to war. I was under the impression he believes in keeping the US out of any foreign wars. Like the US had been doing (For the most part) up until WWII.
WWII , a war Ron said the US shouldn't have fought.
I The one that people here often mention is Paul's opposition to foreign intervention.
Paul opposed the US going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Granada... not because he opposes war, only because the Congress never declared war. He would invade Iran (as he recently told a crowd in Iowa) if the congress declared war on Iran. The same is true for Haiti.
Congress most definitely authorized action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Comments
There is no way Paul will ever get my vote and you are out of your mind if you think he has a snowball's chance in hell of anything else.
Read up on the John Birchers dude. You are on the damn tennis court thinking that it's left field. Beyond mainey.
Haha! Another example of Paul being full of it. He's running as a Repub. but isn't really a Repub! Too rich. This one goes up there with claiming to be for personal choice, yet being anti-Abortion, and claiming to be in favor if term limits, yet serving 12 years.
Yes, let's see him run as an independent. He doesn't have the guts.
Oh that's rich.
You can have it.
You have single-handedly saved this site. Thank you.
Sayin.
Nothing gets resolved. Its just a one-up-manship show. And it always morphs into insults.
Thanks for posting. As a leftist Euroman, the strong anti-Ron Paul sentiment I see among progressive/liberal types around here, too, is surprising (even disturbing?).
"meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest."
Dudes acting like Obama is "good" and Ron Paul is "evil" need to pull their heads out their behinds.
:hard_as_fuck:
Tell me how your European leftist sensibilities feel about only being able to see a doctor if you can afford it, how about worker's rights being thrown out the window (no minimum wage law, no worker safety laws, no child labor laws), no student aid, no free schooling, no laws that protect the enviornment or to curb pollution. A society that is controlled by business? A society that no longer takes care of the disabled and elderly? THAT appeals to a leftist sensibility? The one thing I have not heard from the libertarian/Paul/ "leave it up to the states crowd" is how the states are to pay for this new financial burden of education, social safety nets, health care, pollution control with no federal help...as it is "unconstitutional" for the federal government to provide these things. If it is left up to the states to be the sole providers of these important things then taxes will be raised to extremely high levels or the states will decide not to support them, thus sending illiteracy, homeless, poverty, pollution and crime rates soaring. It seems all the Paulbots think their taxes will disappear...the drug war will end (it may on the federal level, but remember it is "up to the states", so with the privitazation of prisons becoming a big revenue stream for states, I see local governments needing a steady stream of criminals, so maybe the dea going away, but your city's drug task force isn't going away.) and life will be great. I don't see how this "libertarian" ideal is supposed to be better as it makes for a more divisive "the haves and the have not" society.
Yea I'm not so sure about that...
From a non-US perspective it's kind of hard to understand how Paul inspires such fervor among his supporters but I presume the rest of the Republican field has a lot to do with it - especially looking at the crazy 'oh god anyone but Romney' candidates that were leading the polls every other week.
I can't say that I'm a fan of your political system but it sure is entertaining. So carry on I guess?
Don't forget that most of all, if Paul is elected...THE SKY BE FALLING, THE SKY BE FALLING!
Tell me , old wise one, how the states are to support these programs when the federal government can't do it under a Paul presidency?
Crickets.
Also, for a tin-hatted lizard person sentry, you have a lot of nerve shouting out, " the sky is falling". I think we have all been in jumpsuits and slaving away in a police-state salt mines according to you because Obama got elected.
Crickets because tell us how Lone Wolf Paul is going repeal any of that from the mere office of president.
One, I voted for Obama. Two, the crtitiques made against Obama's presidency are based on facts that have actually happened and they are very specific. But it takes removing your palms from your ears for you to actually hear them, I suppose.
I mentioned my own background simply to underline that even though I certainly do not agree with e.g. Paul's stances on the stuff you mentioned, I'd be exhilarated if a presidential candidate (left, right or center) with a marginal chance of running for president was saying some of the stuff RP is saying.
And this may seem a bit utilitarian to say this, but Paul's influence, though potentially destructive domestically, could have far-reaching (positive) consequences globally. Obama's re-election will just reinforce the status quo, and that's why I expect Obama will win.
so the laundry list of scary shit he purports to want to do when he becomes president is fine, because he obviously won't be able to get that shit done, but somehow the things he says hes gonna do that you do endorse will get accomplished no problemo ?
I'd vote him in on the foreign policy things he can get done alone.
Not going to war against the wishes of Congress, not illegally bombing Pakistan and such with drones, etc.
Not writing shitty executive orders and the balls to actually veto shitty legislation would be good too.
He can do those things.
But he can't just go, I personally don't like welfare nor abortion, so poof, they are now gone. That is fantasyland alarmism right there.
Except he can appoint supreme court justices that share his views and that kind of "alarmist" shit can become reality in the not so distant future.
That's exactly how I'm reading most anti-Ron Paul perspectives (and my views are generally left-wing). He acts like a leader to me.
Couldnt help but noticing this vid on my youtube front page.
In George Wallace's first run for governor he was endorsed by the NAACP, his opponent was endorsed by the KKK.
Wallace lost. After the lost he said, "...I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."
Apparently Rick Santorum feels the same.
But I don't dismiss him or call him crazy.
RE: Z's article on Progressives and Paul.
Ron Paul, on the surface, seems to support many of the same things Progressives support.
Occasionally for the same or similar reasons, often for very different reasons.
The one that people here often mention is Paul's opposition to foreign intervention.
Paul opposed the US going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Granada... not because he opposes war, only because the Congress never declared war. He would invade Iran (as he recently told a crowd in Iowa) if the congress declared war on Iran. The same is true for Haiti.
Pretty much right down the line it is not that Paul believes the same things that progressive believe, it is that his policies would be similar to policies that progressive would like to see.
I think this is a bit wrong. He's stated before that Constitution called for staying out of foreign "entanglements" (I believe he called them) and that it's not for the president to call for going to war. I was under the impression he believes in keeping the US out of any foreign wars. Like the US had been doing (For the most part) up until WWII.
WWII , a war Ron said the US shouldn't have fought.
Congress most definitely authorized action in Afghanistan and Iraq.