"who is ron paul?"

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

I'm not edgy at all, this is the Internet; it would be pretty difficult or really near impossible, for you to ascertain my emotional state. Not sure how that's relevant to this discussion anyhow.

Reusing the "ring a bell" statement was sarcasm as you thought I was against your stance.

But if you're a staunch Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his most controversial stances, then there's really not much else to say.

His most controversial? HAHA

Nearly everything about Ron Paul is controversial. For me to say I don't know everything is normal I would think. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

Nearly everything about Paul is not controversial. His biggest selling point, anti-war, is in fact the least controversial thing about him. What makes him controversial is that he's a Republican who is very anti-war (and also anti-neocon at the same time) while supporting an ultra-conservative and indeed extremist fringe outlook on federal gov't power.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

I'm not edgy at all, this is the Internet; it would be pretty difficult or really near impossible, for you to ascertain my emotional state. Not sure how that's relevant to this discussion anyhow.

Reusing the "ring a bell" statement was sarcasm as you thought I was against your stance.

But if you're a staunch Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his most controversial stances, then there's really not much else to say.

His most controversial? HAHA

Nearly everything about Ron Paul is controversial. For me to say I don't know everything is normal I would think. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

Nearly everything about Paul is not controversial. His biggest selling point, anti-war, is in fact the least controversial thing about him. What makes him controversial is that he's a Republican who is very anti-war (and also anti-neocon at the same time) while supporting an ultra-conservative and indeed extremist fringe outlook on federal gov't power.

Don't blame Paul blame that extremist fringe document called the constitution. After all that is exactly where he interprets 100% of his ideas.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

I'm not edgy at all, this is the Internet; it would be pretty difficult or really near impossible, for you to ascertain my emotional state. Not sure how that's relevant to this discussion anyhow.

Reusing the "ring a bell" statement was sarcasm as you thought I was against your stance.

But if you're a staunch Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his most controversial stances, then there's really not much else to say.

His most controversial? HAHA

Nearly everything about Ron Paul is controversial. For me to say I don't know everything is normal I would think. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

Nearly everything about Paul is not controversial. His biggest selling point, anti-war, is in fact the least controversial thing about him. What makes him controversial is that he's a Republican who is very anti-war (and also anti-neocon at the same time) while supporting an ultra-conservative and indeed extremist fringe outlook on federal gov't power.

Don't blame Paul blame that extremist fringe document called the constitution. After all that is exactly where he interprets 100% of his ideas.

Except when he ignores it. Or tries to change it. Or completely disregards it. Other then that I'm sure he draws a lot on the constitution. Well, except some of the amendments, but I'm sure he'd love to get rid of a few. That pesky one about equal rights for one.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

I'm not edgy at all, this is the Internet; it would be pretty difficult or really near impossible, for you to ascertain my emotional state. Not sure how that's relevant to this discussion anyhow.

Reusing the "ring a bell" statement was sarcasm as you thought I was against your stance.

But if you're a staunch Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his most controversial stances, then there's really not much else to say.

His most controversial? HAHA

Nearly everything about Ron Paul is controversial. For me to say I don't know everything is normal I would think. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

Nearly everything about Paul is not controversial. His biggest selling point, anti-war, is in fact the least controversial thing about him. What makes him controversial is that he's a Republican who is very anti-war (and also anti-neocon at the same time) while supporting an ultra-conservative and indeed extremist fringe outlook on federal gov't power.

Don't blame Paul blame that extremist fringe document called the constitution. After all that is exactly where he interprets 100% of his ideas.

Except when he ignores it. Or tries to change it. Or completely disregards it. Other then that I'm sure he draws a lot on the constitution. Well, except some of the amendments, but I'm sure he'd love to get rid of a few. That pesky one about equal rights for one.

Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.

Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

But if you're a staunch Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his most controversial stances, then there's really not much else to say.

His most controversial? HAHA

Nearly everything about Ron Paul is controversial. For me to say I don't know everything is normal I would think. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

You're deluding yourself. Most of Ron Paul's libertarian positions are not controversial, and are probably supported by many fiscal conservatives. Ron Paul is ridiculed because he has radical ideas (eliminating Fed, IRS, FBI, etc...) that he doesn't substantiate. How are we going to get rid of the Fed? How is he going to cut spending so much that we can afford to eliminate the IRS? If he wants to be taken seriously he has to answer these questions in detail.

 

[electronicmaji]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

But if you're a staunch Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his most controversial stances, then there's really not much else to say.

His most controversial? HAHA

Nearly everything about Ron Paul is controversial. For me to say I don't know everything is normal I would think. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

You're deluding yourself. Most of Ron Paul's libertarian positions are not controversial, and are probably supported by many fiscal conservatives. Ron Paul is ridiculed because he has radical ideas (eliminating Fed, IRS, FBI, etc...) that he doesn't substantiate. How are we going to get rid of the Fed? How is he going to cut spending so much that we can afford to eliminate the IRS? If he wants to be taken seriously he has to answer these questions in detail.

It would be easy if we did away with the war on drugs and the army. You are aware more than half of our budget go into both those futile efforst do you not?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.

Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.

Lets all take a gander at:
HR300

The basic premise of the bill is that the supreme court will not be able to rule on cases regarding gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and anything to do with religion. In other words, if a state wishes to make Christianity its state religion and prevent anyone who isn't Christian from running then can do so (like Texas). Or make sodomy illegal again (like Texas).

 

[electronicmaji]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.

Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.

Lets all take a gander at:
HR300

The basic premise of the bill is that the supreme court will not be able to rule on cases regarding gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and anything to do with religion. In other words, if a state wishes to make Christianity its state religion and prevent anyone who isn't Christian from running then can do so (like Texas). Or make sodomy illegal again (like Texas).

The original forefathers beleived in individual state rights. That is nothing new.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.

Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.

Lets all take a gander at:
HR300

The basic premise of the bill is that the supreme court will not be able to rule on cases regarding gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and anything to do with religion. In other words, if a state wishes to make Christianity its state religion and prevent anyone who isn't Christian from running then can do so (like Texas). Or make sodomy illegal again (like Texas).

The original forefathers beleived in individual state rights. That is nothing new.

So, its wrong for the federal government to oppress, but its OK for the states to do it. Peachy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
You're deluding yourself. Most of Ron Paul's libertarian positions are not controversial, and are probably supported by many fiscal conservatives. Ron Paul is ridiculed because he has radical ideas (eliminating Fed, IRS, FBI, etc...) that he doesn't substantiate. How are we going to get rid of the Fed? How is he going to cut spending so much that we can afford to eliminate the IRS? If he wants to be taken seriously he has to answer these questions in detail.

QFT. You can't just say we're going to eliminate 5 of the largest government programs and not specify what will replace them. Or how. And at what cost?

Let's get rid of the CIA. And the FBI. And Homeland Security. Great, OK. Now what?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.

Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.

Lets all take a gander at:
HR300

The basic premise of the bill is that the supreme court will not be able to rule on cases regarding gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and anything to do with religion. In other words, if a state wishes to make Christianity its state religion and prevent anyone who isn't Christian from running then can do so (like Texas). Or make sodomy illegal again (like Texas).

The original forefathers beleived in individual state rights. That is nothing new.

So, its wrong for the federal government to oppress, but its OK for the states to do it. Peachy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to change state laws than it is federal. Plus, it's much easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country. Plus, states like California need to be able to cater to a "broader" base then say, Wisconsin. That's the point of the states having government in the first place. They were never meant to be subservient to the federal government as they are now.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.

Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.

Lets all take a gander at:
HR300

The basic premise of the bill is that the supreme court will not be able to rule on cases regarding gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and anything to do with religion. In other words, if a state wishes to make Christianity its state religion and prevent anyone who isn't Christian from running then can do so (like Texas). Or make sodomy illegal again (like Texas).

The original forefathers beleived in individual state rights. That is nothing new.

So, its wrong for the federal government to oppress, but its OK for the states to do it. Peachy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to change state laws than it is federal. Plus, it's much easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country. Plus, states like California need to be able to cater to a "broader" base then say, Wisconsin. That's the point of the states having government in the first place. They were never meant to be subservient to the federal government as they are now.

I have explained it to him just like you did. But he will sly away now and come back a week later stating the same argument.

 

[math20]

As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: math20
As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

This all reminds me of when I was in grade school and our class president got elected because he promised to put Kool-Aid in the drinking fountains. Just more drivel from politicians, who over sell and under deliver is all I hear and the voice of the sheeple who worship them.

 

[electronicmaji]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: math20
As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

This all reminds me of when I was in grade school and our class president got elected because he promised to put Kool-Aid in the drinking fountains. Just more drivel from politicians, who over sell and under deliver is all I hear and the voice of the sheeple who worship them.

Lol....Ron Paul has yet to not act on anything he has said and has been firm on his issues never changing to win votes.

I have yet to see any other politician who is smarter. Ron Paul was part of the Cato Institute you do know?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: math20
As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

This all reminds me of when I was in grade school and our class president got elected because he promised to put Kool-Aid in the drinking fountains. Just more drivel from politicians, who over sell and under deliver is all I hear and the voice of the sheeple who worship them.

Lol....Ron Paul has yet to not act on anything he has said and has been firm on his issues never changing to win votes.

I have yet to see any other politician who is smarter. Ron Paul was part of the Cato Institute you do know?

Keep singing that lulaby to yourself. I know that Kool-Aid tastes sweet. It's not gonna happen. Get over it.

 

[electronicmaji]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: math20
As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

This all reminds me of when I was in grade school and our class president got elected because he promised to put Kool-Aid in the drinking fountains. Just more drivel from politicians, who over sell and under deliver is all I hear and the voice of the sheeple who worship them.

Lol....Ron Paul has yet to not act on anything he has said and has been firm on his issues never changing to win votes.

I have yet to see any other politician who is smarter. Ron Paul was part of the Cato Institute you do know?

Keep singing that lulaby to yourself. I know that Kool-Aid tastes sweet. It's not gonna happen. Get over it.

The only reason it wouldn't happen is because people like you aren't willing to unite for change.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: math20
As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

This all reminds me of when I was in grade school and our class president got elected because he promised to put Kool-Aid in the drinking fountains. Just more drivel from politicians, who over sell and under deliver is all I hear and the voice of the sheeple who worship them.

Lol....Ron Paul has yet to not act on anything he has said and has been firm on his issues never changing to win votes.

I have yet to see any other politician who is smarter. Ron Paul was part of the Cato Institute you do know?

Keep singing that lulaby to yourself. I know that Kool-Aid tastes sweet. It's not gonna happen. Get over it.

The only reason it wouldn't happen is because people like you aren't willing to take another chance on a Republican, at this particular time.

Fixed for you.

There are no thick skulls around here, so I'm sure you get it.

 

[electronicmaji]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: math20
As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

This all reminds me of when I was in grade school and our class president got elected because he promised to put Kool-Aid in the drinking fountains. Just more drivel from politicians, who over sell and under deliver is all I hear and the voice of the sheeple who worship them.

Lol....Ron Paul has yet to not act on anything he has said and has been firm on his issues never changing to win votes.

I have yet to see any other politician who is smarter. Ron Paul was part of the Cato Institute you do know?

Keep singing that lulaby to yourself. I know that Kool-Aid tastes sweet. It's not gonna happen. Get over it.

The only reason it wouldn't happen is because people like you aren't willing to take another chance on a Republican, at this particular time.

Fixed for you.

There are no thick skulls around here, so I'm sure you get it.

Oh yeah im sure the current house majority party is so much better. Especially with all their WIRETAPPING CONCESSIONS!

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: electronicmaji

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: math20
As for the fed, Ron Paul says that he would not want to eliminate it overnight. He would want to start with eliminating sales and capital gains taxes on alternative forms of currency to allow for competition. For the IRS, eliminating our empire overseas, which he could do as commander-in-chief, would be close to enough. The income tax only covers about 1/3 of revenue.

And as for H.R. 300, I definitely disagree with how it was worded with regards to having no federal oversight over religious issues as that violates the 1st and 14th amendments but I would be for an altered version which specifies what type of issues he was referring to.

This all reminds me of when I was in grade school and our class president got elected because he promised to put Kool-Aid in the drinking fountains. Just more drivel from politicians, who over sell and under deliver is all I hear and the voice of the sheeple who worship them.

Lol....Ron Paul has yet to not act on anything he has said and has been firm on his issues never changing to win votes.

I have yet to see any other politician who is smarter. Ron Paul was part of the Cato Institute you do know?

Keep singing that lulaby to yourself. I know that Kool-Aid tastes sweet. It's not gonna happen. Get over it.

The only reason it wouldn't happen is because people like you aren't willing to take another chance on a Republican, at this particular time.

Fixed for you.

There are no thick skulls around here, so I'm sure you get it.

Oh yeah im sure the current house majority party is so much better. Especially with all their WIRETAPPING CONCESSIONS!

Please try to keep all your shots above the belt!

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

It's a hell of a lot easier to change state laws than it is federal. Plus, it's much easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country. Plus, states like California need to be able to cater to a "broader" base then say, Wisconsin. That's the point of the states having government in the first place. They were never meant to be subservient to the federal government as they are now.

So people should move when the state makes it illegal to be atheist then. Fantastic.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

It's a hell of a lot easier to change state laws than it is federal. Plus, it's much easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country. Plus, states like California need to be able to cater to a "broader" base then say, Wisconsin. That's the point of the states having government in the first place. They were never meant to be subservient to the federal government as they are now.

So people should move when the state makes it illegal to be atheist then. Fantastic.

Why not just sit in the middle of the floor and lay on your back kicking and screaming?

Seriously though, if you want it to change then vote to do so. As stated before (but conveniently disregarded), its easier to change state laws than a federal one.

We have been over this a couple times now, yet here you are once again saying (basically) the same thing. Is this all you can drum up on Ron Paul? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

 

[math20]

Even if Ron Paul isn't able to do anything, it would be way better than moving the the wrong direction with the other candidates.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Why not just sit in the middle of the floor and lay on your back kicking and screaming?

Seriously though, if you want it to change then vote to do so. As stated before (but conveniently disregarded), its easier to change state laws than a federal one.

We have been over this a couple times now, yet here you are once again saying (basically) the same thing. Is this all you can drum up on Ron Paul? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

I keep saying its a horrible idea and the only people who like it are libertarians, which is basically the party for really horrible ideas. Thankfully, lolbs are an extremely small number of people who think they have a noticeable voice in things because the internet is a fantastic echo chamber.