-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ron Paul tops another poll!
- Thread starter Stoney Mason
- Start date
- Status
Karma Kramer
Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Well the reason why its being taken seriously is because the public education system sucks ass... and it needs to be changed.
I don't believe their is another candidate running for office that will actually reduce the power of the executive branch. If nothing else he will bring back the checks and balances. I'm sorry for pathetically obsessing over the future of my country, lets go back to obsessing over video games or the next "ooh noes gaf, i'm a loser and my gf left me" thread.
Karma Kramer said:
Paul doesn't really take a hardline anti-public education stance though. Well, I mean, look, you won't find a libertarian that thinks public schools are a fundamentally good idea - indeed, a near monopoly pushing private schools and school choice to only be a luxury of the rich is pretty despicable - but getting rid of them is unfortunately not politically viable at this time. And of course, Paul's "Constitution > *" methodology respects the rights of state and local governments, as per the 10th Amendment.
He consistently opposes federal involvement and expenditure on it, and promotes things like vouchers and education tax credits to give parents more choice and control.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
Which was what?
perfectchaos007
Member
No publicity is bad publicity?
perfectchaos007
Member
Pellham said:
He would decriminalize weed, not legalize it. Get it right.
perfectchaos007
Member
firex said:
Well just think if every other country had our current foreign policy. Everyone would be attacking everyone trying to get the other countries to be what they believe is right.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Karma Kramer said:
If I said it, I wouldn't be nearly as mysterious would I...
It has something do with hypocrisy though. One of my common posting themes.
What the hell does this mean, anyway? Letting the states be as oppressive as they want in the name of state's rights? This is quote unambiguously what Paul supports, by the way, in regard to separation of church and state, gay rights, and aborti--- never mind, it's all perfectly justified, isn't it?JayDubya said:
FoneBone said:
What does supporting the Constitution mean? It means supporting the Constitution. Where the Constitution is silent, the feds have no power. That power is reserved for the states, or the people themselves.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
And you want to make this a Constitutionality of abortion thread, be my guest, but you'll lose because it ain't fucking in there, which means it goes to the states.
Karma Kramer said:
How can be a leader when he will never have any leadership control other than one of over 350 votes in congress? He'll never win a state wide race in Texas (and obviously we know the presidency is out of the question).
Guess what kids, your republican nominee is going to be Rudy or Romney.
Fucking. Get. Used To. It.
Have you ever read the constitution? The state govt. can't make any laws that are unconstitutional either.FoneBone said:
Why are you putting words in ron pauls mouth? On abortion, he said he doesn't support it personally but it would be a states issue. On gay rights, he said that what 2 consensual adults do without hurting anyone is none of his business. And he is for the separation of church and state.
Not for this liberal, he at least respects the constitution... and thats why he will follow what the supreme court has decided. Ron Paul is to principled a man to appoint a supreme court justice based on roe vs wade. I'm tired of the same old bullshit wedge issues. He will bring real change where its needed, in the executive branch.Cheebs said:
Karma Kramer
Banned
Cheebs said:
Nice job missing the point again.
speculawyer
Member
sp0rsk said:
Yeah, I was kinda surprised by that too. But perhaps a lot of people are recognizing her for what she really is . . . an ideology-bomb-throwing extremist. She's completely supportive of every right-winger in history from McCarthy to Nixon. If she really believed in all crap she spouts then she should have her mouth-shut and be barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen.
Even far-left John Lennon was rational enough to say "But if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
speculawyer
Member
Karakand said:
Yes, many of them are. But collectively, people as a group are smarter than the average individual, so hopefully we elect smart people.
Bullshit. Not only is he a Christian fundie (ooh, of a non-neocon bent! That makes everything OK) who wholeheartedly buys into the War on Christmas bullshit and supports states' rights to pass sodomy laws, but he motherfucking authored the We the People Act:skrew said:
He has said that. He's also felt free on multiple occasions to vote for abortion restrictions, and has authored the Sanctity of Life Act ("To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception"). I don't think I need to spell out the intent of that. Actually, I probably do.skrew said:
PhoenixDark said:
Interestingly historically it's been the left that have started most of the wars of the 20th century, and war has traditionally been a tool of leftists for social change (with the last notable exception prior to the last twenty years being William McKinley and the Spanish American War. However if you look at Wilson, (WW1) if you look at FDR (WW2), Truman (Korea), LBJ (Vietnam), then if you look at such great Americans as Harding (Formally signed treaties with Germany and Austria ending WW1) Eisenhower (fought patriotically in WW2, sought an armistice in the Korean war), and Nixon, (well ok, not a GREAT american, he did end Vietnam though and was fairly strong on taxes) you'll notice that it's been a pretty strong conservative tradition to end wars. Incidentally, why advocates of wilsonian democracy claim to be conservatives I'll never know.
It USED to be that that was a tenant of conservatism, it used to be a part of the party platform. Republicans used to understand that there are things the Federal Government has the power and the responsibility to regulate, and there were many many many things better left to the states.
Cheebs said:
Why should we get used to it? I'd rather not have a Massachusetts liberal or a new york liberal neither of whom understand the value of "cutting spending" and one of whom (Giuliani) who refuses flat out to sign the "no tax" pledge of Grover Norquist's. I'd rather have a candidate that believes government should serve the people, not be some gigantic bureaucracy which controls how people act. I'd rather have a candidate with strong second Amendment credentials. I'd rather have a candidate who has a history of reducing the size and scope of government in people's lives. Can you honestly say that either Romney or Giuliani fits those qualifications? Incidentally, how many state wide races have Giuliani won?
Well, you don't have a choice. It's Rudy or Romney (or barring something crazy, Thompson).Gaborn said:
Also nice job discrediting Rudy on no state wide election win. Guess what? NYC is a lot bigger than Paul's little congress district. So I guess Paul shouldn't be able to get your vote either.
ElectricBlue187
Member
there really is no difference between republican and democrat
Cheebs said:
Thankfully we live in a democracy. Let's see what the voters say in the primaries.
Actually I'm pretty sure the statewide office thing was your standard with regard to Ron Paul, not mine. Frankly I couldn't care less about that, I don't support Giuliani because of his beliefs, not because of how much experience he has or does not have.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
Gaborn said:
Are you calling Warren G. Harding, universally known as one of the worst presidents of all time, a great american? :lol
Father_Brain
Banned
GoutPatrol said:
GoutPatrol said:
Well, he was a corrupt sonovabitch but in all honesty? No, I'm not. When I was making the list I actually didn't know that about Harding and his addition came after I realized he was in fact the man who ended WW1. In retrospect I'd make a similar disclaimer for him that I made for Nixon, despite his problems and any criticism you could make for him he ended the war. That was the only point I wished to raise there.
You are such an idiot. He legally ended it but it was OVER ALREADY. Wilson was president when basically all combat was done. It was basically 99.9% over under Wilson. Signing a little piece of paper didn't cause the guns to suddenly drop.
Peace Treaties and cease fires were all done under Woodrow Wilson
Peace Treaties and cease fires were all done under Woodrow Wilson
Cheebs said:
Wilson didn't want to end the war officially and waited 3 years without formally ending it like the rest of Europe. Harding, a Republican got the treaty signed 6 months into his term. Like it or not that's history, I said NOTHING about combat.
So no, "peace treaties" were not done under Wilson. the United States ended their involvement in the war in 1921.
Combat is what is important.Gaborn said:
It's not like Harding SAVED AMERICA FROM THAT EVIL WAR.
Combat was over, the war was basically a done deal. Jesus fucking christ, I am trying to convince someone HARDING was a bad president! :lol
I never thought there'd ever be a day someone would defend the nation's worst president. But hey, you do like Ron Paul.
Cheebs said:
I never said Harding was a good president (well, I technically did, but I have since disclaimed that, much like you disclaiming Giuliani's lack of experience after finding it so crucial in a 10 term congressman). He was a bad president, but he did see a formal end to WW1.
If the war was done then why couldn't we sign a formal peace treaty like the Europeans?
And, by the way, I'd personally argue that Jimmy Carter was our nation's worst president. Then Buchanan. Then Harding.
Jimmy Carter was a very incompetent president and did a shitty job but the man was probably the most honest and kindest person to ever hold the office in the nation's history. Which makes it near impossible for me to put him down there.
I realize his personal life shouldn't impact how I see him as president but the dude is 100% pure honest and oozes niceness. It is so hard to say anything bad about a guy like that. He was the Mr. Rogers of Presidents.
I realize his personal life shouldn't impact how I see him as president but the dude is 100% pure honest and oozes niceness. It is so hard to say anything bad about a guy like that. He was the Mr. Rogers of Presidents.
Cheebs said:
Personally I judge presidents on policy, not personality. JFK for example was very personable, but the man didn't get a whole lot done, what he did do was somewhat limitted (he PROPOSED tax cuts that LBJ signed into law, he PROPOSED that we go to the moon, LBJ started putting that in motion, etc) and on foreign policy he basically had 2 moments, one good (Cuban missile crisis) one horrendous (bay of pigs) yet people remember him because he was young, likable and assassinated 3 years into his term.
FoneBone said:
Quoted for probably-not-going-to-be-banned-but-deserves-to-be.
People accuse libertarians of looking at capitalism's history with rose-colored glasses, but this level of hyperbole and personal attacks belies that you look at the 19th century with shit-stained glasses.
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
Father_Brain said:
FoneBone said:
This sounds like bullshit. The writing style isn't Ron Paul at all. This sounds more like Fox news. This is probably similar to the racist statements that Paul allegedly made in a newsletter, when it was really a staff member that was immediately fired.
Is this what you criticize Paul for, along with links to Paul hate websites, and a bunch of childish personal attacks? It seems more like you disagree with Paul, and are trying to find reasons to attack him. You don't seem to have a substantial argument.
Stoney Mason
Banned
I've made this post before but the only thing more annoying than the Ron Paul lobby is the anti-Ron Paul lobby...
Father_Brain said:
Yes, because sensible money that doesn't lose its value is a bad thing, we don't need more choices and competition in education, we need more limits on what drugs people can freely choose to buy, Ron Paul is the Republican people need to worry about using internment camps (DOUBLE GUANTANAMO hurrrrr!), and state's rights just means racism.
In fact, every time I say I'm a passionate supporter of federalism, what I'm really saying is, boy howdy, I shore do hate [insert plural form of racial epithet here].
JohnTinker said:
This one's barely worth a response. People that don't even read the fucking bill and knee jerk react, like with the Rosa Parks medal thing, when Paul opposes all congressional medals, Davy Crockett style, because they're an inefficient waste of taxpayer's money.
Hurrrrr yeah thank God we have the FDA and ban drugs from foreign markets so we can keep prices up.
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
5% of the vote, with 3% margin of error. I would stay away from the Vegas lines if I were you.Gaborn said:
- Status