PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul for President 2008



CavortingChicken
08-15-2007, 08:42 PM
Ron Paul for President 2008




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ



if you are impressed.....SPREAD THE WORD .......PLEASE

Shiny
08-15-2007, 08:53 PM
but... but... he's A REPUBLICAN :o :mad:

pinocchio
08-15-2007, 08:55 PM
dude you're fucking sleeting on my day

piaptk
08-15-2007, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Shiny
but... but... he's A REPUBLICAN :o :mad:

Haha... I dont understand how the Republican Party puts up with him... But I like the guy... I dont agree with everything he stands for, but he's one oif the only politicians (including democrats) that I can stand. I will probably vote Obama, just because he is the only one that sorta has a chance to win (even though he probably wont). Bookmakers are giving Paul 300 to 1 odds against.

pinocchio
08-15-2007, 09:04 PM
here is a guarantee i can offer all of you : i will not be anywhere near this country by the year 2009. nowhere near it.

piaptk
08-15-2007, 09:07 PM
I'm sure this will get me in a lot of trouble, but party lines are the main problem with politics. It's not all left or right... there is a LOT of middle area. If you blindly vote either party without paying attention to what the candidates stand for, you are just giving either party the power to screw you over. I understand giving more credence to one party more than another, but don't be so lazy as to not pay attention to what they are actually about. Politics have been about voting for the lesser of two evils for so long that people are just sick of it and putting up with it. There will probably never be a candidate that I agree with on every issue, but I'll vote for the one who is closest. That being said... they are 95% scumbags.

blaise
08-15-2007, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by pinocchio
here is a guarantee i can offer all of you : i will not be anywhere near this country by the year 2009. nowhere near it.

pffffffft. snob.

narashinga
08-15-2007, 09:19 PM
What he doesnt know is that theres a mouse in the camera!

Shiny
08-15-2007, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by pinocchio
here is a guarantee i can offer all of you : i will not be anywhere near this country by the year 2009. nowhere near it.

http://observador.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/american-flag.jpg

OMG TRAITAR

Aqualad
08-15-2007, 09:22 PM
yeah. i'm glad party lines are finally beginning to blur a little bit. obama and ron paul are a couple of people i would be happy to see in office. the others seem tied up in their own parties agenda and such.

i'm tired of "i'm voting for the lesser of 2 evils" crap, too. no more democrat vs. republican. it's ridiculous how escalated that battle has become. i know it's cool to be democrat and all, but labelling yourself is as bad as anything else.


haha, i just noticed piaptk used the "lesser of 2 evils" line as well.

Aqualad
08-15-2007, 09:24 PM
also the move out of the country routine is old and you probably won't, because actually this is a nice pleasant place to live, and every other country has it's quirks, too.

hockywierdo
08-15-2007, 09:56 PM
he has lots of signs and stuff ove freeways in southern california too..

pinocchio
08-15-2007, 10:14 PM
i don't know my man. i won't be living in the US after next year. i've stayed for months in a number of other nations. most, if not all of which are much more enjoyable, explorable, friendly, and beautiful. it's fine living here, but quite boring by now. you don't agree?

Aqualad
08-15-2007, 10:31 PM
i don't know, i don't need a lot to keep me interested. other nations are great. if oyu've done it before, cool, but most people say it and never actually do it. and moving for political reasons is retarded.

the hurdy gurdy man
08-16-2007, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad
i don't know, i don't need a lot to keep me interested. other nations are great. if oyu've done it before, cool, but most people say it and never actually do it. and moving for political reasons is retarded.

Unless you're like... moving from East to West Germany. Stuff like that. I think that would have been pretty intelligent, if you could get away with it.

blaise
08-16-2007, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by the hurdy gurdy man

Originally posted by Aqualad
i don't know, i don't need a lot to keep me interested. other nations are great. if oyu've done it before, cool, but most people say it and never actually do it. and moving for political reasons is retarded.

Unless you're like... moving from East to West Germany. Stuff like that. I think that would have been pretty intelligent, if you could get away with it.

Speaking of the old days, remember that guy who hid his girlfriend in his passenger's side car seat and smuggled her out of East Germany?

vertiginous
08-16-2007, 09:05 AM
no one will ever be happy wherever they go so really as long as i'm not at gunpoint daily i'm chill.

Musicalfusion
08-16-2007, 09:07 AM
Ron Paul is the shit

that should be his campaign slogan

funeralpudding
08-16-2007, 09:42 AM
Obama, my honkies

jkirkpleasant
08-16-2007, 10:00 AM
i moved for polititcal reasons in 2003 before the shit hit the fan, but also for the free healthcare in canada. it's a wonderful place. of course there's quirks (like liters, kilometers, and celsius), but all-in-all, this is a nicer environment politically, socially, and economically... and educationally come to think of it. i still maintain my american citizenship and you better believe i support ron paul. he's absolutely bang on with just about every issue. i could care less which party he belongs to. i've always voted democrat, but to me all the donkeys running for office are jackasses, excepting dennis kucinich. (you gotta love a guy trying to impeach cheney!) the bottom line though is that the one who wins will be the one that the media coverage. if ron paul or kucinich actually got the same amount of media time as hillary or obama, they would be higher in the polls because people would know about them. perhaps in this election, people will decide to inform themselves on the candidates rather than let CNN decide their options.

funeralpudding
08-16-2007, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by jkirkpleasant
...you better believe i support ron paul. he's absolutely bang on with just about every issue.

From ontheissues.org:

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

he also supports Social Security privatization. Although he's by far the most libertarian of Republicans, and the best of the bunch, he's still part of the party than has run this country's reputation and economy down the crapper. They've had total control for six years and taken a budget surplus and thrown it in the garbage. And making Bush's giveaway to the rich permanent goes in the exact opposite direction we should be going right now.

emanresu
08-16-2007, 11:15 AM
If Mitt Romney was the same person as he was in 1994, I'd vote for him I think, but his radical shift to the right just makes me shudder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Lusitania
08-16-2007, 11:26 AM
I think Dennis Kucinich is by far the best candidate. He's brilliant and very genuine.

Also, try this:
The website (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ ) has been asking
respondents to express and rank their opinions on 25 different issues
– the war in Iraq, health care, the environment, Patriot Act, etc. --
that have been raised and debated among the Presidential candidates in
both parties. Those taking the survey vote only on the issues, not for
or against any individual candidate. The 67,000-plus responses were
then correlated with the positions of all of the candidates as
reported on www.2decide.com/table.htm . The results are here:
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is the first choice of a
phenomenal 53% of respondents. As of this morning (the survey is recalculated every five minutes),
more than 35,600 respondents were "in sync" with Kucinich on the
issues. Democratic front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton was the
first-place choice of only about 2,400 respondents (3.6%). Other
leading candidates fared even worse: Senator Barack Obama (3%), and
former Senator John Edwards (1.3%)

funeralpudding
08-16-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Lusitania
Also, try this:
The website (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ )

Isolating dehp.net forwards you to to mattwaterman.net, the guy who made this. In the second post where he talks about it, he says he basically copied the table from www.2decide.com/table.htm to make his thing... however in his coding examples, he shows (but doesn't talk about) how he has assinged factors of 1-5 on each issue. This is not to be found anywhere at www.2decide.com/table.htm, and had to be made up arbitrarily by Waterman. The way he ends the post does not dissuade me from thinking he's set this up to throw support for Kucinich:

"Okay, last bit. Kucinich has a web site. The design is first-rate and it features on online community that basically mimics myspace (we should call it kspace). Here's my profile:

http://action.dennis4president.com/mdickw"



Kucinich is not a bad guy, I wouldn't mind him being president at all. But in reality, even with a beautiful wife, he does not project presidency enough to win.

[Edited on 8-16-0707 by funeralpudding]

stompclapclap
08-16-2007, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Lusitania
I think Dennis Kucinich is by far the best candidate. He's brilliant and very genuine.
dennis kucinich is pretty much amazing. mike gravel's pretty cool too

jkirkpleasant
08-16-2007, 12:47 PM
ok, i agree that kucinich would be closest aligned with my own views according to that poll, but i agree with funealpudding that he doesn't seem so 'presidential', whatever that means... it'd be cool to see a first lady who's 29 with a tongue stud though! and thanks for posting his voting record, lots of those i didn't know about. but on the main issue of returning to a constitutional based federal government that's small and allows states to decide many of the moral issues makes more sense to me. and who can argue with eliminating the IRS and income tax?

funeralpudding
08-16-2007, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by jkirkpleasant
and who can argue with eliminating the IRS and income tax?

*raised hand*

We need to close loopholes and make corporations pay their share of taxes, but a system based on sales tax is going to make the rich even richer, and right now I favor socialist revolution.

jkirkpleasant
08-16-2007, 05:27 PM
i agree that america could use a bit more socialistic policy, but only in the sense that everyone deserves the basic human right to healthcare, education, and so on. i totally agree that corporations and the ultra-wealthy need to pay much higher taxes and we should create a system that's more balanced in terms of haves and have nots, but realistically, i don't see a social revolution happening anytime soon. i don't think that a big government that controls our individual liberties is going to help either. in canada, that seems to work because the government is almost always a minority government and they have to compromise, but in america, there is such an imbalance of power, that individuals need to re-establish their own powers over governments, corporations, and the like. how we're going to make that happen at this point, is unknown. any ideas?

Aqualad
08-16-2007, 05:40 PM
we don't need people bred to be politicians or spending their whole life in politics deciding our laws. I think it's time to turn the tide on what kind of people are needed in government, etc. get rid of the stereotypes that seem to flood washington.

karmaregis
08-16-2007, 05:49 PM
Whatever people that has been elected will be just a representant of the same things, same systems. Democratics or Republicans or non-democratics, or post-republicans or whatever.

[Edited on 17-8-0707 by karmaregis]

Shiny
08-16-2007, 06:14 PM
I think I'm just going to Idget vote this election

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_candidates_compete

jefferoo
08-16-2007, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Lusitania
I think Dennis Kucinich is by far the best candidate. He's brilliant and very genuine.


I'm having your babies.
We need this man, desperately.
He has a heart and a soul.

VOTE KUCINICH IN THE PRIMARIES!

jefferoo
08-16-2007, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by CavortingChicken
Ron Paul for President 2008 if you have shit for brains.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ



if you are impressed.....SPREAD THE WORD .......PLEASE

Wow. I don't have shit for brains, so I definitely won't be voting for Ron Paul.
I hope you eat some crack and your heart explodes.

pinocchio
08-16-2007, 07:41 PM
jeff dude i just requested friendsip of you in 2 forms via myspace via mimi and flo via...
:) ha!

jefferoo
08-16-2007, 09:07 PM
make that 3! ;)

Aqualad
08-16-2007, 09:25 PM
i just watched the video. that's really nice. he sounds really legit. i'd like to hear jeff's opinion as to why he wouldn't, though.

graham
08-17-2007, 04:42 AM
Ron Paul for President?

Ron Jeremy for President!

emanresu
08-17-2007, 12:53 PM
good one

Stormx
08-17-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by jkirkpleasant
...you better believe i support ron paul. he's absolutely bang on with just about every issue.

From ontheissues.org:

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

he also supports Social Security privatization. Although he's by far the most libertarian of Republicans, and the best of the bunch, he's still part of the party than has run this country's reputation and economy down the crapper. They've had total control for six years and taken a budget surplus and thrown it in the garbage. And making Bush's giveaway to the rich permanent goes in the exact opposite direction we should be going right now.

I don't get it... The decisions he's made have been awful. "Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)"... wtf. He's as bad as any other republican and most democrats. He wants prayer in schools? To further politicalise science? To fuck with the environment some more? Increase the rich/poor gap? Isolationism?

I hate bloat in government but this guy is insane. The free market doesn't work without some regulation, and that's where libertarianism falls, to put it simply. The incredible united states free market has you owing six times more money than the US has in circulation.




From my perception, the united states is blossoming with potential, but is being held back by traditionalists and gun nuts. That's why you never get progressive governments, ones which wouldn't be mocked by the rest of the world by being highly substandard.

Also, the choice of candidates ranges from conservative to libertarianism. I bet a bunch of you guys don't vote just for lack of a candidate that isn't towing the same old "hard on being progressive" line.

Musicalfusion
08-18-2007, 02:56 PM
its not like hes gonaa win

jefferoo
08-18-2007, 04:15 PM
thank god

jefferoo
08-18-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
i just watched the video. that's really nice. he sounds really legit. i'd like to hear jeff's opinion as to why he wouldn't, though.
I'll give you eleven reasons.

First:
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
(I have family members w/ parkinsons)
Second:
pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Third:
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Fourth:
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Fifth:
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Sixth:
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Seventh:
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
Eigth:
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
(I have union family members)
Ninth:
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Tenth:
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)
Eleventh:
Republican

The guy just sounds like a wannabe good-ol-boy.

I've had it with this shit. A lot of good it has done for the world.

Aqualad
08-18-2007, 05:18 PM
"Eleventh:
Republican"

that's an idiotic statement.


anyway, i approve half of those. and i took pro-life literally at first and was just really confused. he seems really honest and intelligent, though, like no facade or defenses as to what he thinks is right. I admire that and I think that outweighs most of the choices i'm against. I mean, all the candidates have some serious issues except him and obama, and obama's been really weird as of late.

Stormx
08-18-2007, 05:34 PM
Honest schmonest. he's already bowed to big business with the vote against net neutrality. Seems like any other american politician to me.

Aqualad
08-18-2007, 05:34 PM
dude, he's not against stem cell research. he's against it being the federal gov't's decision. he says it should be a decision of the state and the market.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo

witahemuii
08-18-2007, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
"Eleventh:
Republican"

that's an idiotic statement.


anyway, i approve half of those. and i took pro-life literally at first and was just really confused. he seems really honest and intelligent, though, like no facade or defenses as to what he thinks is right. I admire that and I think that outweighs most of the choices i'm against. I mean, all the candidates have some serious issues except him and obama, and obama's been really weird as of late.

Hitler was honest and intelligent.

Shiny
08-18-2007, 08:26 PM
The big problem with the next American election is that practically EVERY candidate seems honest, intelligent and well-meaning compared to the zero personality guy that we've been used to for the past 7 years

Stinkypoo1032
08-18-2007, 09:16 PM
a

funeralpudding
08-18-2007, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
dude, he's not against stem cell research. he's against it being the federal gov't's decision. he says it should be a decision of the state and the market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo

People who believe in state's rights are people who can't get what they want at the federal level (most famously slavery and anti-abortion supporters). Major moral and ethical laws are the responsibility of the federal government. And please be factual, he didn't just oppose federal funding of stem cell research, he voted that it shouldn't be allowed at all. I thought your youtube clip would explain your position but it curiously had nothing to do with it.

funeralpudding
08-18-2007, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
"Eleventh:
Republican"

that's an idiotic statement.

Considering they are the party that has single handedly thrown our reputation and economy down the crapper, while making us less safe from terrorism by creating more of it and allowing Al-Qaeda (the real Afghanistani/Pakistani one) to become as powerful as ever... not so idiotic


I mean, all the candidates have some serious issues except him and obama, and obama's been really weird as of late.

Please explain Obama "acting weird as of late"


[Edited on 8-19-0707 by funeralpudding]

jefferoo
08-18-2007, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
"Eleventh:
Republican"

that's an idiotic statement.



sorry, you're wrong. It's the replublican party and their hard line that has drastically upset our countries stability, ecconomy and integrity. If it weren't for them, we would never be in a quagmire in iraq. We also wouldn't have the patriot act. If it weren't for them, we would be closer to national or affordable heathcare. Their actions speak for themselves. It is a party that maintains the ideals of a sexist, racist, classist, homopobic and unenlightened monotheistic society.
When picking a president one considers the influence of a cantidates party on their executive powers. No fucking way would I want to spent another year, let alone 8 years, being represented by someone who holds none of my values.
and whatever happend to osama bin laden?
they republicans don't even mention his name anymore.
fuck that.

jefferoo
08-18-2007, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
"Eleventh:
Republican"

that's an idiotic statement.

Considering they are the party that has single handedly thrown our reputation and economy down the crapper, while making us less safe from terrorism by creating more of it and allowing Al-Qaeda (the real Afghanistani/Pakistani one) to become as powerful as ever... not so idiotic


I mean, all the candidates have some serious issues except him and obama, and obama's been really weird as of late.

Please explain Obama "acting weird as of late"


[Edited on 8-19-0707 by funeralpudding]
yes. please do.
and "black" isn't a good enough explanation.

CavortingChicken
08-18-2007, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
dude, he's not against stem cell research. he's against it being the federal gov't's decision. he says it should be a decision of the state and the market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo

People who believe in state's rights are people who can't get what they want at the federal level (most famously slavery and anti-abortion supporters). Major moral and ethical laws are the responsibility of the federal government. And please be factual, he didn't just oppose federal funding of stem cell research, he voted that it shouldn't be allowed at all. I thought your youtube clip would explain your position but it curiously had nothing to do with it.



Stem Cell Research

"Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html

Network Neutrality

Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
An amendment, sponsored by Rep Markey (D, MA) which establishes "network neutrality" by requiring that broadband network service providers have the following duties:
not to block or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access the Internet;
to operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content and services over the broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation;
if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.
Proponents say that network neutrality ensures that everybody is treated alike with regard to use of the Internet, which has been a principle applied to Internet use since it was first originated. Proponents say that without network neutrality, large corporations will pay for exclusive preferential service and hence small websites will be relegated to a second tier of inferior service. Opponents say that the Markey amendment forsakes the free market in favor of government price controls, and would chill investment in broadband network and deployment of new broadband services, and would reduce choice for internet users. Voting YES favors the network neutrality viewpoint over the price control viewpoint.
Reference: Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act; Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987 ; vote number 2006-239 on Jun 8, 2006

School Prayer explained jefferoo

Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
Proposed Legislation:
H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)
H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)
S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)
H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)
H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)
H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)

People have a right to pray if they want to, and in the same, a right not to....thats all.



Originally posted by Stormx
I don't get it... The decisions he's made have been awful. "Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)"... wtf. He's as bad as any other republican and most democrats. He wants prayer in schools? To further politicalise science? To fuck with the environment some more? Increase the rich/poor gap? Isolationism?

I hate bloat in government but this guy is insane. The free market doesn't work without some regulation, and that's where libertarianism falls, to put it simply. The incredible united states free market has you owing six times more money than the US has in circulation.


You guys need to research a little. Its easy to post a list of things he has voted no without his reasoning for it. Be fair and go to this website where you can understand his decisions, its only taken me about 15 minutes to look up the issues you guys are against. Stormx??? Increase rich/poor gap.. thats one of the major issues he is addressing when he talks about eliminating(or work towards phasing out) the IRS/Federal Reserve. Isolationism? Did you mean to say, no more policing of the world?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

I can't believe how bad some of you have made him look. I urge to go to You Tube and look up other videos, just watch with an open mind and forget about what side he runs for. Pay attension to the bigger picture not the little faults.

patman?
08-18-2007, 11:39 PM
I respect the man, unlike maybe 99% of politicians, but he's also a fucking lunatic. He's not what we need. The man wants everything to be run by private businesses. If there's anything I trust less than the government, it's businesses.

It's a matter of shitty vs. shittier.

Aside from his opposition to the war in Iraq, he's pretty much on-par with every other Republican.

CavortingChicken
08-18-2007, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by jefferoo

Originally posted by Aqualad
"Eleventh:
Republican"

that's an idiotic statement.



sorry, you're wrong. It's the replublican party and their hard line that has drastically upset our countries stability, ecconomy and integrity. If it weren't for them, we would never be in a quagmire in iraq. We also wouldn't have the patriot act. If it weren't for them, we would be closer to national or affordable heathcare. Their actions speak for themselves. It is a party that maintains the ideals of a sexist, racist, classist, homopobic and unenlightened monotheistic society.
When picking a president one considers the influence of a cantidates party on their executive powers. No fucking way would I want to spent another year, let alone 8 years, being represented by someone who holds none of my values.
and whatever happend to osama bin laden?
they republicans don't even mention his name anymore.
fuck that.


Again pay no attension to what party he is running under it means nothing. He is very much unlike what the republican party now is and if you look up more on him you would know why. He voted No on the war in iraq, but I'm sure you knew that.

Anyway I figured I just post some video links



http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=86dc7TD2ufA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=piS-EkUkhTQ


this ones funny, why so many votes??
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e5GBdObhq4c

jefferoo
08-18-2007, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by CavortingChicken
forget about what side he runs for

if that didn't matter, then why would he run for them?


here are some specs I don't agree with:

Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(-3 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(+5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(-3 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(+5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 11:
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy
(+5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(-5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(+2 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(+5 points on Economic scale)




[Edited on 8-19-0707 by jefferoo]

CavortingChicken
08-18-2007, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by patman?
I respect the man, unlike maybe 99% of politicians, but he's also a fucking lunatic. He's not what we need. The man wants everything to be run by private businesses. If there's anything I trust less than the government, it's businesses.

It's a matter of shitty vs. shittier.

Explain please. I believe that he wants the American people in charge of their own lives and not the government(big brother) that does seem crazy. I'm mean private businesses are run by ppl like you and me..right. You'd rather trust the government..Cool!



Aside from his opposition to the war in Iraq, he's pretty much on-par with every other Republican.

Again explain, lets not be vague here because ppl who read that can be swayed for no reason.

jefferoo
08-18-2007, 11:53 PM
Again pay no attension to what party he is running under it means nothing.

Like hell.

[Edited on 8-19-0707 by jefferoo]

patman?
08-19-2007, 12:03 AM
You're very fucking irritating. I'm not even going to bother explaining myself to someone like you. And everything I've said has pretty much been covered already.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by patman?
You're very fucking irritating. I'm not even going to bother explaining myself to someone like you. And everything I've said has pretty much been covered already.
who? me?

funeralpudding
08-19-2007, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by CavortingChicken


Aside from his opposition to the war in Iraq, he's pretty much on-par with every other Republican.

Again explain, lets not be vague here because ppl who read that can be swayed for no reason.

He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. We need to reverse the massive giveaway to the rich, not make it permanent. Money has become too intertwined in politics, but he sees nothing wrong with it as he votes against reform

And - if your statement on school prayer were sincere, there would be no need for any law whatsoever, nobody's stopping people from talking to their god. It is meant to force Christianity on our schools, let's not be vague.

patman?
08-19-2007, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by jefferoo

Originally posted by patman?
You're very fucking irritating. I'm not even going to bother explaining myself to someone like you. And everything I've said has pretty much been covered already.
who? me?

No. I like you.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 12:42 AM
pfew!

CavortingChicken
08-19-2007, 12:58 AM
patman that really hurts man, i'll have you know....that hurts.....thanks

well your probably right about the prayer in school deal, not so very necessary, but I still don't understand the idea. Religion still wouldn't be forced on anyone, would it? So how would it force christianity in public schools. Again not really sure what the plan is with that.

As far as the Bush tax cut thing, Paul votes for every tax cut bill, thats the reason. He even ssays that here. http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr033101.htm
However, he has a better system for taxes and removal of taxes if he does get elected.

funeralpudding
08-19-2007, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by CavortingChicken
However, he has a better system for taxes and removal of taxes if he does get elected.



Again explain, lets not be vague here because ppl who read that can be swayed for no reason

And let's get real, any tax system Paul puts in place will not have the rich pay their fair share. So unless you can explain otherwise, he's just another Republican in my eyes.

The explanation of opposition to net neutrality is a giant load of fucking crap, too.

GhostInTheMachine
08-19-2007, 05:01 AM
Let's have Ru Paul for president!

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z303/GhostInTheMachine_photos/RuPaul.jpg

rogersbowne
08-19-2007, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by piaptk

Originally posted by Shiny
but... but... he's A REPUBLICAN :o :mad:

Haha... I dont understand how the Republican Party puts up with him... But I like the guy... I dont agree with everything he stands for, but he's one oif the only politicians (including democrats) that I can stand. I will probably vote Obama, just because he is the only one that sorta has a chance to win (even though he probably wont). Bookmakers are giving Paul 300 to 1 odds against.

So you are going to vote for the person who has the best chance to win? Not who you want, personally ,just who you think would win, so you can say to your friends I voted for the Winner and that makes me a winner too. Let me guess your fav. sports teams are as follows: yankees, colts, and spurs.

GhostInTheMachine
08-19-2007, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by rogersbowne

So you are going to vote for the person who has the best chance to win? Not who you want, personally ,just who you think would win, so you can say to your friends I voted for the Winner and that makes me a winner too. Let me guess your fav. sports teams are as follows: yankees, colts, and spurs.

I'm gonna pick the Democrat with the best chance of beating the Republicans because the alternative's potentially another Republican term and I hate them that much. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing like the example you've given above. Lay off the guy.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 11:03 AM
lol. i wish people would never bring up george bush again.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 11:12 AM
does politics always make people such jerks and idiots?

GhostInTheMachine
08-19-2007, 11:33 AM
It doesn't, many people are jerks and idiots anyway.

funeralpudding
08-19-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
does politics always make people such jerks and idiots?

You mean like people who throw around statements like "Obama has been acting weird of late", with no explanation or touching of any single issue? Yeah, that's idiotic.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
does politics always make people such jerks and idiots?

yeah, it must be the politics that is causing you to revert to name-calling.

rogersbowne
08-19-2007, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by GhostInTheMachine

Originally posted by rogersbowne

So you are going to vote for the person who has the best chance to win? Not who you want, personally ,just who you think would win, so you can say to your friends I voted for the Winner and that makes me a winner too. Let me guess your fav. sports teams are as follows: yankees, colts, and spurs.

I'm gonna pick the Democrat with the best chance of beating the Republicans because the alternative's potentially another Republican term and I hate them that much. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing like the example you've given above. Lay off the guy.

Voting for the Democrat will stop the Republicans? A little civics lesson for you: start with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by jefferoo

Originally posted by Aqualad
does politics always make people such jerks and idiots?

yeah, it must be the politics that is causing you to revert to name-calling.

sorry, jerkiness and idiocy.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 03:11 PM
seriously why is this thread so mean, though? like it seems like everyone is at each other's necks.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 03:12 PM
we seriously are treating each other as if we're ignorant when the latter has probably done as much research into the people they like.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 03:13 PM
also a different political party will not change america.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 03:43 PM
i like multiposting.


i think we're missing the point here.

rogersbowne
08-19-2007, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by jcmoods

Originally posted by Aqualad
also a different political party will not change america.

That's a very vague statement. Fundamentally, a new political party more or less in charge will not change America. We are built on capitalism and fundamentalism and anything else would cause revolt.

However, a political party more or less in charge can without a doubt change the way America functions, i.e. goes about it's business being the aforementioned nation.

Also there's a nifty edit button.

Also another thing that is always missed is that the President is the commander-in-chief of the military and can only sign laws into power (can be overridden on both accounts). The President does not make legislation so being president is just symbolic. Real movers and shakers should be joining congress.

funeralpudding
08-19-2007, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
also a different political party will not change america.

That rhetoric was said by the Bush Sr. camp when he went against Clinton - and guess what - Clinton balanced the budget (while reforming welfare) and created a surplus. Funny thing happened when the Republicans took over, it all (and more) seemed to disappear directly into the arms of the rich. And the President does indeed create a budget, and when the President's party is in control of Congress, it's pretty much a rubber stamp, which is what Congress was for Bush for six years.

And somehow I doubt a Gore administration would have told us they knew where WMDs were in Iraq and that we need to trust them and not wait for UN inspectors.


Aqualad - please explain Obama "acting weird"

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 08:24 PM
i'm saying we need to go based on the person, not the party. both parties get something right and something wrong and it shouldn't be the party that makes us decide who we're going to vote for, or else we'll be acting out the same problems that have plagued us again and again. it's wrong to cancel out half of the candidates just because they're in a different party.

"being president is just symbolic."

if that's the case, why do people hate bush so much?

and the feeling i get after seeing obama and hearing what he's saying leaves me with no real clue as to how he's going to combat the problems he, and us, can see. I really like the guy, but hearing him speak in the debates and such leaves me wanting something more.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
i think we're missing the point here...also a different political party will not change america...sorry, jerkiness and idiocy

Sorry to put you in the wrong dude, but there is no point to be missed.
People are really upset with tide of events these days and they know they want change. I personally want more drastic change than Obama (ie: kucinich) but that is just me and I know it is a stretch. I'll vote for kucinich in the primaries but Obama is the smartest bet for '08. the worst mistake america made was voting for nader in '00. It took the votes away from Gore and led us down the slippery slope we are currently stuck on. A vote for Kucinich in the main elections may hurt our country more than help if he isn't far ahead of the pack, which wont happen. Obama is a fine antidote for the embarrasment of a "leader" we have today. At least he is articulate and respectful.
I think Democratic leadership is in need. We need to resecure our postion as a role model for other nations, rather than an intimidator. There is some serious cleaning up to be done.
Plus, look at what having a republican in the white house did for the supreme court. those people are appointed FOR LIFE. That definitely has an effect on our nation.
You need to do your homework, man.
Also explain some of your "reasoning" for once instead of just saying the same thing over again.
Convince us that it makes no difference what party a cantidate belongs to. You can't.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 08:31 PM
so the president is not merely symbolic.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 08:33 PM
you should just give up man. you're just arguing to argue, now.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by jefferoo

Originally posted by Aqualad
i think we're missing the point here...also a different political party will not change america...sorry, jerkiness and idiocy

Sorry to put you in the wrong dude, but there is no point to be missed.
People are really upset with tide of events these days and they know they want change. I personally want more drastic change than Obama (ie: kucinich) but that is just me and I know it is a stretch. I'll vote for kucinich in the primaries but Obama is the smartest bet for '08. the worst mistake america made was voting for nader in '00. It took the votes away from Gore and led us down the slippery slope we are currently stuck on. A vote for Kucinich in the main elections may hurt our country more than help if he isn't far ahead of the pack, which wont happen. Obama is a fine antidote for the embarrasment of a "leader" we have today. At least he is articulate and respectful.
I think Democratic leadership is in need. We need to resecure our postion as a role model for other nations, rather than an intimidator. There is some serious cleaning up to be done.
Plus, look at what having a republican in the white house did for the supreme court. those people are appointed FOR LIFE. That definitely has an effect on our nation.
You need to do your homework, man.
Also explain some of your "reasoning" for once instead of just saying the same thing over again.
Convince us that it makes no difference what party a cantidate belongs to. You can't.

The parties don't matter, it's the person and their own beliefs and ideals that matter. Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues. I'm just saying we need to leave that behind and try to be a little less divisive with our approach. We don't need to worry about strengthening one party or the other anymore, it's cliquish and a waste of time.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 08:46 PM
[i]
The parties don't matter, it's the person and their own beliefs and ideals that matter. Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues. I'm just saying we need to leave that behind and try to be a little less divisive with our approach. We don't need to worry about strengthening one party or the other anymore, it's cliquish and a waste of time.

You are oversimplifying the issue.
The cantidates personal beliefs OBVIOUSLY matter, but so does the party they belong to. They get endorsements from their constituants. There always is a party line, ecspecially with the republicans. You keep saying the same thing, but you never explain. Why does it not matter? Just answer.

funeralpudding
08-19-2007, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
i'm saying we need to go based on the person, not the party.

I'm saying I hope the Republican Party suffers for an entire generation for the mess they have caused.


[and the feeling i get after seeing obama and hearing what he's saying leaves me with no real clue as to how he's going to combat the problems he, and us, can see. I really like the guy, but hearing him speak in the debates and such leaves me wanting something more.

How specific of you. Funny - every time Bush opens his mouth I find myself wanting more, too. More Engrish.

funeralpudding
08-19-2007, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues.

Actually, this is factually incorrect. There was great unity. The cause of the split was when Bush and the Republican Party took our good will and moral high ground in fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and threw it all down the toilet in Iraq.

BTW, the real Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan that attacked us on 9/11 is as powerful as ever (by our own national security estimates) and it is all the fault of Republicans. Bush said he "doesn't much think about" Bin Laden. His words, doesn't much think about him. I'm sorry, but are there more serious issues at hand? Oh yeah, all the new terrorists we just created in iraq. But again, Bush and the Republicans are to blame.

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
i'm saying we need to go based on the person, not the party.

I'm saying I hope the Republican Party suffers for an entire generation for the mess they have caused.


[and the feeling i get after seeing obama and hearing what he's saying leaves me with no real clue as to how he's going to combat the problems he, and us, can see. I really like the guy, but hearing him speak in the debates and such leaves me wanting something more.

How specific of you. Funny - every time Bush opens his mouth I find myself wanting more, too. More Engrish.

why would you suppose i support bush?

edit: and why are you comparing him to obama?


jcmoods, you're right, but I think the two sides have taken the split too far and we have far too many extremists on both sides of the fence. I don't think it'd even be right for us to abolish parties, but it shouldn't be a reason for us voting for a candidate.


[Edited on 8-20-0707 by Aqualad]

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues.

Actually, this is factually incorrect. There was great unity. The cause of the split was when Bush and the Republican Party took our good will and moral high ground in fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and threw it all down the toilet in Iraq.

BTW, the real Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan that attacked us on 9/11 is as powerful as ever (by our own national security estimates) and it is all the fault of Republicans. Bush said he "doesn't much think about" Bin Laden. His words, doesn't much think about him. I'm sorry, but are there more serious issues at hand? Oh yeah, all the new terrorists we just created in iraq. But again, Bush and the Republicans are to blame.

How do I even argue this? i don't support bush and his methods. I believe they're wrong. Why must you lump me into one of his lackeys? It's a worn out argument and it's obviously bush made a lot of mistakes in his presidency. I'm sure you've found a candidate who supports your beliefs, but just to clue you in on this thread, ron paul has been for pulling the troops out of iraq since day 1 and was even against us going into this "war without merit" back in 2002. so don't lump everyone in as neoconservative. it's unjust and unfair, just as it is with lumping democrats together. I find it refreshing that obama and ron paul can garner support and applause from both sides of the fence.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 10:27 PM
you still haven't answered my questions.

funeralpudding
08-19-2007, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad

Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues.

Actually, this is factually incorrect. There was great unity. The cause of the split was when Bush and the Republican Party took our good will and moral high ground in fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and threw it all down the toilet in Iraq.

BTW, the real Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan that attacked us on 9/11 is as powerful as ever (by our own national security estimates) and it is all the fault of Republicans. Bush said he "doesn't much think about" Bin Laden. His words, doesn't much think about him. I'm sorry, but are there more serious issues at hand? Oh yeah, all the new terrorists we just created in iraq. But again, Bush and the Republicans are to blame.

How do I even argue this? i don't support bush and his methods. I believe they're wrong. Why must you lump me into one of his lackeys?

I don't know how you would argue with the truth, either. And - I've never said anything about you, quit trying to make this personal. You said there was no difference between parties and I'm saying the Republicans have single-handedly flushed our economy, reputation, and safety down the toilet.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 11:15 PM
AMEN!

Aqualad
08-19-2007, 11:42 PM
well, it seemed like you were targeting me personally. sorry if i got the wrong meaning from it, but i'm accustomed to that outlook so that might be some of the reason.

jefferoo
08-19-2007, 11:55 PM
wanna answer my question yet?

JoeJustJoe
08-20-2007, 07:54 AM
Neither Ron nor Dennis stands a snowballs chance of winning their party's nomination. The king makers have already chosen their candidate(s) and they will win. If they don't, they'll just find some way to steal the election. You all believe that true democracy lives here. It doesn't and hasn't for a long time.

Aqualad
08-20-2007, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by jefferoo
wanna answer my question yet?

which one? I thought I answered it.

Aqualad
08-20-2007, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
Neither Ron nor Dennis stands a snowballs chance of winning their party's nomination. The king makers have already chosen their candidate(s) and they will win. If they don't, they'll just find some way to steal the election. You all believe that true democracy lives here. It doesn't and hasn't for a long time.

i know it's not a true democracy(hint:it's a republic) but I think we can still hope that we'll get who we need in office.

jefferoo
08-20-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad

Originally posted by jefferoo
wanna answer my question yet?

which one? I thought I answered it.

Originally posted by jefferoo

[i]
The parties don't matter, it's the person and their own beliefs and ideals that matter. Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues. I'm just saying we need to leave that behind and try to be a little less divisive with our approach. We don't need to worry about strengthening one party or the other anymore, it's cliquish and a waste of time.

You are oversimplifying the issue.
The cantidates personal beliefs OBVIOUSLY matter, but so does the party they belong to. They get endorsements from their constituants. There always is a party line, ecspecially with the republicans. You keep saying the same thing, but you never explain. Why does it not matter? Just answer.

Why does it NOT matter what party he belongs to?

witahemuii
08-20-2007, 10:30 AM
I think it does matter which party the candidate belongs to, at least to some extent. However, the candidate can't be completely judged by the party they belong to. Many of the Democrats recently elected to Congress are anti-abortion and anti-gun control, and, as Aqualad stated, some Republicans like Ron Paul are against the war in Iraq and do not completely follow the party line. Personally, it is not because of the party they belong to that I don't support a candidate, it is because of their decisions. Ron Paul may be honest and smart and a respectable gentleman but he doesn't support stem-cell research or abortion and he does support teacher-led prayer, which is a clear violation of freedom of religion.

witahemuii
08-20-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues.

Actually, this is factually incorrect. There was great unity. The cause of the split was when Bush and the Republican Party took our good will and moral high ground in fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and threw it all down the toilet in Iraq.


Actually, your statement is incorrect. Ever since Reagan, there have been neoconservatives and "New Light" Republicans who have refused to compromise and have been more aggressive in achieving their goals. Also, the Democratic party is and was as disorganized as ever; it is full of minorities and smaller interest groups, partially because of its emphasis on personal freedoms, but partly through lack of willpower. Although many Democrats and Republicans appeared to have the same thoughts and goals, it's because many of them are too afraid to stray beyond the grey "moderate" area and actually state their opinions. The Bush administration did betray the goodwill of the country, but there were many problems before that.

JoeJustJoe
08-20-2007, 11:21 AM
Democats/Republicans. Two sides of the same fucking coin. People don't go into public service to serve the public. They may start off that way but, It's not long before lust for greed and power takes over. 99% of politicians are corrupt. Their votes and public opinions are for sale. Corporate interests rule. Your vote means not a thing. Until the sheeple wake up and realize that they've been fooled, nothing is going to change.

Stormx
08-20-2007, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
Democats/Republicans. Two sides of the same fucking coin. People don't go into public service to serve the public. They may start off that way but, It's not long before lust for greed and power takes over. 99% of politicians are corrupt. Their votes and public opinions are for sale. Corporate interests rule. Your vote means not a thing. Until the sheeple wake up and realize that they've been fooled, nothing is going to change.

Here here! Here's a quote from a wonderful book called Free Culture:





Edwin Howard Armstrong is one of America’s forgotten inventor geniuses. He came to the great American inventor scene just after the titans Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. But his work in the area of radio technology was perhaps the most important of any single inventor in the first fifty years of radio. He was better educated than Michael Faraday, who as a bookbinder’s apprentice had discov- ered electric induction in 1831. But he had the same intuition about how the world of radio worked, and on at least three occasions, Arm- strong invented profoundly important technologies that advanced our understanding of radio.


On the day after Christmas, 1933, four patents were issued to Arm- strong for his most significant invention—FM radio. Until then, con- sumer radio had been amplitude-modulated (AM) radio. The theorists of the day had said that frequency-modulated (FM) radio could never work. They were right about FM radio in a narrow band of spectrum. But Armstrong discovered that frequency-modulated radio in a wide band of spectrum would deliver an astonishing fidelity of sound, with much less transmitter power and static.


On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meet- ing of the Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in New York City. He tuned his radio dial across a range of AM stations, until the radio locked on a broadcast that he had arranged from seven- teen miles away. The radio fell totally silent, as if dead, and then with a clarity no one else in that room had ever heard from an electrical de- vice, it produced the sound of an announcer’s voice: “This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on frequency modu- lation at two and a half meters.”


The audience was hearing something no one had thought possible: A glass of water was poured before the microphone in Yonkers; it sounded like a glass of water being poured. . . . A paper was crumpled and torn; it sounded like paper and not like a crackling forest fire. . . . Sousa marches were played from records and a pi- ano solo and guitar number were performed. . . . The music was projected with a live-ness rarely if ever heard before from a radio “music box.”


As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Arm- strong was working for RCA. RCA was the dominant player in the then dominant AM radio market. By 1935, there were a thousand radio stations across the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by a handful of networks.


RCA’s president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong’s, was eager that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So Sarnoff was quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device that removed static from “radio.” But when Armstrong demonstrated his invention, Sarnoff was not pleased.


I thought Armstrong would invent some kind of a filter to remove static from our AM radio. I didn’t think he’d start a revolution— start up a whole damn new industry to compete with RCA.4 Armstrong’s invention threatened RCA’s AM empire, so the com- pany launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one au- thor described,


The forces for FM, largely engineering, could not overcome the weight of strategy devised by the sales, patent, and legal offices to subdue this threat to corporate position. For FM, if allowed to develop unrestrained, posed . . . a complete reordering of radio power . . . and the eventual overthrow of the carefully restricted AM system on which RCA had grown to power.


RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew impatient, RCA began to use its power with the government to stall FM radio’s deployment generally. In 1936, RCA hired the former head of the FCC and assigned him the task of assuring that the FCC assign spectrum in a way that would castrate FM—principally by moving FM radio to a different band of spectrum. At first, these efforts failed. But when Armstrong and the nation were distracted by World War II, RCA’s work began to be more successful. Soon after the war ended, the FCC announced a set of policies that would have one clear effect: FM radio would be crippled. As Lawrence Lessing described it,


The series of body blows that FM radio received right after the war, in a series of rulings manipulated through the FCC by the big radio interests, were almost incredible in their force and devi- ousness.


To make room in the spectrum for RCA’s latest gamble, television, FM radio users were to be moved to a totally new spectrum band. The power of FM radio stations was also cut, meaning FM could no longer be used to beam programs from one part of the country to another. (This change was strongly supported by AT&T, because the loss of FM relaying stations would mean radio stations would have to buy wired links from AT&T.) The spread of FM radio was thus choked, at least temporarily.
Armstrong resisted RCA’s efforts. In response, RCA resisted Arm- strong’s patents. After incorporating FM technology into the emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents invalid—baselessly, and almost fifteen years after they were issued. It thus refused to pay him royalties. For six years, Armstrong fought an expensive war of lit- igation to defend the patents. Finally, just as the patents expired, RCA offered a settlement so low that it would not even cover Armstrong’s lawyers’ fees. Defeated, broken, and now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then stepped out of a thirteenth- story window to his death.


This is how the law sometimes works. Not often this tragically, and rarely with heroic drama, but sometimes, this is how it works. From the beginning, government and government agencies have been subject to capture. They are more likely captured when a powerful interest is threatened by either a legal or technical change. That powerful interest too often exerts its influence within the government to get the govern- ment to protect it. The rhetoric of this protection is of course always public spirited; the reality is something different. Ideas that were as solid as rock in one age, but that, left to themselves, would crumble in another, are sustained through this subtle corruption of our political process. RCA had what the Causbys did not: the power to stifle the ef- fect of technological change.

[Edited on 8-20-0707 by Stormx]

pinocchio
08-20-2007, 11:59 AM
patman? sucks so hard... probably the stupidest ass on this forum.

Aqualad
08-20-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by witahemuii
I think it does matter which party the candidate belongs to, at least to some extent. However, the candidate can't be completely judged by the party they belong to. Many of the Democrats recently elected to Congress are anti-abortion and anti-gun control, and, as Aqualad stated, some Republicans like Ron Paul are against the war in Iraq and do not completely follow the party line. Personally, it is not because of the party they belong to that I don't support a candidate, it is because of their decisions. Ron Paul may be honest and smart and a respectable gentleman but he doesn't support stem-cell research or abortion and he does support teacher-led prayer, which is a clear violation of freedom of religion.

yeah, that's basically what I'm trying to get across, because we really have a mixed bag this time around.

witahemuii
08-20-2007, 01:37 PM
I figured that's what you were saying, but it's a little difficult for anyone to get their point across in a...discussion? like this.

Also, Obama seems genuine and an intelligent guy, but I'm not really sure what he stands for. It seems to me that he's too preoccupied with getting support and not as concerned with professing his ideas and beliefs.

[Edited on 8-20-0707 by witahemuii]

funeralpudding
08-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by witahemuii

Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
Democrat and republican has caused too mucha of a split in our country when we should have been facing other more serious issues.

Actually, this is factually incorrect. There was great unity. The cause of the split was when Bush and the Republican Party took our good will and moral high ground in fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and threw it all down the toilet in Iraq.


Actually, your statement is incorrect. Ever since Reagan, there have been neoconservatives and "New Light" Republicans who have refused to compromise and have been more aggressive in achieving their goals. Also, the Democratic party is and was as disorganized as ever; it is full of minorities and smaller interest groups, partially because of its emphasis on personal freedoms, but partly through lack of willpower. Although many Democrats and Republicans appeared to have the same thoughts and goals, it's because many of them are too afraid to stray beyond the grey "moderate" area and actually state their opinions. The Bush administration did betray the goodwill of the country, but there were many problems before that.

Of course there were problems before. However, whatever they were, as of 2002 we had just been attacked and were going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and had the support of virtually the entire world. Bush and the Republican Party have taken all of that and thrown it away in six years of total government control. We have now killed 70,000 Iraqi civilains (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) and over 3,000 Americans for no reason (creating a lot more terrorists in the process), and allowed Al Qaeda, by our own intelligence estimates, to become as powerful as ever (and they don't even have Afghanistan as a home base anymore) Also, Democrats may not be as focused in their ideals as the Republicans and less organized, but Clinton and the Democratic Congress turned our economy around (while reforming welfare) and handed Bush a balanced budget and surplus. Bush has simply passed this on to the rich in the form of tax cuts, which yes is what Reagan would have done. But not even Reagan would have been so short-sighted as to have invaded Iraq.
So yes, war and handouts to the rich have always been mantras for the Republican Party, but have they ever done this much harm to us?

Shiny
08-20-2007, 02:45 PM
snakes on a plane!

stompclapclap
08-20-2007, 03:22 PM
oh shit!

Aqualad
08-20-2007, 03:40 PM
it's odd to think that democrat and republican used to mean their counterparts.

Shiny
08-20-2007, 05:01 PM
@ pretty much everything in this thread:

tl;dr

Stormx
08-20-2007, 05:07 PM
uh?

Anyway, funeralpudding is right.

OiNKers, go get some Noam Chomsky stuff :)

Aqualad
08-20-2007, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by jcmoods
They're just names, really. And then there were Federalists and all that.


the whigs!

CavortingChicken
08-21-2007, 03:03 PM
nice excerpt stormx

jkirkpleasant
08-21-2007, 04:47 PM
here's an interesting article regarding ron paul:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_and_the_empire.htm
so i've been reading all these comments and i'm still convinced that he's a valuable candidate and i would support him over any other establishment based candidate.
ah, so nice for us to have opinions! even on issues that i traditionally disagree with him on, overall, i support his main agenda, which is to restore constitutionality to government, while taming it down and bringing the military home.

jefferoo
08-21-2007, 06:43 PM
let's not talk about ron paul anymore. please.

tomatoesandradiowires
08-21-2007, 06:55 PM
Well, He's not Rudy Giuliani. He's got that much going for him.

Stinkypoo1032
08-21-2007, 06:58 PM
a

Stinkypoo1032
08-21-2007, 06:59 PM
a

Aqualad
08-21-2007, 07:20 PM
that was a good read, kirk. thanks.

stompclapclap
08-21-2007, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Shiny
@ pretty much everything in this thread:

tl;dr
2nd'd

JoeJustJoe
08-22-2007, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by jkirkpleasant
here's an interesting article regarding ron paul:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_and_the_empire.htm
so i've been reading all these comments and i'm still convinced that he's a valuable candidate and i would support him over any other establishment based candidate.
ah, so nice for us to have opinions! even on issues that i traditionally disagree with him on, overall, i support his main agenda, which is to restore constitutionality to government, while taming it down and bringing the military home.

Valuable for sure. Just not very viable in the long-run. I said it before and the author of the article from Mr. Jones' awsome website agrees. Ron Paul wouldn't be good for business. The kingmakers have others in mind.

AlliedToasters
12-29-2007, 01:11 PM
I would vote for Ron Paul if I could.
Americans need to realize that if Ron Paul ISN'T elected in 2008, there will be another great depression, because the we are about to face runaway inflation. As soon as China cuts us off financially, our country will be forced to make a choice between ending all foreign military operations or printing the money. And Germany taught us what happens when you choose the latter...
This is not a time to be realistic about politics, or to disregard Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning. The truth is, voting for anyone else would is like voting for starving your kids. Obama would be an excellent president for politics as they have been, but Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands what is happening to our country today, and knows how to fix it.
Stop wasting time thinking about why Ron Paul will lose, and start spending time telling other people about it. He's our nation's last chance.

funeralpudding
12-29-2007, 03:01 PM
I would vote for Ron Paul if I could.
Americans need to realize that if Ron Paul ISN'T elected in 2008, there will be another great depression, because the we are about to face runaway inflation.

bullshit. we are currently facing recession, not depression, and it and the inflation are 100% the fault of the Republicans who threw away the balanced budget and surplus the Clinton administration handed them, straight into the arms of all the obvious Republican donors. Ron Paul's libertarian ideals conveniently don't reign in any of the corporate power or oil subsidies that are currently raping this country, he is no different form the rest of the Republicans in this regard. Even his reasonable ideas like abolishing the Federal Reserve don't account for the fact that the majority of his policy equals staus-quo for corporations.


As soon as China cuts us off financially, our country will be forced to make a choice between ending all foreign military operations or printing the money. And Germany taught us what happens when you choose the latter...

You got this from Michelle Malkin, didn't you. Or the Ron Paul newsletter. Aims too much at intelligence to have come from Rush Limbaugh.



This is not a time to be realistic about politics, or to disregard Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning.

This is not a time to be realistic about politics? Isn't that what has been wrong with the last seven yeras?


The truth is, voting for anyone else would is like voting for starving your kids.

oh, come on, be more dramatic.


Obama would be an excellent president for politics as they have been, but Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands what is happening to our country today, and knows how to fix it.

Riiiiight. Name one stance Obama's taking for politics "as they have been". Who's the dickhead who voted to make Bush's tax cut to the rich permanent??? Or the continuation of oil subsidies to companies that have taken gas from about $1.25 in 1999 to what it is now??? Who thinks that social freedom involves prayer in school but not net neutrality? Hmmmm. Ron Paul, maybe? Couldn't be, I heard his was a virgin birth and that he pisses holy water.


Stop wasting time thinking about why Ron Paul will lose, and start spending time telling other people about it.

that's what I'm trying to do here


He's our nation's last chance.

No Republican deserves to ever hold office in this country again. Our real last chance is to have some kind of fucking memory as to all the ways they fucked us over the last seven years. Ron Paul may not line up with the rest of them on Iraq and a few other areas, but he does nothing to reign in the business interests. At a time when, realistically, we need serious election reform, Ron Paul is a candidate who supports unlimited campaign contributions. An obvious step in the wrong direction. The grass-roots support is nothing but Republicans who either are too late in keeping the majority of their party out of extreme right-wing hands or are desperately clinging to their only chance of winning the next Presidential election.

Stormx
12-29-2007, 04:22 PM
I'm with FP here. He goes some of the way, but really, he's no different from every asshole in the US government at the moment. Have you read his website? It's like he wins a buck for every abstract concept like "liberty" or "freedom" he works into a text while avoiding giving any solid/useful commitments.

CavortingChicken
12-29-2007, 04:31 PM
funeral pudding you need to do actual research on Ron Paul. I'm not going to waste my time on you, but you do realise that the democrates and republicans are essentially one party these days. Ron Paul DOES NOT represent the republican party for which it stands for today. He is a patriot. He follows the constitution exactly, and you can't ignore that. Calling him a dickhead doesnt accomplish anything man. Grow up.

You are an uninformed American because you are angry and hasty. Don't be foolish this election means more than you can possibly imagine. I am not better or smarter than you I just found the answer first.

jkirkpleasant
12-29-2007, 05:31 PM
hey, so i'm about to send in my absentee ballot and realized too late that i didn't change my party to republican in time to vote for ron paul, so i'm stuck voting for a democrat. out of these bozos, who do you guys think i should vote for? i liked dennis at first, but ever since he sided with the aliens, i'm a little freaked out by him. i'm thinking obama, but i'm not sure... i'm not a huge fan of hillary because she's so establishment. any ideas?

funeralpudding
12-29-2007, 08:36 PM
funeral pudding you need to do actual research on Ron Paul. I'm not going to waste my time on you, but you do realise that the democrates and republicans are essentially one party these days. Ron Paul DOES NOT represent the republican party for which it stands for today. He is a patriot. He follows the constitution exactly, and you can't ignore that. Calling him a dickhead doesnt accomplish anything man. Grow up.

You are an uninformed American because you are angry and hasty. Don't be foolish this election means more than you can possibly imagine. I am not better or smarter than you I just found the answer first.

Actually, I am angry because I am informed. Feel free to refute any of the specific points I made about Ron Paul, if it's not "wasting your time".

stompclapclap
12-29-2007, 10:07 PM
He follows the constitution exactly

um, that's a bit frightening

Aqualad
12-29-2007, 11:41 PM
hey, so i'm about to send in my absentee ballot and realized too late that i didn't change my party to republican in time to vote for ron paul, so i'm stuck voting for a democrat. out of these bozos, who do you guys think i should vote for? i liked dennis at first, but ever since he sided with the aliens, i'm a little freaked out by him. i'm thinking obama, but i'm not sure... i'm not a huge fan of hillary because she's so establishment. any ideas?

I wouldn't take the alien thing too seriously. He said he saw a UFO, and he was clear that he meant an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. He didn't claim it was an alien or anything.

jefferoo
12-29-2007, 11:46 PM
Ron Paul DOES NOT represent the republican party for which it stands for today.

I'm sorry dude, but what the hell does that mean?
If he is running on the Republican ticket, then he represents the republican party... period!
If he wasn't, he'd be running on an independent or libertarian ticket.
The man is a politician. If he gets the nomination, then he will have the party down his shorts on every issue.
If anyone has a brain, they will stay as far away from anyone remotely associated with the republican party, this election.
And for those of you who say the party doesn't matter, you are fooling yourselves. You have to keep in mind the influence of special interest groups and the power to appoint supreme court justices. Those things usually fall within the party lines.

Aqualad
12-29-2007, 11:50 PM
um, that's a bit frightening

What about following the constitution is scary?

Aqualad
12-30-2007, 12:14 AM
I'm sorry dude, but what the hell does that mean?
If he is running on the Republican ticket, then he represents the republican party... period!
If he wasn't, he'd be running on an independent or libertarian ticket.
The man is a politician. If he gets the nomination, then he will have the party down his shorts on every issue.
If anyone has a brain, they will stay as far away from anyone remotely associated with the republican party, this election.
And for those of you who say the party doesn't matter, you are fooling yourselves. You have to keep in mind the influence of special interest groups and the power to appoint supreme court justices. Those things usually fall within the party lines.

You are too black and white. Surely we'd only have one candidate on each side already if they all represented the same thing. Tell me what's wrong with smaller government, no more wars that have nothing to do with national security, and protecting our rights? Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget, and he's been around congress for a very long time.

I thought I had the right idea when the election season started(going democrat, I was pretty sure I'd be supporting Obama), but then I found out about Ron Paul, and the things he was advocating(non-intervention, smaller government) and his consistent stance changed my mind. If he doesn't win the primary, and hillary wins the democratic primary, I honestly don't think i could vote for the winner on either side just because of their party.

I have come to see that most of what occurs is a direct battle between libertarianism and socialism. It goes beyond party lines, as we can see that people like Giuliani and Mitt Romney embrace socialism easily, while people like Kucinith and Gravel(especially Gravel I've seen) lean the other way.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article750.html

jefferoo
12-30-2007, 12:37 AM
why isn't he running independent?

piaptk
12-30-2007, 03:25 AM
why isn't he running independent?

Because nobody will EVER (in the foreseeable future, anyway) get elected being independent, green, or libertarian.

piaptk
12-30-2007, 03:31 AM
There are some things that I like about him, and some things I don't. I don't know if I would vote for him, but I like him a hell of a lot more than some of the other candidates (dems and reps). I think a lot of the things he says he would do (that I would totally support... no IRS, immediately out of Iraq, etc) if elected are so large that they will never make it through the checks and balances portion of our government. I am definitely a fan of smaller central gov't, though.

stompclapclap
12-30-2007, 04:05 AM
What about following the constitution is scary?

it's the EXACTLY part that's scary...reminds me of religious fundamentalists that refuse to interpret the bible

funeralpudding
12-30-2007, 09:57 AM
You are too black and white...

I have come to see that most of what occurs is a direct battle between libertarianism and socialism.

You are too black and white. There's nothing wrong with socialism. Ideals of both socialism and libertarianism are built into the Constitution. Either can be pushed into their extremes, like communism for socialism, anarchy for libertarianism.


Tell me what's wrong with smaller government...

It doesn't do anything to reign in the unchecked power of corporations and lobbyists who have taken over this country. Our governmental system isn't broken, it's just had seven years of Republican spanners in the works.

jefferoo
12-30-2007, 01:58 PM
You are too black and white. There's nothing wrong with socialism. Ideals of both socialism and libertarianism are built into the Constitution. Either can be pushed into their extremes, like communism for socialism, anarchy for libertarianism.



It doesn't do anything to reign in the unchecked power of corporations and lobbyists who have taken over this country. Our governmental system isn't broken, it's just had seven years of Republican spanners in the works.

fp i wish you were born a girl.


Because nobody will EVER (in the foreseeable future, anyway) get elected being independent, green, or libertarian.

this is exactly the problem with the country's political process.
A third party candidate is falling prey to the trappings of a two party system.
if the guy is a libertarian, he should run libertarian.
now he will compromise the platform of his party, if nominated, to suck on the penises of his republican constituents.
go ahead, vote for him.
you can have him.

ps

here is an interesting site I found that tracks the candidates records...
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
also there is a fun VOTE MATCH QUIZ (http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008)

VenusInFurs341
12-30-2007, 05:19 PM
Cynthia Mckinney ftw!

Aqualad
01-06-2008, 09:31 PM
You are too black and white. There's nothing wrong with socialism. Ideals of both socialism and libertarianism are built into the Constitution. Either can be pushed into their extremes, like communism for socialism, anarchy for libertarianism.

I'd like to know what parts can be considered socialist.


It doesn't do anything to reign in the unchecked power of corporations and lobbyists who have taken over this country. Our governmental system isn't broken, it's just had seven years of Republican spanners in the works.

I just read a book, "the politically incorrect guide to the constitution," which basically reviews the facts of the last 200 years on supreme court rulings and such. The supreme court basically screwed up this country, it seems. But I'd be wrong if I didn't criticize the corporate ties of the last 2 decades of republicans(which basically means the bush's, haha).

On the other hand, you can't deny that people like hillary clinton are just as guilty of the association. Time will tell what barack obama stands for(I really don't know). I hope he won't pull an fdr on us if he was to become president.

But going back to republicans, the frontrunners are eaither completely clueless or have sold their souls to corporate america. It's amazing that the christian right still supports someone like huckabee who has such a tarnished record. But he was a baptist minister before that lol.

the hurdy gurdy man
01-06-2008, 10:43 PM
I don't get it... The decisions he's made have been awful. "Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)"... wtf. He's as bad as any other republican and most democrats. He wants prayer in schools? To further politicalise science? To fuck with the environment some more? Increase the rich/poor gap? Isolationism?

I hate bloat in government but this guy is insane. The free market doesn't work without some regulation, and that's where libertarianism falls, to put it simply. The incredible united states free market has you owing six times more money than the US has in circulation.




From my perception, the united states is blossoming with potential, but is being held back by traditionalists and gun nuts. That's why you never get progressive governments, ones which wouldn't be mocked by the rest of the world by being highly substandard.

Also, the choice of candidates ranges from conservative to libertarianism. I bet a bunch of you guys don't vote just for lack of a candidate that isn't towing the same old "hard on being progressive" line.


I know this is from a very long time ago, but maybe someone can help me out:

How are gun nuts holding the U.S. back from being a progressive government? How is that even related? What does it have to do with anything?

And as for me and my house, we will vote Ron Paul.


A continuation:

Why do you lump Ron Paul in with the other Republicans? He voted against the war- most democrats voted for it.

What sane person would want their lives controlled by a huge government, many levels removed from the people? It is expensive, inefficient, and sucks the freedom right out of us. I want a small government, without all the bureaucratic shit that goes with it. Give me powerful state governments anyday, and a small federal government ran by someone who cares about the constitution. The federal government should only take care of national defense, international trade POSSIBLY education (even that is probably unnecessary), and probably something I have forgotten.

And, really... none of the other candidates offer much change from the status quo.

pinocchio
01-06-2008, 10:53 PM
ya know i could see myself voting for him. i really don't agree with his views on gun control and immigration. but other than that, he seems really in touch with reality and what is right.

jefferoo
01-06-2008, 10:57 PM
RON PAUL TV AD/PROPAGANDA (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1qVmVJJaLkM&feature=bz303)

pinocchio
01-06-2008, 11:03 PM
yeah i know. first of all, all politicians are dicey as shit. i would say i'm more democratic than republican, but all of the democrats rub me really wrong besides edwards. and all of the republicans are worse, besides maybe ron paul. i'll end up not voting i'm sure. and i don't want to hear anything from anyone like "OH MY GOD YOU HAVE TO VOTE"

you know what that is? bullshit.

it is absolutely better to not vote than just settle for somebody. i do really like his proposed "policies for getting out of the war and foreign policy. but whatever. it's all such shit. you have no idea what anyone is GOING to do for this country. no idea. vote for whoever you want. you won't be happy.

pinocchio
01-06-2008, 11:04 PM
come with me to utrecht, all

the hurdy gurdy man
01-06-2008, 11:07 PM
pinocchio... how is it you have over 2000 posts, and are not a posting freak? or is that just a thing of the past?

I have been gone for so long... and nothing's the same.

pinocchio
01-06-2008, 11:10 PM
well, i used to do bad stuff and then get on here and post like 15 beligerent times in a night. that was a little bit ago. i've slowed it down it seems. but that'll get you up there over the course of a year. i was a posting freak. and i miss that label.

the hurdy gurdy man
01-07-2008, 12:39 AM
What is wrong with pro-life? Really and honestly. I cannot understand.

the hurdy gurdy man
01-07-2008, 01:12 AM
Let's cut all the pro's out of this, because it is just lobbyist jibberish. I think if you are raped, you should be cared for. If I had to choose between my child and my wife, God help me, I would choose my wife. But I am against abortion as an easy way out for unwanted pregnancies.

I am all for less taxes. But I would pay more to fund a better adoption center.

the hurdy gurdy man
01-07-2008, 01:34 AM
Fair enough. And yes, I am a man, and I will never deal with this directly. Abortion does disgust me though, and if I impregnated some woman, and she wanted to abort, I would fight it. It is my kid too. But that is all hypothetical. I don't think abortion is the answer. There has got to be a better way, but I will not think on it tonight. Take care, friend.

funeralpudding
01-07-2008, 09:19 PM
I'd like to know what parts can be considered socialist.

Article 1 Section 8

Aqualad
01-07-2008, 11:01 PM
Wouldn't it be best not to have sex until you were ready for a child? What reasons are there other than an emotional rush to demand sex without the consequences? As for the border... if a fence was built on the border, I'm not sure how it would be on anyone's property unless they spread into both countries, but even then I'm sure they could figure out how to go along property lines respectfully. Anyway, the senate struck down the chance of any provision for a fence this year, and our border patrol is mostly in iraq... so looks like it's still going to be a problem... really, I agree the fence wouldn't be a great step, but sending our border patrol to iraq is just ridiculous.

As for fred thompson, compared to the media coverage of his floundering campaign, he did worse than expected. His nonexistent campaign was made by the media. As for taxes, I highly doubt that with less of them we'd fall into anarchy and chaos. How does propping up a war and crushing the economy promote civilization? As for the anti-sodomy laws, isn't it obvious the government has no right to interfere with the states on this issue? Where in the constitution does it say anything about it? One person asked, "why not strike away laws against incest or bestiality?" The decision should be kept within the state to decide, as much as anyone elsewhere disagrees with it. Anyway, why would that be compared to wanting a smaller federal government as if they disagree?

I doubt anyone really supports Ron Paul just because he supports legalizing marijuana. It's a minor issue in the campaign. I think he's right that the government uses these shock words like 'war' to polarize support, obviously, and his objection to the "war on drugs" is very reasonable. Why fight a war that makes dealing drugs a profitable business and encourages drug use?

And calling Ron Paul supporters stupid is ridiculous. Most serious Ron Paul supporters have actually taken the time to see where Ron Paul's information comes from and have found it very true.


Article 1 Section 8

That's stretching that idea out quite a bit if you think it's really a socialist doctrine. Of course the government can levy taxes, no one ever said it could not. And maintaining international affairs is another obvious one. No surprise with dealing with the printing of money(of course there are some limits we have ignored), and punishing counterfeiters(not competing currencies, I expect). The borrowing money is the only thing I feel against. Jefferson even said, "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing." And now we borrow from China and other places because we've run our dollar down and spent billions of dollars on the war and propping up government. So I doubt that you can really consider that socialist unless you are willing to twist it for your own purposes. Don't forget it's also only delegated to congress, with the senate and president able to strike any of the ideas down as well, and the supreme court(supposedly) supposed to knock down any law passed that is unconstitutional. It still limits the government severely even if it gives it these obvious rights.

funeralpudding
01-07-2008, 11:33 PM
That's stretching that idea out quite a bit if you think it's really a socialist doctrine.

Nobody said anything about "doctrine", only that both libertarianism and socialism are in the Constitution.


Of course the government can levy taxes, no one ever said it could not.

The Constitution says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

The "general welfare of the United States" is not limited by the Constitution.

also in Section 8: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads", "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"


...Don't forget it's also only delegated to congress, with the senate and president able to strike any of the ideas down as well, and the supreme court(supposedly) supposed to knock down any law passed that is unconstitutional. It still limits the government severely even if it gives it these obvious rights.

What does this have to do with anything? Btw, the Senate is also part of Congress, but spending bills originate in the House, so I see what you're saying, but it's not relevant. The powers granted to Congress to "provide for the general Welfare" are socialist. And the Constitution, beyond the power of Presidential veto or Senate derailment, does not specify limits on this socialism.

Aqualad
01-08-2008, 01:46 AM
sorry, i tripped over congress and house of representatives for a second there thanks to the whole congressman thing. To make myself a little more clear, socialism is more about controlling of the economy and such by outside forces, as seen by fdr's new deal plan and the supreme court's ruling against grain farmers and such around the same time. The problem is not that the wording can not be spun to represent a socialist viewpoint(the supreme court has proved you can spin it any way), it's knowing the actual motives behind the actual writing of the constitution, and enough documents have been released to know this relatively easily. The Federalist is an obvious one, although it doesn't really go into sovereignty. It does mention the last line of the article I, section 8 is merely a redundancy, and doesn't give the congress anymore powers than actually stated. The important thing to remember about the Federalist, though, is that its nationalist explanations were rejected at the philadelphia convention and the ratification debates. There's also "The Anti-Federalists:selected writings and speeches," plus the histories of it, of course.

You really can't argue on the constitution by itself unless you have an understanding of why it was written and whether it was meant to protect the people from the govenment or vice-versa.

Aqualad
01-08-2008, 01:56 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/tax-reform-racket.html

This is a very good article on taxes and tax reform.

funeralpudding
01-08-2008, 02:05 AM
You're having your cake and eating it. Ron Paul is supposed to get us back to the Constitution, right? It's a little disingenuous to say "yes, but the Constitution as we interpret it." There's no saying "yes, but that's not what they meant, you have to know the history" and then bring up the Federalist papers, which as you rightly point out are of no legal significance whatsoever. Our forefathers knew they were setting up a system of government and were very careful about their choice of words. You talk about "whether it was meant to protect the people from the govenment or vice-versa", as if it could be trivialized and boiled down so easily. They clearly meant to ensure liberties and freedoms and rights, but they also clearly set up a nation in which socialist ideals could be used to help "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Aqualad
01-10-2008, 12:28 AM
"As we interpret it" is what got us into this mess, because supreme court justices bent everything until it meant the opposite of its true intent. The argument was never for socialist ideals, in the sense you are referring to. It was a battle between nationalists and federalists, the nationalists being in favor of a monarchial rule as in England, the Federalists wanting to keep most of the power in the states with a few things such as military and foreign trade and such given to a federal government. The federalists(which happen to be called the anti-federalist party, while the nationalists were called federalists... oddly enough) won out. It was the supreme court and inside dealings that have caused this split about its intent, and its their reluctance to repeal unconstitutional rulings which is keeping it that way.
It should be noted that socialism as applied to yourself and people who agree with it is acceptable. However, I shouldn't be forced into it.

But I don't think socialists are willing to deal like that.

funeralpudding
01-10-2008, 03:40 PM
"As we interpret it" is what got us into this mess,

That's what I said.


because supreme court justices bent everything until it meant the opposite of its true intent.

But here again you speak of the Constitution's "true intent", something which can only come through interpretation. Frankly, no intention matters if it was not spelled out in the Constitution.


The argument was never for socialist ideals, in the sense you are referring to. It was a battle between nationalists and federalists, the nationalists being in favor of a monarchial rule as in England, the Federalists wanting to keep most of the power in the states with a few things such as military and foreign trade and such given to a federal government. The federalists(which happen to be called the anti-federalist party, while the nationalists were called federalists... oddly enough) won out. It was the supreme court and inside dealings that have caused this split about its intent, and its their reluctance to repeal unconstitutional rulings which is keeping it that way.

This is just factually wrong. The argument for the Constitution was exactly socialist ideals. Before the Constitution, we were already being governed under the Articles of Confederation, which did not have a strong central government and gave most power to the states. The divisiveness and chaos this caused is the reason the Constitution was written in the first place. Also, the nationalists you refer to, as well as almost everybody in America at the time, did not favor "monarchial rule as in England". Madison, in fact, is the one who came up with the three-branch system. Frankly I am really curious where you picked up this up from.



It should be noted that socialism as applied to yourself and people who agree with it is acceptable. However, I shouldn't be forced into it. But I don't think socialists are willing to deal like that.

Well, we could deal if it came down to it - we could always keep you off our roads, keep your kids out of school, let your house burn down, make you go pick up your mail and bills from the senders, deny your elderly parent Medicaid or Social Security (don't worry - old people always have someone there to catch them), cancel all the publicly-funded research that has made this country the world power it is, let you defend yourself against criminals and foreign armies, let you test your own food and drugs for safety, etc. Plus without a strong central government we could still have the simple pleasures of slavery, or at least segregated schools. But that's not practical, and unfortunately you are forced into it because you were born here and these are the rules and you have no choice, except possibly earn a few minutes of fame as a tax-evader before your eventual arrest. You could always move to Montana, there's some like-minded people out there who have guns and dirt roads and everything.

jefferoo
01-10-2008, 06:22 PM
Oh, by the way, CNN says Ron Paul is a bigot...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html#cnnSTCText

Gotham
01-11-2008, 12:13 AM
FRED THOMPSON WILL RESTORE' LAW AND ORDER' TO AMERICA.

Dudes thats sweet, ron paul couldn't do that.

piaptk
01-11-2008, 12:37 AM
I did some Swedish questionnaire that ranks you politically, and interestingly enough, it ranked me in a dead heat between Ron Paul and Obama, which are the only two candidates I would *consider* voting FOR, as oppsoed to voting AGAINST candidates, as I have for the last decade.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

jefferoo
01-11-2008, 09:05 AM
vote obama. you won't be sorry.

Aqualad
01-12-2008, 12:00 AM
Oh, by the way, CNN says Ron Paul is a bigot...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html#cnnSTCText

Does that make them right? They had Ron Paul on the show yesterday or the day before and he backed himself up very well.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E

and funeralpudding, I think you are getting at what I was trying to say in your first thing. The constitution is clear about what rights the government has, and what it doesn't.


Well, we could deal if it came down to it - we could always keep you off our roads, keep your kids out of school, let your house burn down, make you go pick up your mail and bills from the senders, deny your elderly parent Medicaid or Social Security (don't worry - old people always have someone there to catch them), cancel all the publicly-funded research that has made this country the world power it is, let you defend yourself against criminals and foreign armies, let you test your own food and drugs for safety, etc. Plus without a strong central government we could still have the simple pleasures of slavery, or at least segregated schools. But that's not practical, and unfortunately you are forced into it because you were born here and these are the rules and you have no choice, except possibly earn a few minutes of fame as a tax-evader before your eventual arrest. You could always move to Montana, there's some like-minded people out there who have guns and dirt roads and everything.

Um... the supreme court judged for slavery in the early days, and it enforced segregation by quotas after it decided to desegregrate. You and I both know roads and post offices aren't what socialism is about. There are obviously certain things that are better left up to a central power(but thank goodness the post office has some competition), but if that's all socialism was about, this would be a moot subject. But how would the government prevent my house from burning down? Also the mail thing is moot because of nongovernment companies like UPS.
But the real question is, do you think just because I don't want government to do these things, that I don't want these things? Is it assumed I don't want food because I don't want the government feeding me? The argument is not against these things, which are good things, but with whether or not some of them should be dealt with by the government. And by government I do mean the national government(it's hardly federal anymore). I have no problem with natural organization, but forced organization is a different matter. The main thing is that the law is a force that should be used as sparingly as possible, yet under socialism it would spread out even further.
And to be clear, this is not an attack against democrats anymore, hardly. Most of the republican field is guilty of many of the same things, the only difference is how they speak of it. That is what is referred to by the term "Welfare/Warfare" state, although a few of the major candidates like the idea of socialized healthcare.
The main thing is that you feel a sense of philanthropy about all of man, and how they need certain things: doctors, money, etc., but the whole idea of taking their money from them to give them these things is backwards. It creates a middle man not needed at all. We can see how it has kept pharmaceutical prices rising and such, unlike other technology that continually drops in price. We can see how its meddling in the economy drives up inflation as well.
Also, what reason do you have to trust government? What has it done that makes you think it could do anything competently at its size? It's either going to lead to even less of a middle class, or our economy will truly crash.

the Count of Montecristo
01-12-2008, 11:29 AM
I hope to be able to vote John McCain. Unfortunately, I'm a registered DEMOCRAT in the unimportant state of CONNECTICUT. cool beans.

Aqualad
01-12-2008, 12:12 PM
what do you like about him?

hockywierdo
01-12-2008, 02:02 PM
votematch=ron paul! (and then mccain.. uh no his immigration is just so flaky and poor)

funeralpudding
01-12-2008, 03:45 PM
You and I both know roads and post offices aren't what socialism is about.

They are exactly what socialism is about, especially roads. Lately there has been a huge push from the right-wing to privatize our roads (toll roads), especially in Texas, where I now need three dollars in cash to go visit my friend who lives just north of me.


There are obviously certain things that are better left up to a central power(but thank goodness the post office has some competition), but if that's all socialism was about, this would be a moot subject. But how would the government prevent my house from burning down?

The fire department. It is a social service, i.e. socialism. The alternative would be a private company who you paid to come put out your fires.


But the real question is, do you think just because I don't want government to do these things, that I don't want these things?

do you think just because I don't want private companies to do these things, that I don't want these things?



The main thing is that you feel a sense of philanthropy about all of man, and how they need certain things: doctors, money, etc., but the whole idea of taking their money from them to give them these things is backwards.

Actually I think a system where nobody takes taxes and people are forced to live in an anarchistic system where they fend for themselves at every turn is backwards.


It creates a middle man not needed at all. We can see how it has kept pharmaceutical prices rising and such, unlike other technology that continually drops in price.

What? How is there a middle man in the pharmaceutical industry in the US? It is the lack of a middle man regulating prices that is the cause of high drug prices. Funny how a socialist country like Canada (and virtually the entire rest of the world) pays so much less for their prescription drugs.


We can see how its meddling in the economy drives up inflation as well.
Since inflation is increasing wildly under our seven years of an anti-socialist President and Congress, I'm wondering how you came up with that.

Also, what reason do you have to trust government? What has it done that makes you think it could do anything competently at its size? It's either going to lead to even less of a middle class, or our economy will truly crash.
Rather, the question is: what reason do you have to trust private industry? It has shown time and time again to be interested in one thing and one thing only: the bottom line, the profit. It has shown itself to completely disregard the good of its workers or the people who use its products or the natural environment in which it operates, all for the sake of making more money. So, I don't necessarily trust the government (especially this right-wing government), but I trust private companies even less.

funeralpudding
01-12-2008, 03:52 PM
I hope to be able to vote John McCain. Unfortunately, I'm a registered DEMOCRAT in the unimportant state of CONNECTICUT. cool beans.

You can still vote any way you want. The main point of registering your political party is so that you don't vote in both party's primaries. In fact, when our current Texas governor Rick Perry was first running, I felt so strongly against him that I registered as a Republican just to vote against him in the primary. They marked "Republican" on my voter registration card, but after the primaries I was free to vote for anybody I wanted in any party in any other election.

Not that I feel great about enabling a vote for somebody who sees nothing wrong with us being in Iraq "for the next hundred years" (McCain), haha, but vote for whever you feel best expresses your own beliefs.

Stormx
01-12-2008, 04:43 PM
Funeralpudding, you are my hero.

funeralpudding
01-12-2008, 09:45 PM
Says the admin of the hottest torrent tracker on the net ;)

jefferoo
01-13-2008, 11:34 AM
no shit?

CavortingChicken
01-13-2008, 09:28 PM
John Mccain wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years. What right does he have force 5 generations of americans to go there and die. This war is not for freedom, prove me wrong!

Aqualad
01-17-2008, 09:41 PM
They are exactly what socialism is about, especially roads. Lately there has been a huge push from the right-wing to privatize our roads (toll roads), especially in Texas, where I now need three dollars in cash to go visit my friend who lives just north of me.

That's not true from my experience. The tolls are taxes to pay for certain things, initially the roads themselves. Now the toll bridges and such i am familiar with pay for other things other than the road themselves.


The fire department. It is a social service, i.e. socialism. The alternative would be a private company who you paid to come put out your fires.

In the towns around me many firemen are volunteers. I guess funding for the vehicles and such probably comes from us, though. This is done locally, however, and that's hardly part of the argument.


do you think just because I don't want private companies to do these things, that I don't want these things?

I'm so glad your goodwill and fraternity would demand that these things be forced on everyone.


Actually I think a system where nobody takes taxes and people are forced to live in an anarchistic system where they fend for themselves at every turn is backwards.

That's a little too sensationalist for me. You seem to infer that it is only the government that maintains order in an insane world. If the government pulled back its grip, we would soon fall to pieces. I don't believe anarchy is the answer(but I do find you calling it a system pretty funny). I do, however, think the answer is the government, instead of adding on responsibilities that were once ours, should go back to defending our rights and liberties. That in itself would shake all this baggage our government has added to itself off bit by bit.


What? How is there a middle man in the pharmaceutical industry in the US? It is the lack of a middle man regulating prices that is the cause of high drug prices. Funny how a socialist country like Canada (and virtually the entire rest of the world) pays so much less for their prescription drugs.

It is artificially lowered and the government makes up for it in taxation.


Since inflation is increasing wildly under our seven years of an anti-socialist President and Congress, I'm wondering how you came up with that.

Its controlling of the economy IS a socialistic idea. I could hardly call any of the republicans running this presidential campaign anti-socialist either(except for Ron Paul). George Bush reminds me of FDR a little. Both promised smaller government and such, and yet both did the opposite. The big difference is that Bush's success is because of his duping of most Christians(there are some exceptions...), much like Huckabee(let's hope it falls through).


Rather, the question is: what reason do you have to trust private industry? It has shown time and time again to be interested in one thing and one thing only: the bottom line, the profit. It has shown itself to completely disregard the good of its workers or the people who use its products or the natural environment in which it operates, all for the sake of making more money. So, I don't necessarily trust the government (especially this right-wing government), but I trust private companies even less.

I blame the supreme court first and foremost and the congress second for this obvious disregard of the people who elect them. The supreme court helped start this whole mess by determining that you could consider a corporation a person, and the people of congress have sold out to corporations and groups and lobbyists and such in like manner, promoting their agenda over the people's. Even Obama has used his seat in senate to do some very fishy business deals and push legislature for businesses he is involved with.

The limit for corporations, of course, is supply and demand. They can force no one to buy anything, and that limits what harm they can do. The government has the force of law behind them, and can legislate it at will. It has not enforced private property rights, and the environment has suffered for it. It treats a corporation as a person, and the employees suffer for it.

pinocchio
01-17-2008, 10:42 PM
yo yo yo, mombus here. kill this thread please.

funeralpudding
01-18-2008, 12:25 AM
I blame the supreme court first and foremost and the congress second for this obvious disregard of the people who elect them. The supreme court helped start this whole mess by determining that you could consider a corporation a person, and the people of congress have sold out to corporations and groups and lobbyists and such in like manner, promoting their agenda over the people's.

I actually didn't realize this until I watched the excellent documentary "The Corporation". Of course, the payoff for letting businesses assign their responsibility to a made-up person was supposed to be their increased social and environmental awareness. But this just proves my original assertion that corporations will do whatever they can get away with.


Even Obama has used his seat in senate to do some very fishy business deals and push legislature for businesses he is involved with.

You're going to have to provide specifics on this one.


The limit for corporations, of course, is supply and demand. They can force no one to buy anything, and that limits what harm they can do. The government has the force of law behind them, and can legislate it at will. It has not enforced private property rights, and the environment has suffered for it. It treats a corporation as a person, and the employees suffer for it.

You're disingenuously lumping essential services with everyday consumer products, and ignoring the government's role as public watchdog. There's always the argument about what services or products are essential, I guess, but most of us can agree that things such as roads, education, the environment, and health care are essential. And you say "(the government) has not enforced private property rights, and the environment has suffered for it." The environment has suffered BECAUSE of private property rights, because of people claiming they can do anything with their land that they want to, regardless of environmental consequences. It is only because of government regulation through policies such as The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act that we can force people to be responsible. People and businesses have shown their callous disregard for the effects of their actions on the environment time and time again, this is the reason we have laws at all - to protect people from menaces like these.

CavortingChicken
01-18-2008, 09:22 AM
fp ummm you do know that today the government pretty much is a business right? Today the government works for the world bank, dems/ repubs alike.

Here if you have time check this out lemme know what you think.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1180&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Aqualad
01-18-2008, 11:21 PM
I actually didn't realize this until I watched the excellent documentary "The Corporation". Of course, the payoff for letting businesses assign their responsibility to a made-up person was supposed to be their increased social and environmental awareness. But this just proves my original assertion that corporations will do whatever they can get away with.

The main issue for me is the government's support of these corporations. It forms more of a union between the businesses and the government and provides large chances for monopolies and cartels to form.


You're going to have to provide specifics on this one.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/South.Side.Tony.2.333263.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007


You're disingenuously lumping essential services with everyday consumer products, and ignoring the government's role as public watchdog. There's always the argument about what services or products are essential, I guess, but most of us can agree that things such as roads, education, the environment, and health care are essential. And you say "(the government) has not enforced private property rights, and the environment has suffered for it." The environment has suffered BECAUSE of private property rights, because of people claiming they can do anything with their land that they want to, regardless of environmental consequences. It is only because of government regulation through policies such as The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act that we can force people to be responsible. People and businesses have shown their callous disregard for the effects of their actions on the environment time and time again, this is the reason we have laws at all - to protect people from menaces like these.

If the things they do on their own land affects other people's land and such, it should be stopped. Pollution and such does affect the land around a person's property, so it is obvious there should be limits and such. If you could keep the pollution contained, i don't think there would be a problem(except for the fact not many people would want to be on your property). But your argument is still incomplete. I like how you call people a menace to the law and protected by the law in the same sentence, btw. The one thing I'd like you to look in is how much more serious the government's callous disregard for its actions and the longterm results from it are. Most people have become much more responsible about their environment and such. Hunters and fishermen have followed limits although they obviously could get away with overfishing or overhunting easily. They realize that they hurt their own interests when they do so. In the same way, my parents are more responsible about what they use and such, and on and on. I don't think it's individual people's fault for most of the environmental problems today. It is the corporations and inability for any person within them to take responsibility for their actions that causes such abuse. And going back to that supreme court ruling, we see why. Private property does not mean you can do anything you want. It means you can do anything you want as long as you don't harm the people and property around you. I'd say the corporations government enforced collectivism is what causes the problems, and their inability to even limit themselves(the kyoto protocol is an environmentalist joke... "let's ignore all the worst countries") because they don't know who they represent will only make it worse. I don't know of anyone in the USA who is actively seeking to harm endangered species.

I'm a little thrown off that you included the environment in a list of essential services... I just don't see how the government can be considered the provider of our environment.

As for your main argument about businesses offering essential services, I'd say that they already provide most of our essential services already. We agree that roads are essential(hardly anything is done about them in Louisiana, though, obviously, and I blame the government's misuse of our tax dollars for it). Consider this: the government pays 30 billion dollars in aid to Israel, while they only delegate 7 billion for Hurrican Katrina aid.

As for the Clean Water and Endangered Species Act, my initial search for it brought up this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1154/is_n4_v82/ai_14977634
The interesting thing about Louisiana is the Mississippi river, imo. It is only by levees and locks that they have kept it from going down a better path it has been wanting to go on(it would go through several towns), preventing it from creating more wetlands. It is quite a convoluted issue that hasn't really been mentioned in the environmentalists agenda.

funeralpudding
01-20-2008, 05:10 PM
The main issue for me is the government's support of these corporations. It forms more of a union between the businesses and the government and provides large chances for monopolies and cartels to form.

But the government support comes in the way of deregulation, with is in line with libertarian ideals.




http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/South.Side.Tony.2.333263.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

One land deal that was questionable. Not nearly as scandalous as the racist remarks on the Ron Paul Newsletter.



I like how you call people a menace to the law and protected by the law in the same sentence, btw.

Both are true.


The one thing I'd like you to look in is how much more serious the government's callous disregard for its actions and the longterm results from it are... It is the corporations and inability for any person within them to take responsibility for their actions that causes such abuse.

But how would a libertarian ideology in government combat this? This is my main problem with libertarians.


the kyoto protocol is an environmentalist joke... "let's ignore all the worst countries"

Well, since we are by far the worst polluting country in the world and our ignoring it, I guess you're right.


I'm a little thrown off that you included the environment in a list of essential services... I just don't see how the government can be considered the provider of our environment.

The libertarians favor no government interference in private matters, it's just an extension of that.


As for your main argument about businesses offering essential services, I'd say that they already provide most of our essential services already.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE. And, yes government does provide most of our essential services, but libertarians like Paul want to reverse that (abolish Dept. of Education), and they and Republicans wouldn't mind the privatization of most of these services (roads).

CavortingChicken
01-20-2008, 10:10 PM
One land deal that was questionable. Not nearly as scandalous as the racist remarks on the Ron Paul Newsletter.

Ha...I can't believe you'd even bring those up, they are unquestionably completely false. Thats why that controversy self destructed almost instantly after ron paul explained.



UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE. And, yes government does provide most of our essential services, but libertarians like Paul want to reverse that (abolish Dept. of Education), and they and Republicans wouldn't mind the privatization of most of these services (roads).

At this point it looks like your just making up excuses to try and make a point... but what are you defending tell me.

hahaha tell me your for the dep. of education!!haha essential service hahaha. Why can't American's take responsibility for their own lives??

All we need to understand is that you and I and the country is losing their rights day by day because we are sacrificed a false security for freedom. Enjoy your cage funeral pudding at least there'll be some pillows in it.

damonin
01-20-2008, 10:24 PM
i feel sorry for US citizens these days.

jefferoo
01-20-2008, 10:36 PM
libertarians are hypocrites. if you don't want a government, your an anarchist. what sense does it make for someone who doesn't believe in government "interference" to run for president?
None.
But who cares. Ron Paul will NEVER get the nomination.
Too bad, so sad.

stompclapclap
01-21-2008, 12:47 AM
hahaha tell me your for the dep. of education!!haha essential service hahaha. Why can't American's take responsibility for their own lives??

wow, the department of education certainly has been lax lately.

funeralpudding
01-21-2008, 01:05 AM
Ha...I can't believe you'd even bring those up, they are unquestionably completely false. Thats why that controversy self destructed almost instantly after ron paul explained.

Instantly? (http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=ron+paul+newsletter&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) In what way are they "unquestionably completely false"? They clearly exist, and exist in the Ron Paul Newsletter. From what I've read, he's asserted there was a ghost writer but will not mention who it is, and there are numerous instances of racism - if he disavowed these remarks so much then, why didn't he see to it that the newsletter bearing his name quit printing them after they first appeared? To his credit, though, I have read several people and organizations come out to defend Paul, saying in their dealings with him and from what they saw of him this wasn't representative of who he really is. But it is still the Ron Paul Newsletter, with no other authorship or attribution given.


At this point it looks like your just making up excuses to try and make a point... but what are you defending tell me.

Excuses? And making a point is what any debate is about. I expect to see more invective like this on the internet as the Paul campaign reaches its last gasp.

And I am quite clearly defending socialism.


hahaha tell me your for the dep. of education!!haha essential service hahaha. Why can't American's take responsibility for their own lives??

You are free to home school your children if you so wish and can afford to. I, myself, have this crazy idea that the richest most powerful country on Earth should make sure that its citizens have a basic level of education.


All we need to understand is that you and I and the country is losing their rights day by day because we are sacrificed a false security for freedom. Enjoy your cage funeral pudding at least there'll be some pillows in it.

I think the biggest mistake of Ron Paul was to run as a Republican. It is Republicans and conformist centrist Democrats like Clinton who have taken our rights away, and it is they who are going to begin suffering at the polls. I don't see how progressive socialists have contributed to creating this "cage". They are the only ones besides Ron Paul who have voted against the Iraqi War and the stripping away of our rights. Unfortunately Ron Paul's hands-off policy to corporations is completely the opposite way we should be going in this country. We actually should be building these metaphoric cages not for citizens, but for corporations, lobbyists, and politicians themselves. We will only restore democracy in this country when the moneyed interests are taken out of Washington, and Paul simply won't do that.

Obama dropped a bombshell that almost nobody seemed to pick up on during the Nevada debate, which is exactly the direction this country needs to go: publicly funded elections.

Aqualad
01-21-2008, 06:49 PM
But the government support comes in the way of deregulation, with is in line with libertarian ideals.

Not entirely. There is plenty of legislation passed and such that have given the corporations too much power, destroys competition, screws up small businesses, etc. That's why people are finding it easier to start a business in China instead of the US.


One land deal that was questionable. Not nearly as scandalous as the racist remarks on the Ron Paul Newsletter.

And it has been debunked time and time again, as far back as 1996. Obviously the only reasons to bring it up are to try to smear him.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html

The land deal, on the other hand, is not one single land deal. If you read that article it was multiple land deals in multiple locations. Consider that it's one of the same arguments that people have with the patriot act.


Both are true.

Who chooses who is a menace and who is to be protected? Or should government protect the menace, too?


But how would a libertarian ideology in government combat this? This is my main problem with libertarians.

repeal the supreme court ruling that made corporations people. Enforce immigration laws, stop backing the corporations injustice with the force of the law.


The libertarians favor no government interference in private matters, it's just an extension of that.

But that does not explain why you would include environment? Unless you are talking about private property laws, you're basically giving government free reign over... well, living.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE. And, yes government does provide most of our essential services, but libertarians like Paul want to reverse that (abolish Dept. of Education), and they and Republicans wouldn't mind the privatization of most of these services (roads).

Frankly, what republicans are you talking about? If we are discussing the candidates we might as well lump most of the republicans in with the democrats, imo. The Dept. of Education is useless. The only thing that it has given us is the No Child Left Behind act and teachers hate it and it is horrible for people who actually are good at the work. You keep bringing up roads, though, and I've never heard that issue before you. It's unconstitutional, so I don't see why it's even an issue at all. The government must be going broke~

funeralpudding
01-21-2008, 08:08 PM
Frankly, what republicans are you talking about?

Every single one of the conformist, knee-jerk, corrupt bastards.


You keep bringing up roads, though, and I've never heard that issue before you. It's unconstitutional, so I don't see why it's even an issue at all. The government must be going broke~

C'mon, you have to admit it's more than a little funny to think the Republicans and centrist Democrats have any need for the Constitution. They are systematically destroying it. You can't think of Paul, though, when I talk about Republicans, because he obviously is not one, he's just realized that's the only electable choice for him.

But for roads, the toll roads are coming. Our Texas governor Rick Perry has colluded with Cintra and San-Antonio based Zachry Construction on the Trans-Texas Corridor that's being built. If the Republicans had their way, every single industry, resource, and service would be privatized. Water is going to become scarce and precious this century, watch as the vultures and their puppets in government push to start privatizing our water resources.

But yeah, the toll roads are coming, and they're going to be coming to every state in the country soon if people don't wake up. Read this:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/highwaymen.html

Aqualad
01-21-2008, 10:24 PM
neorepublicans, i guess. It's time for a third party.

piaptk
01-22-2008, 12:39 AM
neorepublicans, i guess. It's time for a third party.

It's time for a fourth and fifth party, too.

DaveKent
01-22-2008, 08:52 AM
Funeralpudding is FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD.

funeralpudding
01-22-2008, 09:13 AM
FUD? Make some sense, please.

CavortingChicken
01-22-2008, 12:24 PM
The Difference between Obama and Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8

DaveKent
01-22-2008, 12:33 PM
FUD? Make some sense, please.

Google is providing its services specifically for situations like these, my friend.

funeralpudding
01-22-2008, 12:51 PM
Google is providing its services specifically for situations like these, my friend.

Yeah, no shit. But tell me, straw man, how the hell is anything I said based on disinformation or fear?

funeralpudding
01-22-2008, 01:03 PM
The Difference between Obama and Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8

This kind of lying propoganda shouldn't even have to be responded to, but for the record, Obama has never supported the aggression against Iran, voted for Iraqi funding only to support troops, but has railed against the Iraqi War from the beginning (this "voting for funding" BS is the exact same BS Clinton just tried to pull, and most hilariously since Hillary has voted for the Iraqi War from the beginning.) As for the Patriot Act: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/ . I'll stop there, but note that when you post bullshit like this it's hard to take the rest of what you say seriously.

We both see the same problems with this country, it's just that libertarians want to tear down the whole system, Progressive Democrats would rather try to change it from within.

CavortingChicken
01-22-2008, 01:18 PM
ok sry for posting that, but you should seriously join ronpaulforums.com to debate you'd like it. You may be called a troll by a few idiots but for the most part they are very respectful and will welcome you despite your views.

All libertarian means is that they follow the constitution...how can you be against that? Anyway I'll be checking more out on Obama because I feel he could do the least harm out of the all the other electible candidates. However I really think you too need to look deeper into RP. I've never fully trusted any politician but I whole heartedly believe in RP and that he will stick to his words if he were elected.

I dunno, but I think our country is ready to take this risk in going back to our roots, look whats going on with our economy just today...we have nothing to lose!

DaveKent
01-22-2008, 05:18 PM
All libertarian means is that they follow the constitution...

That's simply untrue. And there are many reasons you could be opposed to the constitution, even if it were true.

funeralpudding
01-22-2008, 08:02 PM
That's simply untrue. And there are many reasons you could be opposed to the constitution, even if it were true.

Please explain this. And FUD.

DaveKent
01-22-2008, 08:18 PM
Well, libertarianism is a philosophy of individual liberty. If the Constitution is a perfect and complete documentation of how to run a government that completely and perfectly protects individual liberty, then libertarianism means strictly following the Constitution. If it doesn't completely and perfectly protect individual liberty, then libertarianism does not mean strictly following the Constitution. John Locke, one of the major inspirations for libertarianism, was English, and wrote before the Constitution was even imagined. John Stuart Mill, another person who contributed to libertarian thought, was also from England.

Strict adherence to the Constitution can be called constitutionalism.

And why could you be opposed to the Constitution? I don't know. Read it and pick some thing you don't agree with, or something that you feel is incomplete.

As for FUD, I'll go through some of your posts later so I can be specific. Right now I have to study Diff EQ.

funeralpudding
01-22-2008, 08:52 PM
And why could you be opposed to the Constitution? I don't know. Read it and pick some thing you don't agree with, or something that you feel is incomplete.

uh, that's what I was asking you to do. The Constitution may not be perfect, but you tell me how it's not.

and I'm dying for your FUD explanation

VenusInFurs341
01-22-2008, 09:01 PM
I really don't know too much about the political process, but it seems to me that Libertarians would do absolutely nothing to stop global warming because they would leave that up to us the individual. Isn't that a problem?

DaveKent
01-22-2008, 10:43 PM
uh, that's what I was asking you to do. The Constitution may not be perfect, but you tell me how it's not.

and I'm dying for your FUD explanation

I don't have any specific qualms with the Constitution. I was responding to CavortingChicken, who wrote "All libertarian means is that they follow the constitution...how can you be against that?" I meant to say two things. First, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian; second, if that was the definition of libertarianism, I could still object to the Constitution. It's not infallible. An easy objection would be (one that I don't personally support): "I do not think that a constitutional republic is the best form of government for our country." Or, a part of the Constitution which is commonly contested: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I mean, I'm sure you're aware of these things. I didn't mean to imply that I had any personal objections to the Constitution.

And I will apologize for my FUD accusations. Going back for stuff to quote from you, I saw that any FUDing you did was in response to equal or greater FUD by someone else. This whole thread really strikes me as a trainwreck of fear and doubt. I'm sure I only targeted you because I tend to fall on the libertarian side. (Which does not mean that I think the standard libertarian stance on everything is perfect, or that Ron Paul is even a perfect model of that.) Anyway, sorry for picking you out specifically. :)

funeralpudding
01-22-2008, 11:34 PM
No worries. One thing about the Constitution, though, is that both a libertarian and socialist can get different meanings from it, more specifically the meaning of "provide for the general welfare of the people". Clearly more specifics are needed, Constitutional amendments as to what exactly the government will provide. I would like to see education, roads, health care, water, and electricity covered. And if you think electricity is a stretch you didn't see the Enron documentary where the traders were single-handedly causing the California blackouts for pure profit. It's also because these specifics are not spelled out that we have Halliburton in the business of (amongst many other things) feeding our troops, when it doesn't seem that long ago soldiers were peeling their own potatoes.

CavortingChicken
01-23-2008, 08:09 AM
I really don't know too much about the political process, but it seems to me that Libertarians would do absolutely nothing to stop global warming because they would leave that up to us the individual. Isn't that a problem?

why would libertarians have to enforce our government to tax every american for a program thats controversial. Its not fair. Yes there is global warming but theres always been global warming throughout the history of earth how do we know we can stop it? I believe its just part of a solar phase.

If global warming is huge deal why wouldn't private organizations just be set up to combat it. Donate to them if you like, but why force poor citizens to be taxed for it when they can barely feed themselves. Its not fair.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Pt1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7743720986474141119&q=global+warming+swindle&total=214&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

CavortingChicken
01-23-2008, 08:21 AM
I don't have any specific qualms with the Constitution. I was responding to CavortingChicken, who wrote "All libertarian means is that they follow the constitution...how can you be against that?" I meant to say two things. First, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian; second, if that was the definition of libertarianism, I could still object to the Constitution. It's not infallible. An easy objection would be (one that I don't personally support): "I do not think that a constitutional republic is the best form of government for our country." Or, a part of the Constitution which is commonly contested: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I mean, I'm sure you're aware of these things. I didn't mean to imply that I had any personal objections to the Constitution.




I guess I was being vague, all I meant was the founding fathers were basically libertarians and they wrote up the constitution. I think they're ideals are pretty appealing to most americans if anything alot can be accomplished by reverting back.

"To constrain the brute force of the people, [the European governments] deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus to sustain a scanty and miserable life." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

Its funny how much we have changed, we need a new...old approach.

funeralpudding
01-23-2008, 12:50 PM
If global warming is huge deal why wouldn't private organizations just be set up to combat it. Donate to them if you like, but why force poor citizens to be taxed for it when they can barely feed themselves. Its not fair.

Private organizations like Greenpeace, Earth First, and Environmental Defense Fund? How can they alone combat the industries which continue to unabashedly pollute? They can influence thoughts, but nothing short of government regulation will stop pollution. There is simply no profit motive for businessese to stop.

And skeptics always somehow seem unable to account for all of the CO2 emissions humans have created since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

funeralpudding
01-23-2008, 12:52 PM
the founding fathers were basically libertarians and they wrote up the constitution.

You are failing to consider to socialist reasons for writing the Constitution, namely that the Articles of Confederation were TOO libertarian and that the states were in chaos.

jefferoo
01-23-2008, 01:31 PM
people fail to acknowledge that the US was a lot different back then. There were less people, no civil rights, hardly any sense of a global economy, no health care organizations, no people being born in housing projects, no internet, no television, no electricity, no cars or highways, and a fraction the amount of states. Though it might have 200 years ago, unfortunately our founding fathers vision doesn't quite sync with the country we live in today.

Aqualad
01-23-2008, 01:43 PM
I really don't know too much about the political process, but it seems to me that Libertarians would do absolutely nothing to stop global warming because they would leave that up to us the individual. Isn't that a problem?

libertarians are individuals, too, obviously. What you seem to be assuming is that just because libertarians don't want the government to tax the act of living, they're not doing anything. The government itself funds a ton of things that pollute, obviously, so it would be essential for it to limit itself in this area first and foremost.

jefferoo
01-23-2008, 10:16 PM
Libertarians would prefer that government was funded by corporations.
Fact.

quixoticgoat
01-24-2008, 06:16 PM
oh god. kucinich dropped out of the race!! :-( now i dont know who to vote for. fuck.

Aqualad
01-27-2008, 10:54 AM
Libertarians would prefer that government was funded by corporations.
Fact.

Stop being such a troll.

Aqualad
01-27-2008, 10:54 AM
oh god. kucinich dropped out of the race!! :-( now i dont know who to vote for. fuck.

gravel~

jkirkpleasant
01-27-2008, 11:10 AM
hey, well done aqualad for getting paul 2nd place in louisiana. isn't it amazing that the major media didn't mention that at all?! or his 2nd place in nevada? weird. if it had been guiliani or any of the other bozos, they would have freaked out all over it.

jefferoo
01-27-2008, 05:36 PM
Stop being such a troll.

convince me it's not a fact instead of calling me names.

DaveKent
01-27-2008, 10:38 PM
convince me it's not a fact instead of calling me names.

I think that the burden of proof is on you.

pinocchio
01-27-2008, 11:54 PM
it's a shame that some parents instill such idiotic, disgusting ideals in their children's minds over the course of their lives. you need to get out of this hole to live for a year and you'll become aware of the completely screwed up measure you buy into. this country's education system, political agenda, socialistic priorities, and relation policies are all a fucking disgrace when compared with the overwhelming majority of economically advanced "first world countries". . and i will debate it with any single one of you until realization surfaces. do you all also hit those laugh riot, fucked services weekly with 40,000 in attendance and clap about fake dinosaurs? i think i'm going to go to one of those some day. i'd have to bring someone with me to serve as a sitter however. i'd probably be tempted to participate in the mass purple cool aid drinking ceremony... will power and cool aid don't mingle well in my world.

love, brian

Aqualad
01-28-2008, 12:08 AM
what the heck pinocchio

Aqualad
01-28-2008, 12:16 AM
hey, well done aqualad for getting paul 2nd place in louisiana. isn't it amazing that the major media didn't mention that at all?! or his 2nd place in nevada? weird. if it had been guiliani or any of the other bozos, they would have freaked out all over it.

ha, thanks. the grassroots was really well organized. Unfortunately, the LAGOP was not. It's possible that Ron Paul should be first place. Here's the info from someone else:

1- The campaign is asking for all votes to be counted then contested...the state GOP is just disqualifying votes and tossing them out... some of those may indeed by good votes.
The Deadline was Nov 30. The list the state GOP used to determine eligible voters was cut off on the date Nov 1.

2- Also- after we filed our huge slate of delegates the state GOP changed their delegate qualifying deadline to allow for other campaigns to try and play catch up.
They are strict on one deadline, but lax on another?

3- The state GOP sponsored a "Reagan pro-life/pro-family" slate that only inlcuded one ron paul delegate and included delegates from candidates that were not pro-life.

4-. McCain had delegates listed on his slate that were not for McCain.

5. -Jefferson and Orleans parish are not being forthright with their voter rolls, most likely because their own corruption in their local area would be exposed by opening up their rolls to outsiders.
______________________

on 1, some people who had filed as delegates were forced to file provisional ballots, even though they should have already been preapproved. One guy had to go to the voter registration place after caucuses, was told they didn't have his registration form, but then found it several minutes later when he asked them to look. on 2, the deadline was the tenth, and after the tenth they extended it to the 12th in a private meeting. on 3, the pl/pf slate was actually a collection of huckabee, giuliani(who is not pro-life), and thompson supporters. The one ron paul supporter didn't even realize they were on it.

jkirkpleasant
01-28-2008, 12:30 AM
hilarious. a big reason i'm in canada and not louisiana. the politics of louisiana has been completely f***ed since 1920 when ruffin g. pleasant left the governor's mansion. yes, my first cousin - thrice removed was the honorable gov. of that state from 1916-20 and was teased quite considerably by none other than huey long.
i'm seriously liking barak though. very inspirational speaker. i haven't ever heard a president actually speak in an intellegent and coherent way in my lifetime.

Aqualad
01-28-2008, 12:51 AM
He is very eloquent, I just wish he would be more concrete about things he would do as president. I too want a more ethical government, but it's my understanding that it's the system that breeds these type of politicians. I'd like to know how he'd change that.