# The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2



## deprave (May 31, 2011)

[video=youtube;fx_tKum1l6I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx_tKum1l6I&feature=related[/video]


In this thread I will lay out the media spin against Ron Paul, I will attack the spin directly by posting video links each day of new videos with a short description discrediting their information. If you'd like to post other ron paul conspiracy theories I will do my best to disprove your theories. There is nothing wrong if you disagree with Ron Paul, some disagree with him on certain issues, namely abortion, but I have made it my mission to discredit all the media spin on Ron Paul since it is so blatantly obvious to me, I also feel it is very important that Ron Paul gets elected for 2012 so this is why I am posting this on this site and others to help educate the public because much of the media sure isn't helping Ron Paul's case.

This video illustrates a portion of the smear campaign well:
[video=youtube;5jZTd9j6_yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jZTd9j6_yg&hd=1[/video]

Fellow Ron Paul supporters feel free to join me in my effort in discrediting the smear campaign, I'm only one man.

Additionally I will be posting new Ron Paul Articles and Videos of quality as they are released.


[video=youtube;EsLf_IocQEE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsLf_IocQEE[/video]
*
1) *Ron Paul's free market does not equal corporate takeover.

*FREE MARKET ECONOMY DOES EQUATE TO PROMOTION OF FRAUD, FRAUD IS ILLEGAL.
*
Ron Paul discusses his free market philosophy 
[video=youtube;Jx9aRgibY6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx9aRgibY6c[/video]
Why monopolies are impossible in a truly free market economy:


[video=youtube;OE9NGOgdrIo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9NGOgdrIo[/video]
Ron Paul schools fed chairman Ben Bernake:
[video=youtube;booc5gEbVd8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=booc5gEbVd8[/video]



> It is disingenuous to equate opposition to regulation with promoting fraud. Fraud is illegal, as it should be, and I have little doubt that Ron Paul would be of the same position. However, to support peremptory regulation of fraud goes against the basic ideals of our legal system &#8211; innocent until proven guilty &#8211; and as Dr. Paul states, is burdensome on business.
> To widen the debate, supporting this type of regulation opens a can of worms. How do we determine what to regulate and what not to regulate? Using the reasoning behind Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, there are almost limitless actions that could be required of businesses in order to prevent fraud.





Ron Paul said:


> &#8220;The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.&#8221;





Ron Paul said:


> Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear &#8220;experts&#8221; wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.
> It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.
> The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have &#8220;It&#8217;s perfectly legal&#8221; as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?
> Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.
> ...



*Ron Paul is not only a Doctor but also a student of Economics. He founded the F.R.E.E. Foundation (The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education) as a vehicle to increase understanding of the economic principles of a free-market society. Dr. Paul has been speaking out against the Government for its financial mismanagement and wasteful spending for years only to be marginalized and ignored not only by his colleagues in Washington but also by the Main Stream Media. Things in America are so bad now that people are finally starting to listen especially because he has been making these predictions years before they come to fruition. We need a strong, knowledgeable President who can lead us out of this disaster as our economy is on the brink of collapse and Dr. Ron Paul is that Leader! 
* 

*
2) Ron Paul IS NOT a threat to the National Defense (only national offense).*
*
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY VETERAN RUNNING! *


[video=youtube;JnAA0kiYFsc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnAA0kiYFsc[/video]



Ron Paul said:


> [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]*I*[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.[/FONT]


 *
Ron Paul is not a dangerous threat to United States and the American way of life, Ron Paul is not a terrorist. GET REAL. With Ron Pauls Ideas we all prosper and big brother loses.

If, and thats a big IF, If Ron Paul gets the Nomination, then the truth will be told by his constituents and all republicans, The smear campaign will have a strong advocate, at that point its over for Obama, its over for the crooks aka big brother, we win.

Please Register as a republican and vote for Ron Paul*








*3) Ron Paul is a Republican*

*as Ronald Reagan said of Congressman Paul back in 1978, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."*

*This is the truth America, Ron Paul is not a Terrorist, Ron Paul Is a real republican, a real public servant.*
*
Tell them the truth about Ron Paul who is a great republican, a real republican, As Reagan said "Libertarianism is at the heart of the republican party".

The veterans stand behind Ron Paul, fact.




*


Ron Paul is the only Canidate who was spoken of by Ronald Regan
[video=youtube;YyXW1hb-JQg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg[/video]





4) Ron Paul is not a Racist

[video=youtube;uk7qiY-aoiQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk7qiY-aoiQ[/video]


Ron Paul has been accused of being a racist on two occasions, the first is time a ghost writer posing as Ron Paul in the first person gave 4 quotes which some might consider Racist. These quotes *are not* from the mouth of Ron Paul but you will see them most likely group together like this:

*If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - **Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992*
* 
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - **Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992*
* 
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - **Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992*



PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT RON PAUL


> "Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added. Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
> Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
> "I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.
> "If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
> ...


The quotes have been widely denounced as fake by many organizations and lawyers, a simple Google search will give you some examples.

The second time Ron Paul was considered a Racist was in this recent speech:



> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty. [/FONT]​
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. [/FONT]​
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*
How this speech is misinterpreted as racism: In this speech Ron Paul is saying that the civil rights act was poorly written because it infringed on our constitutional rights in several ways, he praises the fact that it eliminated segregation but he believes that segregation could of been eliminated without violating the constitution.




Please understand that it is true the media does have an agenda against Ron Paul as there is an inordinate amount of negative spin about Ron Paul, I have only covered the major smear 
campaigns in this thread but there are many more. Here is some examples of media deliberately
making Ron Paul look bad:



*[/FONT]*Ron Paul excluded from Fox News "12 in 2012" series of GOP presidential candidates (Week of 11/15/2010):*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...64&postcount=1
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...ns-president/#

*Quinnipiac national poll includes 8 GOP candidates for 2012; excludes Ron Paul (11/22/2010):*
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1538

*Ron Paul called "nut" and "Martian" on CNN's John King show regarding Wikileaks comments (12/3/2010):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_Q8WFB9Bw

*New York Times and CBS News state that Ron Paul got "less than 2%" in the 2008 primary - actual number was 5.6% (12/13/2010):*
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us...ewanted=2&_r=2
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/12...ident-in-2012/

*PPP: Ron Paul leads the "second-tier candidates" despite being just 2% behind "first-tier" candidate Gingrich (12/13/2010): *
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....n-numbers.html

*New York Times previews CPAC; fails to mention Ron Paul, Rand Paul (2/8/2011):*
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-at-2012-cpac/

*Fox News commissions poll for 2012 primary; includes 14 candidates, but not Ron Paul (2/9/2011)*
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...ection_web.pdf

*CBS News defines Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism" (2/11/2011)*
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html

*Politico gives Ron Paul's CPAC speech a "C" - lowest grade of any potential candidate (2/11/2011):*
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...port_card.html

*Carrie Dann of MSNBC: Paul "almost certainly lacks campaign organization", before campaign has even started (2/11/2011):*
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ac-straw-poll-

*Joe Klein of Time Magazine called Paul 'isolationist', slams his 'opt-out' offer (2/12/2011):*
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...ther-red-meat/

*Washington Post considers Ron Paul a CPAC loser, despite straw poll victory (2/13/2011):*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301463.html

*CNN: Romney's win "vaulted" his campaign into top tier in 2008; Ron Paul's win "dilutes" the significance of CPAC (2/14/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5gKOtZ1fA

*Rush Limbaugh claims that Ron Paul "bused his people in," and "will not be the Republican nominee" (2/14/2011):*
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102140016

*Kevin McCullough of Fox News: "Disrespectful Libertarians Hijack CPAC poll -- And Its Mission" (2/14/2011):*
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-poll-mission/

*Fox News plays unfavorable 2010 CPAC Straw Poll Reaction, Asks Congressman 'Who Was Booing You?' (2/14/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk

*TIME: Calls Paul 'too extreme', 'isolationist', and warns that he 'can expect criticism' for 'disparaging comments about African Americans and gays' (2/16/2011):*
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...048851,00.html

*Politico: Congressmen "absent" from 2012 rance - mentions Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, but not Ron Paul (2/23/2011):*
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50023.html

*Washington Times (the "conservative" DC paper) online: "Earth to Paulbots: You Are Irrelevant" (2/25/2011):*
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...re-irrelevant/

*AP Story on 2012 mentions 9 potential candidates, but not Ron Paul (3/8/2011):*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/...id_first_steps

*Washington Post excludes Ron Paul from GOP primary poll; 8 candidates included (3/16/2011):*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...a_graphic.html

*Politico article on Tea Party's 2012 role fails to mention Ron Paul (4/6/2011):*
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52629.html

*9 candidates included, Ron Paul excluded from WSJ/NBC national poll (4/6/2011):*
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...rump-surprise/

*National Journal's "Meet the GOP's Potential Candidates" highlights 10 candidates, not Ron Paul (4/21/2011):*
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictu...dates-20110421

*Politico summarizes NH poll that includes Ron Paul without mentioning him (4/22/2011):*
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53570.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM19...fthestate.html

*Capitol Hill Blue: "Ron Paul prepares another long-shot run for the White House" - extremely biased (4/26/2011):*
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40580

*Rush Limbaugh looking for "Bold GOP Leader" to run in 2012; names 5 potential candidates, omits the Pauls (4/26/2011):*
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

*David Horowitz falsely claims "Ron Paul would open America's doors to Sharia" (4/29/2011):*
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/

*New York Times: "Republicans Pursuing a Wider Field" - names 12 candidates, not Ron Paul (5/1/2011):*
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

*Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: Ron Paul's constitutionalist rhetoric a "convenient mask for racial-resentment politics (5/3/2011):*
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-paul-20110502

*LA Times on South Carolina debate: Pawlenty the "only top tier candidate expected to appear" despite Paul polling higher (5/3/2011):*
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...ebate-20110503

*Fox News previews their own debate: Mentions every participating candidate except Ron Paul (5/4/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMSL2wuAys

*New York Times spins Paul's heroin response, saying Paul "brought up the issue" (5/5/2011):*
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us...s.html?_r=2&hp

*Chris Malagisi (CPAC Chair) of Washington Examiner: "Ron Paul wins the Democrat Presidential Debate" (5/6/2011):*
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...debate-oh-wait

*Byron York of Washington Examiner reviews South Carolina debate without mentioning Ron Paul (5/6/2011):*
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...antorum-scores

*CNN's Howard Kurtz calls Ron Paul a "sideshow" (5/8/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdtX3MAgpzw

*WMUR TV9 in New Hampshire, hosts of the CNN GOP debate, leave Ron Paul off list of linked candidates (5/8/2011):*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ong-candidates
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6245284_n.jpg

*AP runs down those who have entered the GOP race, excludes Ron Paul (5/9/2011):*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/...s_gingrich2012

*Michael Gerson of Washington Post: "Ron Paul's Land of Second Rate Values (5/9/2011):*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2bG_story.html

*Brent Budowsky of The Hill: "Ron Paul's godless goddess of greed, Ayn Rand" (hit piece) (5/10/2011):*
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...greed-ayn-rand

*NBC Nightly News piece on the 2012 GOP race takes clips out of context and other shenanigans (5/11/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmPwIRjX90

*Don Imus: Ron Paul is "a loser" who is not worthy to appear on Fox News Sunday (5/12/2011):*
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/46909...ox-news-sunday

*Media Research Center reviews questions asked to Paul on his "Good Morning America" appearance (5/13/2011):*
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20...medium=twitter

*LA Times blog: "Who cares that he's seeking the Republican nomination?" (5/13/2011):*
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...54324a37b5970c

*George Stephanopoulos repeatedly spins the truth on Ron Paul in his blog (5/13/2011):*
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...n-paul.html#tp
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...view-blog-spin

*David Horowitz falsely claims "Ron Paul would open America's doors to Sharia" (4/29/2011):*
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/

*New York Times: "Republicans Pursuing a Wider Field" - names 12 candidates, not Ron Paul (5/1/2011):*
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

*Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: Ron Paul's constitutionalist rhetoric a "convenient mask for racial-resentment politics (5/3/2011):*
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-paul-20110502

*LA Times on South Carolina debate: Pawlenty the "only top tier candidate expected to appear" despite Paul polling higher (5/3/2011):*
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...ebate-20110503

*Fox News previews their own debate: Mentions every participating candidate except Ron Paul (5/4/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMSL2wuAys

*New York Times spins Paul's heroin response, saying Paul "brought up the issue" (5/5/2011):*
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us...s.html?_r=2&hp

*Chris Malagisi (CPAC Chair) of Washington Examiner: "Ron Paul wins the Democrat Presidential Debate" (5/6/2011):*
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...debate-oh-wait

*Byron York of Washington Examiner reviews South Carolina debate without mentioning Ron Paul (5/6/2011):*
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...antorum-scores

*CNN's Howard Kurtz calls Ron Paul a "sideshow" (5/8/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdtX3MAgpzw

*WMUR TV9 in New Hampshire, hosts of the CNN GOP debate, leave Ron Paul off list of linked candidates (5/8/2011):*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ong-candidates
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6245284_n.jpg

*AP runs down those who have entered the GOP race, excludes Ron Paul (5/9/2011):*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/...s_gingrich2012

*Michael Gerson of Washington Post: "Ron Paul's Land of Second Rate Values (5/9/2011):*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2bG_story.html

*Brent Budowsky of The Hill: "Ron Paul's godless goddess of greed, Ayn Rand" (hit piece) (5/10/2011):*
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...greed-ayn-rand

*NBC Nightly News piece on the 2012 GOP race takes clips out of context and other shenanigans (5/11/2011):*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmPwIRjX90

*Don Imus: Ron Paul is "a loser" who is not worthy to appear on Fox News Sunday (5/12/2011):*
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/46909...ox-news-sunday

*Media Research Center reviews questions asked to Paul on his "Good Morning America" appearance (5/13/2011):*
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20...medium=twitter

*LA Times blog: "Who cares that he's seeking the Republican nomination?" (5/13/2011):*
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...54324a37b5970c

*George Stephanopoulos repeatedly spins the truth on Ron Paul in his blog (5/13/2011):*
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...n-paul.html#tp
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...view-blog-spin​ *Rush Limbaugh looking for "Bold GOP Leader" to run in 2012; names 5 potential candidates, omits the Pauls (4/26/2011):*
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

*Capitol Hill Blue: "Ron Paul prepares another long-shot run for the White House" - extremely biased (4/26/2011):*
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40580*National Journal's "Meet the GOP's Potential Candidates" highlights 10 candidates, not Ron Paul (4/21/2011):*
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictu...dates-20110421

*Politico summarizes NH poll that includes Ron Paul without mentioning him (4/22/2011):*
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53570.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM19...fthestate.html​*Fox News plays unfavorable 2010 CPAC Straw Poll Reaction, Asks Congressman 'Who Was Booing You?' (2/14/2011):* 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk

Charles Krauthammer gives his spin on Ron Paul with Bill O'reilly Feb. 15 2011..

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreill...ylist_id=86923​*New York Times previews CPAC; fails to mention Ron Paul, Rand Paul (2/8/2011):*
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-at-2012-cpac/

*Fox News commissions poll for 2012 primary; includes 14 candidates, but not Ron Paul (2/9/2011)*
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...ection_web.pdf

*CBS News defines Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism" (2/11/2011)*
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html

*Politico gives Ron Paul's CPAC speech a "C" - lowest grade of any potential candidate (2/11/2011):*
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...port_card.html

*Carrie Dann of MSNBC: Paul "almost certainly lacks campaign organization", before campaign has even started (2/11/2011):*
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ac-straw-poll-

*Joe Klein of Time Magazine called Paul 'isolationist', slams his 'opt-out' offer (2/12/2011):*
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...ther-red-meat/

*Washington Post considers Ron Paul a CPAC loser, despite straw poll victory (2/13/2011):*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301463.html​[video=youtube;gV6e0ioWE-U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6e0ioWE-U[/video]​


----------



## chickengutz (May 31, 2011)

Awesome post, thnx


----------



## maximus444 (May 31, 2011)

Corporate America won't allow Paul to become president. And whats up with so many so called "conservatives" and "libertarians" worshiping Ronald Reagan? The man was a fanatic, anti market, anti libertarian pathological liar. Heres a few words of wisdom from the man himself

http://splicd.com/hfdFEyHKhAs/67/88


----------



## deprave (May 31, 2011)

Maximus I know its hard for me to wrap my head around also (as I am liberal on many issues) but the main reason this is true is because Reagan was the last of a generation of republicans, in many peoples minds he is the last real republican, it has to do with his position on the political spectrum which was a lot closer to citizens then today's republicans who are much more distant from the people on the scale.

Really its just a political tactic to appeal to "Reagan republicans" used by every republican since, so why can't Ron Paul use that angle also? He really should.


----------



## deprave (May 31, 2011)

New Video Interview: Ron Paul on CNBC 05/31/11
[video=youtube;dDL0sYnhEaM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDL0sYnhEaM[/video]

Ron Paul talks about his free market philosophy.

The man in this video attempts to make Ron Paul look bad to his face and say he is not main stream and not electable...Ron Paul returns fire making his opponent look like a fool.

Ron Paul also discuses this years Ron Paul Revolution and talks about the fall of the republic.

"I went to congress in the 1970's.."(and told them this business printing money will destroy the economy) - Ron Paul

"...The greatest threat is the undermining of our personal liberties..." - Ron Paul


----------



## deprave (May 31, 2011)

Ok now we are all caught up with the older threads.


----------



## beardo (May 31, 2011)

would like to see everyone who respects the principals Ron Paul is trying to uphold to get a minimum of four people you know and go with them to register republican and go with them to vote in the primary, so this means your going with a minimum of four friends that makes a group of five, we can car pool.....Lets do this.


----------



## deprave (May 31, 2011)

Right on, what you will find is that most people don't even know who Ron Paul is , so its really just getting the word out, feel free to copy my initial post in segments or even its entirety to get the word out. It is very important we must register as republican and vote for Ron Paul so that he can have a chance against Obama. I have begin to produce a video on this segment and I will give a download link for you to burn to cd/dvd within the next 4 months


----------



## sync0s (May 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> would like to see everyone who respects the principals Ron Paul is trying to uphold to get a minimum of four people you know and go with them to register republican and go with them to vote in the primary, so this means your going with a minimum of four friends that makes a group of five, we can car pool.....Lets do this.


Is it wrong to register liberitarian and republican??? lol idk if I can I'm already a member of another party.

Edit:

I didn't want to make a new post, but I wanted to vent. Why do people have to get so angry and defensive when there is political debating. The way people act only makes everybody who is arguing from the same side politically look like an idiot...


----------



## budlover13 (May 31, 2011)

Yeah!!!!

*The smilies are representative of my moods when i saw this thread!*


----------



## deprave (May 31, 2011)

another small thing you could do to help is just go on facebook and search for ron paul then click "like" also liking and sharing his videos on youtube can go a long way for such little effort.


----------



## budlover13 (May 31, 2011)

deprave said:


> another small thing you could do to help is just go on facebook and search for ron paul then click "like" also liking and sharing his videos on youtube can go a long way for such little effort.


Most DEFINITELY!!! i'm actually spamming FB, legitimately from my home page, to try to get the word out. And it's working too! i volunteered for Walmart whatevers, phone calls, etc.

i can't WAIT!!!!


----------



## budlover13 (May 31, 2011)

That was the !


----------



## beardo (May 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> would like to see everyone who respects the principals Ron Paul is trying to uphold to get a minimum of four people you know and go with them to register republican and go with them to vote in the primary, so this means your going with a minimum of four friends that makes a group of five, we can car pool.....Lets do this.





deprave said:


> Right on, what you will find is that most people don't even know who Ron Paul is , so its really just getting the word out, feel free to copy my initial post in segments or even its entirety to get the word out. It is very important we must register as republican and vote for Ron Paul so that he can have a chance against Obama.


 When I say get people to register and then to vote in primary, I mean to convince people who would have never voted in a primary and would not have ever thought about voting for Paul, I'm not just saying to go with your buddies who like Paul, I'm saying to take the time to convince people that it is worth trying to Choose Paul to represent us.


----------



## budlover13 (May 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> When I say get people to register and then to vote in primary, I mean to convince people who would have never voted in a primary and would not have ever thought about voting for Paul, I'm not just saying to go with your buddies who like Paul, I'm saying to take the time to convince people that it is worth trying to Choose Paul to represent us.


TRUE!!!! RP is running Rep so concentrate on swinging them b/c they already CAN, and then ALSO target the independent, the poor, the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the LOGICAL!!!!!!!


----------



## UncleBuck (May 31, 2011)

nah, vote for pedro. pedro is better.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 31, 2011)

[video=youtube;23UXUTUrQIw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UXUTUrQIw&feature=related[/video]

the same guy who wanted to let the economy crash and published a racist newsletter also thinks my wife is not to be trusted with decisions about her own body.

three strikes right there.


----------



## budlover13 (May 31, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> [video=youtube;23UXUTUrQIw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UXUTUrQIw&feature=related[/video]
> 
> the same guy who wanted to let the economy crash and published a racist newsletter also thinks my wife is not to be trusted with decisions about her own body.
> 
> three strikes right there.


Opinion, but rhetoric imo.


----------



## NoDrama (May 31, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the same guy who wanted to let the economy crash and published a racist newsletter also thinks my wife is not to be trusted with decisions about her own body.
> 
> three strikes right there.


Not only that, but he wants to bring back slavery, bring back the continental, revoke women's right to vote, re-institute prohibition, is in favor of mass corporal punishment, believes the KKK should have a representative in every K-12 classroom, wants to actually see your wife's vaginer and doesn't wash his hands after using the lavatory.


----------



## sync0s (May 31, 2011)

That video is straight propaganda. Not because it's wrong, but it took some of RP's stances and portrayed them as being totally wrong. For instance his stance 1964 civil rights act was portrayed as making him a bad person:



> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty. [/FONT]​
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. [/FONT]​ ​
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.​


[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Look into the reasons why....
[/FONT]​


----------



## UncleBuck (May 31, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Opinion, but rhetoric imo.


of course it is just opinion to you.

you will not accept actual interviews with actual newspapers where he actually defended the racism within the ron paul newsletter. ron paul could tell you himself and you would call it opinion.

what can not be disputed is that he would have let us crash in 2008.

what can not be disputed is that he does not trust my wife to make decision about her own body and her own health.

this man is not for liberty, he is not for equal rights.

there is no disputing that based on his own words and actions.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 31, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Not only that, but he wants to bring back slavery, bring back the continental, revoke women's right to vote, re-institute prohibition, is in favor of mass corporal punishment, believes the KKK should have a representative in every K-12 classroom, wants to actually see your wife's vaginer and doesn't wash his hands after using the lavatory.


he also killed a guy once in laredo.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 31, 2011)

sync0s said:


> That video is straight propaganda. Not because it's wrong, but it took some of RP's stances and portrayed them as being totally wrong. For instance his stance 1964 civil rights act was portrayed as making him a bad person


how dare the federal government step in and tell local businesses that they can't bar blacks while advertising themselves as 'open to the public'.

how dare they enforce equal rights for all.

what a fucking travesty.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> he also killed a guy once in laredo.


 In a Mexican Standoff no less. Who do you know that actually shoots in that situation? The Guys a hot head for sure, probably a philanderer as well, you know those libertarian types.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how dare the federal government step in and tell local businesses that they can't bar blacks while advertising themselves as 'open to the public'.
> 
> how dare they enforce equal rights for all.
> 
> what a fucking travesty.


You truly are ignorant, aren't you? 

You go ahead and quote the part of my post saying he is portrayed as a bad person, than turn around and continue it as your defense. I never said that you had to agree with his opinion. In America, you should never have to agree with someones opinion, but an opinion does not necessarily make one a bad person for it.

He is absolutely right about the standard of our government forcing people to continue to see color. If you are forced to hire a percentage of a race, you are forced to see the color of the race. Ask you self also, is it equal rights for all if a business has to hire a percentage of one particular race at the expense of another?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> In a Mexican Standoff no less. Who do you know that actually shoots in that situation? The Guys a hot head for sure, probably a philanderer as well, you know those libertarian types.


yeah, that was crazy.

i bet his balls are a mighty heavy thing to drag around, what being made of brass and iron and all.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how dare the federal government step in and tell local businesses that they can't bar blacks while advertising themselves as 'open to the public'.
> 
> how dare they enforce equal rights for all.
> 
> what a fucking travesty.


If it were really equal rights for all, then what is affirmative action? Why do we allow a certain minority in this country a 100% welfare driven lifestyle as long as they live on a certain patch of dirt? Equal rights?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yeah, that was crazy.
> 
> i bet his balls are a mighty heavy thing to drag around, what being made of brass and iron and all.


I heard they were Rhodium Plated.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> If it were really equal rights for all, then what is affirmative action? Why do we allow a certain minority in this country a 100% welfare driven lifestyle as long as they live on a certain patch of dirt? Equal rights?


Nice job reinforcing a racist argument. Moron....


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You truly are ignorant, aren't you?


If UB were ignorant of a subject he would not comment at all, I assure you.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Nice job reinforcing a racist argument. Moron....


ummm, what? I don't quite understand. What point was i trying to make there?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You truly are ignorant, aren't you?
> 
> You go ahead and quote the part of my post saying he is portrayed as a bad person, than turn around and continue it as your defense. I never said that you had to agree with his opinion. In America, you should never have to agree with someones opinion, but an opinion does not necessarily make one a bad person for it.
> 
> He is absolutely right about the standard of our government forcing people to continue to see color. If you are forced to hire a percentage of a race, you are forced to see the color of the race. Ask you self also, is it equal rights if a business has to hire a percentage of one particular race at the expense of another?


you have absolutely no idea what affirmative action is, do you?

affirmative action is not about forcing someone to hire a certain percentage of one race or the other. affirmative action prevents not hiring one race or another.

suppose 1,000 people show up to interview, 200 of them are black and 800 of them are white. suppose you hire 100 people. affirmative action says you should hire around 20 black and 80 white, in proportion with how many interviewed. you don't get raped by gorillas if you hire 19 blacks and 81 whites, you know.

empirical evidence points to the fact that such laws are needed. history is in my corner.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you have absolutely no idea what affirmative action is, do you?
> 
> affirmative action is not about forcing someone to hire a certain percentage of one race or the other. affirmative action prevents not hiring one race or another.
> 
> ...


You need 100 new employees. Ok so you have 800 white guys show up, 200 black guys show up. out of the 800 white guys who showed up, only 1 of them truly qualifies for the job, out of the 200 black guys ,100 of them qualify. The company hires 100 black guys and leaves the one white guy jobless. Know why?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You need 100 new employees. Ok so you have 800 white guys show up, 200 black guys show up. out of the 800 white guys who showed up, only 1 of them truly qualifies for the job, out of the 200 black guys ,100 of them qualify. The company hires 100 black guys and leaves the one white guy jobless. Know why?


would it be insensitive to suggest a propensity for spinning rims and watermelons?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I heard they were Rhodium Plated.


one time, for no reason whatsoever, ron paul chose to ride me like a horse through the foothills of montana during a six-week stretch.

i sobbed like a baby, questioned my manhood, and at times considered if life was worth continuing. but i added 25% leg strength.

the man is a god.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> would it be insensitive to suggest a propensity for spinning rims and watermelons?


 Not if those rims are like Ron Pauls balls (That fucking rhymes), Rhodium Plated, oh yeah baby.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you have absolutely no idea what affirmative action is, do you?
> 
> affirmative action is not about forcing someone to hire a certain percentage of one race or the other. affirmative action prevents not hiring one race or another.
> 
> ...





> Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative) and Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states.


Don't see them having many problems... Please site this empirical evidence.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> ummm, what? I don't quite understand. What point was i trying to make there?


Your assumption of minorities and welfare.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

You ever wonder why the Framers put certain things in the Constitution like they did? Like the part about No state SHALL make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. Ever look up the legal definition of shall? Shall means mandatory imperative command. ie it will be done. So if the Federal Reserve note is legal tender in payments in all 50 states, aren't all the states in violation of the Constitution? Don't you need an amendment to invalidate parts of the Constitution? Where is the one that relieves states of their legally binding mandate? Only 1 state is in half compliance as of this date, Utah, they allow gold and silver as payments and do not charge any kind of capitol gains upon them (Federal still does), but they still allow FRNs too.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Don't see them having many problems... Please site this empirical evidence.


the empirical evidence is historical data.

you can even observe samples of businesses that had no problem opening their doors every day with a "no blacks" sign on the window.

and i am all for state's rights as well. if california and michigan decided AA was not for them or not needed, so be it.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

> Though the results of the affirmative action ban varied from state to state because of differences in policies intended to mitigate the effects, general trends emerged to confirm that Asian-American students are disadvantaged in a race-conscious admissions system.
> California was hit hardest in its loss of black and Hispanic students and did the least legislatively to retain diversity. In 1996, Californians adopted Proposition 209, which prohibited university admission offices from considering race, sex or ethnicity in its decisions.
> As a result, the number of black students admitted to the University of California at Berkeley dropped from 562 in fall 1997 to 191 in fall 1998. Hispanic admission numbers plunged as well, from 1,266 to 600. Since 1997, the percentage of black and Latino students admitted to the University has dropped 6.5 percent while the Asian-American percentage has jumped 6.2 percent.
> "I'm skeptical of the finding that white students would not also be helped by a policy that gets rid of discrimination," Clegg said. "Our studies have shown that white students are hindered by politically correct admissions policies."


Now, one person may look at the number of blacks going down as a red flag against this rule without taking into question whether this is a result of actually the system being more fair. A rule by which hinders Asian's and whites is just as wrong as a rule that hinders blacks.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Your assumption of minorities and welfare.


 no, actually I was talking about Native Americans and the reservations. Far as I know Native Americans are still minorities and as long as they live on the Reservation they can receive welfare, education, health services, housing, food assistance, clothing assistance. I know many who commute back and forth from their job in the city to their home on the reservation. Not every tribe is this way, but many are.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the empirical evidence is historical data.
> 
> you can even observe samples of businesses that had no problem opening their doors every day with a "no blacks" sign on the window.
> 
> and i am all for state's rights as well. if california and michigan decided AA was not for them or not needed, so be it.


I can agree to this, but this does not mean it is up to the federal government to make these laws, it should be up to the states. This is an RP stance.

If a person so chose to enter an establishment that banned blacks, that's their personal choice. I for one, would refuse to do so, but you are just as free to do that as you are to smoke a joint.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Now, one person may look at the number of blacks going down as a red flag against this rule without taking into question whether this is a result of actually the system being more fair. A rule by which hinders Asian's and whites is just as wrong as a rule that hinders blacks.


like i said, state rights are no issue with me.

i feel confident assuming that if one minority group or the other got an unfair shake, the fed gov would be all over them like white on rice.

did you know that ron paul once climbed into a burning building to save a litter of kittens, only to eat them all alive one by one?


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> no, actually I was talking about Native Americans and the reservations. Far as I know Native Americans are still minorities and as long as they live on the Reservation they can receive welfare, education, health services, housing, food assistance, clothing assistance. I know many who commute back and forth from their job in the city to their home on the reservation. Not every tribe is this way, but many are.


Misunderstanding. IMO as long as there are reservations where US law does not prevail, it will never be a fair and equal system.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> like i said, state rights are no issue with me.
> 
> i feel confident assuming that if one minority group or the other got an unfair shake, the fed gov would be all over them like white on rice.
> 
> did you know that ron paul once climbed into a burning building to save a litter of kittens, only to eat them all alive one by one?


You are agreeing with ron paul bet yet not, and now I am confused as to your position...

I don't even know how to respond to the end of your post... lol


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Misunderstanding. IMO as long as there are reservations where US law does not prevail, it will never be a fair and equal system.


how dare they live on the land we allotted them after breaking a series of contracts to force them there, even as we continue to breach a series of contracts that we have still yet to honor.

fucking savages


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You are agreeing with ron paul bet yet not, and now I am confused as to your position...
> 
> I don't even know how to respond to the end of your post... lol


i often agree with ron paul. i often disagree with him.

for example: we agree on state rights. i go further though, and say there should be a strong, fed gov to insure the states play by a base set of rules.

ron paul can divide by zero.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

ron paul once traded his soul to the devil for ultimate martial arts ability. once he gained such, he swiftly roundhouse kicked the devil and took back his soul. the devil, being a fan of irony, thought much of this cunning move and befriended ron paul. they are now good friends and play poker every third wednesday of the month.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

Eminent Domain is a bitch, ask the thousands of people it affects every year.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

> Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. It reads in part:
> The Congress shall have Power . . .
> 
> 
> ...




Constitution does allow paper money to be printed by the federal government only, but only at the orders of Congress. Federal Reserve is not required to get any permission from Congress to print money



> *Dear American:*
> 
> Pursuant to your request, I will attempt to clear up questions you have about the Federal Reserve Bank (FED). I spent much time researching the FED and these are the shocking and revealing conclusions.
> THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.
> ...


 ​


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

Ron Paul can set ants on fire with a magnifying glass, AT NIGHT!


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Constitution does allow paper money to be printed by the federal government only, but only at the orders of Congress. Federal Reserve is not required to get any permission from Congress to print money


 You can't "Coin" paper. And besides, the federal is separate from the State, if the States did not see any paper as legal tender then the dollar could not exist.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Eminent Domain is a bitch, ask the thousands of people it affects every year.


Sorry for the constant posts here, but how about this:



> The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[2] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest," or "public benefit."
> 
> Bush executive order On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the _Kelo_ decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[15] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You can't "Coin" paper. And besides, the federal is separate from the State, if the States did not see any paper as legal tender then the dollar could not exist.


It is regarded as one of the more poorly written parts of the Constitution, due to it's vagueness. However, read the whole post on the Fed. Enlightening how we sold our country out.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Sorry for the constant posts here, but how about this:


 Im with Jefferson on the Allodial ownership. True unhindered ownership.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> It is regarded as one of the more poorly written parts of the Constitution, due to it's vagueness. However, read the whole post on the Fed. Enlightening how we sold our country out.


I know plenty about the fed, no need to try and educate me.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

i own a greenhouse. got the footing built (all free) and 3 of the 5 arches up. gotta reinforce the structure after getting the last arches up.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Right Unclebuck, keep calling a champion of the poor and the minorities a racist, it just discredits your argument. I addressed the racism claims in my original post.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Really its just a political tactic to appeal to "Reagan republicans" used by every republican since, so why can't Ron Paul use that angle also? He really should.


I disagree.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Right Unclebuck, keep calling a champion of the poor and the minorities a racist, it just discredits your argument. I addressed the racism claims in my original post.


Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions - Ron Paul


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> no, actually I was talking about Native Americans and the reservations. Far as I know Native Americans are still minorities and as long as they live on the Reservation they can receive welfare, education, health services, housing, food assistance, clothing assistance. I know many who commute back and forth from their job in the city to their home on the reservation. Not every tribe is this way, but many are.


Well good for you for taking them down a notch. Bout time someone put them in their place


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Right Unclebuck, keep calling a champion of the poor and the minorities a racist, it just discredits your argument. I addressed the racism claims in my original post.


Yeah, the guy who wants to eliminate the minimum wage, make it easier for corporations to outsource, eliminate medicare/medicaid, public education, and social security is a real champion of the poor. 

Seriously, how do you delude yourself into believing that crap? Ask poor people and minorities how they liked Reagan and then ask them how they'd like a president similar to Reagan but more extreme. 

Champion of the poor and minorities. lol. you're out of your god damn mind. 

When are you guys going to understand that the republican party (Ron Paul included) is just pushing a corporate agenda on you and then trying to market it to you as in your own best interests? It's amazing that for 30+ years republicans can run this same scam and still find people gullible enough to believe in it.


----------



## maximus444 (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul once traded his soul to the devil for ultimate martial arts ability. once he gained such, he swiftly roundhouse kicked the devil and took back his soul. the devil, being a fan of irony, thought much of this cunning move and befriended ron paul. they are now good friends and play poker every third wednesday of the month.


I like you're style!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

maximus444 said:


> I like you're style!


i'm hoping to eventually make chuck norris jokes interchangeable with ron paul jokes. i'll need some help to get it to go viral.


----------



## Parker (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, the guy who wants to eliminate the minimum wage, make it easier for corporations to outsource, eliminate medicare/medicaid, public education, and social security is a real champion of the poor.


Quit listening to 30 second sound bites otherwise you will continue to get incorrect information and look like a bigger fool than you already are.

Poor people benefit from no minimum wage. The minimum wage is just another attempt at government management to get away from the free market. Something isn't worth me paying $10 an hour so I'll do it. It makes economic sense for me to hire someone to do it at $6 an hour but I cannot since minimum wage is higher than that. Even though someone is willing to do that job for $6 an hour. But since the benevolent hand of government is there to guide us and save us from ourselves another person is out of work.
We saw how minimum wage devastated American Samoa. Their main business, Tuna, has moved business away to other places with cheaper labor. EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE WOULD RATHER WORK FOR THAT LOWER WAGE THAN BE UNEMPLOYED. Now the boats that were full of goods which they dropped off to make room for the tuna they were taking back are no longer available. Less goods available higher prices for everyone, including all the newly out of work people. Quit helping shithead.

If you had followed Ron Paul you'd know he votes against ANY tax hike. Corporations have listed TWO main issues which cause them to move offshore. Taxes and regulations. But somehow government and YOU know better than to listen to the actual problems. The arrogance of some people who presume to know a businesses problems better than that business knows itself. Same kind of crap that gets us into so many problems. YOU don't know better and neither does government. the one size fits all approach doesn't work. Why should someone from Maine have input into something that mainly affects other states, means little to them AND they have no background on that subject?

Another point you are way off base on. Eliminate public education. He never said anything remotely close. He did say do away with the costly and ineffective layer of the Federal Governments Dept of Education. Since the dept of education has been formed our level of education compared to the rest of the world has dropped. Your solution is keep doing the same thing. The dept of education scores another failure.

Social security is another issue you have your head up your ass on. Ron Paul is correct to say the SS system is broke and needs fixing. First off he believes in personal responsibility and wants people to PRACTICE IT instead of RELYING on handouts. He wants young people to have the option to opt out since its stealing and they should have a choice to save on their own. Teaching younger people to look to the future and save, what horrible thing, what will Ron Paul do next? He said the ones who have paid into the system need to be taken care off since they were promised. Gee a politician who wants to keep promises. People with a twisted agenda won't vote for someone like that but I will.



Dan Kone said:


> Seriously, how do you delude yourself into believing that crap? Ask poor people and minorities how they liked Reagan and then ask them how they'd like a president similar to Reagan but more extreme.
> 
> Champion of the poor and minorities. lol. you're out of your god damn mind.


Only a douchebag with a blinded agenda would say something like that.

Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs. Who does that affect the most, you horses ass? Minorities, mainly from the inner city, meaning poor. He wants to stop families from being torn apart because they use a natural product that causes no harm. Yet you say he's against minorities and poor. What kind of a lowlife lies about someone who actually wants to help the poor, meaning minorities. 

Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home and protect our borders. Because of your ignorance you probably don't know minorities are OVER REPRESENTED in the ground troops. You know the ones who are in harms way the most. How uninformed can one person be?



Dan Kone said:


> When are you guys going to understand that the republican party (Ron Paul included) is just pushing a corporate agenda on you and then trying to market it to you as in your own best interests? It's amazing that for 30+ years republicans can run this same scam and still find people gullible enough to believe in it.


Best to STFU when you don't know what the policies are of the person you are commenting on. You're either highly misinformed or a war mongering douchebag democrat with an agenda. So save the "you're out of your gd mind" for the bullshit artists you hang around with.
hey this is fun to do, I'm glad you started talking shit in your post. It's easy to expose an uninformed twat like yourself.

p.s. keep talking shit and you'll get more of the same.


----------



## Parker (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions - Ron Paul


While your posts consistently show that you're an uninformed troll. Get another thread closed asshat.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

Parker said:


> ...look like a bigger fool than you already are....Quit helping shithead....The arrogance of some people who presume to know...YOU don't know better....you have your head up your ass.....a douchebag with a blinded agenda....lowlife ....your ignorance ... How uninformed can one person be?...Best to STFU ...highly misinformed or a war mongering douchebag democrat....bullshit artists ...uninformed twat


what smells like vicks vaporub and denture adhesive?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

Parker said:


> While your posts consistently show that you're an uninformed troll. Get another thread closed asshat.


hmmm, in a thread titled 'the truth about ron paul', exposing the truth about ron paul is somehow equivalent to trolling? i simply don't get it.

and it was not my posts that got the other thread closed, is was a bunch of tattle tales. 

if anything gets threads closed, it is when angry people who can't be chill and shoot the shit start calling other members "uninformed trolls" or "asshats" or any of the other litany of insults you directed at dan.

for someone who consistently belittles others by calling them "boy" and "kid" and "child", you sure do seem like you have a lot of maturing to do. mentally, at least. could be senility, i suppose.

what smells like bengay?


----------



## Ernst (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions - Ron Paul



You consistently disparage minorities.

Add to that your need for anonymity and that makes you a chicken shit racist.

Just commenting on my observations.

Have a nice day.

-- Edit.. To save me the trouble of replying after you decide to defend.

The reason you hide and hang out day by day is because you like to play with little boys and want them to revere you.


Be Well.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

Ernst said:


> You consistently disparage minorities.
> 
> Add to that your need for anonymity and that makes you a chicken shit racist.
> 
> ...


you just called 99.99% of all people on this site "chicken shit". 

and i wonder where all my racist comments are.

so many insults, especially after i apologized to you for anything that may have happened in the past.

something tells me you are not sincere when you say "have a nice day".


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

Parker said:


> Quit listening to 30 second sound bites otherwise you will continue to get incorrect information and look like a bigger fool than you already are.


Right. Everyone who doesn't agree with Ron Paul has been brainwashed by the lame stream media.

I guess instead I should believe all the 30 second soundbites Ron Paul puts out!



> Poor people benefit from no minimum wage. The minimum wage is just another attempt at government management to get away from the free market.


Totally. People would be way better off making a dollar a day. Living wages are just big brother controlling you.

GTFO




> If you had followed Ron Paul you'd know he votes against ANY tax hike.


And corporate America and the wealthy loves that. 



> Corporations have listed TWO main issues which cause them to move offshore. Taxes and regulations.


And we all know corporate spokesmen would never make shit up to promote their own agendas. We should just believe everything they tell us. Outsourcing as nothing to do with the ability to pay south east Asian workers $1 a day
to undercut American labor. It's about taxes and regulations. Yeah. Sure it is.



> Another point you are way off base on. Eliminate public education. He never said anything remotely close.


He thinks public education is a communist plot.

"10th Plank of Communism: Control ALL Education. Federal "aid" to education means we have government-controlled schools and curriculum.

All Ten Planks of the Marxists' Communist Manifesto are being forced upon us in America. - Ron Paul"

http://www.rense.com/general75/aabol.htm




> He did say do away with the costly and ineffective layer of the Federal Governments Dept of Education.


What he really says is he wants to do away with the entire dept of education.



> Your solution is keep doing the same thing.


How nice of you to tell me what I think. Never mind the pesky fact that I've never said that, Ron Paul supporters clearly have no use for facts. 



> Social security is another issue you have your head up your ass on. Ron Paul is correct to say the SS system is broke and needs fixing.


Correct because you say he's correct while providing no evidence of that what so ever.




> Best to STFU when you don't know what the policies are of the person you are commenting on. You're either highly misinformed or a war mongering douchebag democrat with an agenda.


Of course I am. The only possible reasons anyone could be against Ron Paul is because they are war mongers or they are ignorant. No one could possibly be against Ron Paul for any other reason.



> So save the "you're out of your gd mind" for the bullshit artists you hang around with.


No seriously, If you think Ron Paul gives a shit about poor people or minorities you're out of your god damn mind. He advocates the interests of major corporations and the wealthy then cons everyone else into thinking those interests are also their interests, just like the republicans always do.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> hmmm, in a thread titled 'the truth about ron paul', exposing the truth about ron paul is somehow equivalent to trolling? i simply don't get it.


Yes. And from what I've been told you should seriously consider either converting to their religion or death.



> and it was not my posts that got the other thread closed, is was a bunch of tattle tales.


I call that a win.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Liberty is colorblind, Ron Paul is all about equal chance for every individual, this is why I called him the champion of the poor.


----------



## Parker (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Right. Everyone who doesn't agree with Ron Paul has been brainwashed by the lame stream media.
> I guess instead I should believe all the 30 second soundbites Ron Paul puts out!
> Totally. People would be way better off making a dollar a day. Living wages are just big brother controlling you.
> GTFO
> ...


First off Ron Paul supporters on their worst day know more than you portend on your best day. The reason is they follow his policies and do not get info from soundbites like you do.
It takes little research to see Ron Paul advocates is states rights. Let the states handle their own education comes out as Ron Paul is against education. The lemmings fall for it. You do know government is making it harder for parents to home school dont you? probably not.
We hear no foreign aid to all countries and the lemmings shout Ron Paul is anti Israel and is an isolationist. It takes very little research to prove that incorrect, The lemmings fall for it.

Explain to me why corporations/wealthy do not donate to Ron Paul then. He gets his support from individuals. All that success those big corporations have yet those very same corporations are so stupid they donate to causes against their best interest? 
Quit telling people what and who Ron Paul stands for and the foundation behind it, you're not very good at it.


----------



## Parker (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> hmmm, in a thread titled 'the truth about ron paul', exposing the truth about ron paul is somehow equivalent to trolling? i simply don't get it.


you don't get much



UncleBuck said:


> and it was not my posts that got the other thread closed, is was a bunch of tattle tales.


because you're a moron who doesn't believe in personal responsibility and the truth. you've exposed yourself in your posts, keep yapping



UncleBuck said:


> if anything gets threads closed, it is when angry people who can't be chill and shoot the shit start calling other members "uninformed trolls" or "asshats" or any of the other litany of insults you directed at dan.


lmao . you start a bunch of bunch of shit, run away and point fingers, like I said personal responsibility doesn't show up in your posts, seldom does with twats 



UncleBuck said:


> for someone who consistently belittles others by calling them "boy" and "kid" and "child", you sure do seem like you have a lot of maturing to do. mentally, at least. could be senility, i suppose.
> what smells like bengay?


if you have anything to add to the topic that has any substance (I doubt that) do so. Try looking for the truth like a man would.
You try to talk politics, get shot down because you do little research, get mad because people are too smart to buy into your bullshit, so you make it about the poster.
go run to mommy you pussy lmao


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

Parker said:


> you don't get much... you're a moron ... twat ...go run to mommy you pussy lmao


stop it, old man. you are going to make me cry.

now, just to set you straight on the facts of why the thread got shut down, please refer to this post: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/436150-no-justice-riu.html#post5796066

it was "liked" by the guy who shut down the thread.

what smells like baby powder and moth balls?


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan you have a real problem interpreting Ron Paul or you are just intentionally doing this out of your hatred for Ron Paul....and honestly I don't know if I want to spend another 30 minutes of my life trying to explain to you what Ron Paul means in that speech. If I get some free time this week Ill be sure to explain it to you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Dan you have a real problem interpreting Ron Paul or you are just intentionally doing this out of your hatred for Ron Paul....and honestly I don't know if I want to spend another 30 minutes of my life trying to explain to you what Ron Paul means in that speech. If I get some free time this week Ill be sure to explain it to you.


that must be it, we just need it explained to us better.

maybe you can explain to me how he actually DOES trust my wife to make decisions about her own body and health? woops, you can't.

maybe you can explain how he had nothing to do with that racist newsletter which he admitted penning and once defended? woops, you can't.

maybe you can explain how things would be fine and dandy if we just let the economy blow up in 2008? woops, you can't.

you keep thinking you can "convert" us, but you can't. the man has explained himself. 

he does not trust women to make decisions, has penned and defended abhorrent racism, and would rather let our economy fail than give it a chance to recover. FACT.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
Ron Paul "No, I&#8217;m not"


When you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools. 
Ron Paul; "I bet that&#8217;s a misquote. I do not recall that."


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Ron Paul
"we should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it&#8217;s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system."


Ron Paul
"my commitment is to ensure that home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children&#8217;s education. I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment. "

^This philosphy gets twisted into "abolish public schooling"


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Ron Paul does want to abolish federal education department.....duh..liberty issue.. Federal Department of Education does not mean public schools. Most republicans are behind this idea.



*BE IT RESOLVED* that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> [*]The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.


does that mean all texans will have the handicap of never having learned about jefferson while people from the northeast will enjoy the benefits of a well-rounded education?

does not sound like we are giving each of our citizens an equal shot at success.

imagine all the fuckups out of kansas that will never hear about that little theory called evolution.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

1. Yes I can, He believes he must support liberty and freedom for all life. -have to say I disagree with him on abortion

2. I thought I explained well enough, mind you, I will use google again to explain it for you if you like or do you wanna google it yourself since my previous explanations and sources weren't good enough for you? The newsletter is not written or even read by Ron Paul - If you watch the the video I posted under racism in the original post there is Ron Paul explanation for you, He tried to find out who wrote it but there was no record, it was a ghost writer posing as Ron Paul, The paper itself even admits it wasn't Ron Paul, Please take the liberty to watch the video and google the rest of the facts yourself Im getting hand cramps.


3. What the hell this is supposed to even mean I have not a clue- You mean if we didn't have the bailouts?


UncleBuck said:


> that must be it, we just need it explained to us better.
> 
> maybe you can explain to me how he actually DOES trust my wife to make decisions about her own body and health? woops, you can't.
> 
> ...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> The newsletter is not written or even read by Ron Paul


yet he defended it. he defended something he never read or write? that is not something even i would do, and paul is likely a little smarter than me.



deprave said:


> What the hell this is supposed to even mean I have not a clue- You mean if we didn't have the bailouts?


yes, suppose we let everything fail. where would small businesses (and large ones) get credit to make payroll? where would they get loans to obtain capital, expand, or just get by?

not a fan of the bailouts here, but we were between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> does that mean all texans will have the handicap of never having learned about jefferson while people from the northeast will enjoy the benefits of a well-rounded education?
> 
> does not sound like we are giving each of our citizens an equal shot at success.
> 
> imagine all the fuckups out of kansas that will never hear about that little theory called evolution.


Oh yeah cause evolution is soooooo important...LMAO...Where would I be if I didn't know about evolution? ROFLMAO


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Oh yeah cause evolution is so fucking important...LMAO...Where would I be if I didn't know about evolution? ROFLMAO


you would be like olylifter, which is pretty bad.

there is a reason why you have to take so many classes that have nothing to do with your major in college. there is a value to a well-rounded education.

states like texas would handicap their students by teaching them some fucked up, revisionist history.

it is already bad enough that i had to research for myself the true story of thanksgiving, why let nutwing states encourage this?

edit: evolution is important to learn about. forgot about many careers in biology, psychology, psychiatry, and other high paying fields without it.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

These days kids pretty much have to re-learn everything anyway , how much did you really seriously learn in school besides basic stuff, seriously? You studied for test and then you forgot most of it if it wasn't interesting to you.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

I don't see how evolution is important, sorry, I don't deny its real of course as there is much evidence to prove it but its really pretty useless information. If I could delete that from my brain and replace it with just about any knowledge(shit even a recipe for chilli) I'd do it in a heartbeat lol


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> These days kids pretty much have to re-learn everything anyway , how much did you really seriously learn in school besides basic stuff, seriously? You studied for test and then you forgot most of it if it wasn't interesting to you.


i still speak fluent spanish. bi-lingual out of high school. also got to skip my first two years of college math as i had tested out of it thanks to HS knowledge. put me ahead of the game.

i have worked several jobs that i would not have been able to if not for my knowledge of spanish.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> where would small businesses (and large ones) get credit to make payroll? where would they get loans to obtain capital, expand, or just get by?
> 
> not a fan of the bailouts here, but we were between a rock and a hard place.


 Putting the cart before the horse, Businesses should use the income they receive to pay their bills. When you have a bill due , do you go to the bank and get a loan to pay for it? Always worked for me, and let me tell you a secret, if you put some money away for a rainy day, when that rainy day comes, you will have some money.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> I don't see how evolution is important, sorry, I don't deny its real of course as there is much evidence to prove it but its really pretty useless information.


tell that to a biologist, an evolutionary psychologist, medicine, neurology...all of these are high paying, prestigious jobs that you forgo without a working knowledge of evolution.

do you want to handicap certain kids that come from localities that believe in jesus ponies over evolution? it's not fair.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Putting the cart before the horse, Businesses should use the income they receive to pay their bills. When you have a bill due , do you go to the bank and get a loan to pay for it? Always worked for me, and let me tell you a secret, if you put some money away for a rainy day, when that rainy day comes, you will have some money.


the finances of large and small businesses work much differently from my personal finances.

nice try though.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Kids these days can google anything they dont need the federal goverment control mechanism, pretty sure most kids in Kansas would run into evolution on the internet before they hit 14


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Kids these days can google anything they dont need the federal goverment control mechanism, pretty sure most kids in Kansas would run into evolution on the internet before they hit 14


so, replace public schools with google?

yeah, that'll work.


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, suppose we let everything fail. where would small businesses (and large ones) get credit to make payroll? where would they get loans to obtain capital, expand, or just get by?
> 
> not a fan of the bailouts here, but we were between a rock and a hard place.


We need to do away with credit as we know it especially the easy access to credit large companies have. That is part of why we have the huge income divide between rich and poor, for the rich money is free.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> tell that to a biologist, an evolutionary psychologist, medicine, neurology...all of these are high paying, prestigious jobs that you forgo without a working knowledge of evolution.
> 
> do you want to handicap certain kids that come from localities that believe in jesus ponies over evolution? it's not fair.


dude you just made me spit coffee everywhere, hilarious post.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Liberty is colorblind, Ron Paul is all about equal chance for every individual, this is why I called him the champion of the poor.


Odd that he happens to be against the civil rights movement (for constitutional reasons of course), against MLK's birthday (because he doesn't like his economic policies of course), publishes a racist newsletter (that of course he had nothing to do with writing) and even opposes Abraham Lincoln's presidency and thinks the civil war was a senseless power grab by the north(for states rights reasons of course).

Now individually none of those things are necessarily racist (except the civil war stuff) or anti-black, but those are exactly the type of things racists say when trying to pass off their ignorant views in a mainstream way. 

Trying to claim that Ron Paul has the best interest of black Americans in mind is a pretty tough sell.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> I don't see how evolution is important, sorry, I don't deny its real of course as there is much evidence to prove it but its really pretty useless information. If I could delete that from my brain and replace it with just about knowledge I'd do it in a heartbeat lol


 Evolution of everything but humans is very easily observed, but for humans we made a HUGE leap from Neanderthal to full human, they have not been able to find the in between man. Its like someone just placed us here.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, replace public schools with google?
> 
> yeah, that'll work.


 lol dude your hilarious. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS - Kids already have google, they search it and learn about things they are interested in, at school they study for the test and then forget most of it, sure they learn some basic skills and stuff they might not of caught on to before, and most importantly social skills...but common, people only really learn about things they are passionate about in this day and age. They have Google in there pockets you forget.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Odd that he happens to be against the civil rights movement (for constitutional reasons of course), against MLK's birthday (because he doesn't like his economic policies of course), publishes a racist newsletter (that of course he had nothing to do with writing) and even opposes Abraham Lincoln's presidency and thinks the civil war was a senseless power grab by the north(for states rights reasons of course).
> 
> Now individually none of those things are necessarily racist (except the civil war stuff) or anti-black, but those are exactly the type of things racists say when trying to pass off their ignorant views in a mainstream way.
> 
> Trying to claim that Ron Paul has the best interest of black Americans in mind is a pretty tough sell.


 even more Odd that you don't read the original post in a thread that you post so much on. (or even watch the videos) - Watch the video for #4 racist and read the text please.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

Parker said:


> First off Ron Paul supporters on their worst day know more than you portend on your best day.


So you tell me. I'm still waiting to see a demonstration of that. 



> The reason is they follow his policies and do not get info from soundbites like you do.


Ok, I see what you're doing here. You're accusing me of exactly what most Ron Paul supporters are doing here hoping that by going on the offensive it'll deflect attention.

It's pretty absurd to say that my information is in soundbite form when I type page long responses full of detailed information and the reply I get is usually a 30sec video clip of Ron Paul speaking. lol

My only response to that is this - 

If you have to resort to total dishonesty to make your point, is that point really worth making at all?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> even more Odd that you don't read the original post in a thread that you post so much on. (or even watch the videos)


Oh you mean the one that says in super bold print Ron Paul is not a racist because Ron Paul said he's not a racist! Yeah, read that. While that is a compelling argument I'm going to go ahead and look at Ron Paul's total body of work rather than just blindly believe every statement coming from someone who's running for president. 

Here's how I see it.

On one side you have:

Ron Paul - Anti emancipation proclamation, anti civil rights ammendment, thinks the north was wrong to fight the civil war, publishes a racist newsletter in his name that appears to be written by him in the first person that he's defended in the past, and against MLK's birthday as a holiday. 

on the other side you have Ron Paul saying "I'm not a racist"

You have to really be sippin the koolaide to ignore all the evidence and instead just take his word for it. 

Did you believe Nixon when he said "I'm not a crook". After all, he said it so we must ignore everything else and believe him right?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, replace public schools with google?
> 
> yeah, that'll work.


He's not against public schools! He just thinks that public schools are a communist plot, and we should get rid of the department of education and cut off all fed funding for schools. 

That's somehow totally different than being against public schools. I'm not sure how, but I bet there is a really convenient explanation. That explanation will probably be as reasonable for the reasons for Ron Paul not being racist even though he thought ending slavery was a bad idea. (yes, he was against ending slavery. but don't worry, I've been assured that he's a champion of black people)


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> He's not against public schools! He just thinks that public schools are a communist plot, and we should get rid of the department of education and cut off all fed funding for schools.
> 
> That's somehow totally different than being against public schools. I'm not sure how, but I bet there is a really convenient explanation. That explanation will probably be as reasonable for the reasons for Ron Paul not being racist even though he thought ending slavery was a bad idea. (yes, he was against ending slavery. but don't worry, I've been assured that he's a champion of black people)


fucking communists with their 'public education'.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Oh you mean the one that says in super bold print Ron Paul is not a racist because Ron Paul said he's not a racist! Yeah, read that. While that is a compelling argument I'm going to go ahead and look at Ron Paul's total body of work rather than just blindly believe every statement coming from someone who's running for president.
> 
> Here's how I see it.
> 
> ...


 READ THE TEXT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WATCH THE VIDEO - But the video he gets grilled on this subject pretty good, If you don't want to do that you can go to google yourself and see even the paper itself admitted they don't know who wrote it and that Ron Paul was never interviewed. 

The rest of the things you just said I also addressed in the original post and need no further elaboration, Again, Please take the time to read the original post or to actually read a few of Ron Pauls literature or speeches yourself after you remove your Ron Paul Mental block that Norm has inserted into your brain.


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

Most people would do better to have more life experience and less school. getting rid of the dep of education is a great idea, the majority of kids should be home schooled and learning what they need to know not what they put in some book. The theory of evolution should not be pushed on kids and neither should all the other propaganda.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> READ THE TEXT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WATCH THE VIDEO - But the video he gets grilled on this subject pretty good,


ok. I watched the video. Yes, once again I understand Ron Paul denied saying those things when he ran in 2008. But he still defended them in 1996. 

Also was there supposed to be something in that video clip that explains how it's possible for him not to be racist, but against the emancipation proclamation and against government intervention to end slavery?

Like I said, to believe someone is not a racist when they think ending slavery was a bad idea is pretty lol. 

Before this started I really didn't know much about Ron Paul being a racist. But now that I've looked into it a bit all doubt has been removed. He's definitely a racist. Now my only question is about you guys. When you're this willing to defend someone who was against ending slavery, it makes me wonder about you.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Most people would do better to have more life experience and less school. getting rid of the dep of education is a great idea, the majority of kids should be home schooled and learning what they need to know not what they put in some book. The theory of evolution should not be pushed on kids and neither should all the other propaganda.


that's the best argument I've ever seen for the necessity of the dept of education. Thanks. We need it to protect kids minds from people like you.


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> that's the best argument I've ever seen for the necessity of the dept of education. Thanks. We need it to protect kids minds from people like you.


 Everyone goes to school to study the same things from the same books and then chooses what to do with their lives based on a set of choices, why not have everyone learn to do what their good at or what their parents are good at or what the people in their community are good at? If your dad and grandpa were mechanics wouldn't your time be better spent learning under them than going to school? People could also achieve higher life time productivity if they started working younger and spent less time in school.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Everyone goes to school to study the same things from the same books and then chooses what to do with their lives based on a set of choices, why not have everyone learn to do what their good at or what their parents are good at or what the people in their community are good at? If your dad and grandpa were mechanics wouldn't your time be better spent learning under them than going to school? People could also achieve higher life time productivity if they started working younger and spent less time in school.


going to school and becoming a mechanic are not mutually exclusive.

in fact, based on the years of experience i had dealing with mechanics, most of them would do well to take some basic accounting and business courses. great people, but not many of them could run their own business worth a damn.


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> going to school and becoming a mechanic are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> in fact, based on the years of experience i had dealing with mechanics, most of them would do well to take some basic accounting and business courses. great people, but not many of them could run their own business worth a damn.


 I agree and I think the free market DR Paul advocates would take care of this. If you were a mechanic and you weren't to good with the business or the math and noticed people who were seemed to be doing better than you, you would probably take some business courses at your own expense and if your kids wanted to take over or start their own business they could save the pay they make doing oil changes and invest it in an education beyond what you were able to give them and in such a society their would be courses available to fill this demand.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> I agree and I think the free market DR Paul advocates would take care of this. If you were a mechanic and you weren't to good with the business or the math and noticed people who were seemed to be doing better than you, you would probably take some business courses at your own expense and if your kids wanted to take over or start their own business they could save the pay they make doing oil changes and invest it in an education beyond what you were able to give them and in such a society their would be courses available to fill this demand.


yes, ron paul will wave a magic wand where those who do oil changes for a living will not only be able to take care of themselves, but take business courses at the university.

yay for ron paul and his magic wand!


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, ron paul will wave a magic wand where those who do oil changes for a living will not only be able to take care of themselves, but take business courses at the university.
> 
> yay for ron paul and his magic wand!


 The magic wand is called the Constitution.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> why not have everyone learn to do what their good at or what their parents are good at or what the people in their community are good at?


Works for China. But I think the right to determine you're own future is pretty sweet, so I'll have to pass. 



> If your dad and grandpa were mechanics wouldn't your time be better spent learning under them than going to school?


What if your dad and grandpa were mechanics and you wanted to be something else? You're just fucked because when you were 6 your dad decided you were going to be a mechanic? That's fucked up.

A 5 minute conversation with the average American is a really good argument against homeschooling.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> The magic want is called the Constitution.


yes, a document penned by wealthy aristocrats in a centuries old agrarian society will give us all a college education!

USA! USA! USA!


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, a document penned by wealthy aristocrats in a centuries old agrarian society will give us all a college education!
> 
> USA! USA! USA!


 Most people shouldn't have a college education, they should be working in the feilds or in the mines and reading their bible and constitution after work and working six days a week.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> The magic wand is called the Constitution.


so he waves his magic wand and a failed mechanic who's been a mechanic since he was 6, can afford college and can keep up with the course work. Wow. That's some magic


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Most people shouldn't have a college education, they should be working in the feilds or in the mines and reading their bible and constitution after work and working six days a week.


most people shouldn't be lying, thieving, STD-ridden KKK aficionados.

oh, wait. most aren't. thank goodness!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> so he waves his magic wand and a failed mechanic who's been a mechanic since he was 6, can afford college and can keep up with the course work. Wow. That's some magic


good point. i'd like to see them get by the easy, required courses having never been introduced to proper grammar or basic trig, etc.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 1, 2011)

Anti-RP rhetoric. Gotta love the blind.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Anti-RP rhetoric. Gotta love the blind.


yes, anyone who takes issue with ron paul's history of racism, stated views on abortion that contradict his "libertarian" nature, or his willingness to let the economy collapse is "blind".

they also probably need to be converted, wake up, open their eyes, or be killed.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> good point. i'd like to see them get by the easy, required courses having never been introduced to proper grammar or basic trig, etc.


and of course in Ron Paul land, I'm sure financial assistance to go to school = communist plot. But if you got fired from your job as a mechanic, I'm sure you have college money laying around.


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> and of course in Ron Paul land, I'm sure financial assistance to go to school = communist plot. But if you got fired from your job as a mechanic, I'm sure you have college money laying around.


 Now your catching on, Financial assistance is bad, credit is bad. if everyone paid upfront for school it would cost less and you would get a better education in the feild you were paying to learn. the system is failing us so it needs to change, what is better a degree or a job? I think people should be free to succeed.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> what is better a degree or a job?


they are not mutually exclusive. many people work while getting a degree, like i did.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Now your catching on, Financial assistance is bad, credit is bad. if everyone paid upfront for school it would cost less and you would get a better education in the feild you were paying to learn. the system is failing us so it needs to change, what is better a degree or a job? I think people should be free to succeed.


Yeah. That's pretty free. Sounds like if your dad is a janitor you're free to be a janitor the rest of your life with no opportunity to do anything else. Freedom sounds great.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

lmao @ communist plot - sorry to break it to all of you guys but Ron Paul becoming president will not mean such dramatic changes, he won't wave his magic wand, he won't destroy our way your way of life, he probably would never even effect you, he probably wouldn't even legalize drugs as so many think, Ron Paul is not a terrorist or a saint, but he is a hero, and he is an honest man, I think his philosophy is just what we need right now as far as economic, defense, and personnel liberty, he would put us back on the right track indeed but he couldn't solve all of our problems alone nor would he cause some kind of catastrophe of epic proportions.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> lmao @ communist plot


"10th Plank of Communism: Control ALL Education. Federal "aid" to education means we have government-controlled schools and curriculum." - Ron Paul

Yeah lol indeed.



> and he is an honest man


Or good enough at lying to convince you he's honest.


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah. That's pretty free. Sounds like if your dad is a janitor you're free to be a janitor the rest of your life with no opportunity to do anything else. Freedom sounds great.


 You should be able to do whatever you want to make a living, like oranges go plant some oranges and start selling them, like to dance start dancing for money, like drunks turn your house into a bar, This is America and the idea of unemployment and no smoking in public and dog licenses and restrictions on emissions are ridiculous


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> lmao @ communist plot - sorry to break it to all of you guys but Ron Paul becoming president will not mean such dramatic changes, he won't wave his magic wand, he won't destroy our way your way of life, he probably would never even effect you, he probably wouldn't even legalize drugs as so many think, Ron Paul is not a terrorist or a saint, but he is a hero, and he is an honest man, I think his philosophy is just what we need right now as far as economic, defense, and personnel liberty, he would put us back on the right track indeed but he couldn't solve all of our problems alone nor would he cause some kind of catastrophe of epic proportions.


hence why i don't get on your case. you never call us blind, tell us to wake up or open our eyes, or exalt the man as a fix-all for our every woe.

what you say is probably true, but i will likely stick with the dude who trusts my wife to make decisions about her own health and supports the civil rights movement. he is also doing some good things for the gays (laid the groundwork for DADT repeal), although he does state he does not support gay marriage.

oh, and did i mention....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> You should be able to do whatever you want to make a living, like oranges go plant some oranges and start selling them, like to dance start dancing for money, like drunks turn your house into a bar, This is America and the idea of unemployment and no smoking in public and dog licenses and restrictions on emissions are ridiculous


at about $0.25 to $1.25 per orange (depending on the season), do tell me how many orange trees you would have to plant (and wait for a decade or two to mature) to be able to support yourself (please make sure to factor in how much land you would be paying for the whole time).

i really can't tell if you are trolling or really stupid.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

To sum it up simply:

my case is that he is an honest man of great integrity with the most experience and the only veteran and that he stands by the people at all times, also do to current events - in these times is when we need Ron Paul's philosophy the most. The wars, The Economy, the attack on our liberties.

All the other candidates including Obama do not represent the will of people, they have sold us to the highest bidders, they have sold themselves out, they are faker then Debbies titties, You could cut their disingenuous PC aura with a knife, and fill a thousand bath tubs with their lies. that's all.


----------



## beardo (Jun 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> at about $0.25 to $1.25 per orange (depending on the season), do tell me how many orange trees you would have to plant (and wait for a decade or two to mature) to be able to support yourself (please make sure to factor in how much land you would be paying for the whole time).
> 
> i really can't tell if you are trolling or really stupid.


 It is just an example maybe not the easiest way to make a buck. What i'm saying is this is the land of the free the land of supply and demand, If people want blowjobs I ought to be able to put up a tent and start a blow job booth and pay some kind of a flat rate of tax on my income just like anyone else. this should be a place where were all born equal and given the chance to make it any way we choose. If your willing to work you should be able to.


----------



## deprave (Jun 1, 2011)

well no, thats not even close to "all" - but I leave you with that - I need to go to bed now I got only a few hours till work

but yeah the main thing for me is that he is the only honest person running...and the establishment is frightened to death of an honest person who protects the people, and also I love his free market philosophy etc....

I disagree with him on abortion, I disagree with him on healthcare in some ways, I disagree with him on education in some ways (like I said I am a liberal on many issues)....but I think its very important he is elected - we really need someone who represents our voices and protects the American dream and reputation because its in serious jeopardy. I also believe that with his free market philosophy we will all prosper.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> It is just an example maybe not the easiest way to make a buck. What i'm saying is this is the land of the free the land of supply and demand, If people want blowjobs I ought to be able to put up a tent and start a blow job booth and pay some kind of a flat rate of tax on my income just like anyone else. this should be a place where were all born equal and given the chance to make it any way we choose. If your willing to work you should be able to.


good luck with your STD blowjob booth.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 1, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> and of course in Ron Paul land, I'm sure financial assistance to go to school = communist plot. But if you got fired from your job as a mechanic, I'm sure you have college money laying around.


LOL! Just filed for financial aid today. Horticulture!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> LOL! Just filed for financial aid today.


I guess it's ok for you to sponge off the nanny state. That personal responsibility stuff you Ron Paul worshipers always talk about must be for someone else. 

Anyone who needs financial aid but votes republican is voting against their own interests. 

But don't worry, when Ron Paul is president I'm sure he'll cancel your liberal warefare school aid so you can make frys at McDonalds and earn your education. 

Free market! Fuck yeah!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I guess it's ok for you to sponge off the nanny state. That personal responsibility stuff you Ron Paul worshipers always talk about must be for someone else.
> 
> Anyone who needs financial aid but votes republican is voting against their own interests.
> 
> ...


Called getting something out of my taxes sir. Let's see. Education or welfare? Hmmm.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Called getting something out of my taxes sir. Let's see. Education or welfare? Hmmm.


I see. Socialism is ok for you, but immoral for other people. Makes perfect sense. 

Enjoy your socialized education. If you want to keep your government handouts that allow you to go to school vote democrat!


----------



## sync0s (Jun 2, 2011)

Considering the education loan market has been trickled down to a monopoly in the government subsidies, there really is no other way, except to pay it in cash. A free market advocate would not burn him at the stake for using a monopoly program. We believe that without this program, the deal would be better for everyone. You have this Salem witch burning argument method built deeply within you, while your logic is superseded by your ignorance.

Government subsidies are not essential for somebody to go to school. Before this whole government involvement, plenty of financial institutions were providing the loans.

Did you know that if you aren't 24 years of age, under the government subsidies for education, you aren't considered an adult? What does this mean, you may ask. Well, if you aren't 24 years old, and you have no parents are willing to provide for you or help you, you can't go to school. You can't qualify for a loan or anything. You have to way 6 years after high school graduation to go to college. Well, if banks had the control over loaning to students, then that wait wouldn't have to exist because they could just go and loan to an 18 year old ( who is by contractual standards an adult )


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I see. Socialism is ok for you, but immoral for other people. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> Enjoy your socialized education. If you want to keep your government handouts that allow you to go to school vote democrat!


What part of "i have paid LITERALLY thousands of dollars in taxes, wages, fees, etc since entering the job market and am now cashing in my chips." do you not get. Miliking the system? No, reclaiming what has been stolen from me for years by taxing me and spending my money on programs and wasteful spending that i disapproved of. Kinda like a retirement plan in a way. 

Whatever you are comfortable telling yourself when you lie awake @ night.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, anyone who takes issue with ron paul's history of racism, stated views on abortion that contradict his "libertarian" nature, or his willingness to let the economy collapse is "blind".
> 
> they also probably need to be converted, wake up, open their eyes, or be killed.


You know, Ron Paul isn't going to make it illegal to have abortions, you do understand that correct? He just happens to think babies should live, he has no interest in it otherwise. The economy will collapse no matter who becomes president, it is mathematically impossible to save.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Considering the education loan market has been trickled down to a monopoly in the government subsidies, there really is no other way, except to pay it in cash. A free market advocate would not burn him at the stake for using a monopoly program. We believe that without this program, the deal would be better for everyone. You have this Salem witch burning argument method built deeply within you, while your logic is superseded by your ignorance.


That's bullshit and you know it. People take school loans all the time. It's quite common. He's taking free government money. That's socialism. I'm ok with that. In fact I think it's a great idea, but he is receiving a socialized education. 

Don't worry, if you elect Ron Paul as president he'll put a stop to that.



> Government subsidies are not essential for somebody to go to school. Before this whole government involvement, plenty of financial institutions were providing the loans.


Exactly. But that's not what he's doing. 


> Did you know that if you aren't 24 years of age, under the government subsidies for education, you aren't considered an adult? What does this mean, you may ask. Well, if you aren't 24 years old, and you have no parents are willing to provide for you or help you, you can't go to school. You can't qualify for a loan or anything.


I know plenty of people under 24 who go to school on loans, so that's bullshit.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> What part of "i have paid LITERALLY thousands of dollars in taxes, wages, fees, etc since entering the job market and am now cashing in my chips. do you not get. Miliking the system? No, reclaiming what has been stolen from me for years by taxing me and spending my money on programs and wasteful spending that i disapproved of. Kinda like a retirement plan in a way.
> 
> Whatever you are comfortable telling yourself when you lie awake @ night.


I'm not saying it's wasteful spending or that it's undeserved. I think it's a great idea. But it's socialized education and if elected Ron Paul will put a stop to that.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You know, Ron Paul isn't going to make it illegal to have abortions, you do understand that correct? He just happens to think babies should live, he has no interest in it otherwise. The economy will collapse no matter who becomes president, it is mathematically impossible to save.


Actually I don't know that. Since the 2010 election where republicans got elected on the promise of job creation they've instead decided to ignore jobs and make their primary focus ending abortion. In some cases they are going past trying to ban abortion and trying to ban types of birth control. Besides the fact that he's clearly the messiah, I don't see any reason Ron Paul would be any different.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm not saying it's wasteful spending or that it's undeserved. I think it's a great idea. But it's socialized education and if elected Ron Paul will put a stop to that.


And i agree with him. Because i won't have to pay into it. But when forced to do so i would be a fool to not "tap in" if needed. Same way i looked @ unemployment. Glad it was there when i needed it but could've taken a low-paying job, worked 40 hours a week, and STILL not made what i drew on UI. Had we not had it available, we would've severely reduced our standard of living but survived. Since i paid into it and it was available, i chose what was best for the family.

Can't wait to get that degree in plant science!!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And i agree with him. Because i won't have to pay into it. But when forced to do so i would be a fool to not "tap in" if needed. Same way i looked @ unemployment. Glad it was there when i needed it but could've taken a low-paying job, worked 40 hours a week, and STILL not made what i drew on UI. Had we not had it available, we would've severely reduced our standard of living but survived. Since i paid into it and it was available, i chose what was best for the family.
> 
> Can't wait to get that degree in plant science!!!


So you're going to vote for a guy who will try to cut off funding for you to go to school. Genius.

Congratulations on being tricked by republicans into thinking the best interests of the ultra wealthy are also you're best interests.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

i'm voting for the guy that will stop robbing peter to pay for paul's education. But since i've been robbed already, i'm recovering my cash.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i'm voting for the guy that will stop robbing peter to pay for paul's education. But since i've been robbed already, i'm recovering my cash.


you've been "robbed"?

that would entail that you derive ZERO benefit from the things your taxes fund. which is bullshit.

every advantage comes with disadvantages. the advantage of deriving the benefits of an advanced society comes with the disadvantage of having to help foot the cost of that society.

you're not recovering your cash, you're taking advantage of a tax break that was made more generous by obama. you should thank him.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you've been "robbed"?
> 
> that would entail that you derive ZERO benefit from the things your taxes fund. which is bullshit.
> 
> ...


When money is taken from me against my will, yes, i feel i have been robbed. If someone came and stole my tv, comp, cash, etc and i had the chance to go get it back you can rest assured i would.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> When money is taken from me against my will, yes, i feel i have been robbed. If someone came and stole my tv, comp, cash, etc and i had the chance to go get it back you can rest assured i would.


you have a number of options to stop the whole taxation thing, yet you exercise none of them. so you are letting yourself be "robbed". you are complicit.

care to name me a few prosperous countries with 0% taxation? this should be interesting.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you have a number of options to stop the whole taxation thing, yet you exercise none of them. so you are letting yourself be "robbed". you are complicit.
> 
> care to name me a few prosperous countries with 0% taxation? this should be interesting.


Never said 0%. Just not excess, which we do.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

UB and Dan. You seem to be of the opinion we should work 40 hrs a week, get our check, send it to the gov, and let them care for everyone. 

Not my idea of good.


----------



## mame (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Never said 0%. Just not excess, which we do.


compared to other advanced nations our effective tax rates are quite low, especially those on multi billion dollar corporations.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Never said 0%. Just not excess, which we do.


so, anything above your preferred amount is robbery, and anything below that amount is a unicorn shitting skittles onto a fluffy cloud?

i wish we all got to make up our own rules.

and just about every nation in the world taxes "excessively", according to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

you poor soul, the government just stealing your money and all. let me cry some crocodile tears for you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> UB and Dan. You seem to be of the opinion we should work 40 hrs a week, get our check, send it to the gov, and let them care for everyone.
> 
> Not my idea of good.


and you seem to be of the opinion that no one should have to pay taxes at all unless voluntary, and that you should get that money so you can go get a degree.

i personally think we should vote for those who profess the policies and ideas that we want and then live with the results of our taxation with representation.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> UB and Dan. You seem to be of the opinion we should work 40 hrs a week, get our check, send it to the gov, and let them care for everyone.
> 
> Not my idea of good.


I see. Unless you support free market anarchism then you're a communist. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Is it possible there is a place in between those two extremes that might be more sensible?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I see. Unless you support free market anarchism then you're a communist. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Is it possible there is a place in between those two extremes that might be more sensible?


ha, nice catch!

i feel like our work is done here, but let's let some more moths fly into the flame. it'll be fun.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

Just saying that if i don't support the two legged spotted frog i shouldn't have to pay to protect it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Just saying that if i don't support the two legged spotted frog i shouldn't have to pay to protect it.


and if i don't support the notion of traffic lights, i shouldn't have to stop at them.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and if i don't support the notion of traffic lights, i shouldn't have to stop at them.


Apples and oranges. Public safety vs. education. Not equivalent imo. Anarchist


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Apples and oranges. Public safety vs. education. Not equivalent imo. Anarchist


Really? Go to a place where the average person is college educated and then go to a place with a high drop out rate and tell me how equally safe they are. 

If you took all the traffic lights out of Cambridge, Mass it would still be safer than Oakland. 

Education has a ripple effect on society that effects everyone. The more educated the American people are, the better the quality of life for everyone in the country. 

Definitely not apples and oranges. IMO education has a greater impact on public safety than traffic lights.


----------



## deprave (Jun 2, 2011)

really what does that have to do with wanting states to be in charge of education and not national department of education, not a damn thing. give you an inch of misinterpretation and you take it a mile dan lol


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

deprave said:


> really what does that have to do with wanting states to be in charge of education and not national department of education, not a damn thing. give you an inch of misinterpretation and you take it a mile dan lol


Personally I think it's great that budlover is going to school. But if you want him flipping burgers instead vote for Ron Paul.


----------



## beardo (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Really? Go to a place where the average person is college educated and then go to a place with a high drop out rate and tell me how equally safe they are.
> 
> If you took all the traffic lights out of Cambridge, Mass it would still be safer than Oakland.
> 
> ...


 I think uneducated people are happier, some of the happiest people I know are mentally disabled. And I think cambridge has more auto accidents than oakland, but I might be wrong about that, and cambridge is much smaller population wise.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Personally I think it's great that budlover is going to school. But if you want him flipping burgers instead vote for Ron Paul.


I'd pay for my own out of pocket. If i hadn't gotten robbed for John's.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and if i don't support the notion of traffic lights, i shouldn't have to stop at them.


 Except not supporting the frog won't be the cause of its demise, while you not stopping will eventually lead to a situation in which you will infringe on someone's rights.


----------



## deprave (Jun 2, 2011)

*RON PAUL UPDATE FOR TODAY June 2nd 2011 *



Ron Paul hammers the FED (pounds a gavel) - Ron Paul interrogates the FED again.
House financial services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy
[video=youtube;_eExucI3IWs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eExucI3IWs&feature=player_embedded[/video]


*(PPP) Ron Paul in 1st Place!!!*among 18-29 year olds 
according to public policy polling - http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0602.pdf
PPP surveyed 574 usual Republican primary voters nationwide from May 23rd to 25th. - *He would of done better had the polled democrats/independents*


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

deprave said:


> *(PPP) Ron Paul in 1st Place!!!*among 18-29 year olds
> according to public policy polling - http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0602.pdf
> PPP surveyed 574 usual Republican primary voters nationwide from May 23rd to 25th. - *He would of done better had the polled democrats/independents*


If only that demographic voted. 

Maybe he'll be able to convince seniors that medicare and social security should be abolished then he can get a demographic who can vote on his side. 

...or maybe I just think it would be funny to watch seniors throw tomatoes at Ron Paul.


----------



## deprave (Jun 2, 2011)

once again, you don't read the post, the people surveyed are all regular republican voters, only 574 and all republicans


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

deprave said:


> once again, you don't read the post, the people surveyed are all regular republican voters, only 574 and all republicans


Apparently I read it better than you because the only demographic he "wins" is the 18-29 demographic as I correctly stated, not all regular republican voters. 

That's the only demographic Paul carries and in that demographic he's in a 3 way tie for first with Romney and Cain, not out in front. And that's only without Palin in the race. With Palin in the race he drops down to a tie for 3rd with Romney behind Palin and Cain.

It's becoming very questionable if you actually read most of this spam before posting it. 

But congrats on Paul polling in a 3 way tie for first in one demographic that doesn't vote and even then as long as Palin isn't in the race. With that victory he should start picking out decorations for the oval office. That's almost the same thing as winning the election. 

One thing I did learn from reading that poll. about 20% of all republican voters are incomprehensibly stupid.


----------



## deprave (Jun 2, 2011)

*"PPP surveyed 574 usual Republican primary voters nationwide from May 23rd to 25th."*


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

deprave said:


> *"PPP surveyed 574 usual Republican primary voters nationwide from May 23rd to 25th."*


lol. dude. You're embarrassing yourself, stop. For your own sake please actually read over the crap you spam on here to make sure it's even remotely true. In this case it's not. I'm sure you read some blog that claimed it said Ron Paul was leading all candidates among all republican voters, but it doesn't say that.

Yes, the poll surveys all republican voters, but no, Ron Paul did not finish first. He only finished first amongst the 18-29 year old demographic and it was a 3 way tie and he only finishes that high if Palin is not in the race. 

Amongst all voters Ron Paul (11%) is behind Romney (20%), Bachmann (13%), Newt (13%), and Cain (12%). Just a hint, finishing 5th behind Bachmann isn't good news.

Seriously, read the poll for yourself. It doesn't say what you've been told it says. Or you could just continue to look foolish, the choice is yours.

Remember what I tried to tell you that you should do when someone states something as a fact? I said first ask yourself "Is this true?", then find out if it's true for yourself. That's what I did when you posted this. Your willingness to believe people who agree with you has let you down, again. 

Just because someone tells you something you want to hear does not mean what they are saying is true. Please learn that lesson.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 2, 2011)

When I think of a sneaky two faced weasel type of guy, I think of Mr. Alvarez.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 2, 2011)

Here's my demographic poll: http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul,+mitt+romney,+michelle+bachmann,+hermain+cain,+newt+gingrich&date=all&geo=all&ctab=0&sort=0&sa=N

For every search any of the other four candidates get, Ron Paul gets more than 2 searches. Only true competitor is Sarah Palin, she is the leader of the blithering dumb, and ignorant TV crowd.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Here's my demographic poll: http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul,+mitt+romney,+michelle+bachmann,+hermain+cain,+newt+gingrich&date=all&geo=all&ctab=0&sort=0&sa=N
> 
> For every search any of the other four candidates get, Ron Paul gets more than 2 searches.


http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+mitt+romney%2C+hermain+cain%2C+newt+gingrich%2C+sarah+palin&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=mtd&sort=0



> Only true competitor is Sarah Palin, she is the leader of the blithering dumb, and ignorant TV crowd.


And Ron Paul is the leader of the right wing economic extremist nutty cult crowd. 

Sorry, but when I think of Ron Paul the first thing that comes to mind is a militia member wearing a tin foil hat in an underground bunker.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And Ron Paul is the leader of the right wing economic extremist nutty cult crowd.
> 
> Sorry, but when I think of Ron Paul the first thing that comes to mind is a militia member wearing a tin foil hat in an underground bunker.


he needs to take a break from calculating launch trajectories and compulsively stockpiling MREs.


----------



## beardo (Jun 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> he needs to take a break from calculating launch trajectories and compulsively stockpiling MREs.


 You should be stock piling Silver and heirloom seeds for fruits and vegetables. And some kinds of hats can protect you from radiation and radio waves if made correctly.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+mitt+romney%2C+hermain+cain%2C+newt+gingrich%2C+sarah+palin&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=mtd&sort=0
> 
> 
> And Ron Paul is the leader of the right wing economic extremist nutty cult crowd.
> ...


That is exactly what I am. A Nutty militia man wearing a tin foil hat in some underground bunker... Do you think before you say things at all? I can't believe that market freedom is considered an extremist point of view. For gods sakes man created government, government did not create man. Don't get it twisted. Regulation didn't exist with nomadic traders and cavemen.

Anyways.. I must have spelled Newt's name wrong eh. Either way, RP is way up in internet curiosity, which is heavily driven by the younger crowd.

Also, notice how Sarah Palin's searches are driven by her home state of Alaska. Very little interest anywhere else. Ron Paul's home state of TX isn't even on the top 10 list of states, but does show up twice in cities.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

beardo said:


> And some kinds of hats can protect you from radiation and radio waves if made correctly.


would those be tin foil hats? 

*please let them be tin foil hats*


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I can't believe that market freedom is considered an extremist point of view.


And I'm sure Karl Marx couldn't believe that equality for everyone is considered an extremist point of view. 

Call it what you want, but his economic views are to the right of any economic system that has ever been put in place by any industrialized nation ever. When you're to the left or right of any system that has ever been put in place anywhere, yes you're an extremist. That's what an extreme is. 



> For gods sakes man created government, government did not create man. Don't get it twisted.


Man created markets, markets did not create man. Don't get it twisted. Markets are supposed to be for the benefit of the people, people don't exist for the benefit of the market. Don't get it twisted. We can and should regulate markets to make sure they function in the best possible way for the people they are supposed to serve.



> Regulation didn't exist with nomadic traders and cavemen.


Well then check out Somalia, it should be Paradise for you. Government so small you can drown it in a bathtub and free markets! So free you can strait up put a gun to their head and take their shit! Fuck yeah! Full second amendment rights, small government, and free trade! We should rename it RonPaulistan!

Personally, I like not being a caveman, but that's just me. I'll pay my taxes and drive on roads. 



> Anyways.. I must have spelled Newt's name wrong eh. Either way, RP is way up in internet curiosity, which is heavily driven by the younger crowd.


who generally don't vote



> Also, notice how Sarah Palin's searches are driven by her home state of Alaska. Very little interest anywhere else. Ron Paul's home state of TX isn't even on the top 10 list of states, but does show up twice in cities.


Sarah Palin's searches are driven by drolling morons. What's truly amazing is they figured out how to type "Palin" into google.


----------



## beardo (Jun 2, 2011)

Layering the hat with paper will make it more effective at blocking radiation layering it with gold flakes and silver will make it more effective at picking up and transmitting signals. I have one I only wear for when I'm going to be thinking about things I don't want other people to know about and another I wear when I want to to pick up comunications


Dan Kone said:


> would those be tin foil hats?
> 
> *please let them be tin foil hats*


 *Scientific basis*

The notion that a tin foil hat can significantly reduce the intensity of incident radio frequency radiation on the wearer's brain has some scientific validity, as the effect of strong radio waves has been documented for quite some time.[3] A well-constructed tin foil enclosure would approximate a Faraday cage, reducing the amount of (typically harmless) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation inside. A common high school physics demonstration involves placing an AM radio on tin foil, and then covering the radio with a metal bucket. This leads to a noticeable reduction in signal strength. The efficiency of such an enclosure in blocking such radiation depends on the thickness of the tin foil, as dictated by the skin depth, the distance the radiation can propagate in a particular non-ideal conductor. For half-millimeter-thick tin foil, radiation above about 20 kHz (i.e., including both AM and FM bands) would be partially blocked, although tin foil is not sold in this thickness, so numerous layers of tin foil would be required to achieve this effect.[4]


----------



## sync0s (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And I'm sure Karl Marx couldn't believe that equality for everyone is considered an extremist point of view.
> 
> Call it what you want, but his economic views are to the right of any economic system that has ever been put in place by any industrialized nation ever. When you're to the left or right of any system that has ever been put in place anywhere, yes you're an extremist. That's what an extreme is.
> 
> ...


 Time and time again you turn your back on the Constitution with your half witted comments.

The only part I'm going to waste my time on commenting is your point about younger demographic not voting generally. It drove me to look up some statistics. According to http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html (University of Connecticut) 18% of people aged 18-29 voted, while 16% of people 65 and up voted (thus showing younger voters aren't the lowest demographic). The second highest demographic age group of voters is aged 30-44 at 29%, while the highest being 45-64 at 37%. According to http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/09/08/the-average-twitter-user-is-how-old/ the average age for a twitter account is 39, LinkedIn is 44, and the 47% of all internet users are aged 50-64.

The point of the statistics above not only prove myself wrong with my previous post, but also shows that by RP dominating internet searches over most candidates, doesn't isolate him to an 18-29 demographic. It clearly shows he could cover most if not all demographics, with the greater demographics under Ron Paul being the middle groups at which supply 29% and 37% of the voting.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Sarah Palin's searches are driven by drolling morons. What's truly amazing is they figured out how to type "Palin" into google.


note to self... When accusing people of being drooling morons, spell it correctly otherwise it comes into question who the drooling moron is.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> would those be tin foil hats?
> 
> *please let them be tin foil hats*


They are aluminum foil.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 2, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Time and time again you turn your back on the Constitution with your half witted comments.
> 
> The only part I'm going to waste my time on commenting is your point about younger demographic not voting generally. It drove me to look up some statistics. According to http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html (University of Connecticut) 18% of people aged 18-29 voted, while 16% of people 65 and up voted (thus showing younger voters aren't the lowest demographic). The second highest demographic age group of voters is aged 30-44 at 29%, while the highest being 45-64 at 37%. According to http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/09/08/the-average-twitter-user-is-how-old/ the average age for a twitter account is 39, LinkedIn is 44, and the 47% of all internet users are aged 50-64.
> 
> The point of the statistics above not only prove myself wrong with my previous post, but also shows that by RP dominating internet searches over most candidates, doesn't isolate him to an 18-29 demographic. It clearly shows he could cover most if not all demographics, with the greater demographics under Ron Paul being the middle groups at which supply 29% and 37% of the voting.


2008 was a statistical anomaly. voting in that demographic was around double what it was in the past several elections if I remember correctly. You can't use 2008 as an average predictor for that stat. 

Also I question that statistic in terms of seniors. Generally they vote in higher numbers than any other demographic. 

Adding Rick Santorum to the mix indicates the number of internet searches might not be an indicator of how people will vote.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 2, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> 2008 was a statistical anomaly. voting in that demographic was around double what it was in the past several elections if I remember correctly. You can't use 2008 as an average predictor for that stat.
> 
> Also I question that statistic in terms of seniors. Generally they vote in higher numbers than any other demographic.
> 
> Adding Rick Santorum to the mix indicates the number of internet searches might not be an indicator of how people will vote.


Granted your right in many ways, but it's better to look at recent voting trends than old. Also, the skew in voting in 2008 was a big change because people actually cared. A lot of people, especially young, don't vote when they don't understand the candidates and what difference it will make, but someone who catches their attention comes along and rest assured they will vote.

I'm not saying RP searches is a trend as to how people will vote, I'm saying that it is a trend as to how many people are researching the ideals of RP as a candidate. This, in turn, will drive up his support even if only 1% of those searches turns into a new supporter.

Your senior remark is somewhat true but in many standards in the US 55+ is considered a senior (although you can't retire until I believe 62 or something, as far as SS is concerned anyways). Also, take in to account health problems that begin to occur once you're over the age of 65 in many people. I highly doubt someone who has come upon a case of dementia is going to go vote.


----------



## Parker (Jun 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> So you're going to vote for a guy who will try to cut off funding for you to go to school. Genius.
> 
> Congratulations on being tricked by republicans into thinking the best interests of the ultra wealthy are also you're best interests.


You need to STFU. Only a complete horses ass would ignore how inexpensive college was BEFORE Federal loans. The reason college is so expensive is because the universities KNOW the Feds will pay. It's guaranteed. 2k a year to go to school then the Feds loan 2k. 5 k a year to go to school then the Feds loan 5k. 
This is another example of when you subsidize something you get more of it. Instead of giving reach arounds with your girlfriend auntiebuck read a book and learn something you stupid ass.


----------



## Parker (Jun 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they are not mutually exclusive. many people work while getting a degree, like i did.


Beauty College is not a degree douchebag. No actual college would admit you. You couldn't pour piss out of a bucket without instructions.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> So you're going to vote for a guy who will try to cut off funding for you to go to school. Genius.
> 
> Congratulations on being tricked by republicans into thinking the best interests of the ultra wealthy are also you're best interests.


If government stopped subsidizing America's College education you will see the price of tuition fall precipitously.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 3, 2011)

Parker said:


> Beauty College is not a degree douchebag. No actual college would admit you. You couldn't pour piss out of a bucket without instructions.


what smells like aspercreme?


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 3, 2011)

you ppl are delusional if you think Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in El Paso of becoming the next president. black people and hippies still remember what the John Birch Society is all about. the shitty thing is... i agree with all of RPs fiscal views, like i always say, i just know there's poison in the kool-aid. drink up, suckers!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 3, 2011)

Just convinced a 70 and 72 year old couple to vote for Dr Paul! Yay!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 3, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> If government stopped subsidizing America's College education you will see the price of tuition fall precipitously.


Really, because college prices have been going up and up, colleges have been over enrolling students in order to get more money, etc. Hard to believe these schools would just decide to be nice and drop prices.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 3, 2011)

edit - duh


----------



## PetFlora (Jun 3, 2011)

I have supported RP every step of the way. I was shocked to see the words come out of his mouth "Israel is our friend" I am not talking your everyday blue collar jews, I am talking the Zionist jews who govern them and control politics around the world, including our own


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 3, 2011)

oh HELL YES he's a zionist; you see, freemasons think Israel is really theirs. They're just lettin the jews watch it for em till they raze the Temple Mound Mosque to rebuild Solomon's temple. it's all satanic luciferian shite.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Really, because college prices have been going up and up, colleges have been over enrolling students in order to get more money, etc. Hard to believe these schools would just decide to be nice and drop prices.


Half of the increase of tuition every year is simple inflation caused by our government. It's hard to believe people would be nice and just drop the price of their houses 150k too like has been happening due to a lack of demand in the last couple years. Lack of demand usually results in lower prices to increase demand by the suppliers.


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 3, 2011)

[video=youtube;c2OXuXTkBNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2OXuXTkBNQ[/video]

33rd degree freemason, folks.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 3, 2011)

PetFlora said:


> I have supported RP every step of the way. I was shocked to see the words come out of his mouth "Israel is our friend" I am not talking your everyday blue collar jews, I am talking the Zionist jews who govern them and control politics around the world, including our own


brool story, co.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 3, 2011)

bobbypyn said:


> [video=youtube;c2OXuXTkBNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2OXuXTkBNQ[/video]
> 
> 33rd degree freemason, folks.


a conversation between a dolt and a dipshit. entertaining.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> a conversation between a dolt and a dipshit. entertaining.


I really had a hard time decipher who the crazier one was.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I really had a hard time decipher who the crazier one was.


it scares me that their votes count as much as ours. we may disagree, but at least we are based somewhere in the realm of reality.


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it scares me that their votes count as much as ours. we may disagree, but at least we are based somewhere in the realm of reality.


unfortunately, so is the satanist.


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 3, 2011)

I defer to the great danish physicist Neils Bohr's words; "As I understand it, it works whether you believe in it or not." referring to superstition.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Half of the increase of tuition every year is simple inflation caused by our government. It's hard to believe people would be nice and just drop the price of their houses 150k too like has been happening due to a lack of demand in the last couple years. Lack of demand usually results in lower prices to increase demand by the suppliers.


So you think if government stopped supplimenting college tuition the price would go down because demand to go to school would go down?

If that were true, which it's not, how the hell is having less Americans go to college a good thing? I guess the free market economic fans need more people to work in the sweatshops.

But that's not true. The demand for college education hasn't been going down since prices have been going up. Also half of college tuition increases aren't do to inflation. I know it's convenient for you to blame everything on the FED but that's a simpletons answer. It's also bullshit. College tuition has been going up 4x faster than inflation.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it scares me that their votes count as much as ours. we may disagree, but at least we are based somewhere in the realm of reality.


Yea, I always understand where you are coming from even when I strongly disagree. The two people in the video might as well of been scientologists. I really can't place myself in their shoes unless maybe I was brain washed or drugged.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 3, 2011)

bobbypyn said:


> unfortunately, so is the satanist.





bobbypyn said:


> I defer to the great danish physicist Neils Bohr's words; "As I understand it, it works whether you believe in it or not." referring to superstition.


well, that makes it totally sane and logical then.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> So you think if government stopped supplimenting college tuition the price would go down because demand to go to school would go down?
> 
> If that were true, which it's not, how the hell is having less Americans go to college a good thing? I guess the free market economic fans need more people to work in the sweatshops.
> 
> But that's not true. The demand for college education hasn't been going down since prices have been going up. Also half of college tuition increases aren't do to inflation. I know it's convenient for you to blame everything on the FED but that's a simpletons answer. It's also bullshit. College tuition has been going up 4x faster than inflation.


I think if the government had not been supplementing college tuition that the prices would of never gotten to the level they are currently at to begin with. Are there any colleges which can not find students? Colleges have lots of demand for their services at current prices and are turning people down for admission. Much of this is because it is easy for students to borrow thousand and thousands of dollars from the government. If colleges couldn't fill their schools this year because they finally raised the price too high, do you know what would happen? Prices would go down. 

The reason demand hasn't changed since the government keeps giving grants and loans to cover the increased cost of schooling the demand doesn't change. 

Tuition is rising currently around 2x's the speed of inflation. That means half of the increase in cost every year is inflation and completely the feds fault. The other half is supply and demand. The Government is keeping demand high, if demand was less then supply then prices would drop. You didn't take business in school I take it?

Lowering demand and lowering the number of people going to college are not the same thing. In the business sense 'demand' doesn't mean how many people want something. It is more the number of people who want something at a certain price point. In this sense, if the government stopped throwing money like Bender from Futurama at the robot strip club after he purse snatched then people wouldn't be willing to dump as much money for the college. The colleges wouldn't leave classes empty, they would drop prices. The number of consumers wanting the product never changes, just the price they are willing to pay for it. 

Keep in mind that the average prices that students pay for college has not actually kept up with the Consumer Price Index for the last 5 years. This means that most if not all of the increases are being paid by the government and the price for students on average isn't really changing. Almost as if the Government is purposely subsidizing colleges in the dark.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Yea, I always understand where you are coming from even when I strongly disagree. The two people in the video might as well of been scientologists. I really can't place myself in their shoes unless maybe I was brain washed or drugged.


exactly. i can see why you argue what you argue for, even if i find it extreme.

leave it to a ron paul thread to bring out these guys with their freemasons and their lucifer and whatnot.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I think if the government had not been supplementing college tuition that the prices would of never gotten to the level they are currently at to begin with. Are there any colleges which can not find students? Colleges have lots of demand for their services at current prices and are turning people down for admission. Much of this is because it is easy for students to borrow thousand and thousands of dollars from the government. If colleges couldn't fill their schools this year because they finally raised the price too high, do you know what would happen? Prices would go down.
> 
> The reason demand hasn't changed since the government keeps giving grants and loans to cover the increased cost of schooling the demand doesn't change.
> 
> ...


If the government stopped subsidizing colleges, the price wouldn't go down, the cost burden would just be shifted onto the students. The idea that they wouldn't be able to fill up enrollment if they lowered their prices while they are currently denying admissions is just lol. 

All it would do is exclude people who can't afford college. I'm not sure how that is a good thing. I don't think you can fairly punish an 18 year old for not being able to afford college.


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 3, 2011)

I always thought weed made you have heightened perceptions till I got to know some people around here. if it weren't so sad it would be fucking hilarious...

it's going to be truly awesome when all you "too smart to fall for the ol belief in God trick" guys get smacked in the fucking face with 10" of limp reality; then it's gonna be "Oh save me Jebus, save me!" Eternity is a long ass time; choose your fate wisely.


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 3, 2011)

sucks that I'm going to be one of only like 12 people in heaven that know how to grow killer herb. too bad this sense of camaraderie won't be coming with... weak.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 3, 2011)

Wow bobby.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Wow bobby.


i was just going to say "wow", but that is not 10 characters


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> If the government stopped subsidizing colleges, the price wouldn't go down, the cost burden would just be shifted onto the students. The idea that they wouldn't be able to fill up enrollment if they lowered their prices while they are currently denying admissions is just lol.
> 
> All it would do is exclude people who can't afford college. I'm not sure how that is a good thing. I don't think you can fairly punish an 18 year old for not being able to afford college.


LOL you ABSOLUTELY did not take a business class, EVER!! Not even a lowly High school basic econ class. IF government stopped subsidzing College by giving loans out to whomever asked for them I can GUARANTEE with 100% assurance that prices would drop. You obviously never heard of the 90/10 rule, or the law of supply and demand, you should read up on them, when you come back you will be in complete agreement with me and Cath.

Are you being punished because you cannot afford a Rolls Royce? Are you being punished because that $12 million mansion costs more than you can afford? Are you being punished because Harvard costs $30K a year?

EVERY SINGLE PERSON who gets a government loan to go to school, CANNOT AFFORD COLLEGE!!!!!!!! Why do you think they are taking out the loan?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 3, 2011)

Gee bobby, Im sure God isn't going to let you into heaven, he told me so.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 3, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> LOL you ABSOLUTELY did not take a business class, EVER!! Not even a lowly High school basic econ class. IF government stopped subsidzing College by giving loans out to whomever asked for them I can GUARANTEE with 100% assurance that prices would drop. You obviously never heard of the 90/10 rule, or the law of supply and demand, you should read up on them, when you come back you will be in complete agreement with me and Cath.
> 
> Are you being punished because you cannot afford a Rolls Royce? Are you being punished because that $12 million mansion costs more than you can afford? Are you being punished because Harvard costs $30K a year?
> 
> EVERY SINGLE PERSON who gets a government loan to go to school, CANNOT AFFORD COLLEGE!!!!!!!! Why do you think they are taking out the loan?


Really? You think I can't comprehend the idea that if the price goes up on something the demand lowers? GTFO

The real problem here is your simpleton logic. You can't seem to grasp that college prices aren't necessarily based on demand. Their is a huge excess of people who would like to attend college. 

By making more expensive all you're doing is making it less likely for smart kids without a lot of money to go and more likely that less qualified kids go to college because they are well off and can afford it. 

Or as you say, they can take loans. Bigger loans. Putting college grads deeper into debt is a good idea in your opinion? I thought you guys were supposed to be against debt?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 3, 2011)

Jesus got stopped in Arizona on a traffic stop and was deported once they checked his immigration status...WWJD ...well he should have applied for citizenship...


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

PetFlora said:


> I have supported RP every step of the way. I was shocked to see the words come out of his mouth "Israel is our friend" I am not talking your everyday blue collar jews, I am talking the Zionist jews who govern them and control politics around the world, including our own


 Israel is our friend according to history this is fact, maybe you disagree with some thing they have done as you should(they have committed horrible atrocities) but why should we intervene at all in their affairs? Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. I guess you think we should intervene?


----------



## redivider (Jun 3, 2011)

great NoDrama, here's another example why brain-less repetition of economic theory may make sense in classrooms and online forums, but let's take a close look at what you are saying...

you are saying that a way to lower admissions prices in colleges would be to devastate enrollment demand by making government mandated access to financing a thing of the past....

i mean, the numbers and graphs make sense...

but do you really want to use that manipulation of demand to make a point??

let's stop and think how great it would be for our economy if every college student taking government mandated (yet privately administered) student loans would stop receiving that aid, making college inaccessible for millions of students. millions left without finishing their college degrees, millions more on their way out of highschool who wouldn't get a chance to get an education so they need to get a job.... but with less education means less chance to find a job.....

so no job, no education for millions.... what to do with them??? make up fake wars so we can ship them off to die??????? 


the types of market corrections you say will take place would set this country so far back that by then college might as well be free by then....


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 3, 2011)

and what happens when banks decide loaning money to go to college isn't profitable as gambling on the stock market?

The free market has spoken, so a generation of Americans won't be going to college! At what point does worshiping the market become insanity?


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

*Ann Coulter calls Ron Paul fans deviants.
*

"Deviants always try to exaggerate their numbers so as not to feel quite so deviant. Ask any Ron Paul supporter." 
-Ann Coulter.

"Luckily, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain are all happily married to one, and only one, spouse." - Ann Coulter
^
100% a lie 






The republic is saved.

The Ron Paul I Know - Written By Ron Pauls One and Only wife Carol.


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Then in 1968, on July 3rd we arrived in Brazoria County, Texas, and that has been our home since that day. Ron has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and we have been married for more than 50 years. We've raised a family of five children, and they have given us eighteen beautiful grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. We have friends all over the State of Texas as well as friends throughout the United States who believe in limited government. That in itself is a testimony to a great and humble man"[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]- Carol Paul (Ron Paul's Wife)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

"[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So the American Dream came true for a boy who delivered newspapers, a teen-ager who mowed lawns, delivered milk, delivered furniture, delivered laundry, and delivered mail, and for a man who then delivered babies. Now that dream continues with a man who is trying to deliver the message that freedom works and that true patriotism must not grow weak in the hearts of Americans, so that we can hang on to our Republic, for which the Founders gave their last, full measure of devotion.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]" - Carol Paul (Ron Paul's Wife)
[/FONT]


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

*RON PAUL UPDATE FOR TODAY 6/3/2011*


Ron Paul's speech on the floor today about Libya: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=600061455
[video=youtube;cptBMhhXsDI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cptBMhhXsDI[/video]

* Ron Paul campaign comments on latest job numbers *


LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Today, a spokesman for Congressman Ron Paul&#8217;s 2012 Republican presidential campaign remarked on the most recent U.S. jobs report and the state of the American economy. See comments below.

&#8220;If the latest job numbers are any further indication, none of the centralized schemes deployed by Washington's elites are helping regular Americans. As a matter of fact, Barack Obama and the big government crowd are destroying our economy, and our dollar," said Jesse Benton, Paul campaign chairman.

&#8220;Despite the fact that none of the past nearly trillion-dollar economic stimuli have worked, all signs point to the Federal Reserve gearing up for another round of &#8216;quantitative easing&#8217; &#8211; meaning more destruction of the already-weakened dollar. At the same time, we have an official Washington that refuses to acknowledge the looming fiscal crisis our country faces with regards to our debt and continues to spend with no end in sight," continued Benton.

&#8220;We are going to see real suffering in this country if we do not balance our budget and restore sound monetary policy. And we need to do it now.&#8221; 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ron-Pa...07287.html?x=0





*Ron Paul will be on "State of the Union" on Sunday-CNN also on Bloomberg's Political Capital *


Rep. Ron Paul of Texas discusses fiscal policy and his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination

More... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56236.html
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...ing-the-43.php


*Almost up to the June 5th Ron Paul Money Bomb*
We're now seeing the ramp-up to the 2012 Presidential race. Herman Cain has made headlines with surprisingly good showings in recent polls. Mitt Romney has secured $10M in pledges and is launching his high-profile Presidential announcement today. Sarah Palin has her own celebrity roadshow that is attracting massive media attention.

We need to send a bold response.

Let's rally around our choice for President in 2012 and show the nation who has the most passionate, most grassroots, most creative, and most non-Establishment supporters. Let's send a clear message to the GOP Electorate: Ron Paul is a true advocate of limited government, and that is why his supporters rally around him with such enthusiasm. Honestly, I've never admired a politician more than I admire Ron Paul. He has not only been consistent in his message, but more importantly, he's been RIGHT on everything from warning about the failure of our drug wars to the blowback-inducing foreign intervention to the dangerous inflationary bubbles of the 2000s.

There isn't a single candidate who is more consistent, more honest, and more visionary, than Ron Paul.

Let's put our doubts about the Campaign aside and support Ron Paul to the maximum this Sunday, June 5. We need to make this moneybomb bigger than the last one, and show that Ron Paul is a frontrunner in this race.

Let's go, folks. I'm in for my biggest donation I've ever made in my life. 

We're in it to win it. Let's make it happen. Who's with me? Ronpaul2012.com


Ron Paul on National ID CARD

[video=youtube;6GgNfD0vu9c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GgNfD0vu9c&feature=player_embedded[/video]



Ron Paul on Bloomberg Today - Debt Ceiling
Video Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/70496358/

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul talks with Bloomberg's Al Hunt about the U.S. debt ceiling, U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and Federal Reserve monetary policy. Bloomberg's Rich Miller and Hans Nichols discuss the state of the U.S. economy and the Fed's quantitative easing program. Julie Davis talks about the debate over the debt ceiling and a documentary on Sarah Palin to premiere in Iowa next month. Commentators Margaret Carlson and Amity Shlaes discuss the outlook for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as a Republican presidential nominee. (Source: Bloomberg)


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> great NoDrama, here's another example why brain-less repetition of economic theory may make sense in classrooms and online forums, but let's take a close look at what you are saying...
> 
> you are saying that a way to lower admissions prices in colleges would be to devastate enrollment demand by making government mandated access to financing a thing of the past....
> 
> ...


You really believe that without college people can never achieve anything don't you? That without a degree they could never possibly be smart, or employable, because without a piece of paper saying you are smart enough to pass some tests you must be an idiot. Everyone knows that Bill Gates didn't ever graduate from college, neither did Michael Dell or Steven Spielberg. Andrew Jackson, ever heard of him? He didn't go to college. Know who else? John D Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Abraham Lincoln and many others. Those people achieved great success without a degree. 

75% of those people who graduate college this year are not going to find any kind of a job doing what they learned in College. College is a waste for most people, you graduate with a HUGE debt on your hands, and if you default then you can never get any kind of Federal Government services, no SS, no Disabilty, no medicare....Hell if you work in the public sector, you will not even be able to work with federal employees. If you were a nurse someone else would have to do your job when treating federal employees. Most of the kids graduating are going to go back to live with Mom and Dad for a few more years and do some low paying job that has nothing to do with their degree.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 3, 2011)

college education is a waste for most people! If you don't go you'll be Bill Gates and Abraham Lincoln!


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

The average income goes up because of inflation, College doesn't necessarily mean you will get a job or make more money, the most important thing to get a job and make more money is experience and if your passionate enough about something you will get a job without the degree and make more then your coworkers with the degrees who aren't truly passionate and dedicated, College is fun and all, I learned a lot but I didn't learn much that was applicable to work, a lot of the people on that blue line are idiots if they dont make 60k+ they just suck at working.

It can help you get your foot in the door and you have more doors but thats about it, I never worked for a *good* company that took degrees seriously. The most successful people I know never went to college or only took some college, I know lots of people with masters from working at large companys that required a masters and it seems to me they make less money then most everyone.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 3, 2011)

If you go you will be guaranteed at least 51k a year!!!!


----------



## redivider (Jun 3, 2011)

that is so far from the truth it is not even funny.

the correlation has been established, the more educated you are, the higher your salary is likely to be...

convincing people that getting a college education is a waste of money isn't trueee... another situation where political idiology drowns out the facts...


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

not political ideology its just my personal experience.


----------



## Parker (Jun 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> what smells like aspercreme?


your breath?


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

It depends what you do of course...if your going to work for corporate - government contracted jobs - or medical yes you absolutely need a degree, but these people are the ones who most often get the short end of the stick.

Sales & IT examples of high paying jobs that you don't need a degree to do well.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 3, 2011)

deprave said:


> not political ideology its just my personal experience.


Just like a republican to think an anecdote can counter all statistics.


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

cool, I'm not a republican - collectively, personnel experiences are more valuable then statistics, that is just common sense.


----------



## Parker (Jun 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> So you think if government stopped supplimenting college tuition the price would go down because demand to go to school would go down?
> If that were true, which it's not,


You're talking out your ass. It is true, quit getting into discussing when you dont know what you are talking about.
Prices have risen dramatically SINCE the advent of the GOVERNMENT LOANS. How can you not know that? Do you know anything about simple supply and demand you jackass? Demand is not out stripping supply so why are prices going up? Because it's not a free market, because the universities know they will get whatever they ask. It's free money yet again. The same thing that fuels bubbles you asshat.




Dan Kone said:


> how the hell is having less Americans go to college a good thing? I guess the free market economic fans need more people to work in the sweatshops.


maybe in the land of the douchebags that's the only 2 choices. Thats the only choices college or sweatshops? I know plenty of people who've made it without ANY college so quit talking out your ass again.
Did it EVER occur to you there is a percentage of people who do get a degree don't use much that they learned. There is a ton more who don't finish who dont pay back the loan. College is so expensive studies have shown the average person, with planning, can make more money by not going to a 4 year college. The mountain of debt is mind boggling. It has to play on the individuals minds to see it.



Dan Kone said:


> But that's not true. The demand for college education hasn't been going down since prices have been going up. Also half of college tuition increases aren't do to inflation. I know it's convenient for you to blame everything on the FED but that's a simpletons answer. It's also bullshit. College tuition has been going up 4x faster than inflation.


because its"free money". Thats why people still go to school at those prices because they get the loans EASILY. If they couldn't get the loans the prices who drop in order to entice people back. You don't know squat about the basic principle of supply and demand yet you comment. STFU and quit talking out your ass.


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

Im like a smudge above the B in the pink section, sorry best pic i could find on google images. Which is approximately the exact opposite of most of our republican politicians.


----------



## deprave (Jun 3, 2011)

Most of Congress both parties AKA 'Moderates':




Approximately the exact opposite of the people. Ron Paul is right up on the top half of this graph with us.


Ron Paul is running on Liberty, the rest of the candidates try to pretend that they are but they are down there on the bottom of this chart, away from the people, I really believe this is a humanitarian issue, if you support Ron Paul you are with the people, If you do not then you are against the people. It really is the "age of Ron Paul", right now we desperately need this to restore the republic. To narrow the gap between the people and the politicians. Ron Paul is the best solution to this crisis of both economic and personal freedoms.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Great video here, good production value, Ron Paul is optimistic

*RON PAUL: How to Energize Your Republican Base *



[video=youtube;S1TM9ionWl4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TM9ionWl4[/video]

The time has come to give Peace a Chance! End the Wars! Restore the Republic! Defend Liberty!&#65279; Ron Paul 2012!





http://www.unfaircoverage.com said:


> A big problem in getting Ron Paul's name recognition up during the 2008 Presidential cycle was the consistent exclusion and derision he received. At this point, Ron Paul is polling consistently at the top of active contenders in all independent polling, is the top fundraiser, has won the most prominent straw polls, and has very high name recognition. These exclusions can no longer be characterized as mistakes but are an intentional bias.
> 
> Here Time fails to even make one mention of Ron Paul when summarizing the GOP field on 5/19
> http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/19/the-big-questions-gop-12-after-trumphuckabee/
> ...



Ron Paul on Bloomberg Video(I linked this on the last page but it wasn't an embeddable video so here is the embed.
[video=youtube;En7cqNxLLtA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7cqNxLLtA&feature=player_embedded[/video]
​


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Really? You think I can't comprehend the idea that if the price goes up on something the demand lowers? GTFO
> 
> The real problem here is your simpleton logic. You can't seem to grasp that college prices aren't necessarily based on demand. Their is a huge excess of people who would like to attend college.


And a huge excess of people who would like to live in a large castle with servants, be the president, or sleep with a supermodel. However, the laws of supply and demand make that unreasonable. Lots of people who don't have anything go on to do those things though. There is nothing keeping most people back from their dreams except lack of motivation.


> By making more expensive all you're doing is making it less likely for smart kids without a lot of money to go and more likely that less qualified kids go to college because they are well off and can afford it.
> 
> Or as you say, they can take loans. Bigger loans. Putting college grads deeper into debt is a good idea in your opinion? I thought you guys were supposed to be against debt?


You are agreeing with me by those statements. Neither myself nor NoDrama are saying they should go further in debt, we are saying the opposite. We are saying that the Government giving out loans is an issue. Rather than the price coming down to what can be payed for schooling, we are just subsidizing the colleges by giving them money to make up the difference. Colleges are already giving the really smart and hardworking kids free college educations. They give football players, band members, ect ect ect free college because they want them to attend their schools. So the best kids and the kids with talents have a college education waiting regardless. The rich kids parents will put them through school.

Who does that leave? The average students who have grades good enough to go to college but don't have the money to. How are they going to go to college if they don't get free government money or loans from the government? They might have to go to a *GASP* community college. It might take them longer, they might have to live at home, or a ratty apartment near the school. They might have to work a job to put themselves through school. If they don't have the motivation to put themselves through school then they obviously didn't want to go that badly. All poor people have the opportunity to go to school if they have any motivation or intelligence. 

I'm not sure why some people don't understand that the American dream is not to be equal, but to have the opportunity to reach your full potential. If everyone was equal it would mean you would be oppressing half the population.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Israel is our friend according to history this is fact, maybe you disagree with some thing they have done as you should(they have committed horrible atrocities) but why should we intervene at all in their affairs? Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. I guess you think we should intervene?


Israel is only our friend because we empower them to do whatever the hell they want. I don't think they particularly like us, we are more of a weapon.

I think Ron Paul would agree with Thomas Jefferson in regards to Israel, as well as the entire world.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. -Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

redivider said:


> great NoDrama, here's another example why brain-less repetition of economic theory may make sense in classrooms and online forums, but let's take a close look at what you are saying...
> 
> you are saying that a way to lower admissions prices in colleges would be to devastate enrollment demand by making government mandated access to financing a thing of the past....
> 
> ...


 A lot of people only take the government loans because it is the easiest path. If you aren't willing to pay your way through college, maybe you didn't have any reason to go in the first place? Let us be honest. There is not one person in the country who couldn't go to community college and pay their own way - only people who lack the motivation to do so.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> and what happens when banks decide loaning money to go to college isn't profitable as gambling on the stock market?
> 
> The free market has spoken, so a generation of Americans won't be going to college! At what point does worshiping the market become insanity?


Stop pretending like the market wouldn't take care of that itself. Look at online colleges. They are already taking students. Why? It works around your schedule and its cheaper usually. So many people who can't afford to go to harvard or some fancy private college are taking out loans that they can't afford from the government so they can go there instead of going to a community college. Some are just getting outright free money. What would be wrong with them going to a community school?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> college education is a waste for most people! If you don't go you'll be Bill Gates and Abraham Lincoln!


Go ahead and completely ignore the fact that people who go to college are more motivated on average than people who don't and would likely make more even without a college education. Or ignore the fact that your graph doesn't say who is even being counted. Does it count prisoners who are incarcerated, house wives, kids that are actually attending college and have 0 income, homeless people, people on welfare, people who don't want to work. Ignore that the unemployment rate is higher for lower earners so averaging out how much they make without taking that into account is impossible unless the results are only there to prove a point of the person making the graph. 

You know what the graph shows if you more the starting age to 25? A much smaller gap. What happens if you start the chart at 18 and do it based on lifetime earning? Then put the people who go to college in the college categories as they generate 0 income and its because of college that they have 0 income. Then when you look at someone who is 18 making the average of 30k, and the 2 year degree is making 32k you realize that the difference is 2k and those 2 years of your life could of been spent making 60k and that it would take about 35 years for the 2 year degree holder to make back that money and the money spent on college. Then you have to account for the people who went to college and aren't doing the job they went to school for. You start to realize that there are a lot of people who wasted time and money going to college. When you account for the income loss and paying for school the first 4 years, the gap is much smaller and honest. This graph does none of that. Then you have to just stop and think.. no stupid people are going to go to college 4 or 8 years, they won't have the ability. Where as some very intelligent people that make good money don't ever go to college. Motivation is the key to success, not intelligence or education. 

If we pretend like all those gaping flaws aren't there, then sure, the graph proves that going to college is always the right thing to do.


----------



## 0011StealTH (Jun 4, 2011)

vote for
0011stealth for 2012


----------



## redivider (Jun 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Go ahead and completely ignore the fact that people who go to college are more motivated on average than people who don't and would likely make more even without a college education. Or ignore the fact that your graph doesn't say who is even being counted. Does it count prisoners who are incarcerated, house wives, kids that are actually attending college and have 0 income, homeless people, people on welfare, people who don't want to work. Ignore that the unemployment rate is higher for lower earners so averaging out how much they make without taking that into account is impossible unless the results are only there to prove a point of the person making the graph.
> 
> You know what the graph shows if you more the starting age to 25? A much smaller gap. What happens if you start the chart at 18 and do it based on lifetime earning? Then put the people who go to college in the college categories as they generate 0 income and its because of college that they have 0 income. Then when you look at someone who is 18 making the average of 30k, and the 2 year degree is making 32k you realize that the difference is 2k and those 2 years of your life could of been spent making 60k and that it would take about 35 years for the 2 year degree holder to make back that money and the money spent on college. Then you have to account for the people who went to college and aren't doing the job they went to school for. You start to realize that there are a lot of people who wasted time and money going to college. When you account for the income loss and paying for school the first 4 years, the gap is much smaller and honest. This graph does none of that. Then you have to just stop and think.. no stupid people are going to go to college 4 or 8 years, they won't have the ability. Where as some very intelligent people that make good money don't ever go to college. Motivation is the key to success, not intelligence or education.
> 
> If we pretend like all those gaping flaws aren't there, then sure, the graph proves that going to college is always the right thing to do.


maybe if you removed the the blinders. you would know that all the 'gaps' are really your attempt to correct a trend that has been so solidly cemented as fact by the scientific community that you have to make up mathematical inaccuracies.

all of the 'gaps' would be considered unacceptable data manipulation by any serious researcher.

you just need to swallow this dose of reality:

A COLLEGE EDUCATION WILL LEAD TO A HIGHER PAYING CAREER, NO MATTER WHAT FIELD YOU ARE IN.

there were once high-paying jobs where you acquire the knowledge through work, and don't really need the degree. but those fields have all been 'outsourced' by companies b/c conservatives in the name of the free market decimated america's manufacturing sector through de-regulation.

i cannot believe there's actually a 'political ideology' that somehow perverts itself into convincing it's followers that a college education isn't worth it.

and community colleges don't really count into this whole education thing b/c most community colleges don't offer complete programs of advance science or math applications.

most programs in community college involve associates in nursing, computer technicians, clerical theory etc. not even bachelor's degrees, it's mostly certificates of completion or associate's degrees if you are lucky.

some schools around here don't even have entire programs. it's just random classwork and a list of 'equivalents' in other larger state or private colleges, so you can replace several credits and save money by taking the course in the community college, but the majority of your education and the university mentioned on the degree would be the larger institution....

and a college education can really load you with debt. that's why you need to have good grades, and play sports, so you can get a scholarship. that's what i did.  

bachelor's of science in business. no debt.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

i worked at the in-state college i went to. raised near $100,000 in my best year soliciting donations from the alumni. you know who were the stingiest people that gave the least? the incomplete degrees. i hated working that list.

for any argument that people want to present for college being a ripoff, i can easily counter it 10 times over by going to craigslist and pulling an ad that requires a college degree to do some $12 an hour job. hell, i missed out on a job pet sitting because i dropped out to work.


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Go ahead and completely ignore the fact that people who go to college are more motivated on average than people who don't and would likely make more even without a college education. Or ignore the fact that your graph doesn't say who is even being counted. Does it count prisoners who are incarcerated, house wives, kids that are actually attending college and have 0 income, homeless people, people on welfare, people who don't want to work. Ignore that the unemployment rate is higher for lower earners so averaging out how much they make without taking that into account is impossible unless the results are only there to prove a point of the person making the graph.
> 
> You know what the graph shows if you more the starting age to 25? A much smaller gap. What happens if you start the chart at 18 and do it based on lifetime earning? Then put the people who go to college in the college categories as they generate 0 income and its because of college that they have 0 income. Then when you look at someone who is 18 making the average of 30k, and the 2 year degree is making 32k you realize that the difference is 2k and those 2 years of your life could of been spent making 60k and that it would take about 35 years for the 2 year degree holder to make back that money and the money spent on college. Then you have to account for the people who went to college and aren't doing the job they went to school for. You start to realize that there are a lot of people who wasted time and money going to college. When you account for the income loss and paying for school the first 4 years, the gap is much smaller and honest. This graph does none of that. Then you have to just stop and think.. no stupid people are going to go to college 4 or 8 years, they won't have the ability. Where as some very intelligent people that make good money don't ever go to college. Motivation is the key to success, not intelligence or education.
> 
> If we pretend like all those gaping flaws aren't there, then sure, the graph proves that going to college is always the right thing to do.


nailed it. Graphs don't show important variables. Like debt. The person not in college has the opportunity to make money and invest.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 4, 2011)

redivider said:


> maybe if you removed the the blinders.


Yeah, what's wrong with you, Cathoris, remove those blinders. 



redivider said:


> you would know that all the 'gaps' are really your attempt to correct a trend that has been so solidly cemented as fact by the scientific community that you have to make up mathematical inaccuracies.


The earth centered universe and the flat earth beliefs were also "solidly cemented as fact by the scientific community", at one time.



redivider said:


> all of the 'gaps' would be considered unacceptable data manipulation by any serious researcher.


We wouldn't want to contaminate the results with ALL the facts.



redivider said:


> you just need to swallow this dose of reality:


Cathoris, there you go, again... you just need a dose of reality... after you remove those blinders



redivider said:


> A COLLEGE EDUCATION WILL LEAD TO A HIGHER PAYING CAREER, NO MATTER WHAT FIELD YOU ARE IN.


LeBron James seems to have done alright and I don't think a degree is going to help him make more money. (or Bill Gates)



redivider said:


> there were once high-paying jobs where you acquire the knowledge through work, and don't really need the degree. but those fields have all been 'outsourced' by companies b/c conservatives in the name of the free market decimated america's manufacturing sector through de-regulation.


I wish I could find this "free market" that some people keep blaming all of our troubles on.



redivider said:


> i cannot believe there's actually a 'political ideology' that somehow perverts itself into convincing it's followers that a college education isn't worth it.


You're not spinning things now, you are twisting words in a vain attempt to make others look bad. Tsk, tsk, tsk. So transparent.



redivider said:


> and community colleges don't really count into this whole education thing b/c most community colleges don't offer complete programs of advance science or math applications. most programs in community college involve associates in nursing, computer technicians, clerical theory etc. not even bachelor's degrees, it's mostly certificates of completion or associate's degrees if you are lucky.


Yeah, those worthless community colleges, they should just close their doors. They don't educate anybody, they're just a rip off... only a degree from a formal college or university is worth a mountain of debt.



redivider said:


> and a college education can really load you with debt. that's why you need to have good grades, and play sports, so you can get a scholarship. that's what i did.


There you go, Cathoris, all high schoolers have to do is get an athletic scholarship and they won't have to go into debt. AND, the athletic department will make sure that all their grades will be passing, so they don't have to waste time studying.


----------



## redivider (Jun 4, 2011)

important variables????

more like unscientific talking points.

he cannot even provide quantitative proof of the talking points.

unlike the graphs, which mathematically prove the idea that going to college means that you are probably going to earn a lot more money.... no matter what industry you are in...

the talking points he used above are so esoteric and questionable in nature that putting them to use in actual scientific analyses is a practical impossibility....

w/e... believe what you want.


----------



## redivider (Jun 4, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Yeah, what's wrong with you, Cathoris, remove those blinders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the problem is you keep referring to 'facts' that are nothing more than supposition and unfounded, unproven hear say.

lebron james and bill gates are extremely rare cases which cannot be taken into consideration. look at the term 'outliers' in statistics. when researchers want to find a trend any value that goes beyond a mathematically established boundary is considered an 'outlier', an exceptional case which is not likely to be repeated. that is LEbron James, that's bill gates. 

the exceptional cases which cannot be considered part of a trend. the trend is that college educated people earn more than non-college educated ones. no amount of spin you put on it is going to change that.

let me repeat it:

IF YOU GO TO COLLEGE YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO EARN A LOT MORE MONEY THAN IF YOU DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE. IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU??

HOW BOUT ANOTHER COLOR:

IF YOU GO TO COLLEGE YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO EARN A LOT MORE MONEY THAN IF YOU DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE


but whatever.... it's not like facts matter with you guys.....


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

redivider said:


> a trend that has been so solidly cemented as fact by the scientific community


Sorry red, those numbers weren't made up by a scientist, there was no control group, no hypothesis to test, no science involved, but you go ahead and think there is.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 4, 2011)

If you really look at the rich and famous, there is a hole hell of a lot of them who don't have degrees in anything. 



> *Average net worth of a Forbes 400 member with a college degree: $2.13 billion
> 
> Average net worth of a Forbes 400 member without college degree: $2.27 billion*


*

http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/28/cx_dd_0728mondaymatch.html

In addition, a chart early displayed an advanced or doctoral degree making an average of $78,000 a year, but what does this matter when you leave school if you have $250k+ in debt. In an unrealistic no bill world that would take them 3.33 years to pay off if every single penny they earned paid their school debt. Look at someone who is straight out of high school getting a job that pays $20,000. After that 8 years that a doctor will be schooling you would have made $160,000, while they earned nothing and actually lost $250,000 making a difference of $410,000. Despite the hire income, if someone in the doctors situation paid 20% of their income (which is reasonably high considering they say you shouldn't spend anything more on than that on your housing expenses) they will essentially be playing catch up with the non degree worker for the rest of their life. To pay off their debt at a rate of 100% of their income per year would take them 8 years just to be right with the the non degree worker. And lets be honest, how many people hold a job for 16 years at $20,000 per year without a substantial promotion or raise. these are using constants
*


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

redivider said:


> important variables????
> 
> more like unscientific talking points.
> 
> ...


 LOL Neutron made your argument look like that of a five year old having a temper tantrum. He really did decimate your argument.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> LeBron James seems to have done alright and I don't think a degree is going to help him make more money. (or Bill Gates)


damn it! So if I would have skipped college I would have been LeBron James??!!? I had no idea.

It's starting to make sense why conservatives have convinced their supporters they don't need college. One statistics class and their whole ideology would go to shit.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> LOL Neutron made your argument look like that of a five year old having a temper tantrum. He really did decimate your argument.


not really.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

I know some people who went to college, but they didn't learn anything and now have a lot of debt to pay off, but can only find waiter jobs, or minimum wage jobs. College isn't for everyone and going to college guarantees NOTHING in the way of increased wages. McDonalds employees make minimum wage no matter how much college you have.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

Fucking paraplegic and Jerry's kids who are smart can't go to college, can't get a athletic scholarship. Fuck them, they can work at McDonalds.


----------



## redivider (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Sorry red, those numbers weren't made up by a scientist, there was no control group, no hypothesis to test, no science involved, but you go ahead and think there is.


actually. the hypothesis is that having a college education means you earn more money

h0: null hypothesis: having a college degree or not doesn't affect how much you earn.

h1: alternate hypothesis: having a college degree affects how much you earn.

Test: average wages of college educate folks is greater than the average wages of non-college educated folks.

Results, every conceivable source can show us that the average wage of college educated folks is for the most part one standard deviation or more greater than that of those who chose to bypass a college education.

seems my argument that got decimated has some pretty solid science backing it up.

him, on the other hand.....


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I know some people who went to college, but they didn't learn anything and now have a lot of debt to pay off, but can only find waiter jobs, or minimum wage jobs. College isn't for everyone and going to college guarantees NOTHING in the way of increased wages. McDonalds employees make minimum wage no matter how much college you have.


anecdotal stories > statistics. The only way conservatism works.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> not really.


 Yeah he did, you went to college and got a degree right? You are working full time in your field of choice making at least 51K right now correct?

Dan is, im sure hes making huge bank working in his field of choice which must be basketball or football.


----------



## redivider (Jun 4, 2011)

like i said before, i have a bachelor's of science. 

they actually teach you something in those classrooms.

it's not just sex, drugs, and party....


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> anecdotal stories > statistics. The only way conservatism works.


So you don't know any college educated stupid people? You only need to look in the mirror to find one.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

I would rather have a degree then not..but you keep raising your kids thinking that you don't need college..I will make sure mine go...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Yeah he did, you went to college and got a degree right? You are working full time in your field of choice making at least 51K right now correct+


learned enough to know i wasn't learning, dropped out to work making decent money. kinda wish i had stayed now that the bottom fell out of the market.

no regrets though, i do what i love and scrape by.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> So you don't know any college educated stupid people? You only need to look in the mirror to find one.


seriously, that is your rebuttal? "you are stupid"?

weak as hell.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

New Ron Paul Clips for today 6/4/11 - Ok we got several new Ron Paul videos today - I am going to break each down into separate posts.

Ron Paul speaks at the faith and freedom coalition conference appealing to social conservatives 6/4/11
*Ron Paul "We Should Not Have These Perpetual Wars!" *

Ron also discusses his pro-life stance and religion. Ron Paul the only real christian, the only veteran, and the only anti-interventionist candidate running! Connects these thoughts to the fall of the republic - the new theocracy our authoritarian politicians promote. The main focus of the speech is about the offensive perpetual wars.
[video=youtube;O_z0vC6rQv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_z0vC6rQv4[/video]


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

redivider said:


> like i said before, i have a bachelor's of science.
> 
> they actually teach you something in those classrooms.
> 
> it's not just sex, drugs, and party....


 A BS in what? I have a BS also, but mine is in Business, what is yours in ? Basket Weaving? Dramatic Arts?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> seriously, that is your rebuttal? "you are stupid"?
> 
> weak as hell.


 No, my point, in case you couldn't tell, was that just because you have a college degree does not mean you are intelligent or deserving of higher pay. You don't have a degree, yet I would say you were many fold smarter than Dan, who does have a degree. You see what im getting at? Dan says that unequivocally if you go to college you will be employed automatically at a higher rate of pay than one who doesn't, which just isn't true at all, in fact its a bald faced lie. The person who gets paid the most is the one who does the best job, they don't really give a shit if you have some boring 4 year degree.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Dan is, im sure hes making huge bank working in his field of choice which must be basketball or football.


Actually I did just fine working in the field of my choice. I just decided the corporate world isn't for me and started growing bud instead. Is that a problem? I do not regret college at all even though I'm no longer working in the field of my degree. What I learned will be with me forever and no one can take that away from me. 

I'm not a statistically normal example. My ex girlfriend who I lived with at the time is now a VP at her company and has been making six figures since she was in her mid 20's. She could have never gotten that job without her education.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Dan says that unequivocally if you go to college you will be employed automatically at a higher rate of pay than one who doesn't


i haven't read this whole thing, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that ON AVERAGE (not automatically) those with degrees out earn those who do not have degrees. and i am sure that is what he was getting at, and that if he said "automatically" then you are just twisting his meaning to try to make him look stupid. which doesn't reflect very well on you.



NoDrama said:


> they don't really give a shit if you have some boring 4 year degree.


go check the classifieds. they do give a shit if you have some boring degree, and you can forget about even applying if you don't have it.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

I learned a lot in college but I didn't learn how to make money in the workforce, Unclebuck mentions he can find a job on craigslist that "requires" a degree for 12$ an hour, do they really "require" a degree....If they are a smaller company and not contracted by the goverment, hell no they do not require a degree, if you go to that interview and tell them your passion for basket weaving and how you want to make a career of it your likely to get the job and do well......

Aside from government contracted jobs (which to be fair is a lot of jobs encompassing many fields) you don't need a degree to make good money, does it help you get your foot in the door? sure. Can a degree give u the secuirty to always have a good job? sure....Is college a hell of a lot of fun and do you learn a whole lot? yep

but the truth is if your motivated enough you get a lot of jobs without a degree and Id argue that the passionate hard workers who are motivated and intelligent often make more money then those with a degree that work for the establishment. I have been in both boats myself - in sales & IT I made more money then the jobs I had for government or government contractors which actually required a degree.


----------



## redivider (Jun 4, 2011)

it is not a lie.

no matter how bad the economy gets, even in these times where college educated folks are working the worst jobs just to get by, even now, college educated kids are more likely to find a higher paying job than non-college educated/

and if you dig a little deeper you see a sharp increase in college education rates among workers right along the 40k line.

that means that you can reasonably expect to have your salary plateau at 40k without a college degree. with an undergraduate degree the plateau lies around 65k. 

graduate degrees plateau closer to 70-100k, depending on your field.

nvmd the facts.

we are in a weak economy, finding jobs is hard for even the most educated amongst us.... that means that not going to college is the smart choice, b/c you won't be hampered with all the debt and you'll earn the low wages anyways.....

thank god we all see through this bullshit b/c america would just nosedive into a pit of ignorance with ND's advice.....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> ...but the truth is if your motivated enough you get a lot of jobs without a degree...


i'm super-motivated to work in a research lab studying nanotechnology, but all that motivation doesn't mean dick to them for some reason. fuck them.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm super-motivated to work in a research lab studying nanotechnology, but all that motivation doesn't mean dick to them for some reason. fuck them.


You should tell them to open their eyes and that college is just a scam purported by the lame stream media. I'm sure if you do that they'll give you a job.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You should tell them to open their eyes and that college is just a scam purported by the lame stream media. I'm sure if you do that they'll give you a job.


i'll bring my laptop to the interview and play a few clips of ron paul and alex jones to really drive the point home.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm super-motivated to work in a research lab studying nanotechnology, but all that motivation doesn't mean dick to them for some reason. fuck them.


 yep - well if you work in a research lab studying nanotechnology your essentially government contracted business, ya your gonna need a degree, as a I said, there is a lot of jobs thats do require a degree, but how much money you make and your degree do not ALWAYS correlate directly assuming your an intelligent motivated passionate individual in your craft and your not working for a big corporation or government contracted job. Private sector jobs make the most money and generally you do not need a degree, you just need to know what your doing and be good at it, or get some lucky breaks. (don't count on the later without high charisma and/or good work ethic).

Should you get a degree? Hell yes, College is awesome, you learn a lot and it is very usefull, DO YOU NEED A DEGREE AND IS THERE A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN HOW MUCH MONEY YOU MAKE AND YOUR LEVEL OF EDUCATION ? Not always! I am walking proof,I make twice the income I did working public sector jobs that required a masters and I work with college dropouts who make just as much as me. You guys are arguing this as if there is a direct connection and using trends to argue this.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> No, my point, in case you couldn't tell, was that just because you have a college degree does not mean you are intelligent or deserving of higher pay. You don't have a degree, yet I would say you were many fold smarter than Dan, who does have a degree. You see what im getting at? Dan says that unequivocally if you go to college you will be employed automatically at a higher rate of pay than one who doesn't, which just isn't true at all, in fact its a bald faced lie. The person who gets paid the most is the one who does the best job, they don't really give a shit if you have some boring 4 year degree.


How would you know how to do your job or do the best job without a degree..hell would you let a Teacher teach your child without going to college...would you let a Doctor operate on you without a degree..???.would you let an Accountant count your money without going to school.??? hell I wouldn't let you manage a store without one..but I would let you work the counter, but that only pays 9.25 an hr.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The person who gets paid the most is the one who does the best job


Unless your in a union.


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

How do you tell which people in the 12th grade will make more money down the line? The ones with the higher GPA of course, 
But don't the ones with the higher GPA go to college? of course
So the ones with the higher GPA but don't go to college will they make more money than the ones with lower GPA that dont go to college? of course
Why is that? because the ones with the low GPAs dont do shit. Why would that change because they finished high school?

if you take the bottom 10 percent of a graduating class stick them in a 4 year college and compare that to the the top 10 percent you have forced to not go to college but work instead. Who will come out ahead? If you said the bottom 10 percent because they went to college then you are probably in that bottom 10 percent of your graduating class and a verifiable dumbass.

I can respect someone for going to school and getting a degree. Why get yourself in a mountain of debt though?

Rarely has anyone here at 18 sat down and put paper to pencil, figuring projected costs and income. We bought into the koolaid at a young age."You need an education to succeed." So we can't be wrong, right? For a lot of people that is true for many others it isn't.
You want to succeed more than the average bear? Be your own boss.
Schools out


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

New Ron Paul interview
- Ron Paul says he would bring all the troops home -
[video=youtube;5fBjFzmWGPU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fBjFzmWGPU[/video]


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> How would you know how to do your job or do the best job without a degree..hell would you let a Teacher teach your child without going to college...would you let a Doctor operate on you without a degree..???.would you let an Accountant count your money without going to school.??? hell I wouldn't let you manage a store without one..but I would let you work the counter, but that only pays 9.25 an hr.


Does an a/c repairman need a degree? What about a plumber? Plenty of good paying jobs that don't need degrees.
Speaking of accounting it's getting the CPA that is the big boost to income. You can get that without a degree. I'd rather have someone who went through a couple years at an accounting trade school (if there was such a thing) than someone who went to a 4 year college. What do I care if my accountant got good grades at speech, or a foreign language, or astronomy, or biology?


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Actually I did just fine working in the field of my choice. I just decided the corporate world isn't for me and started growing bud instead. Is that a problem? I do not regret college at all even though I'm no longer working in the field of my degree. What I learned will be with me forever and no one can take that away from me.
> 
> I'm not a statistically normal example. My ex girlfriend who I lived with at the time is now a VP at her company and has been making six figures since she was in her mid 20's. She could have never gotten that job without her education.


The journey of college was fun. I'm sure I would have had an interesting journey in another area had I not gone. 

But speaking monetarily. How much money you would have earned selling bud and factor that with much money you would have saved, by not spending it on college during that same time. Including all expenses related, books, loans, interest.....
that's the rub.

a female in her mid 20's, VP, making 6 figures, is not the norm
neither is a person in their mid 20's with a hs diploma making 6 figures playing basketball


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Lets get back to this political graph because it explains the liberty movement well, at the red dot you have Ron Paul (argueably he is a smidge to the right of the red dot) .....The entire top half of this graph encompass the American people. Now if you take a line and draw it straight across just below the bottom centrist line, below this line you have the majority of politicians, at least you have all of Ron Paul's opponents. This is the gap between the people and politicians that has been gradually getting wider. If Ron Paul is elected this gap would shrink.




So really what we have is the liberty movement which is essentially a humanitarian cause...Supporting Ron Paul's campaign is in essence support for our republic.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Lets get back to this political graph because it explains the liberty movement well, at the red dot you have Ron Paul (argueably he is a smidge to the right of the red dot) .....The entire top half of this graph encompass the American people. Now if you take a line and draw it straight across just below the centrist line, below this line you have the majority of politicians, at least you have all of Ron Paul's opponents. This is the gap between the people an politicians that has been gradually getting wider. If Ron Paul is elected this gap would shrink.
> 
> 
> View attachment 1633257


ha, ron paul is NOT a libertarian. he is only libertarian when convenient.

do you think he would stand ANY chance at getting the nomination if he espoused the libertarian principle on abortion? his chances would drop from 0.0000000000001% directly down to 0%.

i repeat, ron paul is NOT a libertarian.


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ha, ron paul is NOT a libertarian. he is only libertarian when convenient.
> 
> do you think he would stand ANY chance at getting the nomination if he espoused the libertarian principle on abortion? his chances would drop from 0.0000000000001% directly down to 0%.
> 
> i repeat, ron paul is NOT a libertarian.


Ron Paul has some libertarian ideas when it comes to government. He believes in following the Constitution. Convenience has nothing to do with it. He is very principled, something you weren't taught, you filthy cockroach.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ha, ron paul is NOT a libertarian. he is only libertarian when convenient.
> 
> do you think he would stand ANY chance at getting the nomination if he espoused the libertarian principle on abortion? his chances would drop from 0.0000000000001% directly down to 0%.
> 
> i repeat, ron paul is NOT a libertarian.


Umm the libertarian principle would be that states can decide how they will handle Abortion. Can't have that now can we? How do you like them apples?


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Regardless how you score Ron Paul - he is still up at the top with the people, while other politicians are down at the bottom making out with the fortune 100, so thats beside the point UncleBuck.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

Parker said:


> Does an a/c repairman need a degree? What about a plumber? Plenty of good paying jobs that don't need degrees.
> Speaking of accounting it's getting the CPA that is the big boost to income. You can get that without a degree. I'd rather have someone who went through a couple years at an accounting trade school (if there was such a thing) than someone who went to a 4 year college. What do I care if my accountant got good grades at speech, or a foreign language, or astronomy, or biology?


Dude school is school...be it college , trade school or what...my argument is in this world you need a degree or certification to get any job that will pay you decent...every job you just named requires such and if you plan on expanding your trade to be your boss you will need to take some kind of business management classes which will lead you back to college


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

so you think to be a successful plumber that you need a degree, last time I had plumber over he was drinking a 40oz and he came over in a new camaro, to own your business you absolutely need a degree? laughable, what kind of fantasy world do you live in and why didn't I find it when I was jobless with a degree, I got my degree and made up to a whooping 40k-70k a year(sarcasm) a long side my colleagues while helping business and sales people who made twice my income and dropped out of high school - then I went into IT an industry which I had no formal experience or studies in and started working with college dropouts who make 100K+....my life lesson here..degree =! wealth , somehow you missed this lesson along the way. Again, not dissing college, I love college and learned a lot, but it didn't help me make good money.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> so you think to be a successful plumber that you need a degree, last time I had plumber over he was drinking a 40oz and he came over in a new camaro, to own your business you absolutely need a degree, what kind of fantasy world do you live in and why didn't I find it when I was jobless with a degree, I got my degree and made up to a whooping 40k-70k a year(sarcasm) a long side my colleagues while helping business and sales people who made twice my income and dropped out of high school - then I went into IT an industry which I had no formal experience or studies in and started working with college dropouts who make 100K+....my life lesson here..degree =! wealth , somehow you missed this lesson along the way.


ok you work in the IT field as what...????? Do you have any Certs...????did you have to go to school to get your certs...???? You can own your business without a degree never said you couldn't, but you would manage it much better by taking some business managment courses...this I know for a fact....but hey if you happy not going to school then I'm fine with it ...makes it easier for me and others... again what do you do in the IT field ?????


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

I have no certifications, I studied on my own merrit as did the majority of my co-workers, I work with Linux for a hosting company. I do have degrees, I don't use them, when I did use them I made lower class wages. The company I work for now didn't even look at my resume, they only cared about what I could do and that I wanted to do this as a career, I never even finished filling out the application.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

Parker said:


> Ron Paul has some libertarian ideas when it comes to government. He believes in following the Constitution. Convenience has nothing to do with it. He is very principled, something you weren't taught, you filthy cockroach.


agree, he has SOME libertarian ideas. we could probably both agree he has A LOT of libertarian ideas. but not all.

oh, i am a filthy cockroach? darn, i was under the impression that i was a human. this is turning into some kafka-esque nightmare. fuck.

what smells like adult depends and hard candy?


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

*Thomas Woods speaks on Nullification at Nullify Now Los Angeles *

A key person in the liberty movement
[video=youtube;qp5hMiTS2dg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5hMiTS2dg&feature=player_embedded[/video]

http://www.myfreesociety.com Thomas E. Woods gives his strongest speech yet on the topic of Nullification at Nullify Now in Los Angeles. Thomas Woods is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute http://www.mises.org and a bestselling author of "Meltdown," "Nullification," and "Rollback." The Nullify Now conference is sponsored by The Foundation for a Free Society http://www.f4fs.org and the Tenth Amendment Center http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

In the video above, woods explains the media spin on the liberty movement and the information war using comedy, highly recommended speech on this topic and other topics such as states rights. The liberty movement is alive and well, and its stronger than ever, this has been building up for more than 30 years and it will prevail, Ron Paul is our chance to really kick this off for the people.

As mentioned above in the video during the first part of the speech - The Interview with a Zombie!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> I have no certifications, I studied on my own merrit as did the majority of my co-workers, I work with Linux for a hosting company. I do have degrees, I don't use them, when I did use them I made lower class wages. The company I work for now didn't even look at my resume, they only cared about what I could do and that I wanted to do this as a career, I never even finished filling out the application.


buddy you one of the lucky ones...Most employers would want to see some certs...and are you speaking of linux as in "Unix family" or a company name Linux..never mind sounds like you just doing web hosting...I thought when you said IT field you meant Data Security Analyst, Data Modeler, Network / Systems Security Admin, etc etc.... you know something that going to pays the 6 figures, because if you trying to reach those goals you will need school..and if you ever want to reach the top paying job in your field ( CIO ) you better start getting some certs..


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> agree, he has SOME libertarian ideas. we could probably both agree he has A LOT of libertarian ideas. but not all.
> 
> oh, i am a filthy cockroach? darn, i was under the impression that i was a human. this is turning into some kafka-esque nightmare. fuck.
> 
> what smells like adult depends and hard candy?


 You forget Ron Paul founded the Tea Party, the new liberty movement is ALL ABOUT RON PAUL, A LOT of libertarian ideas is an understatement, Ron Paul has been scored at the tippy top of this chart before. So i think a lot of people would dispute your claim that Ron Paul is not a libertarian, even when scoring the abortion he would be placed as a right leaning libertarian or at best a "reagan republican' which is essentially still a libertarian.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> You forget Ron Paul founded the Tea Party, the new liberty movement is ALL ABOUT RON PAUL, A LOT of libertarian ideas is an understatement, Ron Paul has been scored at the tippy top of this chart before.


And by that you mean his views were the furthest to the right. That's what a high score is there. 

Just proof he's a far right extremist. Extremes don't work because no ideology is flawless, they all have major flaws.I'd rather have a president who acknowledges that fact and does was a smart president should do, incorporate all the proven best part from all ideologies.



> at best a "reagan republican' which is essentially still a libertarian.


Really? Massive deficit spending, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and expanding the size of government is essentially still a libertarian?


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

LOL WOW! - Dan you should really watch the nullification speech above.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

by that logic anything not included in the 1inch gap that is between Hillary and Mitt Romney are extreme aren't they? and that just doesn't work!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> LOL WOW! - Dan you should really watch the nullification speech above.


Interesting how you don't refute anything I said and instead direct me towards your propaganda videos.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> by that logic anything not included in the 1inch gap that is between Hillary and Mitt Romney are extreme aren't they? and that just doesn't work!


So you're saying is what we need is a right wing extremist president? 

How is that any different from someone on the far far left wanting a communist president?


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Every great hero in history does not fit between the 1 inch gap that is Hillary Clinton <> Mitt Romney.......Every great president...


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Ron Paul is not a "Right wing extremist" that's ridiculous.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Every great hero in history does not fit between the 1 inch gap that is Hillary Clinton <> Mitt Romney.......Every great president...


Ok. Well show me a democratically elected head of state as far to the right as Ron Paul in the industrialized world that has been successful and I'll shut up right now.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Ron Paul is not an extreme to the right...Ron Paul is for a lot of Social liberty so that is disingenuous to place him far to the right enough to consider it extreme. 

Again, Unless your idea of extreme is outside that 1 inch gap, In that case I guess you think JFK, MLK, CARTER, MalcomX, Jefferson and every other great hero is extreme, see I can use your own bullshit arguments against you also, I can do that 2, as opposed to arguing based on common sense, retarded isn't it?

Ron Paul is a racist and thats that so lets just not talk about right? Ron Paul is an extremist and extremism doesn't work so thats that and la tee da lets follow the moderates on the same old path of less liberty and more tyranny? Right? My life is good so they must know what they are doing?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul is not an extreme to the right...Ron Paul is for a lot of Social liberty so that is disingenuous to place him far to the right enough to consider it extreme.


If what you're saying is true, then it should be really easy to shut me up with an example of a democratically elected world leader who was fiscally to the right of Ron Paul.

Of course what you say isn't true. Ron Paul is an extremist, you just happen to agree with that extreme. 



> Again, Unless your idea of extreme is outside that 1 inch gap, In that case I guees you think JFK, MLK, CARTER, MalcomX and every other great hero is extreme, see I can use your own bullshit nullification arguments against you also, retarded isn't it?


JFK and Carter's economic policies were to the right of republican president Dwight Eisenhower. So lol @ them being extremists.

Last time I checked MLK and Malcom X were elected to exactly nothing. I wouldn't vote for Malcom X to be on city counsel let alone president. I don't think I'd vote for MLK as president either. I'd vote for him for congress to make sure his voice was heard, but I don't think I'd have him running the show, he was too extreme to do that.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> If what you're saying is true, then it should be really easy to shut me up with an example of a democratically elected world leader who was fiscally to the right of Ron Paul.



Benjamin Franklin
George Washington
John Adams
 

Thomas Jefferson
John Jay
 

James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
NOW I EXPECT YOU TO STFU LIKE YOU PROMISED


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Benjamin Franklin
> George Washington
> John Adams
> 
> ...


I said an industrialized nation. You can't compare 18th century economics to our industrialized global economy. 

So where is the leader of an industrialized nation that is to the right of Ron Paul?

and lol @ you thinking Ben Franklin was president.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Did I say he was president? No.....I just pasted the founding fathers list cause that answered your question, Didn't know about all this hidden criteria, Bush's, Nixon, Reagan all horrible... are more right then Ron Paul, Although they are moderates essentially they have/had more right wing views then Ron Paul. It could even be argued that Eisenhower was more right wing or Palin or Romney, or any neoconservative. Simply being Pro-life & Pro-drug war would automatically make you more right wing then Ron Paul. If Ron could be called an extreme anything, it would be extreme libertarian.



Now you can go ahead and shut up as you promised.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

again this all detracts from the whole point, the point is that ron paul is on the top half of that chart with the people while the politicians are down at the bottom sucking the fortune 500's wangs. This gap must be closed for the sake of humanity.

As Ron Paul says of the liberty movement, It truly is a humanitarian cause. This is why we follow Ron Paul, this is why Ron Paul supporters tell you to 'open your eyes' ...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> again this all detracts from the whole point, the point is that ron paul is on the top half of that chart with the people while the politicians are down at the bottom sucking the fortune 500's wangs. This gap must be closed for the sake of humanity.
> 
> As Ron Paul says of the liberty movement, It truly is a humanitarian cause. This is why we follow Ron Paul, this is why Ron Paul supporters tell you to 'open your eyes' ...


post ejaculation hematuria. look it up.

i had that a while back when i suffered some trauma in my happy zone. i would rather have post ejaculation hematuria than ron paul as president.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Cause Ron Paul will become elected and all the sudden people wont be able to get abortions Right? Ron Paul is a racist, he doesnt like a peice of paper therefore he supports slavery and genocide right? And for some reason your wife needs to constantly have abortions without medical necessity...Tell her to get birth control, I don't get why this is such a big deal for you really but whatever. I am pro-choice and I still support Ron Paul.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

Ron Paul will not make it out the primary... All talk about him as POTUS is pointless.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

*Liberalism* (from the Latin _liberalis_, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Ron Paul is a classical liberal. Libertarians are classical liberals. Most Americans are classical liberals. The Democrat leadership is social liberals. The GOP is more or less half classic liberal and half conservative.

Classical Liberalism = Freedom in every aspect of our lives, limited government
Modern Liberalism = Freedom in our personal lives, but bondage in our financial lives.
GOP Liberalism = Freedom in our financial lives, but bondage in our personal lives.

People only support GOP and Modern Liberalism when you make it vague. When asked about their exact beliefs regarding their own lives they are almost always classical liberals. The reason they don't vote that way is really because the main leaders are bastards.

Liberals - Do you think that your neighbor should be able to take half of your stuff if he has nothing?

Conservative - Do you think that your neighbor should be allowed to tell you how to live your life?

The only people that will answer, and vote their ideals are the Libertarians. Everyone else is just picking from 2 sides that are fatally flawed. I look at the Republicans with as much disdain as I look at the Democrats. 

Libertarians are not right-wing any more than they are left-wing. They have half of the beliefs of one side, and half of the beliefs of the other. They are centrists. Half of the country approves of half the libertarian message, the other half approves of the other half of the libertarian message. Wouldn't that make the Left and the Right extremists since the entire message is repulsive to the other side? Ron Paul votes what he believes in regardless of party. I think if he makes it to the general election that he will do to Obama what Obama did to McCain. Except we all know Ron Paul won't immediately renege and do exactly what he said he wouldn't do like Obama has. We have 40 years of proof of that.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul will not make it out the primary... All talk about him as POTUS is pointless.


A lot of people thought that about Obama when he magically appeared with no experience at all, but look at him now. I wouldn't say it is impossible.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

How messed up is it that Obama has basically carried on all the Bush era stuff that the left hated? lol. Yo know, all the stuff that got Obama elected? How about the last set of elections? The Republicans beat some ass there because of it. To pretend like it couldn't all change in the blink of an eye is silly. Look at the completely reversed roles of the Demos and Repubs in the last 100 years. To believe a lot of Republicans wouldn't move to the center under Ron Pauls leadership and that half the left wouldn't jump ship to move to the center. What you would have is a 3 party system where the Libertarians dominate. This sort of turmoil our country is in is just the birth place of such radical changed.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> A lot of people thought that about Obama when he magically appeared with no experience at all, but look at him now. I wouldn't say it is impossible.


i do believe ron paul has went down this road before...unlike Obama..same outcome..care to wager


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Yea, if he does get the nomination it will be the end of Obama I have little doubts of this. Thanks Carthosis for wording it better then me.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Cause Ron Paul will become elected and all the sudden people wont be able to get abortions Right? Ron Paul is a racist, he doesnt like a peice of paper therefore he supports slavery and genocide right? And for some reason your wife needs to constantly have abortions without medical necessity...Tell her to get birth control, I don't get why this is such a big deal for you really but whatever.


that "piece of paper" he doesn't like insures equal rights for millions.

and it isn't just about my wife. it is about 50% of the population having the morality of some evangelical forced upon them. no form of birth control is 100%, and any pregnancy carries with it the risk of death.

like i said, i would rather piss blood after i nut then to give that squirrely geezer access to the nuclear codes.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> i do believe ron paul has went down this road before...unlike Obama..same outcome..care to wager


 Obama couldn't of done it any other year. Maybe this is Ron Paul's year.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Because Obama Ran on change and he was charismatic and a legal genius, If you want real change then Ron Paul is the answer, and this will show in a Obama vs Ron Paul scenario.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that "piece of paper" he doesn't like insures equal rights for millions.
> 
> and it isn't just about my wife. it is about 50% of the population having the morality of some evangelical forced upon them. no form of birth control is 100%, and any pregnancy carries with it the risk of death.
> 
> like i said, i would rather piss blood after i nut then to give that squirrely geezer access to the nuclear codes.


I would never support outlawing abortion for the same reason as you stated. Ron Paul would just take the federal government out of the equation since the federal government has no right to approve or disapprove of abortion.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I would never support outlawing abortion for the same reason as you stated. Ron Paul would just take the federal government out of the equation since the federal government has no right to approve or disapprove of abortion.


state-approved extremism is somehow better than federally-approved extremism?

what if all 50 states toed the ron paul line?


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

If all 50 states came to follow beside Ron Paul 100% then we would become a utopian society and Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed would come down from the sky on flying pigs.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> state-approved extremism is somehow better than federally-approved extremism?
> 
> what if all 50 states toed the ron paul line?


Thats a state issue, bring it up with your state law makers, has ZERO to do with Mr Paul.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> If all 50 states came to follow beside Ron Paul 100% then we would become a utopian society and Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed would come down from the sky on flying pigs.


yes, i get it. ron paul is your MESSIAH.

have you even looked at post ejaculation hematuria? it is shitty stuff, and i'd welcome it back if ron paul would just go away.

not that the squirrely old geezer has a chance in hell anyway.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 4, 2011)

Kinda hard to win the general elections if you don't make it out the primary..I say its damn impossible..lol


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> agree, he has SOME libertarian ideas. we could probably both agree he has A LOT of libertarian ideas. but not all.


yes



UncleBuck said:


> oh, i am a filthy cockroach? darn, i was under the impression that i was a human. this is turning into some kafka-esque nightmare. fuck.
> 
> what smells like adult depends and hard candy?


your breath


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ok. Well show me a democratically elected head of state as far to the right as Ron Paul in the industrialized world that has been successful and I'll shut up right now.


many of the early presidents. dunno if thats too early before the "industrial revolution" but the question is a bit loaded. How many other countries have governments like ours.


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> state-approved extremism is somehow better than federally-approved extremism?
> 
> what if all 50 states toed the ron paul line?


following the Consitution you mean? Only a douchebag thinks personal responsibility is extreme. STFU


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

Parker said:


> your breath


nope. i know it is not my breath because i brushed my teeth earlier today. afterward, i slammed down a few natty ices and smoked a bowl. then i ate a bacon cheeseburger. currently, my breath smells of meat and beer, as it should.



Parker said:


> following the Consitution you mean? Only a douchebag thinks personal responsibility is extreme. STFU


what part of restricting my wife from making decision about her health falls under personal responsibility?

if anything, that seems to be taking responsibility away from her, albeit on a state level rather than federal.

what smells like baby powder and denture adhesive?


----------



## Parker (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> nope. i know it is not my breath because i brushed my teeth earlier today. afterward, i slammed down a few natty ices and smoked a bowl. then i ate a bacon cheeseburger. currently, my breath smells of meat and beer, as it should.
> what part of restricting my wife from making decision about her health falls under personal responsibility?
> if anything, that seems to be taking responsibility away from her, albeit on a state level rather than federal.


the more local the easier it is to change
Do you actually think abortion would become illegal again? As much as I am pro life all that would accomplish is make it more dangerous to the woman who want them.
You treat the cause, not the symptom.



UncleBuck said:


> what smells like baby powder and denture adhesive?


I told you its your breath from talking out your ass.


----------



## loquacious (Jun 4, 2011)

Ron Paul is an idiot and will never be president! So, give up and try to make a real difference in the world!


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

*Not so fast Guys!

In the newest Gallup poll, DR RON PAUL IS LEADING IN THE INDEPENDENT REPUBLICAN VOTERS.  *(I'm not so shocked)







It has been said that whoever wins the next election will have to win the INDEPENDENTS.

Scroll down a little. It's the third poll from the top.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147806/Ro...ield-2012.aspx

*Romney's Support Varies by Education

Romney's appeal is much greater among college graduates (25%) than nongraduates (13%). Palin, meanwhile, fares better among nongraduates (18%) than college graduates (8%). The remaining candidates have fairly similar support by education.

Romney and Palin generally do better among conservatives than liberals and moderates. Paul is competitive with Romney and Palin for the top spot among liberals and moderates, though even combined, these groups make up a much smaller segment of the Republican base than conservatives do.

Further evidence that Paul's support generally lies outside the Republican mainstream is that Republican-leaning independents are twice as likely to support him as are those who identify outright as Republicans. Romney and Palin lead among the larger group of Republican identifiers.

Romney is the leading candidate among churchgoing Republicans, at 19%. Among Republicans who identify as Protestant or some other Christian religion (other than Catholic or Mormon), his support is 15%, tying him with Palin as the leader among that group. This is notable given that some think Romney's Mormon faith could hurt his support among Protestants.

Support for Republican Nominee, by Subgroup, May 20-24, 2011 *



In the short term, Romney and Palin seem to have benefited most from several prominent potential Republican candidates' decisions not to run for president. Should Palin follow suit and not enter the race, Romney would be the clear front-runner, but arguably the weakest front-runner in any recent Republican nomination campaign.




Now to go check on the Independent Democrats... lawl



WHOS IT GUNNA BE FLIP FLOPER HEALTHCARE "SOCIALIST" BOY - SARAH EFFIN PALIN - OR RON PAUL - GIVE ME A BREAK - The Ron Paul Revolution is just getting started.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 4, 2011)

Parker said:


> the more local the easier it is to change
> Do you actually think abortion would become illegal again? As much as I am pro life all that would accomplish is make it more dangerous to the woman who want them.


although i am happy to see that you have pondered the consequences of making abortion illegal, i am dismayed that you use the same old tired argument that others do when they can't argue the stance of pseudo-libertarian ron paul.

"do you really think he would make abortion illegal?"

my answer: probably not. but we voted in a whole bunch of righties to supposedly "create jobs". what have they done? taken progressive (regressive) measures to make abortions tougher and tougher to obtain, primarily. why would i consider supporting someone who will help them along the way, who has the power to appoint SCOTUS judges, etc etc etc?

i assure you, it is not my breath that smells like old people.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Anti-War Radio interviewed Ron Paul today here is the audio:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) discusses the two competing bills on Libya &#8211; Dennis Kucinich&#8217;s legally binding demand for withdrawal and John Boehner&#8217;s nonbinding suggestion that Obama seek Congress&#8217;s approval, eventually; the rising antiwar sentiment among Americans, reflected but not necessarily shared by their representatives in Congress; why the new 2011 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran should be declassified; the unyielding US foothold in Iraq; and the Fed bailout money that went to foreign banks, plus more shenanigans blacked out in the Fed&#8217;s document dump.
*MP3 here*. (10:47)


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

Good luck to them getting abortion illegal in the blue states, won't happen.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> state-approved extremism is somehow better than federally-approved extremism?
> 
> what if all 50 states toed the ron paul line?


The federal government has no rights over abortion. I'm unsure what the problem is? Do I agree with Roe vs Wade in its outcome? Yes. Do I agree with Roe vs Wade in what it basically made up to accomplish the end? No. The constitution does not give the federal government rights as far as abortion is concerned. I suppose they could just step in and say "Well, its interstate commerce, we have jurisdiction since it involves people who might buy stuff from other states eventually" lol. To say the 14th amendment allows abortion but not marijuana, heroin, anal sex, and a host of other things shows that the court is not ruling correctly on the matter. The 9th amendment argument that the lower courts held was even weaker, some nonsense about slavery.

Keep in mind that I am a firm believer that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she chooses. I have the right to disapprove, but not the right to stop them from doing it. I find it to be a horrible act that I am sure causes immense pain to many women for the rest of their lives. It isn't exactly like popping a pimple. I would go to a rally to promote pro-choice though. I would never support public funds going to give abortions. 

State extremism as long as it doesn't go against the constitution is a state matter. I would imagine that many state constitutions would protect abortions. If they do extreme things, then the people in that state will vote to fix the problem. People from states that outlaw abortions would just go to the next state. Kind of like dry counties.

It isn't an issue of right or wrong. It is an issue of liberty and whether the federal government is granted the power to regulate abortions as per the constitution.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Just gotta say something crazy cuz just blazed a bunch of sativa so here it goes:
> 
> If the federal goverment has the right to decide when life ends and begins, its can lead to what is basically population control, like china


Maybe they will vote that people over the age of 60 aren't really alive anymore and make SSI viable again. Or perhaps that wards of the state are no longer alive and that aborting them isn't an issue. The federal government doesn't seem to have any limit on its powers.


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

lol!!!!!!! OMG


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

States rights = NO BRAINER

If you dont like it - MOVE


----------



## deprave (Jun 4, 2011)

http://www.ronpaul2012.com
Today is the Ron Paul moneybomb, the campaign store is up you can buy shirts, signs, hats, etc.....tonite Ron Paul has a big interview on CNN and he can brag about how much money he raised.

The Revolution VS Romney Care
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/


----------



## deprave (Jun 5, 2011)

Ron Paul new interview on CNN state of the union: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/06/05/ron-paul-on-cnns-state-of-the-union-652011/


[video=youtube;ZebTIyAo3LA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZebTIyAo3LA[/video]


"Main Stream is moving the direction I have been moving for a long time"

"The people have woke up"


Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Sunday that he knows that his 2008 presidential campaign was regarded in many quarters as a joke, but that no one is treating him that way as he embarks on another bid for the White House.

"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy," Paul said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

"No more. No more. The people [are] coming over here," Paul said.




*From Dr. Paul...
As you may know, my campaign is holding a R3VOLUTION v. RomneyCare money bomb (TODAY). http://www.ronpaul2012.com

I am in this race to win, and a key factor is fundraising.

Establishment candidates are revving up their campaigns and trying to blow the field away with massive fundraising totals.

You see, Mitt Romney was able to tap his bailed-out banker buddies

*[video=youtube;4CP88CAzpTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4CP88CAzpTY#at=42[/video]


Legalize Freedom - Ron Paul 2012 - Restore America


----------



## deprave (Jun 5, 2011)

The money bomb is going good so far today approaching 1 million as of 3PM eastern - here is a graph last updated at 1:40PM



RON PAUL MONEY BOMB RADIO LINKS - 30 Celebrity guests and 9 hosts bring you the money bomb live


> It has been a huge undertaking but here is what we have in store -
> 
> 9 Hosts including Jack Hunter and John Dennis 30 Guests including Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Sibel Edmonds, Barry Goldwater Jr. and many more. Over 40 people have come together to make this radio broadcast happen and we hope that you will join us at 9 am Eastern until Midnight. You can see the entire guest line up at http://www.legalizegoldandsilver.com
> 
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 5, 2011)

A lot of coverage on CNN about Ron Paul today, the interview I posted earlier was not the entire interview only a breif segment, Great coverage GO CNN! Apparently CNN is going to take Ron Paul seriously now?

Here is another part: Getting to Know Ron Paul: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/06/04/exp.SOTU.GTK.RonPaul.cnn.html
Ron Paul talks about his personal life.

Ron Paul Voted "friendliest and best all around" in high school.

His great grandson calls him "G RON" - His grand kids call him "grand daddy Ron"

Ron Paul talks about how he works across party lines.


----------



## Parker (Jun 5, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> although i am happy to see that you have pondered the consequences of making abortion illegal, i am dismayed that you use the same old tired argument that others do when they can't argue the stance of pseudo-libertarian ron paul.
> "do you really think he would make abortion illegal?"


of course its relevant you jackass. With the "mindset" people have now I seriouslty doubt it will be changed shortly. Maybe way off in the future. Since its not a winnable battle right now why fight it? keep the rhetoric going is all one do right now imo.



UncleBuck said:


> my answer: probably not. but we voted in a whole bunch of righties to supposedly "create jobs". what have they done?


First off it was the dems plan through obama to get us out of this depression. It didn't work. Whatever the repuke plan is, that wont work either. Only a complete douchebag like you would think its a good idea for the corrupt clueless ones who put us in this mess should be counted on to get us out. Govt doesn't create jobs you stupid twat, it creates debt. You need to figure this out sooner or later or you'll wallow in the world of twatness forever.



UncleBuck said:


> taken progressive (regressive) measures to make abortions tougher and tougher to obtain, primarily. why would i consider supporting someone who will help them along the way, who has the power to appoint SCOTUS judges, etc etc etc?


The 2 biggest issues at the last election were the economy and the Middle East. Why are there people like yourself that make the abortion issue suddenly number one? Is it because the ones you support suck so bad you have to find something to deflect from?

AS much shit as I give you, and you deserve every bit if not more, I'd really like to know your opinion on this since a lot of people think similarly on this point. 
In your opinion when people say the two biggest issues are the economy and the Middle East why do they vote on something completely different than those issues when it comes time to pull the lever? 
McCain and Obama were both for the bailouts overall, they had differences on who should get what. Both are war mongers although Obama at first didn't seem as much as McCain.



UncleBuck said:


> i assure you, it is not my breath that smells like old people.


I figured your breath smells like shit with all the crap you spew.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 5, 2011)

Parker said:


> The 2 biggest issues at the last election were the economy and the Middle East. Why are there people like yourself that make the abortion issue suddenly number one?


i didn't make abortion issue #1, the republicans did that immediately after getting elected and i talked about it.

i apologize in advance for the inherent twatdom that is truth.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 5, 2011)

Guys. Come on. Let's stop the name-calling please. Same kind of shit that got the last thread closed. Effective for those RP opponents guys. Just sayin'.


----------



## Parker (Jun 5, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i didn't make abortion issue #1, the republicans did that immediately after getting elected and i talked about it.
> 
> i apologize in advance for the inherent twatdom that is truth.


I asked you why people voted the way they did not who made abortion the #1 issue. Just when I think you cant be any dumber you prove me wrong.
So anyway if the Middle East and bailouts/economy were on the peoples mind it seems strange they voted for McCain and Obama.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

Parker said:


> I asked you why people voted the way they did not who made abortion the #1 issue. Just when I think you cant be any dumber you prove me wrong.
> So anyway if the Middle East and bailouts/economy were on the peoples mind it seems strange they voted for McCain and Obama.


i must be pretty damn dumb.

thank you for repeatedly pointing this out to me.

what smells like denture adhesive?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

People, people come on we all know Ron will win.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> People, people come on we all know Ron will win.


brool story, co.


----------



## defcomexperiment (Jun 6, 2011)

Holy shit man, haha, I hadnt been hitting the forums much because I have been campaigning on facebook heavily to prevent misinformation being passed around about Dr Paul. Can't wait to get down to hardcore campaigning...


----------



## bobbypyn (Jun 6, 2011)

defcomexperiment said:


> Holy shit man, haha, I hadnt been hitting the forums much because I have been campaigning on facebook heavily to prevent the truth from getting out about Dr Paul being a racist scumbag. Can't wait to get down to hardcore campaigning...


that MUST be a full time job; the truth is pesky in that it is really hard to suppress...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

defcomexperiment said:


> Holy shit man, haha, I hadnt been hitting the forums much because I have been campaigning on facebook heavily to prevent misinformation being passed around about Dr Paul. Can't wait to get down to hardcore campaigning...


 hell win, he has to.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> hell win, he has to.


and when he does, a unicorn will fly over a fluffy cloud and shit freedom upon us.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> hell win, he has to.


The only way Paul wins is by pandering to corporations in order to raise the required amount of money. He can not be president without doing this. If he does, he'll be just as bad as anyone else. It's all explained here 

[video=youtube;2HvGy2gY0eM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HvGy2gY0eM&feature=related[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

If ron paul pandered to corporations his face would be plastered all over the tv, not hidden from view and smeared. Why the hell would Ron Paul Pander to corporations when his free market philosophy would kill their monopolies? Why would he continually vote against and investigate corruption and fraud - Absurd


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> If ron paul pandered to corporations his face would be plastered all over the tv, not hidden from view and smeared. Why the hell would Ron Paul Pander to corporations when his free market philosophy would kill their monopolies? Absurd


how is he hidden from view and smeared, yet you guys find a new clip of him talkng on tv every day?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and when he does, a unicorn will fly over a fluffy cloud and shit freedom upon us.


Listen, you are acting like he is the messiah to his supporters, the way barry sotaro was to his, we are not looking for an end all be all.
We are looking for a president. a leader that is constitutional. for, of, by, the people.
I would hate to suddenly wake up one day and be you. Your views are so warped and corrupted. 
Viewing reality through your eyes must very strange.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how is he hidden from view and smeared, yet you guys find a new clip of him talkng on tv every day?


REFER TO POST #1 IN THIS THREAD THE 100+ URLS I POSTED WITH EVIDENCE OF THIS

also refer to unfair-coverage.com

If you watched them you would know that most of the videos I post are smearing Ron Paul and it is me speaking the truth in the text below the video. That is what this entire thread is about, the smear campaign of Ron Paul - Ron Paul is smeared/ignored daily there is very little positive coverage outside the internet.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Listen, you are acting like he is the messiah to his supporters, the way barry sotaro was to his, we are not looking for an end all be all.


i would vote for the libertarian gary johnson rather than obama. so i fail to see how he is my "messiah". methinks you are just reciting a worn out fox news talking point.

however, it is evident, thanks to people like deprave, that ron paul is not only the messiah to his supporters, but GOD.



tryingtogrow89 said:


> I would hate to suddenly wake up one day and be you. Your views are so warped and corrupted.
> Viewing reality through your eyes must very strange.


stranger than believing the government is going to warden us all into fema death camps?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> If ron paul pandered to corporations his face would be plastered all over the tv, not hidden from view and smeared.


He isn't being hidden from view. He gets tons of press. You've posted a ton of Ron Paul videos of him being interviewed. I didn't see his face being blacked out or smeared. 



> Why the hell would Ron Paul Pander to corporations when his free market philosophy would kill their monopolies? Why would he continually vote against and investigate corruption and fraud - Absurd


Free markets encourage monopolies. Ron Paul thinks federal anti-monopoly laws are unconstitutional.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

Ron paul is not a messiah or god, he is just the opposite, a humble honest man of great intergrity, and intelligent man with revolutionary ideas - he is not status quo - he is a revolutionary and a hero and that is why I support Ron Paul - I support Ron Paul in the same way I support MLK or JFK not like a god or a messiah.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> He isn't being hidden from view. He gets tons of press. You've posted a ton of Ron Paul videos of him being interviewed. I didn't see his face being blacked out or smeared.
> 
> 
> 
> Free markets encourage monopolies. Ron Paul thinks federal anti-monopoly laws are unconstitutional.


Tons of negative and passive aggressive press that is.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Free markets encourage monopolies. Ron Paul thinks federal anti-monopoly laws are unconstitutional.


 Shows that you know abosutely nothing about economics, free markets are the least supportive of monopolies of all, that is one of the upsides.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> He isn't being hidden from view. He gets tons of press. You've posted a ton of Ron Paul videos of him being interviewed. I didn't see his face being blacked out or smeared.


 His face doen't have to be blacked out or smeared, they just have to make ignorant suggestions like you made when you said Ron Paul will cause wal-mart to take over the world - or they just call him a racist - or say that he will threaten national defense. 

His NAME and FACE is blacked out constantly, please see my examples in post #1, for about 40 examples of media conveniently leaving him out of the discussion or statistics.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> Shows that you know abosutely nothing about economics, free markets are the least supportive of monopolies of all, that is one of the upsides.


A free market gives companies the ability to buy up all their competition without restriction, like America in the gilded age. 

Ron Paul has gone on record saying he supports eliminating federal anti-trust law. You really can't reasonably make the claim he doesn't support monopolies.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i would vote for the libertarian gary johnson rather than obama. so i fail to see how he is my "messiah". methinks you are just reciting a worn out fox news talking point.
> 
> however, it is evident, thanks to people like deprave, that ron paul is not only the messiah to his supporters, but GOD.
> 
> ...


Well i never said you were his supporter! guilty conscience? must be.

At least FEMA camps are validated facts and not fairy tale opinions.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> His face doen't have to be blacked out or smeared, they just have to make ignorant suggestions like you made when you said Ron Paul will cause wal-mart to take over the world - or they just call him a racist - or say that he will threaten national defense.


Facts and evidence are soooo ignorant. You know what isn't ignorant? Believing everything Ron Paul says without question!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

Reciting a worn out fox news talking point? WTF? i dont even watch fox news. my comment was simply a illustration of how everywhere you went nobody could stop having a cow about obama even other nations were acting this way about him. Its a sick obsession that luckily looks like its had its moments then quickly faded away after the blatant shit job he is doing.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> A free market gives companies the ability to buy up all their competition without restriction, like America in the gilded age.
> 
> Ron Paul has gone on record saying he supports eliminating federal anti-trust law. You really can't reasonably make the claim he doesn't support monopolies.


*there is nothing wrong with a corporation buying up competition, the nature of a free market is that other competitors will enter the markey if the monopoly charges a wage that is too high, unles government creates barriers to entry in the market or grants them other special favors.

The free market allows good companies to acquire additional market share to the extent that they provide a good or service at a price the consumers agree to.

Remember, the problem in the early 1900's (from big companies perspective) was too much competition), which was cutting into their profits. Our laws actually stifled competition, which helpe dthe big companies to aquire more wealth because of less competition, regulation in its current form CREATES monopolies.

Free Market promotes monopoly less then any other system.
*


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> *there is nothing wrong with a corporation buying up competition, the nature of a free market is that other competitors will enter the markey if the monopoly charges a wage that is too high.*


*

And then the monopoly buys up the competition. 

You're totally contradicting yourself now. You just claimed to be against monopolies now you're defending corporate rights to have them.




The free market allows good companies to acquire additional market share to the extent that they provide a good or service at a price the consumers agree to.

Click to expand...

And that's why a free market is a bad thing. We don't want corporations to buy up all their competition forcing people to buy their overpriced products.*


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> At least FEMA camps are validated facts and not fairy tale opinions.


until they round us all up, it is nothing but your delusional conspiracist wet dream.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And then the monopoly buys up the competition.
> 
> You're totally contradicting yourself now. You just claimed to be against monopolies now you're defending corporate rights to have them.
> 
> ...


empirical evidence from our own country supports your argument.

short-sighted sound bytes from the messiah support deprave's argument.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Reciting a worn out fox news talking point? WTF? i dont even watch fox news. my comment was simply a illustration of how everywhere you went nobody could stop having a cow about obama even other nations were acting this way about him. Its a sick obsession that luckily looks like its had its moments then quickly faded away after the blatant shit job he is doing.


whether or not you watch fox news, it was a limbaugh/hannity creation.

as far as the blatant shit job he is doing, try convincing someone like my wife who can now obtain health insurance despite her pre-existing condition. tell that to the gay who can now serve his or her country. tell that to the woman who faced pay discrimination and now has more tools to combat it. 

i would tell you to ask bin laden how shitty a job he is doing, but you can't, because he is swimming with the fishes.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And then the monopoly buys up the competition.
> 
> You're totally contradicting yourself now. You just claimed to be against monopolies now you're defending corporate rights to have them.
> 
> ...


 A monopoly corners the market and controls prices.. Impossible in a free market especially in modern times. In a free market, a company that buys up a bunch of other companys would just be a really really good company, they'd have to be.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> whether or not you watch fox news, it was a limbaugh/hannity creation.
> 
> as far as the blatant shit job he is doing, try convincing someone like my wife who can now obtain health insurance despite her pre-existing condition. tell that to the gay who can now serve his or her country. tell that to the woman who faced pay discrimination and now has more tools to combat it.
> 
> i would tell you to ask bin laden how shitty a job he is doing, but you can't, because he is swimming with the fishes.


Yep, dumped his bloody corpse at sea immediately, honestly i said it to my self i said. I believe that recent story of his death and the forever changing facts, data, and inconsistencies.
Then i shook my head and though WTF? that sounds absolutely insane! you honestly cant sit back and accept that story if you have a brain, come on.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

more deception and hot button words dan?(monopoly) whats next? you breakin out the ron paul is a lizard man finally?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yep, dumped his bloody corpse at sea immediately, honestly i said it to my self i said. I believe that recent story of his death and the forever changing facts, data, and inconsistencies.
> Then i shook my head and though WTF? that sounds absolutely insane! you honestly cant sit back and accept that story if you have a brain, come on.


yeah, forget about the tangible evidence of the raid, the testimony from his family, the reports from the locals, and the fact that you are calling our most elite soldiers a pack of liars.

all that matters is the theory you cooked up in that noggin of yours.

no response to the good job he did in expanding my wife's ability to get health insurance? or gays being able to serve their country? or women being able to combat pay discrimination? is it all just about your conspiracy?


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

New segment from the CNN interview I missed: [video=youtube;BgQB60-MT3Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQB60-MT3Q[/video]

*Ron Paul: "I Can Win in 201"*


"I never thought id get elected to congress"

"Main stream is now talking about all the things I have been talking about for a long time and therefore, nobody knows what the outcome of this election will be"

"whos saying bring the troops home, who believes in sound money"

"They are sick of the status quo" (the american people)


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 6, 2011)

I heard that Ron Paul had sex with a turtle. 

Arguing that anti-trust laws are harmful to our country is ludicrous. Deprave, where did you study economics?


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

University of Michigan, Community College, High School...The internet.... how about yourself? Microsoft School of keynes?

Oh is it ludicrous, explain yourself ....We don't have any monopolies or fraud? the big corporations don't have an advantage? Regulations don't give them that advatage? please explain without using a pie char ot government statistics *sends a text message on his sprintrizon*after typing this message on his microsoft pc with a Korean monitor*


anyway


all that is beside the point




In a free market monopolies are an *IMPOSSIBILITY (YES IMPOSSIBLE) *sips his cokepepsi from wal-mart*

*Why? Because a monopoly by definition..corners the market and controls the prices...Again, Impossible in a Free Market..


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> I heard that Ron Paul had sex with a turtle.


i've said for a long time that i like turtles.

apparently, ron paul REALLY likes turtles.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yeah, forget about the tangible evidence of the raid, the testimony from his family, the reports from the locals, and the fact that you are calling our most elite soldiers a pack of liars.
> 
> all that matters is the theory you cooked up in that noggin of yours.
> 
> no response to the good job he did in expanding my wife's ability to get health insurance? or gays being able to serve their country? or women being able to combat pay discrimination? is it all just about your conspiracy?


First of all, in that noggin of yours, did it ever occur that things like gays shouldn't be a presidential matter? and more a personal private matter? and isnt ones health a private manner?
Rather than the huge lobbyists, and corporation of pharmaceutical developments, becoming corrupted and money hungry globalists? Therefore will tell your wife she is denied for "A preexisting condition" therefore more money in their pockets? how do you not know this i refuse to believe that you think these are presidential matters. and then when barry (god like) sotaro, jumps up at the podium, and gives his powerful, insightful, deceitful, speeches of his reform to change these things back to how they fucking should have been if we all kept our selves constitutional in the first fucking place. Then everyone cheers, and parades around like he is the savoir. When you know geo political, and you study research, breath, eat, and sleep it. Then this is what we would call the totalitarian, Problem, Reaction, Solution. Hey you know what? if you don't know it research it! Debunked once again.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 6, 2011)

I did my undergrad work at UF, then Leeds School of Business @ CU for Master's.

Of course there are monopolies. Your local power company is a regulated monopoly.

Market power is the driving force behind Antitrust Laws. Corporations have several? advantages with access to capital being one of the most relevant. Care to explain how Antitrust laws are bad for the consumer? I'm always willing to learn something new. 

On another topic, how do you feel about corporations being given rights similar to the rights of citizens


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> In a free market monopolies are an *IMPOSSIBILITY (YES IMPOSSIBLE)
> *


Saying something not true in large print does not make it more true. 

When you remove all the regulations that stop corporations from buying up all their competition, there will be more monopolies. 

I understand your train of thought. You think that if there is a free market, someone can start a new corporation and compete in a market. But that's not how it works in reality. In reality when a monopoly faces competition they will just temporarily lower their prices in the area where there is a competitor even to the point of operating at a loss until the competition goes out of business, then they raise their prices again. Or they just buy up any serious competition. The result is the same, the monopoly stays in tact. That's why we have anti-trust laws.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> First of all, in that noggin of yours, did it ever occur that things like gays shouldn't be a presidential matter? and more a personal private matter? and isnt ones health a private manner?


no. discrimination against gays is not a private matter. just like barring blacks from supposedly 'public' establishments is not a private matter. these are one of the few areas where i want a strong central government to step in and say "you can't do that".

and health is a private matter, for the most part. when people who could afford insurance but opt to not get it then have to visit an ER and leave the rest of us to foot the bill, i want a strong central government to step in and say "you can't do that". if everyone is in the pool, the costs go down. take a look at every other nation that pays half what we do yet insure all their citizens.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I understand your train of thought. You think that if there is a free market, someone can start a new corporation and compete in a market. But that's not how it works in reality.


i believe those are called 'barriers to entry' in economic speak.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

I gotta go to bed and get up for work in 5 hours, ill talk more about this tomorrow:

Anti-trust laws can be very good in my view.


Dr Paul opposes them at the federal level; he feels they are unconstitutional. Dr Paul approved of them at a state level, like a lot of issues Dr Paul is for states rights.
Big corporations favor a highly regulated system, because it keeps competition from entering the market.

In a truly free market, anti-trust laws are however, completely unnecessary, as monopolies are an impossibility.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> I gotta go to bed and get up for work in 5 hours, ill talk more about this tomorrow:
> 
> Anti-trust laws can be very good in my view.
> 
> ...


I have to go to bed too. All in a days work.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

And yes dan because I make it big and bold letts it makes it true lol...<---damn near almost put that in parenthesis after the big bold letters but you beat me to it


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 6, 2011)

So, we agree that a truly free market is a pipe dream. 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3....

Saying that the Federal government can not regulate trade is not a valid argument considering the above part of the Constitution. The "Commerce Clause" limits states' ability to regulate antitrust. Ron Paul's idea would require 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states to support his idea. 

Honestly, that's a pipe dream.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

It would require a lot more than that to fully implement his free market philosophy for America and he's well aware of that, little steps along the way can bring us closer to sound money however, his audit of the federal reserve is just one revolutionary step in the right direction, he has done more then anyone else has done and plans to do more then anyone else plans to. Whats Mitt Romney's Plan ....Cut the deficit by spending less? lol ..Obama...Cut the deficit by spending more? .......has that worked? How many books have they wrote on economics?

Ron Paul = Revolution

Everyone Else = Same old shit


How many more times are you going to buy into the same old crap.....Windmills, Cut the deficit, spread democracy, fucking wind millls.....fuck that legalize hemp/marijuana.....bring the troops home for real this time...do something different with the economy, ANYTHING! again fukin wind mills ... (lol joking about the wind mills, not really)


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> ... his audit of the federal reserve is just one revolutionary step in the right direction...


didn't the senate vote 96 to 0 to audit the fed?

it seems like no one we have elected does not support this.


----------



## deprave (Jun 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> didn't the senate vote 96 to 0 to audit the fed?
> 
> it seems like no one we have elected does not support this.


 Wasn't it his idea? isn't he the one doing it? Yes ofcourse everyone supported it, its brilliant. Ron Paul also predicted the housing bubble and financial collapse 5 years in advance. Obama can't even pick the NCAA final four. Romney can't even pick a position on abortion.


----------



## easterbunny (Jun 7, 2011)

im pritty sure this guy has ties to the clan im not sure but rumor has it when he was younger he was associated but im assuming denounced because there hasn't been a political kkk figure since duke but regrdless just saying
i think hes a little fruity like juicy fruit fruity but still im just saying


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

NAACP seems ok with him from what i've read. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me had he been proven racist.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 7, 2011)

bilderberg meeting june 13th, they start meeting up on Thursday the ninth though.
But don't worry, its only a conspiracy theory.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 7, 2011)

Can't say Ron Paul is racist but his views on the Civil Rights vote of 64 can only lead to racism...Ron Paul feels that a business owner can deny someone into his/her business for what ever reason, so if I decide to not let any white/black people come in my businesses to wash clothes and only allow Mexicans its perfectly all right according to Ron Paul...and to those who say I would go out of business, you crazy...I can guarantee my business would still thrive with Mexican only for they would be happy to have a place where only they can wash...Heck maybe I can have one location Mexican only..the other Black only...and my third White only..according to Ron Pauls views I should be able to do that..


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Can't say Ron Paul is racist but his views on the Civil Rights vote of 64 can only lead to rascism...Ron Paul feels that a business owner can deny someone into his/her business for what ever reason, so if I decide to not let any white/black people come in my businesses to wash clothes and only allow Mexicans its perfectly all right according to Ron Paul...and to those who say I would go out of business, you crazy...I can guarantee my business would still thrive with Mexican only for they would be happy to have a place where only they can wash...Heck maybe I can have one location Mexican only..the other Black only...and my third White only..according to Ron Pauls views I should be able to do that..


i don't see anything wrong with being able to do that. If you were the ONLY business in town you may have a hard time staying open, unless you lived in a town like mine where about 75-80% of the town is Hispanic. But we see it in nature all the time, birds of a feather tend to flock together. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not my or anyone else's place to tell you what you can and can't do on your property with your business.

There are few public restrooms in town because the migrant population is used to Mexico's crappy plumbing that won't accept toilet paper quite often. So they have gotten used to wiping their ass and then dropping the paper on the floor beside the toilet. This is the explanation i have been repeatedly given. Do i blame a business owner who knows that this is going to happen for not wanting to have to clean it up? No. Do i think they should ban Mexicans? Only the ones making the mess. But either way, regardless of their reasoning i believe they have the right to control what happens on their property.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i don't see anything wrong with being able to do that. If you were the ONLY business in town you may have a hard time staying open, unless you lived in a town like mine where about 75-80% of the town is Hispanic. But we see it in nature all the time, birds of a feather tend to flock together. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not my or anyone else's place to tell you what you can and can't do on your property with your business.
> 
> There are few public restrooms in town because the migrant population is used to Mexico's crappy plumbing that won't accept toilet paper quite often. So they have gotten used to wiping their ass and then dropping the paper on the floor beside the toilet. This is the explanation i have been repeatedly given. Do i blame a business owner who knows that this is going to happen for not wanting to have to clean it up? No. Do i think they should ban Mexicans? Only the ones making the mess. But either way, regardless of their reasoning i believe they have the right to control what happens on their property.


Well you probably think its cool to discriminate because its never happen to you, but lets imagine that you went to a place to eat and was told that you could not eat in said place because of your skin color..According to you and Paul that business owner would have the right to deny you service..WTF...To do business in this great country we call THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA you cannot deny service to someone just because they are white,black or fat as long as you are respecting said business you should be served..anything else is just wrong...What if you ran out of gas with your family in the car and the only gas station in a 25 mile area told you sorry we only serve Asians, you honestly telling me you would be cool with that..??? Sorry guy in this country your business will serve all or you should not have a business


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 7, 2011)

I am writing a modern dictionary, the word i am working on today is. 
"conspiracy theory" or "Conspiracy Theorists" whichever:
so far i have.
"Conspiracy Theorists" 
A name to label someone, or something who, "points out the tens of thousands of lies, cover ups and denials of both government, and media, also points to the inconsistencies, contradictions, and all out blatant lies ".
The name is typically given by someone, who, is generally a spectator, or are part of a mass population with the same lower frequency brainwave, who, to them these matters go unnoticed, and unrecognized, no matter how obvious, and or relevant the case, or specific situation, even with government documentation and proof. Denial, and pre-implemented thought (i.e. brainwashing,influencing,manipulated,deceived,corrupted,conned,fooled,bribery,racketeering,obstruction,extortion), is generally the thesis for this behavior pattern and psychological psychosis. 
These behavior patterns and psychological psychosis, can also be tied to the way ,one will deny all facts if it does not fit into ones own world view, which increasingly, becomes a stronger, more dominant behavior/psychosis, the more this ritual is participated in by the participant.
(Example: Consider how, when the jet hit the twin towers, in the disaster of 9/11. Government claims they found the passport to one of the hijackers in the street below. When one with common since, and logic, would know, it is impossible for a piece paper to somehow fly out a burning, exploding, fire ball of a plane as it collides with the building, which in turn reduced the skyscraper to mere filth. Ones who would point at someone and plead, "Conspiracy Theory" at the common since aspect of this example, would beg to differ that somehow, it is indeed possible for a piece of paper, to fly through the fuselage of an exploding plane, through the fiery jet fuel explosion, then through the building and all the debris, to perfectly land down on the street below, unharmed in any way. Even though there is staggering evidence supporting that cannot, and will not happen, they continue to believe that it actually and factually did.)
"Conspiracy Theorists" or so they are labeled, just as anyone who gets labeled to try and discredit their reputation. When in fact it is just a stereotype, to rationalize ones ignorance. Or ones need to just feel important. Only to, in turn to look idiotic, and absolutely foolish as they go on spatting words like "conspiracy theorists".


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2011)

If some business in town only served white people, I would boycott that business, in fact I would assume the majority of white folks would. hard to run a business with no customers.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 7, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> If some business in town only served white people, I would boycott that business, in fact I would assume the majority of white folks would. hard to run a business with no customers.


I understand what you saying, but I once again I can guarantee if I said started a Mexican Only wash I would still have my business...Hell I could say Mexican and Black and still have it...According to Paul I should be able to not let one white person in my laundromats..Now I would never do that..Its phuckin wrong and I would not like it done to me!!!! but Ron Paul says I could and should have the right to do so...CRAZYYY


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I understand what you saying, but I once again I can guarantee if I said started a Mexican Only wash I would still have my business...Hell I could say Mexican and Black and still have it...According to Paul I should be able to not let one white person in my laundromats..Now I would never do that..Its phuckin wrong and I would not like it done to me!!!! but Ron Paul says I could and should have the right to do so...CRAZYYY


And i agree with you. But i'm not going to force you to. Yes, i'd be ok with it if i ran out of gas and the owner of the only gas station refused to serve whites. Because i have never run out of gas. EVER. Why? Because i have enough personal responsibility to make sure i have enough gas to get where i'm going. Would i be happy? Not at all. Would i raise a stink? Maybe, to make it known to all and hopefully hurt his bottom line. But would i tell him he shouldn't have the RIGHT to do it? No.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2011)

Property rights, some people only think they are rights when they are the property owners, otherwise they believe it is their right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own things.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 7, 2011)

and some people will never understand BS unless it happens to them...to do business in this country you will serve all or you will not do business ( at least not to the general public )...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And i agree with you. But i'm not going to force you to. Yes, i'd be ok with it if i ran out of gas and the owner of the only gas station refused to serve whites. Because i have never run out of gas. EVER. Why? Because i have enough personal responsibility to make sure i have enough gas to get where i'm going. Would i be happy? Not at all. Would i raise a stink? Maybe, to make it known to all and hopefully hurt his bottom line. But would i tell him he shouldn't have the RIGHT to do it? No.


Yeah I find the red part hard to believe...keep it real. maybe you will get your chance to really find out


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

Look guys. i DO know what it's like to be discriminated against. Remember, i'm a very small minority in my home town here.

As for the gas station thing, like i said. i would be mad, offended, very vocal and the like. But he STILL has the right to do as he wishes.

Keeping it real, HERE.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

This poem was written by an older gentleman in response to the whole "You're going to lose your Social Security and Government Aid!" fearmongerers attacking Dr. Paul. I think it says it pretty well too.

*Give me an Honest Man
By J. L. (Max) Brewster

...**I don't want a charismatic President who can bring the crowd to tears
Saying that he shares our values and then destroys what we hold dear
I don't want a persuasive Congressman who can fight to get things done
Who goes against his principles just to tell the folks he's won
I don't want a powerful Senator who brings money to my state
Money paid by my own taxes and then tells the folks he's great
I don't want my Supreme Court judges ruling based on precedent
Ignoring our Founder's intention of what the Constitution really meant
I don't want our problems hidden by some journalist's master plan
All I want is just some truthfulness, give me an honest man

I don't want corrupt insiders chosen by power brokers
To run for elected office in a room full of cigar smokers
I don't want our business leaders to take unfair advantage
Helped by high priced lobbyists, over companies better managed
I don't want our hospitals and doctors being worried or afraid
Of opportunist malpractice lawyers whose only motive is to get paid
I don't want my children paying for my generations over spending
They will not be self reliant, on the government they'll be depending
I don't want all this corruption to spread throughout our land
Let's replace it with integrity, give me an honest man

I don't want to face the problems that threaten our way of life
But we haven't got a choice now, our nation is in strife
I don't want to lose the benefits my government promised me
Will I give them up? Yes, gladly, if my children can be free
I don't want to face my children but it is time they all knew
Its not just about the money, its about our freedom too
I don't want to face the future not knowing what it brings
We do not know the outcome, its to the truth that we must cling
I don't want us to worry because we all must take God's hand
The answer is quite simple, give me an honest man.*


----------



## deprave (Jun 7, 2011)

This just happened to be one of the new articles today, how convinient since we are kind of on this topic now.

Omg guees what not only does ron paul allow racisism in restaurants but hes a racist wominizer and has no idea how to run a restaurant, as evidenced by this headline in the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/raising_glass_to_ron_pnQMYegNe82iIc7oNyuVPK



> *Raising a glass to Ron*
> 
> *Barkeeps hail 'no-tax' tips*
> 
> ...


omg ron paul is the anti-christ and prolly also a racist who will sell us to china look at that demon giving waitresses money! 






Tell you what guys lets get real for a second here - haven't you guys ever seen the sign that says "We have the right to refuse service to anyone we desire"? (or w/e -----Yea its on every business you go to that serves the public --- and they do throw people out all the time, and they will call the cops sometimes and the cops will throw them out. Its 2011 - there will not be signs that say 'no negros allowed' give it a rest.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 7, 2011)

deprave said:


> Its 2011 - there will not be signs that say 'no negros allowed' give it a rest.


no one ever said that would happen.

if ron paul's stance was the one taken in 1964, however, that reality would still exist.

they did just fine with those signs in their windows. you can try to deny that little piece of empirical evidence, but it won't make it go away.

watching you guys struggle with this fact is highly amusing.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> no one ever said that would happen.
> 
> if ron paul's stance was the one taken in 1964, however, that reality would still exist.
> 
> ...


Do you ever read what you just posted?. Pure insanity!


----------



## deprave (Jun 7, 2011)

you saying you wouldn't give that girl a tip is that what your saying?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> no one ever said that would happen.
> 
> if ron paul's stance was the one taken in 1964, however, that reality would still exist.
> 
> ...


"Evil businesses are trying to steal all your money" or "Businesses will not serve minorities" Which is it - you cant steal all the money and not serve people at the same time.

You have either never run a business or you live in 1960s. Fuck, lets go ahead and live in Roman times then. Christians are being eaten by lions and crucified! We need laws against crucifixion! OMG, the poor christians. DOWN WITH ADOLF HITLER.

Obviously you need to get a grip on reality.

I, myself, feel for my black brethen. I too, am too beaucoup. I would hate to be turned down for my obvious disability.

[video=youtube;K6Ep1nmwWU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Ep1nmwWU0&feature=player_detailpage#t=77s[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 7, 2011)

Realistic scenarios:

*Scenario 1*
if someone put up such a sign it would just go unnoticed and people would ignore and go in anyway and '10$ an hour' Will say 'How can I help you?'
Some people will notice it and laugh, Till one day an old lady notices it and she will speed dial the local local news on her cellphone while taking pictures with her phone and the business would get shut down and/or lose business and/or burnt to the ground and/or robbed, or sued and go bankrupt.

*Scenario 2*
Ok sure say this happens in the deep south, middle of Alabama racist central town full of white racist....Well what happens when an out of towner who is white stops in and takes a picture of the sign and basically snitches...lawsuits follow...

*Scenario 3*
what happens when grandma puts her newly crafted racist sign on facebook to show her friends.....


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Can't say Ron Paul is racist but his views on the Civil Rights vote of 64 can only lead to racism...Ron Paul feels that a business owner can deny someone into his/her business for what ever reason, so if I decide to not let any white/black people come in my businesses to wash clothes and only allow Mexicans its perfectly all right according to Ron Paul...and to those who say I would go out of business, you crazy...I can guarantee my business would still thrive with Mexican only for they would be happy to have a place where only they can wash...Heck maybe I can have one location Mexican only..the other Black only...and my third White only..according to Ron Pauls views I should be able to do that..


I like you more and more as time goes on, London. Maybe even a little respect!

I understand not wanting people to be excluded, but we shouldn't try to legislate morality. A business is private property. You can have whoever you want thrown out for whatever reason you want - you don't even have to give a reason. It is your property. If you make a law like that for private property used for business, how long before that law is applied to your personal life? Should you be forced to employ a gardener you don't like or buy from a store owned by someone you don't like? If I spend money that I worked for to open a business - it is my business. 

Obviously excluding people is wrong. I don't think a business owner who owns his property should be treated differently than a home owner. If I own a bar, should I suffer people who make me uncomfortable or unhappy for whatever reason if I don't want to? Granted, someone would have to be a real piece of shit for me not to want their money, but if someone just made me feel uncomfortable, should I be made to suffer their presence? I mean, it is my place, after all. 

The civils rights laws don't stop this in any small business as they are excluded from it for the most part, aren't they? Large businesses, the ones who actually have a law to obey, would never deny businesses to anyone due to lust for profit. The laws do nothing but cause resentment from the majority and really show very little benefit, if any. Not to mention the federal government does not have the right to dictate morality.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 7, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Do you ever read what you just posted?. Pure insanity!


i believe i posted that before civil rights were implemented, businesses that were supposedly "open to the public" had signs in the windows disallowing blacks from entering, yet had no problem staying in business.

do you dispute this historical fact?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 7, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ok sure say this happens in the deep south, middle of Alabama racist central town full of white racist....Well what happens when an out of towner who is white stops in and takes a picture of the sign and basically snitches...lawsuits follow...


how would there be a lawsuit if ron paul had his way and public accommodation laws were never passed?

that is not a "realistic scenario".


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

deprave said:


> This just happened to be one of the new articles today, how convinient since we are kind of on this topic now.
> 
> Omg guees what not only does ron paul allow racisism in restaurants but hes a racist wominizer and has no idea how to run a restaurant, as evidenced by this headline in the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/raising_glass_to_ron_pnQMYegNe82iIc7oNyuVPK
> 
> ...


Hell yeah!!!! No-tax tips!!! Spread that news and he just swung the entire service industry!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 7, 2011)

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' George Santayana

I for one will not forget ...The very reason we HAD to have the Civil Rights Vote of 64 was because of the racism and hatred that ran plenty in this country and because of that ill past you have what you have ...Laws to stop you from even trying and I for one will be damn to see it changed..so Phuck Ron Paul glad he won't make in out the primary..I for one will cast a vote for Herman or Mitt to assure such...Obama2012


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> no one ever said that would happen.


 Well you hit the nail on the head, no matter what RP's stance is on private property rights, the country isn't going to revert back to Jim Crowe laws anytime soon. No matter how hard you try to tell people they can't be racist, they will be racist, its human nature to look for differences amongst one another. Look at children, they single out the odd kids at an early age.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i believe i posted that before civil rights were implemented, businesses that were supposedly "open to the public" had signs in the windows disallowing blacks from entering, yet had no problem staying in business.
> 
> do you dispute this historical fact?


How many businesses had those signs? 10, 100, 10,000? Just how many?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 7, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Well you hit the nail on the head, no matter what RP's stance is on private property rights, the country isn't going to revert back to Jim Crowe laws anytime soon. No matter how hard you try to tell people they can't be racist, they will be racist, its human nature to look for differences amongst one another. Look at children, they single out the odd kids at an early age.


people will be racist.

we don't have to condone this. we can condemn it.

and we rightly do just that, despite ron paul's objections.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 7, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> How many businesses had those signs? 10, 100, 10,000? Just how many?


does it matter?

even if only 1 business did so, it would be disgusting and appalling.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> does it matter?
> 
> even if only 1 business did so, it would be disgusting and appalling.


Then don't do business there. Problem solved.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Then don't do business there. Problem solved.


nope. if i don't patronize that business but enough other people do, the problem remains.

and why are we even considering a candidate who brings the conversation BACKWARDS by about 50 years? shouldn't we be projecting 50 years forward? ya know, looking for long term solutions?

just a thought.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> nope. if i don't patronize that business but enough other people do, the problem remains.
> 
> and why are we even considering a candidate who brings the conversation BACKWARDS by about 50 years? shouldn't we be projecting 50 years forward? ya know, looking for long term solutions?
> 
> just a thought.


Why is it my or your duty to police right and wrong. i think with media being what it is todat a person opening an "excluse" business would do better to say "Latinos Only" than to say No Whites or Blacks. And they could do well. Do i think it's right? idk, depends on why they are doing it. They sometimes have very good reason, such as a Latino History gathering or whatnot. Why would they WANT to open their doors to the likes of the KKK or the Black Panthers? Common sense UB. We can't legislate morals nor racial equality. Neither one is a winnable fight. All they do is breed more intolerance(Because now whites are mad at minorities because there are scholarships for every other race. While there is one white-male only scholarship i know of, one is not helping much), common sense-less legislation(Brings to mind the Chicago fire-fighter case. Why hire less qualified candidates for no reason other than to make your quota for minorities), blocked paths to happiness(The previous two are good examples i think.), etc. 

Not the kind of world i enjoy living in. Therefore i plan to vote Ron Paul 2012!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

Don't think it's been posted here yet but if it has then i think it's worthy of a second post.

[video=youtube;e26FhQo_2JY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26FhQo_2JY[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Why is it my or your duty to police right and wrong.


two quotes come to my mind: 'all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing' and 'i am my brother's keeper'.

i guess, since we can not and must not police right and wrong, we should release all the murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, right?



budlover13 said:


> i think with media being what it is todat a person opening an "excluse" business would do better to say "Latinos Only" than to say No Whites or Blacks. And they could do well. Do i think it's right? idk, depends on why they are doing it.


this is completely off topic. we are talking about businesses to which the civil rights act applies, ones that claim to be open to the public. 

i may disagree that augusta national does not allow women members, but that is their right as a PRIVATE, NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC establishment.



budlover13 said:


> They sometimes have very good reason, such as a Latino History gathering or whatnot.


private businesses do not NEED a reason, they are private.



budlover13 said:


> Why would they WANT to open their doors to the likes of the KKK or the Black Panthers? Common sense UB.


common sense is knowing wht you are talking about with respect to the topic at hand, the civil rights act of 1964. perhaps you have noticed that private businesses are NOT restricted from letting in those they allow, while PUBLIC businesses must allow all but the unruly and disruptive.



budlover13 said:


> We can't legislate morals nor racial equality. Neither one is a winnable fight. All they do is breed more intolerance


we have legislated progressively towards racial and gender equality (remember those amendments that allow blacks and women to vote?). 

are you saying you are more intolerant to women and blacks? that is what i hear.



budlover13 said:


> (Because now whites are mad at minorities because there are scholarships for every other race. While there is one white-male only scholarship i know of, one is not helping much)


it must be tough to be a white male in america nowadays. as a fellow white male, i feel your pain. it is soooooooooooo tough.



budlover13 said:


> common sense-less legislation(Brings to mind the Chicago fire-fighter case. Why hire less qualified candidates for no reason other than to make your quota for minorities)


fact: minorities are ALWAYS less qualified 



budlover13 said:


> Not the kind of world i enjoy living in. Therefore i plan to vote Ron Paul 2012!


yay for centuries old logic that no longer applies!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> two quotes come to my mind: 'all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing' and 'i am my brother's keeper'.
> 
> i guess, since we can not and must not police right and wrong, we should release all the murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, right?
> 
> ...


LOL! It spin and drivel as well as the out and out lies that really make people want to give up. But when someone reads this thread in it's entirety, they are going to laugh at the ignorance and spin as well as the Red Herrings that you throw out there UB.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

I think UncleBuck made some very excellent points...


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I think UncleBuck made some very excellent points...


The same ones that have been countered several times before.

Not surprising, but not new.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> The same ones that have been countered several times before.
> 
> Not surprising, but not new.


Sorry guy ...The points on private and public businessess can not be countered for there is no argument what the law states...


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Sorry guy ...The points on private and public businessess can not be countered for there is no argument what the law states...


A law that has been long, and at times hotly, debated having myself and other members make our points clear. It is obvious that UB will not likely change his mind and that is his right. He's an intelligent, capable adult.

i'm simply saying that it is pointless for me to debate how a law applies to businesses, private or "public" when it is exceptionally clear that i believe it is an unjust law and should be repealed. It is my belief that ALL businesses, not accepting gov't funding or aid, should be private. If one chooses to take advantage of the fact that there is a fund or grant or good interest through private groups that support racial diversity and acceptance to encourage economic growth(funded by those that choose to do so, not a tax on all) then and ONLY then should any sort of equality law apply. If a private citizen offers someone $XXXX but places a stipulation on the way that money is spent then i have no problem with that. They can take it or leave it. But when someone tries to tell me how to spend MY money that i have earned, then i stand opposed.

i, personally, would look for the lowest rates out there and see who i need to deal with.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> A law that has been long, and at times hotly, debated having myself and other members make our points clear. It is obvious that UB will not likely change his mind and that is his right. He's an intelligent, capable adult.
> i'm simply saying that it is pointless for me to debate how a law applies to businesses, private or "public" when it is exceptionally clear that i believe it is an unjust law and should be repealed. It is my belief that ALL businesses, not accepting gov't funding or aid, should be private. If one chooses to take advantage of the fact that there is a fund or grant or good interest through private groups that support racial diversity and acceptance to encourage economic growth(funded by those that choose to do so, not a tax on all) then and ONLY then should any sort of equality law apply. If a private citizen offers someone $XXXX but places a stipulation on the way that money is spent then i have no problem with that. They can take it or leave it. But when someone tries to tell me how to spend MY money that i have earned, then i stand opposed.


 Well sorry that you feel that way, but the courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved, so I guess you just have to suck that up..and I think you really need to learn the difference between a Club/Organization and a Business..If you so want the right to tell people to stay out of your building because of what or who they are..just make it a Club/Organization, but you can't do any interstate commerce or deal with the general public or you back to square one..so good luck with that ( hope you got some heavy donors )..


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Well sorry that you feel that way, but the courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved, so I guess you just have to suck that up..and I think you really need to learn the difference between a Club/Organazation and a Business..If you so want the right to tell people to stay out of your building because of what or who they are..just make it a Club/Organazation, but you can't do any interstate commerce or deal with the general public or you back to square one..so good luck with that ( hope you got some heavy donors )..


 
And you prove my point exactly sir. Thank you.

You attempt to mislabel my desire for liberty as racist, silly, uneducated or unwise just like the mainstream media and pocket-politicians do to Dr. Paul. Smear tactics at it's finest, but smear tactics nonetheless that avoid or attempt to cloud the issues at hand. Yet you make my exact point. If one chooses to make their business exclusive then they will suffer the financial hardships involved. The market WILL work it out. WITHOUT infringing on the rights and liberty of others.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

ron paul 2012! he will spur jobs in the printing and publishing sector!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul 2012! he will spur jobs in the printing and publishing sector!
> 
> View attachment 1638927


While i have little faith at times in my fellow man, i would wager that publications such as your example would be available, but would be targeted in much the same way to racists, not the excluded races because our country just won't support overt racism on a wide-spread scale any more imo. The Civil Rights Act served it's purpose but then got twisted to allow reverse discrimination as a form of payment to blacks and then other minorities. We are at a point now where, at least i, believe that if a black business-owner wants to exclude a white man because he reminds them of the oppression suffered by his ancestorsd then he should have the right to do so. Or at least make the atmosphere so uncomfortable for a white man that he wouldn't WANT to go there.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> While i have little faith at times in my fellow man, i would wager that publications such as your example would be available, but would be targeted in much the same way to racists, not the excluded races because our country just won't support overt racism on a wide-spread scale any more imo. The Civil Rights Act served it's purpose but then got twisted to allow reverse discrimination as a form of payment to blacks and then other minorities. We are at a point now where, at least i, believe that if a black business-owner wants to exclude a white man because he reminds them of the oppression suffered by his ancestorsd then he should have the right to do so. Or at least make the atmosphere so uncomfortable for a white man that he wouldn't WANT to go there.


textbook move: the whites are the ones who face discrimination now! forget the achievement gap, the disproportionate amount of minorities in prison, or any number of other examples of how discrimination against minorities is still well and strong, it is the poor tough white male who faces the shit end of the stick.

boo fucking hoo.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> textbook move: the whites are the ones who face discrimination now! forget the achievement gap, the disproportionate amount of minorities in prison, or any number of other examples of how discrimination against minorities is still well and strong, it is the poor tough white male who faces the shit end of the stick.
> 
> boo fucking hoo.


Textbook move: Using whites as the most common example of reverse racism in progress. Your assertions are just typical propaganda of the politically and ethically corrupt.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And you prove my point exactly sir. Thank you.
> 
> You attempt to mislabel my desire for liberty as racist, silly, uneducated or unwise just like the mainstream media and pocket-politicians do to Dr. Paul. Smear tactics at it's finest, but smear tactics nonetheless that avoid or attempt to cloud the issues at hand. Yet you make my exact point. If one chooses to make their business exclusive then they will suffer the financial hardships involved. The market WILL work it out. WITHOUT infringing on the rights and liberty of others.


Guy I proved zero of your points and I never said you are racist, silly or uneducated..You make that claim not I...as far as your thought that the market will work it out..I already told you how I can just let only mexicans and blacks wash clothes in my businesses and it would not hurt me one bit..If I told every white person that they could not wash I GUARANTEE I would still be in business...so my business is just one example of being able to survive the views of you and ron paul..you really think I have the right to tell some white lady that she can't wash clothes just because she white ???? hmmmm what if I let her wash ..then decided phuck it I don't want her here no more and kicked her out without letting her dry her clothes..do I have the right to do that to ..its my business right ????WTF


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Your assertions are just typical propaganda of the politically and ethically corrupt.


no, you are just butt hurt that i called you out on your 'oh, poor me' bullshit.

i find it fitting that the 'truth about ron paul' threads all devolve into discussion of how he does not support civil rights, would have let the economy collapse, does not support more liberty for women, etc. because that IS the truth about ron paul.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> no, you are just butt hurt that i called you out on your 'oh, poor me' bullshit.
> 
> i find it fitting that the 'truth about ron paul' threads all devolve into discussion of how he does not support civil rights, would have let the economy collapse, does not support more liberty for women, etc. because that IS the truth about ron paul.


Que sera, sera. Ad Nauseaum.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

Got pretty high opinions of yourselves and some pretty big ego imo.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

*Ad Hominem (the argument against the man)* 
Attacking the person's character instead of attacking the argument.
Examples:
"Why should I listen to your opinion on philosophy, you barely graduated high school."
"You think you are capable of debating evolutionary theory while you sit there and smoke weed all day?" 

*Ad baculum (appeal to the stick or force)
*An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force is used to justify the conclusion.
Examples: 
"If you don't repent your sins you will burn for eternity in hell, therefore you MUST repent."
"Don't argue with the king's policies or he will lock you up and toss away the key. Therefore keep your mouth shut."

*Ad lapidem (throwing stones)
*Dismissing a statement as absurd without giving reason why it is absurd.
Examples:
"You don't believe in a divine being? That's just fuckin' retarded!"
"You don't think marijuana is addictive? Are you crazy!? Pull your head out of your ass."

*loaded question* 
Asking a question that presupposes something that isn't yet proven.
Examples:
"Do you still beat children up with baseball bats?"
"Why is Obama afraid to admit he was born in Kenya?"



The tools of fools.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> He isn't being hidden from view. He gets tons of press. You've posted a ton of Ron Paul videos of him being interviewed. I didn't see his face being blacked out or smeared.
> Free markets encourage monopolies. Ron Paul thinks federal anti-monopoly laws are unconstitutional.


Dan
You must not have followed the 2008 elections. Ron Paul was constantly marginalized. He was left out of a debate even though he was polling higher than others in the debate.

You also missed the point about what Ron Paul thinks about monopolies. Quit getting info from soundbites, you don't know his policies. Don't get caught up in a one size fits all mentality. Take some time and read up on the Alcoa monopoly trial. It was ridiculous and a waste of time.
To say free markets encourage monopolies is absurd.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> no, you are just butt hurt that i called you out on your 'oh, poor me' bullshit.
> 
> i find it fitting that the 'truth about ron paul' threads all devolve into discussion of how he does not support civil rights, would have let the economy collapse, does not support more liberty for women, etc. because that IS the truth about ron paul.


You lying sack of shit, who wouldn't know the truth if it hit you right between the eyes.

You're a pussy who can't argue the issues, so you make it about the poster. We're not your little buddies who read comic books and national geographic and lie about having girl friends. Your little buddies believe your bullshit, adults don't, you ignorant little twat.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

Easy Parker. Don't stoop to that level. Big picture.

Understandably frustrating but that is the exact response they aim for. Don't give them any ammo to supplement their half-truths and misconceptions.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

I think the truth hurts...and you never answered my question on my last post


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Guy I proved zero of your points and I never said you are racist, silly or uneducated..You make that claim not I...as far as your thought that the market will work it out..I already told you how I can just let only mexicans and blacks wash clothes in my businesses and it would not hurt me one bit..If I told every white person that they could not wash I GUARANTEE I would still be in business
> ...so my business is just one example of being able to survive the views of you and ron paul..you really think I have the right to tell some white lady that she can't wash clothes just because she white ???? hmmmm what if I let her wash ..then decided phuck it I don't want her here no more and kicked her out without letting her dry her clothes..do I have the right to do that to ..its my business right ????WTF


bullshit. You cannot guarantee that. I'd be willing to bet if I open up right next to you I'd be more successful than you. How could I not be? Anyone who knows a business understands when you narrow the customer base you get less customers. To say different is bullshit so quit talking shit. Some customers will leave your business and go with mine for the sole reason I don't discriminate. 
Then another person comes along and sees me being more successful than you since I serve EVERYONE, sees you still making money and that person opens a store. Eventually you will be driven out of business. THAT is a fact. 
But you're gonna tell me you're the ONE example it's not true. You're talking shit.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I think the truth hurts...and you never answered my question on my last post


I answered your question. You're clueless on economics. You proved it by making one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard muttered, "You can be successful by stopping people from buying your product". fuck off you half wit


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> You lying sack of shit, who wouldn't know the truth if it hit you right between the eyes.
> 
> You're a pussy who can't argue the issues, so you make it about the poster. We're not your little buddies who read comic books and national geographic and lie about having girl friends. Your little buddies believe your bullshit, adults don't, you ignorant little twat.


truth stings a bit, doesn't it?

ron paul does not support civil rights: FACT
ron paul would have let the economy collapse: FACT
ron paul does not support more liberty for women: FACT


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Guy I proved zero of your points and I never said you are racist, silly or uneducated..You make that claim not I...as far as your thought that the market will work it out..I already told you how I can just let only mexicans and blacks wash clothes in my businesses and it would not hurt me one bit..If I told every white person that they could not wash I GUARANTEE I would still be in business...so my business is just one example of being able to survive the views of you and ron paul..you really think I have the right to tell some white lady that she can't wash clothes just because she white ???? hmmmm what if I let her wash ..then decided phuck it I don't want her here no more and kicked her out without letting her dry her clothes..do I have the right to do that to ..its my business right ????WTF


Yes, it SHOULD be your right. Freedom isn't free.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Easy Parker. Don't stoop to that level. Big picture.
> 
> Understandably frustrating but that is the exact response they aim for. Don't give them any ammo to supplement their half-truths and misconceptions.


 bud you have good intentions but you have to understand, some of these imbreds weren't raised right. They only know how to talk and deal on a certain level. Its like learning a foreign language to chat with someone from a different country.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> *Ad Hominem (the argument against the man)*
> Attacking the person's character instead of attacking the argument.
> 
> The tools of fools.





Parker said:


> You lying sack of shit...You're a pussy ...you ignorant little twat.





Parker said:


> You're clueless...fuck off you half wit


what reeks like bengay?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> truth stings a bit, doesn't it?
> 
> ron paul does not support civil rights: FACT
> ron paul would have let the economy collapse: FACT
> ron paul does not support more liberty for women: FACT


No, he doesn't support a law that infringes upon the liberty of others.

The economy one was conjecture since nobody can say what might have been. Obviously the "solution" we went with hasn't done so hot.

He support the right of a woman to find a Dr. who is willing to willing to do the procedure. He doesn't agree with it, but she would still have that right.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> bullshit. You cannot guarantee that. I'd be willing to bet if I open up right next to you I'd be more successful than you. How could I not be? Anyone who knows a business understands when you narrow the customer base you get less customers. To say different is bullshit so quit talking shit. Some customers will leave your business and go with mine for the sole reason I don't discriminate.
> Then another person comes along and sees me being more successful than you since I serve EVERYONE, sees you still making money and that person opens a store. Eventually you will be driven out of business. THAT is a fact.
> But you're gonna tell me you're the ONE example it's not true. You're talking shit.


ok realistically you can't open up next to me..you can go about two blocks down...so that rules you out..and you would be surprise just how many Mexicans would be happy to have a place that only they could wash..Now I'm sure quite a few blacks would be upset, but hey I'm black so they would still come and ask me why as they do their wash and I will just tell them so bullshit about white folks and lice...so you keep thinking you know people when I see and deal with these people evey damn day ( almost )...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> ...these imbreds weren't raised right.


this coming from a guy who has no problem calling people imbreds and twats (among other things)?

you're COOL.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> what reeks like bengay?


Funny! Not. Childish, pathetic, clear view into the mind of most Ron Paul opponents? Yes.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> this coming from a guy who has no problem calling people imbreds and twats (among other things)?
> 
> you're COOL.


Told you Parker. They dish it but have a hard time taking it.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> truth stings a bit, doesn't it?
> 
> ron paul does not support civil rights: FACT
> ron paul would have let the economy collapse: FACT
> ron paul does not support more liberty for women: FACT


You're one of the dumbest people I know. You couldn't spell cat if you were spotted the c and the a.
First off your ignorant douchebag, government does not grant people civil rights. Anyone with a basic understanding of government knows government takes away rights it doesn't grant them.

Only a short sighted twat like you would make a statement like Ron Paul would let the economy collapse. First off if we adopted his policies the housing crash would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. You forget that point douchebag.
The economy is horseshit right now because the "chosen ones"said they could fix it. The answer was to let the free market work and not bail out your buddies with MY MONEY. You let bad businesses fail you let good ones survive. That's best for the long run. Only a short sighted moron would think different. The same short sighted morons who thought manipulating the housing market would be good.

Ron Paul supports liberty for EVERYONE EQUALLY. The right to life is the most important right. Without that the others are meaningless. You want to know why, you inept twat? because without the right to life you're dead. When you're dead you have no rights.

What else are you going to make up to fit your agenda?
Keep talking out your ass like you know shit, this is fun.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> this coming from a guy who has no problem calling people imbreds and twats (among other things)?
> 
> you're COOL.


and you're an ignorant bullshit artist who would be better keeping off keeping his uninformed yap shut.
If the kitchen is too hot shut the fuck up and get out.

or you could post like a decent human being and see if others treat you the same.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> No, he doesn't support a law that infringes upon the liberty of others.


oh, those poor whites, having their liberty infringed by having to serve a black guy! a travesty!



budlover13 said:


> The economy one was conjecture since nobody can say what might have been. Obviously the "solution" we went with hasn't done so hot.


better than a complete collapse.



budlover13 said:


> He support the right of a woman to find a Dr. who is willing to willing to do the procedure. He doesn't agree with it, but she would still have that right.


"There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that&#8217;s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist." - ron paul, 11/28/2007

citation: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> You're one of the dumbest people I know. ... ignorant douchebag...short sighted twat...douchebag....short sighted moron ... you inept twat?...Keep talking out your ass like you know shit, this is fun.





Parker said:


> and you're an ignorant bullshit artist who would be better keeping off keeping his uninformed yap shut... shut the fuck up


and just in case we haven't had a heaping helping of irony, you follow that up with....



Parker said:


> or you could post like a decent human being and see if others treat you the same.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Yes, it SHOULD be your right. Freedom isn't free.


WOW ...SO I have the right to let a poor single white lady start her 8 loads of clothes then right when she about to dry them I can kick her out just for being white ?????I should have that right...WTF...dude I would never do some sick shit like that , but you and Ron PAul to think that should be someones right just because he/she owns the business is freakin unbelievable...Glad we have laws to stop shit like that from happening


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Funny! Not. Childish, pathetic, clear view into the mind of most Ron Paul opponents? Yes.


actually, it is clever. he always calls me "kid" or "boy", so i caricaturize him as a cantankerous old geezer from whom the aroma of smelly products that old people use wafts.



budlover13 said:


> Told you Parker. They dish it but have a hard time taking it.


show me where i was anywhere NEAR the level of parker. please quote it, i'll be waiting.

yet you try to make my ongoing joke with parker look like some indictment of an anti ron paul conspiracy.

heavens to betsy.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> oh, those poor whites, having their liberty infringed by having to serve a black guy! a travesty!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First two are Red Herring and Conjecture once again. And do you not understand why he has his views? What rights are there if you don't have a life. And just because he holds the same view i do doesn't mean that he will enforce his will on the populace.

You guys are falling apart. Pity, you were doing so well.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 8, 2011)

Go BARRY SOTARO! lol, j.k. I wanted to post this link, to show you how somehow, when the majority does not want anything to do with his BarryCare, there is a weak minority, who somehow think its good, WTF!?
this is how good it really is http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0609-healthcare-court-20110608,0,2111995.story


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> WOW ...SO I have the right to let a poor single white lady start her 8 loads of clothes then right when she about to dry them I can kick her out just for being white ?????I should have that right...WTF...dude I would never do some sick shit like that , but you and Ron PAul to think that should be someones right just because he/she owns the business is freakin unbelievable...Glad we have laws to stop shit like that from happening


And i would not do it either. But if you come on my property and interact with me then you are at the whims of my will. Period. If you don't like it, leave! i would enforce a rule that if your pants are hanging so low i can see your underwear or if you are rude/disrespectful to me OR my customers or if you have more than 10 items you CAN'T USE THE EXPRESS LANE PERIOD. So who the hell jas the right to tell me what i can and can't do on my own property? If i'm renting/leasing then i would mitigate with my landlord but if it mine, i stand opposed as our forefathers would and did.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> actually, it is clever. he always calls me "kid" or "boy", so i caricaturize him as a cantankerous old geezer from whom the aroma of smelly products that old people use wafts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Now that it has been fully explained, it still doesn't contribute to the topic at hand and only serves to bait, entice, and infuriate someone. If he has done the same to you before finally getting tired of reading you propaganda, insults, misconceptions, and personal attacks amongst other things. Based on this type of behavior it seems logical to me that anyone who acts this way is immature whether it be in age or intellect.

You are a bright man UB and i like you, well, most of the time  i think this may just be something you are overthinking a little too much. You've lost sight of the forest because you are looking at the trees.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And do you not understand why he has his views? What rights are there if you don't have a life.


so the rights of the unborn fetus trump the rights of the already living, united states citizen?



budlover13 said:


> And just because he holds the same view i do doesn't mean that he will enforce his will on the populace.


*"There HAS to be a criminal penalty for the person that&#8217;s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist." - ron paul, 11/28/2007*

darn facts.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so the rights of the unborn fetus trump the rights of the already living, united states citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fact would inform you, just as you know already that quote was from '07, since then his debate points are that its up to each state, and he leaves it as that.
Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And i would not do it either. But if you come on my property and interact with me then you are at the whims of my will. Period. If you don't like it, leave! i would enforce a rule that if your pants are hanging so low i can see your underwear or if you are rude/disrespectful to me OR my customers or if you have more than 10 items you CAN'T USE THE EXPRESS LANE PERIOD. So who the hell jas the right to tell me what i can and can't do on my own property? If i'm renting/leasing then i would mitigate with my landlord but if it mine, i stand opposed as our forefathers would and did.


Dude you can deny service to someone showing underwear, or being rude...stick with the facts please...Ron Paul thinks I should even have the right to base it on skin tone, religion, gender etc...which is clearly wrong..If you want to do business ( commerce) in this country you will play by the rules..or you can leave


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Fact would inform you, just as you know already that quote was from '07, since then his debate points are that its up to each state, and he leaves it as that.
> Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Nothing wrong with that.


Thank you for the back-up on that one bro. i have never claimed to know everthing there is to know about anything. i'm just heralding truth in advertising and i think RP does a very good job of it. 

Difference between me and SOME others is that they say they are open-minded and willing to change their minds when they are shown the "light" but then never really absorb the evidence laid out before them. They get too wrapped up in how to counter or respond when if they were just open and honest they wouldn't HAVE to think about it, it would come naturally. i've learned this lesson when dealing with my 11 year old son. If i just start blasting out why he shouldn't have done what he did he doesn't hear anything i say because his mind is racing trying to figure out what to say to deflect and stay out of trouble. HIS OWN WORDS!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude you can deny service to someone showing underwear, or being rude...stick with the facts please...Ron Paul thinks I should even have the right to base it on skin tone, religion, gender etc...which is clearly wrong..If you want to do business ( commerce) in this country you will play by the rules..or you can leave


Not off-topic but being used as a common sense example of why i should be allowed to set my rules on my property. Should've known that common sense wouldn't be conducive to you. Should've explained myself better. Sorry.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Fact would inform you, just as you know already that quote was from '07


um, i included the date it was from. so i was already what you might call "informed" of that fact.

facts would inform you that that exact quote is still displayed ON HIS WEBSITE. so he still endorses it, i would say.



tryingtogrow89 said:


> since then his debate points are that its up to each state, and he leaves it as that.
> Sounds pretty constitutional to me. Nothing wrong with that.


state-sponsored extremism FTW.

the SCOTUS ruled that abortion is legal. that means EVERYWHERE.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Not off-topic but being used as a common sense example of why i should be allowed to set my rules on my property.


not if your property is 'open to the public' and those rules deny members of the public service due to the color of their skin or their religion etc.



budlover13 said:


> Should've known that common sense wouldn't be conducive to you.


sounds like an insult to me.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so the rights of the unborn fetus trump the rights of the already living, united states citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perspective and personal responsibility for a second.

The born had their right to their bodies and the choice of whether or not they should commit and act that could possibly end in pregnancy and a child. Once they exercise the right to have intercourse they are responsible for the consequences. And they now have a moral obligation to nurture that life to the best of their ability imo. Therefore they have no right to terminate that life.

If one catches AIDS, syphillis, the clap, etc what does he do? Goes to the doctor and starts treating his disease. But a baby is not a disease.A burden? Most definitely. A hardship? Can be. Easy? Never. But it is not a disease to be "treated" and forgotten. It is the result of two adults choosing to commit an act that very well could have unintended consequences. The mentality of "Oh, it wasn't my fault, it was an accident." doesn't hold water when you're knowingly taking a risk that involves a human being and life. If you drink & drive it's called Manslaughter at best and Murder at worst.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> not if your property is 'open to the public' and those rules deny members of the public service due to the color of their skin or their religion etc.
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like an insult to me.


The point being that i should have the right to decide whether it is open to the general public or not and continue to conduct my business as i see fit.

As for the perceived insult, it was merely an observation based on the entirety of your post history. More like a neg rep than an insult imo.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> The point being that i should have the right to decide whether it is open to the general public or not and continue to conduct my business as i see fit.


That's fine, but I don't see why discrimination is necessary there.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok realistically you can't open up next to me..you can go about two blocks down...so that rules you out..and you would be surprise just how many Mexicans would be happy to have a place that only they could wash..Now I'm sure quite a few blacks would be upset, but hey I'm black so they would still come and ask me why as they do their wash and I will just tell them so bullshit about white folks and lice...so you keep thinking you know people when I see and deal with these people evey damn day ( almost )...


lmao
People are people, you are going to find some asshats along the way but for the most part people do not back businesses with exclusionary policies.

I'll bite, why do I have to open up 2 blocks away?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Not off-topic but being used as a common sense example of why i should be allowed to set my rules on my property. Should've known that common sense wouldn't be conducive to you. Should've explained myself better. Sorry.


well you used a pretty weak example because showing your underwear is something you can change by simple pulling up your pants..kinda hard to change your gender or skin tone just to go in a store..and don't be sorry just take your time before you think to reply


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> lmao
> People are people, you are going to find some asshats along the way but for the most part people do not back businesses with exclusionary policies.
> 
> I'll bite, why do I have to open up 2 blocks away?


you still missing the point... I should not have the right to do it!!!! ...

you have to still follow certain sewer points/routes to open such business due to the water usage and chemicals....right now thats about two blocks away at my best location


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> lmao
> People are people, you are going to find some asshats along the way but for the most part people do not back businesses with exclusionary policies.


Unless they are offering a superior products/services or lower price. If the KKK started selling pounds of top shelf indoor for $1000 per pack, people would buy them.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude you can deny service to someone showing underwear, or being rude...stick with the facts please...Ron Paul thinks I should even have the right to base it on skin tone, religion, gender etc...which is clearly wrong..If you want to do business ( commerce) in this country you will play by the rules..or you can leave


Since you dont know the rules when are you leaving? Want to sell the washerita?

It is clearly immoral for a business to do so but it is well within their rights. Since when does government or anyone get to not only tell someone what is good for their business and gets to fine/steal from me as well? So much for freedom. It is wrong for the government to use force and make you run YOUR business how THEY see fit. 
You do not have the right to tell me how to run my business UNLESS it infringes on others rights. YOU have no right to MY private business. YOU should never be able to force ME to work for someone I don't want to. What's next? Are going to force me to work in your washerita? How much further are tyrants like you willing to go to rob me of my freedoms for the "perceived" benefit of others.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Unless they are offering a superior products/services or lower price. If the KKK started selling pounds of top shelf indoor for $1000 per pack, people would buy them.


I'm sure a few would but once they were exposed less and less people would buy from them. People boycott businesses. Also if they sell it that low won't others follow? And wont the lower price benefit the people?
Plus you have to factor in the profit. If they arent making a profit they'll go broke. If they are making a profit whatever they are doing others will follow. That is what a free market does.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> well you used a pretty weak example because showing your underwear is something you can change by simple pulling up your pants..kinda hard to change your gender or skin tone just to go in a store..and don't be sorry just take your time before you think to reply


i was trying to simplify for ease of debate and obviously failed. Would this serve as a better example:

In my town, it is a common belief/perception/true based on my 37 years of observation that because of culture and habits there are a lot more Hispanic parents that control their children to what i consider an acceptable public level of behavior. Not that they(the kids) do anything much different than white kids or black kids or any other kids. It is the fact that their parents choose to take them out into public, hype them up on candy, get all sticky and dirty, scream and throw fits when they want a candy or ice cream or soda or ad nauseaum. They can curse, shout, push, and be otherwise rude and obnoxious. Is it a Hispanic thing? That's what i've been told by my Hispanic friends that DO properly raise their children.

It would be suicide to open up a business in my town that excluded Hispanics, financially and quite possibly literally. But i still say that i should retain the right to do so if i so wish.

Does that more accurately address the issue? Because if not i'll try again. And again. And again. 
The more we debate the better i get at countering all these faux-points.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Unless they are offering a superior products/services or lower price. If the KKK started selling pounds of top shelf indoor for $1000 per pack, people would buy them.


And this is wrong why?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> Since you dont know the rules when are you leaving? Want to sell the washerita?
> 
> It is clearly immoral for a business to do so but it is well within their rights. Since when does government or anyone get to not only tell someone what is good for their business and gets to fine/steal from me as well? So much for freedom. It is wrong for the government to use force and make you run YOUR business how THEY see fit.
> You do not have the right to tell me how to run my business UNLESS it infringes on others rights. YOU have no right to MY private business. YOU should never be able to force ME to work for someone I don't want to. What's next? Are going to force me to work in your washerita? How much further are tyrants like you willing to go to rob me of my freedoms for the "perceived" benefit of others.


Why would I leave I'm happy with the law as it is ..You and Ron Paul whats to see it changed...Hell no I don't want to sell..easiest money I ever made in my life..start up was a bitch but now easy profits....your business is not "private" if its open to the general public...again maybe you need to look into a Club or Organization then you can have all the private your little freedom loving heart wants.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you still missing the point... I should not have the right to do it!!!! ...


If you open a business that discriminates people/society, not government, should rise up against them.

You dont know what a right is. That is why YOU miss the point. Quit making up what a right is. It is already defined. This is the same mentality that denied interracial marriages in the past. Laws written by people who want to manage others lives. I even bet some of those against interracial marriage truly believed they were doing best for all races. Quit treading on my rights. oh that's right you dont know what a right is. 



londonfog said:


> you have to still follow certain sewer points/routes to open such business due to the water usage and chemicals....right now thats about two blocks away at my best location


thx for the explanation


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Why would I leave I'm happy with the law as it is ..You and Ron Paul whats to see it changed...Hell no I don't want to sell..easiest money I ever made in my life..start up was a bitch but now easy profits....your business is not "private" if its open to the general public...again maybe you need to look into a Club or Organization then you can have all the private your little freedom loving heart wants.


sigh.... public means government controlled, private is controlled by you
just because the door is open doesn't mean its public lol

Glad you mentioned a pain to start up. I bet there were tons of regulations. I know of a Senator who used to vote for regulations. When he retired he had to shut down his business because of regulations.


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That's fine, but I don't see why discrimination is necessary there.


Exactly its not *necessary* and people should protest it, not have the government use force. Society does not grow by force and coercion. Just look at the ridiculous pot laws. Some of the people here are using the same argument to stop it as you do. They think its wrong but even though it isn't ursuping others rights pot should be illegal.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i was trying to simplify for ease of debate and obviously failed. Would this serve as a better example:
> 
> In my town, it is a common belief/perception/true based on my 37 years of observation that because of culture and habits there are a lot more Hispanic parents that control their children to what i consider an acceptable public level of behavior. Not that they(the kids) do anything much different than white kids or black kids or any other kids. It is the fact that their parents choose to take them out into public, hype them up on candy, get all sticky and dirty, scream and throw fits when they want a candy or ice cream or soda or ad nauseaum. They can curse, shout, push, and be otherwise rude and obnoxious. Is it a Hispanic thing? That's what i've been told by my Hispanic friends that DO properly raise their children.
> 
> ...


so are you saying only Hispanic kids act out in public ????? [youtube]uHp8CsFRQMM[/youtube] come on kids are kids...nope another bad example ...I see now by your conversation you pretty young and naive not saying that as a jab , but its the truth...Mexicans children are no worst then spoiled little white kids..or rotten little black kids..kids are kids..and for the record you have the right to not allow anyone in your store who is disruptive again something you can change ...you can't change being Mexican...ok you can try again..but this time take your time


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so are you saying only Hispanic kids act out in public ????? [youtube]uHp8CsFRQMM[/youtube] come on kids are kids...nope another bad example ...I see now by your conversation you pretty young and naive not saying that as a jab , but its the truth...Mexicans children are no worst then spoiled little white kids..or rotten little black kids..kids are kids..and for the record you have the right to not allow anyone in your store who is disruptive again something you can change ...you can't change being Mexican...ok you can try again..but this time take your time


LOL! Didn't i say it wasn't only Hispanic kids? What an incredible post london. You ask me to think before posting and then you obviously didn't even comprehend written words. i stated specifically that it wasn't just Hispanic kids but that in my area it is my observation and that of many of my Hispanic friends that there is a difference in culture and therefore a difference in behavior. 

*Straw Man*
Misrepresenting a persons argument in such a way it would be easy to refute. Beating up the straw man.
Examples:
"Of course evolution isn't true. No one has ever seen a reptile turn into a bird."
"Liberals just want a big nanny state."


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 8, 2011)

This is what a police state looks like.
Some kid raided because of his student loans
http://www.news10.net/news/article/141108/2/Questions-surround-feds-raid-of-Stockton-home


----------



## Parker (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so are you saying only Hispanic kids act out in public ????? come on kids are kids...nope another bad example ...I see now by your conversation you pretty young and naive not saying that as a jab , but its the truth...Mexicans children are no worst then spoiled little white kids..or rotten little black kids..kids are kids..and for the record you have the right to not allow anyone in your store who is disruptive again something you can change ...you can't change being Mexican...ok you can try again..but this time take your time


I think a generalization of mexicans being more family oriented is correct. Once they become become Americans it falls apart. 
It has to do with income. We've seen tons of stories about how the rugrats in families have to work extremely hard on farms picking fruit and veggies during the summer to get by. Without the kids help the poor families don't make it.

Once people come to America the family values is thrown out the window by government. Government can look after you now, not the family. So instead of working together as a family and growing through that hard work, government gives out the monthly dole for not working. 

Why work for 1000 month when you can sit around for 800 and work on the side. Of course you will never move up the chain and get a promotion since there is very little incentive to hire a non worker. You've hit your earning ceiling. And people wonder why poor stay poor. We make it to easy for them.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 8, 2011)

*We must stop these bastards. call fox news, cnbc, msnbc, cnn. Make them cover this damn story!
Russia today is covering, pretty sad russia based media is more honest and factual than the lame stream shit.*

[youtube]vR-Lcs8dnjI[/youtube]


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 8, 2011)

Parker said:


> Exactly its not *necessary* and people should protest it, not have the government use force. Society does not grow by force and coercion. Just look at the ridiculous pot laws. Some of the people here are using the same argument to stop it as you do. They think its wrong but even though it isn't ursuping others rights pot should be illegal.


I get what you're saying and it doesn't sound that unreasonable from our perspective today. But if you go back to the south at the time of civil rights legislation, it was necessary. If we are talking about most areas of the country today, sure, what you're saying might be true in some areas. But it wasn't true when talking about the south in the 60's. The theoretical arguments you guys are making isn't what was going on in the south. Whites only businesses were thriving and most of the goods/services black folks had access to were substandard. 

When Ron Paul argues against the civil rights act that is a segregationist argument, because without the government stepping in, the result was segregation. Think about what you're really arguing here. Don't think only about the modern implications, but also the implications of the time when it became law. Do you really believe segregation was justified based on property rights?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 8, 2011)

*Yea right, these pigs have nothing to hide.
Call all the lame stream media outlets, and demand they cover these parasites!
*[youtube]dHdaW2ORDlw[/youtube]
[youtube]Zq5LoDtnq_0[/youtube]
[youtube]zZg6t6zsGR0[/youtube]
[youtube]BU2XBc9j0kY[/youtube]


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> people will be racist.
> 
> we don't have to condone this. we can condemn it.
> 
> and we rightly do just that, despite ron paul's objections.


You can condemn it, but you shouldn't be allowed to dictate someones morality. Do you feel strongly that marijuana should be legalized? Do you feel strongly for women's rights? 

Do those who feel strongly for things your disagree with not deserve the same allowance to believe what they do? If you condone penalties against racists you are every bit as bad as someone who is against pro choice and condones people who have abortions going to prison.

They believe abortion is murder. Do you think you should be held to their standards? Maybe you should actually stop and think about whether you want to be told how to live before you condemn others for how they live.

I am pro choice. Whether it be the choice to kill a baby in my ass or wherever a guy would grow one or not to like dark people. Hell, maybe I want to start a Caucasian night club that dances to oldies. What I do with things that are mine is none of your business or anyone elses. You might accuse me of justifying racism or being racist, but that isn't what this is about. This is about the right of each person to be and do what they want as long as they aren't hurting someone. Not letting someone shop at a store isn't hurting anyone, its not helping them, but it isn't hurting them. I have absolutely not responsibility to any other citizen other than to not hurt them. You might say it is about fairness or right and wrong - If it is strictly about right and wrong, then why does the government support programs for minorities only? If it is wrong to reject one person from a store based solely on color then why would it be ok to reject someone for a scholarship solely on color?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> nope. if i don't patronize that business but enough other people do, the problem remains.
> 
> and why are we even considering a candidate who brings the conversation BACKWARDS by about 50 years? shouldn't we be projecting 50 years forward? ya know, looking for long term solutions?
> 
> just a thought.


More like 200+ years. We based this country on individual freedom. Every law that restricts individual freedom regardless of the intent erodes freedom.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> two quotes come to my mind: 'all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing' and 'i am my brother's keeper'.
> 
> i guess, since we can not and must not police right and wrong, we should release all the murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, right?
> 
> ...


What is the difference between a private and public business?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> What is the difference between a private and public business?


like the difference between a public and a private golf course.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> textbook move: the whites are the ones who face discrimination now! forget the achievement gap, the disproportionate amount of minorities in prison, or any number of other examples of how discrimination against minorities is still well and strong, it is the poor tough white male who faces the shit end of the stick.
> 
> boo fucking hoo.


Whites definitely face discrimination in prison. The government allows them to be abused in prison. In many communities blacks outnumber whites - why aren't whites protected as minorities in those communities? Are whites incapable of being minorities?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> truth stings a bit, doesn't it?
> 
> ron paul does not support civil rights: FACT
> ron paul would have let the economy collapse: FACT
> ron paul does not support more liberty for women: FACT


Ron Paul holds that all people are created with the right to be who they are to begin with and don't need laws to give them rights they are given naturally by a government who doesn't have the right to give them the right anyway. - FACT
Ron Paul knows the economy will collapse eventually and require a complete overhaul. It is like deciding to fix your leaking engine now or wait til it runs out of oil. Rep and Dem want to wait til the engine is junk before any action - FACT
Ron Paul thinks men and women have the same liberty. Women outnumber men and have the same right to vote - how could men oppress women in this circumstance? The answer - they couldn't. Ron Paul doesn't think the government needs to make laws about things they have no right to make laws about - FACT


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok realistically you can't open up next to me..you can go about two blocks down...so that rules you out..and you would be surprise just how many Mexicans would be happy to have a place that only they could wash..Now I'm sure quite a few blacks would be upset, but hey I'm black so they would still come and ask me why as they do their wash and I will just tell them so bullshit about white folks and lice...so you keep thinking you know people when I see and deal with these people evey damn day ( almost )...


Have you ever been to London?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> um, i included the date it was from. so i was already what you might call "informed" of that fact.
> 
> facts would inform you that that exact quote is still displayed ON HIS WEBSITE. so he still endorses it, i would say.
> 
> ...


You boyfriend Dan started a thread called something along the lines of "State rights are fucking awesome, fuck the feds". Does this only apply when it is something you like?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i was trying to simplify for ease of debate and obviously failed. Would this serve as a better example:
> 
> In my town, it is a common belief/perception/true based on my 37 years of observation that because of culture and habits there are a lot more Hispanic parents that control their children to what i consider an acceptable public level of behavior. Not that they(the kids) do anything much different than white kids or black kids or any other kids. It is the fact that their parents choose to take them out into public, hype them up on candy, get all sticky and dirty, scream and throw fits when they want a candy or ice cream or soda or ad nauseaum. They can curse, shout, push, and be otherwise rude and obnoxious. Is it a Hispanic thing? That's what i've been told by my Hispanic friends that DO properly raise their children.
> 
> ...


Being a part of a Hispanic family, I have some insight. It depends, it is really a cultural thing. Mexicans don't get punished for punishing their kids, so they control them better. It has a lot to do with home life. You might not find the same thing in other Hispanic families/cultures.

I really have a hard time believing any of you have ever been to any country that isn't a first world country besides to pick up cheap whores in a border town. Having lived in 3rd world countries, I think you all need the experience of it to understand your own lives.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so are you saying only Hispanic kids act out in public ????? [youtube]uHp8CsFRQMM[/youtube] come on kids are kids...nope another bad example ...I see now by your conversation you pretty young and naive not saying that as a jab , but its the truth...Mexicans children are no worst then spoiled little white kids..or rotten little black kids..kids are kids..and for the record you have the right to not allow anyone in your store who is disruptive again something you can change ...you can't change being Mexican...ok you can try again..but this time take your time


I think you read that backwards.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I get what you're saying and it doesn't sound that unreasonable from our perspective today. But if you go back to the south at the time of civil rights legislation, it was necessary. If we are talking about most areas of the country today, sure, what you're saying might be true in some areas. But it wasn't true when talking about the south in the 60's. The theoretical arguments you guys are making isn't what was going on in the south. Whites only businesses were thriving and most of the goods/services black folks had access to were substandard.
> 
> When Ron Paul argues against the civil rights act that is a segregationist argument, because without the government stepping in, the result was segregation. Think about what you're really arguing here. Don't think only about the modern implications, but also the implications of the time when it became law. Do you really believe segregation was justified based on property rights?


If you admit it doesn't matter today - why keep supporting it?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> like the difference between a public and a private golf course.


A private golf course isn't a business anymore is it? It is a club asset


----------



## deprave (Jun 8, 2011)

I am beginning to understand the left frustrations with Ron Paul, the main frustrations lately are all stemming from the lefts concern for the economy and the GOP to blocking the raising of the debt ceiling, they are seeing doom and gloom on the horizon, liberal pundits and scholars are freighted to death the debt ceiling raising will be blocked again and they are angry as hell with republicans, rightfully so, but Ron stays on his path and stand true to his genuine beliefs, Ron is not one of these typical conservative that will cut spending left and right, like he says, if he believes the debt ceiling needs to be raised he would raise it, Ron has his own plans and his own solutions and its not the rapid cuts the gop is after, Dr. Pauls solutions are very unique, they are revolutionary, this is what we need, revolutionary plans and ideas.

This new interview 

Ron Paul calls it a "political stunt" 
"it wouldnt be his way of doing this"
"I wasnt impressed"
*"you have to raise the debt limit soon"*

[video=youtube;M_YKAHTm8eQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_YKAHTm8eQ[/video]

As usual Ron Paul makes it clear how much he disagrees with the people we have in congress these days, As usual he believes the republicans way of doing things is misguided.


Dr Paul is not your typical republican by today's standards, don't let your disdain for those phoney bastards leak in to your view of Ron Paul, What the GOP is doing and what Ron Paul is doing are very different.

Ron Paul is not the status quo - Ron Paul represents real positive change and progress, this is why liberals and progressives must give Ron Paul a chance. Please remove your mental block from Ron Paul and see that he is our best choice for change.



*Cmon Folks, Common effing sense, this man has it, other politicians lack it.*


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 8, 2011)

deprave said:


> It would require a lot more than that to fully implement his free market philosophy for America and he's well aware of that,* little steps along the way can bring us closer to sound money* however, his audit of the federal reserve is just one revolutionary step in the right direction, he has done more then anyone else has done and plans to do more then anyone else plans to. Whats Mitt Romney's Plan ....Cut the deficit by spending less? lol ..Obama...Cut the deficit by spending more? .......has that worked? How many books have they wrote on economics?


The problem with this idea IMHO is that it's almost guaranteed to bring about more problems in the long run. 4 or 8 years is not enough time to push through a truly functional philosophy. Why are we in the mess we are currently in? We expect a President to accomplish his goals in an impossibly short period of time. What ends up happening is that the next cycle changes horse midstream, leaving a wake of half completed tasks behind. If we start with Ron Paul's approach to limiting the Feds (which can't happen with no support from the Legislative Branch), the SCOTUS would likely overturn most of the changes. 

I like many of Ron Paul's ideas but his economic stances do not hold much water IMHO as several are unconstitutional and he gets zero support from the GOP base. That's a recipe for ineffectiveness. Sure, he'd line item a lot from the budget. My problem with that is that I'm not certain that the damage could be reversed. 

As for monopolies, I can not and will not be convinced that a monopoly is effective for consumers. I purchased a few stores in Florida a few years ago. It didn't take long to realize that I could make much more by buying all of my competition (even if overpriced), then charging through the eyes. It worked well enough to retire for the second time (disabled military). I made much more from selling the cornered market than I would have from the business over the next 12 years.

It's tough to take the stance of supporting the Constitution when you do not support the Constitution. 

Rand Paul, his son, has pretty revolutionary ideas as well. Locking up folks who speak out against the current government does not seem to follow my limited understanding of the Constitution. 

It's about ideas, not people.


----------



## deprave (Jun 8, 2011)

*"Rand Paul, his son, has pretty revolutionary ideas as well. Locking up folks who speak out against the current government does not seem to follow my limited understanding of the Constitution."

What he said was taken out of context, these "folks" he suggest locking up are foreigners in our airports who are suspected terrorist that are caught with contraband, this was in his speech against the TSA in which he was suggesting alternatives such as selective screening. The thing is you must listen to the audio of this to hear it in the proper context. I have posted the link to the mp3 in its own thread about rand on these forums.


I am not understanding how you see some of Ron Pauls economic views as unconstitutional please elaborate on that point.
*


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 8, 2011)

The Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) grants the powers of regulating interstate trade to Congress. This has been upheld in many Supreme Court cases. I will provide a list of cases if you desire. 

One of the most interesting early cases is Gibbons v. Ogden. The SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the Constitution. 

The Supremacy Clause is also relevant. It's Article VI. Check Ableman v. Booth.

The problem with the Constitution is that you either take it or leave it. Sweeping change as suggested by Ron Paul does not follow stare decisis and will not stand up in the SCOTUS, thereby rendering his ideas impossible IMHO.

I'll go back and listen to the Rand Paul segment.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Being a part of a Hispanic family, I have some insight. It depends, it is really a cultural thing. Mexicans don't get punished for punishing their kids, so they control them better. It has a lot to do with home life. You might not find the same thing in other Hispanic families/cultures.
> 
> I really have a hard time believing any of you have ever been to any country that isn't a first world country besides to pick up cheap whores in a border town. Having lived in 3rd world countries, I think you all need the experience of it to understand your own lives.


That's what my friends tell me too. And no, the closest i have come to a third-world country was some missionary work(construction) on a Native American reservation which while poor and hard-working cannot compare to what i have seen in third world countries.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 8, 2011)

The 14th Amendment is also a problem. Section 1, Clause 2 is worth a read.


----------



## easterbunny (Jun 8, 2011)

the same with weed is the same the pauls 

they look crazy as they mature 

they start of strong and die off in the end 

and usually the offspring fucks you up faster than the parents

just saying 

(and i bet he still walks around in the robes in private) just an opinion


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 8, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> The Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) grants the powers of regulating interstate trade to Congress. This has been upheld in many Supreme Court cases. I will provide a list of cases if you desire.
> 
> One of the most interesting early cases is Gibbons v. Ogden. The SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the Constitution.
> 
> ...


What are you replying to?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

easterbunny said:


> the same with weed is the same the pauls
> 
> they look crazy as they mature
> 
> ...


Wow Bunny.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> What are you replying to?


I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did. 

I'm all for States' rights. 

The problem is that the Constitution clearly specifies that the Feds trump States' laws. 

The other problem is this question, "Why States' rights and not municipal rights?"

I'd like to see the Federal Government relax quite a few things and spend less money. These two things can be done within the contructs of the Constitution. Ron Paul's ideas are outside of the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS.

If we want to scrap the Constitution and start over, argue that point. Disassembling our entire system can not be done the way that Ron Paul is suggesting IMHO. That's why he's not taken seriously by his opposition.

He does have several good points.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> A private golf course isn't a business anymore is it? It is a club asset


they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.

by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.

i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.
> 
> by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.
> 
> i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.


So you have a choice then. Congratulations! RP will give you more imo.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You boyfriend Dan started a thread called something along the lines of "State rights are fucking awesome, fuck the feds". Does this only apply when it is something you like?


yes, you libertarians are so much holier than thou. never making insults, especially not ones that use homosexuality as some kind of an insult. fucking asshole.

i would reference the constitution on a case by case basis for where state rights apply.

we have a landmark case on abortion decided on by the SCOTUS. i can not recall off the top of my head one that deals with cannabis, perhaps your smarmy, holier than thou ass can enlighten me.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Ron Paul holds that all people are created with the right to be who they are to begin with and don't need laws to give them rights they are given naturally by a government who doesn't have the right to give them the right anyway. - FACT


yes, we have those rights naturally. the government can insure them through legislation.

you seriously think our rights can be "given" to us by the government?



Carthoris said:


> Ron Paul knows the economy will collapse eventually and require a complete overhaul. It is like deciding to fix your leaking engine now or wait til it runs out of oil. Rep and Dem want to wait til the engine is junk before any action - FACT


i'm sure if ron paul was POTUS and vetoed any measures we took to stabilize the economy, we'd all be singing his praises right now. 

LOL!



Carthoris said:


> Ron Paul thinks men and women have the same liberty. Women outnumber men and have the same right to vote - how could men oppress women in this circumstance? The answer - they couldn't. Ron Paul doesn't think the government needs to make laws about things they have no right to make laws about - FACT


not fact. check his fucking website.

There has to be a criminal penalty for the person thats committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. - ron paul, 11/28/2007

and how can men oppress women? look out your fucking window. check a fucking HR department. 80 cents on the dollar and you seem to think they should not be in charge of making decisions about their own body and their own health. you seem to think a fucking unborn fetus should take precedent over a fucking citizen of our nation.

oh, btw....it was the government who insured a woman's natural right to vote. shove that in your pipe and smoke it. i hope you choke on it.

i admit, a little hostile at the moment. i will burn one.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Whites definitely face discrimination in prison. The government allows them to be abused in prison. In many communities blacks outnumber whites - why aren't whites protected as minorities in those communities? Are whites incapable of being minorities?


again, i'll be sure to go cry some crocodile tears for you poor, persecuted white males and your long history of oppression in this nation of ours.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You might accuse me of justifying racism or being racist, but that isn't what this is about. This is about the right of each person to be and do what they want as long as they aren't hurting someone.


i am not accusing you of being racist. i am pointing out that your views allow racism, segregation, discrimination, and the like to happen. 



Carthoris said:


> Not letting someone shop at a store isn't hurting anyone, its not helping them, but it isn't hurting them. I have absolutely not responsibility to any other citizen other than to not hurt them.


bullshit.

have you checked a history book? back before civil rights, blacks had a limited selection to choose from. choice was taken away from them, and they were often left with inferior choices. i thought you were pro-choice?

seriously dude, check a fucking history book. segregation, discrimination, and the like DID hurt your fellow citizen. only a blithering fucktard would deny this historical fact.


----------



## Olan (Jun 9, 2011)

(pardon my English) I find it Interesting how Americans Debate Dr. Ron Paul's position on this or that. It would seem to me since America is ruled by a ruling class of mostly well-to-do lawyers who historically break about half of their campaign promises and then vote to trespass against the high law of the country the Constitution on a nearly daily basis, I would vote for anyone who had the moral fortitude to do what they said they would do and vote how they promised they would vote for decades. This man is not advocating violence to my knowledge, so what could possible be the concern? are so many people so entwined in the outcome of one or two small political issues that they would vote against someone who has a different opinion on the subject, even if they were historically the only leader who hasn't lied to the american people? In my opinion most countries would elect this man then build a statue of him when he was done.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

Olan said:


> In my opinion most countries would elect this man then build a statue of him when he was done.


Thanks for sharing your perspective.


----------



## Parker (Jun 9, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I get what you're saying and it doesn't sound that unreasonable from our perspective today. But if you go back to the south at the time of civil rights legislation, it was necessary. If we are talking about most areas of the country today, sure, what you're saying might be true in some areas. But it wasn't true when talking about the south in the 60's. The theoretical arguments you guys are making isn't what was going on in the south. Whites only businesses were thriving and most of the goods/services black folks had access to were substandard.
> 
> When Ron Paul argues against the civil rights act that is a segregationist argument, because without the government stepping in, the result was segregation. Think about what you're really arguing here. Don't think only about the modern implications, but also the implications of the time when it became law. Do you really believe segregation was justified based on property rights?


Government was the main one that wanted segregation. Remember the busing fiasco? They bus lines didn't want to loose their black customers.
In answer to your question yes property rights are something that should not be taken away by government. A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away everything that you have.

I think one of the things that would come out of not having the Civil rights Act is we would have seen more black owned businesses. Blacks as a percentage are the lowest self employed. If enough people can't go into a store and there is a market someone will open up a store for them.


----------



## Parker (Jun 9, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.


you haven't proved much. you mentioned stare decisis but fail to mention the SCOTUS was set up to be the weakest of the 3 judicial branches. Quite a few people disagree withe ruling since a ruling judge should have recused himself. Another example of power going to someones head.


Girdweed said:


> I'm all for States' rights.
> The problem is that the Constitution clearly specifies that the Feds trump States' laws.


no it doesn't, it states the Feds have specific (enumerated) duties The Federalist papers tell us this. General Welfare is a mission statementnothing more than "Go where no man has gone before" It doesn't mean carte blanche for Congress. Otherwise why have the listed specific and enumerated powers?


Girdweed said:


> The other problem is this question, "Why States' rights and not municipal rights?"


why is that a problem?



Girdweed said:


> I'd like to see the Federal Government relax quite a few things and spend less money. These two things can be done within the contructs of the Constitution. Ron Paul's ideas are outside of the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS.


incorrect you've mis spoken again
if you thing the interstate commerce clause was for the feds to regulate commerce you dont get the idea behind the foundation of the Constitution. The commerce clause has been interpreted more and more broadly which was against the founders wishes.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Meaning the commerce which takes place between states. Regulating the Commerce between the States implies only the right to create standard procedures that will control the way the States deal with each other.



Girdweed said:


> If we want to scrap the Constitution and start over, argue that point. Disassembling our entire system can not be done the way that Ron Paul is suggesting IMHO. That's why he's not taken seriously by his opposition.
> He does have several good points.


It's not disassembling our system. Its putting things back in place to where our founders wanted them.

Go back to the Federalist and Non Federalist papers
"The commerce clause gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce  not any matters that have significant spillover effects across state lines. The Constitutional Convention rejected the wording of the Virginia Plan, which arguably would have let the Federal government regulate any activity with interstate spillover. In other words, the Founders made the deliberate decision to leave many activities with spillover effects to the states."


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 9, 2011)

Parker said:


> I think one of the things that would come out of not having the Civil rights Act is we would have seen more black owned businesses. Blacks as a percentage are the lowest self employed. If enough people can't go into a store and there is a market someone will open up a store for them.



WOW i'd thought id seen it all but i have honestly never heard that one before

your trying to say one of the ways "blacks" arent empowered is because its too easy for them to buy stuff??


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.
> 
> I'm all for States' rights.
> 
> ...



The Constitution reserves all the rights for the states and the people that are not specifically given to the federal government. All laws are given to interpretation, and all laws are looked at for intent for the most part during a court case. However, what it boils down to is which ideals our Supreme Court Justices hold. The interstate commerce law is applied illegally on many things, and outside of the intent and scope of the law. Kind of like the stand that the interstate commerce clause allows universal healthcare or outlawing marijuana. It does neither.

He could take a play from the Roosevelt playbook and add 20 justices to dilute opposing ideas. lol.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.
> 
> by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.
> 
> i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.


Many businesses never advertise at all outside of a small sign over their business. That is most definitely not the difference. 

That is an opinion about doing it better. Mostly those people are paying more so they don't have to play with you.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> truth stings a bit, doesn't it?
> 
> ron paul does not support civil rights: FACT
> ron paul would have let the economy collapse: FACT
> ron paul does not support more liberty for women: FACT


Ron Paul ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS Civil rights, what he wouldn't support is the civil rights ACT.
Presidents don't have the power to decide whether or not a economy will collapse, they can influence things somewhat, but since 1913 it is now solely in the hands of the Federal Reserve.
Ron Paul supports liberty and justice FOR ALL.

These are the real facts.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

How can you be for Civil rights but would vote against something that gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters..WTF...The equal protection clause of the of the 14th Amendment cleared the fake claim that property rights beats racial discrimination...Glad Ron Paul will not make it out the primary!!!!! Ron Paul stated "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry" again WTF..someone tell the man about the 1954 landmark Supreme Court&#8217;s Brown vs. Board of education,the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He actually thinks these cases made race relations worst.. WTF .. hmmmm maybe it made it worst for him due to him having to deal with the other race more up and personal..I myself would hate to see how it would be without it...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> How can you be for Civil rights but would vote against something that gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters..WTF...The equal protection clause of the of the 14th Amendment cleared the fake claim that property rights beats racial discrimination...Glad Ron Paul will not make it out the primary!!!!! Ron Paul stated "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry" again WTF..someone tell the man about the 1954 landmark Supreme Court&#8217;s Brown vs. Board of education,the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He actually thinks these cases made race relations worst.. WTF .. hmmmm maybe it made it worst for him due to him having to deal with the other race more up and personal..I myself would hate to see how it would be without it...


Back to American History 101 with you. Blacks had the vote in the 19th century there guy. February 26, 1869 to be precise. The act also did not give anyone any rights, rights cannot come from a piece of paper, the act made it criminal to discriminate.

Those things did make racial relations worse initially, only after they had been implemented and a generation of ill conceived race generalizations were proven false did things come together. IMO the act has served its purpose, time to go the way of the dodo. Do we really need government to tell us" Hey you ARE DIFFERENT than other people, therefore we have special programs for you." ??


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Back to American History 101 with you. Blacks had the vote in the 19th century there guy. February 26, 1869 to be precise. The act also did not give anyone any rights, rights cannot come from a piece of paper, the act made it criminal to discriminate.
> 
> Those things did make racial relations worse initially, only after they had been implemented and a generation of ill conceived race generalizations were proven false did things come together. IMO the act has served its purpose, time to go the way of the dodo. Do we really need government to tell us" Hey you ARE DIFFERENT than other people, therefore we have special programs for you." ??


Please pay the attention...the Voting Rights of 65 outlawed discriminatory voting practices.. the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... stopping those who deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." In short this law actually stopped the BS that went on preventing the vote of others,but I guess you didn't really know that seeing how you actually think that Blacks really could vote in 1869...Thank you for showing me the ignorance of some...The very reason we should no let these laws change are due to people not really knowing the past and being bound to repeat it...and as far as a piece of paper not revealing the rights of Americans...what was the Constitution for ?????


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 9, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Back to American History 101 with you. Blacks had the vote in the 19th century there guy. February 26, 1869 to be precise. The act also did not give anyone any rights, rights cannot come from a piece of paper, the act made it criminal to discriminate.
> 
> Those things did make racial relations worse initially, only after they had been implemented and a generation of ill conceived race generalizations were proven false did things come together. IMO the act has served its purpose, time to go the way of the dodo. Do we really need government to tell us" Hey you ARE DIFFERENT than other people, therefore we have special programs for you." ??


jim crow, anyone?

american history 101.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> WOW ...SO I have the right to let a poor single white lady start her 8 loads of clothes then right when she about to dry them I can kick her out just for being white ?????I should have that right...WTF...dude I would never do some sick shit like that , but you and Ron PAul to think that should be someones right just because he/she owns the business is freakin unbelievable...Glad we have laws to stop shit like that from happening


Having the right to do something and doing it are two different things. I could jerk off with hotsauce while thinking of puppy dogs. That doesn't mean I am going to go get my bottle right now and start. Just like Ron Paul said with the Heroin legalization question:

[video=youtube;LMIgT_NGgek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIgT_NGgek[/video]

Your confusing having the right to do whatever you believe in vs saying it is OK. You don't have the natural right to tell others what they should and should not do with their property unless they are hurting other people intentionally. Not letting someone use your assets is not harming them, it just isn't helping them. No one has the right to force you to help someone. Example: You don't have the right to force me to build a house for the neighbor and control me or my hammer I would use. I don't have the right to bash the neighbors brains out with my hammer, or break the windows out of his house. That infringes on his liberty/freedom/rights. Not using my hammer to help him does not infringe on him in any way. Forcing me to use my hammer to help him would infringe on my freedom, however.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That's fine, but I don't see why discrimination is necessary there.


No one is suggesting that discrimination is necessary. We are suggesting that what you should be able to do whatever you want on your property, with your money, or with your services.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

yawn......stopped reading when you started jacking with Hotsauce


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

Parker said:


> ...fail to mention the SCOTUS was set up to be the weakest of the 3 judicial branches. Quite a few people disagree withe ruling since a ruling judge should have recused himself


Parker, I will address you once regarding this post, then not address you any further. Your abrasive nature and name calling are rather infantile traits and do not warrant open discussion.

Who do you feel should interpret the Constitution? 

The Constitution gave that responsibility to the Supreme Court. Your argument contains no facts, only someone's irrelevant opinion.

You talk about how certain people feel but provide no information to back your claims. Then, you call folks names. 

Arguing that the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says is an indefensible position IMHO. 



Good day!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Having the right to do something and doing it are two different things. I could jerk off with hotsauce while thinking of puppy dogs. That doesn't mean I am going to go get my bottle right now and start. Just like Ron Paul said with the Heroin legalization question:
> 
> [video=youtube;LMIgT_NGgek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIgT_NGgek[/video]
> 
> Your confusing having the right to do whatever you believe in vs saying it is OK. You don't have the natural right to tell others what they should and should not do with their property unless they are hurting other people intentionally. Not letting someone use your assets is not harming them, it just isn't helping them. No one has the right to force you to help someone. Example: You don't have the right to force me to build a house for the neighbor and control me or my hammer I would use. I don't have the right to bash the neighbors brains out with my hammer, or break the windows out of his house. That infringes on his liberty/freedom/rights. Not using my hammer to help him does not infringe on him in any way. Forcing me to use my hammer to help him would infringe on my freedom, however.


Reposted to FB and soon the RP page and several forums too.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.
> 
> I'm all for States' rights.
> 
> ...


A few more gov's and the Republicans will be able to scrap the constitution and start over.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, you libertarians are so much holier than thou. never making insults, especially not ones that use homosexuality as some kind of an insult. fucking asshole.
> 
> i would reference the constitution on a case by case basis for where state rights apply.
> 
> we have a landmark case on abortion decided on by the SCOTUS. i can not recall off the top of my head one that deals with cannabis, perhaps your smarmy, holier than thou ass can enlighten me.


Don't try to make it gay bashing. As a Libertarian I support gay peoples right to do whatever they want with themselves. I support your right to let Dan tea bag you all you want. You know I didn't mean it in a sexual way at all, and to pretend that I did is just trying to use emotion as a weapon, or to paint me as a racist homophobe. You know, because racist homophobes are always wrong, and since I am one, I must be wrong. 

I won't bother to explain how I meant it, because anyone who can read words will already know.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Don't try to make it gay bashing. As a Libertarian I support gay peoples right to do whatever they want with themselves. I support your right to let Dan tea bag you all you want. You know I didn't mean it in a sexual way at all, and to pretend that I did is just trying to use emotion as a weapon, or to paint me as a racist homophobe. You know, because racist homophobes are always wrong, and since I am one, I must be wrong.
> 
> I won't bother to explain how I meant it, because anyone who can read words will already know.


Not saying they are, but that is a classic troll tactic. Just an observation.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> . However, what it boils down to is which ideals our Supreme Court Justices hold. The interstate commerce law is applied illegally on many things, and outside of the intent and scope of the law.


Agreed about the Supreme Court. As for application of the Commerce Clause, it's tough for me to see where the law is applied illegally when the main body determining legality makes the interpretation. 

The Ogden case was a huge power grab, no doubt about it. The problem with the ruling is that it is legally binding as set up by the Constitution. That makes it legal. 



I don't really understand the argument behind the "what the forefathers intended" comments. Several of these guys owned slaves. Ben Franklin made most of his money after running for public office. He ran for office partially so his printing business could get guaranteed gov't contracts. While the founding fathers built a wonderful outline, the details were left to be filled in by the 3 branches.

The joy of the Constitution is that it is a framework from which to build. That is also the largest drawback as it allows interpretation by whoever is around at the time. 

I would prefer to see the Federal Govt take a less active roll but I just don't see it happening. 

That's why I moved to Alaska. Outside of Palin, we function without much Federal intervention. 

I'm not arguing this point to support the idea that government should do as much as they do. I much prefer to allow individuals and businesses much more personal liberty. The problem is that the system is set up to support the Fed. By making the SCOTUS the final say in all Constitutional matters, the founding fathers made them the supreme law. 

The lesson learned here is to keep activist judges off the bench @ the Federal level.

Chief Justice John Marshall did more to grow the Federal Government than anyone else in history IMHO.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 9, 2011)

you ron paul worshippers are something else.

make gay joke...had nothing to do with gayness.

i am going to laugh so fucking hard when ron paul finishes in a 3 way tie for fifth place in the primary. i will laugh and laugh and laugh.

i will practically bawl when the turtle fucker loses handily.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

and for the record I think that heroin which is man made and cannot be found in nature should be illegal..and yes if they made it legal some people ( kids included ) would just try it "once", but as we know once may be too much....So Ron Paul wrong once again...


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, we have those rights naturally. the government can insure them through legislation.
> 
> you seriously think our rights can be "given" to us by the government?


You need to reread my statement again, I said just the opposite. You don't need the government to give you your natural rights - you already have them - and they can't be given to you by a government who doesn't have the rights to give them to you anyway.



> i'm sure if ron paul was POTUS and vetoed any measures we took to stabilize the economy, we'd all be singing his praises right now.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ...


The entire quote and the question that it came from was:
Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don&#8217;t need a federal abortion police. That&#8217;s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that&#8217;s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don&#8217;t think that should be up to the president to decide. 



Abortionist means a doctor who is giving abortions. Not the woman who is getting one. This was a question phrased as in if abortion was illegal. Ron Paul says "The woman shouldn't be punished, the person giving illegal abortions should if it is illegal" 

Now that I have pointed out that you are using that quote wrong and out of context, you might consider not doing it anymore. If you do it after this, you are purposely doing it to give a false impression about a mans intent or nature, instead of just out of ignorance.



> and how can men oppress women? look out your fucking window. check a fucking HR department. 80 cents on the dollar and you seem to think they should not be in charge of making decisions about their own body and their own health. you seem to think a fucking unborn fetus should take precedent over a fucking citizen of our nation.
> 
> oh, btw....it was the government who insured a woman's natural right to vote. shove that in your pipe and smoke it. i hope you choke on it.
> 
> i admit, a little hostile at the moment. i will burn one.


The fact that you never actually read the Constitution or its amendments word for word are showing. Stop relying on talking points someone else wrote or said.

The Constitution never barred women from voting. The 19th Amendment only clarified who could vote, it didn't reverse anything already in the constitution. That is like saying laws against beating old people made it illegal to beat old people. (They really have old people beating laws) It was already illegal to beat old people. Nothing changed, it was just a clarification to insure correct interpretation, kind of like a Supreme Court decision. Show me where the original Constitution banned women from voting? I don't think any of the Amendments said they couldn't vote before the 19th either. The 14th gave all men the right to vote but never denied women the right to vote.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> again, i'll be sure to go cry some crocodile tears for you poor, persecuted white males and your long history of oppression in this nation of ours.


I am not sure what you base my race on.


> i am not accusing you of being racist. i am pointing out that your views allow racism, segregation, discrimination, and the like to happen.


I don't think your views stopped any of those things from happening. Mine don't PROMOTE it, they just don't outlaw it. You don't have a right to outlaw peoples views, or what they do with their property/life in light of those views. With the exception being if they are outright hurting someone. They don't have to allow everyone the same usage of their things, they just can't use their things to pointedly hurt someone. Hurting and not helping aren't the same thing, once again.


> bullshit.
> 
> have you checked a history book? back before civil rights, blacks had a limited selection to choose from. choice was taken away from them, and they were often left with inferior choices. i thought you were pro-choice?
> 
> seriously dude, check a fucking history book. segregation, discrimination, and the like DID hurt your fellow citizen. only a blithering fucktard would deny this historical fact.


Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping. As a person you don't have an obligation to other people to treat them all the same. The government does have that obligation, but the people do not. Thus the difference between a public business(A government owned/run business) vs a private business(An individually owned business)

Once again, you are trying to push me into defense of segregation. I will not defend it, and I don't believe in it. I will, however, defend the right of people to do what they want with their personal property. This is a lot like Republican's accusing Democrats of being on the side of terrorists because they don't vote for whatever anti-terrorism bill is on the table at the moment.

Once again, hurting and not helping are not the same. I have a well on my property, my neighbors are both growing veggies. I could give one neighbor water, and not give the other one water. I am not hurting either neighbor, I am helping one of them. You are not understanding the difference. Hurting would be throwing salt on the neighbors plants.

Also, that was 50 years ago. In another 20 years almost all the people who lived through those times will be dead. In 50 it is likely no one alive will have ever lived through it. The laws are not needed to protect anyone in this day and age, and in fact restrict freedom now. It is like arguing slavery laws are still needed to keep people from going out and roping some black folks up.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> How can you be for Civil rights but would vote against something that gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters..WTF...The equal protection clause of the of the 14th Amendment cleared the fake claim that property rights beats racial discrimination...Glad Ron Paul will not make it out the primary!!!!! Ron Paul stated "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry" again WTF..someone tell the man about the 1954 landmark Supreme Courts Brown vs. Board of education,the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He actually thinks these cases made race relations worst.. WTF .. hmmmm maybe it made it worst for him due to him having to deal with the other race more up and personal..I myself would hate to see how it would be without it...


The same reason he can not personally believe in Abortion but believe in freedom enough to not pass a law outlawing it on a federal level or to vote to not pass a law that restricts minors from leaving a state that doesn't let them get abortions and going to the next to get one. It is because he believes in Freedom. That ideal must triumph above all others or the only end is authoritarian rule of someone over someone else.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You don't need the government to give you your natural rights - you already have them - and they can't be given to you by a government who doesn't have the rights to give them to you anyway.


but they can be insured, and have been. check the bill of rights.



Carthoris said:


> This was a question phrased as in if abortion was illegal. Ron Paul says "The woman shouldn't be punished, the person giving illegal abortions should if it is illegal"


or you could reject the question.

and i will be happy to parade that quote around all i please. i may even make it my sig just to piss off ron paul worshippers.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and for the record I think that heroin which is man made and cannot be found in nature should be illegal..and yes if they made it legal some people ( kids included ) would just try it "once", but as we know once may be too much....So Ron Paul wrong once again...


How about opium then? Big difference there. By that logic bubble hash is evil and should outlawed too. You are applying your morality to something you like (marijuana) in one way, and something you don't like(heroin) in another.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I don't think your views stopped any of those things from happening. Mine don't PROMOTE it, they just don't outlaw it. You don't have a right to outlaw peoples views


but we can and rightly do outlaw actions based on those views.

you can bandy about with your view that blacks or jews should be barred from establishment x, y or z, but if you try to act on those bigoted views and keep someone out of your business which is open to the general public, no dice.



Carthoris said:


> Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping.


put down the crack pipe and think about it logically. that is one of the most absurd statements i have ever read, even from a libertarian.



Carthoris said:


> Also, that was 50 years ago. In another 20 years almost all the people who lived through those times will be dead. In 50 it is likely no one alive will have ever lived through it. The laws are not needed to protect anyone in this day and age, and in fact restrict freedom now. It is like arguing slavery laws are still needed to keep people from going out and roping some black folks up.


by that same logic, we might as well scrap the constitution because, like, we all know what our rights are at this point. no need to codify them and shit.

let's roll a bunch of fucking doobies with the constitution.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping.


I want to call you stupid, but I think you might just be ignorant...One reason is because of racist, lazy, jealous bastard who hate to see others of another race achieve..do some research ..Start with Rosewood massacre after that I will show you more...people like you piss me off and really make me think that Nat Turner should have a freakin holiday


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I want to call you stupid, but I think you might just be ignorant...One reason is because of racist, lazy, jealous bastard who hate to see others of another race achieve..do some research ..Start with Rosewood massacre after that I will show you more...people like you piss me off and really make me think that Nat Turner should have a freakin holiday


i just made that my signature because it is such awesome sauce.

i hear shtetls worked out real well for the jews


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I want to call you stupid, but I think you might just be ignorant...One reason is because of racist, lazy, jealous bastard who hate to see others of another race achieve..do some research ..Start with Rosewood massacre after that I will show you more...people like you piss me off and really make me think that Nat Turner should have a freakin holiday


I know what it is, I have actually stood on the grounds where this occurred. I lived within miles of it. The people who did that violated the law, and should of been punished. Please, explain how civil rights would of prevented this already illegal and horrible act?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i just made that my signature because it is such awesome sauce.
> 
> i hear shtetls worked out real well for the jews


Crazy shit I see on this site..WTF...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I know what it is, I have actually stood on the grounds where this occurred. I lived within miles of it. The people who did that violated the law, and should of been punished. Please, explain how civil rights would of prevented this already illegal and horrible act?


no seriously go read a book..you stupid


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> no seriously go read a book..


i have some other suggestions about what he might go do.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

got to be the dumbest phucker on the net...


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> no seriously go read a book..


Right, no response how civil rights laws would of prevented this. Good choice, since the obvious answer is "It could not have, there is no possibly way you could of prevented this except by the Government enforcing the laws already in place and protecting the citizens living in Rosewood from being attacked, and/or punishing the people involved if it was unable to prevent it" 

The civil rights law should of went something like 
"All people have the same rights as granted by the Constitution. 'People' in the constitution is hereby understood to include all races of humanoids, as well as all sexes. The government shall not treat people differently for any reason"

Why should there be special laws for harming or killing certain individuals? Isn't the laws that punish me for beating your ass sufficient to punish me if I beat up a gay person? Why should someone who runs me over out of anger get less punishment than someone who runs a black man over for being black?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Right, no response how civil rights laws would of prevented this. Good choice, since the obvious answer is "It could not have, there is no possibly way you could of prevented this except by the Government enforcing the laws already in place and protecting the citizens living in Rosewood from being attacked, and/or punishing the people involved if it was unable to prevent it"
> 
> The civil rights law should of went something like
> "All people have the same rights as granted by the Constitution. 'People' in the constitution is hereby understood to include all races of humanoids, as well as all sexes. The government shall not treat people differently for any reason"
> ...


First the answer I gave address why blacks didn't really go out and try to buy land, start own community..etc etc..If you can't follow a simple reply maybe should not type so much ..


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

I never cross party lines to vote until now...I will gladly vote for anyone but your great great great grandaddy Ron Paul


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> Parker, I will address you once regarding this post, then not address you any further. Your abrasive nature and name calling are rather infantile traits and do not warrant open discussion.
> 
> Who do you feel should interpret the Constitution?
> 
> The Constitution gave that responsibility to the Supreme Court. Your argument contains no facts, only someone's irrelevant opinion.


WRONG!!! No Where in the constitution is the power to interpret the constitution given to SCOTUS. Your argument contains no facts either.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> WRONG!!! No Where in the constitution is the power to interpret the constitution given to SCOTUS. Your argument contains no facts either.


FAIL!

NoDrama, what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?

Seriously, if you have no idea what you are talking about, don't bother typing.

Article 3 of the Constitution. Read it before replying with more falsifications.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

I'm shocked about how little some folks know about the Constitution, especially in a political forum. 

Here's a link: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Please read this document prior to making false claims and calling me a liar. I do not appreciate it!


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> FAIL!
> 
> NoDrama, what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?
> 
> ...


LOL, you ever read it? ( http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii ) No where is that power enumerated, no where. This wasn't even an issue until Jefferson was President. 

The SCOTUS is to be the 3rd check in the system of checks and balances. A final say when it came to issues of Citizen vs other state, state vs state, or state vs federal. To ensure laws were faithful to the tenets of the Constitution. 

The Federalist papers were written so people could correctly interpret the Constitution, the interpretation never changes because the CFTUS is NOT a living document.


I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense _alone_ it is the _legitimate_ Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers. . . . What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient 
phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. -James Madison

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.-Tom Jefferson

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.
(_Works_, "Lectures on Law Delivered in the College of Phila.; Introductory Lecture: Of the Study of the Law in the United States.") 

The interpretation of the Constitution does not change with the times, or by the person whom is reading it. The only correct interpretation of the Constitution, is by those who wrote it.

To say that the thoughts and intentions of the men who drafted the Constitution take second place to the way WE "interpret" the Constitution is to change our government from one of "laws, not of men" to one of silly putty based on contemporary views of political correctness.

Your false falsifications have been dashed upon the rocks of fact and reason.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

I know, its completely unbelievable how stupid some people really are.

*Article III*

*Section 1.*

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
*Section 2.*

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
*Section 3.*

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.






Notice how there is no function of constitutional interpretational powers given to the SCOTUS? Did you notice that part? 


PS I didn't call you a Liar, I called you wrong, of which you are of course.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

How does a court make a ruling on a law without interpreting a law?

Weren't the Federalist Papers written to convince states to ratify the Constitution? That means that the Federalist Papers are not law, they are a sales pitch IMHO. 


Instead of telling me I'm wrong and quoting sales pitches, please educate me on how I am wrong as I am open to correction whenever the opportunity arises.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

Anyone can interpret the Constitution; however, the courts determine whether laws, executive orders, treaties and policies are in keeping with the principles of the Constitution, and have the ability to nullify and render unenforceable any that are not. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on Constitutional law. soooooo that actually would mean Girweed right


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

Sounds like a new thread...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Anyone can interpret the Constitution; however, the courts determine whether laws, executive orders, treaties and policies are in keeping with the principles of the Constitution, and have the ability to nullify and render unenforceable any that are not. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on Constitutional law. soooooo that actually would mean Girweed right


 So in order for him to be right, it must be enumerated in the Constitution, so please london, if you could, Please show us exactly where in the Constitution this power is enumerated. Thanks.


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

I can't believe we are discussing the role of the Supreme Court. 

_Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court &#8212; once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.--_http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch

What role does a court play if not to interpret laws?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> So in order for him to be right, it must be enumerated in the Constitution, so please london, if you could, Please show us exactly where in the Constitution this power is enumerated. Thanks.


Hey you can play on words all you want but its been showed to you..You go find a law professor and have him explain Article III Section one and two...you can't make a ruling if you don't interpret the law...so you keep looking for that magic word​


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> I can't believe we are discussing the role of the Supreme Court.
> 
> _Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court &#8212; once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.--_http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch
> 
> What role does a court play if not to interpret laws?


 Quite correct, but still not enumerated in the Constitution. You said they got the power from the Constitution.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

OMG its like having a conversation with Sara Palin


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Hey you can play on words all you want but its been showed to you..You go find a law professor and have him explain Article III Section one and two...you can't make a ruling if you don't interpret the law...so you keep looking for that magic word​


 The judiciary Act of 1789; precedent for judicial review. Have a nice day.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> WRONG!!! No Where in the constitution is the power to interpret the constitution given to SCOTUS. Your argument contains no facts either.


again how do you make a ruling without interpreting the constitution (law)..WTF again Article III Section 1 and 2 gives them the power to interpret ...


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> OMG its like having a conversation with Sara Palin


I've had several conversations with Sarah Palin. We attempted to convince her about her lack of understanding with ACES and AGIA. Both of these "ideas" have cost the state almost a *Billion Dollars for nothing*.

The major increase in corporate taxes for our oil producers (my employers) she introduced has rapidly decreased production and exploration.

Some folks are unwilling to grasp simple concepts.


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

*Ron Paul Update for today  June 09 2011*
_One thing to say to all you doubters, Naa na na na boo boo Fox news is now backing Ron Paul left and right._
We have yet another day with only positive ron paul coverage.

These are the new Ron Paul Videos and Articles for today

New Interview on FOX BUSINESS:
* Ron Paul: End Obamacare, Abolish the IRS, Eliminate Support for Big Government  *

[video=youtube;1lpBfhxF1XM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lpBfhxF1XM[/video]



*Ron Paul Revolution is popular on youtube* - evidence: Ron Paul: Freedom is popular, new fan promo video
[video=youtube;xWYDalJ9-es]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWYDalJ9-es[/video]




Positive Ron Paul article on the National review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269184/ron-paul-rising-robert-costa?page=1



National Review Online said:


> June 9, 2011 3:00 P.M.
> Ron Paul Rising
> Upward from 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Surprise(not!) Gingrich is out.. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/09/sources-gingrich-aides-resign-en-masse-from-campaign/


FOX NEWS said:


> *Top Gingrich Aides Resign, Leaving Campaign in Question*
> 
> 
> Published June 09, 2011
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Ok I looked it up and since Ron Paul announced this is now a record with 3 consecutive days of all positive ron paul articles and television, something fishy is goin on. 

[video=youtube;hAxbkTBFFiI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAxbkTBFFiI&feature=player_embedded[/video]


Naaaaaa I think Ron Paul is just winning...all he duz is win

[video=youtube;Xtl2ZuJpG9M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtl2ZuJpG9M[/video]


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

deprave said:


> Naaaaaa I think Ron Paul is just winning...all he duz is win
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtl2ZuJpG9M[/video]









Not always....


----------



## Parker (Jun 9, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> WOW i'd thought id seen it all but i have honestly never heard that one before
> 
> your trying to say one of the ways "blacks" arent empowered is because its too easy for them to buy stuff??


LMAO How in the hell did you get that? I was making a point that blacks have a very low self employment rate which is a bad thing.


----------



## Parker (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.
> 
> by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.
> 
> i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.


You slicing hacker, the munis loose money. And yes I'd rather pay 25 at a muni than a private course which is in better shape.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 9, 2011)

Parker said:


> You slicing hacker, the munis loose money. And yes I'd rather pay 25 at a muni than a private course which is in better shape.


ya know, i am usually pretty good at putting an approximate age to most posters on the internet, but you are a tough case.

you are either 87 or 13.

i am currently about an 8 handicap. my best round ever was a 67. and i play a power cut, not a slice.


----------



## Parker (Jun 9, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> Parker, I will address you once regarding this post, then not address you any further. Your abrasive nature and name calling are rather infantile traits and do not warrant open discussion.


Girdweed,
I on the other hand, will address whenever I see fit. Your inaccurate posts misleds people and does a disservice to peoples intelligence. You are obviously two faced with your comment about me and it is rather easy to expose frauds like you. Only a complete douchebag would call ONLY me out AND insult me in the very same post. Piss off.



Girdweed said:


> Who do you feel should interpret the Constitution?


Like the founders said to. And not what Girdweed thinks. In all matters of the Constitution go back to the times it was written and read their words. Instead we get people who talk shit like you and say oh dont go by what they meant then this is really really what they meant. Riiiight you know better than the actual words the founders used.




Girdweed said:


> The Constitution gave that responsibility to the Supreme Court. Your argument contains no facts, only someone's irrelevant opinion.


your statement contains no facts, only Girdweeds idiotic opinion



Girdweed said:


> You talk about how certain people feel but provide no information to back your claims. Then, you call folks names.


reread my post and quit making things up. When the 3 branches were set up the Supreme was intended to be the weakest. Read up on that. Quit spouting shit like YOU are the authority. You have nothing to back it up. I have presented evidence. You talk shit.



Girdweed said:


> Arguing that the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says is an indefensible position IMHO.


Arguing without presenting facts and lying about what I said doesn't make your point. It just makes you a liar.



Girdweed said:


> Good day!


good to see by your post you can ACT like you are above the name calling when in fact you're a douchebag


----------



## Parker (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> have you checked a history book? back before civil rights, blacks had a limited selection to choose from. choice was taken away from them, and they were often left with inferior choices. i thought you were pro-choice?
> seriously dude, check a fucking history book. segregation, discrimination, and the like DID hurt your fellow citizen. only a blithering fucktard would deny this historical fact.


Agreed however by the time the Civil Rights movement came about Blacks were making their way up the "food chain".

When you say inferior choices do you mean blacks had to purchase from blacks and their products were inferior? I would agree because thats what happens when you have less options. BUT I think its important to address the quality difference. Inferior sure, unusable no. Reason I mention this is your post makes it sound like the choices were worse than what they were. The fact that someone would deny an individual something based on race is disgusting but I believe it adds to the emotional related "evils". Look at the income level also. Quality products that are inexpensive, are very hard to come by.

Remember segregation laws were made by government not the people. I still don't understand how a race legally could have been barred from public schools water fountains and so on. They pay for that.


----------



## Parker (Jun 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ya know, i am usually pretty good at putting an approximate age to most posters on the internet, but you are a tough case.
> you are either 87 or 13.


You can't figure squat. You couldn't pour piss out of a bucket without instructions.


UncleBuck said:


> i am currently about an 8 handicap. my best round ever was a 67. and i play a power cut, not a slice.


LMAO Like you're credible. You're handicap is 8, as in ate so much shit you're full of it.


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Ron Paul Audio I missed yesterday

Mike church radio show interview: [video=youtube;jZdA2ou6cXo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZdA2ou6cXo[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Another new positive article today



> *Reason July 2011 Issue: Ron Paul&#8217;s Radical Vision*
> 
> The libertarian Republican warns of impending disaster, reaches out to the left, and prepares for a presidential campaign.
> Brian Doherty from the July 2011 issue
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Another positive article from today, Ron is getting one endorsement after another rapidly in this past week, and today new congressional endorsements



> *Getting More Congressional Endorsements*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


also new fan promo video, professional editing job:
[video=youtube;xKYm_huuRpY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKYm_huuRpY&feature=player_embedded#at=56[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

this is from the blogs today



> *Convincing Leftists that a Ron Paul Presidency is Empowering*
> 
> *Convincing Leftists that a Ron Paul Presidency is Empowering*
> *On the delusions of Citizen Powers under Centralized Government*
> ...


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 9, 2011)

Douchebag, twat, liar...?

When an argument is hopeless you should seek help, not lash out. 

Your kids must love you dearly


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Ron Paul Lays the smack down on the Neoconservatives, talks debt limits, speaks to audience today again at freedom and faith coallition, this is the followup interview and newsmax coverage article and video:




NewsMax said:


> ]Presidential candidate Ron Paul has vowed never to vote for an increase in the debt limit during an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV.
> 
> The Texas Republican congressman says his fellow politicians cannot be trusted with the money they have at their disposal, so he will not agree to give them more.
> 
> ...



​


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

new ron paul television commercial:


Ron Paul: Restore the Republic
[video=youtube;XKORcYc2V-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKORcYc2V-k&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

And last but not least for today....



> The Lew Rockwell radio show podcast:
> *205. Ron Paul: I&#8217;m Running Against Keynes*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Ok found another Positive Ron Paul article -: on NPR of all places

*NPR: Ron Paul's foreign policy is now more mainstream*


http://www.npr.org/2011/06/07/137021190/afghan-draw-down-deb...
They were talking about how Ron Paul was cheered in the S.C. debate when he suggested we leave Afghanistan, and that other Republicans are taking this stance as well.
"That is not a new position for Paul, but he used to be an outsider on this issue in his party. And today, his view is more mainstream."


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

You lie you said post #603 would be the last...Would Ron Paul approve of your lieing to us


----------



## deprave (Jun 9, 2011)

Did you watch the badass commercial london?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 9, 2011)

I tried but got bored...yawnnnnnn


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 9, 2011)

Richard Dreyfus did that commercial, I wonder if he is a RP Supporter?

Great points made here.

[video=youtube;JodajZV0itM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JodajZV0itM[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 9, 2011)

*Richard Dreyfus , wow, right on!
*


----------



## Parker (Jun 10, 2011)

Girdweed said:


> Douchebag, twat, liar...?
> 
> When an argument is hopeless you should seek help, not lash out.
> 
> Your kids must love you dearly


if you took time to notice the reason I give shit to people is when they start garbage with me, like you did on your post.. except for unclebuck he's a worthless troll
Talk shit about me like you did in your post, I'll do the same to you.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 10, 2011)

So basically anyone who votes for Ron Paul is a racist white bastard, who hates minorities and equality.. So, since I am white, do I get 'get out of jail free' cards or something? Where do I pick them up? Am I white regardless of the color of my skin? I am new to this white thing, how does it work? Do I have to turn in the 'oh pity me, Im black' card now?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 10, 2011)

*I love how the ron paul supporters have proof, facts and data to back our word.
All of these people against ron paul, are in their own world, and have nothing to back what they say or claim.
That should be enough said.

*


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 10, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I am new to this white thing, how does it work?


We can get you some Dave Matthews Band CD's and start you off from there. Once you've learned to dance off rhythm to that then we will explain figure skating and take you to the opera.


----------



## deprave (Jun 10, 2011)

New Ron Paul video today, interview on CNN with John King

Talk is about Libya


Great interview, Ron Paul talks about things he would do as president .....Winning...Great Questions by John King
[video=youtube;YN1yKUmwrCM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN1yKUmwrCM[/video]


Bring the troops home


----------



## deprave (Jun 10, 2011)

Meanwhile....at the batcave.... wolf blitzer does a very lengthy segment on the Republicans campaigns but fails to mention Ron Paul - Interesting enough each of the contenders are all trying to pretend they are Ron Paul.

[video=youtube;1B9A4Y9v-Ak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B9A4Y9v-Ak[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Jun 10, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> So basically anyone who votes for Ron Paul is a racist white bastard, who hates minorities and equality.. So, since I am white, do I get 'get out of jail free' cards or something? Where do I pick them up? Am I white regardless of the color of my skin? I am new to this white thing, how does it work? Do I have to turn in the 'oh pity me, Im black' card now?


Don't think you racist..but you do have quite a bit of bigot in you... topped off with a bit of ignorance, but that could just be your southern upbringing


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

There is rumors going around that Doug Wead has jumped on board the Ron Paul campaign, *Doug Wead* is a presidential historian, _New York Times_ bestselling author and advisor to two presidents. He served as special assistant to the president in the George Herbert Walker Bush White House. In 1979 he co-founded Mercy Corps and the International Charity Awards. This is supposedly going to be announced very soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Wead

Some of Doug's books:



> *All The Presidents Children*
> 
> It was an instant _New York Times_ bestseller and reached number one on Amazon.com. Drawing on unpublished diaries, presidential letters, discussions and interviews with six presidents and first ladies, as well as nineteen of the living presidential children, Doug Wead tracks the lives of the nation's most famous offspring in this groundbreaking work.
> See Doug Wead biography for a better description of how this series on first families began, Doug Wead Media Central for selected television segments featuring the author and Doug Wead tapes, cd's and books to make purchases.
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

New Ron Paul Promotional Videos today:

* Progressives Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Howard Stern Support Ron Paul *


[video=youtube;wTDGlf_rs2s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTDGlf_rs2s[/video]




John Stewart On the Daily Show this week said:


> &#8220;The Daily Show&#8221; host Jon Stewart offered advice to Texas Rep. Ron Paul Monday night, saying the potential Republican presidential candidate should &#8220;compromise his principles.&#8221;&#8220;The Daily Show&#8221; host showed of clip of Mr. Paul, a potential presidential candidate, pushing for support of closing secret military prisons and withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
> &#8220;What are you doing?&#8221; Mr. Stewart asked. &#8220;This is a weak Republican field. All you have to do is compromise your libertarian principles a little bit.&#8221;
> The bit comes as Mr. Paul launched a $1 million &#8220;money bomb&#8221; earlier this month. Mr. Paul recently announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, noting that he remains undecided in regards to whether he plans to enter the 2012 Republican campaign.






> People are coming around and real change is in the air. The messages of Freedom and Liberty resonate in open minds and pure souls. A Liberated United States is coming into view and it's followed by a very bright future. See what it's all about! Principles over Party in 2012!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------*-
> WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW, REVOLUTION BECOMES OUR? DUTY!" -THOMAS JEFFERSON





Ron Paul to appear again on Stephen Colbert's show(Preview) said:


> *This Week on The Colbert Report: Ron Paul*
> 
> Tonight, a relatively-unknown doctor, congressperson, presidential candidate, author of the book Liberty Defined and point man for a new libertarian movement in America named Ron Paul will be Stephen's guest on The Report. Despite the fact that pretty much nobody has ever heard of this guy ever, he's apparently somehow managed to be on the show twice already, as well as two other times on The Daily Show. Weird, huh?
> Then, on Tuesday, A.C. Grayling author of The Good Book sits down with Stephen. On Wednesday, another notable author named Ice-T stops by to discuss his new book Ice. And Thursday will bring Wade Graham, who will discuss his own book American Eden. Books. People sure do like writing them.



Howard stern has endorsed Ron Paul again for 2012

[video=youtube;9LQSfOa3cwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LQSfOa3cwY&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 11, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *I love how the ron paul supporters have proof, facts and data to back our word.
> All of these people against ron paul, are in their own world, and have nothing to back what they say or claim.
> That should be enough said.
> 
> *


Are you fucking kidding me? 

Ron Paul supporters have shown time and time again they are willing to ignore all facts and evidence when Ron Paul tells them to. The only thing Ron Paul supporters ever offer as evidence is video clips of Ron Paul speaking!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> New Ron Paul Promotional Videos today:
> 
> * Progressives Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Howard Stern Support Ron Paul *


Really dude? You're going to play edited videos of people to fraudulently misrepresent their views? Good thing those people complained and had that video taken off you tube.

That's shameless. If Ron Paul is that great you shouldn't have to lie to support him.


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

Fraudulently Misrepresenting their views when they have each spoken in favor of Ron Paul on many occasions? Quite an accusation. How is direct quotes in audio and video from their own mouths fraudently representing their views when the clips in question are frequently posted in their entirety, raw, uncut. How can they themselves possibly misrepresent their views in entire conversations and/or writing, raw and uncut conversations and literature? Its no secret that these celebrities like Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been a guest on Stephen Colbert and John stewart over 6 times? In each episode he is praised.

Bill Mahr has discussed Ron Paul positively dozens of times and he calls Ron Paul his "hero"....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> Bill Mahr has discussed Ron Paul positively dozens of times and he calls Ron Paul his "hero"....


admiration and praise does not mean that they 'support' him, in the sense that they would cast a vote for such a radical wingnut.

unless, of course they heard that ron paul will give them all a raise if elected president 

you'll never live that one down.


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

well i guees its not TECHNICALLY AN OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT - But if you wanna get technical there Uncle Buck, he has said he would vote for him in the primary's *if* he was a republican.

Wolf Blitzer "Who do you like among the republican candidates, who would be the best president?"

Bill Mahar "Ron Paul"

Wolf "I knew you'd say that."

[video=youtube;tEHJ--XLzY0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEHJ--XLzY0[/video]


Seems pretty clear to me all these guys love Ron Paul even if they haven't made any OFFICIAL endorsements.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2011)

yes, if his beliefs were 180 degrees backwards, he would vote for ron paul. quite the bold statement there.


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

New Ron Paul Interview On FOX FREEDOM WATCH
Aired: 06/07/2011

--


[video=youtube;4rUn-aPvRSY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rUn-aPvRSY[/video]


Dr. Paul is the only one&#65279; with real solutions.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> Fraudulently Misrepresenting their views when they have each spoken in favor of Ron Paul on many occasions? Quite an accusation. How is direct quotes in audio and video from their own mouths fraudently representing their views when the clips in question are frequently posted in their entirety, raw, uncut. How can they themselves possibly misrepresent their views in entire conversations and/or writing, raw and uncut conversations and literature? Its no secret that these celebrities like Ron Paul.
> 
> Ron Paul has been a guest on Stephen Colbert and John stewart over 6 times? In each episode he is praised.
> 
> Bill Mahr has discussed Ron Paul positively dozens of times and he calls Ron Paul his "hero"....


They do not support Ron Paul for president. Saying something good about someone once doesn't = support for them as president. I like some things Mitt Romney has said recently, that doesn't mean I want him to be president. 

Bill Mahr has also called Levi Johnston and the smoking baby on youtube his heros. I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean he wants them to be president.

You're taking a few positive things people have said about Ron Paul and are acting like they support Ron Paul for president. That's total bullshit. All those people will vote for Obama.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> New Ron Paul Interview On FOX FREEDOM WATCH
> Aired: 06/07/2011
> 
> --
> ...


you know what image invariably pops into my head when ron paul starts talking about this:


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> well i guees its not TECHNICALLY AN OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT


Not an endorsement at all. You're taking quotes out of context from a different election! The reason these guys want to see Paul running is the same reason they want to see Palin running. They want Obama to win! Ron Paul can't win a general election and democrats know this.


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> They do not support Ron Paul for president. Saying something good about someone once doesn't = support for them as president. I like some things Mitt Romney has said recently, that doesn't mean I want him to be president.


 so saying that he is the best republican candidate for president and other things to the tune of him being a great man isn't saying that they would support him as president? Ah Ok thanks for clearing that up...seems like you just don't like people saying good things about Ron Paul.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> so saying that he is the best republican canidate for president isn't saying that they would support him as president? Ah Ok thanks for clearing that up


Best meaning the guy they think Obama can most easily destroy. 

Also these quotes are from a different election! This is not the 2008 election!


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Best meaning the guy they think Obama can most easily destroy.
> 
> Also these quotes are from a different election! This is not the 2008 election!


Yes most of them are from 2008, however, not all of them, my apologies. These people continue to say positive things about Ron Paul indicating they haven't changed their opinion of Ron Paul as a great hero of our time and potential president whom which they would support should he be elected. They have never said that they 'think he is the guy obama can destroy the most easily' that's your imagination.

I shoulda known you guys were gonna go all PC on my ass, shouldn't of used the word Endorsement, Can you please spell check my posts for me as well.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> These people continue to say positive things about Ron Paul indicating they haven't changed their opinion of Ron Paul as a great hero of our time and potential president whom which they would support should he be elected.


i don't think jon stewart or bill mahr or sephen colbert think of ron paul as a 'great hero of our time' and i don't think you'd see any of them jumping with joy if he got elected.

i just laughed after typing that last part.



deprave said:


> They have never said that they 'think he is the guy obama can destroy the most easily' that's your imagination.


they mock his inability to win.

"both rand paul and ron paul have been talking about a run in 2012, so they have something in common with my father and i. which is that we are also not going to get elected president"

[video=youtube;02tvCzWSDdU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02tvCzWSDdU[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

since when did Seth meyers speak for john stewart, stephen colbert, or Bill Maher - I would even dare to say that they have never mocked Ron Paul's legitimacy sincerely, they have only had positive things to say about him and can in fact each be quoted as calling him a "hero" or a synonym for hero when speaking sincerely, so I am pretty sure they do think of him as a hero and a champion of the people just as any self respecting intellectual should think of him as.

Ron Paul is not a hero based on the grounds that hes "not electable" - give me a break.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 11, 2011)

*Yea, the current USA, has absolutely no similarities between Hitlers Germany whatsoever.*

[youtube]woMx2QHWNJw[/youtube]
[youtube]fycGuM8dt1I&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]6G8XQw2sd6s&feature=related[/youtube]


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 11, 2011)

deprave said:


> I shoulda known you guys were gonna go all PC on my ass, shouldn't of used the word Endorsement, Can you please spell check my posts for me as well.


It's not a technicality. You're acting as if a bunch of high profile Obama supporters have all changed their minds and decided to support Ron Paul instead when that is not true. A comment that supports something Ron Paul says isn't the same as being a Ron Paul supporter. I support some things Ron Paul says, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. 

You're misrepresenting the truth with your cult like devotion to Ron Paul.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 11, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You're misrepresenting the truth with your cult like devotion to Ron Paul.


cult like is right.

so dan, how about us rapidly becoming nazi germany?


----------



## Ernst (Jun 11, 2011)

What is obvious is that no clear enemy is arising.

Weiner enters rehab for sex addiction and blowing up kids in the middle east is the norm..

What will unify for conservatives? Immigration? Maybe but the agribusiness folks want more control over illegals not less illegals.

Why not focus on legalizing cannabis?


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

Cause that would mean supporting Ron Paul? But for those who oppose Ron Paul playing politics is more important then real issues?

Sure lets focus on legalizing marijuana
Lets also focus on bringing the troops home

Here is your man, Ron Paul. Legalize Freedom and Liberty. No more LIP service - a real man with ideas that will change the world for the better.


Here is your unifying Issue for Republicans: Liberty - the other candidates pay lip service to the liberty movement but Ron Paul has been on the front lines of this fight for more than 20 years, Ron Paul is the GodFather of the Liberty Movement - Ron Paul has real solutions and knows how to implement them.

more of the same? no thanks the 'same' isn't working - Ron Paul Revolution


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

More on Doug Wead jumping on the RP campaign, this video is from 2008. Doug thinks Ron Paul really has a shot in the 2012 GOP primary.



> * Video - Doug Wead "running for president is like building a mall" *
> 
> 
> by *AdamT*
> ...


 [video=youtube;YkCIz8nZeVs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCIz8nZeVs&feature=player_embedded#at=174[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

This just in...Overstock.com CEO endorses Ron Paul live on fox business:

[video=youtube;k6TbAMHAqsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6TbAMHAqsM&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Did I use the word endorse in the proper context this time dan? He said he is voting for Ron Paul so I think it counts under your definition this time?


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

2012 The Revolution Continues
[video=youtube;L6D3uPLlCu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6D3uPLlCu8[/video]




Message for Ron Paul Supporters only, Please disregard otherwise



> Ron Paul Twitter Bomb during the debates
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=209417982430000
> 
> On June 13th, the next Republican debate, we will tweet #WhoIsRonPaul and get it trending on twitter so we can get people to google him and learn about his policies. Feel free to invite fellow Dr.Paul supporters to this event!


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

Another New Video from today:

* Ron Paul Reaches Out to Portsmouth Voters *

Reporter "It seems everyone is supporting ron paul, we haven't been able to find anyone that isn't supporting you in New Hampsire, do you think there might be people out there looking at the other canidates" one of ron pauls comments on this: 

Ron Paul "Its not unreasonable to think that people might be looking at other candidates " - LOL
[video=youtube;u8R5G44ABUM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8R5G44ABUM[/video]

THEY COULD BE OUT BUT WE DON'T SEE THEM IRL

IF YOU SPOT SOMEONE WHO DOESNT LIKE RON PAUL IRL PLEASE PUT IT ON YOUTUBE THEY NEED SOME TRAFFIC REALLY BAD ALL I CAN FIND IS BALD WHITE DUDES STANDING IN FRONT OF HATE SYMBOLS

Ask yourself how can a man who has been in the public life for so long have no real sane tangible enemies if he were corrupt or dishonest or racist or extreme or crazy.


----------



## deprave (Jun 11, 2011)

One Love - and thats humanity baby - heal with herb - raise your wages - free the people - stop the drug war - bring the troops home RON Paul 2012 

New Sig


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> ... raise your wages... RON Paul 2012


you know why we say you worship ron paul like the messiah?

this comes to mind:

[video=youtube;P36x8rTb3jI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI[/video]

if ron paul is elected, you won't have to worry about putting gas in your tank, you won't have to worry about paying your mortgage.

cool


----------



## redivider (Jun 12, 2011)

ron paul is going to defund or do away with all the government entities in place that are supposed to 'police' businesses. although these entities don't really 'police', they enforce the lax laws in place. they are law enforcement.

then paul's going to appoint a bunch of conservative idiots into positions of power so that their conservative agenda increases 'law enforcement'. they don't really enforce any laws, they just police our behavior.... lol... anyways.... 

so yeah, i don't want this guy anywhere near the white house....


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

damn im tempted to rep you on that one uncle buck but I cant bring myself to do it, hilarious video


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

redivider said:


> ron paul is going to defund or do away with all the government entities in place that are supposed to 'police' businesses. although these entities don't really 'police', they enforce the lax laws in place. they are law enforcement.
> 
> then paul's going to appoint a bunch of conservative idiots into positions of power so that their conservative agenda increases 'law enforcement'. they don't really enforce any laws, they just police our behavior.... lol... anyways....
> 
> so yeah, i don't want this guy anywhere near the white house....



Dont think Ron Paul is going to appoint idiot conservatives lol - Ron Paul and idiot conservatives don't get a long very well if you haven't noticed, Police business to stop them from breaking laws do they? Sounds efficient... I bet they are great at their job lol How bout we give their jobs to the people, how bout the money is in our hands?

Also pretty sure Ron Paul is Liberty Incarnate so IDK how the police are going to enforce our behavior so well when the drug war ends.

Your Doomsday Scenario is hilarious, Really what does anything you just said even have to do with federal government.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> damn im tempted to rep you on that one uncle buck but I cant bring myself to do it, hilarious video


do you realize that video was mocking you?

i voted for obama, and likely will again, because he is a viable candidate, who has had and will have some effect on the issues i care about: equality for all, including gays (repeal of dadt) and women (lily ledbetter). moving towards universal health care. improving infrastructure and advancing renewable energies. tax breaks for the middle class.

i am upset with the president for signing off on a couple of the provisions of the patriot act, continuing tax cuts for the wealthy, and so on. 

but at least i was not like the woman in the video, like you seem to be for ron paul.

ron paul will raise my wage? cool story, bro.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> do you realize that video was mocking you?
> 
> i voted for obama, and likely will again, because he is a viable candidate, who has had and will have some effect on the issues i care about: equality for all, including gays (repeal of dadt) and women (lily ledbetter). moving towards universal health care. improving infrastructure and advancing renewable energies. tax breaks for the middle class.
> 
> ...


Yea i agree, i just love berry sotaro, and his universal healthcare that only small ma and pa businesses would have to carry.
You know because all his wall street and big corporate business buddies get waivers 1,040 in all as of march 4th.
You know, because if it was so great, every business would want it, and not bribe him for waivers, yeah ah huh he is the man.
Lets continue to vote for the little guy to be pushed around and the big corporate interest to always be fulfilled.
Do you have gay relatives or something? you really care about things that are at the bottom of the list.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

1,040/311,540,740 = 0.0000033825%

that means 99.9999966% did not get waivers.

but my wife can now get covered despite her pre existing condition, and several of my family members have been able to stay on their parents' coverage for longer, and my grandma got help affording her prescription drugs.

so excuse me if i don't give a shit about some 0.0000033825% of people who got temporary waivers, and care a little more about my wife, my grandma, and my family.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> do you realize that video was mocking you?
> 
> i voted for obama, and likely will again, because he is a viable candidate, who has had and will have some effect on the issues i care about: equality for all, including gays (repeal of dadt) and women (lily ledbetter). moving towards universal health care. improving infrastructure and advancing renewable energies. tax breaks for the middle class.
> 
> ...


 of course I realize this, the women is a retard she pulled that out of thin air, Ron Paul's ideas do raise peoples wages, hes already raising peoples standard of living tyvm.Cutting taxes etc would effectively raise wages BRO, Ron Paul puts more money and power in the hands of the people, Cool STORY BRO...


----------



## Girdweed (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave, would you be Ron Paul's servant if he asked?


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

New Video - 
*Ron Paul speaks at the Home of Ovide Lamontagne *


[video=youtube;1kR3l4E-Lms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kR3l4E-Lms[/video]

What do you know - he talks about being called Dr. NO - because he votes NO on so much legislation, legislation that violates the constitution and taxes the american people.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

New Promo Videos

amazingly accurate predictions of Dr Ron Paul
[video=youtube;48Gfzgxh3ZQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ[/video]



Obama voters for Ron Paul
[video=youtube;SIZsyKML4vU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIZsyKML4vU&feature=related[/video]



I did a little research, and found out that the last Republican president without military experience left office in 1933 (Herbert Hoover). Since then, the Republican Party has only chosen one person as their nominee who hadn't served in the military. That was Thomas Dewey, who was the nominee in 1944, and 1948.

This election, Ron Paul is the only person running who served in the military. If history is any indication, Ron Paul pretty much has no choice, but to win!


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

*Ron Paul a very close 2nd to Romney in new CNN general election poll:*

Romney + 10% (39% favorable - 29% unfavorable)
Ron Paul +8% (34% favorable - 26% unfavorable)
Cain +7% (17-10)
Bachmann +4% (28-24)
T-Paw +2% (20-1
Huntsman +2% (13-11)
Santorum -4 (10-14)
Newt -14 (30-44)

_Among independents, Ron beats Mitt._

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im...2/new.poll.pdf​


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

According to the new Gallop poll #'s http://www.gallup.com/poll/147950/Romney-Positive-Intensity-Santorum-Name-Low.aspx

25% of republicans do not even know who Ron Paul is - Tomorrow in the debates Ron Paul will take names and emerge a New Ron Paul - do not miss this he is going to need to put on quite a show.





<----HOW I IMAGINE RON PAUL AFTER THE DEBATES


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> I am to busy to be anyone's servant lol I have two secretaries of my own - maybe if he wanted some Linux servers built or some weed grown I would do it for cheap haha
> 
> or internet forum threads id do that for free...wait...


You don't seem too busy to me...I think you would make a great servant of Ron Pauls...seems like you already there


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

Hey on a side note and business look... what is your cost for a Linux Enterprise with support plus Oracle ( yearly)..???


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Awesome, your so cool.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

CentOS is free Enterprise Linux


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> CentOS is free Enterprise Linux


yeah but then I would lose Red Hat tech support which i can get from a paid sub...would need that if running Oracle ..trying to compare with 2000 Windows Server advance plus SQL server...


----------



## Medical Grade (Jun 12, 2011)

Server 08 is out... LOL


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> *Ron Paul a very close 2nd to Romney in new CNN general election poll:*
> 
> Romney + 10% (39% favorable - 29% unfavorable)
> Ron Paul +8% (34% favorable - 26% unfavorable)
> ...


I read through that poll twice and it doesn't say that. Unless I didn't see it, this is the third time you've lied about a poll result in order to try and make Ron Paul look good.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

dunno what to tell ya, keep paying the big bucks then lol - If you actually need that stuff I am sorry, I am curious to know why you need that, CentOS LAMP setups is what I work with, you can do mysql replication for increased performance and integrity.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I read through that poll twice and it doesn't say that. Unless I didn't see it, this is the third time you've lied about a poll result in order to try and make Ron Paul look good.


 To clarify, I removed the people who are not even running, Rudy was #1 one on that list actually on the source website. Sarah Palin was second, these people are not running.

Also I have never LIED about a poll, you just seem to misinterpret me every time. Genuine mistake on my part that I did not clarify what I did this time. I should of at the least typed out: "Among the candidates", I suppose I took it for granted and thought this was more of a "gimme". I have to keep in mind my audience includes folks like you who hate positive information about Ron Paul, sometimes I forget you exist.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> Server 08 is out... LOL


And the cost is way out as well compared to Linux....


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> dunno what to tell ya, keep paying the big bucks then lol - If you actually need that stuff I am sorry, I am curious to know why you need that, CentOS LAMP setups is what I work with, you can do mysql replication for huge performance increase.


just trying to just compare costs for a upcoming project I have planned after the summer, putting together a business model and needed to see what the cost difference would be Windows vs Linux...


----------



## Medical Grade (Jun 12, 2011)

londonfog said:


> And the cost is way out as well compared to Linux....



yea well if your going to cost compare technology's atleast compare technology that is still supported by the vendor


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

get to know linux and start scripting a model to make it easy for you to manage and then it will be free for life. (LAMP ftw)


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> To clarify, I removed the people who are not even running, Rudy was #1 one on that list actually on the source website. Sarah Palin was second, these people are not running.


Taking options out of a poll changes the results entirely. You can't just edit people out to get the desired result and present that as an accurate poll. That's doctoring the results and distorting the truth.



> Also I have never LIED about a poll, you just seem to misinterpret me every time. Genuine mistake on my part that I did not clarify what I did this time. I should of at the least typed out: "Among the candidates", I suppose I took it for granted and thought this was more of a "gimme".


You've definetly lied about Ron Paul results multiple times. You have represented the votes of one demographic in one situation as the over all general results. You've done that twice. 

You were making the claim that Ron Paul was tied for first among all republican voters when he really was only tied for first with two other people in the 18-35 demographic. 

You habitually misrepresent the truth when it comes to Ron Paul. Doing so is a discredit to Ron Paul by the way. If his supporters are out their lying to try to convince people to support him, everyone else wonders why you need to make shit up to support him if he's so good.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> yea well if your going to cost compare technology's atleast compare technology that is still supported by the vendor


I do agree thats why I wanted the cost for Red Hat Enterprise Linux with premium support for the year..I assumed that deprave worked tech support for Linux and would know


----------



## Medical Grade (Jun 12, 2011)

Depending on your buisness, you may or may not need the enterprise level support from M$ that's the bottom line. You get what you pay for though, thats for sure.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

@dan
no, I did not. you simply did not read what I wrote, I said leading among INDEPENDENT republican voters of a specific age bracket which you choose to ignore - the chart I posted highlighted that on embedded within my post clearly visible - you choose to ignore this again. Pages later you continued to ignore this and continued to write that I lied...after I clarified this again for you here I am certain that you will continue to ignore/overlook this, please take the time to go back and review my postings regarding polls if you'd like further clarification, as I have grown tired of posting this.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> Depending on your buisness, you may or may not need the enterprise level support from M$ that's the bottom line. You get what you pay for though, thats for sure.


well it will be somewhat of a call center so I would say at least for the first year support would be needed until the right personal was in place...???but I get what you are saying


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

London I would tell you the same as I tell people who ask me those type of questions but that would aid someone highly in revealing my identity. IN SHORT: these things are unnecessary in my business, LAMP w/ CENTOS does it for free. If you really need all that stuff I am sorry for you. The small amount of "labor" and slightly increased upfront hardware cost is definitely worth it for me.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> London I would tell you the same as I tell people who ask me those type of questions but that would kind of reveal my identity. IN SHORT: these things are unnecessary in my business, LAMP w/ CENTOS does it for free.


I understand but what do you do if you ever need support..everyone at one time or another needs support or you haven't been doing IT work for long..do you have to go search on a forum??? I will look into what you saying but I don't really think I can go that route for I for one don't want to spend my time being the "IT guy" and I have to make sure that we have support for any and every problem and what that cost would be...


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

yep thats we do, support, 25 guys watch over 4,000 boxes 24/7 - Id ask you to sign on with us after you clarified what you wanted to do


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> @dan
> no, I did not. you simply did not read what I wrote, I said leading among INDEPENDENT republican voters of a specific age bracket which you choose to ignore


Which sounds good, except that's not what you said at all. You've shown a pattern of willingness to mislead people on a regular basis.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

New Hampshire Conversation with the Candidate


Local News Conversation w/ Ron Paul - http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary-extended-coverage/28199781/video.html


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan I am sorry you see it that way, what can I say, some post have been a little slanted I will give you that, to be bias is human nature and also the nature of statistics, some things I have said could be considered misleading depending on how you look at it, this is not my intention, I do cite my sources properly for people to have their own opinion and I have corrected myself when I make mistakes. Bias is also prevalent in your postings on this matter, you intentionally ignore and overlook things as to favor your view on this as well, however, I would argue that you go out of your way to do such while I try my best to maintain integrity but occasionally stumble. 

EDIT TLDR: I think I am entitled to an opinion just as you are entitled to your opinion. I also think my opinion holds more weight when I cite my sources and make an effort to maintain better integrity and honesty while your postings are pure spin.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

NEW VIDEO




Ron Paul raising peoples wages:


[video=youtube;ZPGkqflBtmg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPGkqflBtmg&feature=player_embedded[/video]



> Thanks to some hard working NYC activists, New York servers are quickly becoming aware that Ron Paul is the only one looking out for them, and the logical choice in 2012.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Are you ready for the debate Monday?

[video=youtube;QuXFNCIhWDU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuXFNCIhWDU&feature=player_embedded#at=11[/video]


Join your local Meetup here!
The Debate will be Monday 6/13 8pm ET on CNN.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> 1,040/311,540,740 = 0.0000033825%
> 
> that means 99.9999966% did not get waivers.
> 
> ...


Yep, that percentage are his buddies and those companies are super huge, employing thousands of people, for instance all the piss ass poor people working at McDonald's (which got waivers) are screwed thanks to barry. 
Also that one percent its at now is besides the point, that number will grow and its a monopoly to help the rich get more rich.
Answer my question. What is so great about obama care if huge fortune 100 companies don't want to carry obamacare and wont carry it? 
Oh yea what about all the states that are not going to have anything to do with it in their state? 
No they are not all republican states either, that's a lame argument so try better than that. 
Where are you from? i dont think your from America you moved here from another country or some shit.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

From DailyPaul - DailyPaul.com


> Romney's pull out of all "straw polls" says more about the Anti-Paul strategy of the political establishment than it does about Romney's campaign, "imploding" or otherwise.
> The winds of "Tea Party" change are fairly strong here in Iowa. They have been throwing the Herman Cains', Tim Pawlentys', Rick Santorums', and Donald Trumps' at us left and right; but so far nobody has broken out of the pack. Palin is stalled and Gingrich shot himself in the foot.
> Regardless of her flaws, I don't believe that Bachmann is on the insiders' short list of dream candidates.
> That leaves Romney as the only person standing between Ron Paul and a disturbingly good showing in the Ames Straw Poll.
> ...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I read through that poll twice and it doesn't say that. Unless I didn't see it, this is the third time you've lied about a poll result in order to try and make Ron Paul look good.


Mitt Romney is the same as barry, he loves his work and would do things just like barry. 
What dont you like specifically about Dr. Paul exactly?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

I think his views on the Civil Rights vote of 64 could lead to racism, but we already went over all that...so I'm glad he won't make it out the primary....but it is funny to see how hard Ron Paul's supporters try to keep the faith...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I think his views on the Civil Rights vote of 64 could lead to racism, but we already went over all that...so I'm glad he won't make it out the primary....but it is funny to see how hard Ron Paul's supporters try to keep the faith...


 Im just going to say it. 
I would not care if ron paul was the most racists person on earth, i would still vote for him, because he would follow the constitution and anyone who knows anything, would know that is all they need.
The argument and debate tactic is just stupid. I cant wait to see everyone's faces who voted for someone else when he gets elected.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

> *I think his views on the Civil Rights vote of 64 could lead to racism, but we already went over all that...so I'm glad he won't make it out the primary....but it is funny to see how hard Ron Paul's supporters try to keep the faith... *


cause faith in humanity is hilarious? cynical...diabolical...Love your Neighbor... I will never lose faith in the human spirit...you think like a cop, theres tons of evil people out there to get you right? you live in fear of your fellow man?? Did you get bullied a lot? Are you a cop? Have you been a victim?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I cant wait to see everyone's faces who voted for someone else when he gets elected.


bwahahahahahahahahahaha! 

you and your nefarious kabals and wildly optimistic predictions on how ron paul will fare are always good for a laugh. thanks.



deprave said:


> cause faith in humanity is hilarious? cynical...diabolical...Love your Neighbor... I will never lose faith in the human spirit...you think like a cop, theres tons of evil people out there to get you right? you live in fear of your fellow man?? Did you get bullied a lot? Are you a cop? Have you been a victim?


you libertarians, so naive.

i have faith in my fellow man but i am not fucking dumb and i did not forget history. empirical evidence shows that people do discriminate and segregate when able. you can't deny history.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> you and your nefarious kabals and wildly optimistic predictions on how ron paul will fare are always good for a laugh. thanks.
> 
> ...


If anyone claimed they know history as much as you, they would at the very least see the grim similarities between nazi germany and modern america.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

If by history, you mean what you pick up on here and there and very selectively hearing and applying it here and there. 
Then yea, i guess you know your history.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ... for instance all the piss ass poor people working at McDonald's (which got waivers) are screwed thanks to barry.


actually, they get helped thanks to obama.

if you work at mcdonalds, you likely take home min wage (let's say that is $7.50) and let's also suppose you work full time. 40 x $7.50 = $300 per week x 50 weeks per year = $15,000 per year working full time at mcdonalds.

the poverty line is about $10,890, so that puts you at 150% of poverty working full time at mcdonalds.

under the patient protection and affordable care act, those living above the medicaid level and up to 400% of poverty will be subsidized on a sliding scale to buy insurance from the exchange that will be set up. at 150% of poverty, that means you would pay about 2% of your wage for health insurance, or about $25 per month for full coverage. 

ha, facts. i bet you hate those pesky things.



tryingtogrow89 said:


> Where are you from? i dont think your from America you moved here from another country or some shit.


at least i can speak the language. proud product of new jersey public schools.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

*extended coverage from the town hall today : the best part they only put on the web as extended coverage, a full 30 minutes with some tough questions from an intelligent audience:*

http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary-extended-coverage/28200870/video.html


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> If anyone claimed they know history as much as you, they would at the very least see the grim similarities between nazi germany and modern america.


do let me know when they start rounding up citizens based on religion or political belief and start putting them in ghettos and concentration camps, sport.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> *extended coverage from the town hall today : the best part they only put on the web as extended coverage, a full 30 minutes with some tough questions from an intelligent audience:*
> 
> http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary-extended-coverage/28200870/video.html


i see you changed your sig and edited out the "ron paul will raise your wage" nonsense.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i see you changed your sig and edited out the "ron paul will raise your wage" nonsense.


 I changed it to standard of living but that was too many characters so then I had to change it to lower taxes - I did it especially for you, gotta be all PC and shit with you haters around lol


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> do let me know when they start rounding up citizens based on religion or political belief and start putting them in ghettos and concentration camps, sport.


 Things are not that black and white buddy.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> actually, they get helped thanks to obama.
> 
> if you work at mcdonalds, you likely take home min wage (let's say that is $7.50) and let's also suppose you work full time. 40 x $7.50 = $300 per week x 50 weeks per year = $15,000 per year working full time at mcdonalds.
> 
> ...


Again eww shame on me i forgot an e oh no. Your tactic is no good.
Facts are pesky things especially when you warp and corrupt them mr. (my s.u.v. is causing hotter summers.)
Hey i have an idea, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Mitt Romney is the same as barry, he loves his work and would do things just like barry.


They are not the same. You disliking both of them doesn't mean they are alike. 



> What dont you like specifically about Dr. Paul exactly?


His economic policies would be a huge give away to multinational corporations and banks. They would be extremely harmful to working class folks. I don't believe electing an extremist is the way to help the economy. The economic theories he's advocating are untried and unproven. Every time a country adopts economic policies even similar to his it leads to massive socioeconomic inequality. For example the gilded age in America. Sure, that time created a lot of GDP, but the price the American people had to pay for it was unacceptable. 

I don't like his views on civil rights or abortion either.

I do like his views on legalization and war, but that's about it.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

So then, why wouldn't McDonald's have to carry obamacare? When the small ma and pa burger place would?
You think thats logical?
I thought we needed medical reform for a reason, not just to push the little guy around and help big corporate interests.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> If anyone claimed they know history as much as you, they would at the very least see the grim similarities between nazi germany and modern america.


The problem with nazi germany is that they tried to take over Europe and committed genocide. That is not happening here, so you really can't make a legitimate comparison.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> So then, why wouldn't McDonald's have to carry obamacare? When the small ma and pa burger place would?
> You think thats logical?
> I thought we needed medical reform for a reason, not just to push the little guy around and help big corporate interests.


So you like by eliminating all the rules that prevent corporate interests from taking over this country would be a big win for the little guy? Because that's what Ron Paul advocates.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> The problem with nazi germany is that they tried to take over Europe and committed genocide. That is not happening here, so you really can't make a legitimate comparison.


You are picking one feather off the overall bird with hundreds of feathers and saying because that feather is different the bird is not the same.
No logic at all, i am at a loss of words if you think things are so simplistic and black and white.
America is not based in over a 150 countries?
America is not claiming wars because of humanitarian effort?
America is not power grabbing and setting up checkpoints wherever they can?
Those three were just off the top of my head.
Like to you if we had the same shirts but with different stitching around the sleeves, they would no longer be the same or even similar for that matter in your opinion. 
Would you like me to give you even more technical and broader spectrum's of how your logic is completely lacking?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> So you like by eliminating all the rules that prevent corporate interests from taking over this country would be a big win for the little guy? Because that's what Ron Paul advocates.


 Your spinning this topic in to a 360 degree direction. I guess that is how you and uncle beck win over the people who oppose freedom. 
Lets spin this off into fairy tale land now also.
If you where to get up in front of a crowd and try to debate me, i would have applause as you would have boo's


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> If you where to get up in front of a crowd and try to debate me, i would have applause as you would have boo's


they call this delusions of grandeur.

if you got up and said "america is so much like nazi germany" you would be laughed and ridiculed off stage.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> So then, why wouldn't McDonald's have to carry obamacare? When the small ma and pa burger place would?
> You think thats logical?
> I thought we needed medical reform for a reason, not just to push the little guy around and help big corporate interests.


ANYONE who makes more than medicaid and up to 400% of poverty would qualify for subsidized health insurance from an exchange. the more you made, the less you would be subsidized. not only that, but medicaid is expanded to more people as well.

if a business with 50 employees or more does not offer health insurance through the employer, they must pay a 'shared responsibility' payment IF their employees health insurance is subsidized.

i don't think you have any clue what is in the patient protection and affordable care act.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ANYONE who makes more than medicaid and up to 400% of poverty would qualify for subsidized health insurance from an exchange. the more you made, the less you would be subsidized. not only that, but medicaid is expanded to more people as well.
> 
> if a business with 50 employees or more does not offer health insurance through the employer, they must pay a 'shared responsibility' payment IF their employees health insurance is subsidized.
> 
> i don't think you have any clue what is in the patient protection and affordable care act.


As it is, i don't have health insurance because of money and still couldn't afford it if it was $20.00 even.
Forbid i get really ill, and get a terminal disease, i would then obviously need professional medical attention and care. I do not have health insurance, i do not go to the doctor if i am sick, or get a deep cut, or get in a car wreck, because i cant afford it. Also i think that the best cure is prevention, and i eat healthy and take a shit load of vitamins everyday. I don't get sick often.
I don't enjoy being told, if i don't carry health care insurance, i will be fined and that money will go to the feds for no reason other than them stealing my money from me.
Further more why should i have to, by law, required to carry any type of insurance, unless it was a condition of privilege or employment?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> As it is, i don't have health insurance because of money and still couldn't afford it if it was $20.00 even.
> Forbid i get really ill, and get a terminal disease, i would then obviously need professional medical attention and care. I do not have health insurance, i do not go to the doctor if i am sick, or get a deep cut, or get in a car wreck, because i cant afford it. Also i think that the best cure is prevention, and i eat healthy and take a shit load of vitamins everyday. I don't get sick often.
> I don't enjoy being told, if i don't carry health care insurance, i will be fined and that money will go to the feds for no reason other than them stealing my money from me.
> Further more why should i have to, by law, required to carry any type of insurance, unless it was a condition of privilege or employment?


how much do you make a year?

if it is less than $14, 483.70, you will qualify for medicaid under the patient protection and affordable care act.

no one gets fined if they can't afford it.

perhaps you may want t brush up on what this bill does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You are picking one feather off the overall bird with hundreds of feathers and saying because that feather is different the bird is not the same.
> No logic at all, i am at a loss of words if you think things are so simplistic and black and white.


Sometimes things are that simple. Hilter wasn't a horrible person because his economic policies caused GDP growth, it was the jews in the oven thing that people had issues with.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Sometimes things are that simple. Hilter wasn't a horrible person because his economic policies caused GDP growth, it was the jews in the oven thing that people had issues with.


that and the moustache. i don't think anyone liked the moustache.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Your spinning this topic in to a 360 degree direction. I guess that is how you and uncle beck win over the people who oppose freedom.
> Lets spin this off into fairy tale land now also.
> If you where to get up in front of a crowd and try to debate me, i would have applause as you would have boo's


Only in an mental institution. 

In a debate, people explain why the other person is wrong. You're not doing that and just throwing out lame accusation like people who don't support Ron Paul oppose freedom. That's what Bush supporters told me when I opposed the Iraq war. It's meaningless bullshit.

Well all oppose and support certain types of freedom. Just because someone doesn't share your views of which types of freedoms should be opposed or supported doesn't mean they hate freedom. 

If you think I'm wrong, explain why. But cheap accusations and rhetoric are not impressing anyone.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> So you like by eliminating all the rules that prevent corporate interests from taking over this country would be a big win for the little guy? Because that's what Ron Paul advocates.


 Yep cause Ron Paul will let wal-mart takeover the world this is totally not a crazy conspiracy theory, and we are also going to be rounded up in FEMA CAMPS, and obama is a lizard man, sure. We've been over this dozens of times and I don't really care to go over it again, this discussion takes place in The Truth about Ron Paul thread and also this thread The truth about ron paul part 2.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that and the moustache. i don't think anyone liked the moustache.


Michael Jordan thinks it's awesome.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> Yep cause Ron Paul will let wal-mart takeover the world this is totally not a conspiracy,


It's not a conspiracy, it's free market economics. If you eliminate the regulations that prevent corporations from exploiting people, they will exploit people.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

exploiting people is illegal dan


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Only in an mental institution.
> 
> In a debate, people explain why the other person is wrong. You're not doing that and just throwing out lame accusation like people who don't support Ron Paul oppose freedom. That's what Bush supporters told me when I opposed the Iraq war. It's meaningless bullshit.
> 
> ...


Well seeing how i answer all the questions with facts and data and legit information, rather than spin it off in a 360 degree direction with added opinions.
Yeah, that would be the part where the applause would be deserving, as with the 360 degree opinions off topic would deserve the boo's.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> exploiting people is illegal dan


Not if you eliminate the regulations making it illegal. Like eliminating the minimum wage for example, which Ron Paul supports.

Concepts aren't illegal. You have to define them in a law for them to become illegal. If you eliminate that law, it becomes legal.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

regulations exploit the people dan, regulations foster monopolies


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Not if you eliminate the regulations making it illegal. Like eliminating the minimum wage for example, which Ron Paul supports.
> 
> Concepts aren't illegal. You have to define them in a law for them to become illegal. If you eliminate that law, it becomes legal.


ron paul will not make fraud legal


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how much do you make a year?
> 
> if it is less than $14, 483.70, you will qualify for medicaid under the patient protection and affordable care act.
> 
> ...


Well i don't make anywhere near that because my job was robbed.
If i did make above that, i probably still wouldn't carry insurance because i live a healthy low risk lifestyle. So who are the government to dictate that to me?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Well seeing how i answer all the questions with facts and data and legit information, rather than spin it off in a 360 degree direction with added opinions.
> Yeah, that would be the part where the applause would be deserving, as with the 360 degree opinions off topic would deserve the boo's.


There were no facts in your argument. Speculating on the behavior of an imaginary audience isn't a fact that supports anything. 

The fact is that Ron Paul supports free market economics. Free market economics enables corporations to exploit people for the purpose of making profits just like they did in the gilded age.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Ron paul doesnt want to eliminate obama care but he says the first thing he would do is make it so you can opt out regardless.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

And what was it like just before the gilded age dan?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron paul doesnt want to eliminate obama care but he says the first thing he would do is make it so you can opt out regardless.


That is a complete contradiction. It's like saying I don't support war but I support dropping bombs and invading countries. 

Opting out does eliminate the health care plan. It only functions if everyone is covered. You can't force health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions unless health insurance is mandatory. Otherwise people would never get health insurance until they got sick which would bankrupt the insurance companies immediately.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> And what was it like just before the gilded age dan?


A pre-industrial agrarian society. Robber barons were not the ones who invented the technology that industrialized America, they simply exploited it. 

How does allowing the majority of the nations wealth to be concentrated into the hands of 20-40 families help the majority of Americans?


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Gilded age in a nutshell my take on Dr Pauls view is that the problem wasn't too much freedom much of the economic problems specifically associated with the era were the logical byproducts of INCREASING government intervention so too little "unbridled laiseze-faire capitalism."



> Contrary to "popular" wisdom... it was a time period of INCREASING, rather than decreasing, intervention by government (federal and state) in the economy... beginning in earnest during the Civil War years with the new banking acts pushed through by the Lincoln Administration that began the process of reestablishing a "national bank" which subsequently set us back on the path to boom and bust cycles (called "Panics" in those days).
> 
> Furthermore, as far as monopolies (the "boogeymen" of the era upon whom so much blame is cast by modern historians) go - again contrary to "popular" wisdom and "mainstream" history - rather than taking on the monopolies (called "trusts" in those days) to reign in their abuses... government (at all levels including the federal) actually encouraged their creation and development through anti-free-market policies that enabled large firms to avoid having to engage in real competition with small-medium sized firms through all kinds of subsidies, regulations, exclusionary contracts, and other benefits. In fact, if you look at most of the giant firms in the major industries of the era (railroads, steel, oil, telephones/telegraphs, etc.) that were considered to be the worst of the "predatory" monopolies you'll find that many actually partnered with government to undermine their competition... what many of us refer to as "crony capitalism" or perhaps "corporatism."
> 
> As it turns out, even in the late 19th century, the business elites in America, rather than standing against the trending statism in the name of freedom and capitalism, instead preferred to use the coercive power of government to undermine their competition, redistribute to themselves other people's money, and protect themselves from the consequences of their own bad decisions.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> Contrary to "popular" wisdom... it was a time period of INCREASING, rather than decreasing, intervention by government (federal and state) in the economy...


No one thinks that. Of course government intervention was increasing. There were no rules for an industrialized society in place. It was basically free market economics, what Ron Paul supports. They started coming up with rules because they realized the wealthy elite were exploiting the American people. 

It's the closet time in history we've ever been to a free market and it was a disaster for all those not named JP Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc. That's what you're supporting when you support free market economics, robber barons.

No matter how hard you try you can't simply explain away the effects of the gilded age by using revisionist economic theories when we have the hard evidence from that time period that contradicts it.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That is a complete contradiction. It's like saying I don't support war but I support dropping bombs and invading countries.
> 
> Opting out does eliminate the health care plan. It only functions if everyone is covered. You can't force health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions unless health insurance is mandatory. Otherwise people would never get health insurance until they got sick which would bankrupt the insurance companies immediately.


 ah yea looks like I worded it wrong ..dr paul discussed this in the townhall today..http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary-extended-coverage/28200870/video.html

question is at 11:57

Lady ask whats the best way to overthrow obamacare?

Ron Paul says he won't be able to do much about this as president - he suggest he would give the ability for people to opt out of the whole system (not just obamacare).


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> No one thinks that. Of course government intervention was increasing. There were no rules for an industrialized society in place. It was basically free market economics, what Ron Paul supports. They started coming up with rules because they realized the wealthy elite were exploiting the American people.
> 
> It's the closet time in history we've ever been to a free market and it was a disaster for all those not named JP Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc. That's what you're supporting when you support free market economics, robber barons.
> 
> No matter how hard you try you can't simply explain away the effects of the gilded age by using revisionist economic theories when we have the hard evidence from that time period that contradicts it.


What is exactly your hard evidence, government statistics and a few history books? Didn't we just learn a valuable lesson about statistics a few pages back.... Yea freedom is the devil, keep on preachin that.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> The problem with nazi germany is that they tried to take over Europe and committed genocide. That is not happening here, so you really can't make a legitimate comparison.


Germany also implemented gun control. They had social welfare/insurance/ect. They pretty much had the entire democrat playbook. In the early 30's they reduced it because the world was collapsing during the Great Depression. They started deciding to give money only to those worth saving. Then they moved it on to those who weren't worth saving were a drain on society and were removed. Nazi Germany did not start and end with Hitler. It began with the individual being unimportant vs "the people". It deteriorated into the people who were dragging society down being disposed of. Even before the Nazi's were in power they were sterilizing retards and undesirables. They went on to turn into forced abortions of people who were genetically ill. This is a major concern with giving the government the ability to control our medical system. Once they decided abortion was ok to deal with those who were potentially genetically defective, the government moved on to get rid of those who were born predating the laws of the 30s. 
This all came about under the guise of "progressive health reform". 

It isn't like looking in a mirror, but the German people didn't know they were going to be what most consider the most horrible country ever to exist in a few short years. They took baby steps towards it, they didn't wake up one morning and say "Lets go kill millions of people in horrible ways". 

Once again, Government is one of the leading causes of death in the world in the last 100 years. How do governments get more and more control of the people they are there to serve, thereby allowing them to murder them easily? They take control little by little, introducing laws that take away rights and power from the people and giving it to the Government. Why? Because it makes sense and the government can do things better since people aren't capable of taking care of themselves. 'The People' know whats best for the country, and the individual is selfish. Ignoring this fact and giving the Government more and more power over the people and their lives is somewhere we very closely mirror Germany and every other oppressive country in the history of the world. Do you really think Hitler thought what he was doing was wrong? I think he honestly believed in what he was doing and that it was right for "the People". A lot of other people obviously believed in it too. People haven't changed a whole lot in the last 60 years(Or less if you count other brutal regimes). Why would anyone think that road is impossible for America or even improbable? Following our constitution would keep this from happening.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

"oh lawdy goberment please protect me from the free man from the innovators from the entrepreneurs you always knows wuts best goberment, I need to be safes from all these evil peoples please protect me and mah babies momma so that we must be safe i really thought u will done whats rite an stuff i dont wanna be mad fun of no moar dey always pikin on me" 

HEART
DAN KONE


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> "oh lawdy goberment please protect me from the free man from the inovators from the enrepeuners you always knows wuts best goberment, I need to be safes from all these evil peoples please protect me and mah babies momma so that we must be safe i really thought u will done whats rite an stuff i dont wanna be mad fun of no moar dey always pikin on me"
> 
> HEART
> DAN KONE


You're incomprehensibly ignorant. Using a fake black southern accident to characterize me as the ignorant one is not helping your cause at all. I really can't decide if that is more offensive or stupid.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

sorry thought you could take joke...so please go on...tell us about the evil people you encounter on a daily basis and how freedom would be harmful to our way of life because of these evil people, paint the full picture for us please, how is economic freedom going to destroy America?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> sorry thought you could take joke


You're ignorance and dishonesty isn't funny, it's just pathetic.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Germany also implemented gun control. They had social welfare/insurance/ect. They pretty much had the entire democrat playbook. In the early 30's they reduced it because the world was collapsing during the Great Depression. They started deciding to give money only to those worth saving. Then they moved it on to those who weren't worth saving were a drain on society and were removed. Nazi Germany did not start and end with Hitler. It began with the individual being unimportant vs "the people". It deteriorated into the people who were dragging society down being disposed of. Even before the Nazi's were in power they were sterilizing retards and undesirables. They went on to turn into forced abortions of people who were genetically ill. This is a major concern with giving the government the ability to control our medical system. Once they decided abortion was ok to deal with those who were potentially genetically defective, the government moved on to get rid of those who were born predating the laws of the 30s.
> This all came about under the guise of "progressive health reform".
> 
> It isn't like looking in a mirror, but the German people didn't know they were going to be what most consider the most horrible country ever to exist in a few short years. They took baby steps towards it, they didn't wake up one morning and say "Lets go kill millions of people in horrible ways".
> ...


Exactly, incrementally you turn into Nazi Germany. Fluoride was used by them for the same reasons they use it now on us here in America.
Don't give me that crap its for teeth. I need to topically apply it for that to work, not ingest it. It makes you passive, its literally a chemical lobotomy of the brain. 
Why do you think america is one of the last places using it in municipal water supply. Luckily people and states are using the good ol' constitution to take that away more and more.
Even if it were legitimately used for dental health who is the government to forcibly medicate me?
If you where educated on the subject, you would already know that it shows no proof that there is better teeth statistically between places that do fluoridate their water vs places that do not.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Germany also implemented gun control. They had social welfare/insurance/ect. They pretty much had the entire democrat playbook. In the early 30's they reduced it because the world was collapsing during the Great Depression. They started deciding to give money only to those worth saving. Then they moved it on to those who weren't worth saving were a drain on society and were removed. Nazi Germany did not start and end with Hitler. It began with the individual being unimportant vs "the people". It deteriorated into the people who were dragging society down being disposed of. Even before the Nazi's were in power they were sterilizing retards and undesirables. They went on to turn into forced abortions of people who were genetically ill. This is a major concern with giving the government the ability to control our medical system. Once they decided abortion was ok to deal with those who were potentially genetically defective, the government moved on to get rid of those who were born predating the laws of the 30s.
> This all came about under the guise of "progressive health reform".
> 
> It isn't like looking in a mirror, but the German people didn't know they were going to be what most consider the most horrible country ever to exist in a few short years. They took baby steps towards it, they didn't wake up one morning and say "Lets go kill millions of people in horrible ways".
> ...


lol. wow. I've seen a lot of conservative revisionist history but that takes the cake. 

Are you really trying to sell the national *socialist workers* party in Germany as some Ayn Rand inspired libertarian paradise? Come on now. You can do better than that. 

They went even further to the left than we did, and guess what, it worked.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Exactly, incrementally you turn into Nazi Germany. Fluoride ...


the fluoride conspiracy!

you are too awesome, dude.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Fluoride its highly exaggerated both ways, just like radiation, aspetus or anything......one group exagerates how bad it is for you while the other group exaggerates how bad it isn't for you. Id like to think the truth lies somewhere in between as my furthest extreme - if not siding with the 'not really that bad for you crowd' - not really jumping on the fluoride or Germany=USA bandwagon here sorry folks.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the fluoride conspiracy!
> 
> you are too awesome, dude.


Every time I hear someone talk about fluoride in the water as some sort of evil conspiracy I lose my shit.

I grew up on well water with no fluoride in it and the result has been huge dental bills my whole life as did everyone else who lived near me. It's really one of the dumbest things of all time to complain about.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

and with that we have a new ron paul weekly update:

[video=youtube;kFg8gmzXB2A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFg8gmzXB2A[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Fluoride is not proven to benefit teeth that dramatically, especially to go as far as, force it onto people, when there is absolutely more risks involved than if this weren't forced upon us.
Is there something i said? Uncle beck likes his government forcibly medicating him. 
Facts, fluoride is more harmful to the body and organs than it would ever be deemed fit to ingest for oral health.


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

The NH Town Hall today - first hour without web extra (which I posted earlier)

[video=youtube;ZSgNXehimRM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSgNXehimRM[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Every time I hear someone talk about fluoride in the water as some sort of evil conspiracy I lose my shit.
> 
> I grew up on well water with no fluoride in it and the result has been huge dental bills my whole life as did everyone else who lived near me. It's really one of the dumbest things of all time to complain about.


the "it makes you passive" is laughable.

my grandma has been drinking fluoride was since its advent. she is nearly 82 and still spry as can be.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Facts, fluoride is more harmful to the body and organs than it would ever be deemed fit to ingest for oral health.


anything is harmful in large enough concentrations.

fluoride in however many ppm we have in our water? not harmful. 

you clearly love living in that conspiratorial bubble of yours.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Every time I hear someone talk about fluoride in the water as some sort of evil conspiracy I lose my shit.
> 
> I grew up on well water with no fluoride in it and the result has been huge dental bills my whole life as did everyone else who lived near me. It's really one of the dumbest things of all time to complain about.


 Well water unless properly filtered will give you huge dental problems there is heavy metals in well water. You should have had that water tested man.
Now when i say that there is no difference in oral health statistically with places that fluoridate vs places that don't, that should say it all.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> anything is harmful in large enough concentrations.
> 
> fluoride in however many ppm we have in our water? not harmful.
> 
> you clearly love living in that conspiratorial bubble of yours.


No bubble.
Facts.
You like forcibly receiving medicine?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Fluoride is not proven to benefit teeth that dramatically, especially to go as far as, force it onto people, when there is absolutely more risks involved than if this weren't forced upon us.
> Is there something i said? Uncle beck likes his government forcibly medicating him.
> Facts, fluoride is more harmful to the body and organs than it would ever be deemed fit to ingest for oral health.


lol. I've had tens of thousands of dollars in dentists bills that say otherwise, so does everyone who grew up near me. 

There are places that don't put fluoride in the water. Guess what happens, epidemics of tooth decay. 

http://news.santacruz.com/2010/02/15/fluoridation_could_be_coming_to_watsonville


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Now when i say that there is no difference in oral health statistically with places that fluoridate vs places that don't, that should say it all.


yes, we should all take the conspiracist at his word, no citation.

now when i say ron paul has sex with turtles, that should say it all.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> No bubble.
> Facts.
> You like forcibly receiving medicine?


my town does not flouridate its water, genius


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

it makes you about as passive as a glass of milk as in psychosomatic passive lol


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Well water unless properly filtered will give you huge dental problems there is heavy metals in well water


No heavy metals in the water. In fact, there was actually too little of them to grow weed without adding supplements like iron. It was as clean and pure as bottled water.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. I've had tens of thousands of dollars in dentists bills that say otherwise, so does everyone who grew up near me.
> 
> There are places that don't put fluoride in the water. Guess what happens, epidemics of tooth decay.
> 
> http://news.santacruz.com/2010/02/15/fluoridation_could_be_coming_to_watsonville


Find me one dentist that says fluoride in your tummy is good for your teeth. lol, you crack me and everyone else reading this up.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> my town does not flouridate its water, genius


Either does mine, hmmm i wonder why?. My city is one of the nicest, tax dollar put to good use cities in America left.
So money is not a issue, if you have children be very thankful that your city does not fluoridate its water supply.
Young are obviously effected more dramatically.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

*10 Facts about Fluoride
*Fluoride Action Network | Printer-Friendly Version ​ *1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water .* This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride. 
*2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay).* All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:
In *Germany*, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is *the problematic nature of compulsion medication*." 
In *Belgium*, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver *medicinal treatment to people*. This is the sole responsibility of health services."
In *Luxembourg*, "In our views, *drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment* and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way." ​ *




3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. *When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1). 
According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and _not_ from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it. 
*




4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies.* In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4). 
Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal _The Lancet,_ fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).
*5) There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. *By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example: 
A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy. 
B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need. 
C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc. ​ *




6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks.* Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed. 
Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:
_*a) Risk to the brain. *_According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

_*b) Risk to the thyroid gland. *_According to the NRC, fluoride is an &#8220;endocrine disrupter.&#8221; Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11) 
_*c) Risk to bones*_. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12) 
*d) Risk for bone cancer. * Animal and human studies &#8211; including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists &#8211; have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16) 
_*e) Risk to kidney patients. *_People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)​ *




7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes *. The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23) 
* Water fluoridation&#8217;s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated.* Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36) 
* a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries.* While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in _all_ western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44) 
*b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops.* In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)
_*c)* *Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. * _While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (&#8220;baby bottle tooth decay&#8221 is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.​ *9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to *_*l**ow-income communities*_. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:
_*a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water.*_ Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA&#8217;s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47) 
_*b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. *_In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride&#8217;s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: &#8220;I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51) ​ *




10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . *Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered &#8220;optimal&#8221; for a full day&#8217;s worth of ingestion. According to the _Journal of Public Health Dentistry:_
"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52) ​ Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53) 
_* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea._


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

trying you watch this changedachannel guy dont you? wait is this you?

here he talks about fluoride in the wata while drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette
[video=youtube;QzZH0kKdcZA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzZH0kKdcZA[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Find me one dentist that says fluoride in your tummy is good for your teeth. lol, you crack me and everyone else reading this up.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/t048360372371167/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19772843

i can find you more. depends on how stupid you want to look.

is water fluoridation a communist plot, as conspiracy theorists said back in the day? what is the nefarious cabal up to on this one?


----------



## deprave (Jun 12, 2011)

Im not picking sides either way, I have no idea how good fluoride is for you and Im not going to pretend anyone knows this, but how much harm has it done really? anyway can you please make a new fluoride topic?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> http://www.springerlink.com/content/t048360372371167/
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19772843
> 
> ...


You cant argue with the facts i just posted, but if you want your credibility to be dragged through the dirt in the street even more, go for it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> Im not picking sides either way, I have no idea how good fluoride is for you and Im not going to pretend anyone knows this, but how much harm has it done really? anyway can you please make a new fluoride topic?


kind of embarrassing to see the kinds of ridiculous shit your fellow ron paul worshipers believe in, isn't it?



tryingtogrow89 said:


> You cant argue with the facts i just posted, but if you want your credibility to be dragged through the dirt in the street even more, go for it.


yes, your little pictorial really disproves various (hundreds) studies done by professionals that prove that fluoride has some benefit (and conveniently doesn't cause you to be mind-controlled by elitist bankers!).


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> kind of embarrassing to see the kinds of ridiculous shit your fellow ron paul worshipers believe in, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, your little pictorial really disproves various (hundreds) studies done by professionals that prove that fluoride has some benefit (and conveniently doesn't cause you to be mind-controlled by elitist bankers!).


 The truth prevails.
As mentioned before, if it where beneficial, who is anyone to force it upon me?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

Pictorial? lol, you never read the facts hahahahahaha


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> The truth prevails.
> As mentioned before, if it where beneficial, who is anyone to force it upon me?


i want to know who is forcing it upon you, and to what end?

how does this conspiracy go?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Pictorial? lol, you never read the facts hahahahahaha


none had any citations, so they are nothing.

for example, ron paul fucks turtles. you can't dispute this uncited fact.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> none had any citations, so they are nothing.
> 
> for example, ron paul fucks turtles. you can't dispute this uncited fact.


That's a two way street bone head.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i want to know who is forcing it upon you, and to what end?
> 
> how does this conspiracy go?


Hmm you honestly dont know?
I shouldnt have to explain something that is common sense.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> That's a two way street bone head.


you are blinder than you are conspiratorial.

mine were scientific studies. download the pdf and read them. both contain scientific studies proving the beneficial aspects of fluoride.

i could post literally hundreds more.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Hmm you honestly dont know?
> I shouldnt have to explain something that is common sense.


humor me. i am not "enlightened" like you are.

no videos please.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> humor me. i am not "enlightened" like you are.
> 
> no videos please.


I wouldn't have such an emphasis on enlightened as i would have on common sense or logic.
Whatever little studies you think your pulling up, are old and outdated, and most are probably hired from agenda seeking professionals.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I wouldn't have such an emphasis on enlightened as i would have on common sense or logic.
> Whatever little studies you think your pulling up, are old and outdated, and most are probably hired from agenda seeking professionals.


yes, whenever facts from scientists contradict your account of the nefarious kabal, they must be part of that nefarious kabal. right.... 

i believe they call that "confirmation bias".

seriously, tell me who is putting fluoride in our water and why? what do they hope to accomplish?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, whenever facts from scientists contradict your account of the nefarious kabal, they must be part of that nefarious kabal. right....
> 
> i believe they call that "confirmation bias".
> 
> seriously, tell me who is putting fluoride in our water and why? what do they hope to accomplish?


I don't care if the whole world 100% agreed that its beneficial to swallow fluoride.
It still should never be deemed fit to take away freedom of choice period point blank!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I don't care if the whole world 100% agreed that its beneficial to swallow fluoride.
> It still should never be deemed fit to take away freedom of choice period point blank!


you're still not answering who puts fluoride in our water and why. explain the conspiracy, you coward.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you're still not answering who puts fluoride in our water and why. explain the conspiracy, you coward.


 Coward? I pity your ignorance.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Coward? I pity your ignorance.


too afraid to explain?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> too afraid to explain?


You should really give up.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You should really give up.


i just want to get to the bottom of this fluoride conspiracy.

first they said it was a communist plot. now you are saying they want to make us passive. the story keeps changing. care to clarify?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i just want to get to the bottom of this fluoride conspiracy.
> 
> first they said it was a communist plot. now you are saying they want to make us passive. the story keeps changing. care to clarify?


Its back to the concept of beating that dead horse that was dumb,def and blind to begin with, so it never saw what was coming, even though you tried to warn it a couple dozen times.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Its back to the concept of beating that dead horse that was dumb,def and blind to begin with, so it never saw what was coming, even though you tried to warn it a couple dozen times.


you really do a bad job at giving a quick summary of the fluoride conspiracy.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 12, 2011)

Sounds like someone listening to a little too much Alex Jones


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

he reminds me of aznsouljah27!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/500pxtrollface.png/]

[/URL]http://imageshack.us


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


>


cool story, bro.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> cool story, bro.


 lol...........


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Sounds like someone listening to a little too much Alex Jones





UncleBuck said:


> he reminds me of aznsouljah27!


actually, i redact that.

even though aznsouljah and tringtogrow are both off the deep end and share a propensity for letting youtube videos speak for them in place of the ability to type out a simple summary, at least aznsouljah would tell us what the conspiracy was all about.

tryingtogrow is too chickenshit to even explain the conspiracy.

the only chickenshit i like comes from the bantams that lay me several eggs every day.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> lol...........


you can't even post a link that works, yet you are the "enlightened one".

delusions of grandeur, confirmation bias, and an avoidance of cognitive dissonance.

yep, you seem to hit on many of the symptoms of paranoid personality disorder.

can't you just give me a quick summary of the fluoride conspiracy?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> actually, i redact that.
> 
> even though aznsouljah and tringtogrow are both off the deep end and share a propensity for letting youtube videos speak for them in place of the ability to type out a simple summary, at least aznsouljah would tell us what the conspiracy was all about.
> 
> ...


lol..........


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 12, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> http://www.springerlink.com/content/t048360372371167/
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19772843
> 
> ...


The first study directly supports TTG89 and not UB.   excerpt "the use of topical fluoride offers an          optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.       "  
Please note that the word "Topical" refers to medication that is applied to the surface.


The second link contains this disclaimer: " the studies included in the reviews were generally of moderate to low quality." 

Neither link has any dentists stating that ingestion of Flouride is beneficial to teeth.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 12, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The first study directly supports TTG89 and not UB.   excerpt "the use of topical fluoride offers an          optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.       "
> Please note that the word "Topical" refers to medication that is applied to the surface.
> 
> 
> ...


I rest my case. He doesnt even read what he post which is fine except he claims it supports his opinions lololololol


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The first study directly supports TTG89 and not UB.   excerpt "the use of topical fluoride offers an          optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.       "
> Please note that the word "Topical" refers to medication that is applied to the surface.
> 
> 
> ...


guilty as charged. i read neither.

that doesn't mean that other studies don't exist supporting the topical use of fluoride.

and neither tryingtogrow or my esteemed friend nodrama has explained to me the fluoride conspiracy.

seriously, all i want is a brief summary of the fluoride conspiracy. a paragraph, a sentence or two.

humor me here.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I rest my case. He doesnt even read what he post which is fine except he claims it supports his opinions lololololol


how can you rest your case without presenting a defense of your kooky fluoride conspiracy?

step 1: provide no evidence
step 2: ???
step 3: PROFIT!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> guilty as charged. i read neither.
> 
> that doesn't mean that other studies don't exist supporting the topical use of fluoride.
> 
> ...


 What conspiracy? lolololol seriously my eyes are watery, im laughing so hard.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how can you rest your case without presenting a defense of your kooky fluoride conspiracy?
> 
> step 1: provide no evidence
> step 2: ???
> step 3: PROFIT!


Ha ha heheh, if anyone on here reads at least 2-3 pages back, they would see you and i both posted evidence that supported what i was explaining, you keep ranting on about conspiracy looking quite foolish, all while everyone else is laughing lol haha


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> What conspiracy?





tryingtogrow89 said:


> ... Nazi Germany.  Fluoride was used by them for the same reasons they use it now on us here in America....It makes you passive, its literally  a chemical lobotomy of the brain...who is the government to forcibly medicate me?


that fluoride conspiracy^^^

who is putting fluoride in our water to turn us into nazi germany, and for what reason?

who wants to give us a chemical lobotomy via fluoride and why?

you have yet to explain this. you have only basked in your enlightenment while sheeple like me are left in the dark

that makes me a sad sexual harassment panda.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Ha ha heheh, if anyone on here reads at least 2-3 pages back, they would see you and i both posted evidence that supported what i was explaining, you keep ranting on about conspiracy looking quite foolish, all while everyone else is laughing lol haha


you posted no evidence. your "evidence" lacked citations entirely.

it had cool pictures though.

and if i am ranting about conspiracy, it is to get you to explain this fluoride conspiracy that will give us chemical lobotomies and turn us into nazi germany.

but of course, i look foolish.

LOL


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]O.k. you win dumb dumb. lol ahahahahaha 

*
*
*Use of Sodium  Fluoride for mass behavior   control in  Nazi Germany
* http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm​ [/FONT]        [FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]   It is a matter of record that sodium  fluoride   has been used for behaviour control of populations.​     [/FONT]    [FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]   In an "Address in   Reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament",  Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon,   Australia [In Australia, parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson raised the issue in the   Victorian Legislative council, which is recorded in the official Hansard   report on August 12th, 1987] made a statement on the historical use of fluorides for   behaviour control.​ Mr. Dickinson reveals that,​ "At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government     sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry,     physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants     in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which     had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General     Staff.​ "This scheme was to control the population in any given area through     mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium  fluoride     occupied a prominent place.​ "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of  fluoride     will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly     poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, and will thus make     him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.​ "Both the Germans     and the Russians added  fluoride to the drinking     water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile."​ It is interesting that Dr. George Estabrooks, an advisor to the   United States Government on  hypnotism and psychological behaviour   control,   later became chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University.   Internationally, Colgate was and remains today the most ardent producer and   advocate for fluoridated toothpaste.  The use of chemicals by the government to   modify behaviour of select population groups is not new. During the first two   World Wars, bromides were administered to service men to dim the libido in an   attempt to inhibit forays into local bordellos.​ Today, in Australia, the military fluoridates the drinking water of the   soldiers, ostensibly to protect the teeth. However, since the mythical ability   of fluorides "to prevent tooth decay" only exists for those under   the age of 12, it is certain that the real purpose is less altruistic. In   volume one of Matrix III, we discussed the role of Alcoa Aluminium in the   production of fluoride, the role of Alcoa lawyer   Oscar Ewing, who eventually gained control of what was to become the United   States Public Health Service, his promotion of fluoridation and the use of   advertising and false propaganda in an attempt to sell water fluoridation to   an unsuspecting public. Interestingly, it turns out that Alcoa transferred its   sodium  fluoride production technology to Germany   in 1939 under the Alted Agreement, and Dow Chemical Company transmitted its   experience and technology to Germany during the same period.​ So, we have the U.S. transmitting technology to Germany before the war that   allows Germany to experiment on select elements of the European population,   and then after the war Nazi scientists and the results of experiments are   brought back to the United States under Operation Paperclip. Curious, isn't   it?​ A little research turned up the fact that I.G. Farben developed   organophosphate nerve agents, Zyklon B cyanide-based extermination gas used on   the Jews during the war, and many other interesting substances.  I.G.   Farben,   financially supported by the United States, was the first to develop and   process heroin and cocaine.  They also developed fluorinated nerve gases Sarin   and Soman. Farben had many interconnections with companies in the United   States and Britain. Consult the illustrative chart in this book.​ In a letter   abstracted from Fluoridation and Lawlessness, published by the Committee for   Mental Health and National Security (with obvious implications) from the   aforementioned Charles Perkins, U.S. appointed post-war head of I.G. Farben,   to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October   2, 1954, we read the following:​"We are told by the fanatical ideologists   who are advocating the fluoridation of the water supplies in this country that   their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is   the plausibility of this excuse, plus the gullibility of the public and the   cupidity of public officials that is responsible for the present spread of   artificial water fluoridation in this country.​ "However - and I want to make   this very definite and positive - the real reason behind water fluoridation is   not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason, there are many   ways in which it could be done which are much easier, cheaper and far more   effective.  The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the   resistance of the masses to domination, control and loss of liberty."​Furthermore,​"When the Nazis decided to go into Poland, the German   General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military   ideas, plans and personnel.  The scheme of mass control through water   medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally   into their plans to Communise the world. I say this in all earnestness and   sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the   chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorides. Any person who   drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will   never again be the same person, mentally or physically."​When Major   General Racey Jordan was in charge of the massive lend-lease airlift   operations from Great Falls, Montana to Russia, via Alaska, he queried the   trans-shipment of considerable amounts of sodium  fluoride.    He was told frankly that it was to put into the drinking water of the prisoner   of war camps to take away their will to resist.  It is also interesting that   former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has a background in   academic chemistry, initiated a program involving astronomical expenditures of   UK revenue on a fluoridation campaign in Northern Ireland.​ 


 *The Truth About 'Fluoride'
 *http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm​ * (or what every Mother should   know)​ * by A. True Ott
tott@mountainwest.net
© August 2000​ See also | Feedback​   <b>_Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them   docile. 
 Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas   -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats._​</b>   First of all, it needs to be stated that the   'substance' referred to as 'Fluoride' is a misnomer - there is no such   substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the prestigious   CRC handbook, nor in the sacred 'bible' of the pharmaceutical industry - the   illustrious 'Merck Index'. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine - and from   the use of this gas in various industries such as aluminium manufacturing and   the nuclear industry -certain toxic by-products are created which have   'captured' fluorine molecules. One such toxic, poisonous 'by-product' is called   sodium Fluoride - which according to the  Merck Index is primarily used as rat   and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and   as an "additive to drinking water". But sadly, there is much more to   this sordid tale.​ Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in   both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl   FLUORIDE) - (Yes, folks the same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a   crowded Japanese subway train!).​ Let me repeat: the truth the American public   needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less)   than a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminium industries. In   addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is   also a  main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well   as military NERVE GAS! Why, oh why then is it allowed to be added to the   toothpastes and drinking water of the American people?​ Historically, this substance was quite expensive for the worlds' premier   chemical companies to dispose of - but in the 50's and 60's - Alcoa and the   entire aluminium industry - with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste -   SOMEHOW sold the FDA and our government on the insane (but highly profitable)   idea of buying this poison at a 20,000% markup and then injecting it into our   water supply as well as into the nation's toothpastes and dental rinse. Yes   that's right folks, a 20,000% markup. Consider also that when sodium Fluoride   is injected into our drinking water, its level is approximately 1   part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink ½ of one percent of the total   water supply, the hazardous chemical literally 'goes down the drain' and voila   - the chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system -   but we have also PAID them handsomely in the process!!​ Independent scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that    sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental   disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and   subservient, all in one neat little package. There is increasing evidence that   aluminium in the brain is a causative factor in Alzheimer's Disease, and   evidence points towards sodium fluoride's strong affinity to 'bond' with this   dangerous aluminium (remember it is a by-product of aluminium manufacturing) and   also it has the ability to 'trick' the blood-brain barrier by imitating the   hydrogen ion thus allowing this chemical access to brain tissue.​ Honest scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on sodium   fluoride's mega-bucks propaganda campaign have consistently been given a large   dose of professional 'black-listing' and thus their valid points disputing the   current vested interests never have received the ink they deserve in the   national press.  Just follow the money to find the 'control' and you will find   prominent American families to be prominent 'players' in the scandal. In 1952   a slick PR campaign rammed the concept of 'fluoridation' through our Public   Health departments and various dental organizations. This slick campaign was   more akin to a highly emotional "beer salesman convention" instead   of the objective, scientifically researched program that it should have been.   It has continued in the same vein right up to the present day - and now sodium   fluoride use has now become 'usual and customary'.​ To illustrate the emotional vs. the scientific nature of this issue, just   look at the response given by people (perhaps yourself included?) when the   subject of fluoridation comes up. You need to ask yourself, "Is this   particular response based on EMOTIONS born of TRADITION, or is it truly   unbiased and based instead on thoroughly researched objectivity?" There   is a tremendous amount of emotional, highly unscientific   "know-it-all" emotions attached to the topic of 'sodium fluoride'   usage - but  I personally have yet to find even ONE objective, double blind   study that even remotely links sodium fluoride to healthy teeth at ANY AGE.   Instead, I hear and read such blather as "9 out of 10 DENTISTS recommend   'fluoride' toothpaste" etc. etc. etc. Let me reiterate: truly independent   (unattached to moneyed vested interest groups) scientists who've spent a large   portion of their lives studying and working with this subject have been hit   with a surprising amount of unfair character assassinations from strong   vested-interest groups who reap grand profits from the public's ignorance as   well as from their illnesses. (Just follow the money!)​ Do you have diabetes and/or kidney disease? There are reportedly more than   11 million Americans with diabetes. If it is true that diabetics drink more   liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference   these 11 million people are at much higher risk drinking fluoridated water   because they will receive a much deadlier dose because of their need for   higher than normal water consumption. Kidney disease, by definition, lowers   the efficiency of the kidneys, which of course is the primary means in which   fluoride (or any other toxic chemical) is eliminated from the body. Does it   not make sense that these people shouldn't drink fluoridated water at all?    Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where ill kidney patients on   dialysis machines died because they ingested relatively small amounts of   SODIUM FLUORIDE from unwittingly drinking the 'fluoridated' city water supply?   Will adequate warnings be given to people with weak kidneys, or will the real   cause of such deaths be 'covered up' in the name of 'domestic tranquility'?​ Concerning the 'practice' of putting sodium fluoride into drinking water,   where did this insanity begin and WHO tried it first? From personal research,   the very first occurrence of purposefully putting sodium fluoride into   drinking water was in the German ghettos and in Nazi Germany's infamous prison   camps. The Gestapo you see had little concern about sodium fluoride's   'supposed' effect on children's teeth; instead, their reason for   mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to STERILIZE HUMANS and force   the people in their concentration camps into calm, bovine, submission. (See   for reference: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" written by   Joseph Borkin.) Kind of shocking isn't it folks!! Ah, but it gets even better.​ The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional   Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by   the name of Charles Perkins. He writes:​"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation   regarding a statement made in my book, "The Truth about Water   Fluoridation", to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was   brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the   1930's Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and   controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked   out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted   to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the   population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water   supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas,   reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women,   and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a   prominent place.​ "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time   reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotising   a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the   will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light   lobotomy? --- Ott].​ "The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit   children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it   could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real   purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to   domination and control and loss of liberty."​ "When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German   General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military   ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water   medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally   into their plans to communise the world."​ "I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an   official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent   in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and   sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the   chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person   who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more   will never again be the same person mentally or physically."​ Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.​


 http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/fluoride.htm​ To Whom It May Concern:​ I, Oliver Kenneth Goff was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, from May 2, 1936 to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats and the number 18-B-2. My testimony before the Government is incorporated in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Report for the year 1939.
 While a member of the Communist Party, I attended Communist underground training schools outside the City of New York: In the Bues Hall, and 113 East Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The East Wells Street School operated under the name of the Eugene Debs School. Here, under the tutoring of Eugene Dennis, M. Sparks, Morris Childs, Jack Kling and others, we were schooled in the art of revolutionary overthrow of the established Government.
 We were trained on how to dismantle and assemble mimeograph machines, to use for propaganda purposes during the revolution; how to work on guide wires and fuel lines of airplanes so that they would either burst into flames or crash to the ground because of lack of control; how to work on ties and rails to wreck trains; and also the art of poisoning water supplies.
 We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring-about a spirit of lethargy in the nation; where it would keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism. We also discussed the fact that keeping a store of deadly fluoride near the water reservoir would be advantageous during the time of the revolution, as it would give us opportunity to dump this poison into the water supply and either kill off the populace or threaten them with liquidation, so that they would surrender to obtain fresh water.
 We discussed in these schools, the complete art of revolution: the seizure of the main utilities, such as light, power, gas, and water; but it was felt by the leadership, that if a program of fluoridating of the water could be carried out in the nation, it would go a long way toward the advancement of the revolution.
 The above statements are true.
 /s/ Oliver Kenneth Goff
 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) S5 COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE )
 OLIVER KENNETH GOFF, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says that he has the above and foregoing instrument and knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true of his own knowledge except as to those matters stated on the information and belief as to those he believes them to be true.
 (SEAL)subscribed and sworn to before me this 22rd day of June A.D., 1957.
 The above information was faxed to APFN on Aug. 6, 1993 from ULTRA LIFE From FAX: 618-594-7712. This FAX included the following page:
FLUORIDE UPDATE. AUGUST 1993​ RECENT DISCLOSURES SHOW THE DANGER OF FLUORIDE AND THE SUPPRESSION OF DAMAGING INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC.
 FRIDAY MAY 15, 1992, WILLIAM MARCUS, Ph.D, CHIEF TOXICOLOGIST AND SENIOR ADVISOR AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, (EPA) WAS FIRED FOR HIS DISCLOSURES OF HIP FRACTURE, CARCINOGENIC, AND OTHER HEALTH AND LIFE THREATENING EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION.
 JUNE 3, 1993, NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN V. KELLY, 242 WASHINGTON AVE. NUTLEY, NJ 07110, MADE A STATEMENT BEFORE THE STATE ASSEMBLY, PARTS OF WHICH ARE HEREIN QUOTED. "WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY DEFINES SODIUM FLUORIDE AS A COLORLESS CRYSTALLINE, WATER SOLUBLE, POISONOUS SOLID, USED CHIEFLY IN THE FLUORIDATION OF WATER, AS AN INSECTICIDE, AND AS A RODENTICIDE. THE NJ HEALTH DEPT RELEASED A STUDY LAST NOVEMBER SHOWING AREAS WITH FLUORIDATED WATER SUPPLIES IN NJ HAD FOUR TIMES MORE OSTEOSCAROMA, A RARE FORM OF BONE CANCER, THAN AREAS NON-FLUORIDATED."
 "THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS RECOMMENDED PRESCIPTION FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS FOR CHILDREN--FLUORIDE DROPS FOR NEW BORNS AND TABLETS FOR OLDER CHILDREN."
 "MY OFFICE CONTACTED AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY FOR STUDIES OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVINESS OF THESE SUPLEMENTS" "THEY WERE NOT IN POSSESSION, ADVISED THESE COULD BE OBTAINED FROM NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL RESEARCH IN WASHINGTON, THEY DID NOT HAVE THEM AND ADVISED THESE STUDIES ARE IN DOMAIN OF U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION." FDA HAS HAD NO DRUG APPLICATION, NO STUDIES SHOWING SAFETY OR EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDE DROPS OR TABLETS, ACCORDING TO FRANK FAZZARI, CHIEF OF FDA DRUG COMPLIANCE BRANCH, THESE ARE UNAPPROVED NEW DRUGS.!!!
 THESE POISONOUS DRUGS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED FOR OVER 30 YEARS TO MILLIONS OF CHILDREN. IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO PERMIT THESE PRODUCTS TO BE PRESCRIBED TO THE MOST VULNERABLE SEGMENT OF OUR POPULATION, OUR CHILDREN.
 THE UNION REPRESENTING EPA SCIENTISTS HAS BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF FLUORIDE, CHARGING THAT MANY STUDIES LINKING FLUORIDE TO A WIDE RANGE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS INCLUDING CANCER, HIP AND OTHER BONE FRACTURES, ARE SUPPRESSED. ASSEMBLYMAN KELLY THEN REQUSTED DR. D. KESSLER, COMMISSIONER, FDA IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THESE FROM THE MARKET, LETTER DATED JUNE 3, 1993. AT THIS DATE NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO STOP THIS NATIONWIDE POISONING.
 FOR MORE INFO CONTACT: FRANK FAZZARI AT FDA 301-295-8073 - DR. WM. MARCUS (301) 972-0707, DR. ROBT. CARTON, (301) 874-2948 OR (301) 619-2004, FORMER PRESIDENT EPA SCIENTIST UNION.
 COULD THERE BE A DEEPER, MORE SINISTER REASON FOR FORCING FLUORIDE ON THE PUBLIC? READ THE NOTORIZED STATEMENT FROM OLIVER KENNETH GOFF. YOU DECIDE IF FLUORIDATION IS ONE MAJOR REASON WHY WE ARE A NATION OF "SHEEPLE" AND "COUCH POTATOES".
http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/fluoridebomb.html 



Another letter needs to be quoted at length as well to help corroborate Mr.   Perkin's testimony.  This letter was written by a brilliant (and objectively   honest) scientist named Dr. E.H. Bronner. * Dr. Bronner was a nephew of the   great Albert Einstein,* served time in a WWII prison camp and wrote the   following letter printed in the Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January   1952:​"It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the 'next' on   the agenda of the water poisoners.​ "There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless   intellectual parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow   more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true   objective is to demoralize, paralyse and destroy our great Republic ---- from   within if they can, according to their plan --- for their own   possession."​ "The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to   destroy the moral fibre of American life is now one of their most potent   footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us."​ "Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their   most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. As a   research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years 3   American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of   practical experience in the health food and chemical field, let me warn:   fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide.   DON'T DO IT!!"​ "Even in very small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to   which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it   is the most effective rat-killer. Sodium Fluoride is entirely different from   organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature,   in God's great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our   teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an   edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body;   whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant   poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate   it."​ "Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious,   patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed   that instead of preserving or promoting 'dental health', fluoridated drinking   water destroys teeth before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling   and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates   many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of   bodies consuming it. How then can it be called a 'health plan'? What's behind   it?"​ "That any so-called 'Doctors' would persuade a civilized nation to add   voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It   is the height of criminal insanity!"​ "No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to   1941 that, quoting from both Lenin's 'Last Will' and Hitler's Mein Kampf: "America   we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within."​ "Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils   of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other   countries. Sodium Fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective   rat killers known to chemists: colourless, odourless, tasteless; no antidote, no   remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats."​ "Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick   national liquidation. It is criminal insanity ------- treason!!"​ -Signed: Dr. E.H. Bronner, Research Chemist, Los Angeles​Apparently, the public outcry by Dr. Bronner and others precluded the   fluoridation of public water systems for a season - but soon thereafter, the   Food and Drug Administration allowed this deadly poison to be put in   'toothpaste', and our dentists were systematically brainwashed into providing   'fluoride treatments' to their many patients. Of course, today many major   metropolitan areas have a minimum of 1 parts per million sodium fluoride   systematically added to their water supply and more areas are seeking to add   this poison every year. Add to this the fact that bottling companies (soft   drinks, juices, etc.) use fluoridated water to make their products - is it any   wonder that people can no longer think clearly and ask pertinent questions of   their elected and ecclesiastical leaders? Is it also a mystery why so many top   Nazi mind control scientists were brought to America by the CIA and their   infamous 'Operation Paper Clip'?​ If you believe all of this is 'just a coincidence' - go ahead and keep   brushing your teeth with your 'fluoride' toothpaste and sucking on your sodium   fluoride enhanced Coke or Pepsi product - for ignorance truly is bliss and you   truly deserve what you get.​ Mothers, if your little ones are having trouble concentrating at home or in   school, or have been diagnosed as 'attention deficit' - perhaps you would be   well advised to look for the culprit (and the solution to the problem) no   further than your home medicine cabinet (your tube of toothpaste) and your   friendly neighbourhood school's water fountain!!​[/FONT]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

if ron paul is elected, he will outlaw fluoride and save us from devolving into nazi germany.

he will also change your oil every 3,500 miles and rotate your tires every 5,000 miles.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

by the way, that is not a succinct summary, and it was not even your own words.

way to think for yourself!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> by the way, that is not a succinct summary, and it was not even your own words.
> 
> way to think for yourself!


Why is it i must have the burden of proof, and you don't?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Yet he refuses to read all proof and facts and data and dates and memos and dr's.  Does this guy even believe in his own existence? lol, it's so damn comical. 
Uncle buck you should do stand up hahahaha


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Why is it i must have the burden of proof, and you don't?


i didn't make the conspiratorial claim that fluoride usage in the united states is somehow akin to the "nazis" using it to make them "passive" via "chemical lobotomies".

you made that claim, not i.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i didn't make the conspiratorial claim that fluoride usage in the united states is somehow akin to the "nazis" using it to make them "passive" via "chemical lobotomies".
> 
> you made that claim, not i.


 I show you proof and you show me nothing.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 13, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. wow. I've seen a lot of conservative revisionist history but that takes the cake.
> 
> Are you really trying to sell the national *socialist workers* party in Germany as some Ayn Rand inspired libertarian paradise? Come on now. You can do better than that.
> 
> They went even further to the left than we did, and guess what, it worked.


1) I am not conservative. I am a *classical liberal*. 
I am sorry that you cannot understand the difference. freedom isn't just something you apply when its convenient. You are either free or you are not. You can't apply it to certain parts of life that you feel comfortable with.

2) I was describing similarities between what our leadership's goals and visions are to what the goals and visions that became the horrors of Nazi Germany. It has nothing to do with Libertarian views, and I am not sure how you got that other than lacking the ability to understand what you are reading. It was a view on what big government could do for you. 

3) Germany's real strength was the fact that America imported more from Germany than any other country in the world once they got their industries running again until like a year or two ago. A lot like America's real strength was that no one else in the world had a factory left standing after WW2, so they had to buy everything from us. To pretend socialist ideals made Germany or the USA strong countries is simply stupid.

4) What was revisionist about my history for you? Does revisionist just mean that you don't like it? It was simple facts that presented to draw parallels between our current policies and what our leaders want and how Germany got to be a country where personal freedoms didn't exist and the individual was worth nothing if they had no worth to the government. When you consider putting your hands in fire, don't you think about all the times you have burned yourself with fire before? I am unsure why you find it inappropriate to consider the consequences of our governments actions.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

*Ron Paul - Transforming the Republican Decepti-Cons*


[video=youtube;sH49VX4BEsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH49VX4BEsM&feature=player_embedded[/video]



> With the pseudo-conservatives deceiving everyone as being of the small government crowd, I thought we could tie them in nicely with the decepti-cons label.
> 
> Deceptive Conservatives = Decepti-cons
> 
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Make a new fluoride thread please if your going to continue that discussion you just burnt 10 pages on fluoride *sigh*


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 13, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the "it makes you passive" is laughable.
> 
> my grandma has been drinking fluoride was since its advent. she is nearly 82 and still spry as can be.


He is right that fluoride hasn't made a huge positive difference in the water supply. It can lead to bone hardening and other issues if the level is too high. Most people get plenty of fluoride in their tooth pastes, and the water tampering is unnecessary. I am not worried or excited about fluoride in my water. I am more concerned that the levels of 'crazy pill' chemicals increases yearly due to it being excreted by humans. I had well water for half of my life, city for the other half. I'll take good old chlorinated city water any day, but just because it tastes better.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if ron paul is elected, he will outlaw fluoride and save us from devolving into nazi germany.
> 
> he will also change your oil every 3,500 miles and rotate your tires every 5,000 miles.


Do you think he will help harvest when its time...He is for legal marijuana


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Do you think he will help harvest when its time...He is for legal marijuana


not only will he help trim, he will also bring pizza and let you have the last slice.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> He is right that fluoride hasn't made a huge positive difference in the water supply. It can lead to bone hardening and other issues if the level is too high. Most people get plenty of fluoride in their tooth pastes, and the water tampering is unnecessary. I am not worried or excited about fluoride in my water. I am more concerned that the levels of 'crazy pill' chemicals increases yearly due to it being excreted by humans. I had well water for half of my life, city for the other half. I'll take good old chlorinated city water any day, but just because it tastes better.


totally agree. other topical applications of fluoride have made it fairly unnecessary to have in the water, and it is not without its negative effects, like fluorosis. 

but to say that it is part of some conspiracy that will make us passive and give us chemical lobotomies so we will transform into nazi germany.....that is tin foil hat country.

like i said before, our city does not have fluoridated water. my wife went for a dental checkup at her school, which also serves as a clinic for a lot of the low income folks in my town. when the dentist checked her out, one of the first things he commented was that she must not be from around here! i would say that is decent anecdotal evidence for the benefits of fluoridated water.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 13, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> 1) I am not conservative. I am a *classical liberal*.
> I am sorry that you cannot understand the difference. freedom isn't just something you apply when its convenient. You are either free or you are not. You can't apply it to certain parts of life that you feel comfortable with.


For future reference, once someone starts giving me a lecture on freedom as if freedom is my enemy, I immediately stop reading the post. 

Characterizing those who disagree with you has hating freedom is a bunch of crap.

I believe in freedom, but freedom has limits. You can pretend you otherwise, but it's bullshit. Do you think I should have the freedom to swing my fist into someone's face? Should I have the freedom to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater? Didn't think so. Freedom has limits. That limit is the point it harms others.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 13, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> He is right that fluoride hasn't made a huge positive difference in the water supply.


That's bullshit, I've seen first hand what happens to a city without fluoride in the water.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

although this is sign not real... Ron Paul thinks that the owner would have every right to do this under his property rights.....WTF

but I do think he will go in and buy the food for you so you can avoid the charge...


----------



## undertheice (Jun 13, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I believe in freedom, but freedom has limits. You can pretend you otherwise, but it's bullshit. Do you think I should have the freedom to swing my fist into someone's face? Should I have the freedom to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater? Didn't think so. Freedom has limits. That limit is the point it harms others.


why is it someone always has to push the concept of freedom beyond reasonable bounds? of course no one has the right to harm others. that has never been the question. the question is how you define "harm".


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 13, 2011)

undertheice said:


> why is it someone always has to push the concept of freedom beyond reasonable bounds? of course no one has the right to harm others. that has never been the question. the question is how you define "harm".


That is most definitely in question. The "freedoms" Ron Paul supporters advocate are much more harmful to working class Americans than punching them in the face. Free market trading, eliminating worker protections, and further financial deregulation would do significant harm to the American people all in the name of freedom for the ultra-wealthy. I'd rather get punched in the face every day than work in a sweatshop for $1 a day.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul says property rights makes this ok


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

@DAN Keep on preachin your hatred of freedom and free men, I love my fellow man and trust him/her - freedom for all the people



Crime will still be illegal - regulations create corporate crooks and monopolies - with Ron pauls philosophy all the people will prosper


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

the debates are in 40 minutes on cnn


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

deprave said:


> the debates are in 40 minutes on cnn


Is there a live stream off the internet you can find me?
I only pay for internet. lol


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

I hope so man, I dont pay for TV either - I have netflix and the internet, it would have to be on cnn.com

I will link it if I get one u check stickcam ill look elsewhere


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

tweet #RonPaul and #CNNDEBATE

explanation:
http://mashable.com/2011/06/13/cnn-gop-debate-social-media/

the facebook like to ask questions and post comments: http://www.facebook.com/JohnKingUSA


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

deprave said:


> tweet #RonPaul and #CNNDEBATE
> 
> explanation:
> http://mashable.com/2011/06/13/cnn-gop-debate-social-media/


Freaking sweet! I am going to tweet for the first time in my life because of this!!!!


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

The debate will be broadcast live on CNN, CNN.com, CNN Radio, _CNN_en_Español_, WMUR.com and UnionLeader.com. In addition, the debate will be available via live stream in the CNN Apps for iPhone, iPad and Android. Viewers across the nation can engage in the debate by posting comments to CNNPolitics.com, by logging on to _John__ King, USA_&#8217;sFacebook page and by using the #CNNdebate hashtag on Twitter.

20 minutes yet


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

i am having trouble finding a link as soon as it starts streaming post the link.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

go to cnn.com click video then click LIVE ON CNN.COM: GOP DEBATE


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Nice watching it now! Fuck Romney!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

John King owning...lol


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

someone wake Ron Paul up


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron paul is thinking. I have to stand up here with these derelicts.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

he is looking rather bored now


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Michelle Bachmann must use botox


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Free pizza from Herman Cain


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Michelle Bachmann must use botox


lol, I dont like her selection of words they sound as fake as her botox.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

heres your boy..Wake up Paul


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

They picked a good question for him


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Mitt is looking at ron like "who are you? why are you trying to sabotage my plans?"


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

lol...^^^^


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Right to work you like a slave and no benefits


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

damn Ron didn't say much


----------



## Spoc (Jun 13, 2011)

Any way to watch this live via I-phone?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

They really need to ask Dr. Paul more questions.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

If I based my opinion on who I would vote for so far by this this debate - I like all of em IDK but ron paul is not doing to well..he seems disgusted by these fools


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

and wtf herman cain just used the word free market whats up with that


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Hell they all just sticking to the playbook...Ron not even speaking up like he usually does


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

ok here he go


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul, a true patriot.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

ROn Paul Applause crowd asked to hush lol


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

The kids the kids always the kids.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

So far John King is owning Mitt


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

londonfog said:


> So far John King is owning Mitt


Needs to happen. lol


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

so is Newt agreeing with Obama on closing space program and making it more of a private sector


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

yup thats what it sounded like


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Mitt Romney would be a villain in a movie played by willem dafoe.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Dude Ron Paul does not stand a chance getting out of this primary...hell they not even let him talk..lol


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

I feel like its all of them vs ron paul , this whole charade


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

hes gotta try to slip in some things about his acomplishments


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Me too. Did anyone see the bug eyed horse witch in the crowd when herman cain was talking! lol

They might as well not have invited Ron they just have him sit there.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

and they are talking about his accomplishments like they are going to do the same thing fuck them lol


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

and they got him on the blackberry question fuck


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron is like WTF? blackberry lol


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

bring the troops home why didnt he say it in plain English fuck totally bombing this


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Go ron the military industrial complex talk was in a round about way calling for troops to come home.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Herman seems to be standing out


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

herman just lost it


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Why did they even have paul there?


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

herman cain really really lost it


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Cain just dug his hole.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Actually Id say Ron is the only one who hasn't made a fool of himself at least once yet, he should of said a lot that he didn't say.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

damn I ran to put my dog up ...what happened


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

deprave said:


> Actually Id say Ron is the only one who hasn't made a fool of himself at least once yet, he should of said a lot that he didn't say.


Agreed, lol


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

well by not saying much he is not helping his cause


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Just owned it - Ron Just owned all of em on gay marrige


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Did Ron Paul just say you shouldn't need a marriage license to get married


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Cmon ron tell them your the only veteran


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Just owned it - Ron Just owned all of em on gay marrige


disagree...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul always the best answers.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron just owned em again on dont ask dont tell


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Dude Ron is not gaining any ground..I think you hoping


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 13, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> totally agree. other topical applications of fluoride have made it fairly unnecessary to have in the water, and it is not without its negative effects, like fluorosis.
> 
> but to say that it is part of some conspiracy that will make us passive and give us chemical lobotomies so we will transform into nazi germany.....that is tin foil hat country.
> 
> like i said before, our city does not have fluoridated water. my wife went for a dental checkup at her school, which also serves as a clinic for a lot of the low income folks in my town. when the dentist checked her out, one of the first things he commented was that she must not be from around here! i would say that is decent anecdotal evidence for the benefits of fluoridated water.


I don't generally think there are massive conspiracies. I think most of our problems come from greed, ignorance, and stupidity. If you get a group of 10 people together who are doing something wrong, one of them is going to get caught or come clean. I just think putting fluoride in the water is pointless and a waste of money/time. It would be right up there with me insuring a rock in my front yard.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul is getting all constitutional on their asses! I love it!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Yea cocain!


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Id say Ron Paul is now winning


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 13, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> For future reference, once someone starts giving me a lecture on freedom as if freedom is my enemy, I immediately stop reading the post.
> 
> Characterizing those who disagree with you has hating freedom is a bunch of crap.
> 
> I believe in freedom, but freedom has limits. You can pretend you otherwise, but it's bullshit. Do you think I should have the freedom to swing my fist into someone's face? Should I have the freedom to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater? Didn't think so. Freedom has limits. That limit is the point it harms others.


Yes, and the democratic line where freedom ends is far from the right place. The republican line is just as bad. Freedom means being free. Democrats want to control your financial life and some of your personal life due to some misguided nanny complex. Republicans do the same, with more emphasis on your personal and social life. Neither are right. Freedom is the right to live your life unfettered as long as you are not harming someone else by your actions. Once again, there is a huge gap between being harmed and not being helped.

You basically said "I don't respond to things I cannot dispel, so I just say I am not arguing it because of _____". You might as well of said "I know you are but what am I"


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul is the only true candidate on the stage.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I just think putting fluoride in the water is pointless and a waste of money/time. It would be right up there with me insuring a rock in my front yard.


Depends on what type of rock it is.... I mean a limestone with marble would be worth the insurance


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Man I must be watching another debate...lol


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Mitt Romney, i have to say it, is such a cock sucker.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

He brought up yemen! yes Ron Paul!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

What a fag seriously homo. We will keep bombing them, no one applauded.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul should have that question.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 13, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That's bullshit, I've seen first hand what happens to a city without fluoride in the water.


I think I can safely say you have no idea how to substantiate that comment, or you would do so.

I drank well water through my childhood. When I go to a dentist for the first time, they generally think I am not from the area. If you look at different areas with and without fluoride in the water, the only real conclusion you will pull from it is this: On average, people in higher income areas have better teeth because they have better hygiene. On average, the people with higher incomes live in nicer neighborhoods served by better systems. A major portion of rich people have city water due to where they live, and most cities have fluoride. Also, most toothpaste has more than enough fluoride to do what fluoride does. This means that people who have bad teeth probably suffer from bad hygiene and it has nothing to do with water. 

Name any major city that doesn't put fluoride in their water, and prove your point with tooth decay surveys or anything that proves your point what so ever?

Then: Please explain why the government has the right to medicate you? It would be akin to them craming tyenol down your throat every day.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Very weak field we see here


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul is the best he hates them all lol Why dont any of them dare mention the federal reserve system.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

No one will touch the federal reserve...Ron Paul will learn that will lose him the nod from the MONEY


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No one will touch the federal reserve...Ron Paul will learn that will lose him the nod from the MONEY


Really? the applause begged to differ.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Really? the applause begged to differ.


Didn't make it as a question did it ???? Does it ever ????


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 13, 2011)

Its too bad I am on my shifts. I missed all but the last question or so. Ill have to watch it tomorrow.


----------



## undertheice (Jun 13, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Its too bad I am on my shifts. I missed all but the last question or so. Ill have to watch it tomorrow.


you really didn't miss much. i was reminded why i seldom bother to pay attention to speeches and debates, they only say what is expected of them.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

CNN POLLS SEEM TO HAVE RON PAUL WINNING BY JUST A LIL BIT (just over 50% ahead of his opponents lol)

Link to Poll:
http://turner.mo2do.net/s/18129/Home


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 13, 2011)

deprave said:


> CNN POLLS SEEM TO HAVE RON PAUL WINNING BY JUST A LIL BIT (just over 50% ahead of his opponents lol)
> 
> Link to Poll:
> http://turner.mo2do.net/s/18129/Home
> ...


I love Ron Paul and even I know that poll isn't right. lol.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Well I screenshoted it from the website for what its worth, its still going up, the link I provided goes to the official cnn poll which has paul leading everyone, he currently has 65% of the votes, Hermain cain in distant second with 9%

http://turner.mo2do.net/s/18129/Home


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

undertheice said:


> you really didn't miss much. i was reminded why i seldom bother to pay attention to speeches and debates, they only say what is expected of them.


WOW for once we can agree


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Article about Ron Paul winning the peoples polls of debate winners: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/06/as-republicans-debate-in-n-h-ron-paul-tops-rick-perry-in-presidential-polls/


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Another poll, they removed ron paul as an option: http://campaigntrailreport.com/2011/06/14/new-hampshire-gop-post-debate-update-poll



> *Update: *We almost immediately detected high volumes of traffic coming from four different Ron Paul related domains and as a result have removed Ron Paul from the web poll. The purpose of this poll is *NOT* to see which candidate has supporters in place to _game_ the poll. The purpose of this poll is try and gain a reasonable understanding of where our _regular readers_ stand.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Fox News Poll: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/13/which-candidate-or-would-be-candidate-would-most-like-to-see-debate-obama/



CURRENT NUMBERS AS OF 11:00PM


Thank you for voting! 



Mitt Romney 8.3% (5,376 votes) 

Gary Johnson 0.62% (403 votes) 

Newt Gingrich 7.83% (5,072 votes) 

Herman Cain 20.56% (13,315 votes) 

Tim Pawlenty 3.13% (2,028 votes) 

Ron Paul 22.59% (14,632 votes) 

Rick Santorum 2.93% (1,896 votes) 

Sarah Palin 11.82% (7,657 votes) 

Mike Huckabee 3.13% (2,029 votes) 

Mitch Daniels 0.58% (374 votes) 

John Huntsman 0.44% (288 votes) 

Michele Bachmann 6.2% (4,018 votes) 

Donald Trump 8.6% (5,571 votes) 

Other (post a comment). 3.26% (2,111 votes) 

Total Votes: 64,770


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/13/which-candidate-or-would-be-candidate-would-most-like-to-see-debate-obama/#ixzz1PDQa5QlX
​


----------



## undertheice (Jun 13, 2011)

londonfog said:


> WOW for once we can agree


don't get too excited. these are, after all, just further examples of the depths to which the political animal has sunk.

on a positive note, at least we will be spared the mindless yammerings of their counterparts on the left. with obama a shoe in for the nomination, we won't be enduring the populist platitudes of a bunch of liberal hopefuls.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Link to all online polls - ron dominating all of them 57% to 90% of the votes or higher on some never dipping below 50% with the exception of fox where he is hoovering around 25% in the lead

**FOX- http://fxn.ws/jPkzuW
**CBS- http://bit.ly/mvKQYZ
**CNBC- http://bit.ly/isin2p
VOTE BOMBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**TellDC &#8211; http://on.fb.me/lG91d5
**MSNBC &#8211; http://bit.ly/kosQ1r
**Cooper &#8211; http://on.fb.me/itnEUH
**Vortex &#8211; http://bit.ly/iNHnUB
&#8230;**CNN &#8211; http://bit.ly/lk65TK
**WePolls &#8211; http://bit.ly/j5aOC5


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul forums: Seriously. Another poll had Ron Paul winning, so they took it down. We have the images to prove it. He's winning by a large margin, and then they take him off the list of available options, and take out his numbers. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?715-N.H.-Primary-Poll-Spin


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

The truth will always prevail.


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul New Column  http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1876:the-keys-to-economic-growth&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69



> The Keys to Economic Growth                                                                                      Recent economic data show that U.S. job growth in  May was negligible, while the official unemployment figure-- at least  the figure the Labor Department admits to-- rose to 9.1%.  The real  unemployment figure, however, as compiled by economist John Williams,  may well be higher than 20%.  It is clear the U.S. economy is in  terrible shape, and that no amount of government spending or Federal  Reserve quantitative easing can reduce unemployment, increase real  productivity, or address our debt fiasco.U.S. jobs and productivity are  dependent on the accumulation of private capital to finance existing  businesses or fund new entrepreneurial activity.  Private capital--  whether accumulated by profitable U.S. businesses, invested by private  equity and venture capital firms, or attracted from abroad--  is the key  to economic growth and new jobs.  But we cannot create jobs if we  demonize profits, punish risk-taking capitalists, and stay hostile to  foreign investment.
> The steps to encouraging capital investment and creating new jobs in America are simple, though not easy:
> ·         First and foremost, we  must create a sound U.S. currency backed by gold or some other commodity  respected by the market.  No nation in history with a rapidly  depreciating currency has attracted private capital.  Unless and until  we prohibit the Treasury and Federal Reserve from essentially creating  money and credit from thin air, we cannot restore the U.S. economy.
> ·         Second, we must create a  favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business.  This cannot be  stressed enough.  When businesses don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s coming next from the  EPA, when Obamacare spikes their healthcare costs, or when the  Dodd-Frank bill adds almost unknowable regulatory compliance burdens,  businesses simply will not expand and hire.  It is time to start  shrinking the federal register.
> ...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

herman cain was the only one that did not look like a schnook.

ron paul looked like he missed his midday nap.

mitt romney pandered to the right.

tim pawlenty bored all who watched.

santorum was frothy as usual.

bachmann? already a joke.

gingrich? just in it for plublicity.

i walked away from this saying that herman cain is the only one i would even consider voting for over obama.

since this is a ron paul thread, let me just say, unbiased: he was OFF. he was not at his best. the polls are rigged with cultists like deprave and tryingtogow voting.

herman cain was the clear winner.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

*Tim Pawlenty 



*


----------



## deprave (Jun 13, 2011)

I think caine made a fool of himself, Ron paul did bad for the first 70 minutes or so but after that he did rebound pretty good, overall worst ron paul debate ever, but I still think he won, I wouldn't of said that 70 minutes in but I think even if I went by this debate as my only knowledge of these candidates I would still consider Ron Paul to have won with newt in second and bachman third and palewnty 4th, I would have considered Romney as the winner  also just from watching the debates until he got asked the question in the end about the war and go served by Ron Paul.

I like how they are all pretending to be Ron Paul, good tactic.

Ron Paul could of been a lot more clear especially in the beginning, he should of been more clear and direct for low iq people to understand his message, he didn't stand out much at all really, I guess that is a good thing.

I think cain made himself out to be a racist, an angry black man,  and also people will look at what he said about the economy as if he is a black man living off the system because they are racist....so really I think he ruined his image pretty badly here, Racist white people definitely won't even consider him. I really like him in that he seems genuine like one of us , but I just don't trust him as a FORMER FED CHAIR and he has no experience therefore will not accomplish much of anything and the fact he mentioned sharia law glenn beck shit is laughable, he also lacks highly intelligence.

every canidate managed to make a fool of themselves at least once, with the exception of Ron Paul, so therefore I feel like he won. (unless you count the iphone v blackberry question when paul chose blackberry lol)


----------



## londonfog (Jun 13, 2011)

Iphone vs blackberry..choosing blackberry shows how out of touch one may be ...I mean really who would say blackberry...Might have lost the apple votes


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

santorum totally booted the leno vs conan question. cain nailed it with his deep dish response, although i prefer thin crust.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Stuff crust!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Stuff crust!


how do you afford that on unemployment?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 13, 2011)

Conan! over leno


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Conan! over leno


well, at least we agree on one thing.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Freedom means being free.


Thanks for that piece of wisdom. 



> Once again, there is a huge gap between being harmed and not being helped.


Yeah, and when you remove the regulations that prevent Wall St from ripping us off, that's doing harm, not increasing freedom.



> You basically said "I don't respond to things I cannot dispel, so I just say I am not arguing it because of _____".   You might as well of said "I know you are but what am I"


I said nothing even remotely similar to that.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> CNN POLLS SEEM TO HAVE RON PAUL WINNING BY JUST A LIL BIT (just over 50% ahead of his opponents lol)
> 
> Link to Poll:
> http://turner.mo2do.net/s/18129/Home
> ...


lol. just one time I'd like to see you tell the truth about a poll. 

That's not a cnn poll. That's some guy with a website who pasted a CNN logo on it. Probably a fellow Ron Paul cult worshiper.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Name any major city that doesn't put fluoride in their water, and prove your point with tooth decay surveys or anything that proves your point what so ever?


http://news.santacruz.com/2010/02/15/fluoridation_could_be_coming_to_watsonville

done!


----------



## Parker (Jun 14, 2011)

Ron Paul needs to direct his answers to the average person. Some answers would be hard to follow if you did not know Ron Pauls policies and have not heard him speak specifically about that issue. 

Bachmann came off well.

All of a sudden these candidates are talking smaller government. It's a shame most haven't voted that way. 
Pawlenty showed no balls when he backed off Romneycare. Guessing its some sort of gentlemens agreement to keep it nice for now? dunno but it's harder to separate them when they pull this.

And my man Ron Paul came through and showed he can be tough when it comes to powers held by the President through the Constitution. 
"I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the Commander and Chief I make the decisions, I tell the generals what to do. I'd get them home as quickly as possible"
[video=youtube;TIC5eIUue60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIC5eIUue60[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

Pawlenty had a chance to put it to Mitt over his healthcare and got scared

Michele Bachmann actually did the best out of all ( very surprising )

Newt did well to keep himself in the race

Ron Paul was like the red headed step child...completely ignore and did not make an impact.

Mitt still comes out looking like the one to beat.

Cain was just filler


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> http://news.santacruz.com/2010/02/15/fluoridation_could_be_coming_to_watsonville
> 
> done!


I checked out your link, its statistic to link this "HUGE EPIDEMIC" is that in certain classrooms they were able to find two kids with decay, whoopdedoo. Probably 4th graders who are losing their baby teeth, which just so happen to be very easily decayed since they are much softer and not permanent. What I really want to know is if the epidemic is relevant to Adults. Also how many years have they been checking for dental caries? How many years of statistics do they have on this particular issue? Im guessing they have one years worth and are calling it an epidemic to get peoples fears up so that the flouride is more readily accepted.

Upon reading further I did however find this:
*1. The publication in 2006 of a 500-page review of fluorides toxicology by a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC, 2006). *The NRC report concluded that the US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (i.e. maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG) of 4 parts per million (ppm) is unsafe and should be lowered. Despite over 60 years of fluoridation, the report listed many basic research questions that have not been addressed. Still, the panel reviewed a large body of literature in which fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects. These include an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and, possibly, osteosarcoma. 
*The average fluoride daily intakes **(*)** associated with many of these adverse effects are reached by some people consuming water at the concentration levels now used for fluoridation -- especially small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, people with poor kidney function and other vulnerable sub-groups*. For example, the average fluoride daily intake associated with impaired thyroid function in people with iodine deficiency (about 12% of the US population) is reached by small children with average consumption of fluoridated water at 1 ppm and by people of any age or weight with moderate to high fluoridated water consumption. Of special note among the animal studies is one in which rats fed water containing 1 ppm fluoride had an increased uptake of aluminum into the brain, with formation of beta-amyloid plaques, which is a classic marker of Alzheimer's disease pathology in humans. *Considering the substantial variation in individual water intake, exposure to fluoride from many other sources, its accumulation in the bone and other calcifying tissues and the wide range of human sensitivity to any toxic substance, fluoridation provides NO margin of safety for many adverse effects, especially lowered thyroid function. *
* Note: "Daily intake" takes into account the exposed individuals bodyweight and is measured in mg. of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight.
*2. The evidence provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005 that 32% of American children have dental fluorosis  an abnormal discoloration and mottling of the enamel. This irreversible and sometimes disfiguring condition is caused by fluoride.* Children are now being overdosed with fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas, from water, swallowed toothpaste, foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water, and other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to eliminate.
*3. The American Dental Associations policy change, in November 2006, recommending that only the following types of water be used for preparing infant formula during the first 12 months of life: "purified, distilled, deionized, demineralized, or produced through reverse osmosis."* This new policy, which was implemented to prevent the ingestion of too much fluoride by babies and to lower the risk of dental fluorosis, clearly excludes the use of fluoridated tap water. The burden of following this recommendation, especially for low income families, is reason alone for fluoridation to be halted immediately. Formula made with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas (Table 2-6, NRC, 2006).
*4. The CDCs concession, in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC.* To the extent fluoride works to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.
Fluorides topical mechanism probably explains the fact that, since the 1980s, there have been many research reports indicating little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Leverett, 1982; Colquhoun, 1984; 1985 and 1987; Diesendorf,  1986; Gray, 1987; Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer,1996; deLiefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; Armfield and Spencer, 2004; and Pizzo 2007 - see citations). Poverty is the clearest factor associated with tooth decay, not lack of ingested fluoride. According to the World Health Organization, dental health in 12-year olds in non-fluoridated industrialized countries is as good, if not better, than those in fluoridated countries (Neurath, 2005).
*5. In 2000, the publication of the UK government sponsored York Review, the first systematic scientific review of fluoridation, found that NONE of the studies purporting to demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce tooth decay were of grade A status, i.e. high quality, bias unlikely *(McDonagh et al., 2000). 
*6. The publication in May 2006 of a peer-reviewed, case-controlled study from Harvard University which found a 5-7 fold increase in osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young men associated with exposure to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th and 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006).* This study was surrounded by scandal as Elise Bassins PhD thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass, was accused by the watchdog Environmental Working Group of attempting to suppress these findings for several years (see video). While this study does not prove a relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma beyond any doubt, the weight of evidence and the importance of the risk call for serious consideration. 
*7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion *(Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000; Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000).
*8. The publication in 2004 of The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson.* This meticulously researched book showed that industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation. Bryson also details the harassment of scientists who expressed concerns  about the safety and/or efficacy of fluoridation 
The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment, chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be much better invested in nutrition education and targeted dental care for children from low income families. The vast majority of enlightened nations have done this.
*It is time for the US, and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now. *


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I checked out your link, its statistic to link this "HUGE EPIDEMIC" is that in certain classrooms they were able to find two kids with decay, whoopdedoo. Probably 4th graders who are losing their baby teeth,


Never mind the fact that I grew up near there, I'm sure you're wild guess is right and it's my own lying eyes that have it wrong. Whatever, I really don't care that much about this. If you want to believe fluoride doesn't fight tooth decay and it's just an evil government conspiracy to control your mind, I guess that's up to you.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

Parker said:


> Pawlenty showed no balls when he backed off Romneycare. Guessing its some sort of gentlemens agreement to keep it nice for now? dunno but it's harder to separate them when they pull this.


Why do you think Pawlenty should go after him for that? At the time Romney signed the Mass healthcare bill into law, those policies were pretty similar to the official republican party position on healthcare. It's also really popular in his state. Is enacting a republican policy in a blue state with the people's support really something terrible?


----------



## mame (Jun 14, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Pawlenty had a chance to put it to Mitt over his healthcare and got scared
> 
> Michele Bachmann actually did the best out of all ( very surprising )
> 
> ...


I actually thought Newt did a really good job presenting himself as moderate, experienced, and intelligent (What?!! lol...) compared to most of the other candidates. I was really hoping that they'd let RP get going about the Fed as I really wanted to see what the others had to say about it (although I bet many are receptive to monetarism anyway).

I agree though that Mitt Romney looks like the front runner.

I kind of felt sorry to some extent for RP, they didn't really give him many chances and he didn't really get his message across at all because of it. Even though I may disagree, it's not really fair for that to be happening at all (someone should really _regulate_ face time a little better so Dr. Paul had more of a chance... HEHEHE)...


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

mame said:


> I actually thought Newt did a really good job presenting himself as moderate, experienced, and intelligent (What?!! lol...) compared to most of the other candidates.


Goldwater would have seemed moderate next to this group.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

^^^^^agree...and to answer Dan Kone question why Pawlenty should have went after Mitt...simple because he was making fun of it before calling it &#8220;ObamneyCare.&#8221;...so I wanted to see what he had to say now, which was nothing..Backed down like a little BYTCH


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

I think Ron Paul might have needed to see some of depraves videos of him...Hell that would have hyped him up..


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

Parker said:


> Ron Paul needs to direct his answers to the average person. Some answers would be hard to follow if you did not know Ron Pauls policies and have not heard him speak specifically about that issue.


Paul did give one really solid answer that made him sound presidential. His answer to the foreign wars question where he said something like "I don't nee to wait for the generals on the ground to agree to pull out, I'm the commander in chief, they'll do what I order them to" I thought that was brilliant. Totally defied conventional wisdom in way that made lot of sense. 

But yeah, other than that Paul sounded like he needed another cup of coffee.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

yea hard to blame him he looked disgusted with those phoneys and was probably falling asleep listening to them drone on, they are using Ron Pauls issues and talking points which is what really pissed me off, just example : herman cain kept lobin the word free market out there for no particular reason. I get a feeling if Ron Paul looked like Mitt Romney he would definitely win this lol


Then I am watching CNN this morning getting ready for work and they are doing a show about the debates, they don't mention Ron once yet again even thou they repetidly bring up his topics like hayek, the bubble, whatever, again they are purposefully ignoring him just like last time - hopefully this turns around. In the round table after the debate they have a long discussion about keynsian economics and fail to mention Ron paul.

Supposably Bachman has the most support of the tea party according to them, not even mentioning the godfather of the tea party in this discussion....

They talk about bring the troops home like its Mitt Romneys thing again not even mentioning paul - If RON paul had a temper and watched the news you know how many damn tv's he would of broken by now?

on and on fuck you CNN - fuck all haters of freedom and humanity - depressed jerks and dumb blondes are the thorn in the side of liberty lovers.

I hope these phoneys are exposed.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

Ron Paul looks in trouble..He has to turn it around quick !!!!! What if Michele Bachmann actually got the nod would you vote for her..she likes freedom


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> yea hard to blame him he looked disgusted with those phoneys and was probably falling asleep listening to them drone on, they are using Ron Pauls issues and talking points which is what really pissed me off, just example : herman cain kept lobin the word free market out there for no particular reason. I get a feeling if Ron Paul looked like Mitt Romney he would definitely win this lol
> 
> 
> Then I am watching CNN this morning getting ready for work and they are doing a show about the debates, they don't mention Ron once yet again even thou they repetidly bring up his topics like hayek, the bubble, whatever, again they are purposefully ignoring him just like last time - hopefully this turns around. In the round table after the debate they have a long discussion about keynsian economics and fail to mention Ron paul.
> ...


you sound like ron paul looked: like you need a nap.

i am surprised ron paul did not fucking melt under those lights. it looked like he was going to several times.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul looks in trouble..He has to turn it around quick !!!!! What if Michele Bachmann actually got the nod would you vote for her..she likes freedom


the revolutionary war started in new hampshire.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

"someone get me some vapo-rub and summon my nurse"


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

"what's happening here? get off my lawn!"


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

This is the POS show IN QUESTION


*INSIDER POLLS* - Cnn refuses to show their own polls of the people which have Ron Paul Leading instead we get this BS "INSIDER" Poll with Ron Paul at 0% yea fugin right fat cats - Ted Turner you can suck my youknow- Just shows some "INSIDERS" don't like Ron Paul 
REGARDLESS - The poll from the very same organization they are quoting actually has Ron Paul leading with 33% as seen on their own website: http://www.nationaljournal.com/
[video=youtube;OPY_6mjL3xY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPY_6mjL3xY&feature=player_embedded[/video]

CNN JUST PULLED A FOX NEWS MOVE ON US - AGAIN EFF YOU CNN

The Truth - Ron Paul won every damn poll he was allowed in - even the "INSIDER" Poll - Even the Fox news poll


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)




----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

only an idiot would think ron paul won that debate. he looked curmudgeonly, old, frazzled, and just plain off his game.

the only reason he wins in a lot of online polls is because he has an army of devoted cultists who will flood the polls.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


>


because his dedicated cultists like you flood the other polls.

i'm sure they'll do some sort of a random polling where ron paul supporters will not be allowed to barrage the thing with their cultists dedication and it will reflect about what the insiders thought.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Lets Hope they have a better apology then FOX did when they smeared ron paul and got busted doing it but you know it will be just like the FOX apology in that most people wont even get it:

[video=youtube;A8VDPbQW8LQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8VDPbQW8LQ[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

Ron Paul did not help his chances last night and thats what he has to do....He has to make an impact or he will slowly just fade way ...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Never mind the fact that I grew up near there, I'm sure you're wild guess is right and it's my own lying eyes that have it wrong. Whatever, I really don't care that much about this. If you want to believe fluoride doesn't fight tooth decay and it's just an evil government conspiracy to control your mind, I guess that's up to you.


Flouride applied topically to teeth does prevent tooth decay, drinking it does not. Even your own link cited this fact. I really don't know how a particular few people on this forum can consistently come to the wrong conclusion on other peoples views when they specifically state them. Not one single person here ever said flouride didn't prevent cavities.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> only an idiot would think ron paul won that debate. he looked curmudgeonly, old, frazzled, and just plain off his game.
> 
> the only reason he wins in a lot of online polls is because he has an army of devoted cultists who will flood the polls.


Well if you want to go by only applause then Paul got more then twice as much applause.


Originally Posted by *BaltimoreSun.com*


> An analysis of audience reaction shows Paul was applauded twice as much as any other candidate on stage. Throughout the two-hour debate, Paul was applauded 11 times. Romney, Bachmann, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty were each applauded five times. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich and businessman Herman Cain were each applauded four times. Former Pa. Senator Rick Santorum was applauded the least amount of times: Three.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

Deprave thats what you seem to not understand...How can you win your primary when your own party disrespects you ????


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Deprave thats what you seem to not understand...How can you win your primary when your own party disrespects you ????


 explain yourself


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

COMPLETE - RON PAUL RESPONSES AT THE NH DEBATES
[video=youtube;g3LkRoHH-kg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3LkRoHH-kg&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Ron Paul Post Debate Interview

[video=youtube;FbMYMmv4tk0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbMYMmv4tk0&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Flouride applied topically to teeth does prevent tooth decay, drinking it does not.


false. it makes topical contact with your teeth when you drink it and remains in your saliva, which also makes topical contact with your teeth.

can't rewrite or deny human anatomy.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> Lets Hope they have a better apology then FOX did when they smeared ron paul and got busted doing it but you know it will be just like the FOX apology in that most people wont even get it:
> 
> [video=youtube;A8VDPbQW8LQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8VDPbQW8LQ[/video]


 Seen this for sure. He is a major threat to the bullshit taking place.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> false. it makes topical contact with your teeth when you drink it and remains in your saliva, which also makes topical contact with your teeth.
> 
> can't rewrite or deny human anatomy.


LOL, you are soooo right its not even funny.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Screenshot I took myself of the real CNN Online POLL -


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Google Trends: http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+Mitt+Romney&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2011&sort=0

Applause Data: http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 14, 2011)

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> explain yourself


Man his name is not even mentioned in the Republican circle as a true candidate against Obama...???? Fox news ( which is Repuke news all the way ) does not give him a shot...He goes completely ignored...you can't see this ????


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Article from 10 days ago that I missed



CNN said:


> Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown.


 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-still-no-front-runner-in-the-battle-for-the-gop-nomination/


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Full debate footage (not just ron paul takes) incase you missed it.

[video=youtube;KHGfYcwj4kI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHGfYcwj4kI[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Gerald Celente's review of the debate - calls CNN the cartoon news network - talks up Ron Paul
[video=youtube;J4KLgRoMNaY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4KLgRoMNaY&feature=player_embedded#at=116[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

ron paul should have explained in the debate that he would give everyone a raise. then he would have won, i bet.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

I guees glenn beck was talking about Ron Paul quite a bit today on his radio show today, all 3 of the guys on his show were saying things like 'Ron Paul is the only one who makes any sense'


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul should have explained in the debate that he would give everyone a raise. then he would have won, i bet.


 if he did that and also choose IPHONE over blackbury he would of won the hearts of many sadly.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Glenn becks radio show comments on Ron Paul:

Hour 1, 24:25 to 25:00: Everyone sounded like a politician except Ron Paul.
Hour 1, 30:30 to 31:30: Hosts agree with everything Ron Paul said.
Hour 2, 01:30 to 02:30: Trashing Herman Cain for equivocating on foreign policy, praising Ron Paul for being clear about troop withdrawal.
Hour 2, 14:45 to 15:30: More on Ron Paul sounding unlike a politician and giving clear answers.
Hour 2, 18:45 to 22:45: Ron Paul supporter calls in. Hosts get defensive about the other candidates, but mostly a positive segment.
Hour 2, 23:00 to 24:00: Bashing Ron Paul for earmarks.
Hour 2, 24:00 to 29:00: Discussion of Ron Paul and foreign policy, wanders into an advertisement for _Original Argument_.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

*Bill O'Reilly Bashes Ron Paul As Does Coulter, Uses Poll Of 54 Voters To Do It *

First the ignore you [&#10004;], then they laugh at you [&#10004;], *then they fight you* [&#10004;], then you win [ pending ]. 

No strangers to bashing ron paul - this dynamic freedom hating duo is at it again - with a special ron paul bashing and ignoring discussion just for this occasion
[video=youtube;GRFVFb21C3M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRFVFb21C3M&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Airing Date June.14, 2011

The National Journal poll cited by Bill now shows Ron Paul in the lead with 66.38% of the vote.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/


Bill you are an embarrassment.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Bill Maher again picks Ron Paul the winner of yet another debate tonite on AC360

Maher is on AC360 and when asked who'd he pick from the debate last night ( althought he just they were all bad) said his pick was Ron Paul becase unlike all te others at least he's pricipled, end the war, and continued to describe Paul as the good man he is. Just thought I'd post, for although Maher is a progressive he still sees the dfference btwn RP and the other mainstream candidate.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> COMPLETE - RON PAUL RESPONSES AT THE NH DEBATES
> [video=youtube;g3LkRoHH-kg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3LkRoHH-kg&feature=player_embedded[/video]


skip to 7:30

he says the constitution "literally" says 'no theocracy'.

i don't think he knows what "literally" means. i just pressed ctrl + f on my constitution and had zero results.

he goes on to say congress should never prohibit the expression of your christian faith in a public place.

what about other religions?

he gets the constitution he so dearly loves and most likely uses as masturbation fodder wrong... twice.

"congress shall write no law"....sorry, never saw that one in the constitution.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

* Stossel on O'Reilly RIGHT NOW making the case for Ron Paul *

As the title says. Coulter just bashed Ron about gay marriage answer, now Stossel is coming on.​


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

* Jack Hunter / Southern Avenger : [email protected] - Ron Paul Won the Debate*



[video=youtube;8LcwnePeMTU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LcwnePeMTU&feature=player_embedded#at=26[/video]

*
*


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 14, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Deprave thats what you seem to not understand...How can you win your primary when your own party disrespects you ????


Didn't Hilary and Obama basically try to stab each other to death before the last election?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 14, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Man his name is not even mentioned in the Republican circle as a true candidate against Obama...???? Fox news ( which is Repuke news all the way ) does not give him a shot...He goes completely ignored...you can't see this ????


That has a lot to do with the fact that Ron Paul isn't really a republican. Keep in mind that a large part of the country is independent and Obama will not win that vote when going against Ron Paul.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Its been said by many including myself, including most of the major networks that Paul stands the best change against obama.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> This is the POS show IN QUESTION
> 
> 
> *INSIDER POLLS* - Cnn refuses to show their own polls of the people which have Ron Paul Leading instead we get this BS "INSIDER" Poll with Ron Paul at 0% yea fugin right fat cats


That wasn't cnn poll you posted! It was some random Ron Paul supporters website!


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

*"YouTube Celebrity" Philip Defranco to Endorse Ron Paul? [From 2007] *

Philip DeFranco is VERY popular on YouTube, with one of the most subscribed to channels at over 1.6 million people. Many of his videos get over 1 million views.

This video is already near a half a million views already.

[video=youtube;PN7-y6rrxp0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN7-y6rrxp0&feature=player_embedded#at=100[/video]​


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> false. it makes topical contact with your teeth when you drink it and remains in your saliva, which also makes topical contact with your teeth.
> 
> can't rewrite or deny human anatomy.


No no no. It's a government conspiracy. I'll bet the federal reserve is behind this!


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> skip to 7:30
> 
> he says the constitution "literally" says 'no theocracy'.
> 
> ...


First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." What is an Amendment to something if not a part of it?

Literally. Obvious you are grasping at straws to say that he used literally wrong - either that or you are a fucking retard. Seriously? Let us use the word literally: Uncle Ben is literally a fucking retard. Even though it was never written before this paragraph, it still holds to be an obvious representation of the truth. Maybe you need to read more than the first entry for a word in Wikipedia when you are deciding whether to talk shit about someones usage of a word. "Theocracy" is a government that uses religion as its central guidance. The Constitution forbids this quite plainly. Thus it is a literal interpretation of it with no embellishments. Therefor it stands to reason that Uncle Ben is literally a fucking retard.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> Screenshot I took myself of the real CNN Online POLL -
> 
> View attachment 1648536


*That is not a cnn poll!* It's some idiot Ron Paul cult member who made up his own poll! Enough with the fake poll results. You can lie and misrepresent polls all you want and Ron Paul still won't be president. Ever.


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That wasn't cnn poll you posted! It was some random Ron Paul supporters website!


yea it seems your right I might of been duped on that one, did some investigating, allegedly this poll was from the debate if you scanned the tag with your smartphone you where takin to that website but when I do whois and dig that ip address it seems to be owned by amazon.com....so I am not so sure this poll is legit. Regardless, Ron Paul still won every other major poll he was included in. Even the one they talked about on this show they showed the wrong data, if you go to the nationalnews site I linked you can see for yourself on the national news site that Ron Paul won this poll also. (the very same poll they posted on tv that had paul at 0% you go to nationalnews and it has him winning with 33% in the INSIDER poll)

then just a simple google on that domain you see the only thing it was ever put up for is for this poll, so that makes it even more questionable, we will see if CNN releases a poll of their own or not, cause they haven't yet.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> Regardless, Ron Paul still won every other major poll he was included in.


Poll of what? Where are these polls? I've never seen Ron Paul come out ahead overall in any poll.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave I'm starting to worry about you lil buddy...what are you going to do if Ron Paul doesn't win ???? Will you be able to handle it ???


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

most of them are "who won the debate" - foxs poll is "Which candidate would you like to see debate obama the most" ...I posted these a few pages back but ill link them again for you I guees....They are all online polls so whatever not that much credibility really. 

**FOX- http://fxn.ws/jPkzuW
**CBS- http://bit.ly/mvKQYZ
**CNBC- http://bit.ly/isin2p
**TellDC &#8211; http://on.fb.me/lG91d5
**MSNBC &#8211; http://bit.ly/kosQ1r
**Cooper &#8211; http://on.fb.me/itnEUH
**Vortex &#8211; http://bit.ly/iNHnUB
**WePolls &#8211; http://bit.ly/j5aOC5


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> most of them are "who won the debate" - foxs poll is "Which candidate would you like to see debate obama the most" ...I posted these a few pages back but ill link them again for you I guees....
> 
> **FOX- http://fxn.ws/jPkzuW
> **CBS- http://bit.ly/mvKQYZ
> ...


lol. When you have polls with Ron Paul getting 80% of the vote and no other candidate getting more than 5% that poll is highly suspect. It seems like someone just went in and voted for Ron Paul 10k times in a row. In no scientific poll EVER has Ron Paul dominated like that. 

We all know Ron Paul has a fanatical cult following. But a few dedicated people does not = popular support.

If you look at that debate objectively Ron Paul gave one really solid answer, but didn't do anything to stand out. There is no way +80% of the people thought he won it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. When you have polls with Ron Paul getting 80% of the vote and no other candidate getting more than 5% that poll is highly suspect. It seems like someone just went in and voted for Ron Paul 10k times in a row. In no scientific poll EVER has Ron Paul dominated like that.
> 
> We all know Ron Paul has a fanatical cult following. But a few dedicated people does not = popular support.
> 
> If you look at that debate objectively Ron Paul gave one really solid answer, but didn't do anything to stand out. There is no way +80% of the people thought he won it.


they will conduct telephone polls over the next few days which are unable to be flooded by some enthusiastic RP cultists. they will paint a different tale than the one deprave wishes to see with his confirmation bias and all.

and he will invent the PERFECT conspiracy theory to explain it all and insist that ron paul will win anyway.


----------



## ChronicObsession (Jun 14, 2011)

YOU ARE RIGHT ON point, Sir Deprave. With Ron Paul, the normal people fucking win and big brother goes and sucks a giant


----------



## deprave (Jun 14, 2011)

@dan
no shit, those polls dont mean much of anything a 9 year old could figure that out, I just checked with one in fact, you dont gotta be a hater, If its true at least Ron Paul has someone committed enough to write a voting bot or whatever, wheres the other candidates supporters they are fully capable of writing a script or using TOR, they definitely arent clearing out their cookies. Nobody gives a rats ass about those phoneys its a big sham.....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> Nobody gives a rats ass about those phoneys its a big sham.....


if no one gives a rat's ass about romney, why is he garnering so much more support than your guy?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if no one gives a rat's ass about romney, why is he garnering so much more support than your guy?


Do you have a poll that proves he is "Winning"?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

londonfog said:


> deprave I'm starting to worry about you lil buddy...what are you going to do if Ron Paul doesn't win ???? Will you be able to handle it ???


Or worse, Ron Paul gets elected and he figures out he's incapable of doing any of the things he's talking about because he needs congress to consent. Ron Paul turning into a human being would be a crushing blow to his cult.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Do you have a poll that proves he is "Winning"?


http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

no proof, just a shitload of consistent evidence


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Do you have a poll that proves he is "Winning"?


The funny thing is, polling right now is 100% meaningless. That's what really makes all these fraudulent polling results funny. 

For some perspective, in 1991 Clinton was polling in 11th place.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> ...Ron Paul gets elected...


good one. how do yo come up with these?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> good one. how do yo come up with these?


I took a sip of their koolaide.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 14, 2011)

Ron Flavor


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 14, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Or worse, Ron Paul gets elected and he figures out he's incapable of doing any of the things he's talking about because he needs congress to consent. Ron Paul turning into a human being would be a crushing blow to his cult.


I would also hate to see Ron Paul be considered a human. I think it more likely the entire congress be looked upon as the useless bitch cocksuckers they are.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> skip to 7:30
> 
> he says the constitution "literally" says 'no theocracy'.
> 
> ...


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a * Republican Form of Government*, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


Congress shall make no law respecting an *establishment of religion*,* or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You really didn't try very hard did you? Not many people can remember a single page of written text like others can.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a * Republican Form of Government*, and shall protect each of them against  Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
> 
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an *establishment of religion*,* or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> ...


i was nitpicking with "write no law" vs. "make no law".

but "no theocracy" is not_ literally_ in the constitution. fail, mr. paul.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> *"YouTube Celebrity" Philip Defranco to Endorse Ron Paul? [From 2007] *
> 
> Philip DeFranco is VERY popular on YouTube, with one of the most subscribed to channels at over 1.6 million people. Many of his videos get over 1 million views.
> 
> ...


I am a subscriber to sxephil and not ashamed to admit it.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i was nitpicking with "write no law" vs. "make no law".
> 
> but "no theocracy" is not_ literally_ in the constitution. fail, mr. paul.


I knew what you meant, and you knew what Dr. Paul meant too, didn't you?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I knew what you meant, and you knew what Dr. Paul meant too, didn't you?


yeah, but it is still funny that he said "literally". he reminded me of a teenage girl.

"so like, becky was like, no way, and i was like yeah! and then she was like, no way, and i was like, my head is literally going to explode!"

maybe it is just a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yeah, but it is still funny that he said "literally". he reminded me of a teenage girl.
> 
> "so like, becky was like, no way, and i was like yeah! and then she was like, no way, and i was like, my head is literally going to explode!"
> 
> maybe it is just a pet peeve of mine.


 haha, yeah like gag me with a spoon fur shuuuur like.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> haha, yeah like gag me with a spoon fur shuuuur like.


so they're calling it a spoon nowadays, eh?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 15, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so they're calling it a spoon nowadays, eh?


If Ron Paul is elected, you will gag the spoon.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2011)

Too young to get "Valleygirl"?

[video=youtube;9LctPbe6WyU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LctPbe6WyU&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;O5ze1neVziE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5ze1neVziE&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Parker (Jun 15, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I took a sip of their koolaide.


Was it the koolaid that told us to correctly keep out of the housing debacle? Because if we listen to what Ron Paul the bIll would never have been passed and our economy would be strong. Was it the koolaid that told us to keep out of the Middle East? Because if we listened to Ron Paul we would have avoided 9/11, saved a trillions of dollars and more importantly saved a ton of lives.

So answer me this all the people who would not vote for Ron Paul. He was the ONLY person in Congress to vote against the housing bill and against our occupation of the Middle East. These were the two most important issues at the last election and he flat out nailed it. None of the other candidates were close to being correct. So knowing this isn't it a bit foolish on your part to trumpet candidates who have previously backed horrible policies that bring economic ruin to this country? Knowing this and you still back other candidates, doesn't that basically mean you're self destructive?

Pick 1 of 2 doors. Door number 1 has riches, door number 2 has destruction. And you pick door number 2? When it comes to politics, normally intelligent become complete and total dumb asses.


----------



## Parker (Jun 15, 2011)

londonfog said:


> deprave I'm starting to worry about you lil buddy...what are you going to do if Ron Paul doesn't win ???? Will you be able to handle it ???


The question to ask is if another bot is elected, using the same destructive policies as the last two presidents, will America be able to handle it?


----------



## Parker (Jun 15, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Deprave thats what you seem to not understand...How can you win your primary when your own party disrespects you ????


ho hoooooo nailed it. The republicans have long ago abandoned the republican platform. It is run by neo conservatives who belive in manipulating and managing our money into their buddies businesses. (wall street, military, corporations)
I support Ron Paul and he still has an outside shot at the republican nomination. More so if more people get educated about civics and economics.


----------



## Parker (Jun 15, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> only an idiot would think ron paul won that debate. he looked curmudgeonly, old, frazzled, and just plain off his game.
> 
> the only reason he wins in a lot of online polls is because he has an army of devoted cultists who will flood the polls.


Only a douchebag believes in style over substance. Same ones who voted in Obama. Its about the issues.


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Ron Paul - the only canidate that didn't say Obamacare at the debate.


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

*Bill Maher "I'd Vote For Ron Paul If I had to pick " 
*
 


[video=youtube;Drjza4qcle4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drjza4qcle4[/video]


----------



## Parker (Jun 15, 2011)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story

"Who won last night's Republican presidential debate on CNN? 
It's a question a lot of pundits have been asking -- and there seems to be some consensus forming among the analysts: Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. 
But judging by the reaction of the audience in New Hampshire, a different candidate carried the night and he's a candidate many analysts are saying emerged as a loser.

That candidate? Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. An analysis of audience reaction shows Paul was applauded twice as much as any other candidate on stage. 

Throughout the two-hour debate, Paul was applauded 11 times. Romney, Bachmann, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty were each applauded five times. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich and businessman Herman Cain were each applauded four times. Former Pa. Senator Rick Santorum was applauded the least amount of times: Three."

I thought he got more applause but didn't think nearly that much more.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 15, 2011)

Parker said:


> Was it the koolaid that told us to correctly keep out of the housing debacle? Because if we listen to what Ron Paul the bIll would never have been passed and our economy would be strong.


Which bill?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

Ron Paul cannot make it out of the Repuke primary...The party does not like him...please tell me how you make it out your primary when your own party BIGS ignore you...???? sad but true..the party picks who the party wants...Its Mitts to lose ..his turn is up ...just like McCain, Bush and so forth...thats the way the Repukes roll....I'm saying this because I really don't want you Ron Paul guys to go off the deep end when the results come in...Remember the earth will still turn..


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2011)

Parker said:


> ... if we listen to what Ron Paul the bIll would never have been passed and our economy would be strong.... if we listened to Ron Paul we would have avoided 9/11, saved a trillions of dollars and more importantly saved a ton of lives.
> 
> Pick 1 of 2 doors. Door number 1 has riches, door number 2 has destruction. And you pick door number 2? When it comes to politics, normally intelligent become complete and total dumb asses.


if we listened to ron paul, everyone will get a raise and he will help you patch your roof.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 15, 2011)

Just ordered my Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker.
Also one that says "Don't steal, the government doesn't like competition" !


Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!


...will lose, will lose, will lose.

and by a large margin.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 15, 2011)

Your mom will lose by a large margin. lol


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Your mom will lose by a large margin. lol


my mom is not a candidate for any office, so not possible.

oh, wait. i just realized you were trying to make a "your momma" joke. it was so weak i missed it entirely.

the 90's called. they want their jokes back.


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Ron Paul On Cavuto


*Ron Paul "Bernankee Has A Completely Different Understanding Of What Caused The Depression" *



[video=youtube;p9u70DxvP04]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9u70DxvP04[/video]



Great Interview, they laugh at the other candidates agreeing with Ron Paul on everything and saying things that hes said in the past. They discuss the FED and the economy


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Video I missed earlier, Pre Debate interview 
[video=youtube;6HJAqVn3xWE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HJAqVn3xWE[/video]


talks about FEMA


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> talks about FEMA


lol. Great. Ron Pauls solution to what happens if a hurricane hits you're city - fuck you! deal with it yourself.

genius


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. Great. Ron Pauls solution to what happens if a hurricane hits you're city - fuck you! deal with it yourself.
> 
> genius


 What about red cross and state and local? FEMA SUCKS look at New Orleans as an example, there has been FEMA "scandals" and they are costing a ton of money. We have plent of good disaster relief programs the feds dont need to be involved. Red Cross covers the whole nation, I went with Red Cross on Sep 11


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> What about red cross and state and local? FEMA SUCKS look at New Orleans as an example, there has been FEMA "scandals" and they are costing a ton of money.


If part of government isn't as effective as it can be that doesn't always mean we need to get rid of it, sometimes that just means we have to make it better. Our plan for natural disasters has to be better than telling people they are on their own.


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

if you were ever at a national disaster you would know we dont need fucking fema who has done jack shit - there is plenty of federal organizations for disaster relief. We have the most charity in the world.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> if you were ever at a national disaster you would know we dont need fucking fema who has done jack shit - there is plenty of federal organizations for disaster relief.


That has to be one of the dumbest thing you have typed today...Name some federal organizations for disaster relief...??? I mean you just said it was plenty...FEMA under Bush was all wrong that does not mean that we should do away with it..Just make it better..really guy you need to stop..


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

I named one, Red Cross, another.... the military......


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Everyone is finally agreeing with Ron Paul..at least on the war.

Romney Flip-Flops again - he was forced to make the announcement that he is now anti-war to stand a chance against paul.
[video=youtube;KBe58RJWVQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBe58RJWVQo[/video]

*GOP CALLS FOR REDUCED TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN
* *
Many Republicans siding with him on anti-war ideas - however, one douschbag in this video says "Ronald Reagan would be turning over in his grave" wtf?




RonPaul2012.com - GOP Candidates Now Sound Like Ron Paul *



http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/06/1...like-ron-paul/

But where is their record?

What we learned from last night&#8217;s debate is that almost every other candidate on stage now sounds like Ron Paul, but do not have the record to back it up.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who voted against the spending before it was popular to do so, never voted for a debt limit increase, never voted for an unbalanced budget, voted against all bail outs, has always opposed government mandated healthcare, and has always voted in favor of our free market system.

Take a quick look back at just some of the records of a few of the other candidates.


*Mitt Romney:*

*Romneycare* &#8211; Still defends his plan signed on April 12, 2006, despite publicly stating that as President he would repeal and replace ObamaCare. However, the two plans are similar in at least 3 ways. Cato Institute, Cato Romneycare, April 15, 2010

Obamacare was modeled in a large way after Romneycare, as the Obama Admin likes to point out. Obama: &#8220;we passed health care with an assist from a former Massachusetts governor&#8221; CNN, May 9, 2011
*
Cap and Trade* &#8211; Believes we should reduce emissions UNH Townhall June 3, 2011:

&#8220;I don&#8217;t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world&#8217;s getting warmer. I can&#8217;t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that&#8230;I also think it&#8217;s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you&#8217;re seeing.&#8221; &#8211; UNH Townhall &#8211; Romney Townhall Washington Post, June 3, 2011

*TARP* - Supported Wall Street Bailout &#8220;I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses&#8221;- CPAC Speech 2009, Politico February 27, 2009


*Tim Pawlenty:*
*
Governor Pawlenty&#8217;s 2006-2007 Budget* - 2008, Pawlenty joined with state Democrats in signing a $109 million corporate tax increase by changing state laws on the definition of foreign operating corporations. Club For Growth White Paper on Pawlenty, Dolan Media Newswires, May 22, 2008

*TARP* &#8211; &#8220;Tim Pawlenty says he is reluctantly for it.&#8221; How Paulson Just Picked the 2012 GOP Nominee, US News, September 26, 2008

&#8220;But as you look at the practicalities or the implications of letting AIG fail in terms of what it would mean to average citizens and the destabilizing of the credit markets and the financial markets, something needed to be done.

&#8220;And, you know, that is an imperfect solution, but, like has been said, they are too big, the consequences are too severe for innocent bystanders to allow them to fail. So it&#8217;s an imperfect solution, but you also have to be pragmatic about getting the mess cleaned up.&#8221; &#8211; Tim Pawlenty&#8217;s bailout shuffle, Salon, January 12, 2011

*Cap and Trade* &#8211; Signed onto and persuaded members of the Midwest Governors Association to sign the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, an agreement to develop a cap-and-trade mechanism:

&#8220;Today&#8217;s agreement is an important milestone toward achieving a cleaner, more secure energy future&#8230;&#8221;

&#8220;The Midwest is well positioned to help lead the energy revolution that our nation needs to stay competitive and strong. Working together, states can build a de facto national energy policy that will create good jobs and build a cleaner and safer world.&#8221; &#8211; Midwest States and Manitoba Sign Agreements to Reduce Greenhouse Gases, Promote Energy Efficiency and Renewables, November 15, 2007


*Newt Gingrich:*

*Healthcare* &#8211; Supported a health insurance mandate: &#8220;I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay- &#8212; help pay for health care. I&#8217;ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond&#8221;- Politico: Newt Gingrich on Meet The Press, May 15, 2011

Supported Medicare prescription drug bill, creating Medicare part D, which now has $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities:

&#8220;Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation&#8217;s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65&#8221; &#8211; Club For Growth White Paper on Gingrich
*
Cap and Trade* &#8211; In 2008 made an ad with Pelosi for Al Gore&#8217;s Alliance for Climate Protection, where he said &#8220;our country must take action to address climate change&#8221; Fox News

&#8220;mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system&#8221; would be &#8220;very, very good,&#8221; Fox News

*TARP* &#8211; Stated he would &#8220;reluctantly and sadly&#8221; support the Wall Street Bailout ABC


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> I named one, Red Cross, another.... the military......


dude The Red Cross is not a Federal agency..sorry.....WTF..care to try again...you did say plenty ???? Just goes to show how much you don't know..makes me question all that you say now ​


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Dont re
the red cross provides national disaster relief what does it matter if its a federal agency they are the ones who have helped the most, the ndr, core of engineers, national guard, coast guard, idk, dont give a shit what you think, your the one stupid enough to think FEMA helps us apparently? 

Volunteers are the ones that help us in disaster- and police and military - FEMA can't do anything right they fuck up everytime


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 15, 2011)

londonfog said:


> dude The Red Cross is not a Federal agency..sorry.....WTF..care to try again...you did say plenty ???? Just goes to show how much you don't know..makes me question all that you say now ​


If that doesn't work we will invade using the salvation army.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> FEMA can't do anything right they fuck up everytime


Or you only hear about them when they fuck up.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> Dont re
> the red cross provides national disaster relief what does it matter if its a federal agency they are the ones who have helped the most, the ndr, core of engineers, national guard, coast guard, idk, dont give a shit what you think, your the one stupid enough to think FEMA helps us apparently?


it matters because you stated that we had plenty of Federal agency and used the Red Cross to back your claim..which was proved to be wrong...FEMA has/had its problem but getting rid of it is not the answer...I was stunned also when Bachmann said we need to get rid of the EPA...WTF... guess she does not care about fresh water or air..WTF she planning to leave all her children..One Polluted Planet


----------



## average grow (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm feelin a civil war soon.


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

it all goes back to the liberty movement really, economic and personal liberty, freedom from the federal government, states rights, etc...its pretty popular lately...you should look up Ron Paul lol

The EPA is another one like FEMA, like the IRS, like the FED....programs that need to be cut - the wars


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 15, 2011)

londonfog said:


> it matters because you stated that we had plenty of Federal agency and used the Red Cross to back your claim..which was proved to be wrong...FEMA has/had its problem but getting rid of it is not the answer...I was stunned also when Bachmann said we need to get rid of the EPA...WTF... guess she does not care about fresh water or air..WTF she planning to leave all her children..One Polluted Planet


If you support the EPA then you hate freedom.


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> If you support the EPA then you hate freedom.


 pretty much this, see Dan gets it (maybe)...the tide is turning..even if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination he could have moved mountains for libertarians as the GOP is now adopting his philosophy - with Ron Pauls audit of the fed and the founding of the Tea Party he found his way into the history books and if his liberty movement causes significant changes he will be forever remembered. Im not going to be upset if he doesn't win like londonfrog seems to think but Ron Paul will have his place in my book of great heroes until my dying days without a doubt.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> pretty much this, see Dan gets it (maybe)...the tide is turning..even if Ron Paul doesnt win the nomination he could have moved more mountains for libertarians.


you are one lost puppy...I'm willing to bet Dan was being sarcastic, but you actually think that its a chance he agrees with you


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you are one lost puppy...I'm willing to bet Dan was being sarcastic, but you actually think that its a chance he agrees with you


 lol , believe me I don't think that, he will disagree with me over anything out of spite haha, I am just saying I think he understands a little since he answered your naive question appropriately. (To Clarify: The fact that you were "stunned" that she mentioned the EPA is what is naive, as in, you don't fully grasp the concept of the liberty movement if you were infact truly stunned by this.)


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Liberty is becoming "mainstream" - Ron Paul is essentially becoming "mainstream"


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

I guess I'm stunned by the stupidity of others...what about the FDA might as well get rid of that government agency too


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

Ron Paul doesn't want to necessarily eliminate the FDA, same thing with the EPA, and FEMA, and the FED - especially not eliminate it outright - he wants to reduce its powers - hopefully one day eliminating them and replacing it with something better preferably something at state and local levels that is equivalent but respects the free market and the people. The FDA has very far reaching powers, for example they have been doing SWAT team style raids on people for selling raw milk. Ron Paul has consistenly voted against bills that give the FDA/FEMA/IRS/EPA unconstitutional powers. Do you think the amish should be raided with submachine guns and kevlar vest when they sell raw milk? is it really stupidity to want to eat what you grow instead of McDonalds?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2011)

Isn't the FDA the agency that swears Marijuana is a addictive substance worse than heroin?


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

...they dont even want us to know whats in it and how its made....we don't have that right anymore...and if they had their way we wouldn't be farming our own food either.

All goes back to freedom...something which we have rapidly lost, the 20-35's understand this a bit better I think, we grew up with this stuff, example columbine happened, then we had police in our schools. Freedom, we had it, we saw it in our parents, we learned of the american dream and were given leftovers. The information revolution is here and now - don't let this next generation get their heads around the constitution or they will be furious, more furious then my generation, possibly violent furious if we are still sitting on the same amount of jobs and a shitty economy and increased oppression.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> if you were ever at a national disaster you would know we dont need fucking fema who has done jack shit - there is plenty of federal organizations for disaster relief. We have the most charity in the world.





deprave said:


> The EPA is another one like FEMA, like the IRS, like the FED....programs that need to be cut - the wars





deprave said:


> Ron Paul doesn't want to necessarily eliminate the FDA, same thing with the EPA, and FEMA, and the FED - especially not eliminate it outright - he wants to reduce its powers - hopefully one day eliminating them and replacing it with something better


OK first you say get rid of, don't need them, eliminate...Now you say Ron really don't want to eliminate " just tweak it "... WTF which one is it ?????


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

This video is for you londonfrog

REPUBLICANS: 
* What in the world are they talking about? *

[video=youtube;ZGQrPLndeck]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGQrPLndeck[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 15, 2011)

londonfog said:


> OK first you say get rid of, don't need them, eliminate...Now you say Ron really don't want to eliminate " just tweak it "... WTF which one is it ?????


 He would work to ultimately eliminate them as soon as possible, he understands thats a pipe dream however, unless major changes happen, likely scenario he would work to eliminate their powers and make them more sane, he says this all the time and then its blown up to be that he would just outright end eliminate it on monday and then on tuesday we wouldnt have an FDA (doing the important jobs the FDA DOES)...his ideas are blown out of proportion as usual, when he talks about sane plans to limit these organizations powers the media blows it up to look like ron paul would like to cause a national catastrophe, again, Ron Paul is not some kind of terrorist or lunatic, he has served our country well for over 20 years.

Ron Paul has a Revolutionary philosophy, but it is only philosophy, if you interpret Ron Paul selectively or as realist, he is going to seem like a lunatic because his speeches and writings are very emphatic and philosophical - philosphy doesnt sit well with people who prefer not to address problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument, IE Strict Statisticians being the polar opposite. you must interrupt it from a philosophical standpoint as it is, treating it any other way is a misinterpretation of the actual message, this is why the media has such an easy to spin his words. Please listen to a few speeches of his in their entirety and try to keep this in mind. If your in to data and a realist approach to politics just start researching some things that Ron Paul talks about and it will all come togather for you that Ron Paul is an effin genious and he will change the world even if he is not elected as president.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 15, 2011)

deprave why is Ron running on the Repuke ticket ????


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 16, 2011)

You have a responsibility to protect yourself.

FEMA

I grew up on the Mississippi river. I knew almost every person in the entire community. I was related to many of them. If I walked down the street today in the town, I wouldn't make it 5 feet without people stopping me to ask about my parents or myself. I love this area, and some day I will move back, living on the river was a joy. 

Every year since we had recorded history of the area, there has been a flood. We all knew it would flood, the question was "How high?" Every few years it would reach inside of the houses, which were slightly raised up off the ground. Sometimes it would entirely engulf the first floor of every house in the area. FEMA came in every year, and gave anyone who didn't have insurance money live off of for months, and big checks to fix the houses. Tens of thousands of dollars. Much of this work was done on the cheap and the rest of the money was just spent. Without exaggerating, I can say that thousands of dollars from any of the rebuilds went to drugs and alcohol. Lots of fraud went largely ignored.

Finally, after 20-30 years of this, FEMA gave them all extra money (20k+ each) to raise their houses up past the 100 year historical high flood level. I worked on the crew that raised all the houses. I rewired houses that had flooded, replaced drywall, built porches - you name it. The money from FEMA helped irresponsible people to rebuild. They got the same help or better than people who payed for insurance every year. These weren't people who couldn't find the money to pay insurance on their property, they were people who would rather spend that money on other things. While rebuilding the houses, we weren't putting them back to original condition. We were rebuilding them much nicer each time. They went from being simply 1-2 story homes to being 2-3 story brand new homes with sprawling porches and decks.

If FEMA wasn't there to help them when this happened, how would their lives have changed? They would of bought insurance. If they didn't buy insurance they wouldn't of gotten their houses redone when they flooded and would of had to sell them and move. Without government intervention the people who were too irresponsible to carry insurance would of had to move. Our government was artificially keeping these people here by their actions. That market would of fixed the situation.

I doubt FEMA was meant to be a free insurance company for people who didn't feel like paying for insurance. Every bit of help that someone gets for 'free' is being payed for by other tax payers. It isn't that those tax payers don't want to help their fellow many, or that they want all government help to stop. It is that they see every dollar spent on something as money that is being taken from them or money we have to pay back some day that we are borrowing. 

Do you like hearing how much money was spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Bosnia, Somalia, ect ect? Do you like hearing about $10,000 shovels? Should Obama have spent so much money going to India?. I know it wasn't 200 million a day, but 200 million total is probably closer. That is like charging every adult in the country a dollar for our president to go to India, if they all payed taxes. At what point do you realize that the excess of government exists and needs to be fixed? Whether it be war, social programs, or just wet dreams of some politician. 

Should the federal government have a plan for taking food to people in the Alaskan wilderness if there is a blizzard? 
No, don't live in the Alaskan wilderness or have supplies to live through the weather there. I am guessing most of them have a supply of non perishable food if they live in the middle of nowhere.

Should the federal government rebuild homes in the flood plain or on the ocean for people without insurance?
No, those people should have insurance, live somewhere else, or build a house that can withstand that weather.

Should the federal government give me loans to buy houses I can buy normally? No.

Should the federal government tell me what to eat? No.

Should the federal government tell us what to do with our bodies? No.

NO NO NO NO NO NO. Not only is it wrong, it borders on being evil. People talk about helping the poor by giving them food, money, houses, ect. Then, those same people turn around and say it is awful to lock up wild animals in cages. Do you think a lion would rather risk dying in the grasslands of disease or live a couple years longer in a cage? Well, what is the major difference? If a lion in a cage has no dignity or freedom then how are the poor of this country any different? The cage might not be steel, but they are still being controlled. What our government has done is take away human dignity and replace it with a fat greasy government tit that spews poisoned milk.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You have a responsibility to protect yourself.
> 
> FEMA
> 
> ...


"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Carthoris again."


----------



## londonfog (Jun 16, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Do you like hearing how much money was spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Bosnia, Somalia, ect ect? Do you like hearing about $10,000 shovels? Should Obama have spent so much money going to India?. I know it wasn't 200 million a day, but 200 million total is probably closer. That is like charging every adult in the country a dollar for our president to go to India, if they all payed taxes. At what point do you realize that the excess of government exists and needs to be fixed? Whether it be war, social programs, or just wet dreams of some politician.


See when you post Bullshit likes this it makes people realize that your whole story is BULLSHIT...The cost total was no where near 200 million total, but just like a repuke you have to lie to try to prove a point..First they said it was 200 million per day now you say 200 million total...Do some research and you will realize that the trip was on par with what Clinton and Bush spent on trips abroad and none of those trips ever went over the 20 million mark..so again BULLSHIT to your whole story..
Like you know everyones finances in your city by the river to say that they could buy insurance and if they had insurance or not, but seeing how you are related to all of them they would have told you...damn what a way to use incest to try prove a point...WTF..guess its a southern thing


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2011)

200 million is a wild exaggeration, more like 50 million a day. Chump Change, the Government can release that much in Treasuries to sell to the fed to print the cash in 2.361 seconds.


_In the case of some Clinton trips, we have figures from a __ 1999 __report__ by the __U.S. General Accounting Office &#8212; now called the Government Accountability Office. The GAO said that Clinton&#8217;s trips to Africa, Chile and China in 1998 cost at least $42.8 million, $10.5 million and $18.8 million, respectively &#8212; not counting the still-classified cost of providing Secret Service protection. Guess one of those trips was well over 20 mil.

has the Dollar gained value since Clinton was in Office? Do we use more security now that we are post 911?



_


----------



## sharon1 (Jun 16, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You have a responsibility to protect yourself.
> 
> FEMA
> 
> ...


I wanted to repost this in it's entirety...just in the hope that some might read again and it would sink in further. Good post. I couldn't agree more, even in the 200 mil figure is exaggerated.
It is still full of facts and it's a shame more don't realize it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I guess I'm stunned by the stupidity of others...what about the FDA might as well get rid of that government agency too


The FDA isn't in the constitution! Get rid of it! Let the free market decide if companies are allowed to put asbestos in pancake mix! If you support the FDA, you hate America.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

Holy crap! 105 pages LOL! Haven't read through it all. Just got back online after almost a week off after trying to service my comp. Guess i better stick to growing weed. No processors to fry!

Anyway, i'll read and catch up but that debate. The NH debate. Anyone else notice the way in which RP was received? The politicians and moderator laughed and dismissed, for the most part, when Dr. Paul was responding. The audience cheered every time he spoke. Not out of blind support, but agreement. And then the other guys started even admitting that he was right! Loved it!

Got some reading to do but wanted to give a quick opinion on the debate.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> The FDA isn't in the constitution! Get rid of it! Let the free market decide if companies are allowed to put asbestos in pancake mix! If you support the FDA, you hate America.


LOL never happen.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

As i read, i see that some RP detractors tactics remain the same.


----------



## deprave (Jun 16, 2011)

Its really turning around, tons of republican are becoming Ron Paul, they are moving troops out of afghanistan, this is it, pick the real Ron Paul cmon people fuck everyone is posing as if they are stealing his ideas. Ron just thinks its hilarious.

he laughs about it here:

Previously posted video
[video=youtube;R-6I1G0Q6EE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-6I1G0Q6EE[/video]


NEW VIDEO - GOP BECOMING ANTI WAR STRAIGHT FROM OBAMAS BLONDE MEDIA MASCOT
[video=youtube;x1css0hkXaA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1css0hkXaA[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 16, 2011)

* Why the 2012 candidates are 'unusually pathetic' [NBC: 6-14-2011] *

Morning Show on MSNBC - They talk about Ron Pauls Quote on the war vs Mitt Romneys - Makes Mitt Look Real Bad and Ron Paul look slightly better.
[video=youtube;5tDeMF_cPVk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tDeMF_cPVk[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> See when you post Bullshit likes this it makes people realize that your whole story is BULLSHIT...The cost total was no where near 200 million total, but just like a repuke you have to lie to try to prove a point..First they said it was 200 million per day now you say 200 million total...Do some research and you will realize that the trip was on par with what Clinton and Bush spent on trips abroad and none of those trips ever went over the 20 million mark..so again BULLSHIT to your whole story..
> Like you know everyones finances in your city by the river to say that they could buy insurance and if they had insurance or not, but seeing how you are related to all of them they would have told you...damn what a way to use incest to try prove a point...WTF..guess its a southern thing


 oh so what he exaggerated incredibly as obviously this would cost like barely thousands not millions and you cherry pick one quote just to pick on him...your so cool...


----------



## deprave (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> The FDA isn't in the constitution! Get rid of it! Let the free market decide if companies are allowed to put asbestos in pancake mix! *If you support the FDA, you hate America.*


 Since I am shocked I agree with you on something I have bolded for you the part that I would agree with, except I would say American People not america. This is the only part of your statement that is reality and not irrational fear. The first sentance well that just doesn't make sense, 'the FDA has unconstitutional powers' would be the proper way to phrase it in my view.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

deprave said:


> I bolded for you the part that I would agree with, except I would say American People not america.


totally. It should be up to the free market if companies are allowed to poison us.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2011)

I really enjoyed the "Southern" part of his diatribe best, because once again it shows his ignorance. The Mississippi river starts up in Minnesota, there are no states further north than Minnesota, except Alaska. Obviously he believes that the Mississippi river system only exists in the southern states and anyone who lives next to that river must be from the south.



deprave said:


> oh so what he exaggerated incredibly as obviously this would cost like barely thousands not millions and you cherry pick one quote just to pick on him...your so cool...


----------



## deprave (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> totally. It should be up to the free market if companies are allowed to poison us.


 do you have schizophrenia? Why these irrational fears based on fantasy?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

deprave said:


> do you have shizophrenia? Why these irrational fears based on fantasy?


I'm just saying it should be up to the free market if the Chinese put anti-freeze in toothpaste. Where does the constitution give the FDA the authority to stop them?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 16, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I really enjoyed the "Southern" part of his diatribe best, because once again it shows his ignorance. The Mississippi river starts up in Minnesota, there are no states further north than Minnesota, except Alaska. Obviously he believes that the Mississippi river system only exists in the southern states and anyone who lives next to that river must be from the south.


No Modrama..I pay attention to people's post and actually go back from time to time to see what they said before...which let me know that person is from the South..How about you asking them...Damn dude you most like being wrong


----------



## deprave (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm just saying it should be up to the free market if the Chinese put anti-freeze in toothpaste. Where does the constitution give the FDA the authority to stop them?


 



Dude, Did you just put out your joint right b4 you typed that or what?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 16, 2011)

deprave said:


> View attachment 1651821
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Did you just put out your joint right b4 you typed that or what?


No Dan believes in FREEDOM


----------



## deprave (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No Dan believes in FREEDOM


and food poisoning apparently? and he thinks the constitution and the FDA are somehow related? pure fantasy driven by fear, grandiose delusions of paranoia, How many locks is on your front door dan? Do you keep it locked when your home? And you call yourself a progressive and despise conspiracy theorist, when in fact you are just like them and your ideas are far from progressive in the true sense, do you hate yourself dan or have you been a victim?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2011)

Obviously Dan isn't getting the idea of rights. Of course London doesn't get them, he doesn't get sesame street either, but I digress. You can't have rights unless other people have the same rights. one of these rights is life. Obviously putting a known poison into something is against human rights, therefore it is not acceptable. Dan thinks that freedom means you can do anything you want WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL. He has Anarchy confused with freedom. If you trample someone elses rights then you will be tried and if found guilty you will be punished. Freedom doesn't mean all laws go out the window and its a free for all.


----------



## Parker (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Which bill?


The "No low down payment left behind" Housing Bill
I think the hook was to increase minority home ownership.


----------



## Parker (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm just saying it should be up to the free market if the Chinese put anti-freeze in toothpaste. Where does the constitution give the FDA the authority to stop them?


What would happen to the company when they were successfully sued? In this day and age, with all the technology and information available, those people would be ruined quick.


----------



## Parker (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> deprave why is Ron running on the Repuke ticket ????


He has old school republican values. he supports the platform. The repukes have morphed into a controlling big government party, he hasn't.
Check out this video where that douchebag Cam Cameron tries to insult Ron Paul and it back fires. Listen to that uninformed fool, Ghouliani cackle.

[video=youtube;qCvE2_WrpI0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCvE2_WrpI0[/video]


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No Dan believes in FREEDOM


See, you get it. What's up with all these freedom hating communists?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

Parker said:


> What would happen to the company when they were successfully sued? In this day and age, with all the technology and information available, those people would be ruined quick.


I think the Chinese government shot their CEO in the head. For real, they don't fuck around over there.


----------



## Parker (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> That has to be one of the dumbest thing you have typed today...Name some federal organizations for disaster relief...??? I mean you just said it was plenty...FEMA under Bush was all wrong that does not mean that we should do away with it..Just make it better..really guy you need to stop..


The thing to do is leave the disaster money in the hands of the state. We have witnessed first hand the horrible job FEMA did. They have no idea what is best for the state that just got hit because they do not live there. Ron Paul tried to get the disaster money put in the hands of the local authorities when Texas got hit because he knew they would be much more efficient.

Judging by your posts I don't think you know how things work efficiently. Sounds like you've bought into "the benevolent hand of government will take care of you". They can't, they are not effective, they've proven this many times over.
America would be many times better off if the power was in the hands of local officials like we were created to be.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

deprave said:


> and food poisoning apparently?


We should just let the free market decide how much poison should be in food, that's all I'm saying. Once people start dying, people will stop buying the food and then problem solved. No need for the freedom hating regulators to tell me how much antifreeze belongs in my toothpaste. 



> and he thinks the constitution and the FDA are somehow related?


Of course they aren't, don't be silly. That's why we need to get rid of the FDA. The constitution doesn't mention the FDA. It is just imposed on us by people who hate the constitution and freedom. Let the market decide what makes us sick and healthy.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> We should just let the free market decide how much poison should be in food, that's all I'm saying. Once people start dying, people will stop buying the food and then problem solved. No need for the freedom hating regulators to tell me how much antifreeze belongs in my toothpaste.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they aren't, don't be silly. That's why we need to get rid of the FDA. The constitution doesn't mention the FDA. It is just imposed on us by people who hate the constitution and freedom. Let the market decide what makes us sick and healthy.


 
LOL! Good generalization and it would probably work imo. But a generalization nonetheless.


----------



## Parker (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I think the Chinese government shot their CEO in the head. For real, they don't fuck around over there.


lol they can be a bit extreme. 

Unfortunately I think that plays into the hands of the people who say "see we could be like them, you should be happy to live in America" crowd.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> See, you get it. What's up with all these freedom hating communists?


They don't understand true freedom...Phuck the FDA...I don't need them testing my fish for mercury...If I choose to eat my fish like that its my damn right... MY FREEDOM to eat what I want...


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> They don't understand true freedom...Phuck the FDA...I don't need them testing my fish for mercury...If I choose to eat my fish like that its my damn right... MY FREEDOM to eat what I want...


Don't even get me started on those freedom hating regulators who want to interfere with my right to dump mercury in the oceans and lakes. It's so much more cost effective to dump it into the nearest body of water than to properly dispose of it. Anyone who thinks I shouldn't be able to dump mercury where ever I wants just hates business and freedom.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Don't even get me started on those freedom hating regulators who want to interfere with my right to dump mercury in the oceans and lakes. It's so much more cost effective to dump it into the nearest body of water than to properly dispose of it. Anyone who thinks I shouldn't be able to dump mercury where ever I wants just hates business and freedom.


Once again, L....O.....L.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Don't even get me started on those freedom hating regulators who want to interfere with my right to dump mercury in the oceans and lakes. It's so much more cost effective to dump it into the nearest body of water than to properly dispose of it. Anyone who thinks I shouldn't be able to dump mercury where ever I wants just hates business and freedom.


Ok so phuck the EPA too.. we don't need them...True Freedom ...the party of "mind your own business"..If you don't like people being allowed to dump what ever they want into oceans, lakes, streams, and rivers..then you hate Freedom


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ok so phuck the EPA too.. we don't need them...True Freedom ...the party of "mind your own business"..If you don't like people being allowed to dump what ever they want into oceans, lakes, streams, and rivers..then you hate Freedom


As a Constitutionalist, if i see someone polluting my watershed, i stand opposed. And i would think others would too.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> As a Constitutionalist, if i see someone polluting my watershed, i stand opposed. And i would think others would too.


Why do you hate freedom so much? The constitution doesn't say anything about watershed.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Why do you hate freedom so much? The constitution doesn't say anything about watershed.


Too many rules of debate violated here to even quote them. Typical.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Why do you hate freedom so much? The constitution doesn't say anything about watershed.


Yes it does.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Why do you hate freedom so much? The constitution doesn't say anything about watershed.


i believe that if you live in my watershed and you are polluting it, the Constitution gives me the right to remedy that wrong. My FAITH gives you the benefit of the doubt and the respect of a rational conversation.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Yes it does.


ok. Well if you communists want to defend the FDA and EPA that's your choice but I prefer freedom.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i believe that if you live in my watershed and you are polluting it, the Constitution gives me the right to remedy that wrong.


No it doesn't. The constitution says nothing about the FDA or EPA.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> No it doesn't. The constitution says nothing about the FDA or EPA.


Yes it does.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 16, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Yes it does.


boom. jedi mind trick successful


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2011)

LIKE.

LIKE x2.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 16, 2011)

Rofl.......


----------



## sync0s (Jun 16, 2011)

When did this thread turn to communism and jedi mind tricks?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> No it doesn't. The constitution says nothing about the FDA or EPA.


Who said i need the FDA or EPA to remedy the problem? My land, my watershed, my community. Someone dumps shit in my river, *POOF*, gone......


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 16, 2011)

Juuuuuust saying.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 17, 2011)

Don't even try. You lost the game.

/thread


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

londonfog said:


> See when you post Bullshit likes this it makes people realize that your whole story is BULLSHIT...The cost total was no where near 200 million total, but just like a repuke you have to lie to try to prove a point..First they said it was 200 million per day now you say 200 million total...Do some research and you will realize that the trip was on par with what Clinton and Bush spent on trips abroad and none of those trips ever went over the 20 million mark..so again BULLSHIT to your whole story..
> Like you know everyones finances in your city by the river to say that they could buy insurance and if they had insurance or not, but seeing how you are related to all of them they would have told you...damn what a way to use incest to try prove a point...WTF..guess its a southern thing


Clinton spent around 45-50 million in 1998. This doesn't count secret service costs, and other costs. Before you say "He always has security", keep in mind that the security he would have in another country would be a lot beefier, and travel costs associated with secret service would be large and not included. With inflation that is almost 70 million, not counting security. Now factor in that 9/11 happened, and we have a lot more security in place. They built a tunnel for Obama. Tell me that didn't cost a few dollars? Any number under 100 million is going to fall short. 100-200 million is definitely the ballpark. I never said 200 million a day, I said 200 million is closer.

I may not know everyone's financing, but I do know what I see. A lot of them drinking beer and smoking every day. If you have money to drink and smoke every day then you have money to pay your insurance. Also, you are purposely picking a tiny part of the story out and ignoring the point. If you don't have money to live somewhere, don't live there. Also, why do you assume it was the south? You realize the Mississippi river starts way up north, right? I am not a southerner, and I wasn't raised in the south. However, everyone who read your comment saw what you did. You basically said everyone who is in the south is a stupid imbred. I bet you would get real upset if every time you said something that I disagreed with I commented "that is how (insert stereotype here) are". 

So basically, you didn't respond to anything but Obama's 200 million dollar trip comment, and you didn't even respond to what I said. You created a straw man argument and then proceeded to not even win it. Good job.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> totally. It should be up to the free market if companies are allowed to poison us.


I don't think people would generally buy pancake mix that said "Now with more real Asbestos Flavor!" and if they did... well.. I might send your family a card with my condolences.

There are still rules in the Constitution. Poisoning people is illegal. There does have to be some standards for food. However, when a federal organization goes and decides that you can't buy milk that isn't processed then there is a problem. There has to be some limit to the amount of power the federal government has. With the current government ideals on running the country it would be acceptable to outlaw apple trees to raise prices for apples under the commerce clause. I don't think anyone believes that is what the clause was for. There has to be clear cut rules and if you need to change the rules, then there needs to be an amendment. They aren't amending the Constitution, they are just ignoring it.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No Modrama..I pay attention to people's post and actually go back from time to time to see what they said before...which let me know that person is from the South..How about you asking them...Damn dude you most like being wrong


I was not born in the South, and I was not raised there. If our civil war discussion led you to assume I was a southerner by birth or rearing, well, you know what they say about assuming things.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> We should just let the free market decide how much poison should be in food, that's all I'm saying. Once people start dying, people will stop buying the food and then problem solved. No need for the freedom hating regulators to tell me how much antifreeze belongs in my toothpaste.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Note you are implying that a lack of FDA is a lack of oversight of the food supply. You also imply regularly that lack of a federal agency involving a matter would mean no one is checking on it. This is incorrect. You realize there are 50 state governments, right?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Yes it does.


They Constitution addresses every single thing quite plainly and simply. 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (The Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a specific power isn't granted to the feds by the Constitution, then they don't have that power. Thus, it addresses everything. In this case, it says the Fed Gov doesn't have the power to create oversight of things that they aren't granted dominion over.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

The intention of the Constitution was to restrain the Federal government so it didn't become what it is today. There are 3 parts to our Fed Gov. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. They made 3 branches that cancel each other out to protect freedoms from the federal gov. 

The Federal Government is one of 3 parts of our country. Federal Government, State/local Government, and the People. Our country has checks and balances. Our federal government is currently taking powers away from the States and the People. It never gives any back. When will the federal government stop? When the state governments are gone altogether except as an extension of the federal government, and the constitution no longer has any power. Need I repeat again that the federal government outlawed unprocessed milk? They outlaw plants based on morality and no other reason. They make you get a permit to change your window or door in your house. I mean, seriously, how could anyone support what is happening when they KNOW that it is only going to get worse if they don't stand up to it?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No Modrama..I pay attention to people's post and actually go back from time to time to see what they said before...which let me know that person is from the South..How about you asking them...Damn dude you most like being wrong


 ROFL, who was wrong?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

londonfog said:


> They don't understand true freedom...Phuck the FDA...I don't need them testing my fish for mercury...If I choose to eat my fish like that its my damn right... MY FREEDOM to eat what I want...


If you catch a fish in the USA, it has Mercury in it, they all do. Even the fish in isolated rural areas. BTW its the US Department of the Interior that tests fish for Mercury, the FDA only sets the Maximum exposure limit.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I was not born in the South, and I was not raised there. If our civil war discussion led you to assume I was a southerner by birth or rearing, well, you know what they say about assuming things.


hmmmmmm



Carthoris said:


> I know what it is, I have actually stood on the grounds where this occurred. I lived within miles of it. The people who did that violated the law, and should of been punished. Please, explain how civil rights would of prevented this already illegal and horrible act?


but is it true that you lived in the south...or is this a lie ^^^^^^


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Clinton spent around 45-50 million in 1998. This doesn't count secret service costs, and other costs. Before you say "He always has security", keep in mind that the security he would have in another country would be a lot beefier, and travel costs associated with secret service would be large and not included. With inflation that is almost 70 million, not counting security. Now factor in that 9/11 happened, and we have a lot more security in place. They built a tunnel for Obama. Tell me that didn't cost a few dollars? Any number under 100 million is going to fall short. 100-200 million is definitely the ballpark. I never said 200 million a day, I said 200 million is closer.
> 
> I may not know everyone's financing, but I do know what I see. A lot of them drinking beer and smoking every day. If you have money to drink and smoke every day then you have money to pay your insurance. Also, you are purposely picking a tiny part of the story out and ignoring the point. If you don't have money to live somewhere, don't live there. Also, why do you assume it was the south? You realize the Mississippi river starts way up north, right? I am not a southerner, and I wasn't raised in the south. However, everyone who read your comment saw what you did. You basically said everyone who is in the south is a stupid imbred. I bet you would get real upset if every time you said something that I disagreed with I commented "that is how (insert stereotype here) are".
> 
> So basically, you didn't respond to anything but Obama's 200 million dollar trip comment, and you didn't even respond to what I said. You created a straw man argument and then proceeded to not even win it. Good job.


First off I stated it "must be a southern thing" and you have lived in the south....also I said that the 200 million was incorrect..


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> ROFL, who was wrong?


actually you are wrong...it has lived in the South...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> If you catch a fish in the USA, it has Mercury in it, they all do. Even the fish in isolated rural areas. BTW its the US Department of the Interior that tests fish for Mercury, the FDA only sets the Maximum exposure limit.


I think you missed the joke (damn that Jedi mind trick is powerful )..


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

i have lived in the south. huge difference. living in the south is not being from the south or raised there.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 17, 2011)

Lol!^^^^^^^

*EDIT: LOLing @ londonfog. Got beat to the post


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> i have lived in the south. huge difference. living in the south is not being from the south or raised there.


yeah ok...lol...like I said you have lived in the south and "It must be a southern thing"


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

londonfog said:


> actually you are wrong...it has lived in the South...


 No, sorry, living in the south for a short period doesn't make you a southerner, i lived in Memphis for over a year and no one would ever try to tell me that I was a southerner. So once again you are wrong, how many times is that today? Too numerous for you to count i'm sure as you have made more than three posts today.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I think you missed the joke (damn that Jedi mind trick is powerful )..


LOL nice try, yes it was a joke, you knew all along that the FDA doesn't test fish for Mercury didn't you? Indeed.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

so, ron paul and a turtle walk into a bar.





















ron paul slips a rohypnol into the turtle's drink, takes him back to his place, and rapes the turtle in the ass....repeatedly.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

Ron Paul likes turtles


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> LOL nice try, yes it was a joke, you knew all along that the FDA doesn't test fish for Mercury didn't you? Indeed.


Dan please hurry and snap him out of it....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

ron paul, bringing up the rear with a whopping 7% or so. 

surely he will win!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

The nod is Mitt's to lose....I don't see Ron Paul doing anything to take over..but hey lets see what the August 11 debate sponsored by FOX bring.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

You can't be bringing up the rear when you are EXACTLY in the middle UB. Lets try to keep this honest shall we?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 17, 2011)

if you ain't first you're last
[youtube]vlYbpDylmUs[/youtube]


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

Tools get used.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

disregard females.

acquire currency.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

londonfog said:


> yeah ok...lol...like I said you have lived in the south and "It must be a southern thing"


same difference, right? Obama is a southerner because he went to Miami once. Oh Wait, he lives in the South! OH NOESSSSSSS. Obama is a dirty southerner whose parents were related and he is retard. OMG. The entire country is run by southerners since they all live in Washington, DC. Its the end of the world. How could you all vote for a president that had related parents? Stupid Northerners.

Your bigotry shows, London. You might as well be saying "Fuck whitey".


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 17, 2011)

Wow, this is a strange and slightly retarded world you have created, London.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

gotta wear protection.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> View attachment 1653217
> 
> gotta wear protection.


LOL thats about as Photoshopped as president Obama's "Real" Certificate of Live birth.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> LOL thats about as Photoshopped as president Obama's "Real" Certificate of Live birth.


yes, we get it. obama is not an american. he released two fake birth certificates and the people in charge of reviewing them are in cahoots in some sort of crazy conspiracy.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2011)

Hey UB, Obama was a Graduate of Columbia University right? Went there for two years right? How come all the people who took the same classes, attended the same curriculum don't remember EVER seeing or hearing that name or the person in all that time, not a single instance. Was Barack a shut -in during those years? seems weird doesn't it?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Hey UB, Obama was a Graduate of Columbia University right? Went there for two years right? How come all the people who took the same classes, attended the same curriculum don't remember EVER seeing or hearing that name or the person in all that time, not a single instance. Was Barack a shut -in during those years? seems weird doesn't it?


what's even weirder is how a black guy got into such fancy schools. just reeks of affirmative action.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 17, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> what's even weirder is how a black guy got into such fancy schools. just reeks of affirmative action.


And you reek of ignorance and prejudice. Seriously, you think black people can't get into prestigious schools without affirmative action? Wow...


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 17, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Hey UB, Obama was a Graduate of Columbia University right? Went there for two years right? How come all the people who took the same classes, attended the same curriculum don't remember EVER seeing or hearing that name or the person in all that time, not a single instance. Was Barack a shut -in during those years? seems weird doesn't it?


He went by the name Barry in school.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

sync0s said:


> And you reek of ignorance and prejudice. Seriously, you think black people can't get into prestigious schools without affirmative action? Wow...


man, us white males have it rough nowadays. we can't even question how a black guy got into a nice school or demand that they cross to the other side of the sidewalk without being labeled racist.

the other day, i told this black guy to move to the back of the bus as i get motion sickness and he threatened all this violence. so much black on white racism nowadays. it sickens me.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 17, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> man, us white males have it rough nowadays. we can't even question how a black guy got into a nice school or demand that they cross to the other side of the sidewalk without being labeled racist.
> 
> the other day, i told this black guy to move to the back of the bus as i get motion sickness and he threatened all this violence. so much black on white racism nowadays. it sickens me.


I'm white. Your argument has no validity. The bottom line is your exact words said that a black man getting into a fancy school had to be because of affirmative action. How do you not see the racism in this comment?

Hide behind your blacks hate whites racism defense all you want, it does not mean your statement was not racist to begin with. So just admit you were wrong.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I'm white. Your argument has no validity. The bottom line is your exact words said that a black man getting into a fancy school had to be because of affirmative action. How do you not see the racism in this comment?
> 
> Hide behind your blacks hate whites racism defense all you want, it does not mean your statement was not racist to begin with. So just admit you were wrong.


trolololololololol

i was trolling, bro.

the implication behind what modrama and donald trump keep blabbing about is exactly what you are condemning.

you have just lost the game. glad to see you have your head on straight, and hopefully no hard feelings.


----------



## deprave (Jun 17, 2011)

New video today
[video=youtube;HNx9KE-1RDk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNx9KE-1RDk[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 18, 2011)

Hey guys we are launching new site today - http://www.freedomftw.net - Please take a chance to drop by and check it out and register, this blog will be mirrored over there without the freedom haters discussions drowning it out


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 18, 2011)

deprave said:


> Hey guys we are launching new site today - http://www.freedomftw.net - Please take a chance to drop by and check it out and register, this blog will be mirrored over there without the freedom haters discussions drowning it out


AWESOME!!!!! i'm IN!

Dr. Ron Paul, a true patriot and defender of our Constitutional rights, for President in 2012!!!!!!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 18, 2011)

deprave said:


> Hey guys we are launching new site today - http://www.freedomftw.net - Please take a chance to drop by and check it out and register, this blog will be mirrored over there without the freedom haters discussions drowning it out


i believe this is what is called "recruiting" and is grounds for an instant ban, according to the mod.

all it would take is for one person to report it.

should i press that little button and get the ron paul worshiper booted? oh, decisions. 

should you stay or should you go now?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jun 18, 2011)

actually it's more like spam. recruiting typically only applies to hater grow sites.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jun 18, 2011)

deprave said:


> Hey guys we are launching new site today - http://www.freedomftw.net - Please take a chance to drop by and check it out and register, this blog will be mirrored over there without the freedom haters discussions drowning it out


clean your spam up please. that includes your sig. thank you.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 18, 2011)

Didn't I already win this thread?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 18, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Didn't I already win this thread?


they lost the game before it started.

ron paul still hovering at about 7%. what a bunch of awesome.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 18, 2011)

Ahh, freedom for the win. For a minute I thought it was called freedom fuck the world. haha

How do you win a thread?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 18, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Ahh, freedom for the win. For a minute I thought it was called freedom fuck the world. haha
> 
> How do you win a thread?


by pointing out that you cannot be against ron paul without hating freedom and that we must open our eyes and wake up.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 18, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> by pointing out that you cannot be against ron paul without hating freedom and that we must open our eyes and wake up.


The words of one do not always reflect the words of many. To think otherwise only proves that you do need to open your eyes, and I'm not talking politically.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 18, 2011)

sync0s said:


> How do you win a thread?


By getting the opposition to argue against their own position, in favor of yours.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 18, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> By getting the opposition to argue against their own position, in favor of yours.


That would be true. I haven't even been paying attention to this thread since page 2. However, reading through the last 15 pages or so I see that you haven't really had opposition turn to your side, just you, UB, and londonfrog circle jerking (a phrase I see commonly on this forum, so I decided to use it once as well) each other and the opposition failing to defend themselves with logical arguments.

Your comments about the poisoning of food and water, the constitution does protect that. The job of the US government under the constitution is to protect Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am almost positive that poisoning defective products could almost assuredly fall under harming the life of american citizens, thus making the US job to protect that "god given" right. If people who are free market advocates argue that FDA and EPA should be repealed it can only logically be done under a context of another means of protection. You can be for these agencies and still be for limited government and free markets. Although, I would argue that the corruption in these agencies has only led to regulations that have made things worse in our world; case and point, the now common use of trans fats in cooking.


----------



## deprave (Jun 18, 2011)

Ron Paul Wins 2011 Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll


[video=youtube;LPZf2r4GFhw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPZf2r4GFhw&feature=player_embedded[/video]


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75H1YX20110618

Representative Ron Paul easily won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll of the party's 2012 presidential contenders on Saturday, with former U.S. envoy to China Jon Huntsman finishing second.



and Gary Johnson stole 10 votes! lol



Ron Paul won CPAC two years in a row...so the media tells us CPAC doesn't "really matter" anymore. Now Ron has won the RLC, and I'm sure the media will tell us that it doesn't matter either. But that's okay...the neocons stole&#65279; our party, and we've come to take it back.


----------



## deprave (Jun 18, 2011)

*Seems my prediction was right
*

*Ron Paul Wins! "The BIG Story Though Is Jon Huntsman!" -CNN*

[video=youtube;6sXKGmAVhbw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sXKGmAVhbw[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 18, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul Wins 2011 Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll


yet he is still a loser in real life


----------



## deprave (Jun 18, 2011)

Ron Paul talks about the "Ron Paul Revolution"

[video=youtube;Y6G4DP8CRvE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6G4DP8CRvE[/video]


----------



## Parker (Jun 18, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Don't even get me started on those freedom hating regulators who want to interfere with my right to dump mercury in the oceans and lakes. It's so much more cost effective to dump it into the nearest body of water than to properly dispose of it. Anyone who thinks I shouldn't be able to dump mercury where ever I wants just hates business and freedom.


property rights laws take care of that issue. You do not have the right to pollute anothers property.


----------



## Parker (Jun 18, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> man, us white males have it rough nowadays. we can't even question how a black guy got into a nice school or demand that they cross to the other side of the sidewalk without being labeled racist.
> 
> the other day, i told this black guy to move to the back of the bus as i get motion sickness and he threatened all this violence. so much black on white racism nowadays. it sickens me.


it wasn't because you are white it's because you are a douchebag.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 18, 2011)

Parker said:


> it wasn't because you are white it's because you are a douchebag.


love ya too, gramps!


----------



## Parker (Jun 18, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yet he is still a loser in real life


you're not high enough on the list to matter


----------



## Parker (Jun 18, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> love ya too, gramps!


man love back at you douche


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 18, 2011)

Wowzers...Get some good stuff and smoke it!....We get no where calling one another names. Its a politics forum. Dont be like (con)gress! Be more apt for (pro)gress and make headway. 

Quit the stick n stones


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 18, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yet he is still a loser in real life


 stooping kind of low now Bucky, what exactly, in your opinion, do you consider a "Loser"?
I don't actually expect an answer to this. Kinda hard to call him a loser, I mean what bad things can you say about the most honest person in the US Government. hard to fauylt the guy really. I mean a person REALLY has to go out of their way to find fault with Ron Paul. no sex scandals to speak of, no behind the building back alley dealings with major criminal elements. No funky financial shit,walks the talk, consistent over a LONG period. I mean the only things anyone can come up with are Very minor issues, and most of them ill construed and ignorantly following the MSM slant on things. 

Pretty obvious the MSM is marginalizing and minimizing his efforts and accolades.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 18, 2011)

Parker said:


> you're not high enough on the list to matter


i gave up all my political ambitions after ingesting magic mushrooms 



NoDrama said:


> stooping kind of low now Bucky, what exactly, in your opinion, do you consider a "Loser"?
> I don't actually expect an answer to this. Kinda hard to call him a loser, I mean what bad things can you say about the most honest person in the US Government. hard to fauylt the guy really. I mean a person REALLY has to go out of their way to find fault with Ron Paul. no sex scandals to speak of, no behind the building back alley dealings with major criminal elements. No funky financial shit,walks the talk, consistent over a LONG period. I mean the only things anyone can come up with are Very minor issues, and most of them ill construed and ignorantly following the MSM slant on things.
> 
> Pretty obvious the MSM is marginalizing and minimizing his efforts and accolades.


i call him a loser because he will lose. pretty straightforward.

i've never had any sex scandals or shady back alley dealings, but i would call myself a loser just the same if i failed at that which i set my mind to.

so far, i am winning. not quite bi-winning, but the greenhouse should set me on the path to bi-winning this year.

the future is a completely different story, as i have no idea where i will be in another 15 months and won't know for some time now.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

IFox news - Positive review of ron pauls latest victory in the straw polls ...suck on this doubters and haters lol 

[video=youtube;V3SOnBjtTAE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3SOnBjtTAE&feature=feedu[/video]


I pray that Ron Paul can win and bring some peace and progress to humanity, and restore power back to the republic, but even if he doesn't win this he will still be forever remembered a great american hero. One love - humanity. 

I believe that Ron Paul winning would be a much better testament to our democracy then Obama's win in 2008.

There is flaws in Ron Paul campaign, flaws that could crush him.....his philosophical approach to problem solving does not sit well with many for this he is seen as a radical, his pro-life stance is something that some will not support, and his name recognition is honestly not that great, I introduce people to Ron Paul everyday, there is so many people military include that have no idea who Ron Paul is, so the objective is to spread the word for the sake of humanity.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 19, 2011)

Straw polls are only a reflection of what the general public, different from the voting public wants imo. The key to winning is to get those Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians(too easy), independents, etc to give him the nod for the run. Once he has the nomination for president, the Dems have nobody that can outshine him. The only reason he's not running our country right now is that the media and politicians have muddied the waters for so long that people think there isn't a HUGE gold nugget in those nasty waters.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 19, 2011)

RP's FB page posted this: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/ today and i highly encourage all to read the pamphlets and challenge my belief that he is our best hope for the future of our great nation.

This is not spam or recruiting. It is simply reporting. Journalism in it's rawest form.

*EDIT: i just happen to like the story being reported


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 19, 2011)

"Don't give up. Don't retreat because of the cynicism. Even if you don't win, life is about fighting for something greater than yourself." Dr. Ron Paul for President in 2012!!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Once he has the nomination for president, the Dems have nobody that can outshine him.


Ummm. They have Barack Obama. He's a pretty shiny in a campaign. 



> The only reason he's not running our country right now is that the media and politicians have muddied the waters for so long that people think there isn't a HUGE gold nugget in those nasty waters.


Also because he's a total crackpot blowhard who would get destroyed by Obama in a general election.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ummm. They have Barack Obama. He's a pretty shiny in a campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> Also because he's a total crackpot blowhard who would get destroyed by Obama in a general election.


 For somone who would get destroyed, he sure is a good debater, especially now that all the other candidates are following suit, Ron Pauls suit that is!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 19, 2011)

ron paul is a horrible debater.

even when he made a good point about heroin legalization during the SC debate, he looked nuttier than a squirrel turd.

i will not post the video, as i assume all the worshipers have already dedicated it to memory.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul is a horrible debater.
> 
> even when he made a good point about heroin legalization during the SC debate, he looked nuttier than a squirrel turd.
> 
> i will not post the video, as i assume all the worshipers have already dedicated it to memory.


Some of the up most geniuses in the world throughout history were crazy and off their rocker, so i don't see your point...


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> For somone who would get destroyed, he sure is a good debater, especially now that all the other candidates are following suit, Ron Pauls suit that is!


Ron Paul isn't a great debater. He's great at giving interviews, but debating isn't the same animal. Bachmann, Cain, and to a lesser extent Romney are great debaters. All of them btw, will get killed in a debate against Obama. Obama is one of the great orators maybe of all time. Republicans should not be banking on beating him in a debate as the key to victory.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

I have to agree in one sense Ron paul is not really that great at debates, key reason being is timelimits because he has so much to say and he takes forever to get to "the point" sometimes due to his philosophical systematic common sense approach to problem solving, Ron Paul is however, great at giving speeches, I would have to disagree with Dan when he says Ron Paul is good at interviews also, hes not very good at that either because timelimits again.....also the main reason being no teleprompter or team of lawyers and writers preparing for him what to say.


I imagine Obama would pull some kind of bill'o'reily if his teleprompter ever shut down. 


[video=youtube;2tJjNVVwRCY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY[/video]



Obama jabs at reporter for giving follow up questions (at the end of video):
[video=youtube;Pqggl76kCpM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqggl76kCpM[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ron Paul isn't a great debater. He's great at giving interviews, but debating isn't the same animal. Bachmann, Cain, and to a lesser extent Romney are great debaters. All of them btw, will get killed in a debate against Obama. Obama is one of the great orators maybe of all time. Republicans should not be banking on beating him in a debate as the key to victory.


 I think you are confusing debating with enunciating and power behind the voice!
I can talk like barry sotaro its not that hard, its only acting. Go on try it right now for yourself! you'll sound just like him, i guarantee it!
It fooled people last time, but this time people will see right through his coaching, and rehersals of his speeches.
Its all deception, and people are catching on to it!
Maybe not you though, it seems like you bite right into it! lol
Ron Paul is genuine, and not rehearsed power voicing, which do you think will prevail?
It would be kinda sad to see good ol' genuine ron paul rip Barry a new one, standing their with a dumbfounded look on his face not knowing what to say or try to counter THE TRUTH!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> I have to agree in one sense Ron paul is not really that great at debates, key reason being is timelimits because he has so much to say and he takes forever to get to "the point" sometimes due to his philosophical systematic common sense approach to problem solving, Ron Paul is however, great at giving speeches, I would have to disagree with Dan when he says Ron Paul is good at interviews also, hes not very good at that either because timelimits again.....also the main reason being no teleprompter or team of lawyers and writers preparing for him what to say.


Exactly the opposite. The time limits are the only thing that save him. Ron Paul's logic only holds up if you don't think about it too hard.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I think you are confusing debating with enunciating and power behind the voice!
> I can talk like barry sotaro its not that hard, its only acting. Go on try it right now for your self! you'll sound just like him a guarantee it!
> It fooled people last time, but this time people will see right through his coaching and rehersals of his speeches.
> Its all deception and people are catching on to it!
> ...


I know Ron Paul is your massiah and all, but you're not being objective if you think just anyone can speak publicly like Obama and Ron Paul is a great debater.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I know Ron Paul is your massiah and all, but you're not being objective if you think just anyone can speak publicly like Obama and Ron Paul is a great debater.


 Your easily fooled thats all.Also if you cant mimic Barry to a T. then i dont know what to tell you.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Your easily fooled thats all.Also if you cant mimic Barry to a T. then i dont know what to tell you.


When the general election comes and Obama destroys his competition I will bump this thread and you will eat your words.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

Spitting deception keenly! is, to some, great debating, versus genuine, truth, and fact spitting!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 19, 2011)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00000286

Bye Mr. Romney.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Your easily fooled...


*you're

also, they are putting fluoride in our water to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so we become nazi germany.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> *you're
> 
> also, they are putting fluoride in our water to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so we become nazi germany.


Ah, the pointing out the typos returns.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Ah, the pointing out the typos returns.


that is not a typo. that is not knowing when to use an apostrophe.

also, you forgot to mention that i pointed out your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

edit: it is more than just lack of apostrophe, you also missed the "e" at the end. it is really pointing out that you do not know the difference between "you're" and "your". third-grader stuff.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that is not a typo. that is not knowing when to use an apostrophe.
> 
> also, you forgot to mention that i pointed out your ridiculous conspiracy theory.
> 
> edit: it is more than just lack of apostrophe, you also missed the "e" at the end. it is really pointing out that you do not know the difference between "you're" and "your". third-grader stuff.


Not pressing "E" hard enough is a typo buddy.
Also i dont use apostrophes unless its going to be official.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

Reading this thread and it's comments makes me even more convinced Americans are a bunch of idiots who could not see the hills for the trees. 

Uncle buck you sound just like my father.....too old for new tricks, I see they got you good simpleton....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Not pressing "E" hard enough is a typo buddy.
> Also i dont use apostrophes unless its going to be official.


you missed an apostrophe and an 'e'.

you do it consistently.

quit trying to piss on my back and tell me it's pissing out.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 19, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I know Ron Paul is your massiah and all, but you're not being objective if you think just anyone can speak publicly like Obama and Ron Paul is a great debater.


Well, i admire Dr. Paul's debate skills. Not because he does the typical politician thing but because he doesn't. He's an amazing speaker imo. Again, not because he knows how to read teleprompters and answer screened questions but because he has the intelligence to respond in real time even if he does stutter or stammer a little and because he has the balls to speak his true agenda. Liberty for ALL!!!!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Reading this thread and it's comments makes me even more convinced Americans are a bunch of idiots who could not see the hills for the trees.
> 
> Uncle buck you sound just like my father.....too old for new tricks, I see they got you good simpleton....


*they are putting fluoride in our water to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so we become nazi germany. *


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you missed an apostrophe and an 'e'.
> 
> you do it consistently.
> 
> quit trying to piss on my back and tell me it's pissing out.


 ? ok, i repeatedly miss my "e" because of my positioning of my key board. What do you know?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 19, 2011)

unclebuck said:


> *they are putting fluoride in our water to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so we become nazi germany. *


 *fact my friend, fact!*


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Reading this thread and it's comments makes me even more convinced Americans are a bunch of idiots who could not see the hills for the trees.
> 
> Uncle buck you sound just like my father.....too old for new tricks, I see they got you good simpleton....


 
You are a foreigner yes? i've heard this time and time again from those that are not in the middle of our mess. Hint hint guys.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> *they are putting fluoride in our water to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so we become nazi germany. *


Tell us something we don't know......like the government IS the authority on everything and we should always believe them...


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You are a foreigner yes? i've heard this time and time again from those that are not in the middle of our mess. Hint hint guys.


To me you are the foreigner......Americans have a sense of arrogance that needs to be broken before you can help yourselves....I don't mean this personally but perhaps it's time you guys heard this.....

Most people love America and what it originally stood for but your country has been corrupted for a 100 years now by the elite and the financiers, take it back or we will all suffer..!!


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

We as the people are all foreign from the "centrist"(more like authoritarian centrist) agenda - They do not represent us.

Here I made this chart up to show you, on one end of this red line is Hillary Clinton, on ther other end lets say its Mitt Romney.



No matter where Ron Paul is scored, Fact remains he will always be up top with the people above the blue line while the other politicians are down there all by their lonesome with wall-street. shit Id back just about anyone above that blue line but Ron Paul is the only choice in this election.* Every great revolutionary hero is above that blue line.*


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> We as the people are all foreign from the "centrist"(more like authoritarian centrist) agenda - They do not represent us.


I think you speak for yourself unfortunately, 270 million population and how many are aware of what has really happened, Americans are too blinkered into their comfortable lives to see anything.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 19, 2011)

the truth about ron paul has come out in this thread.

those that support him seem to live in la-la land, making up graphs where they say the rest of the people fall.

despite all evidence to the contrary.

the truth about ron paul: his supporters come from a land that is far divorced from reality.

a land where the government puts fluoride in our water to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so we becme nazi germany, a land where under the patient protection and affordable care act we will be held against our will until we accept vaccines or pills.

you can't make this shit up.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Reading this thread and it's comments makes me even more convinced Americans are a bunch of idiots who could not see the hills for the trees.
> 
> Uncle buck you sound just like my father.....too old for new tricks, I see they got you good simpleton....


Must be exhausting to be better than everyone.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the truth about ron paul has come out in this thread.
> 
> those that support him seem to live in la-la land, making up graphs where they say the rest of the people fall.
> 
> ...


Why do people with these thoughts flock to Ron Paul? because they are the ones who believe that the government is not doing some things in the best interest of the people and they would be correct in that thought process, a way of thinking which is foreign to you, no matter how hysterical their views on certain topics, because of their concern for liberty they flock to Ron paul, If anything what this shows is that Ron Paul is a representative of the people, of all peoples concerns, a humanitarian cause, so humanitarian that all get behind him on any issue they are passionate about no matter how hysterical you might deem it the will of all people is the issue at hand.

and this graph is highly accredited, I did not make it up...


View attachment 1656407


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the truth about ron paul has come out in this thread.
> 
> those that support him seem to live in la-la land, making up graphs where they say the rest of the people fall.
> 
> ...



Your Government needs people like you....................................to help pull the wool over your eyes...


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> Why do people with these thoughts flock to Ron Paul? because they are the ones who believe that the government is not doing some things in the best interest of the people and they would be correct in that thought process, a way of thinking which is foreign to you, no matter how hysterical their views on certain topics, because of their concern for liberty they flock to Ron paul, If anything what this shows is that Ron Paul is a representative of the people, of all peoples concerns, a humanitarian cause, so humanitarian that all get behind him on any issue they are passionate about no matter how hysterical you might deem it the will of all people is the issue at hand.


http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/

Some people do this without even knowing they are doing it....I blame education and era in Buck's case..


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

Yea i think Buck has fit under all 25 of those at one point or another here, the first couple are the tactics he uses the most, he really like to cherry pick a quote and just discuss that with zombie like one liners instead of discussing the issue in its entirety... EXAMPLE: if you say obamacare and mandatory in the same sentence he will totally flip out and disregard everything else you said.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

I would like to ask this of all Americans....are you really going to vote for Barry again????? secondly...what makes any of you think that the puppet masters will ever allow a non compliant President to run your country before you have ousted them first?????????????


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

Good questions, I want to say that I feel like they have it all under wraps and that there is no way someone like Ron Paul could become president, to be optimistic I'd like to see them proven wrong and perhaps there is the chance that they can be taken by surprise but realistically I have my doubts, we will just have to see what happens. I think there is a chance humaninity can score a win with Ron Paul but realistically I have my doubts.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

If Ron Paul wins it will be a testament to our democracy much more so than a black man winning.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

Thomas woods in this speech illustrates the flaws of the Uncle Buck, Dan Kone, and London Frog Argument the best..
[video=youtube;qp5hMiTS2dg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5hMiTS2dg&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

If an icon like JFK can be murdered in cold blood on television and the guilty get away with it then you can bank on the fact that Ron Paul will see a coffin before he sees the oval office. 

No offense to the Ron Paul supporters but he will not, can not and shall not save you all from the elite, only you the population can save yourselves, your country and the rest of the world from these fuckers because frankly your problems are my problems in the UK and in the rest of the world. Every country in the world is in the pockets of debt to the world financier elite bar what is it....6 or 7 countries now??....

I took life in Angola to save my own and by god I will do it again if needed..


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> If an icon like JFK can be murdered in cold blood on television and the guilty get away with it then you can bank on the fact that Ron Paul will see a coffin before he sees the oval office.
> 
> No offense to the Ron Paul supporters but he will not, can not and shall not save you all from the elite, only you the population can save yourselves, your country and the rest of the world from these fuckers because frankly your problems are my problems in the UK and in the rest of the world. Every country in the world is in the pockets of debt to the world financier elite bar what is it....6 or 7 countries now??....
> 
> I took life in Angola to save my own and by god I will do it again if needed..


Leaders are, if nothing else, the embodiment of our beliefs. Ron Paul embodies the belief of many Americans. Whether he wins or not doesn't change anything. The very fact that he has not compromised his beliefs in the decades he has been a part of our government makes him something very rare and special.

Win or Lose. Ron Paul is helping to strengthen Constitutionalism and Libertarianism in this country and the world. The movement will continue to grow.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

> *If an icon like JFK can be murdered in cold blood on television and the guilty get away with it then you can bank on the fact that Ron Paul will see a coffin before he sees the oval office.
> 
> No offense to the Ron Paul supporters but he will not, can not and shall not save you all from the elite, only you the population can save yourselves, your country and the rest of the world from these fuckers because frankly your problems are my problems in the UK and in the rest of the world. Every country in the world is in the pockets of debt to the world financier elite bar what is it....6 or 7 countries now??....
> 
> I took life in Angola to save my own and by god I will do it again if needed.. *


your right about in one sense, but Ron Pauls liberty movement has gained much steam over the past 20 years or so and this is essentially what you are saying in that the people will need to take it back, this IS the people trying to take it back....If we succeed or not with this method well that is up for debate and the house is not in our favor but we shall see can the republic rise up once again and will this be a landmark step for it doing so. Ultimately, I feel it is inevitable that we take it back, but when and how that is still unknown, it could be now or it could be in another 50 years. Liberty is becoming more and more popular.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

I do know this, it will be much different from JFK, a simple assassination will not be the end game for the liberty movement, Ron Paul would surround himself with people from the liberty movement, including HIS VP, so no I don't believe it would go down like that...Ron Pauls philosophy is becoming main stream....the only thing that can stop this train is smear campaigns, propaganda, money, ignorance, fear, and/or a rigging of the vote. (not a bullet)

Even with a failure of Ron Paul to win the presidency, the human spirit carries on, libertarian principles grow more popular, and we will one day rise and overcome, it is inevitable. As the line between the politicians and the people grows more distant the day for american restoration comes further into our grasp.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> and this graph is highly accredited, I did not make it up...
> 
> 
> View attachment 1656407


The graph appears to be a random guy who has access to MS paint. Accredited by whom?

Ron Paul would be waaaaay to the right on that. That graph makes him appear to be a centrist libertarian. He's not. He's far right. The only thing correct about it would be where he is on the vertical axis.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

maybe if you believe in the conpiracy theory that ron paul wants wal-mart to take over then sure, but ron paul is often placed at the pinacle of this graph, the only way he should move to the right is on abortion and that is the only reason I moved him there for the abortion freaks.There is lots of issues that pushes Ron Paul to the left....

You seem to believe that the political spectrum only embodies left and right.


Regardless of all that, point still stands is he is above that blue line with the people, while other politicians are down on the bottom with wall-street and the corporations.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

Who cares about a graph....how does that help you???


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> I would like to ask this of all Americans....are you really going to vote for Barry again????? secondly...what makes any of you think that the puppet masters will ever allow a non compliant President to run your country before you have ousted them first?????????????


What makes you think you think Ron Paul would be any better than Obama at implementing the promises he's making? 

There is absolutely no political will for Ron Paul to get the things done he describes. That's the same problem Obama has. Obama has good ideas that get curbed by the inertia of the American political machine. 

The stimulus in it's pure form would most likely be very effective. But once congress turned it into a give away to the ultra wealthy and special interests, it reduced it's effectiveness. The health care plan in it's original form would have not only insured everyone but also reduced health care costs across the board. But then once congress got done pissing on it, it turned into a gift to the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. 

Despite intentions, no matter what Obama does, both democrats and republicans in congress piss all over it. You're not really thinking things through if you thinking things would be any better for Ron Paul. All Ron Paul's spectacular plans for a free market would end up being a huge give away to multinational corporations once congress had their way with it. Then Ron Paul would get the blame becoming known as the politician in the pocket of big business. 

If you think Ron Paul knows some magic trick that will bend the American political machine to his will, you're incredibly ignorant.

That isn't just the case for Ron Paul or Obama. That applies to anyone who becomes president.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

> *Who cares about a graph....how does that help you??? *




it helps explain the left/right para-dime, the separation between the people and politicians, and centrist to these zombies.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> What makes you think you think Ron Paul would be any better than Obama at implementing the promises he's making?
> 
> There is absolutely no political will for Ron Paul to get the things done he describes. That's the same problem Obama has. Obama has good ideas that get curbed by the inertia of the American political machine.
> 
> ...


I have no idea how you conclude I approve of Ron Paul, I couldn't care less because I know he will never be president. I also find it laughable that you think Obama has any heart for your country, his actions show his hand, he is bullied by people far more powerful than him into doing their dirty work. If he had the morality you think he has then he would not be in the middle east now.

Time will tell.......


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> [/B][/B]
> 
> it helps explain the left/right para-dime, the separation between the people and politicians, and centrist to these zombies.


To me it seems that people get sucked into repeating a political dance that has never helped anyone but the rich and powerful, knowing there is no real left or right..... again I then ask what does your graph help? Get my point now?


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

nope, not really, I think this graph just illustrates that point, the red line is a very small red line, inside of it is the politicians....to say blatantly that there is no real left and right its not the correct way to put it, there is a real left and right but the politicians arent really a part of it, they sit in agreement inside a very small gap along side the bankers.

left and right is not Do you like coke or pesi? pro-choice or pro-life? its not that simple yet these are the only differences the politicians have here at center.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> nope, not really, I think this graph just illustrates that point, the red line is a very small red line, inside of it is the politicians....to say blatantly that there is no real left and right its not the correct way to put it, there is a real left and right but the politicians arent really a part of it, they sit in agreement inside a very small gap along side the bankers.


So how does it help you the public to maintain this left right political positioning when it does not even apply to the politicians, it's like a big contradiction.

I suppose what I am saying is get rid of all the parties involved and create a new system that benefits the people not the politicians, they want you to continue with your left right politics because that gives them life...get it now??


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> I have no idea how you conclude I approve of Ron Paul, I couldn't care less because I know he will never be president. I also find it laughable that you think Obama has any heart for your country, his actions show his hand, he is bullied by people far more powerful than him into doing their dirty work.
> 
> Time will tell.......


Well you missed the point. 

The point being that anyone elected president would behave the same way regardless of what their intentions are before they entered office. The system we have makes anything else impossible. 



> If he had the morality you think he has then he would not be in the middle east now.


I don't know if stopping Khadaffi from slaughtering his own people can be considered immoral. We are starting the pull out of Iraq on schedule next month with major troop withdrawals. I disagree with his Afghanistan policy but that is the exact same Afghan policy he ran on. So I don't really see anything but empty words in that statement.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> I suppose what I am saying is get rid of all the parties involved and create a new system that benefits the people not the politicians, they want you to continue with your left right politics because that gives them life...get it now??


You seem to know everything, so what are you waiting for? Make it happen.


----------



## deprave (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> So how does it help you the public to maintain this left right political positioning when it does not even apply to the politicians, it's like a big contradiction.
> 
> I suppose what I am saying is get rid of all the parties involved and create a new system that benefits the people not the politicians, they want you to continue with your left right politics because that gives them life...get it now??


Yea I get what your saying, I just don't understand how this is a disagreement with me in any way, this graph has all the dimensions and not just left and right so it best illustrates the true full political spectrum in capitalism. Yea I get what your saying and I agree totally, what this graph does is support exactly what your saying by putting all the politicians in one place with the people in the distance.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You seem to know everything, so what are you waiting for? Make it happen.


Your country your problem smart arse!! 

It's Gaddafi and I did not see America running to stop him in the past, are you saying that only now are they taking a stand? Why are US vessels lining up to Syrian coastlines, why are US planes bombing Yemen as reported by media other than your countries own?? Why did Obama say categorically that he will not put troops in Libya and here they are now. 

Who died and made America the saviour of the world, you are an idiot if you think this for the sake of freedom and democracy but I suppose it takes people like you to keep the wheels in motion hey??

You can wax lyrical all you want but in 3 months from now you can go over this thread and feel ashamed by what you are saying.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> Yea I get what your saying, I just don't understand how this is a disagreement with me in any way, this graph has all the dimensions and not just left and right so it best illustrates the true full political spectrum in capitalism. Yea I get what your saying and I agree totally, what this graph does is support exactly what your saying by putting all the politicians in one place with the people in the distance.


Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing with you....I just think people need to step away from the conventional political system and reinvent it to finally support the people not the politicians.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 19, 2011)

This is more to my liking when it comes to the donks vs repukes issue.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing with you....I just think people need to step away from the conventional political system and reinvent it to finally support the people not the politicians.


It can be changed slowly from the inside as Dr Paul is attempting(for 30+ years) or it can be done with violent revolt. One or the other. Dr. Paul is tough but i doubt he could stand against the military. Unless he had a strong movement behind him. Won't ever go down like that imo though. Too many apathetic people.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 19, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> It can be changed slowly from the inside as Dr Paul is attempting(for 30+ years) or it can be done with violent revolt. One or the other. Dr. Paul is tough but i doubt he could stand against the military. Unless he had a strong movement behind him. Won't ever go down like that imo though. Too many apathetic people.


I don't really follow him too much, you don't get any mainstream media here covering him. Is he going to stand for Presidency this next election?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Your country your problem smart arse!!
> 
> It's Gaddafi


Kh, K, or Q are all acceptable spellings. It's arabic dumbass, it doesn't translate directly into English. If you feel it necessary to correct spelling on the internet, make sure you're actually correcting a misspelled word.



> and I did not see America running to stop him in the past, are you saying that only now are they taking a stand?


There wasn't a civil war in the past.



> Why are US vessels lining up to Syrian coastlines,


Massive regional instability? 



> why are US planes bombing Yemen as reported by media other than your countries own??


To go after Al Qaeda leadership. 



> Why did Obama say categorically that he will not put troops in Libya and here they are now.


Situations change. And there aren't ground troops in Libya as far as I'm aware. If it ends a war, is it really that bad? 

I don't get it. You seem to be crying tyranny here. Who's being oppressed? Khadafi? lol. GTFO. 



> Who died and made America the saviour of the world, you are an idiot if you think this for the sake of freedom and democracy but I suppose it takes people like you to keep the wheels in motion hey??


I think it's because the US government saw an opportunity to take out a long time enemy. An enemy btw would did attack US civilians without provocation and then built a monument to celebrate his act of terrorism. 

How is getting rid of Khadafi a bad thing again?



> You can wax lyrical all you want but in 3 months from now you can go over this thread and feel ashamed by what you are saying.


Why is that?

Despite you're very impressive intellectual superiority act, you've yet to actually say anything insightful. If you're going to act like that, at least have a reason for it.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 19, 2011)

We went after Ghadaffi because he was going to unveil a gold backed currency, the whole Al Qaeda thing is just the cover story that lets us bomb anyone we please.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 19, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> We went after Ghadaffi because he was going to unveil a gold backed currency, the whole Al Qaeda thing is just the cover story that lets us bomb anyone we please.




well done


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 20, 2011)

[youtube]aXQTaWjMoFw&feature=relmfu[/youtube]


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> What makes you think you think Ron Paul would be any better than Obama at implementing the promises he's making?
> 
> There is absolutely no political will for Ron Paul to get the things done he describes. That's the same problem Obama has. Obama has good ideas that get curbed by the inertia of the American political machine.
> 
> ...


To compare Obama to Ron is silly. It is like comparing a sapling to a full grown oak tree. Ron Paul will not bend in his beliefs. Ron Paul has 30 years of holding the same ideas and not flip flopping. Obama immediately copulated to anyone he had to. Don't assume that because your glorious leader was two faced and untested that Ron Paul is the same.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> I don't really follow him too much, you don't get any mainstream media here covering him. Is he going to stand for Presidency this next election?


Yes, he's running. Trying to get the Republican nomination. And you won't find any real reporting in the main-stream media on him. Unless it's slander.


----------



## Parker (Jun 20, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i gave up all my political ambitions after ingesting magic mushrooms
> i call him a loser because he will lose. pretty straightforward.
> i've never had any sex scandals or shady back alley dealings, but i would call myself a loser just the same if i failed at that which i set my mind to.
> so far, i am winning. not quite bi-winning, but the greenhouse should set me on the path to bi-winning this year.
> the future is a completely different story, as i have no idea where i will be in another 15 months and won't know for some time now.


Why do you think he has failed? I think he has been very successful. 

His first objective is to win, obviously, in order to get his policies implemented. Running a close second is to inform people. Not many candidates make it about the platform like he does. It's usually about themselves.
Anyone who has a platform similar to his gets my vote. People like Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the Senate. Or Justin Amash in the House.

Ron Paul ended his speech at the Republican Leadership Conference with- "We know that the momentum is with us. One way I can tell you the momentum is with us is all of a sudden I have noticed that others who happen to be running for leadership are starting to use our language."


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

Interesting observations on how we elect our leaders. More accurately how we determine how we will vote.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q1U7N9AhprU#at=132[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Jun 20, 2011)

To all the Ron Paul supporters....in order for Ron to get the nod from your party you must first take control of your party...Ron Paul was the leader of the first and true tea party movement in this century...and just like this republican party it too was hijacked...Ron Paul will never get the nod to run in the general election if he continues to allow himself to be ignored and his cause taken from him and used by others just to win the primary. All the posting on RIU will be in vain if this continues. say what you like but its true....oh and Happy Belated Fathers Day to all the men who take care of their children.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Kh, K, or Q are all acceptable spellings. It's arabic dumbass, it doesn't translate directly into English. If you feel it necessary to correct spelling on the internet, make sure you're actually correcting a misspelled word.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have the audacity to try and belittle me in your last comment yet all of your retorts may as well have been copied and pasted from a CNN or FOX news report. 

Fail!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

londonfog said:


> To all the Ron Paul supporters....in order for Ron to get the nod from your party you must first take control of your party...Ron Paul was the leader of the first and true tea party movement in this century...and just like this republican party it too was hijacked...Ron Paul will never get the nod to run in the general election if he continues to allow himself to be ignored and his cause taken from him and used by others just to win the primary. All the posting on RIU will be in vain if this continues. say what you like but its true....oh and Happy Belated Fathers Day to all the men who take care of their children.


It's true. If you'll notice my post count here has dropped dramatically. That's because Deprave and others have it well under control imo. Now i'm hitting everywhere i can and the most annoying reaction has been "He'll never win. I don't vote in the primaries anyway." WTF?????


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

If you want to end this shit, support Ron Paul!
[video]http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2011/06/19/no-knock-raid-a-song-about-the-drug-wars-deadliest-tactic/[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 20, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> We went after Ghadaffi because he was going to unveil a gold backed currency, the whole Al Qaeda thing is just the cover story that lets us bomb anyone we please.


ya know, the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that we went in to support our allies who want access to his oil.

agree or disagree?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ya know, the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that we went in to support our allies who want access to his oil.
> 
> agree or disagree?


Wars rarely happen over single issues.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 20, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ya know, the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that we went in to support our allies who want access to his oil.
> 
> agree or disagree?


If that happens we no longer will get Libya to spend all of its oil dollars buying US Treasuries. That is, after all, the agreement with the OPEC nations. We will buy their oil with our dollars and they will Buy our treasuries with those same dollars.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

This one's for you UB: http://libertymaven.com/2007/12/19/the-official-media-guide-to-attacking-ron-paul/


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> To compare Obama to Ron is silly. It is like comparing a sapling to a full grown oak tree. Ron Paul will not bend in his beliefs. Ron Paul has 30 years of holding the same ideas and not flip flopping. Obama immediately copulated to anyone he had to. Don't assume that because your glorious leader was two faced and untested that Ron Paul is the same.


What I'm saying is it would have nothing to do with Ron Paul and his beliefs. It has to do with the way lobbyists will alter any legislation he tries to get past congress in order to make that legislation favor large corporations and the ultra wealthy while hurting everyone else. 

Ron Paul is not superman. He can not force congress not to amend legislation based on the recommendation of lobbyists. He has no control over that what so ever. The only way to stop that is to take the money out of political campaigns, that is something Ron Paul opposes. 

"The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose." - Ron Paul

The will of the president is irrelevant when lobbyists can just get congress to change any law based on the legal bribes they take from the wealthy and major corporations. 

I know you think Obama is some evil boogie man who's primary motivation is to destroy America, but really he's doing what is possible for him to do. His proposals for legislation and the final product that congress produces have been wildly different. 

If you think Ron Paul has some superpower that will stop lobbyists from manipulating legislation please explain to me how that works. You offer no reasonable explanations and just claiming Ron Paul never bends his will. Well that's extremely flawed logic when you consider the fact that Ron Paul has no control over the behavior of congress and fully supports the system that allows congress to behave that way.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 20, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ya know, the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that we went in to support our allies who want access to his oil.
> 
> agree or disagree?


Who wants access to the oil, your allies or you...it's obviously both but does it make it okay, my biggest gripe with the USA is it's arrogance as the super power of the world, it acts like the self imposed freedom fighter of all that is democratic yet the rest of the world knows it's actions are self satisfying at the sake of many innocent lives.

What country since the second world war has seen more wars than America? Those wars end and some years later the truth is revealed that the reasons at the time were nothing more than disinformation alluding to the real truth which is usually oil, money, drugs trade, power and position!

And Americans wonder why they are hated...??


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> You have the audacity to try and belittle me in your last comment yet all of your retorts may as well have been copied and pasted from a CNN or FOX news report.
> 
> Fail!


Ok. You just accused me of plagiarism. I demand to see proof of this right now. If I post something, it's my own words. If you think otherwise prove it or you're a lying cunt. I do not watch CNN or Fox news nor do I copy/paste stuff from their website or any website without quoting them. If I did do what you say it should be very easy to prove. So go ahead, prove it. That or shut the fuck up.

Lying about me doesn't help your case. It's what people do when they know they are wrong and the person they are lying about is right.

You've posted nothing of substance since you've been here. You offer no explanation for why you think I'm wrong but instead resort to false accusations. If you're going to come on here and pretend you're superior to everyone you're going to have do better that falsely accuse people of making spelling errors and falsely accuse people of plagiarism.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> my biggest gripe with the USA is it's arrogance


Don't like the competition eh? You're just about the most arrogant poster to ever come here.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> What I'm saying is it would have nothing to do with Ron Paul and his beliefs. It has to do with the way lobbyists will alter any legislation he tries to get past congress in order to make that legislation favor large corporations and the ultra wealthy while hurting everyone else.
> 
> Ron Paul is not superman. He can not force congress not to amend legislation based on the recommendation of lobbyists. He has no control over that what so ever. The only way to stop that is to take the money out of political campaigns, that is something Ron Paul opposes.
> 
> ...


Everything you say is true, the power does not sit with the President which makes that comment you belittled last night even more insightful, change politics completely and you will not face the problems you do, or for that matter in the UK and many other European countries. 

I understand that it is an enormous undertaking and would it ever succeed, well we won't know unless we try.

You seem to point out many things that are obvious, so I ask you do you have any answers?????


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Everything you say is true, the power does not sit with the President which makes that comment you belittled last night even more insightful, change politics completely and you will not face the problems you do, or for that matter in the UK and many other European countries.
> 
> I understand that it is an enormous undertaking and would it ever succeed, well we won't know unless we try.
> 
> You seem to point out many things that are obvious, so I ask you do you have any answers?????


We can't change the problem because the problem is lobbyist money in congress and we'd need to pass a law in congress to change it. Russ Feingold and John McCain tried to fix it and guess what? The lobbyists and congress made the law worthless. 

As far as I can see, that is the biggest problem with our government and it's currently not fixable. It's apparently not as obvious as you think since the majority of people here think somehow Ron Paul is immune to the way our system works.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ok. You just accused me of plagiarism. I demand to see proof of this right now. If I post something, it's my own words. If you think otherwise prove it or you're a lying cunt. I do not watch CNN or Fox news nor do I copy/paste stuff from their website or any website without quoting them. If I did do what you say it should be very easy to prove. So go ahead, prove it. That or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Lying about me doesn't help your case. It's what people do when they know they are wrong and the person they are lying about is right.
> 
> You've posted nothing of substance since you've been here. You offer no explanation for why you think I'm wrong but instead resort to false accusations. If you're going to come on here and pretend you're superior to everyone you're going to have do better that falsely accuse people of making spelling errors and falsely accuse people of plagiarism.


You are a tough guy behind the computer hey?? read the post correctly and you will find I said "you may as well" you dum fuck...everything else you say after that is pointless. 

By the by your posts last night showed nothing more than slander, I like how you think you contribution is insightful or relevant unlike my input. 

As for competition...well if you played on a level playing field without the devious tactics then I would be okay with it.

Funny how Americans get their backs up when you point out their flaws hey...thats real arrogance!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> As for competition...well if you played on a level playing field without the devious tactics then I would be okay with it.
> 
> Funny how Americans get their backs up when you point out their flaws hey...thats real arrogance!!


It's amazing how people don't like to be falsely accused of stuff isn't it?

But go ahead, I believe you were about to explain how removing Khadafi was somehow tyranny. I'm very interested in hearing about that.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> We can't change the problem because the problem is lobbyist money in congress and we'd need to pass a law in congress to change it. Russ Feingold and John McCain tried to fix it and guess what? The lobbyists and congress made the law worthless.
> 
> As far as I can see, that is the biggest problem with our government and it's currently not fixable. It's apparently not as obvious as you think since the majority of people here think somehow Ron Paul is immune to the way our system works.


Please don't align me with Ron Paul, I keep repeating I care little about the guy and his position which makes me think you don't read things through very well. 

The system needs to be abolished, it may come at a great cost and I do not have the answers but one thing is for sure, change it completely or your demise will be complete and mine.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Please don't align me with Ron Paul, I keep repeating I care little about the guy and his position which makes me think you don't read things through very well.


I didn't do that. I said "t's apparently not as obvious as you think since* the majority of people here* think somehow Ron Paul is immune to the way our system works."

Once again, the majority of the people here, not you.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> It's amazing how people don't like to be falsely accused of stuff isn't it?
> 
> But go ahead, I believe you were about to explain how removing Khadafi was somehow tyranny. I'm very interested in hearing about that.


I never said that, you assumed that in your head and then made it a point that I had brought up. So is there anything else you would like to say to make me think even less of you???

Show me where I said that and highlight it please, I think you'll find you can't. 

Have another joint stoner....


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

You're still avoiding the main question here as you have for quite a while. 

You were acting like going after Khadafi was some sort of tyranny or harming the Libyan people in some way. 

Why are you backing down from that? Explain it. How is going after Khadafi a bad thing?


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You're still avoiding the main question here as you have for quite a while.
> 
> You were acting like going after Khadafi was some sort of tyranny or harming the Libyan people in some way.
> 
> Why are you backing down from that? Explain it. How is going after Khadafi a bad thing?


I never said that, I would like *YOU* to point out where I supposedly said that, you seem to derive at a unsubstantial conclusion and then think it's fact. You seem to avoid pointing out when I ask a question of you?? I think his demise is a blessing for the record but I think it's a shame that Libya will be another country held ransom by the American military for the sake of oil. 

Now we can argue like children or we can agree that America is a bully that forces it's might all over the world for it's own self preservation.....am I wrong????


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Now we can argue like children or we can agree that America is a bully that forces it's might all over the world for it's own self preservation.....am I wrong????


Not the only country who does that, we just have the dominant military force so we do it on a larger scale. Pretty much any country in the world would do the same if they had the dominant military force, and they have and much more brutally in most cases. 

Basically what you're saying translates into "boohoo we don't have as strong an army as you". What country are you from anyways?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK-QR88yfOE

Regardless of which side you're on, this is pretty damn funny.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
--Carroll Quigley


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

WOW!!! Looks like people are listening! To the TRUTH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdPC1_HRpaY&feature=share


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

cenk representin again? wow amazing
Ron Paul love on msnbc...
next thing ya know chris matthews? jk


Nice budlover you beat me to that one


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK-QR88yfOE
> 
> Regardless of which side you're on, this is pretty damn funny.


 o Lawdy goberment protect me from tha drugs


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

Ron Paul this morning today show: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?732-Ron-Paul-on-the-Today-Show-this-morning-(Monday-June-20)


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

the sad fact, in america sexyness sells....philosophy sells the least - especially when it comes to political philosophy vs political sexyness

[video=youtube;Q1U7N9AhprU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1U7N9AhprU&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> We can't change the problem because the problem is lobbyist money in congress and we'd need to pass a law in congress to change it. Russ Feingold and John McCain tried to fix it and guess what? The lobbyists and congress made the law worthless.
> 
> As far as I can see, that is the biggest problem with our government and it's currently not fixable. It's apparently not as obvious as you think since the majority of people here think somehow Ron Paul is immune to the way our system works.


You can make a law if you like, they will find another way to bribe politicians. I say we do away with politicians and instead program a computer to take over the role. lol


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

new ron paul movie: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

deprave said:


> cenk representin again? wow amazing
> Ron Paul love on msnbc...
> next thing ya know chris matthews? jk
> 
> ...


Thanks deprave. Got that one off FB. HUGE RP Revolution starting up over there!


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> When the general election comes and Obama destroys his competition I will bump this thread and you will eat your words.


If he loses, do we all get to teabag you?


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

Info revolution + ron paul philosophical politics equals U.S.A


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

We're hearing the rumblings of Revolution!!!!!

Dr. Paul, you will go down in history along the likes of Jefferson and Lincoln.


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

Ron Paul Internet Army could take out china - every mom is sittin on facebook right now ... every mom....


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul Internet Army could take out china - every mom is sittin on facebook right now ... every mom....


And a lot of dad's too! If you want a shit-ton of RP supporting "friends", pm me.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

It's been absolutely insane today! Blowing it up! Isn't the FB founder a YOUNG American?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 20, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> What I'm saying is it would have nothing to do with Ron Paul and his beliefs. It has to do with the way lobbyists will alter any legislation he tries to get past congress in order to make that legislation favor large corporations and the ultra wealthy while hurting everyone else.
> 
> Ron Paul is not superman. He can not force congress not to amend legislation based on the recommendation of lobbyists. He has no control over that what so ever. The only way to stop that is to take the money out of political campaigns, that is something Ron Paul opposes.
> 
> ...


I don't think Obama is the boogie man. (amusingly enough, look up the origin of the boogie man) I have some respect for him as a man. He definitely has different ideas as far as how the country should be run and what role the government should have than what I have. 

I don't think Ron Paul would negotiate away his ideals. He would stay Dr No, and even if nothing happened at all. I honestly think a lame duck government is better than a government with the power to implement its will. I would rather have a ineffectual and useless government than the alternative. I could never support what our government is and what it is becoming.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 20, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Who wants access to the oil, your allies or you...it's obviously both but does it make it okay, my biggest gripe with the USA is it's arrogance as the super power of the world, it acts like the self imposed freedom fighter of all that is democratic yet the rest of the world knows it's actions are self satisfying at the sake of many innocent lives.
> 
> What country since the second world war has seen more wars than America? Those wars end and some years later the truth is revealed that the reasons at the time were nothing more than disinformation alluding to the real truth which is usually oil, money, drugs trade, power and position!
> 
> And Americans wonder why they are hated...??


While I agree with your assessment of why we do things while using the guise of protector of democracy, I must point out your obvious bias. The rest of the world is not any better. France, England, Germany, Italy, ect ect all had their turn at the helm. Give me an example of a country that did better running the world? You can't.  Why? What you fail to mention is that America's very success is a result of the failure of everyone else. You should perhaps work on fixing what you can fix (Yourself and your government), instead of being envious and hateful of the country who currently resides at the top of the food chain. It is at the top of the food chain because you and yours have failed, not because it has usurped you.

Hate yourself for failure, not the person who succeeds.


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

Fun Fact: Ron Paul is the only politician to have a campaign blimp


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 20, 2011)

Ron Paul wouldn't be meddling in the business of the rest of the world right now. So you do support him in that.

Also, be reminded that the entire rest of the world failed in this life time - it isn't like it was thousands of years ago. Europe completely fucked up the last 100 years with wars. Even after WW1 if the Allies hadn't of fucked Germany, WW2 would of never happened, and America would still be minding its own business. We would probably still be the a major super power of the world, though.


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

Ron Paul today Time Magazine:
Q&A

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/20/qa-ron-paul/




> campaigns
> *Q&A: Ron Paul*
> 
> By Alex Altman Monday, June 20, 2011 | View Comments
> ...


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

National Examiner


Ron Paul releases his financial and budget plans for Presidency


http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...for-presidency


> Congressman Ron Paul is making strong waves in the early Republican primary season, and on June 20th, he released his four point campagin platform for financial and budgetary plans should he win the Presidency in 2012.
> 
> The primary points of the platform include demands for a balanced budget, vetoing any bill regarding funding for Planned Parenthood, entirely stop implementation of Obamacare, and lastly, repeal through Executive Order any and all regulations that are unsound, and lead to restrictions on good business practices.
> 
> ...


[video=youtube;0J2QdDbelmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J2QdDbelmY[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

deprave said:


> Fun Fact: Ron Paul is the only politician to have a campaign blimp


Better looking AND smaller than our budget!


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

Wheres Obamas blimp? O wait he doesn't have one..lol - No Blimp No Pimp


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 20, 2011)

deprave said:


> Wheres Obamas blimp? O wait he doesn't have one..lol - No Blimp No Pimp


Look at our budget. He has one. He just downplays it


----------



## deprave (Jun 20, 2011)

holy crap just saw a ron paul hit piece on msnbc...Laurence O'Donnell or whatever said he wants paul to stay in because of his position on gay marriage is the most common sense hes ever herd....he said "ron paul is wrong on a lot of things...he is wrong on the debt ceiling...he is wrong on the economy...but one thing he is right about is marriage equality"

Funny the pencil dick doesnt even realize Ron Paul agrees with him on the debt ceiling and also that Ron Paul is a much superior economist then he is as some news pundit douche, and hell he'd probably agree with ron paul on the economy if he understood what Ron Paul was saying...anyway....goodnite


----------



## sync0s (Jun 21, 2011)

deprave said:


> holy crap just saw a ron paul hit piece on msnbc...Laurence O'Donnell or whatever said he wants paul to stay in because of his position on gay marriage is the most common sense hes ever herd....he said "ron paul is wrong on a lot of things...he is wrong on the debt ceiling...he is wrong on the economy...but one thing he is right about is marriage equality"
> 
> Funny the pencil dick doesnt even realize Ron Paul agrees with him on the debt ceiling and also that Ron Paul is a much superior economist then he is as some news pundit douche, and hell he'd probably agree with ron paul on the economy if he understood what Ron Paul was saying...anyway....goodnite


I'm a huge proponent of Ron Paul. I do plan to vote for him. However, I do not believe his argument for the marriage laws are in defense of the constitution one bit. Our founding fathers said that we must protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority:


> All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. - Thomas Jefferson


To make gay marriage illegal, and even to make the states have an option to make it illegal is not just an oppression of sexuality, but an oppression of religious beliefs. It also violates seperation between church and state because his ideals on this matter are founded in his own religious values and do not consider any others religious views in the matter. Now, I'm all for states rights to choose, but our federal government was set up by the founding fathers to protect the life, and liberty of all of its people because all man was created equal. Thomas Jefferson is saying that just because 60% of a states population agrees with the law, it does not necessarily make it a just law and the federal government must not allow it to be enforced.

I have to say, personally RP's stance on gay marriage and abortion (i guess this matter is quite debatable) are the two issues that have tainted RP's image in my eyes. I don't understand how you can skew constitutionalism to reflect a stance that is so clearly unconstitutional. Perhaps another RP supporter might be able to steer me in the right direction. (Just to clear the air: I'm a liberitarian, atheist, who is pro-choice, and a heterosexual)


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

ummm Ron Pauls position is that the government shouldn't be involved in giving out marriage licenses, that it should be a private thing, that we shouldn't tell anyone who they can marry, seems pretty constitutional to me.

heres the video in question:
[video=youtube;E634EatKadc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E634EatKadc[/video]



abortion well RP believes in the pursuit of happiness endowed by out creator for all life so his stance on abortion is in his mind an issue of liberty, and I mean he delivered 4,000 babies, so for him he hears the heart beating of the fetus everyday....really its just love for life...for him its not about being "pro-choice"..he thinks "well what about the babies choice"....


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 21, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Not the only country who does that, we just have the dominant military force so we do it on a larger scale. Pretty much any country in the world would do the same if they had the dominant military force, and they have and much more brutally in most cases.
> 
> Basically what you're saying translates into "boohoo we don't have as strong an army as you". What country are you from anyways?


Dan I love the way you make it sound like I am jealous, LOL how American. Let's face it pal....you are just pissed cause I said what many are thinking, Americans are idiots for the most part, not all of them but boy your nation is colluded. 

Although this is not just the Americans, it's the British too, they are all a bunch of idiots at times.

I am from South Africa but I live in the UK because my line of work demands that I am in London for various reasons. Growing up in SA I always looked at you guys and thought how cool life would be being in your shoes, I envied you... education was supposedly high, living standards high etc. the world was your oyster compared to suppressive SA, but then when I grew up and moved to a first world country (UK) and did plenty travelling across the US, Canada, most of Europe I began to realise that the "first world" part was a myth, a lie. Most people I spoke to had not even heard of my country, the ones who did wondered if we had planes yet or did I take an elephant taxi to the steam ship which brought me here, what sort off clothes did I wear in the wild.....this sort of absolute ignorance....it has not stopped and it has never stopped amazing me how beligerant most Americans and British people are. Now I am not saying ALL people are like this but I have witnessed with my own two eyes that there are many many like this which frankly is astounding by any account and may I make it clear that this was not experienced in small one horse towns but in cities!!

How can an adult not know where a country is on a map or a capital city etc.....these little things imply a lot, a lot more than at first glance....it underpins the reality that most westerners from the moment they are born are fed a daily diet of disinformation, propaganda and more importantly are systematically dumbed down for the purposes of mass control by the corporate/government collusion. Any way you slice it this is the only reality.

And before you say what about South Africa...well they are not exempt, trust me!! The only difference was that when I was growing up the western way was not as mainstream as it is now. 

Look into "race specific biological weapons development" and you will see the true nature of a racist SA.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I'm a huge proponent of Ron Paul. I do plan to vote for him. However, I do not believe his argument for the marriage laws are in defense of the constitution one bit. Our founding fathers said that we must protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority:
> 
> To make gay marriage illegal, and even to make the states have an option to make it illegal is not just an oppression of sexuality, but an oppression of religious beliefs. It also violates seperation between church and state because his ideals on this matter are founded in his own religious values and do not consider any others religious views in the matter. Now, I'm all for states rights to choose, but our federal government was set up by the founding fathers to protect the life, and liberty of all of its people because all man was created equal. Thomas Jefferson is saying that just because 60% of a states population agrees with the law, it does not necessarily make it a just law and the federal government must not allow it to be enforced.
> 
> I have to say, personally RP's stance on gay marriage and abortion (i guess this matter is quite debatable) are the two issues that have tainted RP's image in my eyes. I don't understand how you can skew constitutionalism to reflect a stance that is so clearly unconstitutional. Perhaps another RP supporter might be able to steer me in the right direction. (Just to clear the air: I'm a liberitarian, atheist, who is pro-choice, and a heterosexual)


Ron Paul is for gay equality, he is for equality for everyone. First, he would make it so everyone payed the same tax. Gay married, straight married, single, old and young. He would work to make sure every person is treated the same by the federal government. That is what equality is about. Why should the government have any say in marriage? They shouldn't. Marriage is a religious thing. This is Ron Pauls view on it.

[video=youtube;N9yMxIldwCc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9yMxIldwCc[/video]

Unfortunately, what most people don't catch is that if you give the federal government the right to regulate marriage whether it be for or against gay people is that in the future the peoples ideas will change again and maybe they will decide marriage is bad altogether and ban it, or so on. Some people might mock me for saying that could ever happen, but it could. Look at what the Soviet Union did to religion in their reign. Sure, I think people who go to church two or three times a week, knock on my door on Saturday morning, and tell me that the world is only a couple thousand years old are slow at best, but rounding up thousands of priests and bishops and murdering them and taking over all church property and bulldozing major churches is a bit of a stretch.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are great examples of authoritarian governments. The more laws we add, and the more things we outlaw, the closer to that we get. How many laws does the federal government make a year? How many do they get rid of? It is easy to see which direction we are headed. Does anyone really see our government getting rid of laws and not making any more about things they shouldn't be involved in? Between the fed and the state governments you don't have the right to buy unprocessed milk or change your door without a permit and inspection. Yet, they keep 'raising standards' and making more laws. When will the day come when the people have absolutely no power over their own lives? No one really knows. We could change this, and stop what is happening. Ron Paul is the captain who could steer this ship around the storm we are headed towards.

Sometimes I realize I support things I would never allow in my own life and that I find disgusting. I can't imagine ever wanting a guy to ram my ass full of cock, and I can't imagine wanting my wife to have my child scraped out of her inside. That is my personal belief. However, I know my beliefs should not be forced on others and I would never want those rights taken from other people. Ron Paul has a war waging inside of him about abortion, because of his personal beliefs. However, if you look at his voting record he votes against bills he might morally agree with because they are against the constitution. While you might not agree with his beliefs, his actions speak more clearly. Ron Paul is uncompromised and votes against his beliefs if it is the right thing to do for liberty. He has a 30 year record of voting for liberty, who else can say that?


----------



## sync0s (Jun 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Ron Paul is for gay equality, he is for equality for everyone. First, he would make it so everyone payed the same tax. Gay married, straight married, single, old and young. He would work to make sure every person is treated the same by the federal government. That is what equality is about. Why should the government have any say in marriage? They shouldn't. Marriage is a religious thing. This is Ron Pauls view on it.
> 
> [video=youtube;N9yMxIldwCc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9yMxIldwCc[/video]
> 
> ...


Passing a law that merely forces the government and the government only to recognize gay and straight marriage does not force any ideals on anybody. It, in my eyes, protects the rights of a minority of people. I agree, government shouldn't have any hand in personal or the business life of citizens, but a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage as well would actually be constitutional because it would be a law that is merely set forth to restrict the government and actually frees the citizens much more. I understand his stance on privatizing, but not everything being privatized is constitutional. It's like saying we should haven't have added the 13th amendment and just allow slavery to determined by the private sector. Our government has one job, to defend the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of it's citizens, including the minority ones.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 21, 2011)

@syncos: RP's position is that the government HAS no authority to "recognize" or make exceptions for married couples. Why is a married person entitled to more than a single person? i believe that is what he means. There's no need to recognize marriage, gay or straight.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Passing a law that merely forces the government and the government only to recognize gay and straight marriage does not force any ideals on anybody. It, in my eyes, protects the rights of a minority of people. I agree, government shouldn't have any hand in personal or the business life of citizens, but a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage as well would actually be constitutional because it would be a law that is merely set forth to restrict the government and actually frees the citizens much more. I understand his stance on privatizing, but not everything being privatized is constitutional. It's like saying we should haven't have added the 13th amendment and just allow slavery to determined by the private sector. Our government has one job, to defend the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of it's citizens, including the minority ones.


The Constitution forbids the federal government from making any laws regarding marriage to begin with since marriage is by and by a religious institution. Any law which forbids or oks any sort of marriage is wrong. Once you get the idea that the government can grant you a right, it is expected they can remove that right. In this case the federal government has no right to give or take since the constitution does not specifically grant it to them to control. 

I think my issue is that married couples enjoy any rights over single people or gay couples at all. Why should being married or having kids entitle you to special rights? If we move to remove the special privileges for marriage, it would make everyone a little more equal. I don't see how people will fight for gay marriage rights but ignore the fact that marriages are nothing more than two people agreeing to be together and that there should be nothing to be gained from that except being together in the first place. Gays are being treated as inferior by the federal government. Gay people are getting treated like single people. Does that mean single people are being oppressed also? Yep, it sure fucking does.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Dan I love the way you make it sound like I am jealous, LOL how American. Let's face it pal....you are just pissed cause I said what many are thinking, Americans are idiots for the most part, not all of them but boy your nation is colluded.
> 
> Although this is not just the Americans, it's the British too, they are all a bunch of idiots at times.
> 
> ...


To talk bad about someone who doesn't know where South Africa is makes you sort of stupid. S Africa has a much lower literacy rate than first world countries that you are bashing. Obviously S Africa is in the south of Africa, if people didn't know that, then you were obviously talking to retards. On a map, I am willing to bet very few people in S Africa would do any better than your average American in pointing out small pointless countries on the world map. Does your average farm hand in S Africa know all the countries in alphabetical order and their locations on the globe? 

Have you considered that maybe your experience in the 'first world' is jaded by your attitude towards those that live there? Perhaps the educated among us refused to even bother talking to you since your prejudice is so obvious.

The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> To talk bad about someone who doesn't know where South Africa is makes you sort of stupid. S Africa has a much lower literacy rate than first world countries that you are bashing. Obviously S Africa is in the south of Africa, if people didn't know that, then you were obviously talking to retards. On a map, I am willing to bet very few people in S Africa would do any better than your average American in pointing out small pointless countries on the world map. Does your average farm hand in S Africa know all the countries in alphabetical order and their locations on the globe?
> 
> Have you considered that maybe your experience in the 'first world' is jaded by your attitude towards those that live there? Perhaps the educated among us refused to even bother talking to you since your prejudice is so obvious.
> 
> The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.


Nothing you say makes sense. Yes SA has a much lower literacy rate than first world countries but what does that prove in the context of what I am saying?? By saying I was talking to retards is absolutely correct and yet again I repeat, these were people from all walks of life including work colleagues in the interior architectural design field. 

As for South Africans knowing the world around them...all I can say is when I was in high school we had many a kid from the UK and US who had come to our school who was shown very quickly to be behind in terms of all subjects of study and their progression. 

Comparing the average farm hand in SA to an average person in the US *which is what you are doing in your statement* is ridiculous frankly...one thing is for sure though the rural African knows all too well what the cost of capitalism is!!

If you read my post thoroughly you would see that as a young person travelling the world including the States I had more than amicable feelings about the first world, so allow me to correct your assumption that I *WAS* or *IS* jaded by the first world. 

I do not hate Americans or America, you are still the beacon that everyone looks to but there is no doubt that your people have unfortunately lost your way through no fault of your own. That still does not elude to the fact that the majority of the populous of the first world including Americans are *NOT* at the levels they are categorised at. 

Europe is supposed to be the most affluent part of the world still, yet most families in countries like France and Italy to name two have to live together *3-4 generations* not because they choose to but because they have to, there is not enough wealth for them to have their own homes. And living in London where a lot of these young people flock to and having many friends from many different European countries who come here for a better life express these thoughts to me that they have lived and experienced first hand. I have seen this first hand myself. 

In summary you sound like another American in denial about the truth of your situation as a whole. 

Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the author of the letter my friend!!!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 21, 2011)

i have been trying to get my whole family to get together and pool our resources. Their response? "I like my freedom." LOL! Vote for Ron Paul then!


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

This is a south park style cartoon about the federal reserve. It is a great lesson, and real funny too if you aren't so pissed off that you want to go murder every banker you can find that is.

[video=youtube;j69Ap4lndl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j69Ap4lndl0&feature=player_embedded#at=1719[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Nothing you say makes sense. Yes SA has a much lower literacy rate than first world countries but what does that prove in the context of what I am saying?? By saying I was talking to retards is absolutely correct and yet again I repeat, these were people from all walks of life including work colleagues in the interior architectural design field.
> 
> As for South Africans knowing the world around them...all I can say is when I was in high school we had many a kid from the UK and US who had come to our school who was shown very quickly to be behind in terms of all subjects of study and their progression.
> 
> ...


You say people in the first world countries are ignorant, but then admit that your own countries people are not as educated. So why are you talking shit about everyone else because of their failings when your peoples failings are even worse? Do you not see the hypocrisy of that? Exactly who DON'T you dislike? Who is your shining example of a good country? 

My country, America, has its failings. We have our good and bad points. The path we are going down is due to the deceit of those in power, and not the American people. A lot of my fellow Americans may be ignorant, but London, Uncle, and Dan are still my countrymen. I would give my life for them if need be, even though they don't believe in the same ideals as I do. You came to this discussion and bashed everyone. Do you think that you are better somehow? A lot of us KNOW what the problem is, and we are trying our best to solve the problem. Ron Paul understands the problem and wants to restore the Republic to what it once was. You seem to be saying America was once a great country - we are saying the same. There is a huge gap between the People and the Government in America. I did not particularly get that feeling in Europe. To be honest,most Americans don't give a fuck about any of you and just want to be left alone lest your diseased mental state contaminate us further.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You say people in the first world countries are ignorant, but then admit that your own countries people are not as educated. So why are you talking shit about everyone else because of their failings when your peoples failings are even worse? Do you not see the hypocrisy of that? Exactly who DON'T you dislike? Who is your shining example of a good country?
> 
> My country, America, has its failings. We have our good and bad points. The path we are going down is due to the deceit of those in power, and not the American people. A lot of my fellow Americans may be ignorant, but London, Uncle, and Dan are still my countrymen. I would give my life for them if need be, even though they don't believe in the same ideals as I do. You came to this discussion and bashed everyone. Do you think that you are better somehow? A lot of us KNOW what the problem is, and we are trying our best to solve the problem. Ron Paul understands the problem and wants to restore the Republic to what it once was. You seem to be saying America was once a great country - we are saying the same. There is a huge gap between the People and the Government in America. I did not particularly get that feeling in Europe. To be honest,most Americans don't give a fuck about any of you and just want to be left alone lest your diseased mental state contaminate us further.


Cathoris. i believe they are simply pointing out the log in MOST Americans eyes. Not ALL, but they prevailing attitude that has led us to this point.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

Anyone have a calendar of Ron Paul events or cities he will be speaking in? I am having a hard time finding one.


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

Well, About time for a break...for once there is not any major Ron Paul News to cover today as of 7:30PM thank god I need my sleep....all we have beside the video of pencil dick earlier talking smack is this 1.5 minute adam vs the man segment

[youtube][video=youtube;h0EqbtKwQbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0EqbtKwQbo[/video]


and then we have something that's a few days old which I missed, Yahoo Finance, Dr Paul talking bout the gold standard: http://finance.yahoo.com/video/companynews-18928726/ron-paul-s-1-fix-for-the-u-s-fiscal-crisis-25695490

also I missed this from the Today show, crappy interview: [video=youtube;Z2PjZ1akezg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2PjZ1akezg[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

oh yeah and on hannity, Dick morris, RP got second in his poll - his polls are always slanted so take it with a grain of salt...

[video=youtube;zWfg-OcHTe4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfg-OcHTe4[/video]


this guy thinks santorum is a tea party candidate lmao ... and that Ron Paul isn't .... is he from outer space or something? What planet is he living on currently?


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

spoke to soon, more RP Videos

RLC 2011 behind the scenes:

[video=youtube;sAb-XBlsH7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAb-XBlsH7Y[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

Herman cain talks about how the FED SHOULDN'T BE AUDITED!!! ALL OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DISAGREE MR CAIN!

[video=youtube;pfyDpWZFfNE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfyDpWZFfNE[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

This video compilation shows Ron Paul stance on abortion and other issues, it shows that he backs the people consistently, In this video you will see Ron Paul going against both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice extremist, you will witness Ron Paul backing the people and most importantly *REALITY* consistently. You will witness Ron Paul voting in Favor of the working people, You will witness Ron Paul voting both for and against abortion measures.

[video=youtube;Lg22y0mS7t4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg22y0mS7t4[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 21, 2011)

deprave said:


> Herman cain talks about how the FED SHOULDN'T BE AUDITED!!! ALL OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DISAGREE MR CAIN!
> 
> [video=youtube;pfyDpWZFfNE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfyDpWZFfNE[/video]


DAMN! You're FAST!


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

Nothing Major but that Covers today, herman cain, hannity, and dick morris are idiots who are not in touch with reality and Ron Paul consistently backing the people with more truth and honesty and promoting freedom while two media pundits attack and "praise" him simultaneously ...the usual...nothing major today...Hard to beat yesterday


----------



## beardo (Jun 21, 2011)

I can't stand the Ron Paul hating Republicans and media. He is Electable and up in the polls and they continue to ignore and down play his candidacy and nay say him. He is the only one running right now that has a grasp of our problems and promotes policy that allows us the potential of solving them.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 21, 2011)

beardo said:


> I can't stand the Ron Paul hating Republicans and media. He is Electable and up in the polls and they continue to ignore and down play his candidacy and nay say him. He is the only one running right now that has a grasp of our problems and promotes policy that gives us the potential of solving them.


Shout it as loud and as far as you can Beardo. Gotta wake a few people up!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 21, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Dan I love the way you make it sound like I am jealous, LOL how American. Let's face it pal....you are just pissed cause I said what many are thinking, Americans are idiots for the most part, not all of them but boy your nation is colluded.
> 
> Although this is not just the Americans, it's the British too, they are all a bunch of idiots at times.
> 
> ...


I hate to be the one to have break this to you but the location you happen to be born in have very little to do with how smart/stupid you are. Every country around the world without exception have idiots. With all the stereotyping and generalizing you do it's not at all surprising that idiots gravitated towards you. 

I doubt I know anyone who couldn't pick out South Africa on a map and most are aware it's a fairly developed country. However if you're running your month stereotyping everyone all the time like you seem to be in the habit of doing, only idiots are going to want to talk to you. 

So yes, you can find stupid people in America or anywhere else in the world. America is a wildly diverse nation with all kinds of people.

Also keep in mind this isn't Europe, Africa, or Asia. We are somewhat isolated over here. The location of Botswana or Luxembourg is in no way relevant to our lives. In all likelihood that will never be useful information to me. Why the fuck should we care where they are?

You still sound jealous and bitter to me. You're just a typical douche who hates America because we are on top. You're no better than the people you complain about. 

TL;DR - Haters gonna hate


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 21, 2011)

beardo said:


> I can't stand the Ron Paul hating Republicans and media. He is Electable and up in the polls and they continue to ignore and down play his candidacy and nay say him. He is the only one running right now that has a grasp of our problems and promotes policy that gives us the potential of solving them.


At this point I want him to win the primary just because it'll be funny to watch Obama make him his bitch.


----------



## beardo (Jun 21, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> At this point I want him to win the primary just because it'll be funny to watch Obama make him his bitch.


 I would love to see debate between Obama and Paul !


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 21, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> At this point I want him to win the primary just because it'll be funny to watch Obama make him his bitch.


LOL! Obama would be smashed even IF his teleprompter didn't fail!


----------



## deprave (Jun 21, 2011)

not gunna bother to spam u guys with updates anymore here its too time consuming just check my blog sorry, I will stay around for debate though


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 21, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Shout it as loud and as far as you can Beardo. Gotta wake a few people up!


here we are, back to the worn out "anyone who doesn't support ron paul needs to wake up!"

you guys must have some sort of messiah complex.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> here we are, back to the worn out "anyone who doesn't support ron paul needs to wake up!"
> 
> you guys must have some sort of messiah complex.


I agree with Buck wholeheartedly! Lets all wear some swastikas to show that we like being oppressed! Screw Ron Paul! Yay Communism! WOO HOO, I AM A DUMB ASS LIBERAL. I love gays and abortions and hate guns and free will. I never realized how happy I could be as a slave to a system. OH GOD YES FUCK MY ASS YAY.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I agree with Buck wholeheartedly! Lets all wear some swastikas to show that we like being oppressed! Screw Ron Paul! Yay Communism! WOO HOO, I AM A DUMB ASS LIBERAL. I love gays and abortions and hate guns and free will. I never realized how happy I could be as a slave to a system. OH GOD YES FUCK MY ASS YAY.


See Buck?! I have completely taken on your ideology.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 21, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> At this point I want him to win the primary just because it'll be funny to watch Obama make him his bitch.


Would actually be interesting. Both of those two seem to take a year to get their points across.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I agree with Buck wholeheartedly! Lets all wear some swastikas to show that we like being oppressed! Screw Ron Paul! Yay Communism! WOO HOO, I AM A DUMB ASS LIBERAL. I love gays and abortions and hate guns and free will. I never realized how happy I could be as a slave to a system. OH GOD YES FUCK MY ASS YAY.


yes, if you don't agree with ron paul, you are a nazi who welcomes oppression, communism, and grins at abortion. they are dumbasses and love to be slaves. 

i had no idea.

apparently, we also love being fucked in the ass. you are SOOOO correct.

so says the internet gaylord, carthosis.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 21, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, if you don't agree with ron paul, you are a nazi who welcomes oppression, communism, and grins at abortion. they are dumbasses and love to be slaves.
> 
> i had no idea.
> 
> ...


You are so sensational you should work for the Weekly World News UB.


----------



## DelSlow (Jun 22, 2011)

I'd like to see Ron Paul win the nomination just to see what dbags like hannity/ORLY have to say. I mean, they can't support a guy who wants to legalize pot (along with all drugs), so will they support mah niggah Obeezy? Oh, the suspense is KILLING me


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 22, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I hate to be the one to have break this to you but the location you happen to be born in have very little to do with how smart/stupid you are. Every country around the world without exception have idiots. With all the stereotyping and generalizing you do it's not at all surprising that idiots gravitated towards you.
> 
> I doubt I know anyone who couldn't pick out South Africa on a map and most are aware it's a fairly developed country. However if you're running your month stereotyping everyone all the time like you seem to be in the habit of doing, only idiots are going to want to talk to you.
> 
> ...


Talk about stereotyping and lowering yourself Dan, you label me as a hater even though you seemingly purposefully ignore my clear recognition in my posts that I do not hate Americans or anyone else for that matter, if you were to go back and read every post you responded to me in this thread you will see that you were the one berating and belittling me not visa versa...."Mr. Douchebag"

And you are right in saying that there will always be idiots in every country but are you choosing to ignore that the rest of the worlds understanding of a first world country like America who is the best at everything is that they would overall be more educated, aware and in tune with the rest of the world considering they are always delving into everyone's business and trying to tell them democracy and capitalism is the only way, the right way, Christ's way. 

Your comment of **we are somewhat isolated over here** is most probably accurate from the point of view that Americans are fed a daily systematic diet of delusion they call their daily lives just like everyone else in the first world unfortunately but at the same time is somewhat of a contradiction in terms considering that America is the super power of the world, the largest economy in the world, the largest exporter of corporate product in the world. 3rd world countries expect you guys to know better and act accordingly, not to just run in and take what you want because you have bigger guns. This is not the vast majority of the citizens of America's fault nor their personal actions but rather a secluded bunch of mavericks who abuse their power and position for their own gain.

Your other comment of **why the fuck should we care where they are?** can be interpreted in one of two ways, the location of places is not all that much of a big deal and in the scheme of thing it ain't pivotal to anyone's life necessarily * BUT* it could also be interpreted in a way in which I see many many westerners view the rest of the world...*IF IT AIN'T HAPPENING TO ME THEN I DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM, RATHER THEM THAN ME ATTITUDE* which is precisely the problem I have with western society. When was the last time America or any country in Europe was bombed to shit since WWII? It is easy to digress as a westerner isn't it. This is why governments are allowed to get away with what they do but it has become so complacent a problem that now westerners are even allowing themselves to be cornered into agreeing to stripping of liberties for the sake a false war on terror or any other implement that suits the few rather then the many. 

So far you have given me the impression that you are far more focussed on your berating retorts to me rather than actually reading thoroughly my points of view, if you had you would realise that I am not a hater of American citizens but rather a hater of western complacency and overall ignorance of the truth behind what our governments in collusion with corporate powers to do us all, 1st world or the 3rd world. 

By the way Dan, if you had ever interacted with a rural person in a 3rd world environment who is largely untouched by western ways you would realise that they have very little understanding of jealousy or bitterness which only goes to show that these emotions and feelings are created by western ways. 

PS. As much as you may hate to hear this you better enjoy that No.1 position whilst it lasts, every dog has it's day....you only have to look back in history for proof of that.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 22, 2011)

It's ok newworldicon. Unfortunately most Americans have a hard time accepting criticism regardless of how constructive it may be.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 22, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, if you don't agree with ron paul, you are a nazi who welcomes oppression, communism, and grins at abortion. they are dumbasses and love to be slaves.
> 
> i had no idea.
> 
> ...


You have three options at all times. Move towards something, move away from something, or stay where you are. We have never stayed where we are on anything for any amount of time. That leaves moving towards or away. We definitely aren't moving towards more liberty. We are moving towards more authority and control for the federal government over the lives of the people. Unless this is stopped, we will be living in an authoritarian country in the my lifetime. I would suggest you remember that Soviet Union and Nazi Germany became what they were because the government kept consolidating power and no one stopped them. Republican and Democratic parties are both supporting more government power and control over our lives. At what point would you consider that to be Liberal or Conservative? 

Our current parties have this tug of war game going between them for control. What happens in tug of war when one side finally gets the upper hand? Everyone goes flying to one side. That is what is going to happen. We will end up like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union depending on which side finally wins. The Republic will be gone, replaced by an authoritarian regime. Whether it is using the guise of society or morality makes no difference to those oppressed.

Uncle Buck expected reply "Put your tin foil hat on before they get your brain waves! This could never happen!"

Yes, never! It could never have happened in Russia, Germany, England, Spain, Italy, ect ect ect. Do you really think something that happened in the lifetime of many people who are alive now was so long ago and so different that it could not happen again?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 22, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Talk about stereotyping and lowering yourself Dan, you label me as a hater even though you seemingly purposefully ignore my clear recognition in my posts that I do not hate Americans or anyone else for that matter, if you were to go back and read every post you responded to me in this thread you will see that you were the one berating and belittling me not visa versa...."Mr. Douchebag"
> 
> And you are right in saying that there will always be idiots in every country but are you choosing to ignore that the rest of the worlds understanding of a first world country like America who is the best at everything is that they would overall be more educated, aware and in tune with the rest of the world considering they are always delving into everyone's business and trying to tell them democracy and capitalism is the only way, the right way, Christ's way.
> 
> ...


So basically your entire thing is that we should be doing a better job of running the entire world and that we have a responsibility to the world to do better because we are already the best. The countries that no one cares about don't have any responsibility to the world to get better?

I have spent time in "3rd world" countries, and I have family that are poor natives of a 
"3rd world" country. They still get jealous and bitter, but I can agree its not the same. I love them, and I enjoy being there with them. I may some day go there to retire. That being said, a lot of people in America are the same way. I am highly doubting you have ever been to the swamps of the south, the backwoods areas of places like Maine, Dakotas, Carolinas, ect. America is 50 countries connected together. For you to say we are all the same would be like me saying South Africa and Somalia are the same. America is a huge place with many different cultures. You not understanding that is akin to me saying that the entire continent of Africa is a bunch of poor starving black people who have AIDs. Ignorant and bigoted. 

Everyone in America is not cocky or ignorant. We don't all want to police the world. In fact, the very post you are posting all this in is dedicated to discussion of smaller government and not trying to police the world anymore. I have to question why you bothered coming to this thread to begin with? I wouldn't go find a S African thread and start trying to act like I was better than everyone else there because I am American.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 22, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Our current parties have this tug of war game going between them for control. What happens in tug of war when one side finally gets the upper hand? Everyone goes flying to one side. That is what is going to happen. We will end up like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union depending on which side finally wins. The Republic will be gone, replaced by an authoritarian regime.


let me know when they start rounding up the jews and communists and sending them to the gulag.

by gulag, i mean north dakota, god forsaken land that is.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 22, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> let me know when they start rounding up the jews and communists and sending them to the gulag.
> 
> by gulag, i mean north dakota, god forsaken land that is.


America has 5% of the worlds population, yet it has 25% of the worlds prisoners. It sounds like they are already rounding people up to me.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 22, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> America has 5% of the worlds population, yet it has 25% of the worlds prisoners. It sounds like they are already rounding people up to me.


i have never heard of someone being sent to jail for being jewish or supporting communism, mr. false equivalence.

here man, chill your tits.

[video=youtube;QH2-TGUlwu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 22, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i have never heard of someone being sent to jail for being jewish or supporting communism, mr. false equivalence.
> 
> here man, chill your tits.
> 
> [video=youtube;QH2-TGUlwu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4[/video]


What is the more important part of it: Who is being oppressed or that people are being oppressed? Please, tell me you think all those people deserved to be locked up for no reason other than they chose to do something the government didn't like. It isn't like those people are rapists and murderers. They are bad check writers, drug users and dealers(500k of em), and people who didn't pay their child support.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 22, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> What is the more important part of it: Who is being oppressed or why?


i'm too busy with nyan cat to ponder. why don't you answer for me.


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 22, 2011)

In my opinion they all seem to know how to say the right thing when needed but not many presidents have been able to do the right thing when needed. Politics is a game of talk. And we know many that talk but dont walk the talk 

Perhaps someone should run on the notion of no promises or vow's. It would be an honest approach rather then just flabbin at the gum about im gonna do this and do that and when I get in office you can bet that I am ...zzzzzzzzzzzzz...... a no show...just like any other wad that walked in there and though they had the world and all its problems all figured out.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 22, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Talk about stereotyping and lowering yourself Dan, you label me as a hater even though you seemingly purposefully ignore my clear recognition in my posts that I do not hate Americans or anyone else for that matter, if you were to go back and read every post you responded to me in this thread you will see that you were the one berating and belittling me not visa versa...."Mr. Douchebag"


I'm not sure you understand what the word "stereotyping" means. It doesn't mean to form an opinion about a person based on specific things they say or do. It's confusing when you say you don't hate Americans when most of your posts are full of negative stereotypes about Americans. 



> And you are right in saying that there will always be idiots in every country but are you choosing to ignore that the rest of the worlds understanding of a first world country like America who is the best at everything is that they would overall be more educated, aware and in tune with the rest of the world considering they are always delving into everyone's business and trying to tell them democracy and capitalism is the only way, the right way, Christ's way.


Democracy is the only way, the right way. Everyone in the world should have the right to determine who represents them in government. You act like people living under an oppressive dictator are just choosing some alternative lifestyle. It's not a choice. The people of Libya asked for our help in getting rid of their psychopathic leadership that was murdering their own people and we gave it to them. There is no American oppression there. We were invited in.



> Your comment of **we are somewhat isolated over here** is most probably accurate from the point of view that Americans are fed a daily systematic diet of delusion they call their daily lives


This is the type of bullshit statement I've been talking about. Who the fuck are you to say shit like this just because people have a different idea of what is important? 



> 3rd world countries expect you guys to know better and act accordingly, not to just run in and take what you want because you have bigger guns.


So you're blaming America for human nature? Interesting.



> This is not the vast majority of the citizens of America's fault nor their personal actions but rather a secluded bunch of mavericks who abuse their power and position for their own gain.


We are for the most part aware of this. What appears to be ignorance on our part is apathy that stems from the fact there really isn't much we can do to change this. 



> Your other comment of **why the fuck should we care where they are?** can be interpreted in one of two ways, the location of places is not all that much of a big deal and in the scheme of thing it ain't pivotal to anyone's life necessarily * BUT* it could also be interpreted in a way in which I see many many westerners view the rest of the world...*IF IT AIN'T HAPPENING TO ME THEN I DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM, RATHER THEM THAN ME ATTITUDE* which is precisely the problem I have with western society.


Then I think you're misunderstanding us. It's more like "why should I waste energy caring about something I have no power what so ever to change?". I think people here would care if they thought there was something they could do about it. 

Obama was elected precisely because Americans were tired of a lot of things you are complaining about. His campaign was based on ending wars, stopping torture, and getting rid of the secret off shore prisons where people are locked up without trial. Look what that did? Business as usual. 

There were thousands, maybe millions of us protesting the Iraq war. I was in San Francisco when it started and we shut down the city very successfully for quite a while. Our non-violent protests just got us police beatings. 

So you're asking us to care about things we have no power to control. Americans for the most part are not in control of what the government does. We can vote for politicians that will make more subtle changes, but the driving forces behind US foreign policy are out of our control. 



> When was the last time America or any country in Europe was bombed to shit since WWII? It is easy to digress as a westerner isn't it. This is why governments are allowed to get away with what they do but it has become so complacent a problem that now westerners are even allowing themselves to be cornered into agreeing to stripping of liberties for the sake a false war on terror or any other implement that suits the few rather then the many.


I think you'll find there is bi-partisan popular support in America to end military involvement in the war on terror and just start arresting or killing individual terrorists rather than invade countries. But that doesn't mean shit to corporate lobbyists or politicians. 



> if you had you would realise that I am not a hater of American citizens but rather a hater of western complacency and overall ignorance of the truth behind what our governments in collusion with corporate powers to do us all, 1st world or the 3rd world.


Quit making broad and false generalizations about cultures you obviously have very little understanding for and then people won't get the impression that your bigoted against Americans.



> By the way Dan, if you had ever interacted with a rural person in a 3rd world environment who is largely untouched by western ways you would realise that they have very little understanding of jealousy or bitterness which only goes to show that these emotions and feelings are created by western ways.


From my experience that is correct. But I'm not talking about all people from rural third world countries. I'm talking about you specifically. 



> PS. As much as you may hate to hear this you better enjoy that No.1 position whilst it lasts, every dog has it's day....you only have to look back in history for proof of that.


indeed.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 22, 2011)

Once again, Ron Paul represents the will of the people and the Constitution!

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18331456?nclick_check=1


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 22, 2011)

Nope. The constitution is represented by more than a politician. I am not saying he is a bad politician or whatever, but no ron paul is perhaps a Constitutionalist, not a representative of the constitution. More so, I reject the idea of Ron Paul representing the(will-interest) of the people. The people always represent the people. No different than a court of law. Besides, he's a congressman they do different things than those folks over at the House of Representatives...who perhaps may or are "supposed" to "represent" the people and their interest, but I say that very loosely, especially in today's world 

Progress vs. Congress is a funny clause I learned today  No wonder they can't get nothing done.

However, Mr. Paul gets a A+ on his ending prohibition activism. I support the movement to end this war against us likewise. I like him, but I question if he walks the talks. Anybody can talk a good game and say what people want to hear. It another to grab the balls come go time. Especially at his age :/

Great thread


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 22, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> Nope. The constitution is represented by more than a politician. I am not saying he is a bad politician or whatever, but no ron paul is perhaps a Constitutionalist, not a representative of the constitution. More so, I reject the idea of Ron Paul representing the(will-interest) of the people. The people always represent the people. No different than a court of law. Besides, he's a congressman they do different things than those folks over at the House of Representatives...who perhaps may or are "supposed" to "represent" the people and their interest, but I say that very loosely, especially in today's world
> 
> Progress vs. Congress is a funny clause I learned today  No wonder they can't get nothing done.
> 
> ...


i didn't mean representing in that sense put rather trying to uphold the Constitution. Sorry


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 22, 2011)

"3rd world countries expect you guys to know better and act accordingly, not to just run in and take what you want because you have bigger guns."


"So you're blaming America for human nature? Interesting."

Considering America is the single most influential society in the last 200 year I would say no to human nature and yes to one fucked up society....and I mean grande fucked up. It's not human nature to drop bombs on a contrary as a sign of "hey we care" or "hey this should help the cause have some bombs"......Every one under the sun knows that America is a BULLY, and a BROKE one at that  

Dan, we can all tell that you are a very passionate person in regards to America.. Americanism comes to mind....A patriot! And I say good for you, there is nothing wrong with that. Some believe its a false pride, and most of the world thinks its a special form of ignorance. 

Democracy however, is not the only way. For if that was true we would be able to say that the ONLY civilization that has lasted and remained dominate in the world was a democratic society. THAT is NOT true, nor will it ever happen. EVERY GREAT CIVILIZATION know to mankind has CRUMBLED. FAILED, to rumble...and 9 times outta 10 it was to blame on a Government! Democracy is not a promise its an ideology and it is WRONG to force your IDEA's unto another....regardless of how RIGHTEOUS one make think it is  

The Aztecs, The Mayans, The Romans, The Incas,The Egyptians....ALL GONE......Every last known great civilization has crumbled...and 2 of those practiced democracy.....SOOOO....It's not the only way...and its not the right way. Its wishful thinking, with good intentions at best. We as a species can not prove Democracy works any better than Dictatorship. 

Oh yea......One more thing...When you tell someone to STOP or to QUIT doing something...Its not very democratic ...especially if you think its the only way....It reminds me of what politicians do now days....Preach the law while breaking it....


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 22, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm not sure you understand what the word "stereotyping" means. It doesn't mean to form an opinion about a person based on specific things they say or do. It's confusing when you say you don't hate Americans when most of your posts are full of negative stereotypes about Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was just today thinking that many people all be it aware of what is going on around them still feel exactly what you said, helpless and unable to even start where to change things.

So I am jaded and bitter?? that's interesting...now you can some me up with your superior intelligence. 

PS. The Libyan people never asked for American or NATO help, that is a fact!!!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 22, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> Democracy however, is not the only way. For if that was true we would be able to say that the ONLY civilization that has lasted and remained dominate in the world was a democratic society


To be clear, when I say democracy, what I'm referring to is a government system where the people choose the leadership. Not necessarily direct democracy, not even capitalism. If people want to vote for communists to lead their countries, that is their choice and it's not our place to tell them otherwise. 

The key to that is that it's their choice and if they don't like it they have the option to change it to better reflect the needs of the people. 

What is really not up for debate is that people are universally better off with elected leadership. The accountability that comes with democratic elections is in fact the superior to all other forms of government when it comes to government representing the will of the people over a long period of time.

Sure, you can have a benevolent dictator, but you're unlikely to get a succession of 10 of them in a row. One bad one can damage a country irreparably. It only takes one Commodus to undo every good thing that comes from good dictators like Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, and Caesar Augusta. If you have a bad president, you can elect a new one when his term is up. If you have a bad dictator, it takes a civil war to even have a chance at replacing him. 

Basically, for all it's flaws and examples of failure, democratic elections aren't just one of many ways to run a country. They are in fact the best way and should be the only way. Anything else is denying people their collective right to self determination.


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jun 22, 2011)

> A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday.
> 
> The legislation would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.
> 
> ...


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-introduce-bill-legalize-marijuana-225335489.html


----------



## deprave (Jun 22, 2011)

Ron Paul just put out a bill today to decrim marijuana on the national level


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jun 22, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul just put out a bill today to decrim marijuana on the national level


 You would not happen to have that HR # would you because that would be very interesting...

As Ron Paul has been steadfastly in favor of re-legalization. 

In fact, he will file a bill tomorrow for the purpose of re-legalizing cannabis.

Decriminalization would be a step back from that.


----------



## deprave (Jun 22, 2011)

sure, mistake I use the word decrim, I dont think there will be an HR # till thursday when its submited


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 22, 2011)

*"PS. The Libyan people never asked for American or NATO help, that is a fact!!!! **"

*The whole world knows we do what we want and we always have as a country. Straight back to the Native Americans and Columbus until Present we as a nation have never respected anything sovereign and that is something I absolutely agree with Mr. Paul on! 
We as a nation need to change this epidemic because it presents us as an always hostile nation....which provokes lunatics and other beasts. 

Why should'nt Libya perhaps come offer their help and services and see how WE like it? Seems fair in a "democratic" country. 

The idea of you leave us alone and we leave you alone works but we have ego's and pride and all sorts of other lovely shit to cause chaos 

+Rep for the fact


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jun 22, 2011)

deprave said:


> sure, mistake I use the word decrim, I dont think there will be an HR # till thursday when its submited


 I am aware of the fact that a resolution number will not be available for the re-legalization bill until it is filed tomorrow.

That is NOT the one I was asking you to provide.

I asked for the number of the HR you stated was filed (put out) TODAY, which I understood you to mean a decriminalization bill.


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 22, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> To be clear, when I say democracy, what I'm referring to is a government system where the people choose the leadership. Not necessarily direct democracy, not even capitalism. If people want to vote for communists to lead their countries, that is their choice and it's not our place to tell them otherwise.
> 
> The key to that is that it's their choice and if they don't like it they have the option to change it to better reflect the needs of the people.
> 
> ...


Perhaps if you were to medicate a little deeper you would be able to ease your trouble mind  You have issues and should be checked by a trained professional as soon as possible. 

I don't wish to entertain your whatever because your just "basically" shot. Predicting the future ? Know all about dictatorship and envisioning a democracy with this stipulation and that stipulation but not this one....I dont believe that is what the Founding Fathers had in Mind at all. Have a good one Tiger 

+Rep for the Dictatorship Envisionment


----------



## deprave (Jun 22, 2011)

Johnnyorganic said:


> I am aware of the fact that a resolution number will not be available for the re-legalization bill until it is filed tomorrow.
> 
> That is NOT the one I was asking you to provide.
> 
> I asked for the number of the HR you stated was filed (put out) TODAY, which I understood you to mean a decriminalization bill.


 nother typo, I was talking about Thursdays legalization bill, sorry


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 22, 2011)

Anyone ever see the political cartoon that goes something along the lines of " Enter Slogan"- This years political candidate 2012. I think this sums up the truth about the people we put on pedestals in this country! It's shallow and a big cloud of smoke! Think for yourself, do for yourself and quit letting others fuck everything up for you and me! 

 Smoke- Be Happy-Live Life


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 22, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> ...quit letting others fuck everything up for you and me!


i don't know about you, but i happen to be in charge of my own fate.

i don't bandy about pretending that my fate is in the hands of some politician or the other. i don't blame them when i fail, and they don't get credit when i succeed.

if some politician is your convenient place of blame for whatever issues you may have, then you have my full sympathy.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 22, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> Perhaps if you were to medicate a little deeper you would be able to ease your trouble mind  You have issues and should be checked by a trained professional as soon as possible.
> 
> I don't wish to entertain your whatever because your just "basically" shot. Predicting the future ? Know all about dictatorship and envisioning a democracy with this stipulation and that stipulation but not this one....I dont believe that is what the Founding Fathers had in Mind at all. Have a good one Tiger
> 
> +Rep for the Dictatorship Envisionment


When telling people to seek help, you probably shouldn't follow it up with incoherent meaningless babbling.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 22, 2011)

[video=youtube;M9rcGWiZK7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9rcGWiZK7k[/video]

This guy is really impressive. IMO he could beat Obama in a general election if unemployment stays high.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 23, 2011)

What the hell? Leaving the middle east is somehow to the "left" of Obama?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> What the hell? Leaving the middle east is somehow to the "left" of Obama?


Has anyone questioned WHY he's pulling troops? Y'all know that US militry troops are being deployed domestically right? Natural disaster response? Unlikely in some of the areas they've been observed.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> [obligatory jon huntsman video]
> 
> This guy is really impressive. IMO he could beat Obama in a general election if unemployment stays high.


as i told my wife earlier:

he is mormon, and thus, like romney, can appreciate religious freedom and knows how to express it (ie, no muslim bashing)

he said he would respect the ny law allowing gay marriage, a positive sign for anyone on the gop ticket.

overall, he seems to be the best they have so far, besides gary johnson.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 23, 2011)

[youtube]S_Lmcq7Qe6Y[/youtube]


----------



## deprave (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> This guy is really impressive. IMO he could beat Obama in a general election if unemployment stays high.


 Another centrist fag, hes basically a democrat, this guy reeks of phoney


----------



## Parker (Jun 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> Another centrist fag, hes basically a democrat, this guy reeks of phoney


Agreed. All one has to do is look at his record instead of a soundbite to see he's uninformed and has little to offer in policies.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 23, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> Anyone ever see the political cartoon that goes something along the lines of " Enter Slogan"- This years political candidate 2012. I think this sums up the truth about the people we put on pedestals in this country! It's shallow and a big cloud of smoke! Think for yourself, do for yourself and quit letting others fuck everything up for you and me!
> 
> Smoke- Be Happy-Live Life


You know, Ron Paul is the only politician I can think of who is honest about what he wants. Ron Paul votes against things he personally believes are good morally because he realizes that Liberty is the most important thing that one can have. As far as him not have the courage of his convictions - I don't think even the left thinks he will change if he was president. Ron Paul is one person who is honest and forthright, never changing his position in almost 40 years of being a politician. You can disagree with his views. You can think he might not help or even make things worse. However, it is disingenuous to say he is 'just another politician'. Ron Paul, whether right or wrong, is definitely a man who stands by his beliefs and I think is willing to die for them and will never sell out.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> as i told my wife earlier:
> 
> he is mormon, and thus, like romney, can appreciate religious freedom and knows how to express it (ie, no muslim bashing)
> 
> ...


Wouldn't Ron Paul respect that same NY law allowing gay marriage?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 23, 2011)

[youtube]RkfQya3kTOI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> [youtube]RkfQya3kTOI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


Many RP supporters on FB are tripping out and wondering how to handle the snowbirds' reaction to this legislation. Appealing to their sense of liberty and sefl responsibility is one way imo.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> as i told my wife earlier:
> 
> he is mormon, and thus, like romney, can appreciate religious freedom and knows how to express it (ie, no muslim bashing)
> 
> ...


Does Ron Paul bash Muslims?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Does Ron Paul bash Muslims?


actually, that is one thing i will commend him for. he stood up for the muslims who wanted to build a mosque on their own property near ground zero.

but his other issues are well-documented and discussed, so i won't get into them here. let's just say i don't want a turtle fucker as president.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> actually, that is one thing i will commend him for. he stood up for the muslims who wanted to build a mosque on their own property near ground zero.
> 
> but his other issues are well-documented and discussed, so i won't get into them here. let's just say i don't want a turtle fucker as president.


He stands up for everyone. Gay, Black, Muslim -- everyone is treated the same by Ron Paul.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 23, 2011)

Pleasantly Poiple said:


> there is not one politician that is worth the air they breathe


The only one I have any respect for is Ron Paul - at least he is honest. Most of our politicians can't even go 3-4 years without doing something horrible like taking bribes or stuffing cigars in some twats twat. Ron Paul has almost 40 years of honesty and integrity. He tries to do what he says he is going to. He might not succeed, but he doesn't go and completely turn around. Whether you agree with him or not on the issues, at least he is honest.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> He stands up for everyone. Gay, Black, Muslim -- everyone is treated the same by Ron Paul.


He stands up for black people so much he thinks ending slavery and giving them civil rights was a mistake.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> He stands up for black people so much he thinks ending slavery and giving them civil rights was a mistake.


That is incorrect, or at best a veiled attempt to create another Strawman that would be easily defeated. Most people would call you dishonest.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

I wouldn't...Ron paul actually said he wouldn't have done either


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I wouldn't...Ron paul actually said he wouldn't have done either


 Prove Dr Paul wants slaves and no civil rights for black people. Knock yourself out, the best you will do is find Dr Paul not agreeing with the federal overstepping that was given in the Civil rights ACT. Remember he was against the ACT, not the civil rights.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

well you tell me what he would have done....so far I know what he would have not done


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> That is incorrect, or at best a veiled attempt to create another Strawman that would be easily defeated. Most people would call you dishonest.


It's not dishonest at all. It's 100% clearly stated fact. Ron Paul has said on the record many times that he opposed the ending of slavery and the civil rights act. It's now dishonest to correctly state Ron Paul's opinion just because it makes him look bad? Wow. That's worse than the claim that posting something that contradicts Ron Paul = spam.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

If anyone has a link to this where he says just that I would love to see this plz...


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSQc5gcAGLQ&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> It's not dishonest at all. It's 100% clearly stated fact. Ron Paul has said on the record many times that he opposed the ending of slavery and the civil rights act. It's now dishonest to correctly state Ron Paul's opinion just because it makes him look bad? Wow. That's worse than the claim that posting something that contradicts Ron Paul = spam.


I want to see proof that Dr Paul said he was opposed to ending slavery.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> If anyone has a link to this where he says just that I would love to see this plz...


Can do.



> Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/23/4426982-ron-paul-on-meet-the-press

Ron Paul wanted to wait for a "free market" solution to slavery. Letting it go along as is until the free market decided to get rid of it on it's own. Some how it's none of the government's business to end crimes against humanity occurring in this country. Free market principles are more important than human rights apparently. Unless you're a slave, then you might have felt differently about the subject. 

Ron Paul opposing segregation because he believes segregation is a property owner's right:

[video=youtube;iSQc5gcAGLQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSQc5gcAGLQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]

He also opposes having Martin Luther King's birthday being a holiday.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

We should make Ron Paul and his followers slaves in a sweat shop in china..then tell them to wait until the freemarket frees them...and to think that he would allow me to refuse people service in one of my businesses all based on the color of ones skin in the name of "property rights"...WTF


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Can do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read and watched everything and have to say you could view this in two ways depending which side of the fence you sit on. It just seems like another typical discrediting effort employed in politics, by saying he felt it would have been the lesser of two evils to buy slaves then release them rather than killing 600 000 people and the cost of a war included is by no means saying he is racist which is what the detractors are implying now. Big difference really!!!

Lets try find where he discusses MLK's birthday....


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> We should make Ron Paul and his followers slaves in a sweat shop in china..then tell them to wait until the freemarket frees them...and to think that he would allow me to refuse people service in one of my businesses all based on the color of ones skin in the name of "property rights"...WTF


By that account we should make Obama and his followers fight at ground level in the hot zone in Libya simply because that's his position...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Read and watched everything and have to say you could view this in two ways depending which side of the fence you sit on. It just seems like another typical discrediting effort employed in politics, by saying he felt it would have been the lesser of two evils to buy slaves then release them rather than killing 600 000 people and the cost of a war included is by no means saying he is racist which is what the detractors are implying now. Big difference really!!!
> 
> Lets try find where he discusses MLK's birthday....


are you saying it would have been better to keep the slaves instead of losing the lives ????? What about the lives of slaves...???? The Civil War was not an evil it was a war that helped stop an evil that was going on in America..


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Can do.


None of your claims were presented here, Not a single instance of "I want there to be slavery" also no mention of "blacks should not have civil rights." Where do you come up with this shit? Perhaps you should crawl back under your bridge.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> are you saying it would have been better to keep the slaves instead of losing the lives ????? What about the lives of slaves...???? The Civil War was not an evil it was a war that helped stop an evil that was going on in America..


Of course, because setting slaves free is the same as wanting slavery, How could I not see this?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Read and watched everything and have to say you could view this in two ways depending which side of the fence you sit on. It just seems like another typical discrediting effort employed in politics, by saying he felt it would have been the lesser of two evils to buy slaves then release them rather than killing 600 000 people and the cost of a war included is by no means saying he is racist which is what the detractors are implying now. Big difference really!!!
> 
> Lets try find where he discusses MLK's birthday....


I'd like to know when it became ok to pretend supporting the "rights" of property owners to systematically oppress a race of people became a reasonable non-racist argument. Pretending the rights of people to be racist is more important than the civil rights of Americans is a ridiculous argument and possibly racist in it self.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> None of your claims were presented here, Not a single instance of "I want there to be slavery" also no mention of "blacks should not have civil rights." Where do you come up with this shit? Perhaps you should crawl back under your bridge.


I didn't say that. By misquoting me you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. 

I said Ron Paul didn't support ending slavery. He didn't support the emancipation proclamation. He didn't support ending segregation.


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'd like to know when it became ok to pretend supporting the "rights" of property owners to systematically oppress a race of people became a reasonable non-racist argument. Pretending the rights of people to be racist is more important than the civil rights of Americans is a ridiculous argument and possibly racist in it self.


All of this is presumptious Dan, you are assuming that because he wanted to give property owners as much consideration as the suppressed that he is now racist, would you only give reasonable doubt to those you liked??

So in a nutshell are you saying Ron Paul is secretly a racist??


----------



## redivider (Jun 23, 2011)

ron paul didn't support the emancipation??

is he really that old??? lol....


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Lets try find where he discusses MLK's birthday....


and if you really want to continue discussing American politics I would suggest you start by doing some research ...Try google..its your friend...Its a known fact that he voted against MLK birthday ..the same as John McCain


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and if you really want to continue discussing American politics I would suggest you start by doing some research ...Try google..its your friend...Its a known fact that he voted against MLK birthday ..the same as John McCain


Thanks I am doing research as you can see when I say where you quote me..."let's see where he discusses....." that implies I am going to find it myself. Also where on a previous page I immediately linked a video to the same link as Dan....but for the record foghead I don't need to know the history of America to know that in that video RP categorically did not say what you guys are implying...if you are going to accuse then at least make it solid evidence not the sort of evidence you see regarding UFO's....kinda hazy and easily interpreted in many ways depending on your stance...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

just do your research before you chime in ...it will stop you from wanting to discuss things that are already known facts...Now do you wish to comment on why he would vote against MLK birthday???


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> just do your research before you chime in ...it will stop you from wanting to discuss things that are already known facts...Now do you wish to comment on why he would vote against MLK birthday???


Are you discussing things that are not known facts, are you ahead of your time?????????????????

PS. Why don't you link where he claims this, you guys are always quick to say, "prove it or it did not happen"


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

yawnnnnn...again do you have anything to add to the reason why he voted against MLK birthday ????


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-ron-paul-voted-nay-to-mlk-day.html

But one article on him voting nay, do yourselves a favour and read what *Richard* in the comments section at the bottom has to say...

Either way voting NO on another public holiday does not make anyone racist, in South Africa after 1994 we got a flood of public holidays 47 in total and many people, black and white thought it was ridiculous as they took away days that we could all be contributing to our economy. 

You guys are nothing more than opponents that play the age of game of discrediting each other for the sake of feeling like you have a voice whilst your chosen officials only let you down again and again...


----------



## newworldicon (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> yawnnnnn...again do you have anything to add to the reason why he voted against MLK birthday ????


Yes I just did, voting no to a holiday does not make you racist, do you have anything to say about him voting no, shall I yawn at you??

Enlighten me with your sofa wisdom???


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

redivider said:


> ron paul didn't support the emancipation??
> 
> is he really that old??? lol....


do you notice the way he hunches at the podium? 

and the way he's been repeating himself for the last 40 years? he is like my gramps telling the same war stories over and over again.

he could quite possibly be on his way to alzheimers. could you imagine giving him the nuclear codes?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

no worries for he will not make it out the primary...I think Michele Bachmann took his tea party and owning him...I say either Mitt or Michelle


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> All of this is presumptious Dan, you are assuming that because he wanted to give property owners as much consideration as the suppressed that he is now racist, would you only give reasonable doubt to those you liked??
> 
> So in a nutshell are you saying Ron Paul is secretly a racist??


It's not presumptuous to say he considers the rights of segregationists to oppress minorities more important that the civil rights of black Americans. He does. That's 100% what he believes. He's very open about that and doesn't speak in uncertain terms. That alone is arguably racists. If you combined that with his views on ending slavery, mlk's birthday, and the fact that he published a racist newsletter under his name which may or may not have been written by him, it's hard to not come to the conclusion that he's either a racist or he panders to racists.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Yes I just did, voting no to a holiday does not make you racist, do you have anything to say about him voting no, shall I yawn at you??
> 
> Enlighten me with your sofa wisdom???


When he opposes MLK's birthday as a holiday, published a racist newsletter under his own name, and has managed to find an excuse to be against practically every key piece of legislation that makes black Americans equal citizens, the combination of all that makes it perfectly reasonable to wonder if he's a racist or not. His views and explanations are indistinguishable from David Duke. Are we going to argue that David Duke isn't a racist?

I don't see how anyone can look at the sum of Ron Paul's positions on the subject and draw the conclusion that it is impossible he's a racist or that he is somehow on the side of black Americans.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

A man telling another man that he cannot come into his business only because of the color of his skin is racism..Ron Paul's "idea" would have the government sanction that racism..WTF


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> A man telling another man that he cannot come into his business only because of the color of his skin is racism..Ron Paul's "idea" would have the government sanction that racism..WTF


The fact that he values segregationists right to oppress minorities over the civil rights of black people is a little bit racists in it self IMO. It's saying that protecting bigotry is more important than the right of a black person to be treated as an equal. That logic only makes sense if you consider someone who is black to be less important than a white person.


----------



## deprave (Jun 23, 2011)

damn you guys are just having a hayday in my absence lol, Wish I had time to repeat myself to you guys for the 100th time on these issues but I really don't, try reading this thread. FYI dan kone, london frog, and uncle buck are all trolls dont even waste your time guys.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

Of course. Anyone who doesn't support Ron Paul 100% of the time is a troll.


----------



## deprave (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Of course. Anyone who doesn't support Ron Paul 100% of the time is a troll.


 anyone who antagonizes people for entertainment is a troll, that is all 3 of you by definition.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> damn you guys are just having a hayday in my absence lol, Wish I had time to repeat myself to you guys for the 100th time on these issues but I really don't, try reading this thread. FYI dan kone, london frog, and uncle buck are all trolls dont even waste your time guys.


that's the spirit!

once the truth about ron paul comes out in a thread bearing that title, the people exposing that truth must be insulted and marginalized as "trolls".

forget that we don't meet that definition, or that we are making cogent, substantive arguments, we must be trolls.

and the guy who comes in and throws insults is the enlightened one.

makes perfect sense.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> anyone who antagonizes people for entertainment is a troll, that is all 3 of you by definition.


you think we are just antagonizing you for entertainment?

although it is entertaining to see your thread backfire completely, that is not what we are doing.

we are expressing our political opinions in a cogent, mild-mannered, and substantive way.

you are the one antagonizing by calling us "trolls".


----------



## deprave (Jun 23, 2011)

* "making cogent, substantive arguments"
LOL
Beg to Differ....You guys just repeat the same crap this entire thread. Ignoring the substance in anyone elses post entirely, and only posting at troll opportunities. 

thats why your post are never more than 5 lines because all the substance? 

Not seeing the "backfire"

Goodnight
 *


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> * "making cogent, substantive arguments"
> LOL
> Beg to Differ....You guys just repeat the same crap this entire thread. Ignoring the substance in anyone elses post entirely, and only posting at troll opportunities.
> 
> ...


notice the highlighted line. 

meditate upon it as you rest.

goodnight, princess.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 23, 2011)

So if you against Ron Paul you are a troll...???


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> So if you against Ron Paul you are a troll...???


Yes. And if you bring up one of Ron Paul's publicly stated opinions and it doesn't make him look good, you're dishonest.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> He stands up for black people so much he thinks ending slavery and giving them civil rights was a mistake.





Dan Kone said:


> I didn't say that. By misquoting me you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
> 
> I said Ron Paul didn't support ending slavery. He didn't support the emancipation proclamation. He didn't support ending segregation.


 Ahh the power of the quote, you said all those things and more. Ron Paul totally supports ending slavery, although somewhat a moot point since it was abolished before he was born. What he doesn't support is the murder of 400,000 Americans to enforce it. Obviously you do support that kind of genocide. So thats what we have here, by your own logic Dan, you support murdering people, lots and lots of people, a literal mile long road of corpses is what you like to see to get your point across. He totally supported ending segregation, but he doesn't support the federal government taking away your other rights to do that. Intellectual dishonesty on your part everytime you try to muddy the waters with your ill conceived ideas you little genocidal maniac you. How does it feel to support the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of people?


----------



## sync0s (Jun 23, 2011)

He is right. You guys are repeating arguments. This argument was used a looooooooooooooooooooooong time ago. It turned into an argument over affirmative action, I posted a study that showed that repeal of affirmative action (done in Cali) only hurt blacks marginally because of unqualified people not being allowed into the colleges. It hurt whites as well equally. The ones who benefited were the asian population because they deserved entrance into the colleges more. Our government is preventing deserving people from going to school because they simply see color. Stop arguing racism, if you see color: *you are racist*. It's that simple. Stop looking at us as individually collected races all out against each other and start looking at us as a group of Americans who are for the benefit of our fucking country.

For fucks sakes........


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> ... if you see color: *you are racist*...


i must be racist then.

but not my dog 

just kidding. i don't have a dog.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 23, 2011)

The civil rights act of 1964 actually imposed rules on private property owners to obey the government. Remove all race and equality points of this and this is the bottom line. It was a law that violated our constitutional rights. Don't forget the fact that RP is right: your government promoted racism, and the 64 act was a desperate move to undo their own beast. Laws of segregation only promote ignorance because if you never had a conversation with a black person, you are very inclined to follow the opinion of the racist white.

Proof: look at how our government recognizes blacks as "African Americans." It's downright ignorance because whites are "Caucasions" and not "European Americans," and if you are a real African American but you are white you would say you are "Caucasion." How are we so blind?


----------



## sync0s (Jun 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i must be racist then.
> 
> but not my dog
> 
> just kidding. i don't have a dog.


I figured the two dimensional view of that statement would be used against me. I won't bother.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Ahh the power of the quote, you said all those things and more.


And you did not demonstrate any contradiction if that is what you're going for. 



> What he doesn't support is the murder of 400,000 Americans to enforce it. Obviously you do support that kind of genocide.


ummm. You do realize the south started succeeding before Lincoln was sworn in and they attacked the united states first right? And that Lincoln didn't deliver the emancipation proclamation until the war was 6months old?

So if by support genocide you mean supporting people who were defending themselves against an aggressor who attempted to subvert democracy in order to enslave a race of people, then yes. I totally support genocide. 

That is the single worst attempt at revising history I've ever seen. You should be embarrassed for making that post.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> The civil rights act of 1964 actually imposed rules on private property owners to obey the government. Remove all race and equality points of this and this is the bottom line. It was a law that violated our constitutional rights.


Really? You're advocating for segregation right? Do you really believe the ability to oppress a race of people is an essential right?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You do realize the south started succeeding before Lincoln was sworn in and they attacked the united states first right? And that Lincoln didn't deliver the emancipation proclamation until the war was 6months old?


false. the emancipation proclamation was issued about two years into the war if i remember correctly. it was kind of a gimmick by lincoln to rally support for the war when the north ws not faring too well.

just had to point that out.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And you did not demonstrate any contradiction if that is what you're going for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so why did the south want to secede? 

The war was coming up on its THIRD year before Lincoln issued the Emancipation. You should really check your facts before trying to make a point.

400,000 people did not die at fort Sumter.


BTW The Proclamation only freed slaves in the confederate states, they were already free in the northern states, this is perhaps the reason the confederacy wanted to secede, but then again I MUST be revising history because im sure there was some other reason for the confederacy wanting to secede right?

you might want to retake a high school history class


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> false. the emancipation proclamation was issued about two years into the war if i remember correctly. it was kind of a gimmick by lincoln to rally support for the war when the north ws not faring too well.
> 
> just had to point that out.


Sort of. He announced it 6 months into the war but didn't make it an official executive order until the next year.

edit - my bad. 1 year and 6 months.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> so why did the south want to secede?
> 
> The war was coming up on its THIRD year before Lincoln issued the Emancipation. You should really check your facts before trying to make a point.


Says the guy who just tried to make the claim that the north committed genocide by participating in the civil war.



> 400,000 people did not die at fort Sumter.


And? The south still started the civil war. 



> you might want to retake a high school history class


No, that would be you. You are pretending that the north committed genocide by defending itself.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Says the guy who just tried to make the claim that the north committed genocide by participating in the civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL avoiding the question because answering it will reveal something you don't want to be revealed? Why did the Confederacy Want to Secede?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> LOL avoiding the question because answering it will reveal something you don't want to be revealed? Why did the Confederacy Want to Secede?


Because they wanted to continue to enslave a race of people. I'm not avoiding anything. You claimed that the north defending itself against an army that was trying to subvert democracy = genocide. You're the one who's backing away from that, as you should. That's an obscene distortion of history.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

They fought over "States Rights"...which included the fact that the evil south wanted to keep their way of living which was using and abusing slaves..


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Because they wanted to continue to enslave a race of people. I'm not avoiding anything. You claimed that the north defending itself against an army that was trying to subvert democracy = genocide. You're the one who's backing away from that, as you should. That's an obscene distortion of history.


No, what I did was support my argument that Dr Paul does not believe in slavery and it was slavery that caused the civil war and ultimately 400,000 deaths. Were you not paying attention? Dr paul does not support all those deaths that were a result of the north imposing its anti slavery laws on the south. Get it now?

Its like being against the war, but support the troops none the less. Being against the war does not make one a terrorist sympathizer.

The border states that did not rebel still had slaves, the proclamation only freed the slaves in the confederate states, the loyal border states were allowed to keep slaves. The proclamation did not END slavery.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2011)

HAH london, the evil south? you just characterized 1/4 of all the states as Evil. The foot never really travels far from the mouth does it?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

at that time the south was evil and I'm glad we had the war...


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Dr paul does not support all those deaths that were a result of the north imposing its anti slavery laws on the south. Get it now?


still revising history. Lincoln wasn't even sworn in yet letting alone passing anti-slavery laws when the south succeeded. 

You're going really far out of your way to twist history in order to justify a really horrible position.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

thats what he does...Twist shit


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> They fought over "States Rights"...which included the fact that the evil south wanted to keep their way of living which was using and abusing slaves..


Yeah. The right to enslave a race. What a noble cause. Just like the civil rights act denied rights to property owners. The right to oppresses people based on racial discrimination. 

Who cares about the whole "all men created equal thing". That's not important compared to the rights of the south to act like bigoted oppressive assholes.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

and some people will still try to defend it...WOW


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Really? You're advocating for segregation right? Do you really believe the ability to oppress a race of people is an essential right?


Are you stupid? In what way did any of my above posts say I ADVOCATED segregation? Read dude, please, read.

In all actuality, the government had full right to pass an act that desegregated public facilities. Perfect. Imposing on privately owned property is actually infringing on an essential right: property rights.

Dig your head out of your ass and stop being persuaded by the cover story and look at the details. Slavery is wrong, segregation is wrong, but our government is the main product of creation for both.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

Opposition of the 1964 civil rights act does not make you a racist, nor a sexist, unless it is founded on the ideal that blacks or women are not equal. If your opposition is founded on any other grounds, calling the opposition a racist is actually just a hate mongering argument meant to defame the opposition, and it in no way is a sign of any kind of intelligent debate.

What can be fair for one group(s), can also not be fair for another group(s), which can also include the former. Our founding fathers said that ALL rights need to be protected, including the rights of the minority, as well as the majority.



> &#8220;The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.&#8221; &#8211;Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.





> &#8220;Property is the fruit of labor&#8230;property is desirable&#8230;is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.&#8221;&#8211;Abraham Lincoln, March 21, 1864.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

why would you oppose the 1964 Civil rights act ????


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> why would you oppose the 1964 Civil rights act ????


Apparently, you do not read. It infringes on private property rights by forcing privately owned business on private property to serve a specific group of people. It is in your own right to choose who you will or will not serve regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation.

I am not opposed to the 1964 civil rights act. I am posting all of this because it is absolutely retarded to believe that simple opposition means that you are a racist. It's like saying that if this were the 1860s and you were against the civil war you were pro slavery and a racist. Unfounded. (By the way, if you disagree, Lincoln didn't even want the civil war, he was forced into it)


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Apparently, you do not read. It infringes on private property rights by forcing privately owned business on private property to serve a specific group of people. It is in your own right to choose who you will or will not serve regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation.
> 
> I am not opposed to the 1964 civil rights act. I am posting all of this because it is absolutely retarded to believe that simple opposition means that you are a racist. It's like saying that if this were the 1860s and you were against the civil war you were pro slavery and a racist. Unfounded. (By the way, if you disagree, Lincoln didn't even want the civil war, he was forced into it)


 if you want to be a private club/business do so..well in you rights but if you serving the public then you will serve all..Now if you don't like the fact that in this country if you open a business that serves the public you have to serve all regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation ...then maybe you should open a business in another country and take that racist and bigotry shit with you....


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> if you want to be a private club/business do so..well in you rights but if you serving the public then you will serve all..Now if you don't like the fact that in this country if you open a business that serves the public you have to serve all regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation ...then maybe you should open a business in another country and take that racist shit with you....


In modern America, a business that refused to serve someone based on race would highly likely never succeed anyways. What do you mean by serving the public? In political context that would mean serving a "tax payer" entity, meaning some sort of business contracted with a government body? I can agree to that. I consider any private customer being served by a private business a private transaction, therefore nothing is "public" about it. On your definitions our government could go retrieve all customer records from private business any time they wanted to because they "serve the public" making it "public information." Bye bye doctor patient confidentiality. Also, remember when our government was suing google in order to retrieve all search records from american users, and google fought it so hard until they had no choice? What do you suppose these records were used for (narcotics arrests would be a big guess of mine).

Your proposal for leaving the country because you are racist is also complete disregard for constitutional rights. It is understandable to have dismay for a racist if you are so truly opposed, but to deny one the rights to an opinion or voice within this country is denying all Americans the right to the first amendment.

The true thing you should be saying is all Socialists and Communists (no one admits to this one even if they share the same ideals) should get the fuck out, because these political ideals are exactly what our founding fathers and the people of colonial america did not want our country to be. Therefore, these ideals are actually completely against the American way of life as intended by it's founders.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> In modern America, a business that refused to serve someone based on race would highly likely never succeed anyways. What do you mean by serving the public? In political context that would mean serving a "tax payer" entity, meaning some sort of business contracted with a government body? I can agree to that. I consider any private customer being served by a private business a private transaction, therefore nothing is "public" about it. On your definitions our government could go retrieve all customer records from private business any time they wanted to because they "serve the public" making it "public information." Bye bye doctor patient confidentiality.
> 
> Your proposal for leaving the country because you are racist is also complete disregard for constitutional rights. It is understandable to have dismay for a racist if you are so truly opposed, but to deny one the rights to an opinion or voice within this country is denying all Americans the right to the first amendment.
> 
> The true thing you should be saying is all Socialists and Communists (no one admits to this one even if they share the same ideals) should get the fuck out, because these political ideals are exactly what our founding fathers and the people of colonial america did not want our country to be. Therefore, these ideals are actually completely against the American way of life as intended by it's founders.


Sounds like you never read the Civil Rights Act and what it did and did not do..Do you know the difference between private and public ???


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Your proposal for leaving the country because you are racist is also complete disregard for constitutional rights. It is understandable to have dismay for a racist if you are so truly opposed, but to deny one the rights to an opinion or voice within this country is denying all Americans the right to the first amendment.


Oh you can stay but if you are to do business you will go by the law of the land..or maybe let me SUGGEST you find another country that will allow you to be as racist as you like...


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Sounds like you never read the Civil Rights Act and what it did and did not do..Do you know the difference between private and public ???


*Title II*

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."


That is the part of the ERA that is the cause for debate. Yes, I did read it.
What's that? You own a restaurant in Vegas and on your own private property that wants to serve tourists? That's not happening unless you follow our rules!

Here is some more:



> *Title VII*
> 
> Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[31]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[32]


Only exemptions to title 7:


> There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
> 
> 
> Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
> ...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> *Title II*
> 
> Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."
> 
> ...


ummmm its not private if you serving tourist whom we can assume is the public...tell you what open a restaurant/casino call it a country club...make your members of your club pay a fee allow them to bring guest and then you can get your racism on by just allowing your members in..good luck with that...and read the whole Civil Rights Act not the Wiki version..might learn something


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ummmm its not private if you serving tourist whom we can assume is the public...tell you what open a restaurant/casino call it a country club...make your members of your club pay a fee allow them to bring guest and then you can get your racism on by just allowing your members in..good luck with that...and read the whole Civil Rights Act not the Wiki version..might learn something


So if your a tourist the government owns your business? You can't start a casino and call it a "private gambling club," that's illegal (oops, already discovered how the law is forcing private business to abide.)



> TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
> SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
> (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
> (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
> ...


God damn, happy? I have read it and was looking for quotes for you. I do believe that above quote covers all customers possible to force a privately owned business on privately owned property to abide by government restrictions.


Along the same lines, did you know the American Disabilities Act requires a government to accommodate current drug addicts as long as they are enrolled in a treatment program (even if they are fucked up at work!) and cannot fire the employee? See how a seemingly good intending law can completely disrupt a private business?

Finally, cut the "your racism" out of your post. I resent that statement, I am not a racist. Your only proving my point above that if you disagree with the particular legislation then you are automatically labeled a racist.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and if you really want to continue discussing American politics I would suggest you start by doing some research ...Try google..its your friend...Its a known fact that he voted against MLK birthday ..the same as John McCain


I have to go to work, so I don't have time to point out all the inaccuracies of the last day or two. However, LOL. You make it sound like they tried to steal MLK's birthday. You are free to celebrate whatever day you want. You can't give everyone a holiday.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> when the south succeeded.


... and what did they succeed at? ooops, another typo? Another shining example of how our government run education system is _seceding_.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

What do you call a person who does not allow another into a business due to the color of his or her skin ????? Is there a new word we call them now ???? Do we call them "Protector of Property Rights" ?????? I call them racist...Hell even a bigot would still take your money.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, the guy who advocates against barring all minorities of a certain type from his restaurant/laundromat/gas station is a racist?
> 
> wow, you are a stupid piece of shit.
> 
> ...


My Response to the first quoted part:


londonfrog said:


> *business that serves the public you have to serve all regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation ...then maybe you should open a business in another country and take that racist and bigotry shit with you....*


*

READDDDDDDDDD

Secondly, I never said anyone was a socialist or a communist and in fact the point was off the topic of the 64 civil rights act and more was about the discussions over this entire politics forum. So perhaps the argument was retarded because you didn't read anything neither did you attempt to understand what you were reading.

If you actually read you would see that I support the 64 civil rights act and was merely posting the opposition view on it and what valid points they have. AGAIN, you continue to paint people who oppose the act as a racist, this makes you the ignorant moron.
*


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I feel like I'm arguing with dogs right now, because your minds are unable to think outside of the fucking box.......
> 
> What about movie producers needing the hire a black man for a black man role? If he rejects white or mexicans or muslims for the part does that make him a racist?


ROFL....If a producer needed a man to fill the role of a black man why would you hire a white person ???? bad example dude..Everyone can't act or fill the role of certain parts in a movie, but everyone can and should be able to buy things out of a store or get a meal at a restaurant or get a room in a motel...and you really need to read up on the health care plan..if you don't make a certain amount your health care will be free ( waiver )...and I notice that most people who use that as their argument are the very one who don't make enough to worry about getting fined


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Are you stupid? In what way did any of my above posts say I ADVOCATED segregation? Read dude, please, read.
> 
> In all actuality, the government had full right to pass an act that desegregated public facilities. Perfect. Imposing on privately owned property is actually infringing on an essential right: property rights.
> 
> Dig your head out of your ass and stop being persuaded by the cover story and look at the details. Slavery is wrong, segregation is wrong, but our government is the main product of creation for both.


You're still supporting segregation of private businesses such as restaurants, hotels, etc. 

The thing about this is that either way someone loses a "right". Either black folks lose the right to be treated as equals, or business owners lose the right to be racist and oppress minorities. It's absurd to think the rights of business owners to be racist and oppressive is more important than the rights of black Americans to be treated as equals. 

Property rights aren't the only and most important right in this country. Sorry, but some things are even more valuable than the right to be racist.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> In modern America, a business that refused to serve someone based on race would highly likely never succeed anyways.


That's largely because of the civil rights act. It took that to make America see the error of it's ways. Had we never forced desegregation on the south in all likelihood it would still be segregated today.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> ... and what did they succeed at? ooops, another typo? Another shining example of how our government run education system is _seceding_.


Combing through my posts hunting for typos and spelling errors is getting really fucking old. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look petty. Get over yourself. 

If that's all you have to contribute to a discussion, then fuck off dude. No one cares.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

[video=youtube;o_be9XZ_4_c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_be9XZ_4_c&feature=player_embedded[/video]


Mike church is the Man..... He finally ask PAul the big question and then let him answer them in long form. Doesn't cut him off and smear him with out of context editing and sound bites

Ron PAul is the best man for the job. Pauls knowledge makes Obama look like a highschool idiot.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That's largely because of the civil rights act. It took that to make America see the error of it's ways. Had we never forced desegregation on the south in all likelihood it would still be segregated today.


How do you prove this to be true or untrue. YOu can't support a claim with a hypothetical. The civil rights act only took place because the people wanted it to. You can't say that if the people never had a civil right movement then the people wouldn't ever have had a civil rights movement. What really happened in this country was the Federal government used the momentum of a grassroots and the ground swell rejection of a Government impossed racial policy to impose more federal regulation and oppression on the States.

I love how people see the Segregated South as oppression of whites on black and see the civil rights movement as the Government liberating blacks.

Oppression in the south was Governmental oppression and the civil rights movement was the power of the people. All that really happened was the Federal Government took advantage of the people, (black and white) that wanted the Statist imposition of segregation to end, and further destroyed the Constitution in the name of the civil rights movement. We didn't need the Feds it would had happened without them.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> How do you prove this to be true or untrue. YOu can't support a claim with a hypothetical.


The evidence is the resistance desegregation met in the south. They did not want it at all and showed no willingness to desegregate on their own.



> The civil rights act only took place because the people wanted it to.


The people in the south sure as hell didn't want it. It was very unpopular there. It caused the southern democrats to become republicans where they stay to this day.



> You can't say that if the people never had a civil right movement then the people wouldn't ever have had a civil rights movement.


I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that their is no evidence that the south would have desegregated on it's own and there is a lot of evidence that they would not have. It took the national guard to step in to make that happen.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

^^^^^Agree 100%


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 24, 2011)

if you weren't convinced previously that ron paul fucks turtles, take a gander at this:

[video=youtube;leYuJ4KkAuA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leYuJ4KkAuA[/video]

clearly, he has gained favor with the turtles by exchanging sexual favors with them.

just fucking sick.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You're still supporting segregation of private businesses such as restaurants, hotels, etc.
> 
> The thing about this is that either way someone loses a "right". Either black folks lose the right to be treated as equals, or business owners lose the right to be racist and oppress minorities. It's absurd to think the rights of business owners to be racist and oppressive is more important than the rights of black Americans to be treated as equals.
> 
> Property rights aren't the only and most important right in this country. Sorry, but some things are even more valuable than the right to be racist.


I guess some things are more important than the right to like cheeseburgers, let's outlaw that because it's for the "greater good." Oh, I got a good one: some things are more important than the right to smoke marijuana, it morally corrupts our society and breaks the fabric of American families (bullshit).

Why do I need to repeat myself. Founding fathers said that just because majority wants it, to pass legislation that would neglect the rights of the minority (in this case, not racial minority) than it would be considered oppression.

I will agree with you that the civil rights act was the main driving factor in how racism is so demonized in modern America. As I stated in earlier post just last night, our government perpetuated racism in our country and the civil rights act was a desperate attempt to undo their creation. Everything from Jim Crowe Laws to how racism was taught in schools. Our culture that was promoted by the legislation of our government indoctrinated white people into a racist ideal. You aren't naturally racist, that has to be learned from somewhere. Don't use the parents taught it excuse. I know plenty of people (myself included) who had racist family try to embed those thoughts in their head and they still ended up completely opposite. The laws and segregation required by our government forced people to not be able to see the truths.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> The evidence is the resistance desegregation met in the south. They did not want it at all and showed no willingness to desegregate on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is a clear difference in opinion here and I see the Sociologic mechanics in a very different light. YOu probably think if It wasn't for the Civil War that there would still be slavery.

Government is very pragmatic and politicians are not "principled". Government does only what is in there own best interest and going against the will of a people is never in there own best interest. 

YOu act as as if all people in the south resisted. I beg to differ. 

The civil war was wrong and so was the Federal involvement in the civil right movement. 

Government can't change anything only people can....... Segregation would had been gone without the Feds shredding the Freedoms of ever American.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

YOu also ignore the bulk of my point...... Oppression is the act of Governments not Race. SO the Civil War, Slavery, Segregation, Civil Rights etc... are just shifts in the oppression of the State, not of some abstraction of power contain in the pigments of an individual. We fail to see what society is suffering from. It's not Racism.....It's Statism. But, you folks can continue on with your State worship and arrogantly progress into your Utopia of blissful oppression.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Can do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ron Paul said murdering 600k people wasn't the right plan to free slaves. No one else had a major civil war over the issue. What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.

Also, keep in mind that slavery was not as risk at the start of the civil war. That was something that came after the war started. If there had been no civil war, there would have been no emancipation proclamation. There would of been an eventual end to slavery just like in every other major country in the world. 

You can agree or not agree with those facts, but facts they remain.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I guess some things are more important than the right to like cheeseburgers, let's outlaw that because it's for the "greater good." Oh, I got a good one: some things are more important than the right to smoke marijuana, it morally corrupts our society and breaks the fabric of American families (bullshit).


Those things are indeed bullshit, but that's a false comparison. It's not bullshit that black folks were being denied equal treatment in the south due to segregation.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Ron Paul said murdering 600k people wasn't the right plan to free slaves. No one else had a major civil war over the issue.


And the idea that it was somehow that was the north's fault contradicts US history. The south decided rather than explain their position to the American people they were going to subvert democracy and attack the united states. 100% of the blame for that goes to the confederacy. The confederacy was wrong and the United States were correct. It really is that simple. All these attempts to make the south out to be the victims are disgraceful attempts to rewrite history. 

What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.



> Also, keep in mind that slavery was not as risk at the start of the civil war. That was something that came after the war started. If there had been no civil war, there would have been no emancipation proclamation. There would of been an eventual end to slavery just like in every other major country in the world.


It was 100% about slavery the whole time. That's it. There was no other driving issue. The American people elected an anti-slavery president so the south decided to ignore the will of the people, broke off, and attacked the united states. 



> You can agree or not agree with those facts, but facts they remain.


You can't disagree with a fact unless it is not a fact. Attempts to revise history are not facts, they are bullshit.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Ron Paul said murdering 600k people wasn't the right plan to free slaves. No one else had a major civil war over the issue. What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that slavery was not as risk at the start of the civil war. That was something that came after the war started. If there had been no civil war, there would have been no emancipation proclamation. There would of been an eventual end to slavery just like in every other major country in the world.
> 
> You can agree or not agree with those facts, but facts they remain.


You are correct. The fact will remain regardless of these mindless Statist Pagans. They will all bow at the alter of the State. You will never change these kind of folks. Just like the Union Goons..... They can't fathom self respect, individualism, and self reliance. These folks will forever buy into all the marxian conspiracy theories against the individual.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And you did not demonstrate any contradiction if that is what you're going for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, the civil war started on April 12, 1861. The Emancipation Proclamation was on January 1, 1863. That is almost 2 years. So you are obviously full of shit there.

Second, the first attack of the war was in Charleston, S Carolina on April 12th, 1861. How do you attack your own city? South Carolina seceded from the USA on December 20, 1860. Are you trying to suggest that perhaps the Union army wasn't told to leave South Carolina's land after 5 months of being out of the USA?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And the idea that it was somehow that was the north's fault contradicts US history. The south decided rather than explain their position to the American people they were going to subvert democracy and attack the united states. 100% of the blame for that goes to the confederacy. The confederacy was wrong and the United States were correct. It really is that simple. All these attempts to make the south out to be the victims are disgraceful attempts to rewrite history.
> 
> What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.
> 
> ...


Once again I must state the most important part that you ignored completely: 

What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.

Also, did you seriously say that slavery was the entire reasoning behind the civil war and nothing else was involved? No scholar, historian, or person who didn't fuck his grandma would hear that and take you seriously ever again. I mean - seriously? Slavery was in no danger before the civil war and would of probably went on another couple decades unless there was a serious buyout of the slaves by the fed gov. If you don't understand that, then you really need to learn more about your own country.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 24, 2011)

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. *My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.* If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

From Abe Lincoln himself. Only wanted to save the union. 

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.
> 
> Hon. Horace Greeley:
> ...


Now don't go putting up crap like that.......... We would hate to see documentation of history. We only go by TExt book history round here.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Once again I must state the most important part that you ignored completely:
> 
> What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go?


And what Ron Paul doesn't seem to grasp about history is that this wasn't even an option because the south subverted our democracy by forming a new country and attacking us because they weren't happy with the results of a democratic election. Some how you guys are under the false impression that America could have somehow stopped the civil war from happening, but that's a complete falsehood. 

This whole picture people like Ron Paul are trying to paint about the evil US government taking away states rights and behaving in a tyrannical nature to trample the rights of southerners is complete 100% bullshit. 

This wasn't about states rights. This was about evil greedy slave owners trying to subvert democracy so they could continue to enslave a race of people. The south was wrong and the united states was right. It's that simple. All this revisionist civil war history is a pack of lies and it's shameful that everyone is so willing to defend the rights of slave owners. I can't believe this is even being discussed.



> Also, did you seriously say that slavery was the entire reasoning behind the civil war and nothing else was involved?


Yes. That's right. It was about slavery. None of that states rights bullshit. It's not a right to commit crimes against humanity by enslaving a race.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

I see Carthoris back from scanning items at Wal Mart to try and defend that Southern Heritage that he claims to not be a part of...lol


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And what Ron Paul doesn't seem to grasp about history is that this wasn't even an option because the south subverted our democracy by forming a new country and attacking us because they weren't happy with the results of a democratic election. Some how you guys are under the false impression that America could have somehow stopped the civil war from happening, but that's a complete falsehood.
> 
> This whole picture people like Ron Paul are trying to paint about the evil US government taking away states rights and behaving in a tyrannical nature to trample the rights of southerners is complete 100% bullshit.
> 
> ...


JUst because you keep repeating thing doesn't make them so. History is always written by the winner.... And to clear one thing up. We were not a Democracy never have been. That a very basic fact that puts a lot of history into it's correct context. Why did you not respond to the quote of good 'ol honest Abe? LOL!

Why don't you do some simple web searches and you can find quotes of good 'ol Abe and his feelings of the "Negroid Slave Race".


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> JUst because you keep repeating thing doesn't make them so. History is always written by the winner.... And to clear one thing up. We were not a Democracy so. That a very basic fact that puts a lot of history into it's correct context. Why did you respond to the quote of good 'ol honest Abe? LOL!
> 
> Why don't you do some simple web searches and you can find quotes of good 'ol Abe and his feelings of the "Negroid Slave Race".


Ok. So tell me, why did the south undermine the results of a democratic election and attack the united states? Please explain what the north did to force the south to do that. Let's hear your twisted version of history.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 24, 2011)

No response to Lincoln saying it wasn't about slavery?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ok. So tell me, why did the south undermine the results of a democratic election and attack the united states? Please explain what the north did to force the south to do that. Let's hear your twisted version of history.


Edit

JUst because you keep repeating thing doesn't make them so. History is always written by the winner.... And to clear one thing up. We were not a Democracy never have been. That a very basic fact that puts a lot of history into it's correct context. Why did you not respond to the quote of good 'ol honest Abe? LOL!

Why don't you do some simple web searches and you can find quotes of good 'ol Abe and his feelings of the "Negroid Slave Race".


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> No response to Lincoln saying it wasn't about slavery?


Of course not. What do you expect. These are the same folk that think Social Security is solvent. LOL

I love the regurgitation of textbook history about the Government written by the Government. It never seems to raise any flags with folks. Why is that?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ok. So tell me, why did the south undermine the results of a democratic election and attack the united states? Please explain what the north did to force the south to do that. Let's hear your twisted version of history.


I don't need to do your work for you. Why don't you do some honest research, set aside your biases and then come up with your own conclusion about it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I don't need to do your work for you. Why don't you do some honest research, set aside your biases and then come up with your own conclusion about it.


I see. You are going to make claims and refuse to explain them. Good luck to you then.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Can anyone answer what the Civil War was about ???? I bet slavery comes in to play in more then one reasoning...Lazy evil southern states getting money and power off the backs of blacks...feeding hate and cruelty into a nation that was trying to move away from such...Now sure it was more then one reasoning for the southern states to leave the Union but slavery still was a major major player...give your reason(s) for the war and lets see..and yeah Lincoln didn't care about the slave one way or the other his main concern was to keep the Union together but he also didn't want slavery to spread anymore then it had...Southern people who claim that Heritage $hit are just as ignorant as their ancestor...nothing to be proud of when you raping, killing, abusing, breaking up families, abusing, and mistreating another race...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

What claims did I make that need explaining????


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Can anyone answer what the Civil War was about ????


Apparently it's a secret. 

It's not about slavery though!

It's about states rights! (the right to own slaves)
Taxes and tariffs! (on slave labor)
The election of Lincoln! (because they thought he'd end slavery)


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> What claims did I make that need explaining????


You guys are implying that the civil war wasn't about slavery because Lincoln supported slavery (lol). I'd like to know what it's about then?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 24, 2011)

Now i know why, when at work or somewhere casual your asked to not bring up politics. 
People with truly warped views on history, or politics, or shit even just life in general ruin it for all the people injecting real talking points, and issues and relating it with factual history, not some misunderstood or stupefied version or just textbook shit taught in school.
These types of people are lost and cant grasp reality nor will they ever. 
Now that's some history and reality for your asses.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Apparently it's a secret.
> 
> It's not about slavery though!
> 
> ...


damn you ...I'm still baiting .... but you are right on the money with your answer and how slavery fits into the answers..


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> damn you ...I'm still baiting ....


I like the low hanging fruit sometimes.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You guys are implying that the civil war wasn't about slavery because Lincoln supported slavery (lol). I'd like to know what it's about then?


Lincoln did not support slavery..


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I like the low hanging fruit sometimes.


lol...its not for you...lol


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You guys are implying that the civil war wasn't about slavery because Lincoln supported slavery (lol). I'd like to know what it's about then?


It was about Centralizing Power and the destruction of Federalism ultimately resulting in the desired Reconstruction period and the dismantling of the Constitution.

Anymore questions?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Lincoln did not support slavery..


Lincoln was a pragmatist and whether or not he supported Slavery he did admit that the "negroid slave race" will never be equal in intrinsic quality to the WHite man. 

Would you like me to find the quotes for you? It's pretty easy.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."
-Lincoln


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

"I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
-Lincoln


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

"Negro equality? Fudge!" -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 1859 (Vol. III)


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1862


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

"Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this.... We cannot, then, make them equals." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln's Reply to Douglas," p. 444


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume 1, page 273


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

dude I could care less about Lincoln and his thoughts back then..I'm happy about the outcome of the war that now has me and you here today having this conversation...you a white guy who doesn't want any one to tread on him...and me a successful black business man retired from the USAF smoking some nice blue cheese enjoying life...OBAMA 2012


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

There are many more....... So to claim Lincoln's 600,000 dead was to free a race of people that were no more valuable than a bowl of fudge seems a little ridiculous. But that's what the Government Textbooks tell us.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> There are many more....... So to claim Lincoln's 600,000 dead was to free a race of people that were no more valuable than a bowl of fudge seems a little ridiculous. But that's what the Government Textbooks tell us.


refer to post #1483


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> dude I could care less about Lincoln and his thoughts back then..I'm happy about the outcome of the war that now has me and you here today having this conversation...you a white guy who doesn't want any one to tread on him...and me a successful black business man retired from the USAF smoking some nice blue cheese enjoying life...OBAMA 2012


So is that a retraction of of many of your past claims. 
Nope.... This conversation about Slaves and racism and all this crap wouldn't be the conversation if none of that happened. I believe it would be one of a different tone were you wouldn't had pointed out that I was white and your are black. Why the Fuck does it have to come down to the color of our skin. WE are so much more than that. Race should be well below us. But thanks to Lincoln and his predecessors we are still talking about this.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Yeah maybe they should change it to Lincoln didn't free the slaves, but his actions did.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Slave would had been freed even if nothing was ever done and everyone in the United States wanted to keep them enslaved. Lincoln didn't do anything but maybe.. and I use that word maybe loosely, speed up the inevitable.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> So is that a retraction of of many of your past claims.
> Nope.... This conversation about Slaves and racism and all this crap wouldn't be the conversation if none of that happened. I believe it would be one of a different tone were you wouldn't had pointed out that I was white and your are black. Why the Fuck does it have to come down to the color of our skin. WE are so much more than that. Race should be well below us. But thanks to Lincoln and his predecessors we are still talking about this.


merely pointing out some facts guy....what you not white...just trying to show you that even Lincoln was wrong in what he thought about the negro..lol


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Slave would had been freed even if nothing was ever done and everyone in the United States wanted to keep them enslaved. Lincoln didn't do anything but maybe.. and I use that word maybe loosely, speed up the inevitable.


hmmmmm where is your proof in that when the south was wanting to expand slave territory


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Your post doesn't make any sense.... It is still quite amazing how much of a lowlife, scumbag pile of human excrement you are. I hope you don't have any children.


i reported that for the vile insults that you choose to direct at me.



Windsblow said:


> Slave would had been freed even if nothing was ever done and everyone in the United States wanted to keep them enslaved. Lincoln didn't do anything but maybe.. and I use that word maybe loosely, speed up the inevitable.


you're a regular atticus finch.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> hmmmmm where is your proof in that when the south was wanting to expand slave territory


Basic understanding of economic law if my proof. Slavery was only feasible because it was economically viable. Once the inevitable progression of technology came about slavery just would not be sound economics. It would had went away regardless even if people resisted.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

and what in its place.....????? also can you tell me the numbers for next Saturdays lotto drawing


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i reported that for the vile insults that you choose to direct at me.
> 
> 
> 
> you're a regular atticus finch.


Whaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! What a childish tattletail. It amazes me that someone of your lowly calibre and witt pulled out a mockingbird reference. 

I still pray you don't have any children you piece of s#@t


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Basic understanding of economic law if my proof. Slavery was only feasible because it was economically viable. Once the inevitable progression of technology came about slavery just would not be sound economics. It would had went away regardless even if people resisted.


Are you serious. Every farm implement you can think of....for starters a tractor. Come on you don't honestly believe that slavery would still be around if there wasn't the civil war do you? Come on you can't really believe that?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

why should anyone have to wait thats enslaved???WTF...hell should not have ever happen..so maybe all those deaths will burn a lesson into all about the evil of slavery


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> why should anyone have to wait thats enslaved???WTF...hell should not have ever happen..so maybe all those deaths will burn a lesson into all about the evil of slavery


I am not for one second saying that the slaves should wait but I am just pointing out that hindsight is clear and we should be honest about what reality is. I just know that we could had freed the slaves, upheld the laws of the land, and protected individual liberties. Instead they shredded the document that freed a world, centralized powers, destroyed the liberties of the individual and killed 600,000 people in the name of lies.

We could had done much better making a better country for all races.
But I am just a crazy foil hat lunatic making up history.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Those things are indeed bullshit, but that's a false comparison. It's not bullshit that black folks were being denied equal treatment in the south due to segregation.


Not a false comparison. See, the problem is you continue to look at the public racial desegregation part of the bill. There is no arguments against the parts that only affect government municipalities and so forth. However, the argument lies in private business on privately owned land. It is not in the governments right to meddle in personal business. If I ran a handyman business out of my garage, the government should have no right to force me (and my 15 man crew ) to do business with blacks. Not that if I owned a business I wouldn't.

Don't forget, the 1964 civil rights act involved women as well as blacks.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 24, 2011)

Windsblow well I guess we see things different and will just have to agree to disagree..


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Windsblow well I guess we see things different and will just have to agree to disagree..


Fair enough.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Whaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! What a childish tattletail. It amazes me that someone of your lowly calibre and witt pulled out a mockingbird reference.
> 
> I still pray you don't have any children you piece of s#@t


reported once again for the vile insults you insist on continuing.



Windsblow said:


> I am not for one second saying that the slaves should wait but I am just pointing out that hindsight is clear and we should be honest about what reality is. I just know that we could had freed the slaves, upheld the laws of the land, and protected individual liberties. Instead they shredded the document that freed a world, centralized powers, destroyed the liberties of the individual and killed 600,000 people in the name of lies.
> 
> We could had done much better making a better country for all races.
> But I am just a crazy foil hat lunatic making up history.


that "document" said all men are created equal. if the civil war had not been waged, how much longer would those black men and women have continued to remain enslaved? 20 years? 50 years? until the tractor was invented?

again, you are a regular atticus finch.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> reported once again for the vile insults you insist on continuing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't have the wherewithal to discuss these matters so I won't even respond to your racist self. I still pray a person like you doesn't have children.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> reported once again for the vile insults you insist on continuing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't want to come off as disagreeing with you, because I agree on this one. However, that is said the declaration of independence. Not the constitution.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Not a false comparison. See, the problem is you continue to look at the public racial desegregation part of the bill


Yeah, because that was kind of the main point. 



> However, the argument lies in private business on privately owned land. It is not in the governments right to meddle in personal business.


It is when the businesses in nearly half the country are systematically oppressing a race of people. Yes, it is oppression to say "sorry, your skin color makes you not good enough to sleep at this hotel".

I don't think the right to be racist is an essential right. I think the rights of black folks to be treated as equals is more important than the rights of business owners to be racists. It's about priorities. Do you really believe the rights of business owners to deny entry into a business based on race is more important than black American's right to be treated like human beings?



> If I ran a handyman business out of my garage, the government should have no right to force me (and my 15 man crew ) to do business with blacks.


I disagree. I think their right to dignity and to be treated as equals is more important than the handyman's "right" to be a racist.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I am not for one second saying that the slaves should wait but I am just pointing out that hindsight is clear and we should be honest about what reality is. I just know that we could had freed the slaves, upheld the laws of the land, and protected individual liberties. Instead they shredded the document that freed a world, centralized powers, destroyed the liberties of the individual and killed 600,000 people in the name of lies.


And you do realize that this was entirely the confederacy's fault right? Instead of negotiating terms in a national debate, they left and attacked the united states. 



> But I am just a crazy foil hat lunatic making up history.


indeed


----------



## sync0s (Jun 25, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, because that was kind of the main point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We disagree, and this will only go in circles so I will make my final point on the subject. The founding fathers clearly state that to make a law that disregards the rights of any persons, is an unjust law, and is only a nation committing oppression.



> All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
> Thomas Jefferson


I've used this quote like ten times. Anyways, this is why I am stating the argument that although the ERA was absolutely fair, just, and deserved for the blacks and women, it in part violated the rights of private business.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> It was about Centralizing Power and the destruction of Federalism ultimately resulting in the desired Reconstruction period and the dismantling of the Constitution.


By centralizing power you of course mean the federal government imposing national policies making it more difficult and less profitable to use slave labor. Again, that's just a bs way of pretending it isn't all about slavery. That's no different than saying it's about states rights when you mean the rights for states to allow slavery. 



> Anymore questions?


Yes. Can you cite specific actions unrelated to slavery that caused the civil war.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I don't want to come off as disagreeing with you, because I agree on this one. However, that is said the declaration of independence. Not the constitution.


agreed.

the point remains.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Lincoln was a pragmatist and whether or not he supported Slavery he did admit that the "negroid slave race" will never be equal in intrinsic quality to the WHite man.
> 
> Would you like me to find the quotes for you? It's pretty easy.


He did that in an attempt to calm down the hysterical folks among him who thought he'd do something insane like give black folks equal rights.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> You don't have the wherewithal to discuss these matters so I won't even respond to your racist self. I still pray a person like you doesn't have children.


reported once again.

why am i a racist?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> There are many more....... So to claim Lincoln's 600,000 dead


You mean the confederacy's 600k dead right? They left the united states before he even took office and then attacked the country. This type of idiocy is reminds me of the folks who attempt to blame Obama for starting the recession.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 25, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You mean the confederacy's 600k dead right? They left the united states before he even took office and then attacked the country. This type of idiocy is reminds me of the folks who attempt to blame Obama for starting the recession.


This is true. Seven states left before Lincoln took office.

Lincoln has been quoted saying that he believed slavery was wrong, but he didn't know how to go about getting rid of it. He had privately said a few times that he thought maybe they should make it illegal and offer (or force) the slaves to colonize Liberia and reimburse the slave owners. He also didn't want the civil war to happen, didn't believe America was ready for it, but he was kind of forced into it.



Abraham Lincoln said:


> "If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."5


----------



## fdd2blk (Jun 25, 2011)

[video=youtube;2NO8lnC7u3w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NO8lnC7u3w[/video]


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You mean the confederacy's 600k dead right? They left the united states before he even took office and then attacked the country. This type of idiocy is reminds me of the folks who attempt to blame Obama for starting the recession.


You intentionally miss the point and I don't know why. Under the Constitution the southern States, as well as all the rest, are Voluntarily part of the Union, Free to leave. They attempted to leave the Union and exercise the contract of Voluntary Federalism and the north mounted against them. Why would fort sumpter have all of those armaments if the North wasn't mounting a WAr? The point is Washington reneged on the compact that the southern States joined under. This was as much the North's War as it was the South's.

I am no pro Southerner and I believe that the south perpetrated some un human acts but that doesn't change the facts that Lincoln was a Tyrant and shredded the constitution.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> reported once again.
> 
> why am i a racist?


That is a brilliant move on your part.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

sync0s said:


> This is true. Seven states left before Lincoln took office.
> 
> Lincoln has been quoted saying that he believed slavery was wrong, but he didn't know how to go about getting rid of it. He had privately said a few times that he thought maybe they should make it illegal and offer (or force) the slaves to colonize Liberia and reimburse the slave owners. He also didn't want the civil war to happen, didn't believe America was ready for it, but he was kind of forced into it.


I have never heard that Lincoln was part of that Liberian movement but it might be so. Those folk that were part of that were a group were, I believe if I remember this part of history correctly, protestant preachers that actually wanted to rid the country of blacks if they were to be free because they didn't want to have a freed black man running loose.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 25, 2011)

And still no response to lincolns letter. Figures.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 25, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And what Ron Paul doesn't seem to grasp about history is that this wasn't even an option because the south subverted our democracy by forming a new country and attacking us because they weren't happy with the results of a democratic election. Some how you guys are under the false impression that America could have somehow stopped the civil war from happening, but that's a complete falsehood.
> 
> This whole picture people like Ron Paul are trying to paint about the evil US government taking away states rights and behaving in a tyrannical nature to trample the rights of southerners is complete 100% bullshit.
> 
> ...


So i scrolled back to find the Lincoln letter and saw this response. The last line especially.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Someone likes likes revised history i guess.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 25, 2011)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> And still no response to lincolns letter. Figures.


Hard to refute fact i guess. They'll try though. May end up ignoring it though because i really don't see any kind of intelligent response possible to that letter that could refuter the meaning held within.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

what response are you seeking from Lincolns letters ????? I already commented about it


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

sync0s said:


> We disagree, and this will only go in circles so I will make my final point on the subject. The founding fathers clearly state that to make a law that disregards the rights of any persons, is an unjust law, and is only a nation committing oppression.


The constitution isn't perfect. This is a situation that doesn't account for. Either way someone's rights are being violated. You're balancing black folks rights to be equal against business owners right to oppress a race of people. IMO it's pretty easy to decide which is more important and I'd say the right to oppress a race of people is not a right at all.



> I've used this quote like ten times. Anyways, this is why I am stating the argument that although the ERA was absolutely fair, just, and deserved for the blacks and women, it in part violated the rights of private business.


I guess we just have different ideas of what rights are. I don't see the right to be oppressive as an essential liberty.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> what response are you seeking from Lincolns letters ????? I already commented about it


me too. I guess that's inconvenient for them though. IMO those letters were just Lincoln being a politicians, saying what he needed to in order to calm down the folks upset from thinking he was going to give black folks equal rights. To say Lincoln was pro-slavery is a pretty funny version of history though. One of their better re-writes.


----------



## deprave (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if you weren't convinced previously that ron paul fucks turtles, take a gander at this:
> 
> [video=youtube;leYuJ4KkAuA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leYuJ4KkAuA[/video]
> 
> ...





I think the turtles probably like Ron Paul because with Ron Paul we can start addressing the real damage we cause to the enviroment, We can legalize hemp and all start driving hemp cars and stop spilling oil 

[video=youtube;4CP88CAzpTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CP88CAzpTY&feature=mh_lolz&list=FLLYdzQj5Ugx8[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

deprave said:


> I think the turtles probably like Ron Paul because with Ron Paul we can start addressing the real damage we cause to the enviroment, We can legalize hemp and all start driving hemp cars and stop spilling oil


and we all get raises too! woo hoo!

i think that the turtles like ron paul because he has sex with them.

ron paul the turtle fucker.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and we all get raises too! woo hoo!
> 
> i think that the turtles like ron paul because he has sex with them.
> 
> ron paul the turtle fucker.


LOL! Ignorance personified.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and we all get raises too! woo hoo!
> 
> i think that the turtles like ron paul because he has sex with them.
> 
> ron paul the turtle fucker.


 I would rather have sex with turtles than have sex with what you prefer.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> me too. I guess that's inconvenient for them though. IMO those letters were just Lincoln being a politicians, saying what he needed to in order to calm down the folks upset from thinking he was going to give black folks equal rights. To say Lincoln was pro-slavery is a pretty funny version of history though. One of their better re-writes.


I don't think anyone claimed lincoln was pro-slavery. I know I never did. We just put the Civil War into the correct perspective. YOu guys only see, hear and learn what you want.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and we all get raises too! woo hoo!
> 
> i think that the turtles like ron paul because he has sex with them.
> 
> ron paul the turtle fucker.


This guy is the most mindless human I have ever run a crossed. Don't expect to hear anything real come out of his mouth unless it is about children. He's a disgusting racist.

I doubt even grows pot let alone smoke it. I don't think he has ever posted in a grow thread. He's a troll and nothing more.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> LOL! Ignorance personified.


i'll have the last laugh when "ron paul fucks turtles" makes it to google auto-fill 



Windsblow said:


> I would rather have sex with turtles than have sex with what you prefer.


what, women?

oh, i see what you did there.

you tried to insult me by implying that i like to have sex with men.

which, in addition to being false, also intimates that you view homosexuality as somehow being inferior, or wrong.

some value system you employ there.

you reflect so well on the mormon religion. i bet your parents are mighty proud of you and your bigotry against gays.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> This guy is the most mindless human I have ever run a crossed. Don't expect to hear anything real come out of his mouth unless it is about children. He's a disgusting racist.
> 
> I doubt even grows pot let alone smoke it. I don't think he has ever posted in a grow thread. He's a troll and nothing more.


https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/gardening/1659141d1308700501-portland-area-gardening-cimg1989.jpg

just got these into the ground on the first day of summer.

now, as far as me being a "troll" goes, let's take a look at the definition of troll (we've done this before, remember?):

In Internet slang, a *troll* is someone who posts inflammatory...messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

so, your vile, hate-filled insults are somehow not inflammatory? 

some reality you live in there.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/gardening/1659141d1308700501-portland-area-gardening-cimg1989.jpg
> 
> just got these into the ground on the first day of summer.
> 
> ...


Unlike you I do have a moral system. Somehow having no moral system is a better moral system than having a moral system? Do you hear yourself? Your circular logic is mind blowing. 

Please I would love to hear more.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Unlike you I do have a moral system. Somehow having no moral system is a better moral system than having a moral system? Do you hear yourself? Your circular logic is mind blowing.
> 
> Please I would love to hear more.


so, your point is that gays are immoral?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, your point is that gays are immoral?


 What is it with gays being a priority with you?
Does your wife happen to have a penis, a nut sack, and testicles?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

I'm starting to think Ron Paul does not really want to win himself...He knows that Fox News is not for him...He knows that his party leads does not want him to win..but yet he still made a choice to run under the Republican banner..If he was really serious about his movement and his cause wouldn't he run independent...he would have had a much better chance seeing that he won't even see the general election...IMO


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm starting to think Ron Paul does not really want to win himself...He knows that Fox News is not for him...He knows that his party leads does not want him to win..but yet he still made a choice to run under the Republican banner..If he was really serious about his movement and his cause wouldn't he run independent...he would have had a much better chance seeing that he won't even see the general election...IMO


i think he's got to sleep with the dogs and fight the fleas to have a chance in this two-party system(failure) that we have.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> What is it with gays being a priority with you?
> Does your wife happen to have a penis, a nut sack, and testicles?


civil rights for gay americans does rank right up there for me, but i think you may have missed something. or a whole lot.

if you read a few posts back, you will notice a certain poster attempt to portray me as gay in order to insult me.

i pointed out the bigotry behind this, at which point he declared that 'at least he has morals'.

so i posed the question of whether homosexuality was immoral.

that is when you showed up, apparently with no intent of reading or understanding the exchange within this thread.

capisce?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i think he's got to sleep with the dogs and fight the fleas to have a chance in this two-party system(failure) that we have.


ross perot stood a good chance at getting elected as an independent before he dropped out not but 15 years ago.

is submission to the two party system and status quo another value that ron paul lovers espouse?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ross perot stood a good chance at getting elected as an independent before he dropped out not but 15 years ago.
> 
> is submission to the two party system and status quo another value that ron paul lovers espouse?


And have you seen the results of media coverage on Ross Perot during that election? The overwhelming public support until all the media slander? The media is powerful.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And have you seen the results of media coverage on Ross Perot during that election? The overwhelming public support until all the media slander? The media is powerful.


i thought ron paul was more powerful, according to you guys.

i mean, he will somehow give us all raises, surely he can employ chuck norris to deliver a roundhouse kick to the media.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i thought ron paul was more powerful, according to you guys.
> 
> i mean, he will somehow give us all raises, surely he can employ chuck norris to deliver a roundhouse kick to the media.


If you can work it, i'll finance it to the best of my ability. He's not some all-powerful person that can fix everything. He's just honest.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> civil rights for gay americans does rank right up there for me, but i think you may have missed something. or a whole lot.
> 
> if you read a few posts back, you will notice a certain poster attempt to portray me as gay in order to insult me.
> 
> ...


All i know is you seem to have such a high emphasis on this matter, that is why i asked.
Gay marriage rights, seem to be a real home hitting issue with yourself.
moral high ground, or bigotry is besides the point.
A lot of your posts have such concern for this matter.
Homosexuality is really no ones business IMHO its a private personal matter, not a matter of national interests when, sorry if i offend you, there is far more important shit than gay marriage.
Besides the definition of marriage* "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." or "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."*
Domt get me wrong, i believe that homo's or lesbos have the right to be with each other with the same legality of marriage, but it should not be labeled as marriage because its like these gay's want us to re write the meaning of what marriage actually means.
What ever happened to the good ol' days, when gays weren't all in your face about it?
This issue is stupid to bring to the table of national interests, when there truly are far more important matters at hand.
So when you always bring up gays, and gays, and more gays, it makes me wonder what and why that is personally your rebound and talking point.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

Just to be clear... UB has brought up the GAy thing. I never once insinuated anything about his homosexuality. Him being GAY is not my business and I don't care where people put there penises. This guy does have sort of Gay on the brain for sure. If you read my post I was alluding to something entirely different but once again some people (UB) only hear what they want. I don't understand how people can scream equal rights for Gay's. WTF? Nothing is prejudicious about the current marriage laws. I can't marry a man and you UB can't marry a man. Both of us are equal under the law. Feelings don't equal rights and love is not legislative. We live in a bizarre world when we start using our erections as our moral, ethical and legislative compass. We live in a bizarre world.

Now back to reality. Ron Paul 2012


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 25, 2011)

I don't know. When I see posts saying it was all about slavery after seeing it really wasn't its just kinda like wtf? 

I'll just drop it.


----------



## Flawed (Jun 25, 2011)

It's too bad RP wont ever get elected. I actually like his message, and it's about the only time I would vote repub. Last election he was always getting 3-5% of the vote, even with all the hype behind him. The 2 party system sucks.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

THe 2 party system sux because we always take the position of the post above me. Why don't we just grow up as a people and start voting on principle. Not knocking your post flawed, I totally understand, I just am pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i thought ron paul was more powerful, according to you guys.
> 
> i mean, he will somehow give us all raises, surely he can employ chuck norris to deliver a roundhouse kick to the media.


Someone doesn't understand the basic economic role of Government. Raises????? Anyone who understand basic Miseian theory, basic economics and supporting Ron PAul wouldn't make a juvenile and idiotic claim as "raises" from a President.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Just to be clear... UB has brought up the GAy thing. I never once insinuated anything about his homosexuality. Him being GAY is not my business and I don't care where people put there penises.


 What if it was up you butt or in your mouth...bet you would care then...lol..j/k and couldn't resist


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

Flawed said:


> It's too bad RP wont ever get elected. I actually like his message, and it's about the only time I would vote repub. Last election he was always getting 3-5% of the vote, even with all the hype behind him. The 2 party system sucks.


Well its kinda his own fault he will not be elected ...He knows the Republicans will not give him the nod to run in the general, but yet he still ran as one...If he truly had a movement that was so strong and had people really by him and his cause he should be able to run as a independent and make some real noise and get his message out..but I guess we seeing the truth.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 25, 2011)

Flawed said:


> It's too bad RP wont ever get elected. I actually like his message, and it's about the only time I would vote repub. Last election he was always getting 3-5% of the vote, even with all the hype behind him. The 2 party system sucks.


But he didn't. That's only what was reported.

http://wearechangetv.us/2011/06/cnn-reports-ron-paul-at-0-while-cnn-online-poll-shows-him-at-75/


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 25, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> And what Ron Paul doesn't seem to grasp about history is that this wasn't even an option because the south subverted our democracy by forming a new country and attacking us because they weren't happy with the results of a democratic election. Some how you guys are under the false impression that America could have somehow stopped the civil war from happening, but that's a complete falsehood.
> 
> This whole picture people like Ron Paul are trying to paint about the evil US government taking away states rights and behaving in a tyrannical nature to trample the rights of southerners is complete 100% bullshit.
> 
> ...


Repeat: Civil war had little to do with slavery. Slavery was not in danger. This is a FACT that is not and cannot be denied by anyone with any knowledge of the war and time. Continuing to do so is retarded.

The president did not have the power to get rid of slavery. The anti-slavery states were not strong enough to get rid of slavery. Also, keep in mind that constitutionally slavery was legal and the northern states were violating the law and constitution by not following the laws requiring slaves be returned. Not that it is right - but if you make a set of rules that must be followed, then you have to follow them too even if it isn't in your favor. I am unsure why you bother to argue points that are clearly wrong.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 25, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ok. So tell me, why did the south undermine the results of a democratic election and attack the united states? Please explain what the north did to force the south to do that. Let's hear your twisted version of history.


Once again, the North could not outlaw slavery due to amendments being a certain #'s of votes and therefor couldn't outlaw slavery and had no chance of getting it outlawed. Just google congress at that time. Also, what part of S Carolina was dispelling forces of a foreign country from its land did you not get. The north was given 5 months to leave peacefully and refused. Look at the circumstances around it . It would be about the same as the US attacking an English fort that refused to vacate after having seceded. No difference. Secession was not illegal as the Constitution did not give the Fed Gov the right to make it illegal. You never went to school did you? S Carolina told the Federal Gov to leave and they refused and started to send more troops and supplies.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

^^^^^^so says the guy who also thinks... 
"Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping."... unfuckingbelievable the shit I see on this forum


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Can anyone answer what the Civil War was about ???? I bet slavery comes in to play in more then one reasoning...Lazy evil southern states getting money and power off the backs of blacks...feeding hate and cruelty into a nation that was trying to move away from such...Now sure it was more then one reasoning for the southern states to leave the Union but slavery still was a major major player...give your reason(s) for the war and lets see..and yeah Lincoln didn't care about the slave one way or the other his main concern was to keep the Union together but he also didn't want slavery to spread anymore then it had...Southern people who claim that Heritage $hit are just as ignorant as their ancestor...nothing to be proud of when you raping, killing, abusing, breaking up families, abusing, and mistreating another race...


You suggest the North had no part of this entire situation. Slavery is wrong. No one is saying that it was the right thing to do. However, who do you think all the slave produced products were bought by. How can you have a society of laws if the laws are broken in justification of what is right? Wouldn't that justify us all in breaking the law whenever we feel justified? You either follow the law or you don't - you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Yeah maybe they should change it to Lincoln didn't free the slaves, but his actions did.


Or you should change it to "Lincoln worked to free the slaves because it suited his actual goal - which was keeping the Union together even though he did it unconstitutionally and pissed on the very laws he empowered to protect the blacks against oppression. Lincoln used the blacks just as surely as the slave owners."


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

Carthoris I don't bother to read your shit anymore...your thinking is somewhat of a bigot..Still waiting for you to explain the statement you made that UB uses as his sig. When you made that asinine statement back then I pointed out Rosewood as an example of the cruelty that others did when Blacks did just as you claimed they should have done...You always claiming how well traveled you are, but I fail to see it at all for you still seem to be rather ignorant and travels usually brings some sort of knowledge and understanding of people...


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Well its kinda his own fault he will not be elected ...He knows the Republicans will not give him the nod to run in the general, but yet he still ran as one...If he truly had a movement that was so strong and had people really by him and his cause he should be able to run as a independent and make some real noise and get his message out..but I guess we seeing the truth.


Lets put this all into perspective. 1 in 10 people or thereabouts are very positive to Ron Pauls positions. That means that one in every 10 people you see tomorrow would vote for Ron Paul in an instant. About half would vote for Ron Paul when running against Obama. Every other person you see tomorrow would vote for Ron Paul. So what does that tell you about how popular he is? While he may not be the most popular with Republicans, he is one of the most popular Republicans. Few people vote in the primaries. It isn't out of the question he would win.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

*A guy walks into a *bar, sits down and has a drink. Suddenly, a man hollers at him, ''I screwed your mom last night!'' Disturbed, the guy tries to ignore him. 

Again, he hears, ''Your mom was good in bed last night!'' Again, he tries to ignore it. The man is just about to speak again but the guy stops him and says, ''Dad, go home, you're drunk!''


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Carthoris I don't bother to read your shit anymore...your thinking is somewhat of a bigot..Still waiting for you to explain the statement you made that UB uses as his sig. When you made that asinine statement back then I pointed out Rosewood as an example of the cruelty that others did when Blacks did just as you claimed they should have done...You always claiming how well traveled you are, but I fail to see it at all for you still seem to be rather ignorant and travels usually brings some sort of knowledge and understanding of people...


I think I explained myself quite plainly in the other hundreds of words in that post and the posts after that one sentence taken out of context. That quote is about as honest as me quoting Obama as saying "I am from Kenya" when he is saying "People suggest I am from Kenya". You completely miss the rest of the entire post where I say something along the lines of "The government was wrong in not protecting the people who did so, as that was their primary function, to protect the rights of its citizens"

Since I noticed FDD here, is it Rollitup policy to put other users names in your signature? The quote is about as honest taken as a piece, as my taking individual letters from quotes of Uncle, London, and Dan and putting them together to say "We love to suck each others dicks and we love communism" If not, then I guess I should make that my new quote?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> What if it was up you butt or in your mouth...bet you would care then...lol..j/k and couldn't resist


 We finally agree. See even we can find common ground.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

Carthoris whatever I quote came directly from the individual who said it...no misquote at all..neither is the one that you said...so no edit needed unlike what you just stated you would do...now I do believe that would be wrong...nothing wrong with using a quote in your sig...if you are now ashamed at what you say ...maybe you should think before you type...again no quote we use is edited...you said it ...and it was not taken out of context...hell its your words...Now go run and cry to fdd lol.....Hurry go tell ...I'm waiting for the [email protected]


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> We finally agree. See even we can find common ground.


Definitely on that one...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I am not sure what you base my race on.
> 
> I don't think your views stopped any of those things from happening. Mine don't PROMOTE it, they just don't outlaw it. You don't have a right to outlaw peoples views, or what they do with their property/life in light of those views. With the exception being if they are outright hurting someone. They don't have to allow everyone the same usage of their things, they just can't use their things to pointedly hurt someone. Hurting and not helping aren't the same thing, once again.
> 
> ...


 again how was this taken out of context...I pointed Rosewood massacre as an example of why some blacks didn't do this and you just type another long winded bunch of nonsense...UB use it as a sig.and you claim its wrong...WTF.. get a pair.... either stand up for what you say or don't say it.


----------



## deprave (Jun 25, 2011)

New Ron Paul Movie, "For Liberty" Full HD STREAMING: http://freedomftw.net/2011/06/youtube-ron-paul-2012-whos-laughing-now/


----------



## sync0s (Jun 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> All i know is you seem to have such a high emphasis on this matter, that is why i asked.
> Gay marriage rights, seem to be a real home hitting issue with yourself.
> moral high ground, or bigotry is besides the point.
> A lot of your posts have such concern for this matter.
> ...


Who the fuck determines what marriage means? Perhaps this meaning of marriage is the reason why divorce rates are skyrocketing? Marriage is love and commitment in life to a partner for life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Words have no meaning until humans give it meaning. Bigotry doesn't exist unless we choose to be bigots. Finally, ignorance doesn't exist unless we choose to be ignorant. Stop choosing to be an ignorant bigot.

Those were good ol' days for you, while homosexuals were committing suicide because the world considered them freaks. Be proud of a persons individualism and freedom to express their own selves in what ever way they choose. 

What can be more important than a matter of personal freedom and a right to choose the direction of your own personal life? Money? Cars? Foreign exchange? Who to bomb next? What slut I'm going to get herpes from next? Choose your priorities carefully, because your priorities can avoid you and affect someone else now, and come back to haunt you later.

Lastly, why is it that when you defend homosexuals, you are labeled gay? Why the fuck does it matter if you are labeled gay if you are not? I have found that in most cases the people who are most opposed to homosexuals, and have the most drastic reaction to the premise of them being gay, are actually hiding something deep down inside.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 25, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Who the fuck determines what marriage means? Perhaps this meaning of marriage is the reason why divorce rates are skyrocketing? Marriage is love and commitment in life to a partner for life. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Words have no meaning until humans give it meaning. Bigotry doesn't exist unless we choose to be bigots. Finally, ignorance doesn't exist unless we choose to be ignorant. Stop choosing to be an ignorant bigot.
> 
> ...


 They are GAY! 
You sound like some sheltered little girl who has actually never known any body who is gay!
Go cry on someones shoulder if you are that offended.
I have lived in places where there are hundreds of gays. Guess what? they will straight tell you they are gay.
Get real and piss off.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Repeat: Civil war had little to do with slavery. Slavery was not in danger. This is a FACT that is not and cannot be denied by anyone with any knowledge of the war and time. Continuing to do so is retarded.


But it ended slavery? lol. You can repeat that all you want, it's still not true.



> The anti-slavery states were not strong enough to get rid of slavery.


But they did get rid of slavery successfully? lol

I dunno man. You can try to rewrite history all you want, but you're clearly full of shit. You're making statements that are outright false. If you want to continue to lie to yourself, that's up to you I guess.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Once again, the North could not outlaw slavery due to amendments being a certain #'s of votes and therefor couldn't outlaw slavery and had no chance of getting it outlawed. Just google congress at that time. Also, what part of S Carolina was dispelling forces of a foreign country from its land did you not get. The north was given 5 months to leave peacefully and refused. Look at the circumstances around it . It would be about the same as the US attacking an English fort that refused to vacate after having seceded. No difference. Secession was not illegal as the Constitution did not give the Fed Gov the right to make it illegal. You never went to school did you? S Carolina told the Federal Gov to leave and they refused and started to send more troops and supplies.


First off, lets call the north it's real name. The united states of America. The confederacy wasn't a real country. It was a large group trying to undermine the results of a democratic election. The south tried to leave the US and less than a month after attacked an American military base. 

I don't know where you got this warped view of history in your head, but it's a complete falsehood.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> They are GAY!
> You sound like some sheltered little girl who has actually never known any body who is gay!
> Go cry on someones shoulder if you are that offended.
> I have lived in places where there are hundreds of gays. Guess what? they will straight tell you they are gay.
> Get real and piss off.


Statement #1: So?
Statement #2: False.
Statement #3: The only offense I am taking is that people are so fucking stupid and I am embarrassed to be of the same species as you.
Statement #4: Again, so? Why can't they 'straight up tell you' that they are gay? You would probably 'straight up tell me' that you are straight. Right?????
Statement #5: The only person who needs a dose of reality is the ignorant self indulged moron who just told me to piss off.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 26, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Statement #1: So?
> Statement #2: False.
> Statement #3: The only offense I am taking is that people are so fucking stupid and I am embarrassed to be of the same species as you.
> Statement #4: Again, so? Why can't they 'straight up tell you' that they are gay? You would probably 'straight up tell me' that you are straight. Right?????
> Statement #5: The only person who needs a dose of reality is the ignorant self indulged moron who just told me to piss off.


I don't need to tell you weather im gay or not, that's none of your god damn business, and i don't see the point of you dragging that into the conversation...
You are pulling this in a direction that makes no sense.
That's right, man gives the definition to words your absolutely correct, but
who are we as man, to keep rewriting and perverting definitions for every minority group out there in the name of equality?
Things like this and colored people (which we all are colored) want equality so they started hate crimes.
How often do you think that a white guy would press hate crime charges (which are a federal offense, phssh) on a black guy who was prejudice against whitey?
These matters are hypocrisies and are usually made one way streets.
So if i go beat the living fuck out of my neighbor, because i HATE his parties that he throws till three in the morning keeping my ass awake, is that not a hate crime regardless of color? 
Gays can do whatever they want its their personal business. They can have legal unity, because if they want something that man and woman get, called "marriage", it shouldn't be called marriage for gays. 
I told you they blatantly say that they are gay, because it seemed you had a problem with me calling them gays, so im only labeling appropriately.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> again how was this taken out of context...I pointed Rosewood massacre as an example of why some blacks didn't do this and you just type another long winded bunch of nonsense...UB use it as a sig.and you claim its wrong...WTF.. get a pair.... either stand up for what you say or don't say it.


And that post was valid and to the point. In the context of the post it means what it was supposed to mean. My response, if you recall, is that I know of Rosewood and that Rosewood was a failure of the government to protect the people of Rosewood. On one hand you pretend like there was absolutely no way blacks could of risen above slavery without the civil rights act. 

Didn't you use Rosewood as an example of what I said blacks could do? Didn't they do exactly that and do it right? They were attacked for it, but that attack doesn't mean that what they were doing in Rosewood was wrong. They were free men/women/children who were doing nothing wrong, what happened to them was horrible and illegal regardless of which race they were. The CRA would not of stopped it from happening, there were already laws about murdering people on the books that applied to everyone. If you read those three sentences as I wrote them, together as a thought and an explanation for it, it is quite obvious that I mean segregation by the government is wrong because the Government has to represent all people equally. However, the individual has the right to be whoever and whatever they want to be as long as they aren't causing harm to anyone else. Once again, harm and refusing to help are not the same thing. You might do good to remember that having an emotional response to something doesn't make it the right response.

*Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping. As a person you don't have an obligation to other people to treat them all the same. The government does have that obligation, but the people do not. Thus the difference between a public business(A government owned/run business) vs a private business(An individually owned business)

*Also, I didn't say that out of the blue, we were having a conversation about private property. This is quite plainly about private property vs public property. 

UB's quote it there as an attack on me in his eyes, and nothing more. You can not lift a single sentence from a lengthy post and keep it in context. To do so is to be disingenuous.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> First off, lets call the north it's real name. The united states of America. The confederacy wasn't a real country. It was a large group trying to undermine the results of a democratic election. The south tried to leave the US and less than a month after attacked an American military base.
> 
> I don't know where you got this warped view of history in your head, but it's a complete falsehood.


You have a very twisted idea of what the United States was and is. When a country splits in half and goes to war, it is not the Country vs a Rebellion. It is the Government vs the People. Or do you only believe that when it happens in places like Libya? 

The States joined the Union voluntarily, and nothing in the constitution said they had to stay in the Union, so they left. Also, keep in mind that 'attack of a US military base" had no casualties. You can agree or disagree, but you are still wrong. I sincerely think you should read about the causes of the Civil War so that you have some ability to debate about it. Your version of the Civil War's causes is a lot like a murderers version of why he killed someone. One sided since the other side is dead. 

The USA was simply what the states entered into and agreed to let the Federal Government deal with its external relations. The constitution still leaves the states their sovereignty.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

Yep Carthoris! i want to know what/where history Dan has studied to get things so mixed up.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes, Dan doesn't nderstand or doesn't want to acknowledge the principles of Federalism by which the country was created. But that is typical of modern day liberalism.

It is a good measure as to how bizarre and out of touch with the realities of this Universe we are when we, as creatures of reason, allow feelings and genital pleasuring habits to become political. WTF! we are a bizarre and doomed entity.


----------



## deprave (Jun 26, 2011)

[video=youtube;Is6z4GY5Yag]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is6z4GY5Yag[/video]

3:33 - This is your racist Ron Paul - Hah

Ron Paul defends and fights for poor black people at the heart of the struggle each day and understands their struggle with racism, black and latino leaders everywhere stand behind Ron Paul because they understand how Dr Paul speaks the truth and backs the people 100% of the time. 

"Instead of a war on poverty, we got a war on drugs so the police can bother me" -Tupac

If you numbskulls would get it through your head you'd realize the war on drugs is at the heart of racism today in America, ending this war will go a long way in racial relations.

Now without further ado, please do continue your debate against common effin sense, freedom, and humanitarianism....goodluck to you in your arguments for tyranny..


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You have a very twisted idea of what the United States was and is. When a country splits in half and goes to war, it is not the Country vs a Rebellion. It is the Government vs the People. Or do you only believe that when it happens in places like Libya?
> 
> The States joined the Union voluntarily, and nothing in the constitution said they had to stay in the Union, so they left. Also, keep in mind that 'attack of a US military base" had no casualties. You can agree or disagree, but you are still wrong. I sincerely think you should read about the causes of the Civil War so that you have some ability to debate about it. Your version of the Civil War's causes is a lot like a murderers version of why he killed someone. One sided since the other side is dead.
> 
> The USA was simply what the states entered into and agreed to let the Federal Government deal with its external relations. The constitution still leaves the states their sovereignty.


Forget Principles, concepts and documented facts..... only feelings and personal desires are reality to some folk around here.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

I'm so glad I joined RIU to find out that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery...and that slaves would have eventually been set free, they should just have been more patient...and blacks in the 20,30,40,50,and 60's could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping  ( just curious as to why they should have to move in order to do this in a free country, but hey what does that matter they should have just moved....hmmmmmm but to where ???? I guess back to Africa)...yup RIU political section has really taught me alot about the thinking of people in the USA ...


----------



## Medical Grade (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> yup RIU political section has really taught me alot about the thinking of people in the USA ...


Yes, because the stoner pot head community at RIU is a solid diverse study group of the United states general population, and has no biases what so ever.


----------



## deprave (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm so glad I joined RIU to find out that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery...and that slaves would have eventually been set free, they should just have been more patient...and blacks in the 20,30,40,50,and 60's could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping  ( just curious as to why they should have to move in order to do this in a free country, but hey what does that matter they should have just moved....hmmmmmm but to where ???? I guess back to Africa)...yup RIU political section has really taught me alot about the thinking of people in the USA ...


 to be fair its also pretty sad that you believe Ron Paul is a racist...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm so glad I joined RIU to find out that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery...and that slaves would have eventually been set free, they should just have been more patient...and blacks in the 20,30,40,50,and 60's could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping  ( just curious as to why they should have to move in order to do this in a free country, but hey what does that matter they should have just moved....hmmmmmm but to where ???? I guess back to Africa)...yup RIU political section has really taught me alot about the thinking of people in the USA ...


the jews had something like this going called "shtetls". 

it made them sitting ducks comes WWII. the nazis were more easily able to wipe them out. 

basically, the suggestion from carthosis is "go segregate yourself". his rights to treat them as inferior citizens reigns supreme.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris speaks like a bigot....Hopefully his kind will die off and fade away soon, so this country can get to the place where we all treat others with kindness and respect...People are not born racist or a bigot that shit is taught, so we really have to blame his parents, but its up to the person to stop the "passing down" to the next generation...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm so glad I joined RIU to find out that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery...and that slaves would have eventually been set free, they should just have been more patient...and blacks in the 20,30,40,50,and 60's could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping  ( just curious as to why they should have to move in order to do this in a free country, but hey what does that matter they should have just moved....hmmmmmm but to where ???? I guess back to Africa)...yup RIU political section has really taught me alot about the thinking of people in the USA ...


 Some people only hear what they want and have a hard time thinking with only there dicks or bleeding hearts.

YOur hearing only what you want. YOu can't seem to be objective about much.

To say the civil war was only about slavery is silly and to say it had nothing to do with slavery is equally silly. I don't think anyone (at least not me) is claiming the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.

Let me put thin into perspective.

The Re-pubicans claim the war(s) is about terrorism and 9-11
The Demon-crats claim it's about Capitalist expansion and occupation.

But we both know it's about American interest and not much more. Everything else is a red herring. We want cheap oil and the only way to do that is to make sure we control the middle east.

The Civil War was about The American Union interest.....Nothing more. Was Slavery a huge issue? Yes, but so is Terrorism. 100 years from now the writers of history will whitewash the war and it will be about Terrorism and Capitalist Exploitation.... Not America's OIL interest.

I, and others, are just pointing out the driving forces behind the War not the outcome. 

WE have to get past our emotions about history otherwise we will not understand it and will be doomed to repeat it...... It is happening right now. 

The ONly one to stop the inevitable is..... 
Wait for it....... Wait for it...... RON PAUL 2012 LOL


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

deprave said:


> to be fair its also pretty sad that you believe Ron Paul is a racist...


do me a favor and pull my quote where I say he is racist...I said his "ideas" on property rights would have the government sanction discrimination and racism...His way would allow me to tell every white person to get the hell out my laundromats ( I WOULD NEVER DO THIS just using it as example)...His idea would allow whites to again deny blacks at a lunch counter..you say it would not happen, but when you forget the past you are doomed to repeat it...so HELL NO TO RON PAUL


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Some people only hear what they want and have a hard time thinking with only there dicks or bleeding hearts.
> 
> YOur hearing only what you want. YOu can't seem to be objective about much.
> 
> ...


Dude what I said was SLAVERY WAS A MAJOR PART IN THE CIVIL WAR...others say it was not...don't tell me what I don't read..do I need to show the qoutes of what people have said ????


----------



## deprave (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> do me a favor and pull my quote where I say he is racist...I said his "ideas" on property rights would have the government sanction discrimination and racism...His way would allow me to tell every white person to get the hell out my laundromats ( I WOULD NEVER DO THIS just using it as example)...His idea would allow whites to again deny blacks at a lunch counter..you say it would not happen, but when you forget the past you are doomed to repeat it...so HELL NO TO RON PAUL


 Oh so because of some wild doomsday scenario conspiracy theory you want to continue the war on drugs, on old peoples bank accounts, and on the middle east, why am I not surprised, your just like dan. Dr Pauls Humanitarian philosophy would not allow for your crazy scenario, he would not stand for something like racism as he fights against racism all of his career, nor would the american people stand for such racism. Your conspiracy theory is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude thats what I said SLAVERY WAS A MAJOR PART IN THE CIVIL WAR...others say it was not...don't tell me what I don't read..do I need to show the qoutes of what people have said ????


 YOu missed my point ( I have to assume it was intentional) again. 

GOD gives me my rights not the Government. So to say I don't have the right to exclude black from my property is to deny the very nature of this Universe The Government just suppresses those right by threat of murder. Do you really believe that the free exercise of property rights by private individuals would result in slavery? YOU have got to be kidding me?

DO you think Slavery was a result of the free exercise of individual right?
It was quite the opposite.
We repeat HIstory not because we fail to restrain the individual, but because we default to Government oppression.
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for some to get.


----------



## deprave (Jun 26, 2011)

even Rev Wright wouldn't stoop to such a ridiculous conspiracy theory as londonfrogs' lol


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

YOu wouldn't keep people out of your Laundromat because it would be economically stupid. Slaves were kept because it was economically sound.

To equate private property right to Slavery is a straw grasping stretch to say the least.

I take offense to that comment..... Are you a Racist? 
Do you think that White people by default are prone to be SlaveMasters? 
Do we white folk have an uncontrollable desire to oppress and enslave those of darker tint and those urgings are being kept at bay by limiting private property rights and enforcing affirmative action?

It just a question not an accusation.


----------



## 420God (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Do we white folk have an uncontrollable desire to oppress and enslave those of darker tint and those urgings are being kept at bay by limiting private property rights and enforcing affirmative action?
> 
> It just a question not an accusation.


I sometimes wonder this.

(I'm Ojibwe, White Earth Nation)


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

OK well let us look at some votes here from Ron Paul and his fight against racism. bigotry and hate..

HR1913- Hate Crimes Expansion- Expands definition of a hate crime to include felonies motivated by prejudice based on national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the victim ...and RON PAUL'S vote NO _( bill still passed house)_

HR2831-Equal Pay Bill-_Vote to pass a bill that would designate that unequal payment based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability is a new violation with each payment...and Ron Paul's vote NO ( bill still passed house)_

HR11-Employment Discrimination Law Amendments-Issues grant money for salary negotiation skills training for girls and women,Increases penalties against a discriminatory employer including compensation of legal fees and liability for punitive damages against an employee...and Ron Paul's vote NO _( bill still passed house)_

dude I could go on and on but you need to check for your self his voting record on civil issues before you claim how much he fights for it...show me just how he fights..his vote does not..


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> YOu wouldn't keep people out of your Laundromat because it would be economically stupid. Slaves were kept because it was economically sound.


once again if I only let blacks and mexican wash I would lose nothing I couldn't make up....so no turning only white people away would not really hurt me economically...it would just be damn wrong to do...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> YOu missed my point ( I have to assume it was intentional) again.
> 
> GOD gives me my rights not the Government. So to say I don't have the right to exclude black from my property is to deny the very nature of this Universe The Government just suppresses those right by threat of murder. Do you really believe that the free exercise of property rights by private individuals would result in slavery? YOU have got to be kidding me?
> 
> ...


Question who gives you your right if you are atheist or agnostic????? I mean do you have to believe in God to have rights??? and what God ..Zeus , Allah, Jesus, GOD....


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Do you think that White people by default are prone to be SlaveMasters?
> Do we white folk have an uncontrollable desire to oppress and enslave those of darker tint and those urgings are being kept at bay by limiting private property rights and enforcing affirmative action?
> 
> It just a question not an accusation.


Far from it ....most white people are very kind and giving...but a few still cling to that "Southern Heritage"..that "white pride"...hell did you not pay attention to some of these clowns when Obama was elected..Those pieces of racist bigoted waste are the ones I'm speaking to and about...and I bet if some are allowed to tell someone that they can't come in to shop in the store they would...are you saying that no one would do that ???


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Question who gives you your right if you are atheist or agnostic????? I mean do you have to believe in God to have rights??? and what God ..Zeus , Allah, Jesus, GOD....


 This isn't a real question is it? YOu have to be kidding.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> once again if I only let blacks and mexican wash I would lose nothing I couldn't make up....so no turning only white people away would not really hurt me economically...it would just be damn wrong to do...


 Have you ever ran a business? It is not sound business practice to limit your clientele. BY banning 70 percent of the market from purchasing your service you do great harm to any business. Silly statement.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Question who gives you your right if you are atheist or agnostic????? I mean do you have to believe in God to have rights??? and what God ..Zeus , Allah, Jesus, GOD....


YOu are born free.... Government can't give you rights. THey can only take them by the barrel of a gun. BAsic AMerican Revolutionary Concept.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> UB's quote it there as an attack on me in his eyes, and nothing more. You can not lift a single sentence from a lengthy post and keep it in context. To do so is to be disingenuous.


[video=youtube;bXmrOt9LVm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXmrOt9LVm8[/video]

is that you, newt?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> This isn't a real question is it? YOu have to be kidding.


very serious...what ..everyone has to believe in God ???? everyone does not believe the way you do guy...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

420God said:


> I sometimes wonder this.
> 
> (I'm Ojibwe, White Earth Nation)


If you believe this you are no better than those Klans men I am sure you decry.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> very serious...what ..everyone has to believe in God ???? everyone does not believe the way you do guy...


Never said they did... WTF are you even talking about. It is just hard to believe an adult doesn't have a grasp on such rudimentary concepts like individual rights and free agency. JUst because I believe in a GOD and someone else doesn't, doesn't mean our rights come from 2 different places. Or that the Concept of free agency isn't valid because some people disagree on the concept of a Deity. 

And your response of "everyone does not believe the way you do guy...." is equally perplexing. I don't want to continue to sound condescending but your responses make me wonder if you have problems conceptualizing abstracts.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> [video=youtube;bXmrOt9LVm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXmrOt9LVm8[/video]
> 
> is that you, newt?


Weak..........


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Have you ever ran a business? It is not sound business practice to limit your clientele. BY banning 70 percent of the market from purchasing your service you do great harm to any business. Silly statement.


I run a business, I see who comes to wash at my places...WTF do you even know my clientele...HELL NO....I would say 10-15% of my business would be banned if I was allowed to do what Ron Paul said is my right...I would never do something so evil merely using it as an example...I make *great *profits now..and believe me I would still make a profit if I did that...Now if I didn't let mexicans wash I would have a problem, but not if I banned white people...just giving you an example of how fuck up Ron Pauls "idea" could get...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> OK well let us look at some votes here from Ron Paul and his fight against racism. bigotry and hate..
> 
> HR1913- Hate Crimes Expansion- Expands definition of a hate crime to include felonies motivated by prejudice based on national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the victim ...and RON PAUL'S vote NO _( bill still passed house)_
> 
> ...


YOu will never get it. YOu believe the Government plays a different role the we, and Ron PAul, does only difference is the role you want the Government to play is a fictional one and ours is backed up by a little document called the Constitution.

You don't understand the principles of the United States Constitution.. .YOU don't see any difference between the USA and all those other Governments out there. Ron PAul voted NO because he was right. YOU think murdering a BLack Guy warrants a stiffer punishment than a white guy? What ever happened to equal treatment under the law?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I run a business, I see who comes to wash at my places...WTF do you even know my clientele...HELL NO....I would say 10-15% of my business would be banned if I was allowed to do what Ron Paul said is my right...I would never do something so evil merely using it as an example...I make *great *profits now..and believe me I would still make a profit if I did that...Now if I didn't let mexicans wash I would have a problem, but not if I banned white people...just giving you an example of how fuck up Ron Pauls "idea" could get...


YOUr Just plain Silly....... Race based politics, whether you want to acknowledge it or not are racist and those supporting them are unwittingly supporting State sponsored racism. YOu just don't think it's racism because it feels good.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Weak..........


really? awww, schucks.

i was doing that solely to impress you, not because i was responding to another poster or anything.

it was only to impress you, end of story.

and i failed. 

and also, gays are immoral


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I run a business, I see who comes to wash at my places...WTF do you even know my clientele...HELL NO....I would say 10-15% of my business would be banned if I was allowed to do what Ron Paul said is my right...I would never do something so evil merely using it as an example...I make *great *profits now..and believe me I would still make a profit if I did that...Now if I didn't let mexicans wash I would have a problem, but not if I banned white people...just giving you an example of how fuck up Ron Pauls "idea" could get...


Even 10-15% would be bad business model. My point is people wouldn't ban folks from giving them money because they are running a business. Slavery and Segregated South examples don't apply because they are something entirely different. YOu can deny it all you want it just make you look like a partisan.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> GOD gives me my rights not the Government. .


again you think God gives you rights...I don't....nothing to not understand there....Tell me what rights God gave you...


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Carthoris I don't bother to read your shit anymore...your thinking is somewhat of a bigot..Still waiting for you to explain the statement you made that UB uses as his sig. When you made that asinine statement back then I pointed out Rosewood as an example of the cruelty that others did when Blacks did just as you claimed they should have done...You always claiming how well traveled you are, but I fail to see it at all for you still seem to be rather ignorant and travels usually brings some sort of knowledge and understanding of people...


Not taking any side here or judging any position. Simply adding in a little historical context to the quote/sig topic. Carthoris stated that he mis-spoke, which i have done in my time as well, as we all have.

i have done a decent amount of work in Allensworth, Ca. so the discussion made the community come to mind.
http://www.friendsofallensworth.com/allensworth/allensworth_history.html


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> really? awww, schucks.
> 
> i was doing that solely to impress you, not because i was responding to another poster or anything.
> 
> ...


What a Maroon..... You and your Gay thing again. Don't care if you think homosexuality is immoral.... Either way it none of my business, the states or the Federal Governments. Enough with your gay stuff already.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> again you think God gives you rights...I don't....nothing to not understand there....Tell me what rights God gave you...


what if you don't believe in god or are agnostic?

does god give you the right to not believe in him?

i think that is why they said 'creator'. more vague and open to interpretation.

my creator could be my mother, god, or flying spaghetti monster.

whatever the case, the point is that i HAVE those rights, and government is simply the insurance policy on those rights.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> What a Maroon..... You and your Gay thing again. Don't care if you think homosexuality is immoral.... Either way it none of my business, the states or the Federal Governments. Enough with your gay stuff already.


so, it is not the responsibility of the state or fed gov to ensure equality for all?

fishy.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> again you think God gives you rights...I don't....nothing to not understand there....Tell me what rights God gave you...


Are you kidding? You have got to be kidding. If you don't get it you never will.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, it is not the responsibility of the state or fed gov to ensure equality for all?
> 
> fishy.


Absolutely not. Where the Fuck do you get this idea?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, it is not the responsibility of the state or fed gov to ensure equality for all?
> 
> fishy.


PLease provide one.... JUst one document that supports this idea that seems to be so popular these days. Just one.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

It is MY responsibility to provide equality and freedom for ME and the same applies to the rest of you. ALL of you. We SHOULDN'T need baby-sitters or "enforcers".

i sure as hell don't, how about you?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Even 10-15% would be bad business model. My point is people wouldn't ban folks from giving them money because they are running a business. Slavery and Segregated South examples don't apply because they are something entirely different. YOu can deny it all you want it just make you look like a partisan.


I agree turning away money is stupid but to say that no one would do it is just as stupid...A racist wouldn't care that he lost a few bucks from some race he hates and didn't want his kind in his store especially if he/she still turning a profit...and I love how you tell me don't use the south as an example...Damn now I'm suppose to forget the past WTF.. again do you think that no one would not use Ron Paul's idea as a guise for racism..not one ????really


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

Back to the Allensworth thing. 

When speaking to long-time residents back in 2000-2002 they ALL(that i met) told me that before the Civil Rights movement, the place was a black man's heaven. Community garden, their own justice(drunks and petty crooks had to work in the town as punishment because taking them from their families over such petty offenses was, well, just plain immoral and wrong, according to one resident), their own churches, etc. 

Everyone let them have their little piece of America and gave them no problems when they interacted. But then the Civil Rights movement started and they became a target for those that had previously let them do their own thing until they felt that _their_ rights were being infringed upon. The old time residents would have rather let things remain the way they were. As it stands, it is now a State Historical site after having been basically killed off by the Civil Rights movement. Ironic isn't it?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Not taking any side here or judging any position. Simply adding in a little historical context to the quote/sig topic. Carthoris stated that he mis-spoke, which i have done in my time as well, as we all have.
> 
> i have done a decent amount of work in Allensworth, Ca. so the discussion made the community come to mind.
> http://www.friendsofallensworth.com/allensworth/allensworth_history.html


ummm when the fuck did he say he mispoke...show me the quote...seems like you taking sides if you can't find the qoute where he said he misspoke


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ummm when the fuck did he say he mispoke...show me the quote...seems like you taking sides if you can't find the qoute where he said he misspoke


Sorry, not mis-spoke. Taken out of context sir. BTW, read your post above and then my post below.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I agree turning away money is stupid but to say that no one would do it is just as stupid...A racist wouldn't care that he lost a few bucks from some race he hates and didn't want his kind in his store especially if he/she still turning a profit...and I love how you tell me don't use the south as an example...Damn now I'm suppose to forget the past WTF.. again do you think that no one would not use Ron Paul's idea as a guise for racism..not one ????really


YOUr scenario is possible but not to plausible.

So because theres a hypothetical possibility that a backwoods hick or HArlem brother might deny his services to someone he don't like mean we should hand over power to the Feds to determine what I can do with my private property? 

Then there really in no private property rights here in America?
Do you believe in property rights?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> It is MY responsibility to provide equality and freedom for ME and the same applies to the rest of you. ALL of you. We SHOULDN'T need baby-sitters or "enforcers".
> 
> i sure as hell don't, how about you?


Dude no man is an island and no man stands alone...your freedom is protected by our military...which branch did you serve in ????


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UB you stopp looking for that document because it don't exist. Just move on you'll never find it. UNless you just make one up like a good little lefty.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> YOUr scenario is possible but not to plausible.
> 
> So because theres a hypothetical possibility that a backwoods hick or HArlem brother might deny his services to someone he don't like mean we should hand over power to the Feds to determine what I can do with my private property?
> 
> ...


not if it violates a person civil rights....again if you want to be private ..just open your buisness as a private club...problem fixed..then you can deny who ever the hell you want...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Sorry, not mis-spoke. Taken out of context sir. BTW, read your post above and then my post below.


ok seems like you know what he was trying to say so you explain it...
Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping. As a person you don't have an obligation to other people to treat them all the same. The government does have that obligation, but the people do not. Thus the difference between a public business(A government owned/run business) vs a private business(An individually owned business)
Tell me how this was taken out of context when this country back then was the way it was...??? and as a person I treat all the same until they show me why I SHOULD NOT...but I guess your gods who give you guys rights teaches you something different...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> not if it violates a person civil rights....again if you want to be private ..just open your buisness as a private club...problem fixed..then you can deny who ever the hell you want...


HUH? this doesn't make sense and the civil right movement had nothing to do with my property. The Government has no legal right to regulate private property and my not selling something to someone because I don't like them has nothing to do with "civil rights". 

you have to think these things through London.... You don't really make any sense.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude no man is an island and no man stands alone...your freedom is protected by our military...which branch did you serve in ????


OUr Freedom is protected by knowledge. That is it. And the only time it is protected by the military is during a homeland invasion.

We have a very different view of Freedom. I prefer the Jeffersonian concept.......

And every man is an island.... We only become a collect if we choose. I have no connection to unless I choose to or if a GUN forces me to. 

I am an individual nothing more nothing less.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> PLease provide one.... JUst one document that supports this idea that seems to be so popular these days. Just one.


you want me to provide an example of the government ensuring equality WITH the addendum that it has to be popular nowadays?

before i list a few, let me just add this: why does it have to be popular? i thought people like you were against the 'tyrannical majority', right?

anyhoo:

19th amendment

civil rights act of 1964

14th amendment

lily ledbetter fair pay act (just to get a recent one in there).

progressive measures towards equality for all. they may not be airtight, as systematic discrimination does still exist, but that type of shit is going the way of the dodo.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> HUH? this doesn't make sense and the civil right movement had nothing to do with my property. The Government has no legal right to regulate private property and my not selling something to someone because I don't like them has nothing to do with "civil rights".


say you don't like black people or muslims or jews and you open up a gas station. that gas station is your private property, but if it is supposedly "open to the public", you have no right to charge blacks or muslims or jews twice as much or refuse them service altogether solely based on their religion or skin color (or any number of other factors). 



Windsblow said:


> you have to think these things through London.... You don't really make any sense.


nothing makes sense when your mind is a closed like a steel trap.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you want me to provide an example of the government ensuring equality WITH the addendum that it has to be popular nowadays?
> 
> before i list a few, let me just add this: why does it have to be popular? i thought people like you were against the 'tyrannical majority', right?
> 
> ...


I didn't say anything about an addendum?????

NOne of these examples are documents providing proof that the role of our Federalist Government is to ensure equality. The federal Government has a very limited amount of power and nowhere in the Constitution does it provide those powers.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> say you don't like black people or muslims or jews and you open up a gas station. that gas station is your private property, but if it is supposedly "open to the public", you have no right to charge blacks or muslims or jews twice as much or refuse them service altogether solely based on their religion or skin color (or any number of other factors).
> 
> 
> 
> nothing makes sense when your mind is a closed like a steel trap.


Again you fail...... Fail to actually understand what I am saying and understand the role of the Federal Government. 

JUst because we have laws don't mean those laws are Legal, Just or correct.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

sometimes you just have to say WTF..


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude no man is an island and no man stands alone...your freedom is protected by our military...which branch did you serve in ????


i haven't served, thank God. i was rejected in the Clinton cut-backs from the Navy. Qualified for trainging to become an Engineer on a nuclear sub. They kicked me back(2f or 4f whatever it is) because i had a 30% hearing loss in my right ear and a screw in my hand. 

I was young and dumb then. IQ isn't a true measure of intelligence. And i shouldn't have to stand alone. My family and neighbors should stand with me to defend our COUNTRY(ummmm, well regulated militia does NOT = National Guard NOR the US Military), not fight and rob and kill some other countries people all for every reason EXCEPT that we were attacked(Gulf Wars). So you're right, no man stands alone. So join us and take back our fucking country!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Again you fail...... Fail to actually understand what I am saying and understand the role of the Federal Government.
> 
> JUst because we have laws don't mean those laws are Legal, Just or correct.


Well one thing we know Ron Paul shot himself in the foot on this one....No other politic would dare say what he did about the Civil Right vote of 64...so are you guys going to vote for Mitt ????


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

I have the right as a private citizen to do as I will with my private property. Even if you don't like it and it's bigoted..... Even if the Federal Government passed laws and armed people and built courthouses to stop me from doing it. I was born with that right........ THe Federal Government just attempts to take that right (which is the only thing a Government can do is take rights) from me. Our Constitution guarantees property right. The current Tyrants ignore the Law.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Well one thing we know Ron Paul shot himself in the foot on this one....No other politic would dare say what he did about the Civil Right vote of 64...so are you guys going to vote for Mitt ????


You hit the nail on the head! He's not just another politician!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I have the right as a private citizen to do as I will with my private property. Even if you don't like it and it's bigoted..... Even if the Federal Government passed laws and armed people and built courthouses to stop me from doing it. I was born with that right........ THe Federal Government just attempts to take that right (which is the only thing a Government can do is take rights) from me. Our Constitution guarantees property right. The current Tyrants ignore the Law.


do I have the right to kill someone who killed sombody in my family ????


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> do I have the right to kill someone who killed sombody in my family ????


Are you kidding? YOU not to good with abstract concepts are you? I just can't believe your serious with these replies?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> do I have the right to kill someone who killed sombody in my family ????


If you catch them doing it, yes.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

YOU have the right of self preservation and self defense.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I have the right as a private citizen to do as I will with my private property. Even if you don't like it and it's bigoted..... Even if the Federal Government passed laws and armed people and built courthouses to stop me from doing it. I was born with that right........ THe Federal Government just attempts to take that right (which is the only thing a Government can do is take rights) from me. Our Constitution guarantees property right. The current Tyrants ignore the Law.


not if it is 'open to the public'.

because you would be impinging on the rights of others, as it does harm to those you discriminate against on the basis of your bigotry. empirical evidence proves this.

your right to be bigoted is overtaken by the rights of the public not to be harmed by your bigotry.

you do not have the right to harm others with your bigotry. feel free to be as bigoted as you wish on your own time as long as it does not harm others.

no one can stop you from being a bigot.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I have the right as a private citizen to do as I will with my private property. Even if you don't like it and it's bigoted.....


this is the result of allowing bigotry...



you have the right to be as bigoted as you want.

you do not have the right to harm others with your bigotry.

case closed.

don't like it? go fuck yourself.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

ron paul is unique in that he brings the conversation BACKWARDS by 50 years or so.

that is not a quality i want in a president.

i want someone who is forward looking and intelligent enough to know that bigotry that harms others is NOT ok.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> not if it is 'open to the public'.
> 
> because you would be impinging on the rights of others, as it does harm to those you discriminate on the bases of your bigotry. empirical evidence proves this.
> 
> ...


WHat? 
HArm? 
What? 
Who defines what "HArm" is? 
The Constitution of The United States Protects my property rights. Also, Property can't be private and be public at the same time. 
Are you a lawyer? LOL


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul is unique in that he brings the conversation BACKWARDS by 50 years or so.
> 
> that is not a quality i want in a president.
> 
> i want someone who is forward looking and intelligent enough to know that bigotry that harms others is NOT ok.


What A maroon.......


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> WHat?
> HArm?
> What?
> Who defines what "HArm" is?


we the people? the SCOTUS?

i can not define harm, but i know it when i see it.

View attachment 1665667



Windsblow said:


> The Constitution of The United States Protects my property rights. Also,
> . YOUr statement makes no sense. Property can't be private and be public at the same time.
> Are you a lawyer? LOL


the gas station, the laundromat, the restaurant are all private property of the owner.

the owner makes them 'open to the public'.

if they are open to the public, they must serve the public, without blocking out blacks or jews or whites or christians or whoever else based on bigotry of the owner of that private property.

you want to make a private laundromat or gas station or restaurant that is not open to the public and exclude who you wish? feel free.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I don't need to tell you weather im gay or not, that's none of your god damn business, and i don't see the point of you dragging that into the conversation...
> You are pulling this in a direction that makes no sense.
> That's right, man gives the definition to words your absolutely correct, but
> who are we as man, to keep rewriting and perverting definitions for every minority group out there in the name of equality?
> ...


It is very apparent you have no freaking clue what I'm talking about. Therefore, the topic as far as I'm concerned is done.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> What A maroon.......


what an eloquent and substantive rebuttal.

tell you what, i am going to open the only dispensary in your area, and i am going to hang a "no mormons" sign on the door.

tell me you are not harmed when you have to spend more money to travel further away to get your meds.

what a "moran".


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

sync0s said:


> It is very apparent you have no freaking clue what I'm talking about. Therefore, the topic as far as I'm concerned is done.


like donny, he is out of his element and needs to shut the fuck up.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> this is the result of allowing bigotry...
> 
> View attachment 1665665
> 
> ...


Your an idiot... I don't even know why I respond to a moron like you. YOu don't have a clue as to what your talking about and to dignify your post with a response is idiotic.

YOU have some sort of mental problem you have no understanding of American principles, Economic or Freedom.
YOU can go fuck yourself. And PLease... .Leave those kids alone.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> we the people? the SCOTUS?
> 
> i can not define harm, but i know it when i see it.
> 
> ...


So you're ok with me putting up a sign that says no blacks as long as i call it a private store? Like in downtown. Budlover's No-Blacks Gas Station. You pay 1 cent to join and you'll never have to pump gas next to a black person again. And that's ok because it's then private?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Your an idiot... I don't even know why I respond to a moron like you. YOu don't have a clue as to what your talking about and to dignify your post with a response is idiotic.
> 
> YOU have some sort of mental problem you have no understanding of American principles, Economic or Freedom.
> YOU can go fuck yourself. And PLease... .Leave those kids alone.


lacking any substantive rebuttal, you go on an insulting diatribe.

you lose.

and by the way, your insult should read "you're an idiot". you might not want to come off as less educated than a third-grader when trying to demonize your opponent as such.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So you're ok with me putting up a sign that says no blacks as long as i call it a private store? Like in downtown. Budlover's No-Blacks Gas Station. You pay 1 cent to join and you'll never have to pump gas next to a black person again. And that's ok because it's then private?


you would be an asshole, but that would be allowable.

you are not trying to say you are 'open to the public'.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Your an idiot... I don't even know why I respond to a moron like you. YOu don't have a clue as to what your talking about and to dignify your post with a response is idiotic.
> 
> YOU have some sort of mental problem you have no understanding of American principles, Economic or Freedom.
> YOU can go fuck yourself. And PLease... .Leave those kids alone.


if i am such an idiot, as you claim, it seems like it would be rather easy to refute my argument.

instead, you throw insult after insult without any substance or actual rebuttal. just accusations that i do not understand freedom.

i understand freedom. i love freedom. there is an american flag proudly waving from my greenhouse.

and i am ashamed i have to share this country with bigots like you who would want to return to the days where segregation was allowed and discrimination ran rampant, causing harm to countless people along the way.

freedom does NOT mean the freedom to harm others with your bigotry. grow the fuck up and learn to argue without insults.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So you're ok with me putting up a sign that says no blacks as long as i call it a private store? Like in downtown. Budlover's No-Blacks Gas Station. You pay 1 cent to join and you'll never have to pump gas next to a black person again. And that's ok because it's then private?


Haha. Yes, you would fail.

First: In urban environments blacks actually would be a large part of business.
Second: Very very very few white people would want to be caught dead at that gas station, because of the perception of being racist
Third: your gas station would have to refuse asian, muslim, jew, etc because the people who are THAT racist would refuse to join unless you had that policy.

You just cut out 99% of your possible business. Fail.

Let me ask you, is it okay if someone displayed a sign out the front window of their home that spoke their beliefs on blacks in a racist manor?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you would be an asshole, but that would be allowable.
> 
> you are not trying to say you are 'open to the public'.


So we're coming down to semantics. You MUST be a lawyer lol! REALLY? i'm just absolutely flabberghasted after 165 pages it comes down to THAT?!? LOL!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Haha. Yes, you would fail.
> 
> First: In urban environments blacks actually would be a large part of business.
> Second: Very very very few white people would want to be caught dead at that gas station, because of the perception of being racist
> ...


Exactly. And that's what RP says will happen. Free Market people.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you would be an asshole, but that would be allowable.
> 
> you are not trying to say you are 'open to the public'.


The only reason people would ever agree to a government regulating the "public" sector so much is for certain hypothetical scenarios. Few ever stop to think of how allowing this kind of power can completely turn this country into a totalitarian society. Realize how the limits do not stop with one scenario, and can be stretch to cover the entire market.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So we're coming down to semantics. You MUST be a lawyer lol! REALLY? i'm just absolutely flabberghasted after 165 pages it comes down to THAT?!? LOL!


well ,like you said. youw ere not claiming to be open to the public. your membership fee is stupidly low, and your business model would fail in 99% of all places, but you are within the law.

just like private golf courses like augusta do not have to allow women or blacks. they are a private club. they are not 'open to the public'.



budlover13 said:


> Exactly. And that's what RP says will happen. Free Market people.


ron paul should be old enough to be familiar with this...

View attachment 1665721

that is what happened back when we had the ron paul civil rights policy in place. try to re-write that.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

can we re-focus on the utter failure of windsblow here?

i feel like i just handed him his ass and he pouted about it and ran off crying.

so funny. what a nice guy, to let me make him look so foolish like that and all.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> we the people? the SCOTUS?
> 
> i can not define harm, but i know it when i see it.
> 
> ...


SCOTUS is wrong a lot of the time. I am not asking you to explain to law I understand to law (If you understand you can rest assured I do) I am saying regulation of private property is illegal and no longer private. I am saying that this country was founded on the principles of private property and just because some unelected Robes uphold a law doesn't make it sound.

YOU ignore the facts to fit your feelings. Not any sort of sound principle or law.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> well ,like you said. youw ere not claiming to be open to the public. your membership fee is stupidly low, and your business model would fail in 99% of all places, but you are within the law.
> 
> just like private golf courses like augusta do not have to allow women or blacks. they are a private club. they are not 'open to the public'.
> 
> ...


In a Ron Paul society, blacks wouldn't HAVE to deal with that. All they would have to do is pick a state, move there, and write the laws as they see fit. The pamphlet you keep posting is a result of trying to integrate blacks and whites against their will. If the gov't tells me i MUST do something, i will react negatively. Look at what i posted ealier about Allensworth. When those residents wanted to travel i'm sure they used something similar but the liked it the way it was because they could go to their home and live their lives.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> can we re-focus on the utter failure of windsblow here?
> 
> i feel like i just handed him his ass and he pouted about it and ran off crying.
> 
> so funny. what a nice guy, to let me make him look so foolish like that and all.


Handed me what? YOUR a fucking tool. I have made clear and concise arguments. YOU just name call and talk in circles. I just can't believe I respond to you so I pointed it out. Then you declare some sort of victory. YOUR a maroon..... And yes I spelled it that way on purposed.

I sure hope you don't have any children. Your a lowlife and a large reason this country is going to shit,.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> SCOTUS is wrong a lot of the time. I am not asking you to explain to law I understand to law (If you understand you can rest assured I do) I am saying regulation of private property is illegal and no longer private. I am saying that this country was founded on the principles of private property and just because some unelected Robes uphold a law doesn't make it sound.
> 
> YOU ignore the facts to fit your feelings. Not any sort of sound principle or law.


again, private property can be open to the public or private.

if it is open to the public, you serve all the public.

if you are private, you get to pick and choose.

freedom does not mean freedom to harm others with your bigotry.

View attachment 1665741


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> In a Ron Paul society, blacks wouldn't HAVE to deal with that. All they would have to do is pick a state, move there, and write the laws as they see fit.


that is about as realistic as 'if ron paul is elected, we will all get a raise!'

we tried the ron paul position on civil rights. what you describe is certainly not what the reality of the situation was.



budlover13 said:


> The pamphlet you keep posting is a result of trying to integrate blacks and whites against their will.


what? are you fucking joking me?

the green book for negro travelers was the result of the segregation and discrimination before civil rights, published in 1936. 

civil right did not happen until 1964.

you have got to be fucking joing me. no way you could try to say that with a straight face.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> YOU just name call...


really?



Windsblow said:


> YOUR a fucking tool...YOUR a maroon...I sure hope you don't have any children. Your a lowlife and a large reason this country is going to shit,.


when i have children, i will raise them to respect others regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, and the like.

i would hate to see what happens to your kids.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> again, private property can be open to the public or private.
> 
> if it is open to the public, you serve all the public.
> 
> ...


YOu JUst making shit up..... Who defines harm... How do you harm someone by not going into some sort of contract with them? How do you harm someone by not interacting with them? This ridiculous and nonsensical. What a typical liberal.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> The pamphlet you keep posting is a result of trying to integrate blacks and whites against their will.


After passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through national efforts led by the African-American Civil Rights Movement, Green ceased publication in 1964.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Are you kidding? YOU not to good with abstract concepts are you? I just can't believe your serious with these replies?


Nope just showing you that your birth does not mean that you have the right to do all you choose..on being to hurt people whether its mental or physical... we have laws to stop people from doing just that....sorry if you can't follow along and comprehend the message..


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> If you catch them doing it, yes.


No you do not...thats what we have laws for...now you can do it, but its not your right...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They understand the basic principles of freedom and I don't really care what worry about. Your stupid little respect list you have there makes you look silly and childish and out of touch with reality. Don't feel bad though, there's others like you that worship the God Statism and the unattainable fantasy of egalitarianism.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> How do you harm someone by not interacting with them?


why don't you go check out the harmful effects wrought by pre-civil rights america? i guarantee you that examples of the harm by "not interacting with" (or more accurately, refusing to serve) certain segments of the population based on the color of their skin (or other factors) abound.

in fact...

View attachment 1665756


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No you do not...thats what we have laws for...now you can do it, but its not your right...


So you don't have the right to self defense of family and property? Dude you are seriously wack! 

Are you an American?


----------



## malignant (Jun 26, 2011)

everyone needs to stage a sit in, dont leave your house until reform takes place. no one works, the country shuts down


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> They understand the basic principles of freedom and I don't really care what worry about.


i hope they can put a sentence together better than you can. as long as they pass second grade, that is likely.



Windsblow said:


> Your stupid little respect list you have there makes you look silly and childish and out of touch with reality.


so, having respect for others is stupid, silly, childish, and out of touch with reality?

you are not doing your bigot image any favors here.



Windsblow said:


> Don't feel bad though, there's others like you that worship the God Statism and the unattainable fantasy of egalitarianism.


i do not worship your silly ayn rand concepts (are you still in that insufferable 'just read ayn rand phase?) and while i realize that true egalitarianism is unattainable, that does not stop me from striving to form a more perfect union.

and that is as american as apple pie.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> So you don't have the right to self defense of family and property? Dude you are seriously wack!
> 
> Are you an American?


in regards to this side argument, if you catch the perp on your property, you have every right to end their life.

i think londonfog may be thinking of taking the law into your own hands after the crime is over.

i agree with the right to self defense but not with taking justice into your own hands.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> So you don't have the right to self defense of family and property? Dude you are seriously wack!
> 
> Are you an American?


We not talking about self defense ...we talking about someone killing a family member on Tuesday and you go take it upon yourself Friday to kill him....


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> in regards to this side argument, if you catch the perp on your property, you have every right to end their life.
> 
> i think londonfog may be thinking of taking the law into your own hands after the crime is over.
> 
> i agree with the right to self defense but not with taking justice into your own hands.


thank you maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier was trying to grill and had to rush at times...sorry


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> why don't you go check out the harmful effects wrought by pre-civil rights america? i guarantee you that examples of the harm by "not interacting with" (or more accurately, refusing to serve) certain segments of the population based on the color of their skin (or other factors) abound.
> 
> in fact...
> 
> View attachment 1665756


Your logic is flawed.... You are comparing two totally different concepts and are thoroughly confused. YOur a waste of time and a sad sad story. I feel bad for folks like you. YOur a lost cause and don't really want to learn or grow or be honest about anything. YOU just want to be a drone of collectivist society and it is apparent you like your little dreamed up reality.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> We not talking about self defense ...we talking about someone killing a family member on Tuesday and you go take it upon yourself Friday to kill him....


What does that have to do with the price of beans????? WTF. Why did you even ask this question?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> thank you maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier was trying to grill and had to rush at times...sorry


yeah, it seemed like you two were on different pages.

i bet you both agree on this one in the end. catch him on your property in the act, he is a dead man. go all vigilante three days later, not exactly right (although possibly satisfying).

i've got to go do the dishes. the life of a house hubby.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Your logic is flawed.... You are comparing two totally different concepts and are thoroughly confused. YOur a waste of time and a sad sad story. I feel bad for folks like you. YOur a lost cause and don't really want to learn or grow or be honest about anything. YOU just want to be a drone of collectivist society and it is apparent you like your little dreamed up reality.


Your logic is flawed.... You are comparing two totally different concepts and are thoroughly confused. YOur a waste of time and a sad sad story. I feel bad for folks like you. YOur a lost cause and don't really want to learn or grow or be honest about anything. YOU just want to be a drone of ayn rand and it is apparent you like your little dreamed up reality.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i hope they can put a sentence together better than you can. as long as they pass second grade, that is likely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Always with the stupid Ayn Rand comments.. It's apparent you don't read much in the way of history or philosophy if you think collectivist and Statist are Ayn Rand like. She didn't coined those terms and many many other Philosophers and economist used these same terms well before Rand. Your attempt to insult me and Rand (which I find flattering) just shows how unread you really are.
YOur not really worth my time anymore..... you just make shit up and you can't back up anything you say.
I was asked awhile ago to lay off you because you are known to have your head so far up the MODS (or someone FDD?) asses you can get threads shut down pretty easy, and you seem to enjoy it. No doubt, yOUr a trouble maker and are well beneath me and most of the folks on here trying to get out the founding principles of Freedom and I recommend others to pay you no mind. YOu have nothing ever to say of any value.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> What does that have to do with the price of beans????? WTF. Why did you even ask this question?


Was just trying to see how you viewed your rights vs the law...You make it seem like you are born with the right to do what ever you want...seeing how you could be justified in killing someone who kill your family member, but would it be your right...No because we have laws that supersedes what you may feel is your right...You don't have the right to ever harm anyone physical or mental ( self defense excluded)..being a bigot can hurt people...In some countries you would have the right to kill that sorry son of a bitch....In this Country you do not...Why...Your government has laws that says you will not...and sorry for asking a question then leaving for a few...had some food on the grill that needed some attention for an hour..


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Always with the stupid Ayn Rand comments.. It's apparent you don't read much in the way of history or philosophy if you think collectivist and Statist are Ayn Rand like. She didn't coined those terms and many. many other Philosophers and economist use these same terms. You attempt to insult me by belittling me and Rand ( which I find flattering) just shows how un read you really are.
> YOu not really worth my time anymore..... you just make shit up and you can't back up anything you say.
> I was asked awhile ago to lay off you because you are know to have your head so far up the MODS asses you can get thread shut down pretty easy, and you seem to enjoy it. No doubt. YOUr a trouble maker and are well beneath me and most of the folks on here trying to get out the founding principles of Freedom and recommend other to pay you no mind. YOu have nothing ever to say of any value.


funny, i have very little contact with the mods in any capacity.

besides to report spammers, and of course you when you go on a vile, hate-filled tirade of insults while making no arguments or rebuttals. that is what you would call "flaming" and is against the rules here or most any other website around.

i surely hope you leave me alone from here on out, as it is obvious to anyone reading this thread that you are utterly incapable of responding to my assertion that 'freedom does not mean freedom to harm others with your bigotry' with anything other than venom and hissy fits.

and also, from here on out, i will once again resume reporting any of your hate-filled, abusive tirades. i have been making efforts to stop insulting you, even when you do not reciprocate. i can only ask you do the same and stick to actual arguments, not insults.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Was just trying to see how you viewed your rights vs the law...You make it seem like you are born with the right to do what ever you want...seeing how you could be justified in killing someone who kill your family member, but would it be your right...No because we have laws that supersedes what you may feel is your right...You don't have the right to ever harm anyone physical or mental ( self defense excluded)..being a bigot can hurt people...In some countries you would have the right to kill that sorry son of a bitch....In this Country you do not...Why...Your government has laws that says you will not...and sorry for asking a question then leaving for a few...had some food on the grill that needed some attention for an hour..


The basic definition of individualism is the freedom to do as you please and at the same time recognizing that everyone else has those same freedoms. Your actions can not violate others freedoms.

I don't know of any example that I can conger up that could make being a bigot dangerous, harmful or violating others rights. 
Can you give me an example?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

*Bigots hurt everyone *




Itawamba County Agricultural High School is a normal high school in Mississippi. Unfortunately, its board is run by bigots, who wanted to ban a lesbian student from taking her partner to the school prom. The ACLU objected to this, pointing out the basic principle of non-discrimination - that you cannot provide a service to some while denying it to others. In response, the bigots cancelled the prom. Rather than providing the service to all without discrimination, they decided to provide it to none instead. The lesson: bigots don't just hurt gays - they hurt _everyone_.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> The basic definition of individualism is the freedom to do as you please and at the same time recognizing that everyone else has those same freedoms. Your actions can not violate others freedoms.
> 
> I don't know of any example that I can conger up that could make being a bigot dangerous, harmful or violating others rights.
> Can you give me an example?


bigot owns the only gas station around for miles. bigot refuses service to you because you are a mormon. you have to get your gas at the other station, also run by a bigot, who charges mormons twice for gas.

you need some lumber for the chicken coop you're building. bigot who owns the hardware store refuses to sell to mormons. you have to drive 50 miles to the nect hardware store to get lumber, and the bigot there charges mormons double.

only pharmacy in town that sells antibiotics refuses to sell to mormons. you have to drive several towns over to find someone who sells the same, and they also refuse service to mormons. you have to drive a couple hundred miles to find a pharmacy owner who sells antibiotics to mormons. he is a bigot and sells it at triple.

should i go on? are you this fucking blind as to how bigotry could hurt someone?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> *Bigots hurt everyone *
> 
> That you example? Hardly a good enough reason to violate every living American Property right over. THis is just a policy conflict and just another shining example of why education shouldn't be in the hands of the Government.
> 
> ...


Really, that you example? Hardly a good enough reason to violate every living American Property right over. THis is just a policy conflict and just another shining example of why education shouldn't be in the hands of the Government.
CanI get a better one? But don't make up some crazy implausible scenario please.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

you cut yourself deeply and are bleeding horribly. you need gauze and antiseptic right away or will die. the guy at the local store is a bigot and refuses to sell to mormons. you pass out behind the wheel on your way to the next place that does sell to mormons, your car goes out of control, and kills another motorist.

i could play this game all day, but i have to clean the bathroom now. glorious life of a house hubby.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Really, that you example? Hardly a good enough reason to violate every living American Property right over. THis is just a policy conflict and just another shining example of why education shouldn't be in the hands of the Government.


just a policy conflict is all. nothing to see here....move along.

gays have no right to expect to be allowed to a prom. they should realize that as gays, they are immoral and have no right to attend prom just the same as the rest of the students.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> CanI get a better one? But don't make up some crazy implausible scenario please.


mine are not crazy, implausible scenarios.

replace "mormon" with "black" and that is what you would call "reality" in the pre-civil rights south.

otherwise, this would not exist.

View attachment 1665884


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you cut yourself deeply and are bleeding horribly. you need gauze and antiseptic right away or will die. the guy at the local store is a bigot and refuses to sell to mormons. you pass out behind the wheel on your way to the next place that does sell to mormons, your car goes out of control, and kills another motorist.
> 
> i could play this game all day, but i have to clean the bathroom now. glorious life of a house hubby.


LOL! The sky is falling!!!!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Really, that you example? Hardly a good enough reason to violate every living American Property right over. THis is just a policy conflict and just another shining example of why education shouldn't be in the hands of the Government.
> CanI get a better one? But don't make up some crazy implausible scenario please.


Lets say I'm a bigot that hates woman...I see your wife in the store and tell her how much of a stupid bitch she is..I also tell her that if she has a child thats a girl to keep that little stupid bitch in the kitchen where her ugly tail belongs..I then tell your wife to turn around so I can see if she has any ass back there because I hear white woman don't have any butts....I then see your mother and tell her I smell fish and ask her how often she cleans her pussy and offer to buy her a douche...I then walk away ...now was I hurtful..yes I was...is there a law to stop what I just did ...yes it is...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> LOL! The sky is falling!!!!


thanks to civil rights, this scenario is illegal rather than legal.

but go ahead and mock the hardships certain segments of our population had to endure not but 50 years ago.

the scenario i describe may not have happened, but other hardships fell on these innocent souls under the ron paul version of civil rights.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Lets say I'm a bigot that hates woman...I see your wife in the store and tell her how much of a stupid bitch she is..I also tell her that if she has a child thats a girl to keep that little stupid bitch in the kitchen where her ugly tail belongs..I then tell your wife to turn around so I can see if she has any ass back there because I hear white woman don't have any butts....I then I see your mother and tell her I smell fish and ask her how often she cleans her pussy and offer to buy her a douche...I then walk away ...now was I hurtful..yes I was...is there a law to stop what I just did ...yes it is...


Were talking hurt feelings... NObody has a right to have there feeling protected. 
YOU don;t have a right to not be offended. Thats a fact.
Being a bigot doesn't violate anyone rights.
YOU can't give me a scenerio were someone own personal issues violate others rights because thats impossible.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

I am hearing some pretty strange things that don't apply to the Universe I live in. To speak generally.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Being a bigot doesn't violate anyone rights.


View attachment 1665892

being a bigot doesn't harm anyone and my farts smell like sweet jasmine in bloom.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

if a bigot was allowed to say and do what you think they should have a right to do, you would be surprise at would and could happen...so I think I showed how a bigot could be harmful and violate someones space and rights


Windsblow said:


> I don't know of any example that I can conger up that could make being a bigot dangerous, harmful or violating others rights.
> Can you give me an example?


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> if a bigot was allowed to say and do what you think they should have a right to do, you would be surprise at would and could happen...so I think I showed how a bigot could be harmful and violate someones space and rights


They have full right to say what they want, but not do what they want. Protected by the Constitution. If you disagree, you disagree with the Constitution. Therefore, you are not a proponent of the America our founding fathers intended to be, and therefore you shouldn't be in that country.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Were talking hurt feelings... NObody has a right to have there feeling protected.
> YOU don;t have a right to not be offended. Thats a fact.
> Being a bigot doesn't violate anyone rights.
> YOU can't give me a scenerio were someone own personal issues violate others rights because thats impossible.


have you ever heard of verbal abuse ???? its a crime and if you have witnesses its even easier to prove...so yeah feelings can be protected...and are you really saying a bigot or racist ( own personal issues) have never volated the rights of others.??? I really need to show you an example of that..WTF...why the phuck you think we passed laws to stop that shit...you a lost case son


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

sync0s said:


> They have full right to say what they want, but not do what they want. Protected by the Constitution. If you disagree, you disagree with the Constitution. Therefore, you are not a proponent of the America our founding fathers intended to be, and therefore you shouldn't be in that country.


no you can't say what you want...verbal abuse,defamation of character,slander,libel all things covered under law...you do not have the right to just say what ever you want...and stop with the founding father shit those clowns needed some guidance too...you act like they were some kind of fuckin god...they were still men with bad teeth...and at the time they wrote the constitution they didn't have my kind in mind..


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

i do not want to eat at the same lunch counter as a mormon 

they are substandard humans and immoral. they should be segregated and made to attend separate but equal schools.

/sarc


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Yep Carthoris! i want to know what/where history Dan has studied to get things so mixed up.


Im guessing www.democrats.org.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> thanks to civil rights, this scenario is illegal rather than legal.
> 
> but go ahead and mock the hardships certain segments of our population had to endure not but 50 years ago.
> 
> the scenario i describe may not have happened, but other hardships fell on these innocent souls under the ron paul version of civil rights.


Ron Paul wants to follow the Constitution. Show me anything in that document that would be read as white rights only. i don't know it verbatim since i took the test in 8th grade, 23 years ago. Is there anything that would deny equal rights to all? i don't think so. Ron Paul would enforce what is in the Constitution. The Constitution didn't create salvery or racism. Men did that.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

We've strayed a little here i think since bigotry doesn't seen to be one of Ron Paul's qualities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Is6z4GY5Yag


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Ron Paul wants to follow the Constitution. Show me anything in that document that would be read as white rights only. i don't know it verbatim since i took the test in 8th grade, 23 years ago. Is there anything that would deny equal rights to all? i don't think so. Ron Paul would enforce what is in the Constitution. The Constitution didn't create salvery or racism. Men did that.


RON PAUL: "The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is"....

Despite Paul&#8217;s claim that nullification is proper and constitutional, Article 6 of the Constitution states *This** Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; *and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...*

SO how can you say that he goes by the constitution when he goes against it by telling states they are free to ignore federal laws and directives


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

I still have not seem your examples LOndon.... YOU can't give hypothetical. YOu don't have a constitutional right to not have your feelings hurt. Being a bigot doesn't violate anyones liberties and to claim so is bizarre. There has to be an actual action not thoughts or words. YOu are not protected from words or feelings. Some people don't understand basic Constitutional law. I don't know of any Federal law that deals with verbal abuse either. LOL. This is getting pretty silly


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the jews had something like this going called "shtetls".
> 
> it made them sitting ducks comes WWII. the nazis were more easily able to wipe them out.
> 
> basically, the suggestion from carthosis is "go segregate yourself". his rights to treat them as inferior citizens reigns supreme.


More or less. I wouldn't live in the middle of a group of people who hated me. What sense is there in that? Keep in mind that the US government was still giving out free land in those days and they could of went and homesteaded somewhere. They were giving away land until the 80s in the USA. The act pointedly said freed slaves were eligible. Instead, they continued to let the same people oppress them that always had. Wouldn't that be freedom? Your own land and no one bothering you? Freedom has nothing to do with your right to buy something at someones store. Freedom is about your right to do what you want without harming others. Freedom is doing what you want with your sweat, toil, and blood. Freedom is not forcing someone to sell you something.

Also, did you essentially say that a reason for blacks not starting a community somewhere is because we would round them all up and murder them like the Nazis? Jesus Christ - Seriously? Weren't you guys the ones who were just mocking me in this same thread for comparing what our government is doing to how Nazi Germany started? If you really seriously consider the government could potentially do this - how can you support giving more power to it?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> RON PAUL: "The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is"....
> 
> Despite Paul&#8217;s claim that nullification is proper and constitutional, Article 6 of the Constitution states *This** Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; *and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...*
> 
> SO how can you say that he goes by the constitution when he goes against it by telling states they are free to ignore federal laws and directives


These are two different issues. The States have all the right and one of them being nullification.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I don't know what your talking about with Ron PAul you are talking about 2 different constitutional issues but I would agree that courts are often wrong and have been know to have illegal rulings.


ummm I think our conversation has come to a close..we just don't agree....that comment was for budlover13 who I also quoted before I made my rebuttal..


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Carthoris speaks like a bigot....Hopefully his kind will die off and fade away soon, so this country can get to the place where we all treat others with kindness and respect...People are not born racist or a bigot that shit is taught, so we really have to blame his parents, but its up to the person to stop the "passing down" to the next generation...


The issue of racism isn't a white one. It is all people. Every continent, every country, every state, every community. Blacks have an equal part in the continued racism in this country. If you don't understand that you might consider listening to Martin Luther King or even Bill Cosby. You are what you make of yourself. If you teach your children that there are hands holding them down, then they will not believe they can stand, whether there is a hand there or not.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> if a bigot was allowed to say and do what you think they should have a right to do, you would be surprise at would and could happen...so I think I showed how a bigot could be harmful and violate someones space and rights


Please cite the specific rights your example trod upon.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> These are two different issues. The States have all the right and one of them being nullification.


guy have you really even read the constitution...You would be surprise at how many talk of it but failed to have read it...Do you even know what the Supremacy Clause is...I guess not for if you did you would have not typed what you just did...Federal Law trumps State Law...go read


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> OK well let us look at some votes here from Ron Paul and his fight against racism. bigotry and hate..
> 
> HR1913- Hate Crimes Expansion- Expands definition of a hate crime to include felonies motivated by prejudice based on national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the victim ...and RON PAUL'S vote NO _( bill still passed house)_
> 
> ...


HR1913 - why you commit murder, rape, or a beating is entirely beside the point. Why would you treat one person who does one of these acts out of hatred of race, religion, sex, or sexual preference differently than someone who does it out of hatred of another kind? The very nature of this law is racist. Isn't it already illegal to kill black gay transsexuals? Ron Paul voted no because all of the things this act covered were already illegal. I thought you were against segregation? Separate but unequal law. Next up, we have a bill going through congress that makes it illegal to steal purple cars!

HR2831 - This act was really just the right to sue for further back if you feel you were discriminated against. Most big companies have structures for pay. Most smaller companies that don't make offers which you choose to accept or not. Very high power jobs are wildly different from one person to the other depending on experience and the person. Discrimination is already illegal under other laws - what would this law have accomplished on top of them?

HR11 - Other than it being kind of pointless - Why would use federal money to train people to negotiate their salaries? Isn't that there own problem? Maybe the government should give me a thousand dollars so I can negotiate a better price on my vehicle when I buy a new one.

None of these are civil rights issues as much as they are a huge waste of time. They don't add anything useful to the government and it isn't the Federal Governments job to address these issues to begin with. I bet Ron Paul had a big throbbing vein in his forehead when they said the Federal Government should train women/girls to negotiate pay better. Whether the victim is gay, straight, man, woman, black, or white - the crime is the same. Getting murdered makes you dead, getting raped makes you raped, getting beat gets you beat. If I beat a black man and a white man - do they feel different pain?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 26, 2011)

Funny thing about the Constitution, it gives powers over all trials to Juries, not laws and not judges or the Constitution. Article 3, section 2..... "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed..."


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

I see everyone thinks that being a bigot does not hurt others...


Bardwell, a Tangipahoa Parish Louisiana Judge (outside New Orleans), became famous for rejecting Terence McKay and his girlfriend Beth Humphrey, who wanted to be married by Bardwell. But Keith decided to show the country what a real bigot was when he said "I do it to protect the children, he reportedly said. The kids are innocent and I worry about their futures" when asked why he would not marry an interracial couple. 
According to the Associated Press, Bardwell said this: 
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."​.....Do you think this judge truly gave out fair sentencings on the bench.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Far from it ....most white people are very kind and giving...but a few still cling to that "Southern Heritage"..that "white pride"...hell did you not pay attention to some of these clowns when Obama was elected..Those pieces of racist bigoted waste are the ones I'm speaking to and about...and I bet if some are allowed to tell someone that they can't come in to shop in the store they would...are you saying that no one would do that ???


I bet you smile and feel warm inside when you hear people talk about black power, the strength of the African race, or the great cultural identity that the black community has. Have you ever considered that maybe that is what people who talk about southern pride or white pride are feeling? I know when I hear about my ancestors in the country of my origin fighting the oppressive British empire I feel a tingling in my chest. My family came to America as prisoners of a rebellion - their land stolen, taken from their families and cultures, shackled and sent to a new world. Why should that be different for anyone knows that in their blood runs the warrior, poet, and patriot of their blood line? How could direct descendents of George Washington, Martin Luther King, or any of the great men in history not feel some awe of their own potential? When a black man thinks of Martin Luther King he thinks of the hopes, dreams, and greatness that are in him potentially whether he is related or not - why would it be different for the white man? Why are you so racist, London, that you cannot accept for a moment that someone else's love or feelings for their own people doesn't necessarily mean hatred for another? Don't mistake pride for racism. 

As far as how people acted when Obama was elected, look at how both sides acted. You had people who had never voted and were in their 50's, who didn't even understand any of the politics involved voting for Obama because he was black. How can you not feel that is wrong? I didn't see a bunch of white people voting for McCain just because Obama was black. There are always squawkers in the world - stop acting like a huge portion of the country is racist.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I see everyone thinks that being a bigot does not hurt others...
> 
> 
> Bardwell, a Tangipahoa Parish Louisiana Judge (outside New Orleans), became famous for rejecting Terence McKay and his girlfriend Beth Humphrey, who wanted to be married by Bardwell. But Keith decided to show the country what real bigot was when he said "I do it to protect the children, he reportedly said. The kids are innocent and I worry about their futures" when asked why he would not marry an interracial couple.
> ...


No, that is what the appeals court is for. Our constitution protects the right to a fair trial.

I fail to see what your point is. My opinion that welfare should be completely abolished would hurt somebody, I'm most assured. Does that mean they have the right to make my opinion illegal?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 26, 2011)

You do realize that those people just went to one of the other justices and got married, right? No one was hurt. the Judge wasn't "Sentencing" anyone, he just refused to marry the couple. Of course the couple could have just PAID for a minister and gotten married too.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> [video=youtube;bXmrOt9LVm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXmrOt9LVm8[/video]
> 
> is that you, newt?


 Not even close to the same thing and you know it. The good news is no one takes you seriously already, so you can't sink any lower. I can explain my opinions, back them up with rational thoughts and facts - and I do because I realize you don't understand the basics of freedom and reality.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> again you think God gives you rights...I don't....nothing to not understand there....Tell me what rights God gave you...


The proper terminology would be 'natural rights' but it means the same thing and you know it. Stop playing word games because you don't have an argument.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Sorry, not mis-spoke. Taken out of context sir. BTW, read your post above and then my post below.


I think anyone reading the full quote of what I said understands what I was saying and that it was not racist in any way. The only reason thing 1 and thing 2 accuse me of racism or trying to say that was my intention is because they are stirring the pot.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok seems like you know what he was trying to say so you explain it...
> Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping. As a person you don't have an obligation to other people to treat them all the same. The government does have that obligation, but the people do not. Thus the difference between a public business(A government owned/run business) vs a private business(An individually owned business)
> Tell me how this was taken out of context when this country back then was the way it was...??? and as a person I treat all the same until they show me why I SHOULD NOT...but I guess your gods who give you guys rights teaches you something different...


I treat everyone the same, though I don't have to by any stretch of the imagination. Also, in that same paragraph, I pointed out that the government had a duty to treat all of the citizens equally. Laws should not involve race, religion, sex, color, age, or any other category. If it is illegal to do something to a black person it must be illegal to do it to a white person or it is a simple case of discrimination. If this concept is way above your head, then I am very sorry for you and the upbringing that made you incapable of understanding this.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Laws have to be made if ignorant people refuse to do whats right...If Walmart only decided to hire asians you would be fired..so thank laws for protecting your rights


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> not if it is 'open to the public'.
> 
> because you would be impinging on the rights of others, as it does harm to those you discriminate against on the basis of your bigotry. empirical evidence proves this.
> 
> ...


Obviously you are still unable to see the different between hurting and not helping. If you break your foot when you wreck your skateboard but I ignore you and walk by - I am not hurting you. I am just not helping you. If you come into my store to buy something and I won't sell it to you - I am not hurting you - you are the same as you were when you got there. I am just not helping you.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 26, 2011)

Verbal Abuse is NOT A CRIME!! The only time it could possibly be considered a crime is when it threatens Physical violence, is used as part of a history of harrassment or is blackmail. Just going by someone and calling them a stupid piece of shit is NOT a crime. Might get you punched in the face though, Bigots beware!


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Laws have to be made if ignorant people refuse to do whats right...If Walmart only decided to hire asians you would be fired..so thank laws for protecting your rights


 NObody has a right to be hired. You really don;t have much of any argument... It sound so silly coming from grown adults. Don't for the 8-0 ruling in favor of Wal-Mart Bwahahahahahahah!


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> guy have you really even read the constitution...You would be surprise at how many talk of it but failed to have read it...Do you even know what the Supremacy Clause is...I guess not for if you did you would have not typed what you just did...Federal Law trumps State Law...go read


 Please explain how a voluntary compact trumps the States that created it...... Bizarre Leftist logic. Federal Law doesn't trump States law. Con 101


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Verbal Abuse is NOT A CRIME!! The only time it could possibly be considered a crime is when it threatens Physical violence, is used as part of a history of harrassment or is blackmail. Just going by someone and calling them a stupid piece of shit is NOT a crime. Might get you punched in the face though, Bigots beware!


Thanks Drama..... We are dealing with the lowest common denominator here for sure. LondonFog is giving Constitution lessons now. I think we have all fallen into a wormwhole.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> we the people? the SCOTUS?
> 
> i can not define harm, but i know it when i see it.
> 
> ...


So, how would you do that? There is no such thing a private business according to the government(or you). Oh, as long as I am not making money I can be racist? Does this mean Sams Club or Costco would get your seal of approval to be racist? They require a membership to enter. The government deciding who I have to serve or not serve in my business is the same as them deciding whether I have to loan my car to someone or not. Regardless of the reason the business and car are mine. If I don't want to sell you a snicker because you are wearing flip flops, thats too fucking bad.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> what an eloquent and substantive rebuttal.
> 
> tell you what, i am going to open the only dispensary in your area, and i am going to hang a "no mormons" sign on the door.
> 
> ...


Maroon is a word, you might try using the dictionary. He used it quite properly.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Please explain how a voluntary compact trumps the States that created it...... Bizarre Leftist logic. Federal Law doesn't trump States law. Con 101


The United States Supreme Court has rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states. Rather, the Court has stated that the Constitution was established directly by the people of the United States, not by the states....again Federal Law trumps State Law


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> bigot owns the only gas station around for miles. bigot refuses service to you because you are a mormon. you have to get your gas at the other station, also run by a bigot, who charges mormons twice for gas.
> 
> you need some lumber for the chicken coop you're building. bigot who owns the hardware store refuses to sell to mormons. you have to drive 50 miles to the nect hardware store to get lumber, and the bigot there charges mormons double.
> 
> ...


Sounds like maybe you should move to Mormonton.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> RON PAUL: "The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is"....
> 
> Despite Pauls claim that nullification is proper and constitutional, Article 6 of the Constitution states *This** Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; *and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...*
> 
> SO how can you say that he goes by the constitution when he goes against it by telling states they are free to ignore federal laws and directives


Just made it back but Windsblow got it right in post #1704.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Verbal Abuse is NOT A CRIME!! The only time it could possibly be considered a crime is when it threatens Physical violence, is used as part of a history of harrassment or is blackmail. Just going by someone and calling them a stupid piece of shit is NOT a crime. Might get you punched in the face though, Bigots beware!


yeah you right..just found out the guy also raised his hand which actually made it a threat...so verbal abuse alone is not a crime..


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Just made it back but Windsblow got it right in post #1704.


wrong Federal law trumps state


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I see everyone thinks that being a bigot does not hurt others...
> 
> 
> Bardwell, a Tangipahoa Parish Louisiana Judge (outside New Orleans), became famous for rejecting Terence McKay and his girlfriend Beth Humphrey, who wanted to be married by Bardwell. But Keith decided to show the country what a real bigot was when he said "I do it to protect the children, he reportedly said. The kids are innocent and I worry about their futures" when asked why he would not marry an interracial couple.
> ...


Why was he even ON the bench is a more appropriate question imo.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Lets say I'm a bigot that hates woman...I see your wife in the store and tell her how much of a stupid bitch she is..I also tell her that if she has a child thats a girl to keep that little stupid bitch in the kitchen where her ugly tail belongs..I then tell your wife to turn around so I can see if she has any ass back there because I hear white woman don't have any butts....I then see your mother and tell her I smell fish and ask her how often she cleans her pussy and offer to buy her a douche...I then walk away ...now was I hurtful..yes I was...is there a law to stop what I just did ...yes it is...


What law stops you from doing that?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Why was he even ON the bench is a more appropriate question imo.


Don't know..I just wish people would understand that bigotry can be very harmful...How is it helpful ??? and how can some actually think this guy didn't pass unfair sentences on the bench..come on keep it reAL


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> wrong Federal law trumps state


Only when State laws come into conflict with the several enumerated powers given persuant to the Constitution. All other right are assumed to be the States. You are talking about about generally 18 laws. Geezz come on London you are out of your league..... 

This guy Londong questioned us about whether or not I have read the Constitution. Don't make me snap photo's of all my books on the subject and post them one after the other.

Yes BudLover I am right.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> What law stops you from doing that?


I think harrasment would work...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> What law stops you from doing that?


They can't actually asnwer any of the direct question. I would love to hear his answer.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I think harrasment would work...


There has to be a provable direct threat of harm. YOu just can't have your feelings hurt.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> Only when State laws come into conflict with the several enumerated powers given persuant to the Constitution. All other right are assumed to be the States. You are talking about about generally 18 laws. Geezz come on London you are out of your league.....
> 
> This guy Londong questioned us about whether or not I have read the Constitution. Don't make me snap photo's of all my books on the subject and post them one after the other.
> 
> Yes BudLover I am right.


LOL..dude Federal law supercedes state law...always!!!!! California says weed legal..Feds can still lock your ass up if they chose....don't test that one..just trust me...Who else thinks that state law can over ride Fed law ????


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> There has to be a provable direct threat of harm. YOu just can't have your feelings hurt.


Harassment does not have to be physical harm...


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Verbal Abuse is NOT A CRIME!! The only time it could possibly be considered a crime is when it threatens Physical violence, is used as part of a history of harrassment or is blackmail. Just going by someone and calling them a stupid piece of shit is NOT a crime. Might get you punched in the face though, Bigots beware!


Unfortunately it's unConstitutionally considered "disturbing the peace" nowadays.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Unfortunately it's unConstitutionally considered "disturbing the peace" nowadays.


yeah they can find a way to charge you, but I was wrong thinking that it was a charge called "verbal abuse"..I thought someone I knew was taken to jail for that, but my wife told me he had raised his hand at her..


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> wrong Federal law trumps state


Only when involving the powers specifically granted to the Federal Government.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

We are talking about States issues when it come to Verbal abuse so it really moot. But London you can't press charges on some one for calling you names your just playing game at this point.

Just because the Feds can intimidate States doesn't mean they actually have the right to...... It's called Subsidized subordination nothing more. You take Federal subsidies out of the equation and the Fed would be calling the State house asking permission before they even thought about coming to town.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I think harrasment would work...


Civil law, not criminial



> harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. (See: harass, sexual harassment)


Plus, I hardly think that would actually hold up in court. As you can see by the legal definition, you would have to prove that it was "constant."


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

The 'law' that allows the government to do whatever they want when you say bad words is called the 'fighting words doctrine'. It is constitutional law, more of a theory of how to look at cases and not a law in so much as it being illegal to grow marijuana or murder people. It does allow implementation of laws that do so, however.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Don't know..I just wish people would understand that bigotry can be very harmful...How is it helpful ??? and how can some actually think this guy didn't pass unfair sentences on the bench..come on keep it reAL


Bigotry is never good imo. At least this judge had the common courtesy to make his beliefs known instead of continuing to rule from the bench. If there were no "PC"ness such as has resulted from the Civil Rights act then he would've been free to voice his opinion and most likely would have since he did it anyway. Meaning he could've been removed from the bench even sooner. Just because the Civil Rights act is in place doesn't mean that bigotry ends. It just makes it more likely to operate behind the scenes where nobody can see the cause of these strange rulings that come out of our courts. Let the bigots spout their hate. See how long they last.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> The 'law' that allows the government to do whatever they want when you say bad words is called the 'fighting words doctrine'. It is constitutional law, more of a theory of how to look at cases and not a law in so much as it being illegal to grow marijuana or murder people. It does allow implementation of laws that do so, however.


I will have to look into that as I am not totally sure what you mean. Interesting though.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> We are talking about States issues when it come to Verbal abuse so it really moot. But London you can't press charges on some one for calling you names your just playing game at this point.
> 
> Just because the Feds can intimidate States doesn't mean they actually have the right to...... It's called Subsidized subordination nothing more. You take Federal subsidies out of the equation and the Fed would be calling the State house asking permission before they even thought about coming to town.


Ca. PC 415: "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to _produce_ a violent reaction" to "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to _provoke an immediate_ violent reaction."4

Thing is, that's a STATE law, not Federal.

http://www.shouselaw.com/disturbing-peace.html#overview


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Bigotry is never good imo. At least this judge had the common courtesy to make his beliefs known instead of continuing to rule from the bench. If there were no "PC"ness such as has resulted from the Civil Rights act then he would've been free to voice his opinion and most likely would have since he did it anyway. Meaning he could've been removed from the bench even sooner. Just because the Civil Rights act is in place doesn't mean that bigotry ends. It just makes it more likely to operate behind the scenes where nobody can see the cause of these strange rulings that come out of our courts. Let the bigots spout their hate. See how long they last.


I'm confused are you saying it would have been better to not have a Civil Rights Act ???


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm confused are you saying it would have been better to not have a Civil Rights Act ???


i am saying that while the Civil Rights act greatly curbed blatant, open bigotry towards some ethnicities(primarily black at least in the beginning) it at the same time didn't create but empowered/emboldened bigotry in the other direction. You know, two wrongs don't make a right? i'm not going to be so egotistical to claim that i have a perfect solution to the problems that were occuring when the legislation was passed but i will be so bold as to say that there MUST have been a better way to handle it.

But if anything it concreted in the bigotry that was already there.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i am saying that while the Civil Rights act greatly curbed blatant, open bigotry towards some ethnicities(primarily black at least in the beginning) it at the same time didn't create but empowered/emboldened bigotry in the other direction. You know, two wrongs don't make a right? i'm not going to be so egotistical to claim that i have a perfect solution to the problems that were occuring when the legislation was passed but i will be so bold as to say that there MUST have been a better way to handle it.
> 
> But if anything it concreted in the bigotry that was already there.


What would have been a better way ????? and yes some people you can't change, but you can make laws to change what they do or suffer the consequence...and this country is much better then it was when I was not allowed to eat at the same restaurant as some


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Ca. PC 415: "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to _produce_ a violent reaction" to "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to _provoke an immediate_ violent reaction."4
> 
> Thing is, that's a STATE law, not Federal.
> 
> http://www.shouselaw.com/disturbing-peace.html#overview


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

Good call Carthoris.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> What would have been a better way ????? and yes some people you can't change, but you can make laws to change what they do or suffer the consequence...and this country is much better then it was when I was not allowed to eat at the same restaurant as some


Like i said, i'm not so egotistical as to think that i alone could solve a problem that has been going on for all time. Are you?


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

> hope Congress, before they adjourn will take into very serious Consideration the necessary Amendments of the Constitution. Those whom I call the best - the most judicious & disinterested Federalists, who wish for the perpetual Union, Liberty & Happiness of the States & their respective Citizens, many of them if not all are anxiously expecting them. They wish to see a Line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal Powers vested in Congress and the distinct Sovereignty of the several States upon which the private & personal Rights of the Citizens depend. Without such Distinction there will be Danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated Government over all the States: which, although it may be wished for by some was reprobated in the Idea by the highest Advocates for the Constitution as it stood without Amendments. I am fully persuaded that the population of the U S living different Climates, of different Education and Manners, and possessed of different Habits & feelings under one consolidated Government can not long remain free, or indeed remain under any kind of Government but despotism - Samuel Adams





> mean, my friend, to let you know how deeply I am impressed with a sense of the importance of Amendments; that the good people may clearly see the distinction, for there is a distinction, between the federal powers vested in Congress and the sovereign authority belonging to the several States, which is the Palladium (the protection) of the private and personal rights of the citizens. - Samuel Adams





> But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.- Alexander Hamilton





> But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.


There is a reason it is called the United States of America.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States


never knew that...so calling someone a ugly fight ass stupid bitch would fall under that ????


----------



## sync0s (Jun 26, 2011)

One more:



> It has been observed, that "education has a greater influence on manners, than human laws can have." Human laws excite fears and apprehensions, least crimes committed may be detected and punished: But a virtuous education is calculated to reach and influence the heart, and to prevent crimes. - Samuel Adams


Education stops bigotry. Not laws.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> What would have been a better way ????? and yes some people you can't change, but you can make laws to change what they do or suffer the consequence...and this country is much better then it was when I was not allowed to eat at the same restaurant as some


I admire your honestly, hell, I like you. You can come over my house and fuck my sister. I would still let you drink at my bar, London. You might be a commie heathen bastard, but at least you use real words and go for complete sentences.

[video=youtube;lhY3EDjxExA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhY3EDjxExA&feature=player_detailpage#t=106s[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> never knew that...so calling someone a ugly fight ass stupid bitch would fall under that ????


Shit, according to the government calling a police officer a facist falls under that lol. I don't think you are allowed to fart in a police car.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> never knew that...so calling someone a ugly fight ass stupid bitch would fall under that ????


Yes. It can. THAT is up to the discretion of the all powerful officer.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

If you want to get rid of bigotry, vote for Ron Paul. Once marijuana is legal and everyone is stoned, no one will care if you are black, white, or real at all.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

We should just start out own politic chat in rollitup. Maybe Ill ask Rollitup next time I see him in the chat.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> More or less.


there ya go, carthoris believes in segregation and that his rights to bigotry reign supreme over everyone else's right to be treated as an equal to any other member of the genral public. 



Carthoris said:


> Also, did you essentially say that a reason for blacks not starting a community somewhere is because we would round them all up and murder them like the Nazis? Jesus Christ - Seriously?


it happened about than 70 years ago. seriously.

you don't like history? so fucking sad.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> there ya go, carthoris believes in segregation and that his rights to bigotry reign supreme over everyone else's right to be treated as an equal to any other member of the genral public.
> 
> it happened about than 70 years ago. seriously.
> 
> you don't like history? so fucking sad.


LOL, where did I say I was for bigotry or segregation? Even though you posed that question in a vague and misleading way, yea, I pretty much do believe what you said about my rights being more important than your feeling warm and happy inside.

lol the last part was completely incomprehensible but it could be because I just smoked and Im stoned as hell.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Blacks have an equal part in the continued racism in this country.


really?

did blacks ever keep whites as slaves? did blacks ever impose jim crowe laws on whites? did whites ever have to fight for the privilege of riding on whatever seat of the bus they chose?

i fail to see how the 10% of blacks in the country could keep the other 90% down. especially since a disproportionate number of blacks are in jail right now for committing the same crimes as whites.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> HR1913 - The very nature of this law is racist. Isn't it already illegal to kill black gay transsexuals? Ron Paul voted no because all of the things this act covered were already illegal. I thought you were against segregation? Separate but unequal law.


how is it racist? it applies equally to a black who commits a hate crime against a white as it does to a black who commits a hate crime against a white.

are you so dense you can not see this? or do you ignore it willfully?



Carthoris said:


> HR2831 - Discrimination is already illegal under other laws - what would this law have accomplished on top of them?


a greater statute of limitations to sue on the basis of pay discrimination. instead of the clock starting to tick at the first discriminatory paycheck, it starts at the most recent discriminatory paycheck.

are you for more leverage for companies to discriminate based on gender and other things?



Carthoris said:


> HR11 - ...kind of pointless...


women are paid $0.80 on the dollar for what a man is paid. why is it pointless to give them tools to combat such unfair pay discrimination?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You do realize that those people just went to one of the other justices and got married, right? No one was hurt. the Judge wasn't "Sentencing" anyone, he just refused to marry the couple. Of course the couple could have just PAID for a minister and gotten married too.


that racist asshole reminded them of the bigotry that still thrives in this country. do you really think that is what an interracial couple wants to hear when they go to get married?

of course, they could have just PAID MORE MONEY to obtain the same thing as any non-interracial couple would have obtained.

jesus fucking christ.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Not even close to the same thing and you know it. The good news is no one takes you seriously already, so you can't sink any lower. I can explain my opinions, back them up with rational thoughts and facts - and I do because I realize you don't understand the basics of freedom and reality.


there is no difference.

newt was unequivocal, then vacillated.

you made a statement, i quoted it in context (that quote fits in context of what you said, and you have stood by it), but you say that my quoting it is somehow misleading.

but good job at insulting me in an attempt to discredit me.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Obviously you are still unable to see the different between hurting and not helping.


some guy comes into my pharmacy with a severe gash.

i refuse to sell him gauze that would save his life because he is redhead.

i am not hurting the redhead, i am just not helping him.

fucking duh.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> If you want to get rid of bigotry, vote for Ron Paul. Once marijuana is legal and everyone is stoned, no one will care if you are black, white, or real at all.


and everyone will get a raise!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> LOL, where did I say I was for bigotry or segregation?


i summarized your position as "they should go segregate themselves', to which you responded 'more or less'.

i would say that is pro-segregation.

i also asked in that same line of your rights to be bigoted trumped others' rights to be treated equally, to which you assented, 'more or less'.

i would say that is pro-bigotry.



Carthoris said:


> Even though you posed that question in a vague and misleading way, yea, I pretty much do believe what you said about my rights being more important than your feeling warm and happy inside.


your right to bigotry is more important than treating everyone as equals, or as you call it, feeling all warm and happy inside.

way to take a condescending tone to treating everyone as equals. no way in hell that leads me to believe you are a bigot.



Carthoris said:


> lol the last part was completely incomprehensible but it could be because I just smoked and Im stoned as hell.


shtetls were targeted by the nazis less than 70 years ago. they were sitting ducks and easy to round up. just as a community of blacks would be an easy target for an angry lynch mob.

but according to you those lynch mobs probably did not exist or were a creation of the liberal 1880's media.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> there ya go, carthoris believes in segregation and that his rights to bigotry reign supreme over everyone else's right to be treated as an equal to any other member of the genral public.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only dealt with it in Allensworth after the Civil Rights act.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Only dealt with it in Allensworth after the Civil Rights act.


guy do you even know the history of Allensworth ???actually it was first called Allensworth colony and yes it was nice, but it fell apart long before the Civil Rights Movement...


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> guy do you even know the history of Allensworth ???actually it was first called Allensworth colony and yes it was nice, but it fell apart long before the Civil Rights Movement...


Yes, as a matter of fact i do. In all my work ther and listening to the history and opinions od the residents is where i got my info. And you? Yes, it financially started deteriorating from the inside more than any outside influences. The Civi Rights act just put a lot of nails in the coffin by making them a target.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

I had a chance back in 1994 when I was stationed at MAFB in Moreno Valley CA. to actually visit on a drive up to San Francisco..Being that it was founded by a black man I was very much interested in seeing history...Now from maybe 1908 to about 1920 it was a nice place for blacks to get away from the south..but when I went thru it was a Park and historic site and had been that way since 1968-70...most people had moved away after the founder was killed..and that was about 1920 ???? I would like to know who the hell you spoke to that claim it was the Civil Rights that ruined the town...because the town had died before 1930 with only farmers living around..hell so many problems and broken promises kept the colony from ever reaching off the ground, they couldn't even get water to the town...sorry guy Civil Rights had nothing to do with Allensworth...


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

ok I had to go check some dates because I was unsure it was 1974-75 when it was made into a park and the founder was killed in 1914


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

ok found some things to prove my point and the fact you lied or someone lied to you..link at end

*What killed the colony?*

The Allensworth area is notoriously short of water, a condition that persists to this day. Col. Allensworth picked the place for his utopia because of an abundance of wells and artesian springs.

Ed Pope says there was also a waterway, Deer Creek.

"But when the colony started going, mysteriously, Deer Creek was moved," Pope said.

Pope also blames the Santa Fe Railroad for the colony's demise. Allensworth was once the only stop in that part of the Valley, the shipping point for the Valley's cattle and grain.

"Then Santa Fe built a spur to Alpaugh, and the trains stopped coming," Pope said.

In addition, Col. Allens-worth had received a promise from the Pacific Farming Co., from which he bought Allensworth's 800 acres, that the company would provide water.

The company never delivered. The wells depleted.

In 1914, a bill was being considered in the California Legislature that would have established a technical college at Allenstown modeled after Washington's Tuskegee Institute.

Two weeks after Col. Allensworth's death, the bill was defeated.

Poor crop yields, a water shortage and a flat economy eventually drove the settlers away.

ALL this way before the Civil Rights movement !!!!!!!!

heres the link to read more... http://www.co.tulare.ca.us/about/allensworth.asp 

Don't know who you spoke to in 2000-2002 ????


----------



## deprave (Jun 27, 2011)

New in Depth interview with ron paul on cspan: http://freedomftw.net/2011/06/in-depth-interview-with-ron-paul/

46 minute interview


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok found some things to prove my point and the fact you lied or someone lied to you..link at end
> 
> *What killed the colony?*
> 
> ...


If only the Justice of the Peace would have married them, things would have been different. Im sure the reason they couldn't get water was because of some bigot who dammed it all up.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> The United States Supreme Court has rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states. Rather, the Court has stated that the Constitution was established directly by the people of the United States, not by the states....again Federal Law trumps State Law


Absolute Garbage..... Show me the Case and ruling and the upholdings of the ruling.

That's so silly it has got to be true.... So SCOTUS now has the power to rewrite history? Wow the Bench is crazy liberal for sure.

Any 3rd grader could read such a ruling and strike it down.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I had a chance back in 1994 when I was stationed at MAFB in Moreno Valley CA. to actually visit on a drive up to San Francisco..Being that it was founded by a black man I was very much interested in seeing history...Now from maybe 1908 to about 1920 it was a nice place for blacks to get away from the south..but when I went thru it was a Park and historic site and had been that way since 1968-70...most people had moved away after the founder was killed..and that was about 1920 ???? I would like to know who the hell you spoke to that claim it was the Civil Rights that ruined the town...because the town had died before 1930 with only farmers living around..hell so many problems and broken promises kept the colony from ever reaching off the ground, they couldn't even get water to the town...sorry guy Civil Rights had nothing to do with Allensworth...


 
Elderly(mostly) residents who never gave up their dreams or the dreams of their parents. You may say it had nothing to do with it and the timing you cite definitley don't support what i was told other than they don't condisder it dead even now.i guess i could take the 45 minute drive and see if i could find the people and interview them on tape. Or i could simply take their word for it since i know that i was there speaking with them and i would think that they have a pretty good idea of their history. Again, i was told that it was a grweat community in the beginning and yes, it had problems but the Civil Rights movement, beginning before the CRA was passed, is what the majority told me they blame for the ultimate collapse of the town and was just capped off by the CRA.

Should've taken that opportunity to visit. Only a very small portion of town is actually dedicated to the history but the people are absolutely awesome. i'm a Land Surveyor by trade and was working in the summer heat in the middle of alkali-heavy farmland that just sucks the moisture out of everything(i have no clue how they farmed successfully in that dirt!) and would have lemonade, water, tea, and yes, even "grape drink" offered to me on a daily basis. GREAT community. Too bad it doesn't have any services or stores any more.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok found some things to prove my point and the fact you lied or someone lied to you..link at end
> 
> *What killed the colony?*
> 
> ...


You are accurate with your dates and history to the best of my knowledge. i am simply going off of what the residents tell me rather than "info" that has been written by a gov't agency or some PC activist which is usually the case. The people that live in Allensworth now must just not know their history i guess. Either way, they blame the CR movement/act for the ultimate demise of their town(or at least the ones i spoke to). Maybe they were afraid i was a white spy that had been sent into their community by the white devil and so they told me what they thought i wanted to hear. lol.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> there ya go, carthoris believes in segregation and that his rights to bigotry reign supreme over everyone else's right to be treated as an equal to any other member of the genral public.
> it happened about than 70 years ago. seriously.
> you don't like history? so fucking sad.


 I am still not sure why you think anyone has the right to force anyone else to treat someone a certain way. It is not about bigotry, it is about personal choice. Discriminating against people who are bigots isn't any different that discriminating against anyone else. Even if you believe at one time overriding the constitution with the CRA was the right thing to do because change was not capable of being made fast enough while following the law of the land it is important to remember that 50 years later it is now only a hindrance to personal freedoms and is outdated. 

I will repeat it again - MY RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY PERSONAL PROPERTY OVERRIDES YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE ANY BENEFIT FROM MY PERSONAL PROPERTY. Businesses are private property - otherwise they would be government owned.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Would anyone here have a problem with the Government forcing you (by Regulation) to purchase from the same bigots who are forced to sell?

For example, Say the only Pharmacist in town is also a well known devil worshiper and bona fide racist to boot. Should there be regulations that force you to purchase products from that same pharmacist? If not, then why should it be fine the other way around? Wouldn't forcing purchases by law make the economy recover? Shouldn't we have laws that force people to purchase certain products like first aid supplies and the like just in case we get hurt? I mean after all its for our own good so what harm could it do?


Does the preceding paragraph sound ludicrous?


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Would anyone here have a problem with the Government forcing you (by Regulation) to purchase from the same bigots who are forced to sell?
> 
> For example, Say the only Pharmacist in town is also a well known devil worshiper and bona fide racist to boot. Should there be regulations that force you to purchase products from that same pharmacist? If not, then why should it be fine the other way around? Wouldn't forcing purchases by law make the economy recover? Shouldn't we have laws that force people to purchase certain products like first aid supplies and the like just in case we get hurt? I mean after all its for our own good so what harm could it do?
> 
> ...


... or say, force us to buy health insurance?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> ... or say, force us to buy health insurance?


Someone is really on the Ball this morning!!!


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Someone is really on the Ball this morning!!!


LOL, I have my moments.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it happened about than 70 years ago. seriously.
> you don't like history? so fucking sad.


The fact that you believe that the USA would round up blacks and murder them if they lived in cities away from whites is amusing considering that you believe our government should be given more and more power on its path to complete control and ability to do just the things you are against. Yet, on a topic you don't agree with any suggestion that the government might do such a thing is complete tin foil hat talk. The fact that you then are too stupid to understand my point wasn't that I disagree the government could do such a thing, but was about your hypocrisy gives me little hope for you.


UncleBuck said:


> really?
> did blacks ever keep whites as slaves? did blacks ever impose jim crowe laws on whites? did whites ever have to fight for the privilege of riding on whatever seat of the bus they chose?
> 
> i fail to see how the 10% of blacks in the country could keep the other 90% down. especially since a disproportionate number of blacks are in jail right now for committing the same crimes as whites.


Racism and slavery are not the same thing. We would of had racism in the country even without slavery. People seem to think its alright to hate Mexicans and be racist towards them, did we have a large population of Mexican slaves? 

The CRA is a restriction/oppression of individual rights on a majority of our country to give disproportionate protection to minorities. It basically means that given two individuals with very similar experience and ability, one being white male and one being minority, that the minority has special privileges in society that will give them an upper hand. This is government sponsored oppression and infringes on the rights of both businesses and the white male. Why do I use 'white male' instead of majority? Well, that is who you mean when you say 'majority', and who you mean the minorities need protected against, yes?



UncleBuck said:


> how is it racist? it applies equally to a black who commits a hate crime against a white as it does to a black who commits a hate crime against a white.
> 
> are you so dense you can not see this? or do you ignore it willfully?
> 
> ...


You think you need a law that protects anyone in a special manner over and above what the protection they already get from being murdered, raped, or beaten. My point is - why? Isn't rape, murder, and beating people already illegal? Does the victim feel less raped, murdered, or beaten if I do it because I like doing those things than they do if I did it because they are black, gay, lesbian, woman, chinese, ect ect? Murder is murder, rape is rape, beatings are beatings. 

Starting the time period at the last check does not seem unreasonable, and while I am not a scholar on that particular bill, I believe it did some other things. You realize the entire 80 cents on the dollar thing is a median pay of any job held by a woman vs the median pay of any job held by a man. Any job over 35 hours. Men are more likely to work overtime, Women are more likely to take time off to care for sick children and family. Men are likely to have more tenure given the same job. Even government research, private compensation research, and womens groups agree that more like 2-5 cents on the dollar is probably a reasonable estimate of how much women lose by 'discrimination'. That being what cannot be explained by actual experience, tenure, and other things of that nature.

Oh great government, I prostrate myself to you. Please teach me things I could learn on my own if I gave a fuck and give me .20 more cents on the dollar. Without your complete control I shall never be equal, please, please, pleeassseee. 



UncleBuck said:


> that racist asshole reminded them of the bigotry that still thrives in this country. do you really think that is what an interracial couple wants to hear when they go to get married?
> of course, they could have just PAID MORE MONEY to obtain the same thing as any non-interracial couple would have obtained.
> jesus fucking christ.


 I agree that a judge treating people differently based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is wrong. The judge was wrong to use his political office in this way. Was he wrong to believe what he believes? Yes. However, it is his right to be an asshole, just not when representing the government. Our laws should not treat anyone differently - whether they be gay, married, have children or not, black, white, yellow, woman or man.


UncleBuck said:


> there is no difference.
> newt was unequivocal, then vacillated.
> you made a statement, i quoted it in context (that quote fits in context of what you said, and you have stood by it), but you say that my quoting it is somehow misleading.
> but good job at insulting me in an attempt to discredit me.


 I suppose my best response would be.
Context - the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

You know for a fact that you took the comment out of context to make my views seem more extreme/racist/whatever than they were and did so intentionally to misrepresent my idea and statement. Thus, you took it out of context. Maybe you should look the meaning of words up before you use them, maroon.



UncleBuck said:


> some guy comes into my pharmacy with a severe gash.
> i refuse to sell him gauze that would save his life because he is redhead.
> i am not hurting the redhead, i am just not helping him.
> fucking duh.


 If a guy dies because he doesn't have gauze, then I would say evolution did a good job. Seriously? What possible situation would you die from not having gauze? Maybe if a guy holds a gun to your head and says 'give me gauze or Ill kill you.'

Try using nitrate pills as an example. You are having a heart attack at a pharmacy and they won't sell you nitrates. To that I might say "Why would you forget a pill that would keep you alive, don't you have a personal responsibility to take care of yourself and stay alive?" Also, most 'life saving' items would need a prescription. I will have to ask my pharmacist friend if the government allows him to give people nitrates without a prescription if they are dying.

Insulin would be a good example, but wouldn't people who know they need insulin to live keep some handy? If they don't care enough about their lives to ensure they have an adequate supply of insulin, then obviously there is a severe issue here.

Or perhaps CPR, mouth to mouth, or anything of that nature. Still, people have no responsibility to help you regardless. 

Gauze is right up there in importance with tooth brushes. A wash cloth and tape can do the same thing as gauze.

Now, if you are asking if a hospital has the responsibility to treat you for emergency care. Then yes, I would say they do if they receive government funding. Privately, does a doctor have a legal responsibility to care for you if you beat on his door all bloody? How many doctors, legal responsibility or not, would actually leave you laying on the ground dying if they could save you?


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

These HYpotheticals are retarded.... Instead of the law trying to play a kind of minority report role in society by attempting to stop unwanted acts in the future. We should all have our rights and then suffer the consequences. If some dumb ass bigot retailer refuses to give a black man help in a time of need (which is such a far fetched storyline it's stupid to even entertain) and the black man dies... Well if you can find him legally responsible for his death then he should be prosecuted. To say we need to take the rights of 99% of America because someone, somewhere in a hypothetical world might do something naughty is the most ridiculous proposal... Yet our Government (because of folk Like london and that other creep) passes laws like this all the time. 

Can we move on to something a little more challenging?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

ok why does Ron Paul run on the Republican ticket when he knows he will never get the nod...He would have a better chance running Independent..I don't think he really wants to be POTUS.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok why does Ron Paul run on the Republican ticket when he knows he will never get the nod...He would have a better chance running Independent..I don't think he really wants to be POTUS.


Because he believes you've got to be part of the two-party system becausehistory has proven that third parties are never taken seriously by the majority of the population. Look at all the hell he's catching about being fringe and a loon while on the Republican ticket. Imagine if he ran third party/independent.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

Because he's a principled man and just because the Republican left the party and became leftist doesn't mean he's not a republican. It's called priciples.... God forbid we have someone who understand consistency.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

but I thought he was a movement....movements make changes...Now be honest do you think he will get the go ahead from the Republican party that is now...???? I say NOPE and would be willing to put some heavy cash on it...His movement should be able to carry him as an Independent and make the change that a third party is now in play..Hell when he first had the real Tea party the movement started, but it was hijacked and now the teaparty is soiled..I'm just not understanding why he would try to run a race in a party that is fixed against him ???


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> but I thought he was a movement....movements make changes...Now be honest do you think he will get the go ahead from the Republican party that is now...???? I say NOPE and would be willing to put some heavy cash on it...His movement should be able to carry him as an Independent and make the change that a third party is now in play..Hell when he first had the real Tea party the movement started, but it was hijacked and now the teaparty is soiled..I'm just not understanding why he would try to run a race in a party that is fixed against him ???


Yeah, you're right. In fact, people like Ron Paul should not be allowed to run for President. They should throw him out of Congress, too. Who the hell does he think he is thinking people should have their individual liberties protected by our Federal government. Doesn't he know that the number one priority of the Federal government is make sure that everybody is equal and safe?
Going around espousing freedom and liberty. How lame can you get?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Yeah, you're right. In fact, people like Ron Paul should not be allowed to run for President. They should throw him out of Congress, too. Who the hell does he think he is thinking people should have their individual liberties protected by our Federal government. Doesn't he know that the number one priority of the Federal government is make sure that everybody is equal and safe?
> Going around espousing freedom and liberty. How lame can you get?


Now you sound stupid...follow the conversation


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Now you sound stupid...follow the conversation


i thought it was rather witty myself. Very politely pointed out his problem with your opposition in my opinion.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

I find it funny that every time I make a concise and logical point it gets ignored and some other stupid subject get brought up. This thread sux Barbra Boxers Dick.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> The fact that you believe that the USA would round up blacks and murder them if they lived in cities away from whites is amusing


ummm, when did i say that? i believe i talked about lynch mobs and the fact that such a practice makes that group a sitting duck.



Carthoris said:


> The CRA is a restriction/oppression of individual rights on a majority of our country to give disproportionate protection to minorities. It basically means that given two individuals with very similar experience and ability, one being white male and one being minority, that the minority has special privileges in society that will give them an upper hand.


the CRA protects EVERYONE, not just minorities. it means NO ONE may be discriminated against on the basis of religion, skin color, nationality, and the like. 

that goes for these 'white males' you speak of as well, poor souls they are, facing so much discrimination and persecution.

why don't you go tell some discriminated minority about how they have the upper hand in society 



Carthoris said:


> Does the victim feel less raped, murdered, or beaten if I do it because I like doing those things than they do if I did it because they are black, gay, lesbian, woman, chinese, ect ect? Murder is murder, rape is rape, beatings are beatings.


we already prosecute people and sentence them based on the contents of their minds, it is called intent and motive. if the crime was motivated by some factor that the victm has no control over, like race, that makes the crime a little more heinous in the eyes of most.



Carthoris said:


> You realize the entire 80 cents on the dollar thing is a median pay of any job held by a woman vs the median pay of any job held by a man. ... Even government research, private compensation research, and womens groups agree that more like 2-5 cents on the dollar is probably a reasonable estimate of how much women lose by 'discrimination'.


bullshit. go find those studies. i wager they come from the JBS or some similar group.

even 2-5% discrimination is discrimination, and is wrong. the bill ron paul voted against gives women more ability to combat that discrimination.



Carthoris said:


> I agree that a judge treating people differently based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is wrong. The judge was wrong to use his political office in this way.... it is his right to be an asshole, just not when representing the government.


but you think he should have that right if he runs a business that is 'open to the public'?

sorry folks, can't have a delicious po' boy sammich here today, i do not serve interracial couples. 



Carthoris said:


> You know for a fact that you took the comment out of context to make my views seem more extreme/racist/whatever than they were and did so intentionally to misrepresent my idea and statement.


is what you said still not true, even with what you claim to be 'mitigating' statements around it? do you really honestly believe they could have all just picked up, formed their own little shtetl, and lived happily ever after? 



Carthoris said:


> If a guy dies because he doesn't have gauze, then I would say evolution did a good job. Seriously? What possible situation would you die from not having gauze? ...Insulin would be a good example...


you are right, it was the first thing that came to mind. whatever, the point is that refusing service does harm. it is not as simple as 'not helping'.

for some reason, you and windsblow want to bandy about deluding yourselves into some false version of history where, before civil rights, no one was was ever harmed by bigotry being allowed. but people were harmed. entire communities suffered. and not just those who had the shit end of the stick, either.

bigotry hurts everyone, including those who practice it. 

we've tried the ron paul version of things where your right to be a bigot is given priority, and people were harmed. we got rid of that version of things when we came together and said 'freedom does not mean the freedom to harm others with your bigotry'.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

I wonder if Ron Paul would want to bring back and run in the "States Rights Party" ..make it the third party choice..he might as well with his 1950 thinking


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok why does Ron Paul run on the Republican ticket when he knows he will never get the nod...He would have a better chance running Independent..I don't think he really wants to be POTUS.


Correct. He knows he'll never be president. It's the same reason Dennis Kucinich runs. He does it to get his issues discussed nationally.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Correct. He knows he'll never be president. It's the same reason Dennis Kucinich runs. He does it to get his issues discussed nationally.


You hit it right on the head...


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Correct. He knows he'll never be president. It's the same reason Dennis Kucinich runs. He does it to get his issues discussed nationally.


If either of you care to spend a couple minutes actually listening to the man, he answers your questions/accusations @ 2:20 in this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GXeJClIoSEA#at=190

Gotta try harder Dan.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> If either of you care to spend a couple minutes actually listening to the man, he answers your questions/accusations @ 2:20 in this interview.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GXeJClIoSEA#at=190
> 
> Gotta try harder Dan.


I real movement would overcome this....I guess his movement is not strong enough, so I guess you guys just have to get used to the idea that you will never see him in the general election...let alone as the POTUS....enjoy his message because thats about all you will get...I stopped listening when he started talking about delivering babies..I think that was long enough


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> If either of you care to spend a couple minutes actually listening to the man, he answers your questions/accusations @ 2:20 in this interview.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GXeJClIoSEA#at=190
> 
> Gotta try harder Dan.


Why do Ron Paul supporters think a simple statement from him, in this case "I'm in it to win it", explains away all the evidence and facts? Ron Paul is not a deity. The words coming out of his mouth are not the direct words of an omnipotent being. Sorry I had to be the one to inform you of that, but you needed to know.

He can't win. He lacks the funding and large organization of a real contender, just like he did in all his previous runs. He's a professional politician. He knows what it takes to seriously contend and he knows he's not doing that and therefor knows he's not going to win. He has to say things like "I'm in it to win it", because if he said "I'm just in this race to get national attention to my agenda" no one would volunteer for him, donate, or vote for him. 

You heard it here first folks, Ron Paul in fact makes statements that he knows are not true because it's necessary for him in order to get his issues discussed on a national level. All politicians who are running for this purpose do the same thing. Kucinich does the same thing, so does Al Sharpton. They all tell their supporters they are trying to win. They have to. But I don't think anyone outside their die hard supporters is under the illusion that we are going to have president Sharpton, Kucinich, or Paul. 

It's fucking amazing how willing Ron Paul supporters are to ignore reality and dismiss any and all facts or evidence if they contract any statement made by Ron Paul. If you're wondering why people mistake you guys for a cult, that is why.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

You LIE...Ron Paul is a honest man so if he says he is in it to win ...Then he will win...thats all we need to hear...now I'm about to go outside soon as I find my tin foil hat to protect me from the government taking my freedom...lol


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

*Protect your freedoms!!!!!!*


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

anyone else hear that ron paul fucks turtles?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> *Protect your freedoms!!!!!!*
> 
> View attachment 1666949


Tin foil hats? I don't see what Ron Paul has to do with telekinesis or telepathy...
This is a clear illustration of how you rationalize things, which should discredit anything you have to type, clearly you are moronic.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Tin foil hats? I don't see what Ron Paul has to do with telekinesis or telepathy...
> This is a clear illustration of how you rationalize things, which should discredit anything you have to type, clearly you are moronic.


they are putting fluoride in our water to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so we turn into nazi germany. alex jones said so!

i am going to the mercado to pick up some colita de pavo, aka turkey ass. this will be delicious.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I real movement would overcome this....I guess his movement is not strong enough, so I guess you guys just have to get used to the idea that you will never see him in the general election...let alone as the POTUS....enjoy his message because thats about all you will get...I stopped listening when he started talking about delivering babies..I think that was long enough


As i figured. But you know i'm right here. How do you judge someone's intentions other than based on his record?


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Why do Ron Paul supporters think a simple statement from him, in this case "I'm in it to win it", explains away all the evidence and facts? Ron Paul is not a deity. The words coming out of his mouth are not the direct words of an omnipotent being. Sorry I had to be the one to inform you of that, but you needed to know.
> 
> He can't win. He lacks the funding and large organization of a real contender, just like he did in all his previous runs. He's a professional politician. He knows what it takes to seriously contend and he knows he's not doing that and therefor knows he's not going to win. He has to say things like "I'm in it to win it", because if he said "I'm just in this race to get national attention to my agenda" no one would volunteer for him, donate, or vote for him.
> 
> ...


So you're argument is i shouldn't agree with his takes on the issues and support him. But rather vote for any one of the other Status Quo? Get lost. That's damn near treasonous.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

You don't even listen to what he has to say. You are by your own admission ignorant. As many have proven themselves to be in this thread.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I real movement would overcome this....I guess his movement is not strong enough, so I guess you guys just have to get used to the idea that you will never see him in the general election...let alone as the POTUS....enjoy his message because thats about all you will get...I stopped listening when he started talking about delivering babies..I think that was long enough


Just documenting wanton and willful ignorance.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

LOL! We've got...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MpQq4buof4&feature=youtu.be


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 27, 2011)

I am pretty sure we know all the posters on here who are truly moronic.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So you're argument is i shouldn't agree with his takes on the issues and support him.


No. My argument is you shouldn't ignore facts and evidence based on his words alone. He's not a serious contender. He never has been and never will be. He doesn't have serious campaign financing or national campaign infrastructure so he's not going to win. He knows that, everyone knows that. The only people who don't believe that are his cult like supporters who believe every statement he makes without question like yourself. 

I'm saying you shouldn't believe every statement that comes out of any politicians mouth. They HAVE to say certain things that are not true in order to run their campaigns. That includes all politicians, without exception. 



> But rather vote for any one of the other Status Quo? Get lost. That's damn near treasonous.


Oh that's nice. Suggesting Ron Paul might be telling a necessary lie is pretty much treason now eh? Good thing you guys don't act like cult worshipers.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You don't even listen to what he has to say. You are by your own admission ignorant. As many have proven themselves to be in this thread.


Obviously I did listen if I quoted his response.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> No. My argument is you shouldn't ignore facts and evidence based on his words alone. He's not a serious contender. He never has been and never will be. He doesn't have serious campaign financing or national campaign infrastructure so he's not going to win. He knows that, everyone knows that. The only people who don't believe that are his cult like supporters who believe every statement he makes without question like yourself.
> 
> I'm saying you shouldn't believe every statement that comes out of any politicians mouth. They HAVE to say certain things that are not true in order to run their campaigns. That includes all politicians, without exception.
> 
> ...


The very fact that he has gotten this far and DOESN'T have all the special interest money behind him is alluring to many. Rather.....refreshing.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> The very fact that he has gotten this far and DOESN'T have all the special interest money behind him is alluring to many. Rather.....refreshing.


Sure, to many. But not a majority. That requires $$$. 

Also, let's not pretend he's above taking special interest money. He does do that. He takes money from the national association of realtors, the national association of credit unions, and multinational oil companies. The only reason he doesn't take more is because more is not being offered to him. When offered, he does accept it though. The reason more is not offered to him is because lobbyists can tell the difference between a serious candidate and Ron Paul.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Sure, to many. But not a majority. That requires $$$.
> 
> Also, let's not pretend he's above taking special interest money. He does do that. He takes money from the national association of realtors, the national association of credit unions, and multinational oil companies. The only reason he doesn't take more is because more is not being offered to him. When offered, he does accept it though. The reason more is not offered to him is because lobbyists can tell the difference between a serious candidate and Ron Paul.


Whether he makes it or not i still support his principles and there isn't another candidate out there in the race i can say the same about. If he wins, we'll see what happens. If he doesn't. we'll see what's happening continue. You do know there are rumors of revolution because so many people are tired right? i think RP is the only one the masses will listen to when that day comes.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

Here's him addressing that very need for money(which is wrong in so many ways):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HHybC0feMLM#at=50


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You do know there are rumors of revolution because so many people are tired right? i think RP is the only one the masses will listen to when that day comes.


lol. wishful thinking.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

You shouldn't be able to run for president or have any good ideas unless you have at least a Billion dollar campaign fund, a huge supporting base and lots and lots of drum beaters. If you don't have those things then you aren't worth anyone's time. The issues do not matter, the only thing that matters is how much financing you have and whether or not you have the MSM support.


I bet the big money makes you compromise your positions in exchange for support.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. wishful thinking.


On RP or revolution lol.?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You do know there are rumors of revolution because so many people are tired right?


if ron paul doesn't win, let's resort to "second amendment remedies".

check that.

"when" ron paul doesn't win.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> On RP or revolution lol.?


both really


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You shouldn't be able to run for president or have any good ideas unless you have at least a Billion dollar campaign fund, a huge supporting base and lots and lots of drum beaters. If you don't have those things then you aren't worth anyone's time. The issues do not matter, the only thing that matters is how much financing you have and whether or not you have the MSM support.
> 
> 
> I bet the big money makes you compromise your positions in exchange for support.


Let's not forget that any serious candidate MUST waffle on at least one important issue, if not all his/her beliefs AND have a full head of hair.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if ron paul doesn't win, let's resort to "second amendment remedies".
> 
> check that.
> 
> "when" ron paul doesn't win.


stop that. It's now "nearly treasonous" to not blindly support Ron Paul. It used to be just spamming, but now it's something that deserves death penalty consideration. Remember, they are not acting like cult members!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You shouldn't be able to run for president or have any good ideas unless you have at least a Billion dollar campaign fund, a huge supporting base and lots and lots of drum beaters. If you don't have those things then you aren't worth anyone's time. The issues do not matter, the only thing that matters is how much financing you have and whether or not you have the MSM support.
> 
> 
> I bet the big money makes you compromise your positions in exchange for support.


I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm saying it is that way. Something Ron Paul supports since he's a firm believer that corporate and other special interest campaign contributions = free speech.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm saying it is that way. Something Ron Paul supports since he's a firm believer that corporate and other special interest campaign contributions = free speech.


You seem to support the Status Quo, i.e. you will only vote for the candidate most likely to win.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> stop that. It's now "nearly treasonous" to not blindly support Ron Paul. It used to be just spamming, but now it's something that deserves death penalty consideration. Remember, they are not acting like cult members!


if ron paul is elected, he will iron your dress shirts AND starch the collars.

he will also leave man-turtle love laws up to the states.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if ron paul is elected, he will iron your dress shirts AND starch the collars.
> 
> he will also leave man-turtle love laws up to the states.


Beastiality is already legal in 18 states


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 27, 2011)

Michele Bachmann what a stupid bitch!

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.
The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.
or how about The Revolutionary War began in New Hampshire and not Massachusetts. Yea, thats what she said also.
I don't know whats worse, this, or soetoro saying 57 states.... There are 57 Arab states, guess where his allegience and concerns are. LMFAO!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Michele Bachmann what a stupid bitch!
> 
> Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.
> The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.
> ...


i would say telling outright lies is worse than misspeaking.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

So, for anyone interested in learning more about Ron Paul but not having the 47 minutes it takes to watch the complete interview, i have drawn up this timeline which relates the issues addressed to the timeline in the video for ease of research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GXeJClIoSEA#at=190

Video Timeline:
0:40 - First two presidential runs.
2:20 - Why not a 3rd party candidate?
7:40 - How did you go from Dr. to politician?
10:10 - Federal Reserve
13:10 - Bank and Auto Bailouts
16:08 - Ben Bernanke
17:40 - Ending the Fed addressed
18:40 - Essential Liberties
21:05 - Self description
22:10 Constitution CAN be amended if done properly
23:00 Abortion/States Rights.
26:52 - Foreign policy
28:50 Economy/Jobs
30:27 - The &#8220;cult&#8221; following of Ron Paul
32:20 - His son Rand Paul
33:00 - His wife lol!
33:40 - One person in history you could meet.
34:28 - Why does Ron Paul want to be president?
36:40 - Campaign Strategy
37:38 - Size up the current field
38:45 - Views on the Republican Party
40:30 - The General Election
42:28 - Obama&#8217;s performance
44:15 - The future of America
45:30 - What have you learned about yourself?
46:50 - Wife & kids.
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Michele Bachmann what a stupid bitch!
> 
> Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.
> The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.
> ...


She also stated that she had a "feeling" or "sense" that God wanted her to run too. Not that it's a bad thing but i can't stand mixing religion and politics any more than necessary.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i would say telling outright lies is worse than misspeaking.


 Misspeaking is different than just plain ignorant and incorrect.
I agree though, Soetoro should absolutely be impeached for lie after lie.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> She also stated that she had a "feeling" or "sense" that God wanted her to run too. Not that it's a bad thing but i can't stand mixing religion and politics any more than necessary.


 Yea i bet god told her to run... So he can have a good laugh! HA!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Misspeaking is different than just plain ignorant and incorrect.
> I agree though, Soetoro should absolutely be impeached for lie after lie.


meh, i was talking about some of her other doozies.

doozies that would make obama's as of yet not upheld campaign promises look like innocent, pretty flowers.


----------



## wanabe (Jun 27, 2011)

the thread about who gives a shit why is this thread so big take this crap some where else please


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

wanabe said:


> the thread about who gives a shit why is this thread so big take this crap some where else please


got a suggestion for where a political thread belongs, other than in the politics section?

perhaps we should move it to the 'threads that are too long for wanabe to consider reading' section, where you can come along and comment that every thread there is too long for you to read.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 27, 2011)

wanabe said:


> the thread about who gives a shit why is this thread so big take this crap some where else please


God damn, talk about a Run-on sentence.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

wanabe said:


> the thread about who gives a shit why is this thread so big take this crap some where else please


ugh ugh!!!! (ALA Tim the Tool Guy)


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You seem to support the Status Quo, i.e. you will only vote for the candidate most likely to win.


I've voted for plenty of candidates that I know are going to lose. So no, I said nothing remotely like. All I'm saying is that Ron Paul isn't a serious contender, he's just trying to get his issues discussed on a national level. I didn't say you shouldn't vote for him because of that.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Beastiality is already legal in 18 states


say this isn't so...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> say this isn't so...


florida just had a hell of a time getting a bestiality law on the books.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I've voted for plenty of candidates that I know are going to lose. So no, I said nothing remotely like. All I'm saying is that Ron Paul isn't a serious contender, he's just trying to get his issues discussed on a national level. I didn't say you shouldn't vote for him because of that.


OK, so why the debate over voting for someone who isn't going to win? Why do you keep harping on that fact if it is not an important fact at all? Why do you keep saying "RP doesn't have a chance in hell of winning" if not for any other reason than to try and disuade people from voting for a losing candidate?


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

I thought you were kidding about Michelle Bachmann saying John Wayne, but dam that broad really did confuse John Wayne with Gacy...OMG & WTF


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

This thread has been hi-JAcked by that crazy know nothings and that Homosexual creep who should not be allowed around children. I don't know why any of you rational human even respond to them. Sorry Bud 13 but this thread has been ruined. UB does that to every thread that is started by people he and the RUI/FDD lefty cliche don't like. 
I am off to another site. It is all ways the same maroons on here ruining it for everyone. UB will get this shut down soon enough.

Ron Paul 2012
Obama is a Communist and a fucking Maroon


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> This thread has been hi-JAcked by that crazy know nothings and that Homosexual creep who should not be allowed around children. I don't know why any of you rational human even respond to them. Sorry Bud 13 but this thread has been ruined. UB does that to every thread that is started by people he and the RUI/FDD lefty cliche don't like.
> I am off to another site. It is all ways the same maroons on here ruining it for everyone. UB will get this shut down soon enough.
> 
> Ron Paul 2012
> Obama is a Communist and a fucking Maroon


 Gotta have thick skin around here.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

I haven't figured out how to get cancel my account here. 
I don't think it is possible (which is wierd) UB can you report me some more or just give FDD a call and have him ban me again per your request? 
This time have tell him to perma ban me please. 
I can't stand this site. 
Crawling with some of the most disgusting examples of human bottom feeders I have ever come a crossed.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> OK, so why the debate over voting for someone who isn't going to win? Why do you keep harping on that fact if it is not an important fact at all? Why do you keep saying "RP doesn't have a chance in hell of winning" if not for any other reason than to try and disuade people from voting for a losing candidate?


I say it too but just as a fact..I hope everyone goes and vote!!!!!! but Ron Paul will does not stand a snowball chance in hell getting the nod for the 2012 general..Blame that on the Republican party who feels its Mitts turn or Bachmanns to grab, but Ron Paul is completely being ignored...are you not a realist ????


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I haven't figured out how to get cancel my account here.
> I don't think it is possible (which is wierd) UB can you report me some more or just give FDD a call and have him ban me again per your request?
> This time have tell him to perma ban me please.
> I can't stand this site.
> Crawling with some of the most disgusting examples of human bottom feeders I have ever come a crossed.


dude, i laid off you after our first go around.

perhaps you could return the same courtesy.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I say it too but just as a fact..I hope everyone goes and vote!!!!!! but Ron Paul will does not stand a snowball chance in hell getting the nod for the 2012 general..Blame that on the Republican party who feels its Mitts turn or Bachmanns to grab, but Ron Paul is completely being ignored...are you not a realist ????


i really wish gary johnson would get the nod, but starting all the threads in the world about him and getting my panties in a bunch when pointed out he has no chance does nothing to make this happen.

i hope you vote for gary johnson in the primary, london.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

I am not in need of thick skin... I don't care about any of these bums opinions... It's just a waste of time fro budlover13 and the rest of the people here trying to get the word out. They aren't here to argue with Turtle FUcker face and his ilk. There are better places to spend my time. Trust me I am not sensitive just logical.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> I haven't figured out how to get cancel my account here.
> I don't think it is possible (which is wierd) UB can you report me some more or just give FDD a call and have him ban me again per your request?
> This time have tell him to perma ban me please.
> I can't stand this site.
> Crawling with some of the most disgusting examples of human bottom feeders I have ever come a crossed.


dude you log on ....no one forces you to log on..wtf...how about just going and sitting in on some grows...giving some grow advice...gotta have some tough skin to play here guy...


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

dude, i laid off you after our first go around.

perhaps you could return the same courtesy



Courtesy... please have the courtesy to call FDD please.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> dude, i laid off you after our first go around.
> 
> perhaps you could return the same courtesy
> 
> ...


i like turtles.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i really wish gary johnson would get the nod, but starting all the threads in the world about him and getting my panties in a bunch when pointed out he has no chance does nothing to make this happen.
> 
> i hope you vote for gary johnson in the primary, london.


actually that is my serious vote...Bachmann would be my joke..lol...I will be taking it serious though...but OBAMA 2012


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

It's not just this thread it's everywhere. The Admins and all his cronies and all the scum bag trouble makers floating around here. I just don't understand why I can't cancel my account.
Just do me that favor and ask FDD to ban me again please.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

who is that? is that doctor paul? i could be wrong.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> It's not just this thread it's everywhere. The Admins and all his cronies and all the scum bag trouble makers floating around here. I just don't understand why I can't cancel my account.
> Just do me that favor and ask FDD to ban me again please.


that's impossible, considering i never made that request in the first place.

did you know that i like turtles?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I say it too but just as a fact..I hope everyone goes and vote!!!!!! but Ron Paul will does not stand a snowball chance in hell getting the nod for the 2012 general..Blame that on the Republican party who feels its Mitts turn or Bachmanns to grab, but Ron Paul is completely being ignored...are you not a realist ????


 I agree with you, he is marginalized and ignored by a vast network of MSM and Repubs/Democrats alike.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I agree with you, he is marginalized and ignored by a vast network of MSM and Repubs/Democrats alike.


yet somehow clips of him on cnn or fox or other news outlets abound.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> It's not just this thread it's everywhere. The Admins and all his cronies and all the scum bag trouble makers floating around here. I just don't understand why I can't cancel my account.
> Just do me that favor and ask FDD to ban me again please.


If your skin gets thick enough you will have multiple people with Quotes of yours as their Signature. Gotta be able to do some epic shit talking though and of course at least 1 ban is the minimum requirement to make it into the league of RIU heroes, you already got that award. Go for the Gold!!!


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yet somehow clips of him on cnn or fox or other news outlets abound.


 Those are sometimes taken so out of context that they can make RP into something he isn't. Like how heavy petting of turtles can sometimes develop into something more.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

It's funny I keep getting requests from different people in different threads to leave UB alone because they don't want threads shut down. there seems to be a pattern and people are aware of it.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

There a quote for a sig


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> It's funny I keep getting requests from different people in different threads to leave UB alone because they don't want threads shut down. there seems to be a pattern and people are aware of it.


I AM GOD!










































....of the turtle fuckers


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Windsblow said:


> It's funny I keep getting requests from different people in different threads to leave UB alone because they don't want threads shut down. there seems to be a pattern and people are aware of it.


If you make a good argument UB will relent. Just remember that a lot of his posts are tongue in cheek, he doesn't necessarily believe everything he posts, sometimes he likes to smack the wasp nest with a big stick.


----------



## Windsblow (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> If you make a good argument UB will relent. Just remember that a lot of his posts are tongue in cheek, he doesn't necessarily believe everything he posts, sometimes he likes to smack the wasp nest with a big stick.


Sure buddy


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> If you make a good argument UB will relent. Just remember that a lot of his posts are tongue in cheek, he doesn't necessarily believe everything he posts, sometimes he likes to smack the wasp nest with a big stick.


this is true.

johnny owned me in this thread.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/438851-popularity-tea-party.html

and you have shut me up more than once as well, noD.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yet somehow clips of him on cnn or fox or other news outlets abound.


Like that C-Span interview earlier. Thing is, more people listen to other media sources that are overtly influencing decisions based on their own interests.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> this is true.
> 
> johnny owned me in this thread.
> 
> ...


Ok NoD. You're holding out on me! WTH? lol!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> OK, so why the debate over voting for someone who isn't going to win?


The more votes they get, the more the issues represent get taken seriously.



> Why do you keep harping on that fact if it is not an important fact at all?


Someone asked a question, I answered it. Got accused of treason for my answer lol, so I replied. Am I not allowed to reply to posts?



> Why do you keep saying "RP doesn't have a chance in hell of winning" if not for any other reason than to try and disuade people from voting for a losing candidate?


It's probably some sort of treasonous conspiracy I'm guessing....

I was just hoping to talk some sense into you and the rest of the cult members. Obviously that's impossible though. Don't know what I was thinking there.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I was just hoping to talk some sense into you and the rest of the cult members. Obviously that's impossible though. Don't know what I was thinking there.


 is the RP cult kind of like the Obama cult, except with RP as the leader?


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> If your skin gets thick enough you will have multiple people with Quotes of yours as their Signature. Gotta be able to do some epic shit talking though and of course at least 1 ban is the minimum requirement to make it into the league of RIU heroes, you already got that award. Go for the Gold!!!


I got a quote, no banning yet though. What do I have to do to get a banning?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> is the RP cult kind of like the Obama cult, except with RP as the leader?


Exactly, except he will iron our clothes also, which is a plus plus situation.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 27, 2011)

Isn't having issues you consider important the entire point of politics? So, whether Ron Paul wins or loses, he is still increasing in popularity and having an impact on the Republican's. Win or Lose he is still effecting change. Arguably, people who hold no political office at all are more influential than the POTUS.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 27, 2011)

Anyone know where Ron Paul will be the first couple weeks of July - I am going to do some traveling and I think I would like to hear him talk in person.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I got a quote, no banning yet though. What do I have to do to get a banning?


 at least 3 official infractions. they are easy to get, all you have to do is have a differing opinion from FDD and be able to assert it in such a way to make him look stupid. I have never been reported by anyone. Infractions are the easiest to get during a 9/11 debate.


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> at least 3 official infractions. they are easy to get, all you have to do is have a differing opinion from FDD and be able to assert it in such a way to make him look stupid. I have never been reported by anyone. Infractions are the easiest to get during a 9/11 debate.


So I should just go to whatever threads FDD is posting in and be a dick to him?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 27, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> So I should just go to whatever threads FDD is posting in and be a dick to him?


That would do it. He mostly hates people who question his authority or who double dog dare him to ban them. He doesn't even flinch when you call him Hitler, hes been called that a thousand times.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jun 27, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> So I should just go to whatever threads FDD is posting in and be a dick to him?


He's pretty thick skinned. I doubt that would work.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 27, 2011)

Why are people in the politics section that can't handle it. I mean, it's fucking politics. If there are two topics in this world that get people riled up more than anything it's religion and politics. 

It's a sad day in America where a man with an idea can become unelectable. However, that day has long since passed. I know I could never get elected, to many bug a boos..


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

[video=youtube;CnrPP3qkM0E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnrPP3qkM0E&feature=share[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> That would do it. He mostly hates people who question his authority or who double dog dare him to ban them. He doesn't even flinch when you call him Hitler, hes been called that a thousand times.


What's that internet rule/law that says all threads eventually circle around to Hitler? lol!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 28, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> What's that internet rule/law that says all threads eventually circle around to Hitler? lol!


this thread hit that point long ago when your fellow ron paul supporters said that fluoride was an attempt to hitlerize us.


----------



## deprave (Jun 28, 2011)

In one of Glenn Becks final episodes he essentially makes the call for the American People to Support Ron Paul doing a complete 180 from his previous opinion of Ron Paul: http://freedomftw.net/2011/06/wow-glenn-beck-frmr-ron-paul-smear-now-artist-does-a-180/

GB'ers: Welcome aboard the Ron Paul Revolution, Glad to have you.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 28, 2011)

deprave said:


> In one of Glenn Becks final episodes he essentially makes the call for the American People to Support Ron Paul doing a complete 180 from his previous opinion of Ron Paul: http://freedomftw.net/2011/06/wow-glenn-beck-frmr-ron-paul-smear-now-artist-does-a-180/
> 
> GB'ers: Welcome aboard the Ron Paul Revolution, Glad to have you.


lol if there was ever a group of voters to distance yourself from


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 28, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol if there was ever a group of voters to distance yourself from


They're just another of the many groups that are concerned for their freedom and liberty. Sure they have some extreme views and some views that make you think conspiracy theorist but when someone brings up a conspiracy theory it is my beief that instead of being ridiculed that they be dealt with openly and honestly by the gov't. Otherwise the human mind runs wild sometimes. So while i don't agree with some of their views, i welcome them aboard because in the end, they are just concerned citizens that have theories that have been based off of the governments long-time habit of lying and deceiving the public. Maybe if the gov't were a little more honest with it's citizens we wouldn't have all these conspiracy theories(and i don't discredit them all by any means since i have few honest answers from the gov't).


----------



## Carthoris (Jun 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Why are people in the politics section that can't handle it. I mean, it's fucking politics. If there are two topics in this world that get people riled up more than anything it's religion and politics.
> 
> It's a sad day in America where a man with an idea can become unelectable. However, that day has long since passed. I know I could never get elected, to many bug a boos..


Some people get riled up over really stupid things. A few people snapped in a Magnetic vs Digital thread I made.


----------



## londonfog (Jun 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Some people get riled up over really stupid things. A few people snapped in a Magnetic vs Digital thread I made.


No contest digital owns magnetic


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 28, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No contest digital owns magnetic


Oh FUCK THAT! You little bastard! MAGNETIC!!!! LOL!!! j/k


----------



## deprave (Jun 28, 2011)

Omg its so on, NO U DIDN'T


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 28, 2011)

deprave said:


> Omg its so on, NO U DIDN'T


Magnetism. Magneto. Magnetron. Magnets rule the world and everything you do! It's all a vast conspiracy trying to get everyone to switch to digital so they can control your thoughts man! Resist the establishment! MAGNETIC ALL THE WAY!!!!


----------



## londonfog (Jun 28, 2011)

My digital can grow a 12 week sativia in under a month and I only have to water it twice because no heat issues..lol


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 28, 2011)

Well my magnetic hums me to sleep at night!


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 29, 2011)

Back on topic.

This is a VERY well written article. It doesn't deal so much with Ron Paul but the philosophy of Libertarianism and the grass roots anti-government movement. Definitely worth a read.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/mullen-t5.1.1.html


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 29, 2011)

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]


> To make that admission is to invite accusations of belonging to a personality cult whose members blindly follow their leader no matter what position he takes.


A few here who have already made those very same accusations.
[/FONT]


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 29, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] A few here who have already made those very same accusations.
> [/FONT]


That's what made me post this here first.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 29, 2011)

Must be good reading. 8:28a-8:34p and nothing. 

Ron Paul 2012!


----------



## deprave (Jun 30, 2011)

so Ron Paul On Alex Jones Interview Yesterday, pretty good interview Alex Jones doesn't go on any of his crazy rants: http://freedomftw.net/2011/06/ron-paul-interview-alex-jones-today/

Also the FED is trying to use the excuse that Ron Pauls audit of the gold would be "to expensive" lol


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

deprave said:


> so Ron Paul On Alex Jones Interview Yesterday, pretty good interview Alex Jones doesn't go on any of his crazy rants: http://freedomftw.net/2011/06/ron-paul-interview-alex-jones-today/
> 
> Also the FED is trying to use the excuse that Ron Pauls audit of the gold would be "to expensive" lol


 Gold is not to expensive, people are broke and our moneys not worth much because they create it in a computer through loan creation and some of it they print on cotton paper and some they coin from zinc the New U.S. silver dollars cost around 40$ or 50$ each this year and next year I heard the govt wants 75$ each for them, when a dollar is worth seventy five dollars theirs a problem- We all got to register as Republican and vote Paul in the primary......If theirs not a huge consensus to unite across party lines to elect Paul, Things will continue as they have been and we will all continue to lose.


----------



## budlover13 (Jun 30, 2011)

*Why Ron Paul Matters*

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110630/OPINION01/110639992/1294/opinion?p=1&tc=pg


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Also the FED is trying to use the excuse that Ron Pauls audit of the gold would be "to expensive" lol


ROTFLMAO... that is priceless


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Also the FED is trying to use the excuse that Ron Pauls audit of the gold would be "to expensive" lol


the REAL reason is because there is no gold to audit. that is the big secret, we leased all that gold out over the last 40 years and now it is in the hands of the Bankers. The proof of this was contained in Building seven of the WTC. A lot of things were in Building Seven, like the paper trail for a missing $Trillion from the pentagon, A huge vault full of gold, all of it gone, CIA and FBI files and a whole bunch of things no one wanted to see the light of day. They built it out of sticks so it would easily fall when on fire? Actually Building 7 fell because of sympathies towards the twin towers.

Kind of like this....
[video=youtube;vp1HVg_J7QA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1HVg_J7QA&feature=fvst[/video]


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> the REAL reason is because there is no gold to audit. that is the big secret, we leased all that gold out over the last 40 years and now it is in the hands of the Bankers. The proof of this was contained in Building seven of the WTC. A lot of things were in Building Seven, like the paper trail for a missing $Trillion from the pentagon, A huge vault full of gold, all of it gone, CIA and FBI files and a whole bunch of things no one wanted to see the light of day. They built it out of sticks so it would easily fall when on fire? Actually Building 7 fell because of sympathies towards the twin towers.
> 
> Kind of like this....
> [video=youtube;vp1HVg_J7QA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1HVg_J7QA&feature=fvst[/video]


Now for something completely different... thanks for posting that, now I have to go and watch the movie, again.
Out of sympathy, that is hilarious, I'll have to remember that one. I promise to give you credit.
There were also files on investigations into Enron and some other "friends of the administration" at the time.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 1, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> the REAL reason is because there is no gold to audit. that is the big secret, we leased all that gold out over the last 40 years and now it is in the hands of the Bankers. The proof of this was contained in Building seven of the WTC. A lot of things were in Building Seven, like the paper trail for a missing $Trillion from the pentagon, A huge vault full of gold, all of it gone, CIA and FBI files and a whole bunch of things no one wanted to see the light of day. They built it out of sticks so it would easily fall when on fire? Actually Building 7 fell because of sympathies towards the twin towers.
> 
> Kind of like this....


i think there would be easier ways to go about making whatever shit they wanted gone to be gone than to fly massive jets into the WTC.

but i do like a ron paul thread devolving into conspiratorial ramblings, so do go on...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 1, 2011)

Don't forget you have to get your tin foil hat check and calibrated once a month ...twice a month if you take showers with it on (fluoride deteriorates it ).


----------



## sync0s (Jul 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Don't forget you have to get your tin foil hat check and calibrated once a month ...twice a month if you take showers with it on (fluoride deteriorates it ).


Why do you continuously try to defame people with opposing views. You do reason, by definition, that is bigotry.



> *big·ot·ry/&#712;big&#601;tr&#275;/*
> 
> Noun: Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from


----------



## beardo (Jul 1, 2011)

At least he has researched fluoride and recognizes its caustic nature.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 1, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Why do you continuously try to defame people with opposing views. You do reason, by definition, that is bigotry.


I do it because its fun at times and this is the internet where I come to play....are you trying to take away my freedoms????...and Alex Jones talk strikes me as funny


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I do it because its fun at times and this is the internet where I come to play....are you trying to take away my freedoms????...and Alex Jones talk strikes me as funny


The problem i have with that though londonfog is that this is not a joking matter to many of us. This is the future of our country. 

Sometimes you come to that point in time when you have to make a decision to either watch your life and country as well as all your loved ones slip into a very dark, very dangerous situation or stand up and fight the seemingly inevitable. At times i don't really think there is a snowballs chance in hell that ANYONE can stop or soften the fall that i see on the horizon. And i sure as hell know that the status quo isn't going to help. At the very least they perpetuate it through ignorance and at worst actively participate in it's decline.

So, with all due respect london, would you please stop with the sophmoric attacks? There are a TON of other threads to joke around in, but again, it is my opinion that this is not the one. It is offensive to some, slanderous to others, misleading to yet others, and totally out of place here. If you had started the thread i would by no means ask you to cease and desist, but you didn't. Deprave did. And he did it because of his passion for his country. i believe i am pretty close to what he would say here. Either way, Please?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 1, 2011)

i know, i'm stifling your freedom of speech by asking you to stop based on your previous posts. i'm not. Simply requesting a little common courtesy and respect. The world would be much better off with a little more.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 1, 2011)

has anyone here heard that ron paul fucks turtles?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 1, 2011)

i hear that ron paul fucks turtles.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 1, 2011)

sounds like you trying to take my freedoms just because I don't think like you and agree with you. I have a right to say what I want. would Ron Paul like what you are doing. Does he not believe in freedom or is freedom only limited to those who speak of him.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i hear that ron paul fucks turtles.


 true freedom allows u to say that...i love freedom


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

Yes, of course he would object. He wouldn't FORCE you to stop but he would most definitely engage in discourse because he has something you have repeatedly shown a lack of. Class. 

See you're turtle-fucking yourself once again. You bitch that i ask you to please use a little common courtesy and decency and you simply show, once again, that you are a waste of space. You sure do have the right to say it. And i wouldn't try to FORCE you to stop even if i could. Though i am not sure you would show me the same courtesy lol.

It has nothing to do with your intelligence but simply your lack of couth.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

Don't mistake freedom with being "right". Your posts show they are vastly different although you seem to think they are interchangeable.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

I feel that you are wrong about Ron Paul, but I don't tell you to stop posting...I just debate you when you do... and if i feel that you guys are tin foil hat wearing nuts with some of these conspiracy theory's (Alex Johns) then its my right to voice my opinion even if its in satire...Now once again why are you trying to take my freedoms..are you and Ron Paul only to have freedoms...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> The problem i have with that though londonfog is that this is not a joking matter to many of us. This is the future of our country.
> 
> Sometimes you come to that point in time when you have to make a decision to either watch your life and country as well as all your loved ones slip into a very dark, very dangerous situation or stand up and fight the seemingly inevitable. At times i don't really think there is a snowballs chance in hell that ANYONE can stop or soften the fall that i see on the horizon. And i sure as hell know that the status quo isn't going to help. At the very least they perpetuate it through ignorance and at worst actively participate in it's decline.
> 
> So, with all due respect london, would you please stop with the sophmoric attacks? There are a TON of other threads to joke around in, but again, it is my opinion that this is not the one. It is offensive to some, slanderous to others, misleading to yet others, and totally out of place here. If you had started the thread i would by no means ask you to cease and desist, but you didn't. Deprave did. And he did it because of his passion for his country. i believe i am pretty close to what he would say here. Either way, Please?


and just because someone started a thread in the politic forum does not mean he/she can tell you what and how to post....suggest you take that attitude to the grow side...its politics here!!!! and for the record please note you really can't tell me to do shit...last time I checked I sign my owned damn checks ....Now I won't be supporting Ron Paul and I will tell the truth about Ron Paul and if you don't like it...too bad


----------



## sync0s (Jul 2, 2011)

Say what you want about Ron Paul. It's a debate of politics, cool, perfect section about it. My point in my post is defaming people, because of their opinion will only cause people to blind themselves from those views, as well as discourage future ideas and political discussion for fear of more "tin foil hat" jokes and ridicule. It does nothing except promote ignorance and bullying tactics are not a form of positive intellectual discussion.

If you want to continue to further contribute to the lack of intelligence our country has been ever increasingly displaying, be my guest. Just hope that you will feel satisfied with the results.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

No couth, no class. Free to say as one wishes. Proving their low-class. Amazing how some people are so far down on the eviolutionary chain that you simply have a very hard time not feeling superior. Gives one the impression of debating Socrates in a kindergarten class sometimes lol.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> No couth, no class. Free to say as one wishes. Proving their low-class. Amazing how some people are so far down on the eviolutionary chain that you simply have a very hard time not feeling superior. Gives one the impression of debating Socrates in a kindergarten class sometimes lol.


hell I'm tired of folks like you doing nothing for this country but putting fear in the air..the sky is not falling..so please remove the hats ( but it is your right to keep it on). tell you what go out and do something positive....go feed the hungry,go save a puppy from dog pound, heck go to a shelter and donate something ( old and new clothes alike)...do something positive instead of this steady dose of negative bullshit..Doing positive things always makes me feel positive and may frame a much better picture of the world for you


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> hell im tired of folks like you doing nothing for this country but putting fear in the air..the sky is not falling..so please remove the hats ( but it is your right to keep it on). tell you what go out and do something positive....go feed the hungry,go save a puppy from dog pound, heck go to a shelter and donate something...do something positive instead of this steady dose of negative bullshit..


Sounds like a huge assumption, combined with a heavy dose of denial, to me.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> hell I'm tired of folks like you doing nothing for this country but putting fear in the air..the sky is not falling..so please remove the hats ( but it is your right to keep it on). tell you what go out and do something positive....go feed the hungry,go save a puppy from dog pound, heck go to a shelter and donate something ( old and new clothes alike)...do something positive instead of this steady dose of negative bullshit..Doing positive things always makes me feel positive and may frame a much better picture of the world for you


I doubt you even know any of our first names. How can you even begin to say that we aren't foster parents, big brothers, volunteering, running a homeless shelter, or anything of that nature? You realize that Libertarians and Republicans are more likely to do those things than Communists and Democrats, right? That means you are much more likely to be sucking on the greasy tit of society, as society slowly dies. I feel sorry for you, London. Anyone who does not understand that liberty is more important than protection is ignorant. If you limit others, you limit yourself. You are ultimately voting to take away your own freedoms. You and Uncle Ben are of the same nature. You aren't retarded, just ignorant and unable to accept that your lives are what they are due to your own motivation and ability, or lack therefor. Even worse are the people who believe they are fine but everyone else needs a mommy for life because they are incapable of taking care of themselves. Most people give up their childish imaginings when they grow up and move out into the world. In some ways I envy you whatever world allowed you to grow up and have no responsibility for yourself, your actions, or inactions. They even reward you for it, that is like telling a puppy good boy because it pissed on your carpet.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I doubt you even know any of our first names. How can you even begin to say that we aren't foster parents, big brothers, volunteering, running a homeless shelter, or anything of that nature? You realize that Libertarians and Republicans are more likely to do those things than Communists and Democrats, right? That means you are much more likely to be sucking on the greasy tit of society, as society slowly dies. I feel sorry for you, London. Anyone who does not understand that liberty is more important than protection is ignorant. If you limit others, you limit yourself. You are ultimately voting to take away your own freedoms. You and Uncle Ben are of the same nature. You aren't retarded, just ignorant and unable to accept that your lives are what they are due to your own motivation and ability, or lack therefor. Even worse are the people who believe they are fine but everyone else needs a mommy for life because they are incapable of taking care of themselves. Most people give up their childish imaginings when they grow up and move out into the world. In some ways I envy you whatever world allowed you to grow up and have no responsibility for yourself, your actions, or inactions. They even reward you for it, that is like telling a puppy good boy because it pissed on your carpet.


when my puppy pissed on the carpet their nose is put in it while I firmly tell them no no no...then we go outside and when they piss I say nicely good boy/girl....chances are if you are a negative person with a negative attitude you do very little to help others...now if the shoe fits..wear it


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

what I really find funny is how people like to put labels on themselves...Just like to box themselves right on in a box..Hell at times I can be conservative..other times I can be very liberial..NO PARTY has a claim to me...and I don't fit just one label...but hey thats me..your right to be in a box wearing a tin foil hat talking only negative...me I got a business to run, world to see again, and a life to live...and I refuse to let you take away my freedoms


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

Neutron and Carthoris pretty much said all that needed to be said. London doesn't know me and would trip out on how far from the truth his assumption is. i guess this time assuming made him the ass and left me out of it lol.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I doubt you even know any of our first names. How can you even begin to say that we aren't foster parents, big brothers, volunteering, running a homeless shelter, or anything of that nature? You realize that Libertarians and Republicans are more likely to do those things than Communists and Democrats, right? That means you are much more likely to be sucking on the greasy tit of society, as society slowly dies. I feel sorry for you, London. Anyone who does not understand that liberty is more important than protection is ignorant. If you limit others, you limit yourself. You are ultimately voting to take away your own freedoms. You and Uncle Ben are of the same nature. You aren't retarded, just ignorant and unable to accept that your lives are what they are due to your own motivation and ability, or lack therefor. Even worse are the people who believe they are fine but everyone else needs a mommy for life because they are incapable of taking care of themselves. Most people give up their childish imaginings when they grow up and move out into the world. In some ways I envy you whatever world allowed you to grow up and have no responsibility for yourself, your actions, or inactions. They even reward you for it, that is like telling a puppy good boy because it pissed on your carpet.


you realize this was as insulting as anything in this thread, right?

you basically make out ron paul worshipers on the right to be holding an old lady's hand while she crosses the street, while saying lefties 'suck on the greasy tit of society' causing its demise.

you say we 'don't understand liberty', that we hold others back, that we hand out our freedoms.

you say we are 'ignorant', that we have 'childish imaginings', that we have 'no responsibility for ourselves, our actions or inactions'.

then you go on to compare us to a puppy that pisses on the carpet.

but, let me guess: somehow WE are the trolls, not you?

ron paul is a turtle fucker. i would not be surprised if you were, too.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Neutron and Carthoris pretty much said all that needed to be said. London doesn't know me and would trip out on how far from the truth his assumption is. i guess this time assuming made him the ass and left me out of it lol.


I take that just like your other lie about Allensworth colony....


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I take that just like your other lie about Allensworth colony....


Once again, you ASSume wrong.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

so ron paul and a turtle walk into a bar...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Once again, you ASSume wrong.


and you lie to try to make a point...tsk tsk...go read up on the history of Allensworth colony and then tell me you still want to stick by your claim that the Civil rights movement caused its demise...I stand firmly by the fact the colony was dead before the civil rights movement..I say the colony was dead by 1930-40's...keep it real and you won't have to worry about shit coming to bite you in the ass...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so ron paul and a turtle walk into a bar...


Two turtles named Troy, Andy and a congressman named Ron Paul, decide to go on a picnic. Troy packs the picnic basket with beer and sandwiches. The trouble is that the picnic site is ten miles away so it takes them ten days to get there. When they get there, Troy unpacks the food and beer.&#8220;OK Ron give me the bottle opener&#8221;
&#8220;I didn&#8217;t bring it&#8221; says Ron Paul
&#8220;I thought you packed it&#8221;
Troy gets worried, He turns to Andy, &#8220;Did you bring the bottle opener?&#8221;
Nope Andy didn&#8217;t bring it. So they&#8217;re stuck ten miles from home without a bottle opener. Troy and Andy beg Ron Paul to go back for it. But he refuses as he says they will eat all the sandwiches. After three hours, they have sworn on their turtle lives that they will not eat the sandwiches, Ron Paul finally agrees.
So Ron sets off down the road at a steady pace.
20 days pass and he still isn&#8217;t back and Troy and Andy are starving, but a promise is a promise.
Another 5 days and he still isn&#8217;t back, but a promise is a promise.
Finally they can&#8217;t take it any longer so they take out a sandwich each, and just as they are about to eat them, Ron Paul pops up from behind a rock and shouts, &#8220;I knew it! &#8230; I&#8217;m not f***ing going!&#8221;


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you realize this was as insulting as anything in this thread, right?
> 
> you basically make out ron paul worshipers on the right to be holding an old lady's hand while she crosses the street, while saying lefties 'suck on the greasy tit of society' causing its demise.
> 
> ...


It is only an insult because you don't think its true. You don't support what Ron Paul supports because ______. Lemme guess, because he fucks turtles? You think that socialism sounds great, and in 20 more years the people like you will then think that communism sounds great. The Republicans aren't any better, and are heading towards fascism. Your entire ideology involves being submissive to the whims of the government. You would and do destroy the constitution to achieve your goals just like the Republicans would and do. The Constitution is a document with a very libertarian view. It is there to protect the individual from the government and society by limiting the governments power to take property, rights (real or imagined), and freedom. Every time you support the ideal the government has the power to tell you how to live, you are destroying freedom. Whether it is banning abortion, outlawing flag burning, socializing medicine, raising taxes, regulating guns more, or letting the president start wars for no reason. The 'left' and the 'right' are both disgusting. The only thing separating them are which rights they choose to take away and from who. To me, being libertarian means accepting that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities. The government should be our greatest fear and strictly controlled. Rep and Dem's rally for gun control and drug control by giving the government more power. All the while, the governments of the world are the cause of more death and destruction than anything else in the world. You cannot protect your lives, and the lives of your descendents by giving the government more power. While I understand you think you are doing the right thing, you are making the world worse by the day and don't even understand it. It is a lot like having a grease fire in your kitchen and then throwing a cup of water on it. Sure, your intentions were good, but you were ignorant to believe that would make it better. 

Ron Paul supporters aren't on the right, they are centrists. The fact that they take equally from the beliefs of the left and the right puts them in the center of our current political atmosphere in our current accepted understanding. In reality the left and the right are the same thing. Both are oppressive - whether using society or morality as a justification of that oppression changes little.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Two turtles named Troy, Andy and a congressman named Ron Paul, decide to go on a picnic. Troy packs the picnic basket with beer and sandwiches. The trouble is that the picnic site is ten miles away so it takes them ten days to get there. When they get there, Troy unpacks the food and beer.&#8220;OK Ron give me the bottle opener&#8221;
> &#8220;I didn&#8217;t bring it&#8221; says Ron Paul
> &#8220;I thought you packed it&#8221;
> Troy gets worried, He turns to Andy, &#8220;Did you bring the bottle opener?&#8221;
> ...


I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would just use a stick to open the beers, I guess being a screw off top drinker you wouldn't know how to open one without a bottle cap opener. I'm not even sure what you were getting at to be honest. Let me try this game.

So Obama and the harlem globe trotters go on a picnic. They all fuck Obama in the ass and whank on his face. He loves it. Michelle pops out and whips his dick out too and fucks Obama. "Aha" Michelle cries. "I am a man and I have a big penis - but everyone can tell that by looking at me", and that's how the ant died and the grasshopper ate all his acorns.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so ron paul and a turtle walk into a bar...


Good Puppy. (pats Uncle's head) I know that's how you expect the world to treat your ignorance, I wouldn't want to disappoint you.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would just use a stick to open the beers, I guess being a screw off top drinker you wouldn't know how to open one without a bottle cap opener. I'm not even sure what you were getting at to be honest. Let me try this game.
> 
> So Obama and the harlem globe trotters go on a picnic. They all fuck Obama in the ass and whank on his face. He loves it. Michelle pops out and whips his dick out too and fucks Obama. "Aha" Michelle cries. "I am a man and I have a big penis - but everyone can tell that by looking at me", and that's how the ant died and the grasshopper ate all his acorns.


Ron Paul and his personal assistant Carthoris were traveling through Texas, visiting his constituents. After a long and arduous day of hand shaking and baby kissing they retired to a restaurant for an evening meal. Ron noted Turtle Soup on the menu and recalling such soup from his childhood so long long long ago and decided to order the same.
After about half an hour and no sign of the soup, Ron sent his assistant Carthoris into the kitchen to find out about the delay.
The assistant entered the kitchen to find the chef with cleaver in hand and the turtle sitting on the bench. Inquiring as to the delay the chef informed Carthoris that he was having big problems. It seems that each time he brought the cleaver down to sever the unlucky turtles head the turtle withdrew his head into his shell.
The assistant Carthoris , very quickly taking in the situation offered his help.
&#8220;Ok, stand by with the cleaver&#8221;
He promptly inserted his finger into the rear end of the turtle right into its ass. At which &#8220;intrusion&#8221; the turtle immediately stuck his head out and the chef was able to sever the head with a single (and humane) blow.
Impressed, the chef inquired of the assistant how he knew that very useful little trick.
&#8220;Well, I do have to put Ron's tie on each morning&#8221;


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> It is only an insult because you don't think its true.


ah, the old internet psychic. 



Carthoris said:


> ...You think that socialism sounds great...people like you will then think that communism sounds great....You would and do destroy the constitution...you are destroying freedom...you are making the world worse by the day and don't even understand it....you were ignorant


more insults, lies, and internet psychic-ing by carthoris.

since you were so kind to state false things about me in a moment of extra sensory perception, allow me to reciprocate.

you hate freedom. you have no idea what liberty is, and you want hitler to stomp on a baby's neck. you think all old people should be forced to the butcher and their organs harvested so that younger people can get organ transplants. you want all children to get mandatory religious training so that they pray to the right god, and you believe man-turtle love should be compulsory.

yep, that is you to a tee alright. how do i know? well, this is the fucking internet. i don't have to actually know someone before i say a whole bunch of stupid shit about them, as if i did actually know them. fucking duh!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Good Puppy. (pats Uncle's head) I know that's how you expect the world to treat your ignorance, I wouldn't want to disappoint you.


it gets pretty tiring when some internet gaylord psychic keeps pretending like they know me.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ...Well, I do have to put Ron's tie on each morning


now THAT is funny!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

A 70-year-old Texas Rancher got his hand caught in a gate while working cattle. He wrapped the hand in his bandana and drove his pickup to the doctor. While suturing the laceration, the doctor asked the old man about Ron Paul being his representative


The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Paul is a 'Post Turtle.'"


Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked what a Post Turtle was.


The old man looked at him and drawled, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a Post Turtle."


The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain:


"You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor dumb bastard get down."


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

[video=youtube;K1eeZr2WKKE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eeZr2WKKE[/video]

listen to the sound this turtle makes as it fucks a shoe.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

Please help the turtle down


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

KNock knock

whos there????

Ron

Ron who ????

exactly !!!!


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul and his personal assistant Carthoris were traveling through Texas, visiting his constituents. After a long and arduous day of hand shaking and baby kissing they retired to a restaurant for an evening meal. Ron noted Turtle Soup on the menu and recalling such soup from his childhood so long long long ago and decided to order the same.
> After about half an hour and no sign of the soup, Ron sent his assistant Carthoris into the kitchen to find out about the delay.
> The assistant entered the kitchen to find the chef with cleaver in hand and the turtle sitting on the bench. Inquiring as to the delay the chef informed Carthoris that he was having big problems. It seems that each time he brought the cleaver down to sever the unlucky turtles head the turtle withdrew his head into his shell.
> The assistant Carthoris , very quickly taking in the situation offered his help.
> ...


Now that was actually funny and how a story is supposed to go. I wish I was Ron Paul's assistant.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and you lie to try to make a point...tsk tsk...go read up on the history of Allensworth colony and then tell me you still want to stick by your claim that the Civil rights movement caused its demise...I stand firmly by the fact the colony was dead before the civil rights movement..I say the colony was dead by 1930-40's...keep it real and you won't have to worry about shit coming to bite you in the ass...


 
Once again, i said that the residents i spoke to blamed the whole movement for it's demise. Is that what is written? Not completely. But then again, what would THEY know? They just live there lol.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I feel that you are wrong about Ron Paul, but I don't tell you to stop posting...I just debate you when you do... and if i feel that you guys are tin foil hat wearing nuts with some of these conspiracy theory's (Alex Johns) then its my right to voice my opinion even if its in satire...Now once again why are you trying to take my freedoms..are you and Ron Paul only to have freedoms...


You sound just like Bill O'Riley. "Don't censor me!" while interrupting, distracting, and twisting answers to loaded questions.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Now that was actually funny and how a story is supposed to go. I wish I was Ron Paul's assistant.


i'm sure he would love your fingers up his ass as you dress him each morning


----------



## sync0s (Jul 2, 2011)

I have to say, after the millionth time I saw a turtle ron paul joke I laughed a little bit. Now, thanks to UB, I understand why justin beiber being over played made him so popular. Brainwashing


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I have to say, after the millionth time I saw a turtle ron paul joke I laughed a little bit. Now, thanks to UB, I understand why justin beiber being over played made him so popular. Brainwashing


i will try my best to make santorum's "google problem" pale in comparison to ron paul's


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm sure he would love your fingers up his ass as you dress him each morning


i expected better from you UB. Not ethically or morally, but more wit lol.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 2, 2011)

Let's talk about RP some more....

Recently, Gaddafi threatened to attack Europe for it's actions against his forces in Libya:



> In the speech, delivered by telephone to thousands of people marching in Green Square in Tripoli, Colonel Qaddafi warned that Libyans would be able to take the battle &#8220;to Europe, to target your homes, offices, families, which have become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes,&#8221; The Associated Press reported.


If this isn't proof of what Ron Paul talks about when western powers intervene causing hate and lack of safety to be driven our way, I don't know what is...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

question do you really think he will get the nod to run in the general election as the Republican candidate..???


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i expected better from you UB. Not ethically or morally, but more wit lol.


was a little off my game this morning.

i promise, i'll try harder next time.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> question do you really think he will get the nod to run in the general election as the Republican candidate..???


Anything is possible. Ron Paul has more support this year than ever before. This includes support amongst his party. Either way, he will run as an independent regardless, and I will vote for him.

I just filled out the volunteer form for his campaign, so I'll help as much as I can in order to make it happen


----------



## londonfog (Jul 2, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Anything is possible. Ron Paul has more support this year than ever before. This includes support amongst his party. Either way, he will run as an independent regardless, and I will vote for him.
> 
> I just filled out the volunteer form for his campaign, so I'll help as much as I can in order to make it happen


He should run as an Independent from the start...Repukes will not give him the go over Romney or Michele...I don't really think he wants to be POTUS ( can you blame him )..He just wants a chance to have his message heard...you have to see that.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> He should run as an Independent from the start...Repukes will not give him the go over Romney or Michele...I don't really think he wants to be POTUS ( can you blame him )..He just wants a chance to have his message heard...you have to see that.


Whilst I don't disagree with you on the fact of him wanting his message heard, he also wants to be president. In history, no independent has ever been elected president, he has hopes that with the changing culture today that he might actually have a chance at getting the nomination.

First off, both of those candidates will lose to Barrack Obama, and even if they don't, god (fictional) help us all.

Why are you so quick to give up hope simply, because someone is not likely to win? Why is the American public such farewell followers when it comes to politicians. Will this mentality ever help us actually improve our country?

Keep in mind Ron Paul's fundraising power. He has loyal support that of which the only other candidate in the Republican Party can say (Palin). Money can go a long way when spent correctly.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 3, 2011)

He should (and Has) run as a Libertarian, but only Dems or Repubs can win these days.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> He should (and Has) run as a Libertarian, but only Dems or Repubs can win these days.


i think the right person could manage to get 35% and split the r/d to 33% each. ross perot did quite well in 1992, but he was not the right guy. perhaps ron or rand paul could be that spoiler.

i don't think so, but they could be. ya never know.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 3, 2011)

[youtube]DYze7OTrOQ4[/youtube]
Impeach barry


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 3, 2011)

Presidents never get impeached, its a empty threat. You might get threatened with it if you step out on your wife and have sex with other loose women, Remove members of your cabinet or cover up a crime. But Presidents don't ACTUALLY get impeached ever.


----------



## Medical Grade (Jul 3, 2011)

Just found a random poll on my local news station: 

Who is your pick for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? Choice Votes Percentage of 5,613 Votes Mitt Romney 1,206 
21% 
Sarah Palin 859 
15% 
Tim Pawlenty 158 
3% 
Michelle Bachmann 406 
7% 
Ron Paul 1,760 
31% 
Rick Santorum 73 
1% 
Newt Gingrich 306 
5% 
Herman Cain 689 
12% 
Jon Huntsman 98 
2% 
Gary Johnson 48 
1% 
Thad McCotter 10 
0% 
close window


----------



## beardo (Jul 3, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Anything is possible. Ron Paul has more support this year than ever before. This includes support amongst his party. Either way, he will run as an independent regardless, and I will vote for him.
> 
> I just filled out the volunteer form for his campaign, so I'll help as much as I can in order to make it happen


How do I volunteer?


----------



## sync0s (Jul 3, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Presidents never get impeached, its a empty threat. You might get threatened with it if you step out on your wife and have sex with other loose women, Remove members of your cabinet or cover up a crime. But Presidents don't ACTUALLY get impeached ever.


What about Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton?



beardo said:


> *How do I volunteer?*


*

Fill out the form on ronpaul2012.com and they will contact you.
*


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 3, 2011)

sync0s said:


> What about Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton?


 They weren't impeached, no president has ever been impeached. oh sure impeachment proceedings have started but always fall short of the congressional votes necessary to actually do the deed. Nixon would have probably been impeached if he hadn't resigned first.


----------



## beardo (Jul 3, 2011)

The Republicans seem to be so politically narrow minded they would rather get behind a candidate who will lose but who's official policy is more in line with their agenda than unite to nominate Ron Paul and win the white house and help our country and it's citizens.


----------



## deprave (Jul 3, 2011)

[video=youtube;i8dww-h3pQU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8dww-h3pQU[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> Just found a random poll on my local news station:
> 
> Who is your pick for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? Choice Votes Percentage of 5,613 Votes Mitt Romney 1,206
> 21%
> ...


so, you want us to believe your poll, which lacks all citation whatsoever, over the continuous polling that STILL shows ron paul at about 7%?

SNARK!

i do believe that is what is termed "steer manure", or colloquially put, "bullshit".

hahahahahahahaha!


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

Polls are polls UB. i've seen many lately with vastly different results. Like the CNN online poll that showed RP with a HUGE majority of the votes(i won't name a % because i don't know off the top of my head) but then they take a poll with 54 selected respondents and air that poll instead which obviously was not favorable to RP(showed 0% i believe).


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Polls are polls UB. i've seen many lately with vastly different results. Like the CNN online poll that showed RP with a HUGE majority of the votes(i won't name a % because i don't know off the top of my head) but then they take a poll with 54 selected respondents and air that poll instead which obviously was not favorable to RP(showed 0% i believe).


imagine that.

when ron paul cultists flood the online polls, he gets an unrealistic result in the 70% and above range.

and when polling firms conduct actual, randomized polling, he consistently scores in the 7% range.

and you can't understand the difference 

i think you may need to wake up, and open you eyes


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> imagine that.
> 
> when ron paul cultists flood the online polls, he gets an unrealistic result in the 70% and above range.
> 
> ...


Just gotta tell more people about his truth. Polls are rarely independent but i must admit that his name recognition is not great but IS increasing. Still say that i support no other politician because they are all the same status quo bitches. He may not be the PERFECT candidate but he beats the hell outta the rest of the assholes.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Just gotta tell more people about his truth. Polls are rarely independent but i must admit that his name recognition is not great but IS increasing. Still say that i support no other politician because they are all the same status quo bitches. He may not be the PERFECT candidate but he beats the hell outta the rest of the assholes.


just don't slit your wrists or anything when he finishes in a 3-way tie for fourth.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> just don't slit your wrists or anything when he finishes in a 3-way tie for fourth.


i won't. i'll join the true cause if that happens.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

http://ronpaulforcongress.com/html/saying.html


----------



## Medical Grade (Jul 3, 2011)

UB, is a tool of his own delusion. Below, is a picture of UB and one of his favorite past times, and still is.


----------



## Medical Grade (Jul 3, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> UB, is a tool of his own delusion. Below, is a picture of UB and one of his favorite past times, and still is.


Notice, no one around in the picture to care....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

my name is not uncle ben.

and congratulations! you have joined a growing group of ron paul cultists who vehemently oppose those who do not fall in lockstep with your old geezer cult leader.

you have expressed some similar sentiments to them, such as that i must be deluded and a tool for not worshipping at the _altar of paul_, failing to make a cogent counter argument to my complete dismissal of your little "poll", and displaying below average reading comprehension.

but you sir, have the trump card of all trump cards: a crudely fashioned, incorrectly labeled microsoft paint picture! gold medal!

be proud


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> Notice, no one around in the picture to care....


yet somehow this thread has accumulated near two thousand replies.

seems to me that _someone_ cares


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> Just found a random poll on my local news station:
> 
> Who is your pick for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? Choice Votes Percentage of 5,613 Votes Mitt Romney 1,206
> 21%
> ...



according to polling i have conducted, ron paul fucks turtles. 5 out of 7 people concur.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/444247-ron-paul-turtle-fucker.html


----------



## Medical Grade (Jul 3, 2011)

And, that is the show ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, thank you. Please tip your bartenders.


----------



## tomalock (Jul 3, 2011)

Ron Paul is actually trying to make things better, but the idiots in Washington fight him every step of the way. I have refused to vote for anyone other than local elections due to the constant lies and corruption I see in Washington since I voted for Carter (that was a waste). But with that said I will vote for Ron Paul in an instant, big Pharm and big Corp and the bankers be damned.
Time to take out the trash and hang the traitors from a tree.

Paul in 2012


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

Speaking of polls.....
http://liberatedtruth.com/polls/2012-straw-poll/


----------



## tomalock (Jul 3, 2011)

He is actually trying to help the cannabis smokers too.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Speaking of polls.....
> http://liberatedtruth.com/polls/2012-straw-poll/


again, there is a difference between an online poll, which is not scientific, and other, randomized polls, which are scientific and can even project a margin of error.

there can be no margin of error in an online poll because it is not scientific or randomized in any way.

as others have said to me, it is just a tool you use to delude yourself.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right." * Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RheUK3OazkM&feature=player_embedded


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

tomalock said:


> He is actually trying to help the cannabis smokers too.


He personally thinks cannabis users aren't the brightest people in the world lol. BUT, he supports their right to do as they wish since there is no "victim".


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> "Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
> Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
> Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
> But conscience asks the question - is it right?
> ...


if ron paul were able to go back and time and have his way on civil rights, him and king would be eating at separate restaurants


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if ron paul were able to go back and time and have his way on civil rights, him and king would be eating at separate restaurants


IF they both chose to eat at segregated restaraunts. i don't think that would be much of a problem today


----------



## tomalock (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> He personally thinks cannabis users aren't the brightest people in the world lol. BUT, he supports their right to do as they wish since there is no "victim".


I was referring to the Cannabis Medical aspects of one of the videos I saw the other day where he was doing an interview. But at the same time I "will" have to agree he is right about some of them not being the brightest, but as with any intoxicant you will have some abusers.


----------



## tomalock (Jul 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if ron paul were able to go back and time and have his way on civil rights, him and king would be eating at separate restaurants


If I could go back in time I would be eating with King, and I'm born and bred a southern white boy.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> IF they both chose to eat at segregated restaraunts. i don't think that would be much of a problem today


I'm pretty sure segregation wasn't optional.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm pretty sure segregation wasn't optional.


Today Dan. Today.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Today Dan. Today.


Ahhh, we are talking about a fantasy world created from libertarian magic dust. My mistake, I was referring to reality.


----------



## tomalock (Jul 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm pretty sure segregation wasn't optional.


 It was where I grew up.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ahhh, we are talking about a fantasy world created from libertarian magic dust. My mistake, I was referring to reality.


Do you really think that all people back in the day were bigots? Really? Dealing in extremes once again Dan.


----------



## tomalock (Jul 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ahhh, we are talking about a fantasy world created from libertarian magic dust. My mistake, I was referring to reality.


Reality, see below


----------



## undertheice (Jul 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Ahhh, we are talking about a fantasy world created from libertarian magic dust.


i have to wonder which you would prefer, the fantasy world of the rights of the individual upheld or the fantasy world of the individual will subjugated to the desires of the mob and its "representatives"? it's all very well to rail against the extremes of human perversity, but regulating the thoughts and actions of the individual never stops there. for those who control, too much is never enough. for the unruly mob, there is never an end to their demands.

we all aspire to create a great society. we all have that perfect fantasy realm of our dreams. the question is whether the illusion of equality (it is always an illusion) is worth becoming the property of the state or if we should allow the few their sins for the sake of the greater liberty.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> the question is... if we should allow the few their sins for the sake of the greater liberty.


with respect to civil rights, you are delusional.

those "sins" caused direct harm to others. your freedom to be a bigot does not override the freedom of others not to be harmed by your bigotry.

your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face is another way to put it (without purple prose or waxing poetic so that you may fap to your own scribblings later tonight).


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

How can we lose with Chuck Norris on our side? lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6efKKFFLZJs&feature=youtu.be


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm pretty sure segregation wasn't optional.





tomalock said:


> It was where I grew up.


i can just imagine it.

black guy tries to go to the auto parts store to buy a new radiator hose. walks in, store owner says "hey, can't you read the sign? no negroes allowed!".

black guy smirks and says "ha, nice try, man. but i know that shit is optional!"

store owner looks down and says "yeah, you got me. come on in! you buy a hose from that shop down the road and you'll be buying another one in 2 months, if it even fits, that is! let me show you to the good hoses..."

and a hearty laugh was shared between the two. they became best friends and played poker together every other thursday. amen.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i won't. i'll join the true cause if that happens.


What is your cause now if it is not a true one ?????


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

Medical Grade said:


> Just found a random poll on my local news station:
> 
> Who is your pick for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? Choice Votes Percentage of 5,613 Votes Mitt Romney 1,206
> 21%
> ...


Damn now we posting polls with no links or telling where they came from...WTF


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Do you really think that all people back in the day were bigots? Really? Dealing in extremes once again Dan.


Not all, but you do know what they say about one bad apple...


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Not all, but you do know what they say about one bad apple...


True. But each community and/or state should root out that problem if they are against it. i sure as hell would in my area. And i think that the majority of people would do the same thing.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

Found a very timely(seeing as we're talking about changing the status quo) quote from John F Kennedy:

"Those that make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

so what are you saying...if Ron Paul supporters don't get their way peacefully they will resort to violence


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so what are you saying...if Ron Paul supporters don't get their way peacefully they will resort to violence


i'm not referring to RP supporters with this. i'm talking about the American people, regardless of political differences and beliefs. The people of the WORLD are doing it already and if you don't think it's headed our way then you have not been paying very much attention to the news or the people. If you don't think that it is coming, protests, riots(hell, the US will put on a show the likes the world has not yet seen lol. We're, as a whole, the rudest, most egocentric, selfish people in the world in my experience) then i will once again use the "mantra of RP cultists" as you so eloquently state, you need to wake up.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

i HOPE Ron Paul can help us through the coming times. At LEAST i know where he stands.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> with respect to civil rights, you are delusional.
> 
> those "sins" caused direct harm to others. your freedom to be a bigot does not override the freedom of others not to be harmed by your bigotry.
> 
> your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face is another way to put it (without purple prose or waxing poetic so that you may fap to your own scribblings later tonight).


You are once again comparing hurting someone to not helping them. They are not the same thing. If you really don't see a difference, than by your estimate you are murdering 16,000 children a day by not feeding them. I mean, granted, you aren't taking their food, but by not sending them food you have you are hurting them and killing them, by your own guidelines.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i'm not referring to RP supporters with this. i'm talking about the American people, regardless of political differences and beliefs. The people of the WORLD are doing it already and if you don't think it's headed our way then you have not been paying very much attention to the news or the people. If you don't think that it is coming, protests, riots(hell, the US will put on a show the likes the world has not yet seen lol. We're, as a whole, the rudest, most egocentric, selfish people in the world in my experience) then i will once again use the "mantra of RP cultists" as you so eloquently state, you need to wake up.


and what countries have you been to make this comparison...I spent 22 years USAF a good portion of it traveling to all parts of the world as part of a flight crew...Americans have a whole lot more then others and most really have no stomach for this so called violent revolution that you speak of..People who are revolting in other countries that you hear about are ran by dictators and have no rights...Hell they would die just for typing what you just did on the INTERNET ( if they had INTERNET ..let along a computor)..so your talk of a violent revolution coming in this country sir IMO is very unlikely ....Hell most would not want to miss American Idol or Dancing with the stars...Do you really think America is so bad people would die and be willing to kill other Americans for it to change ???? I say a few nuts like Tim McVeigh but do you call that a revolution ???? I call that terrorism..our revolution is done when we vote...another thing these people can not do in other countries


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Do you really think that all people back in the day were bigots? Really? Dealing in extremes once again Dan.


You asked me that question as if it was something I actually said, which I did not. 

I can't speculate on the mind state of every single person in the south long before I was born but I do know that segregation in the south wasn't optional and people supported it so strongly they needed to bring in the national guard to end it.

You guys can keep trying to rewrite history all you want, but glorifying the good ol' days when we had segregation is shameful. You should be embarrassed. That was a dark time in our history that we should try to progress past, not relive. I really don't get the whole glorification of slavery and racism thing.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You are once again comparing hurting someone to not helping them. They are not the same thing. If you really don't see a difference, than by your estimate you are murdering 16,000 children a day by not feeding them. I mean, granted, you aren't taking their food, but by not sending them food you have you are hurting them and killing them, by your own guidelines.


You have a sick way of thinking...Kinda glad that I don't know many people like you...If you see someone bleeding out on the ground I guess you would just walk on by...Hell you not hurting them you just didn't help them. could have called 911...could have seen if you could have slowed the bleeding by appling pressure, but nope your sorry azz would walk right by thinking I'm not hurting them I'm just not helping him...and to think you actually got a fool who says he likes this...


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 3, 2011)

tomalock said:


> It was where I grew up.


When businesses throw up "whites only" signs on the front of their establishments, that isn't optional. That's what was going on in the pre-civil rights south.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and what countries have you been to make this comparison...I spent 22 years USAF a good portion of it traveling to all parts of the world as part of a flight crew...Americans have a whole lot more then others and most really have no stomach for this so called violent revolution that you speak of..People who are revolting in other countries that you hear about are ran by dictators and have no rights...Hell they would die just for typing what you just did on the INTERNET ( if they had INTERNET ..let along a computor)..so your talk of a violent revolution coming in this country sir IMO is very unlikely ....Hell most would not want to miss American Idol or Dancing with the stars...Do you really think America is so bad people would die and be willing to kill other Americans for it to change ???? I say a few nuts like Tim McVeigh but do you call that a revolution ???? I call that terrorism..our revolution is done when we vote...another thing these people can not do in other countries


I truly hope you're right about it not coming but people are sick of this and am throwing my support behind Ron Paul because if we get another talking head in office i'm afraid for what will come. AGAIN, i vote for Ron Paul therefore i vote for peace.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> i have to wonder which you would prefer, the fantasy world of the rights of the individual upheld or the fantasy world of the individual will subjugated to the desires of the mob and its "representatives"


You paint a pretty picture of libertarianism as always, but you're only painting it from one perspective. 

I do not believe that individual rights are always the most important thing. In my opinion those rights come to an end when they do harm to other people or communities. 

I do not believe that individuals have the right to collectively oppress a race of people. I don't believe that the right to be a bigot is more important than the rights of minorities to be treated as equals. 



> it's all very well to rail against the extremes of human perversity, but regulating the thoughts and actions of the individual never stops there. for those who control, too much is never enough. for the unruly mob, there is never an end to their demands.


The reverse is also true. There will never be enough freedom to profit at the expense of others. There will never be enough freedom to pollute, rip people off, monopolize, etc. Basically, neither extreme is desirable. Absolutism for the most part fails.



> we all aspire to create a great society. we all have that perfect fantasy realm of our dreams. the question is whether the illusion of equality (it is always an illusion) is worth becoming the property of the state or if we should allow the few their sins for the sake of the greater liberty.


I think you're over exaggerating there. Forcing people to not oppress a race of people isn't total government control or some form of tyranny.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You are once again comparing hurting someone to not helping them.


i get it.

you insist, despite a mountain of empirical evidence to the contrary, that blacks and others were not HURT by segregation, they simply were NOT HELPED by the practice of segregation.

i fucking get it. you have ZERO sense of the historical impact to certain communities caused by favoring the rights of bigots over others. you have made that unmistakably clear. you support the bigots' rights to discriminate, even if it harms ("does not help" ) others.

blacks were not harmed by segregation, they were simply not helped and could have moved off to the frontier and segregated themselves  you are fucking GRAND!

They are not the same thing. If you really don't see a difference, than by your estimate you are murdering 16,000 children a day by not feeding them. I mean, granted, you aren't taking their food, but by not sending them food you have you are hurting them and killing them, by your own guidelines.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so what are you saying...if Ron Paul supporters don't get their way peacefully they will resort to violence


Actions by the government that violate the constitution are illegal. A government acting outside of the rules that govern it is like a cop making up laws and punishing people for violating them. They would no longer be officers of the law, but renegades. If the Government violates the constitution, and refuses to stop, then the people have an obligation to step in and fix the problem. The people are at the top of the food chain, not the government. The movement around Ron Paul is the rumbling of the people trying to peacefully fix a problem that exists. The noise of using force to fix it is from people who believe it cannot be fixed and that a revolution is necessary. 

I am sure you have noticed that our country swings like a pendulum in its political leanings. At some point the pendulum will swing enough to the left or the right to allow a Constitutional Convention. We all know how that played out last time - they threw the government away and started over when they were directed by the state governments to only discuss certain things. It is only because they had just finished fighting off an oppressive centralized government that they put the restrictions on government in the constitution. I think it likely that the left or the right would call one if they had the power to get it called and control the proceedings. Granted, it would be a little harder to hide what they were doing than the first time. I think it likely that a successful constitutional convention would put the country into a revolution. Successful being the left or the right having enough votes to rewrite the constitution. Can you imagine living in a country that the insane religious right wants? Or the nanny state that the nut jobs on the left want? Neither is my ideal of paradise.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You asked me that question as if it was something I actually said, which I did not.
> 
> I can't speculate on the mind state of every single person in the south long before I was born but I do know that segregation in the south wasn't optional and people supported it so strongly they needed to bring in the national guard to end it.
> 
> You guys can keep trying to rewrite history all you want, but glorifying the good ol' days when we had segregation is shameful. You should be embarrassed. That was a dark time in our history that we should try to progress past, not relive. I really don't get the whole glorification of slavery and racism thing.


You say that is if i had said that the "good ol' days when we had segregation", which i did not. States rights.You nor i have the "right" to live anywhere. As in "Well, i don't agree with what this state has as law but it is my RIGHT to live there under the rules that I think are right". Accept the laws, work to change the laws, or simply go somewhere that more closely mirrors your beliefs and values. You can't FORCE segregation.

It has been implied numerous times that Ron Paul supporters are the violent ones for being honest and letting people know that change IS coming. We are the ones telling people to vote for change instead of devolving into chaos. Funny part is that we are a group that believes in non-aggression as a whole. The Civil Rights act is enforced through aggression as is the tax code and most every other government regulation. That is known as tyranny.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Can you imagine living in a country that the insane religious right wants? Or the nanny state that the nut jobs on the left want? Neither is my ideal of paradise.


panic mongering. like fear mongering, but more ridiculous and far-fetched.

what happens if we NEED to panic?




Carthoris said:


> ...then the people have an obligation to step in and fix the problem. The people are at the top of the food chain....The noise of using force to fix it is from people who believe it cannot be fixed and that a revolution is necessary... At some point the pendulum will swing enough to the left or the right to allow a Constitutional Convention.... I think it likely that a successful constitutional convention would put the country into a revolution.


overthrow the government!

why is this so prevalent with ron paul wingnuts?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You can't FORCE segregation.


we can and have.

you see the national guard at public schools anymore?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> panic mongering. like fear mongering, but more ridiculous and far-fetched.
> 
> what happens if we NEED to panic?
> 
> ...


 
Even if you aren't panicked, how can you ignore the actions of those that aren't? Carthoris and i aren't panicking yet, we're putting our energy into showing people that there is a reason NOT to panic just yet. Ron Paul 2012!


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> we can and have.
> 
> you see the national guard at public schools anymore?


Did it really end anything though? No. It wrought even MORE violence. History UB. History has a lot of facts in it.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

When MOST people are aggressed towards, they themselves become aggressive. It's human nature. Not legislation.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You say that is if i had said that the "good ol' days when we had segregation", which i did not. States rights.You nor i have the "right" to live anywhere. As in "Well, i don't agree with what this state has as law but it is my RIGHT to live there under the rules that I think are right". Accept the laws, work to change the laws, or simply go somewhere that more closely mirrors your beliefs and values. You can't FORCE segregation.
> 
> It has been implied numerous times that Ron Paul supporters are the violent ones for being honest and letting people know that change IS coming. We are the ones telling people to vote for change instead of devolving into chaos. Funny part is that we are a group that believes in non-aggression as a whole. The Civil Rights act is enforced through aggression as is the tax code and most every other government regulation. That is known as tyranny.


Like you said if you don't like it you could move...making sure that all Americans are treated fairly and justly is not tyranny...


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Like you said if you don't like it you could move...making sure that all Americans are treated fairly and justly is not tyranny...


Enforcing laws through aggression is NOT Liberty or Freedom.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Like you said if you don't like it you could move...making sure that all Americans are treated fairly and justly is not tyranny...


i COULD move. But i could try to work through and reform our corrupt political system too


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> You have a sick way of thinking...Kinda glad that I don't know many people like you...If you see someone bleeding out on the ground I guess you would just walk on by...Hell you not hurting them you just didn't help them. could have called 911...could have seen if you could have slowed the bleeding by appling pressure, but nope your sorry azz would walk right by thinking I'm not hurting them I'm just not helping him...and to think you actually got a fool who says he likes this...


There is a far cry between my right to choose what my action is and what action I will take. I have the right to smoke cigarettes, I do not. I have the right to get shitfaced drunk every day, I do not. I have the right to paint my house neon pink and stand in a a hula skirt in my front yard dancing with a rifle strapped to my back while singing about revolution. I have the right to do those things, and those rights are very precious to me. Even the right of a woman to have an abortion is important to me. It isn't my right since I can't get pregnant and it is a horrible thing in my eyes, but I would still defend it to the end because it isn't mine, yours, or the governments decision to make for her. (Unless my wife gets me pregnant fucking me with a strap on and I have an asshole baby. Please, vote for my right to abort my asshole baby)

I have no legal responsibility to stop and help people who are broken down on the side of the road, but I still do. Why? Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule? I treat others as I wish to be treated. I look at people doing things I don't agree with and I stop and think to myself: While I would never, if I wanted to worship satan or rub jello in my ass and let some guy have his way with me, I should be able to as long as I don't mind mopping up a jello and shit liquid(remember, jello liquifies with warmth:X) Your theory is everyone should be treated as you wish to be treated. They call that something else. Oppression, maybe?

Obviously having the right to do something, and doing it have no distinction for you. I suppose you would run out and do some heroin if it was legalized. 

"Oh noes, without the nanny government to tell me right from wrong I will never be able to live my life correctly", said YOU.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

any drug that is man made should be illegal or regulated......heroin should not be legal...thats your boy Ron Pauls thinking..as well as yours...I dont' question helping someone as a right or not..I just do it..unlike you


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i COULD move. But i could try to work through and reform our corrupt political system too


I see you didn't comment on that violent revolution BS..so I guess I made my point...


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Even if you aren't panicked, how can you ignore the actions of those that aren't? Carthoris and i aren't panicking yet, we're putting our energy into showing people that there is a reason NOT to panic just yet. Ron Paul 2012!


I am not panicked. I just think our lifetimes will be full of strife as the country staggers under the burden of debt and laws. Eventually our country will stumble and fall under the strain of it all. Seemingly small things kick off large events. Hell, a guy named Ferdinand got shot 90 something years ago and that pushed over the dominoes that led to the USA being the worlds superpower.

Don't forget buying guns and spam. God, without the guns and spam how will we overthrow the government? lol. I actually bought a couple crates of mosin nagant rifles and spam. I gave them out as presents while explaining what they meant to me. It was funny, but I guarantee you that every time someone sees that can of spam or that rifle they will remember what I said to them.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> any drug that is man made should be illegal or regulated......heroin should not be legal...thats your boy Ron Pauls thinking..as well as yours...I dont' question helping someone as a right or not..I just do it..unlike you


Heroin is about as natural as hash is. Exactly what do you think heroin is made from?

I don't question helping anyone either, I question you passing laws forcing me to do so. They are entirely different positions.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 3, 2011)

Actually, it was armour treat. Its cheaper and tastes more like something edible.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I see you didn't comment on that violent revolution BS..so I guess I made my point...


Do you think the people who revolted against the British Empire were wrong?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Heroin is about as natural as hash is. Exactly what do you think heroin is made from?
> 
> I don't question helping anyone either, I question you passing laws forcing me to do so. They are entirely different positions.


Herion is process from the poppy plant...and can not naturally be found in nature...Heroin is made by scraping the residue of poppies, boiling the gum into opium, then extracting morphine, which is converted into pure heroin...so it is MAN MADE...where do you think herion comes from??? here learn something http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/transform/


----------



## londonfog (Jul 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Do you think the people who revolted against the British Empire were wrong?


 follow the conversation...Americans have too much and too spoiled to want a violent revolution...


----------



## sync0s (Jul 4, 2011)

Round and round we go. When it stops, nobody knows.

londonfog, UncleBuck, and Dan Kone are so convinced that their view is the only correct view that arguing is completely moot. Whilst some of us on the RP side have agreed to a degree with their views, they never. If they were in a corner where that was the only option, they resort to turtle fucking.

Intelligent discussion.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Herion is process from the poppy plant...and can not naturally be found in nature...Heroin is made by scraping the residue of poppies, boiling the gum into opium, then extracting morphine, which is converted into pure heroin...so it is MAN MADE...where do you think herion comes from??? here learn something http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/transform/


i'm no expert but if you are extracting a natural compound and not adding to it, isn't it still by definition natural? Maybe concentrated, but natural nonetheless?
Wax, oils, hash are all concentrates.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Herion is process from the poppy plant...and can not naturally be found in nature...Heroin is made by scraping the residue of poppies, boiling the gum into opium, then extracting morphine, which is converted into pure heroin...so it is MAN MADE...where do you think herion comes from??? here learn something http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/transform/


Hash is man made too, yet you are probably happy enough smoking it. Have you noticed how people grow lately? It isn't exactly natural. At what point does something become man made? How about when we breed a plant into something completely different and then grow it in what is essentially a lab? Opium is really addictive too and is completely natural. If you don't want to take heroin - you don't have to. Lots of completely natural things will kill you dead. 

Also, you did note it uses pretty common stuff to make all of that. Lime(you know, the stuff you throw on your natural plants) and acetic anhydride(dehydrated vinegar - hey don't people use vinegar in their plants for PH?!) ohhhhhh scary stuff, next they will be mixing in the sugar! OH NOES. You probably didn't understand the words they were using though, I will forgive you. Hey, lets go squirt some of that ultra safe and natural butane through some buds as a peace offering to each other.

The point was never that heroin was safe or a good idea, and you know it. Why are you obfuscating again?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i'm no expert but if you are extracting a natural compound and not adding to it, isn't it still by definition natural? Maybe concentrated, but natural nonetheless?
> Wax, oils, hash are all concentrates.


no you are not..its not natural...you can't go out and find a heroin plant...I can go rub my hands continually on a cannabis plant and get resin on my hand which will be hash...WTF do you guys even grow...see and thats why I fault you Ron Paul fools even when you are shown that you are wrong you still try to argue dumb ass points that make you look stupid and lose credibilty....when I'm wrong I say it...so your argument now is heroin is natural just because I said it should be illegal by the fact its man made..WTF...never seen people so passionate about being fucking wrong...anything that is man made should be illegal or regulated..period end of story..or do you want people to just make any drug and be able to sell it to whom ever ...Hell Ron Paul thinks its your right...WTF...


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> follow the conversation...Americans have too much and too spoiled to want a violent revolution...


Amusing to say the least. I agree with the spoiled and have too much. What happens when the stuff the left and right are doing together such as taxes, magically printing more money, entitlements that cannot be paid for, and wars all come to a head and what we have is nothing? If we stopped adding more government and fighting wars like Ron Paul wants we MIGHT be able to stop and then reverse the trend leading to our country collapsing. What happens when it collapses? The government will still have the military and try to use it to keep her together because they won't want to give up power. The people will fight back. You know, the people who you said have way too much but then have nothing in the blink of an eye.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Hash is man made too, yet you are probably happy enough smoking it. Have you noticed how people grow lately? It isn't exactly natural. At what point does something become man made? How about when we breed a plant into something completely different and then grow it in what is essentially a lab? Opium is really addictive too and is completely natural. If you don't want to take heroin - you don't have to. Lots of completely natural things will kill you dead.
> 
> Also, you did note it uses pretty common stuff to make all of that. Lime(you know, the stuff you throw on your natural plants) and acetic anhydride(dehydrated vinegar - hey don't people use vinegar in their plants for PH?!) ohhhhhh scary stuff, next they will be mixing in the sugar! OH NOES. You probably didn't understand the words they were using though, I will forgive you. Hey, lets go squirt some of that ultra safe and natural butane through some buds as a peace offering to each other.
> 
> The point was never that heroin was safe or a good idea, and you know it. Why are you obfuscating again?


Cannabis can grow in nature by itself...your argument makes you look dumber then you really are


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Amusing to say the least. I agree with the spoiled and have too much. What happens when the stuff the left and right are doing together such as taxes, magically printing more money, entitlements that cannot be paid for, and wars all come to a head and what we have is nothing? If we stopped adding more government and fighting wars like Ron Paul wants we MIGHT be able to stop and then reverse the trend leading to our country collapsing. What happens when it collapses? The government will still have the military and try to use it to keep her together because they won't want to give up power. The people will fight back. You know, the people who you said have way too much but then have nothing in the blink of an eye.


you like using the word IF...soooooo what IF your mother was a man ????? Would you call her dad...Ron Paul is not GOD...he has faults and is not the savior to America...nor is Obama...


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> no you are not..its not natural...you can't go out and find a heroin plant...I can go rub my hands continually on a cannabis plant and get resin on my hand which will be hash...WTF do you guys even grow...see and thats why I fault you Ron Paul fools even when you are shown that you are wrong you still try to argue dumb ass points that make you look stupid and lose credibilty....when I'm wrong I say it...so your argument now is heroin is natural just because I said it should be illegal by the fact its man made..WTF...never seen people so passionate about being fucking wrong...anything that is man made should be illegal or regulated..period end of story..or do you want people to just make any drug and be able to sell it to whom ever ...Hell Ron Paul thinks its your right...WTF...


i was refering more to CO2 extractions and butane honey oil extractions. Rub your hands on bud and make me some please.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i was refering more to CO2 extractions and butane honey oil extractions. Rub your hands on bud and make me some please.


next time you harvest don't use gloves...read whole page on the different ways...you will see you can do it just by rubbing ... http://www.hashish-center.com/hashishmaking.html


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the entire heroin thing was London's way of not making himself look stupid by actually answering this post: 

*There is a far cry between my right to choose what my action is and what action I will take. I have the right to smoke cigarettes, I do not. I have the right to get shitfaced drunk every day, I do not. I have the right to paint my house neon pink and stand in a a hula skirt in my front yard dancing with a rifle strapped to my back while singing about revolution. I have the right to do those things, and those rights are very precious to me. Even the right of a woman to have an abortion is important to me. It isn't my right since I can't get pregnant and it is a horrible thing in my eyes, but I would still defend it to the end because it isn't mine, yours, or the governments decision to make for her. (Unless my wife gets me pregnant fucking me with a strap on and I have an asshole baby. Please, vote for my right to abort my asshole baby)

I have no legal responsibility to stop and help people who are broken down on the side of the road, but I still do. Why? Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule? I treat others as I wish to be treated. I look at people doing things I don't agree with and I stop and think to myself: While I would never, if I wanted to worship satan or rub jello in my ass and let some guy have his way with me, I should be able to as long as I don't mind mopping up a jello and shit liquid(remember, jello liquifies with warmth:X) Your theory is everyone should be treated as you wish to be treated. They call that something else. Oppression, maybe?

Obviously having the right to do something, and doing it have no distinction for you. I suppose you would run out and do some heroin if it was legalized. 

"Oh noes, without the nanny government to tell me right from wrong I will never be able to live my life correctly", said YOU. *

It would be like me using the phrase 'if your friends go an jump off a bridge, would you too' at the end of a page of information and London, instead of actually responding to the ideals of the page, goes on to talk about how jumping off a bridge is dangerous when no one actually said t it was or wasn't dangerous. 

Obfuscate is the secret word of the day.

[video=youtube;gxMZgeBlqzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxMZgeBlqzQ&feature=related[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

I don't answer all stupid shit....most of your shit is stupid....I gave my opinion on helping and hurting...take what you will


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> next time you harvest don't use gloves...read whole page on the different ways...you will see you can do it just by rubbing ... http://www.hashish-center.com/hashishmaking.html


I usually just scrape it off my scissors when I get done trimming. Then make butter or use chemicals to hash the rest.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> next time you harvest don't use gloves...read whole page on the different ways...you will see you can do it just by rubbing ... http://www.hashish-center.com/hashishmaking.html


 
You cannot make butane honey oil or wax concentrates by rubbing a plant. LOL!!!

If i'm wrong will someone please show me how?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I usually just scrape it off my scissors when I get done trimming. Then make butter or use chemicals to hash the rest.


well I guess you learned something today


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you like using the word IF...soooooo what IF your mother was a man ????? Would you call her dad...Ron Paul is not GOD...he has faults and is not the savior to America...nor is Obama...


If my mother was a man, then I guess I was an asshole baby like you are. By saying there is no savior, you are admitting that there is something to be saved from.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> well I guess you learned something today


Well, I did learn how to build a domed ceiling to hang my chandelier from, so I suppose you are right.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You cannot make butane honey oil or wax concentrates by rubbing a plant. LOL!!!


so your argument really is that weed and herion are the same and both are natural so both should be just as legal ?????


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Well, I did learn how to build a domed ceiling to hang my chandelier from, so I suppose you are right.


and that you don't need chemicals to make hash...that is if you paid attention


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I don't answer all stupid shit....most of your shit is stupid....I gave my opinion on helping and hurting...take what you will


No, you answer WITH stupid shit instead. There are 3 options. Help, Hurt, Do nothing. Obviously you never read 'choose your own adventure' books.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You cannot make butane honey oil or wax concentrates by rubbing a plant. LOL!!!
> 
> If I'm wrong will someone please show me how?


I was talking hash which Carthorse said is just as natural as herion...again please follow conversation...now again if its MAN MADE it should be illegal or REGULATED...


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and that you don't need chemicals to make hash...that is if you paid attention


I already knew that. What I also know is that literally no one does that. Most people are using butane or alcohol to make hash. Which makes it just as unnatural as the next chemical drug.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I was talking hash which Carthorse said is just as natural as herion...again please follow conversation...now again if its MAN MADE it should be illegal or REGULATED...


Or you should mind your own business and stop trying to regulate peoples lives. It was never about heroin, and you know it. 

OBFUSCATE AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> No, you answer WITH stupid shit instead. There are 3 options. Help, Hurt, Do nothing. Obviously you never read 'choose your own adventure' books.


You and I are built different...My choice is if I can help someone I will...not do nothing...and if I don't help them and could have I feel that I did hurt them..so again we think different..


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Or you should mind your own business and stop trying to regulate peoples lives. It was never about heroin, and you know it.
> 
> OBFUSCATE AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


He should have never said it...now we saying things we don't really mean ???


----------



## deprave (Jul 4, 2011)

It still just blows my mind how you 3 can be here on a weed forum labeling yourselves such things as progressives and independents and not support Ron Paul because of some petty issue or conspiracy theory...blows my mind! 

You voted Obama so I assume you wanted change? Where is it? How can you call yourself a progressive when you vote for centrist and when you live by american exceptional-ism? Perhaps I blow your mind equally so..I am sure..Its funny, Dan said recently in this thread "Libertarian Magic Dust" while associating his view with reality. I see it just the same only I see it as "centrist magic dust"....except this magic dust of yours it moves in niether direction, it makes no progress neither forward nor backward, it holds no "Change". I see all three of you much like a view Glenn Beck, granted you are vastly superior in intelligence and you probably aren't compulsive liars, but what I see is that disconnect, for me it seems as if its a disconnect from reality, maybe not as disconnected as Glenn Beck but I am just using him because he comes to mind as someone who is incredibly disconnected so I use him as an example. Our government does wonderful things for us and life is great here indeed, but government has one goal in mind and its not to protect you and take care of you and society, the goal is to stay in power at all cost and to increase its power at all cost. This is part of the reason I support Ron Paul, its because he stands by the people, and in on sense he is the most in touch with reality of all federal government officials.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I already knew that. What I also know is that literally no one does that. Most people are using butane or alcohol to make hash. Which makes it just as unnatural as the next chemical drug.


so you know how most people make there hash...amazing how well connected you are


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

I follow no man blindly...I disagree with Ron Pauls view on Civil rights act and nothing can change my mind on that...I agree with him Fed Reserve. but the civil rights thing is enough to make me not want to see him as POTUS...you guys follow your Paul with blind eyes...Tell me one thing you disagree with him on..or do you agree with EVERYTHING the man says....


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> You and I are built different...My choice is if I can help someone I will...not do nothing...and if I don't help them and could have I feel that I did hurt them..so again we think different..


I always choose to help someone. That isn't what we were talking about. It is the right to make that choice that is the topic of the conversation - not the choice. Making the right choice is something you learn, part of who you are, not a law that someone passed who thought they knew better than I what choice I should make. That is the same justification people use when they outlaw marijuana, beer, gay marriages, abortion and flag burning. "They couldn't make the right choice, so we made it for them."

Yes, and I appreciate that we are different. Aside from the almost violent differences we have in ideology and the petty attacks that come from it during the discussions, you are ok by me. I understand your position and thought process on it, I just don't agree with it and can't envision myself ever changing my mind on it.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I follow no man blindly...I disagree with Ron Pauls view on Civil rights act and nothing can change my mind on that...I agree with him Fed Reserve. but the civil rights thing is enough to make me not want to see him as POTUS...you guys follow your Paul with blind eyes...Tell me one thing you disagree with him on..or do you agree with EVERYTHING the man says....


Paul's comments on abortion give me pause. I do, however, trust in him enough that I think he would make the right decision and not ban them.


----------



## deprave (Jul 4, 2011)

I disagree with him on abortion and initially I did disagree with him on a lot of economic issues untill I really researched what his views actually are........still...voting for change...voting for the people...clear choice to me...Id vote for him just on bringing the troops home since he is the only one that is being honest about doing that.....Id also vote for him solely on the drug war even if I disagreed with absolutely everything else....Id also be swayed to vote on him just on the fact that he is the only veteran or that he has the most experience. I would also vote for him just for the fact he is against wall-street and the big corporations and he is the first man to ever audit the fed. Where do you draw this association? I am liberal and I voted for Obama. You characterize everyone who says they like Ron Paul into one stereotype.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I always choose to help someone. That isn't what we were talking about. It is the right to make that choice that is the topic of the conversation - not the choice. Making the right choice is something you learn, part of who you are, not a law that someone passed who thought they knew better than I what choice I should make. That is the same justification people use when they outlaw marijuana, beer, gay marriages, abortion and flag burning. "They couldn't make the right choice, so we made it for them."
> 
> Yes, and I appreciate that we are different. Aside from the almost violent differences we have in ideology and the petty attacks that come from it during the discussions, you are ok by me. I understand your position and thought process on it, I just don't agree with it and can't envision myself ever changing my mind on it.


if a lady is getting raped are you required by law to do something ????? should you be required to do something ???? Do you do nothing ???? IMO if you do nothing not even call the police..you are just as guilty and rightly so


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> I disagree with him on abortion and initially I did disagree with him on a lot of economic issues untill I really researched what his views actually are........still...voting for change...voting for the people...clear choice to me...Id vote for him just on bringing the troops home since he is the only one that is being honest about doing that.....Id also vote for him solely on the drug even if I disagreed with absolutely everything else....Id also be swayed to vote on him just on the fact that he is the only veteran.


now I can respect that for at least you found some disagreement with him...All men have faults...hell Obama to me has plenty, but out of all he still is my best choice....My grandfather would have been the best POTUS but he didn't run...lol


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> if a lady is getting raped are you required by law to do something ????? should you be required to do something ???? Do you do nothing ???? IMO if you do nothing not even call the police..you are just as guilty and rightly so


If your hand is in a fire, do you question whether to pull it out? Who cares what the law requires? The law requires you not smoke, grow, buy, or sell marijuana, but obviously you don't care about that. Don't give me state law as an answer, it is still 100% illegal.

With that, I am going to bed, its past 3 am and I have lots of beer to drink and guns to shoot tomorrow while I smoke hash and bbq. I really should of gotten a monster truck. Happy 4th of July!


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I was talking hash which Carthorse said is just as natural as herion...again please follow conversation...now again if its MAN MADE it should be illegal or REGULATED...


I was dork. i asked you about hash, oils, and waxes lol.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

I think my point was made..Happy 4th...no drinking and driving please !!!!!!


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I follow no man blindly...I disagree with Ron Pauls view on Civil rights act and nothing can change my mind on that...I agree with him Fed Reserve. but the civil rights thing is enough to make me not want to see him as POTUS...you guys follow your Paul with blind eyes...Tell me one thing you disagree with him on..or do you agree with EVERYTHING the man says....


Read a little london. i posted the reply to this question a few pages back lol. Take a deep breathe and think about it.


----------



## deprave (Jul 4, 2011)

glenn becks final show: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-ae

this is the disconnection I see (mentioned earlier) - In the episode Glenn tells us how he found out about Andrew Jackson last year live on television and other topics comedy gold, you will laugh the entire time especially if your stoned: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-ae


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Read a little london. i posted the reply to this question a few pages back lol. Take a deep breathe and think about it.


did I quote you on that answer..NOPE...it was a general question to all..so if you answered all ready no reply is needed... ​


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

Goodnight guys debate again later...


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

Night london. Enjoy the 4th safely.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

Regardless of our differences in opinion and how we view our government, Happy Independence Day. And let's remember what it stood for. Not the war agenda it has been hijacked to promote so often.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=share


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ...making sure that all Americans are treated fairly and justly is not tyranny...


Are you saying that all Americans are treated fairly and justly?


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> any drug that is man made should be illegal or regulated......heroin should not be legal


Alcohol? Aspirin? Coffee? Colas?


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ...see and thats why I fault you Ron Paul fools even when you are shown that you are wrong you still try to argue dumb ass points that make you look stupid and lose credibilty


Where did you prove Ron Paul supporters are wrong?



londonfog said:


> ....when I'm wrong I say it


We'll see...



londonfog said:


> ...anything that is man made should be illegal or regulated..period end of story


Sieg Heil!!!



londonfog said:


> ..or do you want people to just make any drug and be able to sell it to whom ever ...Hell Ron Paul thinks its your right...WTF...


Why is it that those of you who hate Ron Paul, America, Libertarians, Freedom, Truth, Justice, People, Peace, Love, Babies, Apple Pie, the Flag, Business, Law, Animals, Children, Nature, Earth, the Universe, Puppies, Kitties, Moms, Dads, Families, Trees, Compassion, Loyalty, Honesty, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, Respect, Fairness, Equality, Liberty, Ice Cream, Baseball, Fireworks, Patriotism, the Constitution and everything else under the sun... resort to extreme exaggeration and hyperbole, when you cannot defend your beliefs?


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> You and I are built different...My choice is if I can help someone I will...not do nothing...and if I don't help them and could have I feel that I did hurt them..so again we think different..


By current count how many foster children live in your home? How many charities do you contribute to each week? How many food kitchens do you volunteer to work at each day? What percentage of your income is currently being donated to worthy causes? You go to church? Do you pay a tithe or contribute to the collection plate?

By my assumption and educated guess by the type of person I have seen over the years it would be my guess that you do NONE of those things I listed.

Do you run around feeding parking meters that are about to expire? Do you sit around on street corners waiting for old ladies to help across?

You starting to feel like a pathetic ass yet? Don't you know how much you are hurting the human race by not doing all those things? If you have 1 penny to your name I expect you to donate it to some worthy cause, after all if you can help someone , you will, right?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 4, 2011)

*happy independence day*!


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> By current count how many foster children live in your home? How many charities do you contribute to each week? How many food kitchens do you volunteer to work at each day? What percentage of your income is currently being donated to worthy causes? You go to church? Do you pay a tithe or contribute to the collection plate?
> 
> By my assumption and educated guess by the type of person I have seen over the years it would be my guess that you do NONE of those things I listed.
> 
> ...


In your effort to always try to get Londonfog you again missed a key phrase I used "IF I Can Help"...I'm not always able to volunteer...we did do the foster kid thing before and was ready to adopt, but the child's Aunt came out of the blue and actually was able to prevent us from doing it, by taking the child as her own..Took a heavy heavy toll on my wife..she cried for weeks after that, like the child had past away...My laundromats collects clothes,dresses,skirts and suits for homeless and for self-help with a job interviews (Need a suit for an interview)...I can't even begin to count how many charities I give and have given to.....and nope don't go to church, but wife does and she makes sure that 10% of our income is given each month ( I don't fight this because the church does help others, but does Jesus really need money..lol )...What your statement tells me NoDrama is you know very very very very little about me....Now I have many faults , but giving and helping others is not one of them..


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> In your effort to always try to get Londonfog you again missed a key phrase I used "IF I Can Help"...I'm not always able to volunteer...we did do the foster kid thing before and was ready to adopt, but the child's Aunt came out of the blue and actually was able to prevent us from doing it, by taking the child as her own..Took a heavy heavy toll on my wife..she cried for weeks after that, like the child had past away...My laundromats collects clothes,dresses,skirts and suits for homeless and for self-help with a job interviews (Need a suit for an interview)...I can't even begin to count how many charities I give and have given to.....and nope don't go to church, but wife does and she makes sure that 10% of our income is given each month ( I don't fight this because the church does help others, but does Jesus really need money..lol )...What your statement tells me NoDrama is you know very very very very little about me....Now I have many faults , but giving and helping others is not one of them..


You rail about people who don't help others are hurting them. You have the ability to help many more people than you do even if we accept your statement as 100% fact. Do you have an extra room in your house? Do you have any thing of value that you collect? Do you eat something other than rice? Every time you spend more than the amount needed to keep you alive, you are depriving someone of something by not giving the money or time to them. Therefor the government should take all of your 'excess' income and give it to needy people. 

If you are going to regulate personal property, how long before you start regulating personal relationships in the name of fairness and equality? Maybe we should we make laws to keep dumb people from buying things that they don't need and that might hurt them? OH WAIT - thats right! We already have things like seat belt laws and helmet laws! Hey, wait, don't some people have less in the way of physical gifts and romantic ability? Hell, lets just draw lots to see who marries who so everything is fair - no more personal choice in relationships because you might make a decision based on race. Lets go ahead and genetically engineer all new babies so they come out looking the same, some sort of mixbreed.







"Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts,&#65279; poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love." - Danilov "Enemy at the Gates"


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> In your effort to always try to get Londonfog you again missed a key phrase I used "IF I Can Help"...I'm not always able to volunteer...we did do the foster kid thing before and was ready to adopt, but the child's Aunt came out of the blue and actually was able to prevent us from doing it, by taking the child as her own..Took a heavy heavy toll on my wife..she cried for weeks after that, like the child had past away...My laundromats collects clothes,dresses,skirts and suits for homeless and for self-help with a job interviews (Need a suit for an interview)...I can't even begin to count how many charities I give and have given to.....and nope don't go to church, but wife does and she makes sure that 10% of our income is given each month ( I don't fight this because the church does help others, but does Jesus really need money..lol )...What your statement tells me NoDrama is you know very very very very little about me....Now I have many faults , but giving and helping others is not one of them..


So the answer was, no you don't have foster children, no you don't work at food kitchens, no you don't tithe, no you don't give to a church(Your wife might, but you don't), you give clothes (good for you ) but I bet you take a tax credit out of it too. As far as charities, you didn't mention anything, just that you contribute to so many you can't even begin to count. Which kind of begs the question, Just how high can you count? Personally, I can count to infinity if given enough time, I wasn't aware that some people were limited in the addition power of the number one. Are you limited by tolanges enumeration? About the only reason I wouldn't be able to start is if the number were ZERO.

Looks like i was right at least 3 out of the 5 guesses, and most probably correct 4 of the 5, which is a pretty good guesstimate.

Try things like St Judes, Arbor-day Foundation, The hunger project etc etc and stop trying to take credit for that 12 cents you threw into the Salvation army Bucket this last Christmas and those Over Priced Girl Scout Cookies your neighbors daughter conned you into buying.

Its Great that you take other peoples clothing and give it to charity though, its very similar to what the government does, but I wonder how the people who were relieved of their clothing felt.

Anyway I'm not trying to "Get to you". not ever, i'm just trying to get you to see it from another point of view is all.

Giving your wife money to give to the church is not even somewhat remotely the same as you giving to the church, so don't even try to take credit for what is admittedly a choice made by your wife.


I have been to three interviews in my entire life, never once wore a suit. I wasn't aware you couldn't go to a interview without one.

anyway, if you really do give to a bunch of worthy charities (The "help John Doe beat cancer" jars at the local watering hole doesn't count either) kudos for you.


----------



## deprave (Jul 4, 2011)

so my site which was inspired by this very thread had a little folk song written about it last night from a fan of the site, little extreme but good idea and good thought, the acoustic version is up on the site 

http://wp.me/p1DM1G-b5


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> In your effort to always try to get Londonfog you again missed a key phrase I used "IF I Can Help"...I'm not always able to volunteer...we did do the foster kid thing before and was ready to adopt, but the child's Aunt came out of the blue and actually was able to prevent us from doing it, by taking the child as her own..Took a heavy heavy toll on my wife..she cried for weeks after that, like the child had past away...My laundromats collects clothes,dresses,skirts and suits for homeless and for self-help with a job interviews (Need a suit for an interview)...I can't even begin to count how many charities I give and have given to.....and nope don't go to church, but wife does and she makes sure that 10% of our income is given each month ( I don't fight this because the church does help others, but does Jesus really need money..lol )...What your statement tells me NoDrama is *you know very very very very little about me*....Now I have many faults , but giving and helping others is not one of them..


That sounds just like what i was trying to say a few pages ago while you were telling me how much i was lying about Allensworth even though i clearly stated that i was merely relaying some conversations that i had with residents of the community. Juuuust sayin'.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> That sounds just like what i was trying to say a few pages ago while you were telling me how much i was lying about Allensworth even though i clearly stated that i was merely relaying some conversations that i had with residents of the community. Juuuust sayin'.


No guy I happen to know about Allensworth and have seen the place in the 90's...it was dead town in the 40 50 60's...so its not what you say, but what I know..but if you can show me some history proof to back up what you say I would be more then happy to entertain it..not just saying "I talked to some unnamed resident back in 2001"...come on dude link me to how the Civil rights era destroyed Allensworth...again I can show you link after link how this town was dead before WWII...are you up to the challenge ???? if not stop talking about it !!! I don't want to call you a liar so I will just leave it at you were lied to...Allensworth died because of broken promises and others not wanting to see a black community succeed and it died long before 64....again show proof of anything different...just sayin ( with proof to back it up)


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You can't FORCE segregation.


Really? Then why did they need to bring the national guard in to end it?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> It still just blows my mind how you 3 can be here on a weed forum labeling yourselves such things as progressives and independents and not support Ron Paul because of some petty issue or conspiracy theory...blows my mind!


I blows my mind that anyone is still willing to advocate the merits of segregation or how America was wrong for freeing the slaves and fighting the civil war, but here we are. 

I do not support Ron Paul because of his views on economics. That's not a petty issue at all. It may be the most important issue right now. 

Progressives can't support him because the economic system he supports would be absolutely terrible for the majority of Americans.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Really? Then why did they need to bring the national guard in to end it?


i can pomp and circumstance all i want. Still doesn't mean it works.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i can pomp and circumstance all i want. Still doesn't mean it works.


You keep repeating a false statement hoping it becomes more true. You're making the claim that you can't force segregation. Well that's simply not true. It was forced for a long time. It took an act of congress and the national guard to end it.

You're looking at history from a point of view that never actually happened. You've decided you have to do that because if you didn't you'd have to admit how deeply flawed your logic is. My advice to you is not to twist around history to rationalize your views. If you're views don't hold up to reality you should change your views because you can't change reality or history.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> You keep repeating a false statement hoping it becomes more true. You're making the claim that you can't force segregation. Well that's simply not true. It was forced for a long time. It took an act of congress and the national guard to end it.
> 
> You're looking at history from a point of view that never actually happened. You've decided you have to do that because if you didn't you'd have to admit how deeply flawed your logic is. My advice to you is not to twist around history to rationalize your views. If you're views don't hold up to reality you should change your views because you can't change reality or history.


You can force a white supremacist to live/work next to a minority. Do you stop his hate or ignorance? NO! So you force two groups together that don't want to BE together. What happens? What is the result? Hatred and violence. i guess you have corrected me that it can be forced upon us but you still have not shown that it helped a single thing. Drove it underground so i now don't know who is racist and who isn't? i'd rather see those that oppose Liberty so i can deal with them accordingly.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You can force a white supremacist to live/work next to a minority. Do you stop his hate or ignorance? NO!


That is correct. Nor should we try. What we can do is ensure equal access to American society. The civil rights act has been quite successful at improving that situation for black Americans.



> So you force two groups together that don't want to BE together. What happens? What is the result? Hatred and violence.


Well since segregation has ended lynchings seem to be down. The idea segregation would reduce hatred and violence is lol. 



> i guess you have corrected me that it can be forced upon us but you still have not shown that it helped a single thing. Drove it underground so i now don't know who is racist and who isn't? i'd rather see those that oppose Liberty so i can deal with them accordingly.


Well you're missing a key variable in the equation here. A lot of hate comes from fear and ignorance of the unknown. If you isolate the groups so they never interact that will increase hate, not reduce it. It's going to take a long time to end racism, but America as a country is doing a really fucking good job of that. Think of where we were 50 years ago and look at where we are now. We've made huge progress. Reversing that progress is not a good idea IMO.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That is correct. Nor should we try. What we can do is ensure equal access to American society. The civil rights act has been quite successful at improving that situation for black Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Has the violence/hatred gone down or just underground? That is what i'm saying. Underground is where i most often find it. Hidden behind lies and false adherence to the Civil Rights act or legislation. It just allows the majority to fuck the minority any way they can as long as they hide it. Just be honest with me. You hate blacks(not YOU)? Then SAY SO so i can know where you stand. Don't slight them within the law and then say you are treating them equal.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Has the violence/hatred gone down or just underground? That is what i'm saying. Underground is where i most often find it. Hidden behind lies and false adherence to the Civil Rights act or legislation. It just allows the majority to fuck the minority any way they can as long as they hide it. Just be honest with me. You hate blacks(not YOU)? Then SAY SO so i can know where you stand. Don't slight them within the law and then say you are treating them equal.


you are sooooooo right.

we should let the bigots bar their minority of choice again.

civil rights solved.

u mad, bro?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you are sooooooo right.
> 
> we should let the bigots bar their minority of choice again.
> 
> ...


i enjoy honesty. Clear facts lead to a clear solution usually.

Hell yes i'm mad!


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

As a black American I think I can say that the civil rights change has brought about improvement for my way of life...I like being able to go anywhere and not have somebody try to tell me to leave because of the color of my skin..and believe me most bigoted bastards will let you know how they stand...its not hard to see who they are ..not hard at all..but hey what do I know I only have to had experience it...


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> As a black American I think I can say that the civil rights change has brought about improvement for my way of life...I like being able to go anywhere and not have somebody try to tell me to leave because of the color of my skin..and believe me most bigoted bastards will let you know how they stand...its not hard to see who they are ..not hard at all..but hey what do I know I only have to had experience it...


i'm sorry that you've had to deal with that. i have a little experience with racism myself. Different, but similar i would think. And those that discriminated against me did so under the protection of the Civil Rights act.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i'm sorry that you've had to deal with that. i have a little experience with racism myself. Different, but similar i would think. And those that discriminated against me did so under the protection of the Civil Rights act.


I didn't say that for any kind of empathy...I feel sorry for the people who have to live a life full of hate and ignorance...Heck I'm doing pretty damn good in life, so it does not matter how some fools think and behave as long as they don't try to hurt me or mind or try to take away my freedom to go into any public business to, shop, eat,sleep, or what ever...but as you know Ron Paul feels its the owners right to be able to do just that if he /she so choose...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> So the answer was, no you don't have foster children, no you don't work at food kitchens, no you don't tithe, no you don't give to a church(Your wife might, but you don't), you give clothes (good for you ) but I bet you take a tax credit out of it too. As far as charities, you didn't mention anything, just that you contribute to so many you can't even begin to count. Which kind of begs the question, Just how high can you count? Personally, I can count to infinity if given enough time, I wasn't aware that some people were limited in the addition power of the number one. Are you limited by tolanges enumeration? About the only reason I wouldn't be able to start is if the number were ZERO.
> 
> Looks like i was right at least 3 out of the 5 guesses, and most probably correct 4 of the 5, which is a pretty good guesstimate.
> 
> ...


ROFL guy you have no idea about me..so I'm suppose to list my charities to impress some INTERNET guy ...WTF..If I didn't want my wife to give OUR money it wouldn't be given...Now could I do more...Hell yes...always feel I could..but I could never knowingly not help someone when I could have as Carthoris thinks...passing a bleeding person on the street and saying I'm not hurting him I'm just not helping him..WTF...I know me you don't so I will leave it at that....nice try


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

Not an attempt at empathy london. Just how i feel.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Not an attempt at empathy london. Just how i feel.


sorry I hope my tone did not come across as bitter...Thank you for being you, but Phuck Ron Paul ..lol


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 4, 2011)

ron paul 2012: bringing the conversation 50 years backwards!

ron paul 2012: let the kids fend for themselves!

ron paul 2012: i don't have sex with turtles, i really don't!


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul 2012: bringing the conversation 50 years backwards!
> 
> ron paul 2012: let the kids fend for themselves!
> 
> ron paul 2012: i don't have sex with turtles, i really don't!


Enjoy your Independence UB. Happy 4th.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> sorry I hope my tone did not come across as bitter...Thank you for being you, but Phuck Ron Paul ..lol


Not at all. Guess we'll see if i've got the turtle dick for the second part


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> If you're views don't hold up to reality you should change your views because you can't change reality or history.


"They must find it difficult Those who have taken authority as the truth, Rather than truth as the authority."


----------



## sync0s (Jul 4, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> "They must find it difficult&#8230; Those who have taken authority as the truth, Rather than truth as the authority."


 Let me add on:

For the opposition:



Winston Churchill said:


> &#8220;Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.&#8221;


For the RP supporters:



Winston Churchill said:


> &#8220;Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense&#8221;


and for the historians....



Winston Churchill said:


> &#8220;There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true."





Winston Churchill said:


> *&#8220;History is written by the victors.&#8221;*


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 4, 2011)

Rhetoric is a poor substitute for reality - Dan Kone


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Has the violence/hatred gone down or just underground?


Violence is violence. They aren't hanging people underground as far as I know. Black Americans have access to goods and services they did not under segregation. 



> That is what i'm saying. Underground is where i most often find it. Hidden behind lies and false adherence to the Civil Rights act or legislation. It just allows the majority to fuck the minority any way they can as long as they hide it.


I agree that people are more likely to be closet racists than they were before segregation. I disagree that this is a bad thing. Not spreading their racism publicly along with increased interaction with other races will end racism eventually. It'll take generations, but it will happen and I do believe we are making progress. 



> Just be honest with me. You hate blacks(not YOU)? Then SAY SO so i can know where you stand. Don't slight them within the law and then say you are treating them equal.


Not dignifying that with a serious response.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Violence is violence. They aren't hanging people underground as far as I know. Black Americans have access to goods and services they did not under segregation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you don't like to hear people be honest with you? i simply make the statement that i would rather KNOW that one is racist than to hear him say he's not but continue the problem.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> That is correct. Nor should we try. What we can do is ensure equal access to American society. The civil rights act has been quite successful at improving that situation for black Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We were still accusing people of being witches in the 1700s and trying them for it. Hell, we were executing people for it right up to the 1700s. There is no one here whose ancestors weren't doing something wrong at some point in history. Things will linger, but only time will heal the divisions. Desegregation did have the beneficial effect of forcing whites and blacks to get to know each other better, however, the cultures are still separate. I was talking to some of my younger family members(young teen) and asking them questions to see if they had ever been treated differently by anyone or if anyone had said anything to them about being a minority. They hadn't. I did not grow up in a racist generation, and the young people coming after me aren't either. The only people I see being discriminated against are the Spanish people, and that is mostly because they don't speak English.

My point was, we move on from things, and the only people who even remember those things are the people who lived in those times. To the people in the now and today they are history, just like Rome- whether it be burning witches, keeping slaves, or Nazi Germany. WW2 was 70 years ago, and you meet very few people who were a part of it. In another 20-50 years, the people who grew up in the turbulent time that the civil rights were a part of will be dead and gone. The people who are teaching their kids to be racist are just as stupid as the people teaching their kids that white people are holding them down - it is because they are both living in an ignorant past and refuse to accept the future.


----------



## beardo (Jul 4, 2011)

Vote for Ron Paul, He's trying to save your life.
[youtube]6_7W0U_BuVU[/youtube]


----------



## sync0s (Jul 4, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Rhetoric is a poor substitute for reality - Dan Kone


Glad that won't be repeated beyond this forum.

Those who forget the past, are condemned to repeat it. To ignore what was said by past leaders is forgetting history. Perhaps the people in our past who have led our nations through adversity to the likes we haven't seen in a long time, perhaps these people are those we should be listening to and be making comparisons to reality.

The really sad thing is how once you responded with that, londonfog removed his like on that post. Despite my posting that merely to inspire the people of this forum....


----------



## londonfog (Jul 4, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Glad that won't be repeated beyond this forum.
> 
> Those who forget the past, are condemned to repeat it. To ignore what was said by past leaders is forgetting history. Perhaps the people in our past who have led our nations through adversity to the likes we haven't seen in a long time, perhaps these people are those we should be listening to and be making comparisons to reality.
> 
> The really sad thing is how once you responded with that, londonfog removed his like on that post. Despite my posting that merely to inspire the people of this forum....


at my first read, while outdoors with the grill, I did like it ..for I loved the quotes from Churchill and respect the man himself, but after I sat down and I re-read it and realize how you single out everyone who opposes your views as not listening and Ron Paul supporters as champions that should never give in, I unliked it...hope your feelings did not get hurt...Maybe you should have just used the quotes without trying to put blame on one group and championing another....just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I didn't listen to you and that I lack courage...I do listen and will listen which lets me know if I should agree or not...Dan had nothing to do with me unliking....its how you used the quote to lay blame on one group..still like the qoutes..just don't agree with how you used it...


----------



## sync0s (Jul 4, 2011)

londonfog said:


> at my first read, while outdoors with the grill, I did like it ..for I loved the quotes from Churchill and respect the man himself, but after I sat down and I re-read it and realize how you single out everyone who opposes your views as not listening and Ron Paul supporters as champions that should never give in, I unliked it...hope your feelings did not get hurt...Maybe you should have just used the quotes without trying to put blame on one group and championing another....just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I didn't listen to you and that I lack courage...I do listen and will listen which lets me know if I should agree or not...Dan had nothing to do with me unliking....its how you used the quote to lay blame on one group..still like the qoutes..just don't agree with how you used it...


 Apparently you only read the end of the quote from Churchill that I pointed out towards those who oppose RP. I never said RP supporters are champions or even intended that kind of a view, either. The reason I posted that quote is because of the constant attacks on RP supporters in this thread by you and UB.

I assumed you did because of the relative timing of removal compared to when he posted. No harm intended to any group by any of the above posts.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 5, 2011)

at the end of the day we all still American...Best phukin nation on this planet ( even with her faults )


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 5, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> Rhetoric is a poor substitute for reality - Dan Kone


And what, pray tell, is reality? You said earlier that reality and history cannot be changed but they are changed all the time. Has your government controlled education not taught you that? Have they so indoctrinated you that you think reality and history are forever set in stone? Well, I guess if you believe the answer to our "black hole" of debt is to borrow more and tax more, you'll believe anything.
Text book history is not necessarily the truth, it depends on who wrote the text books.


----------



## ilkhan (Jul 5, 2011)

Ok Liberals and Progressives
We have a golden opportunity to cut off the neo-con wing of the Republican Party.
This election isn't about re-electing a president its about saying what we do not want. 
We don't want these wars we don't want a president who has unilateral power to declare war without congress. (Obama/Bush are not kings)
We don't want the Patriot act or secret prisons or assasinations.
So register republican and vote in the primaries for Ron Paul, even if you want to vote for Obama.
At least it could be a interesting debate unlike Rick Perry vs Obama no real debate (Perry will make anti-UN noises to draw in libertarians but this will not work)
There isn't enouph debate about important things like Foreign policy, Patriot act, ect.
You'll get that with RP.
Help us fight the money powers fail to help us and miss this golden oppotunity to tear into the Bush/Cheney crowd. (trotskyites)


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

ilkhan said:


> Ok Liberals and Progressives
> We have a golden opportunity to cut off the neo-con wing of the Republican Party.
> This election isn't about re-electing a president its about saying what we do not want.
> We don't want these wars we don't want a president who has unilateral power to declare war without congress. (Obama/Bush are not kings)
> ...


 Best post in thread?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 5, 2011)

ilkhan said:


> Ok Liberals and Progressives
> We have a golden opportunity to cut off the neo-con wing of the Republican Party.
> This election isn't about re-electing a president its about saying what we do not want.
> We don't want these wars we don't want a president who has unilateral power to declare war without congress. (Obama/Bush are not kings)
> ...


Just reposted on FB in a RP action group to be shared with Dems world-wide.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 5, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So you don't like to hear people be honest with you? i simply make the statement that i would rather KNOW that one is racist than to hear him say he's not but continue the problem.


I understand where you're coming from and there is logic to that, but I disagree. I'd rather have racists STFU so they aren't indoctrinating the next generations with their bullshit.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 5, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I understand where you're coming from and there is logic to that, but I disagree. I'd rather have racists STFU so they aren't indoctrinating the next generations with their bullshit.


i hear you but if one tries to tell them how they should think then that person has the same right to tell YOU how to think. i let racists ramble on and on while they show themselves to be as ignorant as they truly are.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 5, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> I understand where you're coming from and there is logic to that, but I disagree. I'd rather have racists STFU so they aren't indoctrinating the next generations with their bullshit.


In other words you would rather sacrifice liberty for safety.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 5, 2011)

sync0s said:


> In other words you would rather sacrifice liberty for safety.


i think it is more that he does not want harm caused to others. your rights to whatever stop when they harm others.

no exceptions for bigotry.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> your rights to whatever stop when they harm others.
> 
> .


 Then why do you have the right to vote for representitaves who will use their powers and our money to kill people?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> Then why do you have the right to vote for representitaves who will use their powers and our money to kill people?


in the name of "national defense", with which i also have misgivings.

but ron paul ain't the answer.

unless you like people who fuck turtles.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 6, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> And what, pray tell, is reality?


The reality is that slavery and segregation were dark times in our history that should not be glorified nor excused. People shouldn't try to explain it away as something that was ok. 



> Well, I guess if you believe the answer to our "black hole" of debt is to borrow more and tax more, you'll believe anything.


Yes, I believe that. Seeing as how you have said nothing to dispute it, dismissing it as incorrect is premature. 



> Text book history is not necessarily the truth, it depends on who wrote the text books.


So you think all history books are wrong and the story you guys seem to be inventing as you go along is correct? Interesting.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i think it is more that he does not want harm caused to others. your rights to whatever stop when they harm others.
> 
> no exceptions for bigotry.


If you define someone voicing their opinion, whether right or wrong, is harm... Good god imagine how far that can be stretched. 1st amendment brother. Do you want to change it?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 6, 2011)

sync0s said:


> In other words you would rather sacrifice liberty for safety.


No. That's not remotely similar to anything I said. I did not suggest it should be a crime to have racist thoughts or say something racist. I said I would prefer that racists STFU.


----------



## deprave (Jul 6, 2011)

Whats New in RonPaul Land recently? We are fresh out of koolaid but Im bout to run to the sto' over yonder

Aww just the same as usual - Ron Paul kicking ass and taking names in the name of the people and frrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedDDDDDDDOM!


Ron Paul Local News Interview: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-aN


also

*Ron Paul goes after TSA &#8211; annouces American Traveler Dignity Act*

http://wp.me/p1DM1G-bi


----------



## Parker (Jul 6, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> in the name of "national defense", with which i also have misgivings.
> 
> but ron paul ain't the answer.
> 
> unless you like people who fuck turtles.


As opposed to tools like you, who fuck themselves??? Keep voting against your own self interest and you'll get more of the same. Your way of government manipulation doesn't work. Too bad your head is so far up your ass you can't see it.

I understand you are a worthless and can't take care of yourself but why do we have to take care of you? You smell and you're too ignorant to have an intelligent conversation. What good are you? It's not the peoples job, THROUGH government FORCE, to take care of you. If you want to force me to take care of you guarantee you I won't do a good job of it because I don't like talking piles of horseshit. 
Knowing this because we know government cannot do the job as efficiently as the private sector, why do you want to give yourself below average results? Is it because you are too stupid to know better?


----------



## Alphadawg (Jul 6, 2011)

deprave said:


> Whats New in RonPaul Land recently? We are fresh out of koolaid but Im bout to run to the sto' over yonder
> 
> Aww just the same as usual - Ron Paul kicking ass and taking names in the name of the people and frrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedDDDDDDDOM!
> 
> ...


Good video


----------



## Parker (Jul 6, 2011)

londonfog said:


> As a black American I think I can say that the civil rights change has brought about improvement for my way of life...I like being able to go anywhere and not have somebody try to tell me to leave because of the color of my skin..and believe me most bigoted bastards will let you know how they stand...its not hard to see who they are ..not hard at all..but hey what do I know I only have to had experience it...


How do you know? Were you born around 1945-1950? that would put you at ~20 years of age when the Civil Rights amendment was passed.
I don't believe "most bigots tell you". The opposite is true, the opposite is the norm.
_"what do I know I only have to had experience it" _ Gotcha you're the expert on this because no one else has experienced racism so we should rely on your rose colored glasses.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 6, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> The reality is that slavery and segregation were dark times in our history that should not be glorified nor excused. People shouldn't try to explain it away as something that was ok.


I agree, it was not OK and it is not OK even today but we still have slavery (albeit not outright ownership of a human being but a much more subtle and insidious economic slavery)



Dan Kone said:


> Yes, I believe that. Seeing as how you have said nothing to dispute it, dismissing it as incorrect is premature.


That is like a doctor, who is treating a lung cancer patient to "try cigars instead of cigarettes.". We've been trying YOUR way for a century or so and it has failed, it's time to seek a new direction.



Dan Kone said:


> So you think all history books are wrong and the story you guys seem to be inventing as you go along is correct? Interesting.


LOL There you go again. Extreme exaggeration. If you don't like "a", you HATE the alphabet. I'm not inventing anything. It's people like you who are in charge of indoctrinating our youth.


----------



## deprave (Jul 6, 2011)

Alphadawg said:


> Good video



Glad you like it,heres the latest update On Ron Pauls anti-tsa act, Dr Paul an emotional speech on the floor as he introduces the bill, a 1 paragraph bill that rids the tsa of its unconstitutional powers: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-bR

Ron Paul stands behind the people as usual.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 6, 2011)

Parker said:


> As opposed to tools like you, who fuck themselves??? Keep voting against your own self interest and you'll get more of the same. Your way of government manipulation doesn't work. Too bad your head is so far up your ass you can't see it.
> 
> I understand you are a worthless and can't take care of yourself but why do we have to take care of you? You smell and you're too ignorant to have an intelligent conversation. What good are you? It's not the peoples job, THROUGH government FORCE, to take care of you. If you want to force me to take care of you guarantee you I won't do a good job of it because I don't like talking piles of horseshit.
> Knowing this because we know government cannot do the job as efficiently as the private sector, why do you want to give yourself below average results? Is it because you are too stupid to know better?


what suddenly smells like bengay?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 6, 2011)

^^^^^^a turtle touched by Ron Paul


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> That is like a doctor, who is treating a lung cancer patient to "try cigars instead of cigarettes.". We've been trying YOUR way for a century or so and it has failed, it's time to seek a new direction.


It's been successful for a century and you want to throw it out for something that doesn't even make logical sense.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> It's been successful for a century and you want to throw it out for something that doesn't even make logical sense.


Without tracking the quotes and suffering short-term memory loss, i would think we are speaking on the Fed?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Without tracking the quotes and suffering short-term memory loss, i would think we are speaking on the Fed?


No. The idea of increasing spending during a recession, cutting spending during strong economic times. It's been tried and tested by everyone from FDR to Reagan. We haven't had an outcry to cut spending during a recession since 1937.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

i cut spending during a recession.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i cut spending during a recession.


You're not a federal government with trillions of dollars.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i cut spending during a recession.


i bet your finances work the exact same as the federal government and that you don't feel foolish at all for the naivete of your statement.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i bet your finances work the exact same as the federal government and that you don't feel foolish at all for the naivete of your statement.


Not naive at all imo. If i don't have money i don't spend it. Reasonable, not naive. The larger the dollar amount, the more important to spend wisely.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i bet your finances work the exact same as the federal government and that you don't feel foolish at all for the naivete of your statement.


Hell, i won't LET my finances reflect those of the Federal Government.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

i would starve if i did lol!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

you missed the point or purposely avoided it.

your personal finances work nothing like any government.

thus, your point is moot.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i would starve if i did lol!


aren't you collecting unemployment?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> aren't you collecting unemployment?


Yep. And less than i have paid in thus far. So yes, i'm reclaiming my money that i would've/could've invested on my own.

Has nothing to do with how i handle my finances other than to prove that i'm doing so on a small income.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you missed the point or purposely avoided it.
> 
> your personal finances work nothing like any government.
> 
> thus, your point is moot.


My point was that regardless of amount spent, wise spending is, well, wise.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Yep. And less than i have paid in thus far. So yes, i'm reclaiming my money that i would've/could've invested on my own.
> 
> Has nothing to do with how i handle my finances other than to prove that i'm doing so on a small income.


ah, yet another ron paul supporter depending on entitlements and the social safety net.

irony.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ah, yet another ron paul supporter depending on entitlements and the social safety net.
> 
> irony.


Depending on? No. Collecting my due money? Yep 

See how tax robbery begets entitlement?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Depending on? No. Collecting my due money? Yep
> 
> See how tax robbery begets entitlement?


you are using the social safety net.

you should just get a job.

if you really believed in the power of the free market, you would refuse that money and quit perpetuating the utility of the social safety net, ie, government intervention and wealth redistribution.


----------



## Carne Seca (Jul 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> question do you really think he will get the nod to run in the general election as the Republican candidate..???


No. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> No. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.


he's STILL pulling a scant 5-7% in polls.

only behind cain, bachmann, romney, palin, and perry. huckabee would also be ahead of him if he was in there.

looks like i was being kind when i joked about him being in a 3 way tie for fourth. he is choice #6 or 7


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you are using the social safety net.
> 
> you should just get a job.
> 
> if you really believed in the power of the free market, you would refuse that money and quit perpetuating the utility of the social safety net, ie, government intervention and wealth redistribution.


i am reclaiming that which has been taken from me without my permission. And the politicians you support protect my right to do so. Don't like it? Vote Ron Paul 2012!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i am reclaiming that which has been taken from me without my permission. And the politicians you support protect my right to do so. Don't like it? Vote Ron Paul 2012!


it was not taken without your permission. the social safety net has been in place and established for decades. you gave them permission when you became part of that system instead of absconding to the woods or living with the amish, who pay nothing into the social safety net.

you are dishonest in saying it was taken without your permission because YOU made the choice to work a job that paid into that safety net, no one forced you to.

now you are using that social safety net and dicking around on the computer for countless hours a day instead of looking for a job.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Not naive at all imo. If i don't have money i don't spend it. Reasonable, not naive. The larger the dollar amount, the more important to spend wisely.


To cut spending in a recession isn't wise. Government spending has a stimulative effect on the economy. If we cut spending, in will create a double dip recession which will lead to our revenue will decrease further, resulting in deficits. 

Either spending more or spending less will result in deficits. So we might as well accept that fact and choose the path that stimulates the economy. Cutting spending is foolish. It will cause another recession and will fail to stop deficits.

This isn't your personal finances. When you make a major purchase it doesn't create millions of jobs. The government has that ability. The two are incomparable.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> To cut spending in a recession isn't wise. Government spending has a stimulative effect on the economy. If we cut spending, in will create a double dip recession which will lead to our revenue will decrease further, resulting in deficits.
> 
> Either spending more or spending less will result in deficits. So we might as well accept that fact and choose the path that stimulates the economy. Cutting spending is foolish. It will cause another recession and will fail to stop deficits.
> 
> This isn't your personal finances. When you make a major purchase it doesn't create millions of jobs. The government has that ability. The two are incomparable.


when budlover is in a recession, he suckles off the government teet.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it was not taken without your permission. the social safety net has been in place and established for decades. you gave them permission when you became part of that system instead of absconding to the woods or living with the amish, who pay nothing into the social safety net.
> 
> you are dishonest in saying it was taken without your permission because YOU made the choice to work a job that paid into that safety net, no one forced you to.
> 
> now you are using that social safety net and dicking around on the computer for countless hours a day instead of looking for a job. fucking hypocrite mooch.


 
i live in a town of 25,000 +/-. i search the net daily for job offers, papers, get emails from YahooJobs, Monster, etc, etc. i have interviewed for many jobs and was told i was over/under-qualified or would simply not be happy there because of my salary history regardless of the gleaming personal reviews from my employers that were forced to lay me off due to the Keynesian Economic policies in place.

So for you to sit there, on the computer hours a day, and tell me i am a leeach is fucking hilarious you douche. i have done everything in my power to help provide for my wife and son short of whoring myself out literally. i pick up cans and plastics, get my hustle on, work as many angles as i can find to get employed, etc. You MOTHER FUCKER! How DARE YOU!?

Typical of how your kind view the world i guess.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

unclebuck said:


> when budlover is in a recession, he suckles off the government teet.


turtle fucker!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i live in a town of 25,000 +/-. i search the net daily for job offers, papers, get emails from YahooJobs, Monster, etc, etc. i have interviewed for many jobs and was told i was over/under-qualified or would simply not be happy there because of my salary history regardless of the gleaming personal reviews from my employers that were forced to lay me off due to the Keynesian Economic policies in place.
> 
> So for you to sit there, on the computer hours a day, and tell me i am a leeach is fucking hilarious you douche. i have done everything in my power to help provide for my wife and son short of whoring myself out literally. i pick up cans and plastics, get my hustle on, work as many angles as i can find to get employed, etc. You MOTHER FUCKER! How DARE YOU!?
> 
> Typical of how your kind view the world i guess.


you were laid off due to keynesian policies?

cool story, bro.

do you ever sit around at the home depot with your tools in hand looking for work?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> turtle fucker!


you should make a poll about it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

if ron paul had his way, you wouldn't have that government check to rely on. he'd let the free market find you a job. keep in mind, the economy would be nearly non-existent as he would have let it fail instead of trying to stabilize it.

the my lai approach: destroy it in order to save it.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you were laid off due to keynesian policies?
> 
> cool story, bro.
> 
> do you ever sit around at the home depot with your tools in hand looking for work?


Can you say "housing bubble"? And the tools of my trade were valued at just over $200,000 by our insurance. Wanna give me a Small Business Loan?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if ron paul had his way, you wouldn't have that government check to rely on. he'd let the free market find you a job. keep in mind, the economy would be nearly non-existent as he would have let it fail instead of trying to stabilize it.
> 
> the my lai approach: destroy it in order to save it.


You're right. And i would like to think i would've care for my money well enough to not need it. Had i not been robbed.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you should make a poll about it.


i don't need one. i'm not a *insert your OWN adjective* like you!


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

Damnit UB! You are a smart person. Why do you have to go there? You think it doesn't weigh on me enough? FUCK!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

my bad, i guess.

i just find it funny that you are so in the sack for ron paul yet take part in the social safety net. and that you spend so much time on line here when you could be pounding the pavement for work. there is lots of shitty work out there that can get you off the government teet.

and before you say again that you were robbed, keep in mind that you were never forced to participate in anything that had you pay into the safety net.


----------



## beardo (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Had i not been robbed.


 How did you get robbed? I thought you used to be a cop, I figured you would be big and or on steroids and definitely packing with a ccw permit. What happened? Sorry to hear it hope all is well, See you at the voting booth repub primary -Paul


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> my bad, i guess.
> 
> i just find it funny that you are so in the sack for ron paul yet take part in the social safety net. and that you spend so much time on line here when you could be pounding the pavement for work. there is lots of shitty work out there that can get you off the government teet.
> 
> and before you say again that you were robbed, keep in mind that you were never forced to participate in anything that had you pay into the safety net.


Tell me how to legally opt out without fucking my family.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

beardo said:


> How did you get robbed? I thought you used to be a cop, I figured you would be big and or on steroids and definitely packing with a ccw permit. What happened? Sorry to hear it hope all is well, See you at the voting booth repub primary -Paul


IRS, SSI, etc did it. Everyone here seems to think i had a choice.


----------



## deprave (Jul 7, 2011)

Ron Paul update for today

Ron Paul won a christian conservative poll: 59%paul to 13%bachman 3%palin: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-cO

Ron Paul on Fox talks bout Hayek economics: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-cS


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 7, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul update for today
> 
> Ron Paul won a christian conservative poll: 59%paul to 13%bachman 3%palin: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-cO
> 
> Ron Paul on Fox talks bout Hayek economics: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-cS


Posted elsewhere brother! Thank you!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul update for today
> 
> Ron Paul won a christian conservative poll: 59%paul to 13%bachman 3%palin: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-cO
> 
> Ron Paul on Fox talks bout Hayek economics: http://wp.me/p1DM1G-cS


you mean to say, ron paul won a poll of people who think dinosaurs were jesus ponies and that "the gay" can be cured?

awesome!



i think we need to convert america to a theocracy of christian conservatism.


----------



## Carne Seca (Jul 7, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you mean to say, ron paul won a poll of people who think dinosaurs were jesus ponies and that "the gay" can be cured?
> 
> awesome!
> 
> ...


You mean the Christian Caliphate with Christian Sharia Law?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Tell me how to legally opt out without fucking my family.


go join the amish. i already mentioned them.

they don't pay into much of shit.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i live in a town of 25,000 +/-. i search the net daily for job offers, papers, get emails from YahooJobs, Monster, etc, etc. i have interviewed for many jobs and was told i was over/under-qualified or would simply not be happy there because of my salary history regardless of the gleaming personal reviews from my employers that were forced to lay me off due to the Keynesian Economic policies in place.
> 
> So for you to sit there, on the computer hours a day, and tell me i am a leeach is fucking hilarious you douche. i have done everything in my power to help provide for my wife and son short of whoring myself out literally. i pick up cans and plastics, get my hustle on, work as many angles as i can find to get employed, etc. You MOTHER FUCKER! How DARE YOU!?
> 
> Typical of how your kind view the world i guess.


I know you were an officer of the law, so this may go against your code of ethics, but if things are really tough $$$-wise, might I suggest  A better option than blowing guys for money, IMO.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 8, 2011)

Amish... heh



> Just like the rest of us, the Amish are not exempt from life's two certainties -- death and taxes. However, there is a reason behind the persistent myth that the Amish do not pay taxes. The Amish live within self-sufficient communities and do not collect Social Security, unemployment, or welfare benefits. According to their religious beliefs, paying Social Security, an insurance premium for the elderly, is tantamount to not "taking care of their own." Amish people who are self-employed are not obliged to pay Social Security tax, but they do still pay all other taxes, including property, income, and sales tax. If an Amish person decides to work outside of the community, he or she must also pay Social Security tax like any other American.


Buy some land in CA... outfit some windmills/solar panels.... build a large water well... grow some weed


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 8, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Amish... heh
> 
> 
> 
> Buy some land in CA... outfit some windmills/solar panels.... build a large water well... grow some weed


That's the American dream right there


----------



## sync0s (Jul 8, 2011)

DelSlow said:


> That's the American dream right there


The modern ages gold rush.... Fuck it, pitch in people, we'll start a commune.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 8, 2011)

sync0s said:


> The modern ages gold rush.... Fuck it, pitch in people, we'll start a commune.


sounds too socialist to me.

let's just start a commune where we are completely individualistic and never help our neighbors in need instead


----------



## londonfog (Jul 8, 2011)

and just because you are not helping does not mean you are hurting... Everyman for themselves.... We don't need no stinky government badges,,so phuck the FDA,FAA,EPA, ...hell screw the PTA ( they work with the public schools).make the USA stand for Us Standing Alone.......FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 8, 2011)

Dan Kone said:


> To cut spending in a recession isn't wise. Government spending has a stimulative effect on the economy. If we cut spending, in will create a double dip recession which will lead to our revenue will decrease further, resulting in deficits.
> 
> Either spending more or spending less will result in deficits. So we might as well accept that fact and choose the path that stimulates the economy. Cutting spending is foolish. It will cause another recession and will fail to stop deficits.
> 
> This isn't your personal finances. When you make a major purchase it doesn't create millions of jobs. The government has that ability. The two are incomparable.


I have tried to see things from your point of view but I just can't stick my head that far up my ass.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 8, 2011)

sync0s said:


> The modern ages gold rush.... Fuck it, pitch in people, we'll start a commune.


You would be surprised as to how very accurate that statement rings here in Cali. i have heard the gold rush reference more than once lol. Wish i had my own land 

Anyway, the talk here is that the market is way too flooded because of so many growers so everyone is now looking to states that have legalized recently or are looking at it. That's the reason that to become a grower in Colorado you must live in state for 2 years first from what i hear. 

At this point i have my first outdoor crop and am trying to make it through until harvest  My indoor set-up is only 600w + fluoro sidelighting and i've only been growing about a year now so, while it provides me with good meds, there is rarely overage so far. LOTS of issues that have contributed to my lack of stellar success indoors, some out of my control and some that i just fucked up through inexperience.

Actually just visited with someone from Montana and they sounded like they might know where i could work back there and they would help us get settled but then my wife would be unemployed (or at lest making much less than she currently does due to time with her company). However i then look at their MJ situation and think "Hmmmmm......." lol! i don't know though. Montana. i think they are talking of secession.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You would be surprised as to how very accurate that statement rings here in Cali. i have heard the gold rush reference more than once lol. Wish i had my own land
> 
> Anyway, the talk here is that the market is way too flooded because of so many growers so everyone is now looking to states that have legalized recently or are looking at it. That's the reason that to become a grower in Colorado you must live in state for 2 years first from what i hear.
> 
> ...


 If you have the opportunity to move to Montana do it-It is one of the last American places in America, a land of hard work opportunity and common sense.


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 8, 2011)

Just a quick one, Im not from the States, but I was wondering...would anyone here vote for Ron Paul if he didnt support weed the way he does?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 8, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Just a quick one, Im not from the States, but I was wondering...would anyone here vote for Ron Paul if he didnt support weed the way he does?


Definitely. His philosophy is what makes him pro-pot, or at least not anti-pot.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Just a quick one, Im not from the States, but I was wondering...would anyone here vote for Ron Paul if he didnt support weed the way he does?


 Yes, I would based on his other positions.
Ron Paul is also not Pro weed he is just Pro Common sense and does not believe in using govt funding to continue prohibition and inhibit business and free market.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 8, 2011)

beardo said:


> If you have the opportunity to move to Montana do it-It is one of the last American places in America, a land of hard work opportunity and common sense.


And my friend said that they LOVE Ron Paul in Montana too. And she's on the RNC


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And my friend said that they LOVE Ron Paul in Montana too. And she's on the RNC


 Every one loves Ron Paul except people who have never listened to him or read him and only know what they have been told about him, Politicians who are not representing our best interests, and parasites-I mean people feeding off our tax dollars and govt contracts and public sector employees and those benefiting from the Fed giving loans and bail outs. A working American would be crazy to not support Paul.


----------



## Harrekin (Jul 8, 2011)

Ahh cool, just Iv read/watched alot about him, but you know how its hard to get a proper idea of a foreign policitian when you dont actually live there? He does seem to be a pretty cool guy, he should start his own No BS party, based on common sense and delivering efficient results, Im waiting for someone with this ideal to come along.

Thanks for replies.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 8, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Ahh cool, just Iv read/watched alot about him, but you know how its hard to get a proper idea of a foreign policitian when you dont actually live there? He does seem to be a pretty cool guy, he should start his own No BS party, based on common sense and delivering efficient results, Im waiting for someone with this ideal to come along.
> 
> Thanks for replies.


i actually got a FB message from a guy in Australia and RP's message has spoken so loudly to him that he is coming to America and try to get citizenship before the election but campaign in support of him regardless. Speaks volumes to me 

But yes, i have no clue how the politicians of other countries truly are. Have a hard enough time trying to figure that out about our own lol.


----------



## deprave (Jul 8, 2011)

yea its a whole group of Australians


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 8, 2011)

deprave said:


> yea its a whole group of Australians


Ausome mates!


----------



## ilkhan (Jul 9, 2011)

Its not that he is Pro-Pot.
Its that he is Pro-freedom and Anti-force and violence.
He believes that if YOU do not have the right to kill, maim, steal or plunder 
and if We The People formed the Government then that Government can not do what we ourselves can not do.
Governments are not gods.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 9, 2011)

and you have the right to refuse service into your grocery store based on the color of ones skin ( or the lack of color)


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and you have the right to refuse service into your grocery store based on the color of ones skin ( or the lack of color)


Well then lets ban promiscuous fuckers too because the resulting unwanted children are a bad thing for society. No more un-approved fucking. OR dancing/drinking because it LEADS to fucking. Oh yeah, no bikinis, nice cars or rich people too. They lead to fucking and therefore unwanted/unsustainable children too.

Slippery fucking slope and i don't trust the government to navigate it for me.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 9, 2011)

Can you say pre-emptive warfare?


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 9, 2011)

"We are taking away your right to choose because you could do (insert whatever here)" is about the same as "Lets invade Iran, they could be a threat to us in the future". The thing that always seemed stupid as hell to me is the arguments that both sides put up as they try to get something legalized or banned.

"Guns are horrible, people die, we need to control guns, they should be illegal" "We need to legalize abortion, marijuana, and gay marriage because it is your right to do what you want." then the other side does the opposite and says "Drugs should be illegal, you could hurt yourself." "Abortion and gay marriage are wrong and should be illegal" "Guns should be legal because it is your right to choose to do what you want"

Maybe Dems and Reps don't even hear themselves justifying something they want and then ignoring that same justification 30 seconds later when something they don't want is brought up. 

How can you justify giving someone a right or an entitlement when you are taking from someone else to give it to them? How could your right to my property be more important than mine? It is my property, the result of the sweat of my brow, how can you have any right to it? Oh, because its convenient to you and you support it? Just because you consider yourselves Robin Hood, doesn't make it so. You are still thieves.

The real democratic American idea is, not that every man shall be on a level with every other man, but that every man shall have liberty to be what God made him, without hindrance.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 9, 2011)

I was reading a UK political board, and they were discussing insurance, retirement, and the like. It was interesting to know where we are headed if we continue down the path we are on. Shit, look at their debt compared to ours. Ours is bad, but they are gone and will never be able to pay it back.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 10, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> "We are taking away your right to choose because you could do (insert whatever here)" is about the same as "Lets invade Iran, they could be a threat to us in the future". The thing that always seemed stupid as hell to me is the arguments that both sides put up as they try to get something legalized or banned.
> 
> "Guns are horrible, people die, we need to control guns, they should be illegal" "We need to legalize abortion, marijuana, and gay marriage because it is your right to do what you want." then the other side does the opposite and says "Drugs should be illegal, you could hurt yourself." "Abortion and gay marriage are wrong and should be illegal" "Guns should be legal because it is your right to choose to do what you want"
> 
> ...


Very well said.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 10, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Just a quick one, Im not from the States, but I was wondering...would anyone here vote for Ron Paul if he didnt support weed the way he does?


Yes, in a heart beat.


----------



## malignant (Jul 10, 2011)

i would support him because of his constitutional stance on well everything.. people have the right to discriminate in private business, its their business they should do as they like with it. it may not be successful and you must not want to make money but it goes on like that now already with jewish and arab business.. jews buy from jews, arabs buy from arabs. its what cause destabilization in germany, all the economy's money going into one corner.. here in america we have a few markets doing that so we cant blame it on anything unless it becomes a color thing. we should make it harder for foreigners to become business owners, and we should tax more responsibly. just because your mother carried you here and popped you out doesnt mean you should have citizenship.. the world is very over populated, and china had it right by limiting how many kids you can have. that should happen here.. there is no reason for a mormon family to have 12 kids. its unnecessary and it puts a strain on the whole country when you have 300 families with those morals. or the 3 generations of welfare under 1 roof. there shouldnt be these social systems in place, my tax dollars should not be paying for someones crackpipe. and unfortunately thats what democrats want, to passify the poor, give them more money to do nothing and pay them more for each kid they have. these kids should not be raised by these unfit parents. military school and the army after that. populate the understaffed military with these unwanted kids. poeple might not have as many if they get taken away at an early age. and thats constitutional because until your 18 you have no rights anyway.
this country is in the predicament it is in because of the stupid occult dabbling politicians in the 40's and 50's the assasination of jfk, and the baby boomers. the baby boomer have put such strain on this country just by existing, and now they want to draw retirement and social security? the reason why things were good in the 90s were because we had the boomers all employed putting in to the economy and a president more into chasing skirt than oil. fuck the bush family, fuck the reagans, fuck it all


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 10, 2011)

malignant said:


> jews buy from jews, arabs buy from arabs.


jew here. i buy from mexicans and americans and arabs all the time. pretty much whoever has the best deal, i'll buy from them if they are 'open to the public'. i do not think anyone who has a business that is 'open to the public' has the right to say i can't enter their business to buy their goods simply because i self identify as a jew.



malignant said:


> we should make it harder for foreigners to become business owners...


why? so some canadian immigrate here, we should put up a while bunch of barriers in their way? please elaborate. this makes no sense.



malignant said:


> just because your mother carried you here and popped you out doesnt mean you should have citizenship..


that is not a constitutional stance, like you originally endorsed. that is a direct violation of the 14th amendment.

people like you only seem to want to follow the constitution and principles of this country, such as equality, when you want to. fuck that.



malignant said:


> the world is very over populated, and china had it right by limiting how many kids you can have. that should happen here..


well, that would also be a direct assault on the very principles of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded.



malignant said:


> ...there shouldnt be these social systems in place, my tax dollars should not be paying for someones crackpipe. and unfortunately thats what democrats want, to passify the poor...


my grandma's food is not a crackpipe.



malignant said:


> ...these kids should not be raised by these unfit parents. military school and the army after that. populate the understaffed military with these unwanted kids. poeple might not have as many if they get taken away at an early age. and thats constitutional because until your 18 you have no rights anyway.


so, you want what? like, government workers to determine your fitness as a parent and enlist your child into the military against your will at their discretion?

and the rights of the parents don't matter? 

LOL!

you have some views that are OUT THERE.



malignant said:


> the baby boomer have put such strain on this country just by existing, and now they want to draw retirement and social security?


yeah, imagine that. they paid in their entire lives and now want to get back what they put in. fucking assholes!

this could have all been avoided if we had just simply told the greatest generation to wrap it up after they got back from fighting the nazis and the japs.

now if you'll excuse me, i am going to grill some fucking hamburgers and top it off with bacon, cheese, lettuce and onions from my garden, and eggs from my chickens.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 10, 2011)

let me make sure i have this right, malignant:

return to the days of segregation/discrimination, make it harder for legal immigrants to own a business, abolish the 14th amendment, limit all families to just one child, abolish all social programs, put the government in charge of determining the worthiness of parents with compulsory military service for the children of bad parents, and prohibit the baby boomers from taking the SS they paid into their whole lives.

did i get that right?

why is it that ron paul worshipers are such a bunch of extremists?


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 10, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> let me make sure i have this right, malignant:
> 
> return to the days of segregation/discrimination, make it harder for legal immigrants to own a business, abolish the 14th amendment, limit all families to just one child, abolish all social programs, put the government in charge of determining the worthiness of parents with compulsory military service for the children of bad parents, and prohibit the baby boomers from taking the SS they paid into their whole lives.
> 
> ...


Turtle fucker


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 10, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Turtle fucker


love ya too, sweet cheeks


----------



## sync0s (Jul 10, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> let me make sure i have this right, malignant:
> 
> return to the days of segregation/discrimination, make it harder for legal immigrants to own a business, abolish the 14th amendment, limit all families to just one child, abolish all social programs, put the government in charge of determining the worthiness of parents with compulsory military service for the children of bad parents, and prohibit the baby boomers from taking the SS they paid into their whole lives.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how malignant can be a ron paul supporter. He/she (not sure) sounds more like someone who is for a dictatorship in America. For gods sakes, they (I'm resorting to this) gave a communist country kudos on its laws that violate human rights.

UB, for someone who is so against discrimination, stop lumping a whole group together as one voice.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 10, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I don't understand how malignant can be a ron paul supporter. He/she (not sure) sounds more like someone who is for a dictatorship in America. For gods sakes, they (I'm resorting to this) gave a communist country kudos on its laws that violate human rights.
> 
> UB, for someone who is so against discrimination, stop lumping a whole group together as one voice.


sorry about that.

malignant has been insulting me on a very personal level and i wanted to dissect her words and ideas for all they were worth.

let's wait for that little hussy o respond. i can't wait!


----------



## sync0s (Jul 10, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> sorry about that.
> 
> malignant has been insulting me on a very personal level and i wanted to dissect her words and ideas for all they were worth.
> 
> let's wait for that little hussy o respond. i can't wait!


Fair enough. Glad to know it's a female, now I don't have to be so confused :/


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 10, 2011)

7/11/11 Weekly Ron Paul radio address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCLyB7r5uws&feature=player_embedded#at=122


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 10, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Fair enough. Glad to know it's a female, now I don't have to be so confused :/


low blow!

i approve


----------



## malignant (Jul 10, 2011)

wow you guys are sexist too.. no i simply am pointing out that the fluctuations of population may have a hand in this all, as well as the demise of the us. i feel like something is going to happen, and very soon. everyone needs to be prepared and ready for anything. and simply pointing out that the governments we quickly demonize though have their problems, not necessarily the same due to preventative measures. i look forward to the day when everything collapses, and we're left to fend for ourselves, and i believe that day will be here much sooner than we think.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 10, 2011)

Amen.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 10, 2011)

malignant said:


> wow you guys are sexist too.. no i simply am pointing out that the fluctuations of population may have a hand in this all, as well as the demise of the us. i feel like something is going to happen, and very soon. everyone needs to be prepared and ready for anything. and simply pointing out that the governments we quickly demonize though have their problems, not necessarily the same due to preventative measures. i look forward to the day when everything collapses, and we're left to fend for ourselves, and i believe that day will be here much sooner than we think.


I don't understand how we're sexist?? I was legitimately confused as to your gender and hated calling you a he/she. Perhaps you would prefer 'it'? I don't know, up to you I guess.

Okay IT: The entire worlds land mass, excluding Antarctica, is 57,510,000 square miles with a population of 6.930,272,900 (2005) which puts the world wide density at 132 people per square mile. The city of Manila, Philippines is the most dense city in the world with 1,660,714 population and 14.88 square miles of area, putting their density at 111,576 people per square mile. I think we have plenty more room.....


----------



## Parker (Jul 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and you have the right to refuse service into your grocery store based on the color of ones skin ( or the lack of color)


Government does not own your business. They have no right to tell you who you can or cannot serve. Government doesn't own it's citizens. Let society dictate that. Society at least gives people choices. Why rely on the same government that created Jim Crow laws?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 21, 2011)

Parker said:


> let me get this right. you're heads still up your backburner.


what does parker do when he has no valid argument to make? hurls insults.



Parker said:


> government made those illegal laws you douchebag. If you had a lick of retention in history you'd know that.


local governments tried to keep those racist laws after the fed gov told them they couldn't.

who is the candidate that wants local governments to have more control over issues like this? rhymes with lon schmaul.



Parker said:


> no one should profit from an illegal act. Newborns are under the jurisdiction of the country of their parents


see, there you go. ignoring what the constitution CLEARLY says. you only give a rat's ass about that thing when it suits your tilt.



Parker said:


> wrong again
> social programs, charity, is not the job of government
> read the Constitution


the same one that you ignore whenever convenient.

let me just grab my pocket copy here: WE THE PEOPLE of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america.

seems to me that falls under "insuring domestic tranquility" and "promoting the general welfare".



Parker said:


> Only an uninformed douchebag like you would continue printing lies. Ron Paul has never said people who pay into it wont get the coverage promised to them you asshat. He said allow people to opt out. If you don't know what the issues are STFU.


yeah, you should go find one of the many other ron paul threads, or start the 847th one if you want to talk about ron paul's views.

if you would be a darling and follow along, it is the point of view of the other poster malignant that it is wrong for the baby boomer's to be taking what they paid in.

try to follow along.



Parker said:


> no you rarely get things right. Only an idiot would listen to a buffoon like you that gets so many things wrong. Better hope government continues to give handouts cause as dumb as you are, you're gonna need all the government assistance you can get.


more insults. i'm so hurt by your lame, weak attempts at harassment.

i do want government assistance programs to continue, even though i don't need them. why? because i have a thing called 'empathy' and give a rat's ass about others.



Parker said:


> why is it you were born a liar, and have gotten worse? Did someone on planet retard tell you it was clever? Guess what, they lied.


planet retard? 

the 80's called. it wants its lame jokes back.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 21, 2011)

Parker said:


> ...you're heads still up your backburner.


actually, it is spelled "your head is still up your back burner". notice how i was able to manage a third grade level of grammar there by using the proper form of "you're/your"? and by also adding the verb "is" after "head"? and by spacing "back" and "burner"?

you may not want to make three mistakes that a third grader could avoid when trying to insult someone 



Parker said:


> ...you douchebag....too bad your family didnt practice this...uninformed douchebag...you asshat. ...STFU... idiot...buffoon ...dumb...you were born a liar... planet retard...


what smells like bengay?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 21, 2011)

The truth about Ron Paul is that he is wasting all the people who are supporting him time and energy...To run in a party that knowingly will not give you the nod, ignores you, and treats you like a red headed step child is dumb. Hell Bachmann has a better chance to win the nod then Ron and we all know thats some crazy shit...


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> The truth about Ron Paul is that he is wasting all the people who are supporting him time and energy...To run in a party that knowingly will not give you the nod, ignores you, and treats you like a red headed step child is dumb. Hell Bachmann has a better chance to win the nod then Ron and we all know thats some crazy shit...


Maybe he's a little desperate to save our Constitution after 30+ years of trying to beat them from the fringe.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 21, 2011)

ok say what you need to say...but myself would never invest peoples money and time in a losing cause when I could take that same money and time and have my own platform to speak which would gather more attention to myself...people tired of both parties but yet he stays with them..WTF ..if not now when ?????


----------



## beardo (Jul 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok say what you need to say...but myself would never invest peoples money and time in a losing cause when I could take that same money and time and have my own platform to speak which would gather more attention to myself...people tired of both parties but yet he stays with them..WTF ..if not now when ?????


 Ron Paul is a winning cause-every time someone opens their mind to reality we are all winning.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 21, 2011)

beardo said:


> Ron Paul is a winning cause-every time someone opens their mind to reality we are all winning.


just like Charlie Sheen[youtube]h5aSa4tmVNM[/youtube]


----------



## sync0s (Jul 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok say what you need to say...but myself would never invest peoples money and time in a losing cause when I could take that same money and time and have my own platform to speak which would gather more attention to myself...people tired of both parties but yet he stays with them..WTF ..if not now when ?????


That's because you are weak? Not trying to insult you or anything, but someone who is strong will fight the powers that be and not back down. I'd rather piss my money away funding somebody who means something and doesn't give up than live in a world where everyone just followed the flow and avoided the uphill battles.

Give the Christians credit: it's a David and Goliath. I like underdogs.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 21, 2011)

sync0s said:


> That's because you are weak? Not trying to insult you or anything, but someone who is strong will fight the powers that be and not back down. I'd rather piss my money away funding somebody who means something and doesn't give up than live in a world where everyone just followed the flow and avoided the uphill battles.
> 
> Give the Christians credit: it's a David and Goliath. I like underdogs.


excuse me...it would take a stronger man to stand on his own then to keep with the BS of others...I suggest you go and read my post again and you will see thats exactly what I'm telling Ron Paul to do ...Start his own fucking party...now thats a strong man with a movement...staying with these Repukes when you know they don't respect you nor will give you an honest shot at the nod is weak and stupid...


----------



## beardo (Jul 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> excuse me...it would take a stronger man to stand on his own then to keep with the BS of others...I suggest you go and read my post again and you will see thats exactly what I'm telling Ron Paul to do ...Start his own fucking party...now thats a strong man with a movement...staying with these Repukes when you know they don't respect you nor will give you an honest shot at the nod is weak and stupid...


 You are wrong-and Paul did start his own partys- Libratarian and tea
he is running repub so he has a chance of being president and a chance to try and save our countries future.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> excuse me...it would take a stronger man to stand on his own then to keep with the BS of others...I suggest you go and read my post again and you will see thats exactly what I'm telling Ron Paul to do ...Start his own fucking party...now thats a strong man with a movement...staying with these Repukes when you know they don't respect you nor will give you an honest shot at the nod is weak and stupid...


Actually, in the view of marketing himself and his ideas, it's not so stupid. You know how much money the libertarians have to raise just to get their names on ballots? How about how hard it is to participate in debates, or get on the news? He's using the Republican party as a grounds for marketing himself, and if he loses the nomination he will hopefully run independent again.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 22, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Actually, in the view of marketing himself and his ideas, it's not so stupid. You know how much money the libertarians have to raise just to get their names on ballots? How about how hard it is to participate in debates, or get on the news? He's using the Republican party as a grounds for marketing himself, and if he loses the nomination he will hopefully run independent again.


I'm sorry for some reason I thought Ron Paul was a movement that A LOT of people would get behind...I didn't realize that he would not be able to raise enough money and ignite that Libertarian Party like he did in 1988..I hope you do realize that the Libertarian Party did have a candidate on the ballot for the 2008 elections ( not 50 states for that was only done in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 but as we see it can be done)...and please understand it will not be IF he loses the Repuke nomination but when...Ron Paul can't even seem to keep his Tea Party Movement..He let the likes of Michele Bachmann steal it away from him..now he just seems like a tired old man begging to be heard..going on any show even if it makes a fool out of him...Ron Paul needs to realize that the Republican party has never forgot how he back stabbed them in 1988 and will never let him get that nod...again a true movement would raise on its own and become something more then what he is now...but instead Ron Paul seems to be fading away....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 22, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm sorry for some reason I thought Ron Paul was a movement that A LOT of people would get behind...I didn't realize that he would not be able to raise enough money and ignite that Libertarian Party like he did in 1988..I hope you do realize that the Libertarian Party did have a candidate on the ballot for the 2008 elections ( not 50 states for that was only done in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 but as we see it can be done)...and please understand it will not be IF he loses the nomination but when...Ron Paul can't even seem to keep his Tea Party Movement..He let the likes of Michele Bachmann steal it away from him..now he just seems like a tired old man begging to be heard..going on any show even if it makes a fool out of him...Ron Paul needs to realize that the Republican party has never forgot how he back stabbed them in 1988 and well never let him get that nod...again a true movement would raise on its own and become something more then what he is now...but instead Ron Paul seems to be fading away....


excellent post!

ron paul ran as an independent last year, he got about 0.00032% of the vote.

the libertarian, bob barr, got about .00398% of the vote 

ross perot got over 18% of the vote running as an independent in 1992 

ron paul is fading away......


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 22, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm sorry for some reason I thought Ron Paul was a movement that A LOT of people would get behind...I didn't realize that he would not be able to raise enough money and ignite that Libertarian Party like he did in 1988..I hope you do realize that the Libertarian Party did have a candidate on the ballot for the 2008 elections ( not 50 states for that was only done in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 but as we see it can be done)...and please understand it will not be IF he loses the Repuke nomination but when...Ron Paul can't even seem to keep his Tea Party Movement..He let the likes of Michele Bachmann steal it away from him..now he just seems like a tired old man begging to be heard..going on any show even if it makes a fool out of him...Ron Paul needs to realize that the Republican party has never forgot how he back stabbed them in 1988 and will never let him get that nod...again a true movement would raise on its own and become something more then what he is now...but instead Ron Paul seems to be fading away....


The Republican party is changing the game plan towards Libertarian ideas. This is a big part of Ron Paul's goals. I honestly don't think he even wants to be POTUS, why would anyone? It is a shit job, low pay(he'd make as much as a doctor), half the country is going to hate you even if you walk on water. He wants to fix the problems and that's why he is in the Republican party now. Whether Ron Paul becomes POTUS or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that he turns a portion of American's towards freedom and responsibility. He is doing that and will leave his mark on politics. Ron Paul is a man of conviction who is will to stand up for his beliefs even if it doesn't help his political career. Have you ever seen anyone in in our government go and say they have no respect for him? His son doesn't excite me like Ron Paul does, but he is his son, and his fathers words have to be rolling around in there somewhere. He will be around for the next 20-30 years. Maybe he will be the new Ron Paul. You know, the only one in the entire place who votes based on his beliefs and votes the same on the same issue every time he votes. That is probably wishful thinking though.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 22, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> excellent post!
> 
> ron paul ran as an independent last year, he got about 0.00032% of the vote.
> 
> ...


 Ha you will laugh when i tell you this story.
Last election i voted for Ralph Nader, because i didn't like any of the other candidates, i did not know anything about Ron Paul whatsoever (allot of people didn't). 
He had gone completely unrecognized by me. I found out about Dr.paul not to long after Barry became president elect, i know 100% Ron Paul has my vote and the rest of my family/friends vote. = 250+ people that i personally know very well, are voting for the man, most of which did not even vote at all last election, because of the sour candidates, an even smaller percentage actually voted for McCain and Soetoro. There is that big of a difference this time around in Dr.pauls favor. Still a year and a half away from the 2012 election the only people i see driving around with 2012 campaign bumper stickers are those that state (ron paul 2012). 
The difference between last election and this, is he is the true front runner for the republican party. It is quite evident, he ran this time after contemplating even running in the first place, because he saw how the country is massively learning about who Paul is and they are demanding him.
So please explain what this "Ron Paul is fading away" mumbo jumbo is?


----------



## sync0s (Jul 22, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm sorry for some reason I thought Ron Paul was a movement that A LOT of people would get behind...I didn't realize that he would not be able to raise enough money and ignite that Libertarian Party like he did in 1988..I hope you do realize that the Libertarian Party did have a candidate on the ballot for the 2008 elections ( not 50 states for that was only done in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 but as we see it can be done)...and please understand it will not be IF he loses the Repuke nomination but when...Ron Paul can't even seem to keep his Tea Party Movement..He let the likes of Michele Bachmann steal it away from him..now he just seems like a tired old man begging to be heard..going on any show even if it makes a fool out of him...Ron Paul needs to realize that the Republican party has never forgot how he back stabbed them in 1988 and will never let him get that nod...again a true movement would raise on its own and become something more then what he is now...but instead Ron Paul seems to be fading away....


I did realize, I voted for him. Clever using the size on the words fading away.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 22, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I did realize, I voted for him. Clever using the size on the words fading away.


you voted for Bob Barr ?????


----------



## sync0s (Jul 22, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you voted for Bob Barr ?????


I know, I know. Showing support for the libertarians, I didn't like the other candidates and I don't believe in not voting. I didn't know about Ron Paul at the time. I actually didn't know much about Barr, but I liked Root (his running mate).

I am shamed.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 23, 2011)

I write in Donald duck every time. I blame all of you for not voting the right "person" into office.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

I just discovered this thread and I cannot even begin to exclaim how happy I am to discover this post and the number of pages it has created in less than 8 weeks. I am going to use the material in post #1 for all my links now, thanks to the OP for that. 

I'm sick of corporate America, I'm sick of the bipartisan system, I'm sick of the media guiding the cow eyed mob of America, return to Liberty, return to our founding, Make America great again. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has been 100% honest and transparent since day #1. Truthfully I believe the mass of America does not deserve such a great leader, but I can only pray that in the next 18 people spread the word and open up America's eyes.. 

I feel like this is a situation similar to the Matrix paradigm, Ron Paul being our Morpheus, it's sadly a very relevant analogy. 

Needless to say I've had a Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker on my car since months before he even announced his presidential bid!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I feel like this is a situation similar to the Matrix paradigm, Ron Paul being our Morpheus, it's sadly a very relevant analogy.


and you ron paul worshippers wonder why we call you brainwashed cultists.

ron paul is 'the chosen one'!

LOL!


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and you ron paul worshippers wonder why we call you brainwashed cultists.
> 
> ron paul is 'the chosen one'!
> 
> LOL!


You know somehow I was expecting that, strange. I'm willing to bet you won't find hardly any (if at all any) Ron Paul supporters who don't know at least half of his policies. Very contradictory to the countless number of people who when interviewed on why the support per say Obama when asked which polices they liked either couldn't name even 1 or could be given policies from any candidate of a different party and agree wholeheartedly. Now call me estranged but I would say that is brainwashed. 

Or believing the America can continue a 14.3 trillion dollar debt, haven't we as Americans learned our lesson on debt already? Why can we not apply the same principles we use to conserve our money on our government? Why can we NOT follow the constitution? A constitution which IS the longest standing formally introduced constitution of any country period. Now we are not obeying our laws set out by our founders and look where we are. 

It is when you make personal attacks like that that I loose faith in our countrymen, stop relying on emotion and go look at the videos, and congressional rulings yourself. at this point I don't agree with all of Dr. Paul's civic beliefs ie: abortion but that's a non issue when our country is about to go bottom up in debt and corruption.

as far as the Matrix analogy, is it really that far fetched of a general idea? A nation of people fooled into believing something forced their throats through a sourced of controlled media of otherwise? And just a select few standing out and believing in liberty and freedoms given to us by our constitution? Federal governemnt shouldn't manage our lives, many of the regulations they try to enforce should be state responsibility. I also find it hard to believe that you being a member of a pro marijuana forum might not see the issue between state and federal laws and the scandal that is incurred.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> You know somehow I was expecting that, strange. I'm willing to bet you won't find hardly any (if at all any) Ron Paul supporters who don't know at least half of his policies. Very contradictory to the countless number of people who when interviewed on why the support per say Obama when asked which polices they liked either couldn't name even 1 or could be given policies from any candidate of a different party and agree wholeheartedly. Now call me estranged but I would say that is brainwashed.
> 
> Or believing the America can continue a 14.3 trillion dollar debt, haven't we as Americans learned our lesson on debt already? Why can we not apply the same principles we use to conserve our money on our government? Why can we NOT follow the constitution? A constitution which IS the longest standing formally introduced constitution of any country period. Now we are not obeying our laws set out by our founders and look where we are.
> 
> ...


you make a lot of assumptions and very few are true.

ron paul is still polling at about 7% 

he garnered a whopping 0.00032% of the vote last time around.

yet the politics section is flooded with threads about the old turtle fucker.

do all 40,000 or so people who actually support ron paul with their vote all hang out on political forums of pot websites?

::


----------



## deprave (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I just discovered this thread and I cannot even begin to exclaim how happy I am to discover this post and the number of pages it has created in less than 8 weeks. I am going to use the material in post #1 for all my links now, thanks to the OP for that.
> 
> I'm sick of corporate America, I'm sick of the bipartisan system, I'm sick of the media guiding the cow eyed mob of America, return to Liberty, return to our founding, Make America great again. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has been 100% honest and transparent since day #1. Truthfully I believe the mass of America does not deserve such a great leader, but I can only pray that in the next 18 people spread the word and open up America's eyes..
> 
> ...


 Thanks for stopping by my thread and for your kind words, wish I had more time to chat right now but I gotta go, checkout my blog freedomftw.net for more info, ignore the angry trolls


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> he garnered a whopping 0.00032% of the vote last time around.


Hard to get votes when your not on the ballot. He had over 1 million votes nation wide in the primaries. Go troll somewhere else.

Loving this thread deprave. Nice work!! I am working on my 5 people! Also trying to get them all to get 5 people out in the primaries!! RP2012!!


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you make a lot of assumptions and very few are true.


Please indulge me. Show me what isn't true if you believe so, post links, videos, evidence. 

I can easily find videos of countless people who polled Obama supporters who didn't have a clue. sad to say alot of them are in my age range (kids) 
I may not be correct on our constitution being the oldest still standing but I'm pretty sure I am. 

Sure he's polling at 7% (wherever that number came from, MSNBC perhaps?? ) , that's against corporate sponsored goons like Mitt Romney and Guilliana (however the fvck it's spelled). But in head to head polls if it was him or Obama he's pretty damn close, sorry that's beyond the point.. 

As they said, he wasn't on the ballot, hard to garner votes like that ehh?? 

You know it makes since tha the politics section of a pot growing forum WOULD be flooded by the only presidential candidate who DOES support marijuana legalization doesn't it, why do you have to be a smart ass? That's not even one of the big reasons why I support him but it's a definite plus. And I would venture to say the with nearly 5000 posts under your username since March 2010 that you either troll all the time or have some stake in the marijuana community albeit whehter growing or running a dispensary etc etc. So why wouldn't you like a guy who wants to FED to butt out of state affairs? You know no matter what the state laws says the Federal govt will walk right over it and through you door if they decided they wanted too. 

Look you can keep trolling and posting snobby and ignorant remarks reading off numbers that the media puts out to discredit Ron Paul and I'll do this tango all day, but if you come here with some good facts and links to support them I'll hear you out.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> Hard to get votes when your not on the ballot. He had over 1 million votes nation wide in the primaries. Go troll somewhere else.
> 
> Loving this thread deprave. Nice work!! I am working on my 5 people! Also trying to get them all to get 5 people out in the primaries!! RP2012!!


how hard is it to write "ron paul" on a piece of paper? 

the bell tolled and 40,000 or so people answered.

how is pointing out factual information trolling? am i upsetting you by reminding you about facts concerning your god and hero?


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how hard is it to write "ron paul" on a piece of paper?
> 
> the bell tolled and 40,000 or so people answered.
> 
> how is pointing out factual information trolling? am i upsetting you by reminding you about facts concerning your god and hero?


blah, blah, troll, troll. This bowl of Orange Kush is for you troll. We both know write in votes dont count in much of the country, and even if they do count they seem to get "lost". You cant explain over 1 million votes in the primaries when he WAS on the ballot though can you???


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Sure he's polling at 7% (wherever that number came from, MSNBC perhaps?? )


all of the polls have him at about 7%. nice attempt to try to blame it on that "liberal media" (boo hoo). if only the liberal media were to get out of the way, people would "wake up" and "open their eyes" and join your silly little cult.



hazyintentions said:


> As they said, he wasn't on the ballot, hard to garner votes like that ehh??


i thought you ron paul cultists were the smart, informed ones. so how hard could it be for some intelligent human beings to scribble "ron paul" on a piece of paper?

it is not some sisyphean ordeal, ya know 



hazyintentions said:


> You know it makes since tha the politics section of a pot growing forum WOULD be flooded by the only presidential candidate who DOES support marijuana legalization doesn't it, why do you have to be a smart ass?


kucinich supports legalization, why is there no thread urging him to run independent or challenge obama? he has about as much of a chance as ron paul does 

and you left out gary johnson. he is an official candidate and supports cannabis re-legalization.

it makes "since"? what the fuck are you trying to say?



hazyintentions said:


> So why wouldn't you like a guy who wants to FED to butt out of state affairs?


i'll ask you the same question i asked the JBS wingnut the other day: can you name one strong nation that does not have a central bank?



hazyintentions said:


> Look you can keep trolling and posting snobby and ignorant remarks reading off numbers that the media puts out to discredit Ron Paul...


woah!

i had no idea scientific polls conducted by multiple independent companies was somehow a media conspiracy to silence ron paul 

i had no idea the results of the 2008 presidential election were a conspiracy to discredit ron paul 

you had no idea that there are other candidates who support re-legalization, yet i am the one making ignorant remarks? 

LOL!

so funny how anyone that does not worship at the altar of ron paul is automatically labeled a troll. just about as funny as the media conspiracy to discredit him that you speak of.

fucking GRAND.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> blah, blah, troll, troll. This bowl of Orange Kush is for you troll. We both know write in votes dont count in much of the country, and even if they do count they seem to get "lost". You cant explain over 1 million votes in the primaries when he WAS on the ballot though can you???


if he got all those 1 million votes in the general election, he would have scored a pathetic less than 1% 

please show me what states do not allow write in votes. please, i'll be waiting.

again, anyone who does not worship at the altar of ron paul is a troll  that is just about as funny as not allowing write in votes.


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

Unclebuck why don't you supply some links to support claims you make. What poll shows RP at 7%? You are a troll because you make unsupported claims.

From the Boston Globe on June, 5 2008.

"With the Republican primaries over as well this week, Ron Paul easily passed the 1 million vote mark."

THATS EASILY OVER 1 MILLION IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. I know a ton of democrats who would of voted for him in a general election too, so put that number WAY over 1 million RP supporters.

LINK: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/paul_racking_up.html


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

A write-in vote is not worthless in States that do not have a Sore Loser Law, 14 I believe. ALL other states require a write in vote to be registered to be counted. RP did not register because he pulled out of the race after the GOP convention because he had a local race to win. Therefor in all other states his write ins WERE NOT COUNTED!!


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

Wish I could share that bowl of Orange Kush my friend ! 

To the troll, Why are you still referring back to the 2008 election? That's old news, I sadly didn't even know of Ron Paul then. And in that lies the problem. 

I'm not denying that he got a miniscule % but I'm hoping america learns it's lesson. I'm willing to bet my entire life's earnings that if every single American was given a DVD or otherwise equal piece of information where every known and unknown candidates history, background, policies, beliefs, vote history, and affiliations etc where made transparent and un biased Ron Paul would see a staggering number of supporters. But as I said it's history now, what bugs me is that you are simply belligerently calling names and pointing out useless fact from 3 years ago and not even trying to discuss why you don't like him, what policy of his offends you? Instead I expect another non thought out and short handed reply from you. 

You keep saying god, he's not my god, he is my hero, he has stood up for his beliefs against all odds and every major news network, he has NEVER voted against what he said, he is always speaking out for what he campaigns for. In my eyes I call that an honest man, the only one of any of the candidates running. That's more than I can say for any other viable presidential material, Obama rode the media wave on his way to office, McCain was basically pushed in the faces of American citizens. This time around it's this Mitt Romney fucker. I bet that's who you support isn't it? 

In lue of Romney is is a super relevant video for you. [video=youtube;Rlz8zQoLs1s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rlz8zQoLs1s[/video]

If anyone is a turtle fucking whatever you said it's that guy.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> Unclebuck why don't you supply some links to support claims you make. What poll shows RP at 7%? You are a troll because you make unsupported claims.


sorry, i figured any intelligent human being should be able to type a few words into google.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> A write-in vote is not worthless in States that do not have a Sore Loser Law, 14 I believe. ALL other states require a write in vote to be registered to be counted. RP did not register because he pulled out of the race after the GOP convention because he had a local race to win. Therefor in all other states his write ins WERE NOT COUNTED!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore-loser_law



> In United States politics, a sore-loser law is a law which states that the loser in a primary election can't then run as an independent in the general election.[1] These laws do not apply to presidential candidates. Many states accomplish the same requirement by having simultaneous registration dates for the primary and the general election; in fact only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, New York and Vermont don't have either a sore-loser law or simultaneous registration deadlines.


wtf are you talking about?

they even counted votes for santa claus and donald duck, who were not even official candidates for president.

your claims are false.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> ...McCain was basically pushed in the faces of American citizens...


how so? people voted for him in the primaries. he got more votes than the next guy.

just because people don't care for ron paul and do not vote for him does not a conspiracy make.


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> sorry, i figured any intelligent human being should be able to type a few words into google.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html


Reviewing those numbers, I see the dire trouble this country is in. Also, You fail to mention that RP is pretty much even with everyone except Romney at the minute. For Sarah Palin to be leading any poll is a disgrace. So your a Romney supporter? Its all starting to make sense....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> Reviewing those numbers, I see the dire trouble this country is in. Also, You fail to mention that RP is pretty much even with everyone except Romney at the minute. For Sarah Palin to be leading any poll is a disgrace. So your a Romney supporter? Its all starting to make sense....


7.8 and 13.5 are "even"?

that is the type of fact one would learn in junior college.

and actually, if i had to swoop a turd out of the shit-pool of GOP candidates, i would take gary johnson or jon huntsman all day long, rather than the squirrel turd who wears adult diapers and violates turtles.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

You know what, fine Ron Paul is at 7%. It's a clear consequence of people on TV shows who act just like you with snide insults and run over what people are saying with little to no acknowledgement. Maybe you should look back at the very first post of this page and go through the links at the bottom, then honestly come back and tell us that they are giving Ron Paul just as much of a chance as Obama or Romney?? 

So time out for one second, who do YOU support? Please tell me, if an always honest 12 term congressman who has voted the same for his entire life defending our liberties protected by the constitution isn't a good canidate then who is? Please before you continue I truly want to know.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> So time out for one second, who do YOU support?


not ron paul 

you just want to try to turn this little exchange of ours into a "your guy sucks worse than mine" thing.

let's keep this focused on ron paul the turtle fucker and his rag-tag bunch of cult-like worshippers.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

Congressman Ron Paul may be a long shot to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he runs competitively with President Obama right now.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Paul picking up 37% of the vote, while the president earns 41%. The Texas congressman joins Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry as candidates within hailing distance of the president at this time.
Rudy Giuliani is another potential candidate who is considered a long shot for the nomination but is competitive with the president. The former mayor of New York City trails Obama by five, 44% to 39%.
But the real story in the numbers is that the president continues to earn between 41% and 49% of the vote no matter which Republican is mentioned as a potential opponent. This suggests that the race remains a referendum on the incumbent more than anything else.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Congressman Ron Paul may be a long shot to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he runs competitively with President Obama right now.
> The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Paul picking up 37% of the vote, while the president earns 41%. The Texas congressman joins Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry as candidates within hailing distance of the president at this time.
> Rudy Giuliani is another potential candidate who is considered a long shot for the nomination but is competitive with the president. The former mayor of New York City trails Obama by five, 44% to 39%.
> But the real story in the numbers is that the president continues to earn between 41% and 49% of the vote no matter which Republican is mentioned as a potential opponent. This suggests that the race remains a referendum on the incumbent more than anything else.


nice copy and paste!

irrelevant though, as ron paul stands almost ZERO chance at getting the GOP nod. 

also, fluoridated water is a conspiracy to give us chemical lobotomies that make us passive and turn us into nazi germany.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> nice copy and paste!
> 
> irrelevant though, as ron paul stands almost ZERO chance at getting the GOP nod.
> 
> also, fluoridated water is a conspiracy to give us chemical lobotomies that make us passive and turn us into nazi germany.


 and just because you say so, it is?


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> not ron paul
> 
> you just want to try to turn this little exchange of ours into a "your guy sucks worse than mine" thing.
> 
> let's keep this focused on ron paul the turtle fucker and his rag-tag bunch of cult-like worshippers.


Yeah I just wanna make snide remarks and use bad grammar to defend my case. Wait one second, that seems to be you. 

I would have to say that for you to invest so heavily into this thread you must have a person in mind that you want to lead our country, so I ask you again, who (if anyone) do you support? Not "if you had to choose". 

So what if you can google and find some numbers from polls, it just proves that our country isn't in favor of policies such as immediately ending the three wars overseas, cutting spending, cutting government, cutting out the Federal Reserve, and letting state decide drug laws. Or at least that what those media held polls would say. 

If you want numbers what about Ron Paul winning almost every (albeit only a couple) 08' republican debate he was involved in?? If not coming in a close 2nd or 3rd.


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

Actually if you scroll through the different polls, they are all different. In some RP is 2nd behind Romney. You cant pick and choose which numbers you see. 



UncleBuck said:


> 7.8 and 13.5 are "even"?
> 
> that is the type of fact one would learn in junior college.
> 
> and actually, if i had to swoop a turd out of the shit-pool of GOP candidates, i would take gary johnson or jon huntsman all day long, rather than the squirrel turd who wears adult diapers and violates turtles.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> ...who (if anyone) do you support?


are you dense?

i already answered "not ron paul".



hazyintentions said:


> If you want numbers what about Ron Paul winning almost every (albeit only a couple) 08' republican debate he was involved in?? If not coming in a close 2nd or 3rd.


what polls said that? and didn't you say who cares what happened three years ago?

lots of ron paul worshippers wanted to say that ron paul won the two debates this year by ridiculous margins such as 70%-80% based on the results of online polls that his cult-like worshippers flooded. 

you should spend less time spewing your ron paul propaganda to me and start working on getting the scratch together for junior college.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> Actually if you scroll through the different polls, they are all different. In some RP is 2nd behind Romney. You cant pick and choose which numbers you see.


they average them out and choose the most recent and relevant ones.

ron paul has not broken the 8% mark at any time using any combination of polls. i have been following them fairly closely. ron paul is fading away...


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> are you dense?
> 
> i already answered "not ron paul".
> 
> ...



Yeah I'm dense, I wasn't aware there was a candidate named "Not Ron Paul" . Interesting, the you would call me dense when I haven't seen you even bother to capitalize one sentence, yet you use partial punctuation. You are just real rebel aren't you? 

And sure, maybe you got me, it doesn't matter now but you wanted numbers so there you go. You know I would love to just sprawl you out in a full nelson simply for being an ass. In fact I'm quite enjoying this conversation, please tell me about my turtle swooning demi god that I worship, I'm learning so much about myself.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> ...I wasn't aware there was a candidate named "Not Ron Paul"...


there is a candidate named 'ron paul', and i do not support him for reasons already named in this thread.

i am not going to play this game that you want to play.



hazyintentions said:


> ...You know I would love to just sprawl you out in a full nelson simply for being an ass...


i thought ron paul supporters were adamantly opposed to violence? just a bunch of anti-war, pro-drug hippies that are opposed to taxation "at the end of the barrel of a gun".

yet you also say you enjoy this...so i'm confused. are you saying you enjoy being riled to the point of assault?


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

If the polls were actually right, Obama wouldn't be our president would he.. You can hide behind your computer screen and troll political forums all you want trying to make people who are supporting something and trying to do something about it, into something they are not. You have wasted enough of my time. I wont waste my time calling names and trying to defend ron paul to someone who obviously has no interest in learning the truth. My advice to you would be to read through this forum, and watch the videos on the first post. Maybe you will open your eyes one day. But I am better off using my time trying to do something to make a difference, then sit here and argue with a troll. You are being brainwashed by a media machine, one day you will see it. So thats it from me uncle buck, have a good day. 



UncleBuck said:


> they average them out and choose the most recent and relevant ones.
> 
> ron paul has not broken the 8% mark at any time using any combination of polls. i have been following them fairly closely. ron paul is fading away...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> Maybe you will open your eyes one day.


yet another ron paul supporter who claims the rest of us just need to "open our eyes".

un-fucking-canny. you can't even make this shit up.


----------



## undertheice (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and you ron paul worshipers wonder why we call you brainwashed cultists.
> ron paul is 'the chosen one'!


what's wrong buck, are the paul disciples horning in on the obama cultists' turf? every once in a while we find a candidate that we hope will be willing to step outside of the status quo, saving us from the mess we have allowed our government to make of the nation. the more out of control our situation becomes, the more often we try to paste that label on someone. a few scant years ago, before he proved himself to be not only a bumbling tyro, but just another politician as well, some believed that bam bam was just such a man. many have now transferred that hope to dr. paul. such people are always belittled by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and by those, like you, who feel that such a change may endanger their chosen agenda.

there's a good chance that paul is just another pretender, but the possibility of bringing this country back to its original path is tempting. the problems engendered by mainstream politicians and our false two party system have created the perfect environment for these myths to grow. 



UncleBuck said:


> how hard is it to write "ron paul" on a piece of paper?
> the bell tolled and 40,000 or so people answered.


you know perfectly well that no write in candidate gets more than a handful of votes and harping on those results only shows you rabid partisanship and fear. even in the face of polls showing dr.paul significantly behind any of the other players in this game, you still seem to see him as enough of a threat to attempt to vilify him. could it be that his steadily growing popularity might spell a possible end to our decline into the socialistic swamp of the liberal establishment's wet dreams? the rise of the tea party and of dr. paul, the failure of liberal policies and the massive divisions within the democratic party itself give hope to those who are tired of watching the nation's ethos disintegrate.

as much as i distrust polls, there was one the other day that i found interesting. it was a rassmussen poll that compared the sentiment toward obama and dr. paul alone, no other candidates were included. it found our present pretender to the throne only a few points ahead of a candidate portrayed by the media as a member of the lunatic fringe. if these numbers are even close to the reality of the situation, imagine what they might be if paul's platform were given an honest mainstream voice.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> there is a candidate named 'ron paul', and i do not support him for reasons already named in this thread.
> 
> i am not going to play this game that you want to play.
> 
> ...


You have mentioned no legitimate reasons for your opposition to Ron Paul, unless you think "he's a turtle fucker" qualifies as a reason. 
As for your second statement I can only laugh. 

So I am straight, your intentions seems to be to attack Ron Paul and his supporters because he's a turtle fucker and his supporters are a mob of anti war hippies who form an online cult so that they can throw polls. 

You know, I enjoy reading your idiotic insults and remarks. I enjoy watching you coming into this thread and creating a grounds to insult people simply because I compared the plot of a movie to our present day political scene thinking your completely righteous in your resolve, in the end I think your getting a hard one watching your post count go up, pretty close to 5000 about now, do you want a cookie? 

So for "my game" I don't recall reading your post where your explained the policies your against.

thank you, undertheice, you said exactly what I couldn't put into words.. and did a very elegant job at it as well


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> t...i do not support him for reasons already named in this thread.





hazyintentions said:


> You have mentioned no legitimate reasons for your opposition to Ron Paul...


or perhaps it is that you can not read.



hazyintentions said:


> ...unless you think "he's a turtle fucker" qualifies as a reason.


he has left behind evidence from some of his forays. would you vote for a man who fucks turtles?

[video=youtube;leYuJ4KkAuA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leYuJ4KkAuA[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

undertheice said:


> what's wrong buck, are the paul disciples horning in on the obama cultists' turf?


they take it to an entirely new level.

"ron paul is like neo in the matrix" 



undertheice said:


> you know perfectly well that no write in candidate gets more than a handful of votes









she not only got a handful, she got the most 

what is even funnier is that her tea party opponent who railed against the fed gov at every chance then went running to the fed gov to try to win the election 



undertheice said:


> even in the face of polls showing dr.paul significantly behind any of the other players in this game, you still seem to see him as enough of a threat to attempt to vilify him.


not at all, my long-winded, blatherskite friend.

i jumped in to express my astonishment at the deification given to the turtle fucker by his cult-like worshippers.

remember back when deprave was saying that ron paul will give us all raises? this is the type of infantile worship that i like to mock. no difference this go around.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> there is a candidate named 'ron paul', and i do not support him for reasons already named in this thread.
> 
> i am not going to play this game that you want to play.
> 
> ...


Red Herring. Answer his question UB.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they take it to an entirely new level.
> 
> "ron paul is like neo in the matrix"
> 
> ...


So someone either purposefully or accidentally dropped/planted that Ron Paul sign in an aquarium and that's what your going on. 

And then you proceed to try and give write in votes viability because of some obscure smaller scale (in comparison to a presidential election) election? I don't understand you, I feel as if your only trying to ave a dick measuring contest on who can pull more out of the google search engine. 

Who said Ron Paul was going to give us raises? please quote that  Last time I checked he is all about people working for themselves and depending entirely on themselves. 

Anyways, who cares if you follow polls closely? That just goes to show that you aren't researching into the candidates policies only finding out which one's are developing more political favor so you can lean for the guy already leading? That's the vibe I'm getting here. I don't care who the person is, if they show a consistently honest voting record of support for small government, sound money, fiscal responsibility, and a non interventionist foreign policy then they got my vote.

Once again, why do you oppose Ron Paul and who do you favor instead? 

By the way, congrats on your 5000th post. You should be a god.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Red Herring. Answer his question UB.


I like that, nice wordplay sir


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

Uncle buck is voting for barry soetoro, its no freaking mystery.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> So someone either purposefully or accidentally dropped/planted that Ron Paul sign in an aquarium and that's what your going on.


actually, i took a poll...

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/444247-ron-paul-turtle-fucker.html

18 said he does fuck turtles, 12 said he doesn't.



hazyintentions said:


> And then you proceed to try and give write in votes viability because of some obscure smaller scale (in comparison to a presidential election) election? I don't understand you, I feel as if your only trying to ave a dick measuring contest on who can pull more out of the google search engine.


i had no idea a senate election, which only takes place every 6 years instead of 4, and which puts into power the people that actually wrote the legislation rather than sign it or veto it, was "obscure smaller scale".

and i didn't need google to know that murkowski won as a write-in not about 8 months ago 



hazyintentions said:


> Who said Ron Paul was going to give us raises? please quote that...


the thread is closed, but check post #11 by deprave 

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/437355-ron-paul-june-5-money.html



hazyintentions said:


> Anyways, who cares if you follow polls closely? That just goes to show that you aren't researching into the candidates policies only finding out which one's are developing more political favor so you can lean for the guy already leading? That's the vibe I'm getting here.


again, more assumptions that couldn't be more wrong.



hazyintentions said:


> Once again, why do you oppose Ron Paul and who do you favor instead?


for the Nth time, the reasons i oppose ron paul are well documented within this thread! go fucking read, i can not read for you. reading will be a key competency in junior college (high school with an ashtray).

go check post #2261. jesus fucking christ.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Uncle buck is voting for barry soetoro, its no freaking mystery.


i'd vote for a broken lawnmower if ron paul were the other option.

also, fluoride.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'd vote for a broken lawnmower if ron paul were the other option.
> 
> also, fluoride.


Sounds like a personal vendetta to me. What'd he do turtle protector?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

I would absolutely vote that turtle fucker into office any day over nation rapists.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Sounds like a personal vendetta to me. What'd he do turtle protector?


tried to say the current state of america is the same thing as the holocaust in which my wife lost family members.

be a conspiracy nut all you want, but don't be a holocaust denier or holocaust mitigator unless you want to incur my full wrath.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I would absolutely vote that turtle fucker into office any day over nation rapists.


big girls like america need love too, even if it is somewhat non consensual. some chicks get off on rape fantasies, ya know.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

For fuck sake UncleBuck, oh hey that rhymed  What was I saying Oh yeah. I read post #11, if you knew how to read between the lines ( a concept learned in like 7th grade) you would know that when deprave said that he was referring to stopping the Fed from continuously printing money ( which devalues the dollar, more dollars means they are worth less, once again basic economics, 10th grade I believe) it would put a halt on one of the many factors causing the decline of the American dollar. Can you grasp that concept or do I need to drew it in crayon for you? 

Post #2261 by unclebuck



> *7.8 and 13.5 are "even"?
> 
> that is the type of fact one would learn in junior college.
> 
> and actually, if i had to swoop a turd out of the shit-pool of GOP candidates, i would take gary johnson or jon huntsman all day long, rather than the squirrel turd who wears adult diapers and violates turtles. *


Yeah yeah I see now, there's plenty of reasons to make Ron Paul the devil. 






UncleBuck said:


> tried to say the current state of america is the same thing as the holocaust in which my wife lost family members.
> 
> be a conspiracy nut all you want, but don't be a holocaust denier or holocaust mitigator unless you want to incur my full wrath.


Ut ohh , we don't wanna make em' mad, scaryyy!! What are you gonna do, slander my screenname and spam this thread for the next 18 months? Please. 

Your belief that somehow Ron Paul relates america to the holocaust is completely belligerent. I would love to see that quote as well. I have heard of him mentioning that we have adopting some of the same foreign policies and Hitler's regime. You know, 700+ military bases across the world, something like 1 trillion dollars spent maintaining those. That's what I think your referring too. 

I may say, you seem to have nothing better to do with your Saturday than to trolls through treads about candidates your obviously don't like throwing around insults and trying to call everyone an ignorant anti war hippy who are all part of some underground cult. 

On the point of war, did you know that more people overseas (armed forces ) donate/support Ron Paul's policies to withdraw immediately than anyone else? Or that he is the only GOP candidate who is an actual Veteran? What now tough guy, you gonna call all the brave folks over seas hippies and morons too? Did you go over there and serve? Honestly.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Your belief that somehow Ron Paul relates america to the holocaust is completely belligerent.


ummm, what? where the fuck did i say that? where the fuck did you even get that idea? i said your fellow ron paul worshipper tryingtogrow89 stated that modern day america is like nazi germany where the holocaust took place.

you are perfectly cut out for junior college with that stellar reading comprehension 



hazyintentions said:


> I have heard of him mentioning that we have adopting some of the same foreign policies and Hitler's regime. You know, 700+ military bases across the world, something like 1 trillion dollars spent maintaining those.


rounding people into concentration camps based on political or religious beliefs, too?

get a fucking grip. we are nothing like nazi germany.



hazyintentions said:


> On the point of war, did you know that more people overseas (armed forces ) donate/support Ron Paul's policies to withdraw immediately than anyone else?


yet so few of them actually vote for him. even if all 40,000 votes he got last time around were from armed forces, that would still mean a majority of them supported other candidates. 

you are right though. i have little better to do today than laze around the greenhouse in my adirondack chair which my wife just got me for our anniversary and make ron paul cultists look like the cultists that they are. what a beautiful life. cold beer in one hand, fat cat being petted by the other, sun above shining on my plants. fucking paradise.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

I'm happy for you, hope it makes your dick bigger. From this point on your point of view no longer matters to me, you brought up the holocaust I simply followed up, twisting things in your favor is well just that, enjoy your beer, enjoy your wife, sit abck and don't hurt yourself while typing. Happy trolling!


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> tried to say the current state of america is the same thing as the holocaust in which my wife lost family members.
> 
> be a conspiracy nut all you want, but don't be a holocaust denier or holocaust mitigator unless you want to incur my full wrath.


First off, i'm sorry that my ancestors did her ancestors like they did. i would PERSONALLY execute those animals.


With all due respect UB, i don't believe it is currently but if one looks at the current(last decade and beyond) legislation and actions that our government is taking and compare them with the known history of the actions of Nazi Germany(Germany is my heritage and family participated, still fucked up dealing with that one) genocide then one would HAVE to at least entertain the possiblity that we are headed the same direction. The slowly boiling pot coupled with lies and propaganda. Hitler almost had the perfect plan for genocide and control. He just started too early, before the time was right. Thankfully, but early nonetheless imo.

i simply would like to ensure that our government isn't going that direction and that means that i need to know why they are taking the same actions that led up to one of the worst atrocities in history. We're on the same side UB. Different experiences and viewpoints to bring to the table, but working towards the same goal of peace and liberty imo.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

I dislike Ron Paul because he thinks its my right to discriminate at my places of business


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I dislike Ron Paul because he thinks its my right to discriminate at my places of business


Thank you for the straight-forward answer as well. Different view on "personal rights".

*EDIT: And "choice".


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I dislike Ron Paul because he thinks its my right to discriminate at my places of business


 I think you have that right. Better that than gov regulating the hell out of your ass, besides what are you so afraid of? you think if we started allowing businesses to discriminate against color or there lack of or anything else for that matter tomorrow businesses would just start doing it? Further more you think those businesses would even get business if they ran it that way? what reality do you live in? 
This is not the twilight zone.
If given the opportunity, a business starts discriminating against whom ever they please, how much longer you think that place will be getting customers? 
Jesus lets get real here.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I dislike Ron Paul because he thinks its my right to discriminate at my places of business


Is it okay for someone to have African American, or Asian only scholarships?

Is it okay for the NAACP to only defend people who are black?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Is it okay for someone to have African American, or Asian only scholarships?
> 
> Is it okay for the NAACP to only defend people who are black?


 Exactly i cant go to the united college negro fund and ask for a grant? Dont think so, or maybe i can.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Is it okay for someone to have African American, or Asian only scholarships?
> 
> Is it okay for the NAACP to only defend people who are black?


only for the fact for 200 years plus African Americans got such a fuck up deal in this country...Remember it was a time AA were not allowed to fucking even read...so seeing how others had such a wonderful headstart I see nothing wrong it...Without organizations like NAACP people of color would most likely go to schools with no books and poor learning condition...In my lifetime we had to drink out of separate water fountains, denied entry into business and such...so don't complain to me ....bitch at the people that would allow such condition to exist that we would have to do things to even this country up...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> only for the fact for 200 years plus African Americans got such a fuck up deal in this country...Remember it was a time AA were not allowed to fucking even read...so seeing how others had such a wonderful headstart I see nothing wrong it...Without organizations like NAACP people of color would most likely go to schools with no books and poor learning condition...In my lifetime we had to drink out of separate water fountains, denied entry into business and such...so don't complain to me bitch... at the people that would allow such condition to exist that we would have to do things to even this country up...


 Yea well we keep getting as unconstitutional as we are becoming, we will all have the misfortune of no head start, regardless of color or sex, i think you are just too paranoid. When is the last time you went into a school without books? There are plenty of colors, sex, and other peoples who had to overcome misfortune, not just slaves, in fact slaves had a better way of life than when they were freed.
Point being is i dont want to hear that card being played not by blacks not by jews not by Indians not by anyone who ancestry was oppressed in one form or another, shit the white folks from England were peasant slave workers as well so i can play that card if i wanted.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Is it okay for someone to have African American, or Asian only scholarships?
> 
> Is it okay for the NAACP to only defend people who are black?


the naacp is a private organization. they can do what they want accordingly.

just like a private golf course can decide who they allow as members, and if they disallow blacks, that is their prerogative. 

if a business or organization is 'open to the public', that is a different story.

you can start the naawp and give away all the white-only scholarships you want.


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> only for the fact for 200 years plus African Americans got such a fuck up deal in this country...Remember it was a time AA were not allowed to fucking even read...so seeing how others had such a wonderful headstart I see nothing wrong it...Without organizations like NAACP people of color would most likely go to schools with no books and poor learning condition...In my lifetime we had to drink out of separate water fountains, denied entry into business and such...so don't complain to me ....bitch at the people that would allow such condition to exist that we would have to do things to even this country up...


Entitlement personified imo.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ...in fact slaves had a better way of life than when they were freed...


you win the asinine statement of the day award. you will now be placed in the running for asinine statement of the week, month, and year.

really? i mean, really?

having your 7 year old child sold to some plantation, never to see them again, was awesome sauce?

having to labor without pay was fucking fantastic?

being whipped and beaten was just a merry old time?

fuck you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Exactly i cant go to the united college negro fund and ask for a grant? Dont think so, or maybe i can.


what history of persecution, segregation, systematic discrimination, disenfranchisement, racism, bigotry, and violence have you faced as a white male?


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the naacp is a private organization. they can do what they want accordingly.
> 
> just like a private golf course can decide who they allow as members, and if they disallow blacks, that is their prerogative.
> 
> ...


Funny, you ask a question that leads the argument into a paradigm, and the opposition decides to use your earlier arguments.

Private organization, private business, that serves the public. What ever way you choose to look at it.

There actually is white only scholarships (very few), and quite a few black people actually look upon them with anger or disgust. Can't say that I blame them.



londonfog said:


> *only for the fact for 200 years plus African Americans got such a fuck up deal in this country...Remember it was a time AA were not allowed to fucking even read...so seeing how others had such a wonderful headstart I see nothing wrong it...Without organizations like NAACP people of color would most likely go to schools with no books and poor learning condition...In my lifetime we had to drink out of separate water fountains, denied entry into business and such...so don't complain to me ....bitch at the people that would allow such condition to exist that we would have to do things to even this country up...*


*

Using this argument is like the people who are pro-life saying abortion is murder, but we'll extend an exception to that murder rule if you were raped. It's hypocritical.
*


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)




----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Funny, you ask a question that leads the argument into a paradigm, and the opposition decides to use your earlier arguments.
> 
> Private organization, private business, that serves the public. What ever way you choose to look at it.


i'm a member of the public, but for some reason i can't seem to walk onto a private golf course and play.....hmmmmmm.

think harder next time.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> View attachment 1703592View attachment 1703593


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yea well we keep getting as unconstitutional as we are becoming, we will all have the misfortune of no head start, regardless of color or sex, i think you are just too paranoid. When is the last time you went into a school without books? There are plenty of colors, sex, and other peoples who had to overcome misfortune, not just slaves, in fact slaves had a better way of life than when they were freed.
> Point being is i dont want to hear that card being played not by blacks not by jews not by Indians not by anyone who ancestry was oppressed in one form or another, shit the white folks from England were peasant slave workers as well so i can play that card if i wanted.


I don't need a card to play...I speak truth...this country went years and years and years and years of unchecked hatred and racism..now you bitch because the score is becoming even due to changes...Fuck You...and please do tell how bad live was for a white person from England..got a link that I can see...would love to learn something new....you can't began to compare that how people of color were treated...Did you really say slaves had a better way of life when freed..you better go read about "Recontruction"....I wish we could all get along , but when asshat start talking like they know it pisses me off...Tell you what let me know when you or you father get denied service for something due to the color of your skin and then we can talk..


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm a member of the public, but for some reason i can't seem to walk onto a private golf course and play.....hmmmmmm.
> 
> think harder next time.


You are not a member because you have not paid. Why don't you try harder? You weren't denied because of your race. Stop making redundant stretches in order to avoid the point.

londonfog: Is it not oppression to allow a past oppressed race to enjoy special privileges over the others?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you win the asinine statement of the day award. you will now be placed in the running for asinine statement of the week, month, and year.
> 
> really? i mean, really?
> 
> ...


 Now your just putting words in my mouth, i think slaves is a horrible idea, slaves and allot of other ideas in the past are horrible that why we live learn and move on don't turn this into something \its not.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Entitlement personified imo.


you people kill me trying to make a word sound bad...reminds me of "community organizer"


----------



## budlover13 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I don't need a card to play...I speak truth...this country went years and years and years and years of unchecked hatred and racism..now you bitch because the score is becoming even due to changes...Fuck You...and please do tell how bad live was for a white person from England..got a link that I can see...would love to learn something new....you can't began to compare that how people of color were treated...Did you really say slaves had a better way of life when freed..you better go read about "Recontruction"....I wish we could all get along , but when asshat start talking like they know it pisses me off...Tell you what let me know when you or you father get denied service for something due to the color of your skin and then we can talk..


EVEN? *walking away again*


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UB you have spammed this thread since day one, why? IF you do dispise RP and us supporters so much why do you continue to do whatever you possibly can to press people's button? after 231 pages I think you have made your point and are simply here to be a nuisance and nothing more. 

You did say that you don't like his abortion stance, I agree with you at that, luckily it's a non issue because he support letting the states makes those laws, which is kind of the joy of having 50 states, if you don't like one's laws you just hop over to a state that reflects your opinions. Feel me? 

I seem to notice the same issues being argued over and over again, seems like a waste of breath to me.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I don't need a card to play...I speak truth...this country went years and years and years and years of unchecked hatred and racism..now you bitch because the score is becoming even due to changes...Fuck You...and please do tell how bad live was for a white person from England..got a link that I can see...would love to learn something new....you can't began to compare that how people of color were treated...Did you really say slaves had a better way of life when freed..you better go read about "Recontruction"....I wish we could all get along , but when asshat start talking like they know it pisses me off...Tell you what let me know when you or you father get denied service for something due to the color of your skin and then we can talk..


 When did this happen in the 1800's?
I have ancestry from both my english and italian roots that were oppressed, i dont go around sayign oh dear god me my people were oppressed so i have less opportunity now. how does that work? as i said before there are more than just black jews and indians that were oppressed but somehow its always those three races that harp on it. 
Shit illegal mexicans have more rights in this country than my white male ass.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> When did this happen in the 1800's?
> I have ancestry from both my english and italian roots that were oppressed, i dont go around sayign oh dear god me my people were oppressed so i have less opportunity now. how does that work? as i said before there are more than just black jews and indians that were oppressed but somehow its always those three races that harp on it.
> Shit illegal mexicans have more rights in this country than my white male ass.


 Aslo did you directly get told you got denied cause your color? i doubt it unless it was quite some time ago, sounds like a card is being played again to me and your assuming that's why you got denied and that's racist.


----------



## undertheice (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> only for the fact for 200 years plus African Americans got such a fuck up deal in this country...Remember it was a time AA were not allowed to fucking even read...so seeing how others had such a wonderful headstart I see nothing wrong it...Without organizations like NAACP people of color would most likely go to schools with no books and poor learning condition...In my lifetime we had to drink out of separate water fountains, denied entry into business and such...so don't complain to me ....bitch at the people that would allow such condition to exist that we would have to do things to even this country up...


so you are essentially saying that two wrongs make a right, the ends justify the means and the rights of the individual are secondary to the whims of both the state and the mob. you endlessly cite the failures of government to protect its citizens as the very reasons why we should allow the state to interfere in the lives of the people and you seem incapable of understanding the idiocy of that rationale. you don't seem to mind the racism inherent in programs like affirmative action simply because somewhere in the past there is a chance that government failed to do its duty to protect the ancestors of those it now tries to illegitimately send to the head of the line. that each individual should be free to do with his own belongings whatever he wishes should be considered of paramount importance to anyone who respects individual liberty, but i don't suppose that is taken into account when those individuals wish to do something that the statists in the room dislike. or is it? is it the very concept of the individual that you despise?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Aslo did you directly get told you got denied cause your color? i doubt it unless it was quite some time ago, sounds like a card is being played again to me and your assuming that's why you got denied and that's racist.


what that tells me is just how young and unlearned you are....if something happened in my life time I won't forget and for the record I'm in my mid 50's and be damn if I let it repeat...so you keep telling me I play the race card and I say FUCK YOU I play experience....


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You are not a member because you have not paid. Why don't you try harder? You weren't denied because of your race. Stop making redundant stretches in order to avoid the point.


even if i wanted to pay, they could deny me for any reason they want. they could disallow me because i was black, or white, or male, or whatever else they wanted.

point is, as a PRIVATE organization, that does not advertise as being 'open to the public', they are legally allowed to do such.

the gas station and the grocery store can't do that (anymore). and when they were able to do so, many did disallow blacks and did just fine. and it caused harm to others.

in america, we allow people to do what they want as long as it does not harm others or infringe on their rights (in theory). well, blacks were harmed by segregation. 

end point: your right to be a bigot is not greater than the rights of others not to be harmed by bigotry.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ... in fact slaves had a better way of life than when they were freed...





tryingtogrow89 said:


> Now your just putting words in my mouth...


bull-fucking-shit.

everything i named - beatings, forced labor, families being split apart - all occurred under slavery.

and you said that way of life was better than freedom.

i repeat: fuck you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> You did say that you don't like his abortion stance, I agree with you at that, luckily it's a non issue because he support letting the states makes those laws, which is kind of the joy of having 50 states, if you don't like one's laws you just hop over to a state that reflects your opinions. Feel me?


in america, the SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is legally allowed.

if you don't like it, you can hop on over to another country that reflects your opinions. feel me?

see how fucking stupid that argument sounds?

let's try it again. suppose ron paul is elected, and by some miracle he turns cannabis re-legalization into a state's rights issue. your state does not adopt and prohibition remains. well, all you have to do to overcome this injustice is uproot your entire fucking life. sound fair?

get fucked.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

undertheice said:


> so you are essentially saying that two wrongs make a right, the ends justify the means and the rights of the individual are secondary to the whims of both the state and the mob. you endlessly cite the failures of government to protect its citizens as the very reasons why we should allow the state to interfere in the lives of the people and you seem incapable of understanding the idiocy of that rationale. you don't seem to mind the racism inherent in programs like affirmative action simply because somewhere in the past there is a chance that government failed to do its duty to protect the ancestors of those it now tries to illegitimately send to the head of the line. that each individual should be free to do with his own belongings whatever he wishes should be considered of paramount importance to anyone who respects individual liberty, but i don't suppose that is taken into account when those individuals wish to do something that the statists in the room dislike. or is it? is it the very concept of the individual that you despise?


making things right due the the wrongs of others...I guess we should not help those who got treated so unfairly and unjust in the past...nope just let them find their own way...FUCK THAT....like I said in my life time I have seen the cruelty and injustice done to people of color .....so maybe after I die and the next generation that did not have to go thru it you can try to have an argument...but for now FUCK YOU


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> what history of persecution, segregation, systematic discrimination, disenfranchisement, racism, bigotry, and violence have you faced as a white male?


 This guy man, UB you need to become wise, then we can conversate.
I once lived in one of the blackest city's of one of the blackest states in the USA. 
It was an every day occurrence/ritual that the local police refused to do anything about the corner crack dealer or the pimp beating the living fuck out of his ho in the public place.
I was at my mothers house sitting on the sidewalk talking to her watching a black guy beat the fuck out of his black girlfriend and cops came down the street and started approaching a white mother and son talking in front of our home, rather than just look across the street to see violent battery assault, also assault with a deadly weapon cause he picked up a 2x4 beating the woman across the head. Me and my mother said "rather than harassing us on our own front lawn how about you look across the street" The police looked and said its none of their concern got in their patrol cars and left. Needless to say we called the chief of police to report these police officers which are all too common in this society today.
By the way the cops were white and by the way this is only one fucking story among hundreds like it. So no no Fuck You.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

undertheice said:


> ...you don't seem to mind the racism inherent in programs like affirmative action...


i love how people don't understand how affirmative action works. it protects EVERYONE, not just minorities. same thing with hate crimes.

if i were a dolt like some people on the right, i would accuse you of playing the race card, since you are preying on bigoted fears southern-strategy style.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> This guy man, UB you need to become wise, then we can conversate.


you never answered the question.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you never answered the question.


 You never read, as to why i can clearly see you are an ignoramus.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You never read, as to why i can clearly see you are an ignoramus.


your sentence structure sucks.

what history of persecution have you faced as a white male? as a fellow white male, i will listen with a sympathetic ear, you poor baby.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

I got real life experience, Uncle buck lives in predominately white land of Oregon, and expects his mainstream news to tell him what life and experiences are.
No no fuck you uncle buck, you dont have the slightest clue as to where ive been and what i have seen. 
You refuse to read why the white male is actually becoming more and more oppressed right here in America.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> your sentence structure sucks.
> 
> what history of persecution have you faced as a white male? as a fellow white male, i will listen with a sympathetic ear, you poor baby.


 No, your sentence structure sucks, why does it have to be history? why cant it be current?


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> in america, the SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is legally allowed.
> 
> if you don't like it, you can hop on over to another country that reflects your opinions. feel me?
> 
> ...


That's just nasty. 

If one was to believe firmly enough that they should be able to smoke and grow marijuana freely then they could make the decision for themselves, no one is going to hold a gun to your head to either smoke/grow it illegally here or go to another state, it's a personal choice. If you live in a state where it does happened to be illegal then that does happen to suck. My point is simply that the constitution states federal government shouldn't interfere with state government mandates. 

Under your rational we should accept the shotgun either there is completely prohibition, or complete liberation, which is what the scenario is now and that seems extreme, what is wrong with a country that is made of up states with different views? 

Like I said if someone felt strongly enough that they didn't like a states laws then it's their choice to be there or not, don't turn this on me and make it out that suddenly I'm for prohibition or making people move for their rights, the world is imperfect, I wish all 50 states would just lets us have our liberties. But in real life their are some (albeit mostly misinformed) people who dispise marijuana (Bill O'reilly) *cough* but that's their opinion, let them have it. 

You keep taking everything anyone says personally and that's not prudent or reasonable yet you prowl like a hungry hyena over this thread jumping on anyone who shows strong personal support for Ron Paul. 

Now I'm being as level headed as I can possibly be, what's your next insult?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> No, your sentence structure sucks, why does it have to be history? why cant it be current?


what history have YOU faced.....in other words, in your lifetime, how have you been persecuted for being a white male?

jesus fucking christ.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> what history have YOU faced.....in other words, in your lifetime, how have you been persecuted for being a white male?
> 
> jesus fucking christ.


 I already answered, you refuse to read.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> ...don't turn this on me and make it out that suddenly I'm for prohibition or making people move for their rights...


that's exactly what you just said.

you stated:



hazyintentions said:


> ... he supports letting the states makes those laws, which is kind of the joy of having 50 states, if you don't like one's laws you just hop over to a state that reflects your opinions.


in other words, just move for your rights.

since the turtle fucker feels the same way about abortion as he does about cannabis, that they are state-level issues, that is exactly what you are saying. 

personally, i feel differently than paul on the issue abortion, cannabis, civil rights, marriage equality.

at least gary johnson is willing to take a stand and say that marriage equality should extend to all, that the decision for women to make health choices about their own bodies should be universal.

the turtle fucker doesn't have enough of a spine to say anything other than "let's pass the decision on to somewhere else". some leadership there.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> This guy man, UB you need to become wise, then we can conversate.
> I once lived in one of the blackest city's of one of the blackest states in the USA.
> It was an every day occurrence/ritual that the local police refused to do anything about the corner crack dealer or the pimp beating the living fuck out of his ho in the public place.
> I was at my mothers house sitting on the sidewalk talking to her watching a black guy beat the fuck out of his black girlfriend and cops came down the street and started approaching a white mother and son talking in front of our home, rather than just look across the street to see violent battery assault, also assault with a deadly weapon cause he picked up a 2x4 beating the woman across the head. Me and my mother said "rather than harassing us on our own front lawn how about you look across the street" The police looked and said its none of their concern got in their patrol cars and left. Needless to say we called the chief of police to report these police officers which are all too common in this society today.
> By the way the cops were white and by the way this is only one fucking story among hundreds like it. So no no Fuck You.


 white cop ignores black guy beating black girl to harass white woman only talking to son...and you say this happens all too common WOW...I call BULLSHIT...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I already answered, you refuse to read.


an anecdote about the cops ignoring an assault which did not effect you is your history of persecution?

you poor soul.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> an anecdote about the cops ignoring an assault which did not effect you is your history of persecution?
> 
> you poor soul.


 It was one example of how whitey is oppressed now.
what does my ancestry being oppressed or any other peoples being oppressed in the past have anything to do with anything?
I feel you dont know your ancestry but mine was oppressed too whats the point?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> white cop ignores black guy beating black girl to harass white woman only talking to son...and you say this happens all too common WOW...I call BULLSHIT...


 Look i cant help if you don't know this but that's not my problem.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Look i cant help if you don't know this but that's not my problem.


Dude I in no way even fuckin believe that story...so its really not a problem for it is a lie


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude I in no way even fuckin believe that story...so its really not a problem for it is a lie


 ok sure its a lie


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ok sure its a lie


quick summary so you can see why I say BULLSHIT....

You and your mom just sitting outside talking...Black man beating the hell out of his black girlfriend right across the street with a 2x4..White officer comes up and just start harrassing you and your mother for no reason..you guys even point out hey "look someone is beating the hell out of someone across the street sir ...White officer does nothing...WTF...why was he harrassing you...did you and momz sell drugs ????are you a pimp ?????


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> quick summary so you can see why I say BULLSHIT....
> 
> You and your mom just sitting outside talking...Black man beating the hell out of his black girlfriend right across the street with a 2x4..White officer comes up and just start harrassing you and your mother for no reason..you guys even point out hey "look someone is beating the hell out of someone across the street sir ...White officer does nothing about that but just continues to harrass you and your mother...WTF...


 Close except for the last bit. When my mother and i told them to look across the street their eyes bugged out and they said no concern of theirs, then they left. Pretty unreal i know. But i can give you example after example of this taking place all the time in this predominately black city in a predominately black state.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Close except for the last bit. When my mother and i told them to look across the street their eyes bugged out and they said no concern of theirs, then they left. Pretty unreal i know. But i can give you example after example of this taking place all the time in this predominately black city in a predominately black state.


suppose your story is true.

how is it an example of you, a white man, being persecuted?

it might be if the black cop harassed a black family while you got beaten with a 2x4 and they did nothing, but not your story. your story reinforces the point londonfog and i are making.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Close except for the last bit. When my mother and i told them to look across the street their eyes bugged out and they said no concern of theirs, then they left. Pretty unreal i know. But i can give you example after example of this taking place all the time in this predominately black city in a predominately black state.


again why was the white officer harrassing you and your mom...he just came up and said ???? what


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

"How you folks doing today? i see your blocking the sidewalk". Literally looked at the cop and said "excuse me?". then the rest was already stated.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that's exactly what you just said.
> 
> you stated:
> 
> ...


I said "make" and made it clear that it's a choice. Say for example I like to surf, I live where the waves are next to non existent, if I felt strongly enough about-surfing for better opportunities I could move to a better location but noone is forcing me. Sure it did sound hypocritical but the is a difference between forcing something and someone making the decision to do something. 

On the civic issues, RP is pro-life, pro-cannabis, and although he may not like gay marriage he's for it as it is a liberty of being in america. as for the civil liberties I have not read or heard enough to really bring it up but I will find out. You make it seem as if he wants to force he personal beliefs on people and I know he's said multiple times he would never and his voting record is just as what he said. 

I feel as if you want judge a man more my his personal opinions rather than his policies as a lawmaker, am I wrong to say that's ass backwards? 

Why pick only the few excerpts that you can most exploit in everything I say? I could be an ass hat and bag on you for having horrible punctuation and grammar but that's not what this thread is about. So on and so forth.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> "How you folks doing today? i see your blocking the sidewalk". Literally looked at the cop and said "excuse me?". then the rest was already stated.


ROFL 
yup you guys got harrassed..WTF...man please give another example of how you and your family got oppressed by the white man...this shit is raw comedy...hold on have to blaze up to really enjoy the laugh


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> suppose your story is true.
> 
> how is it an example of you, a white man, being persecuted?
> 
> it might be if the black cop harassed a black family while you got beaten with a 2x4 and they did nothing, but not your story. your story reinforces the point londonfog and i are making.


 In no way shape or form does it do anything of the sort.
Because im white and the cops are white in a predominately black area/city/state they would be racist if they went up to the black man beating the living shit out of the black woman and tried to address it. 
It is so bad in this area with cops being scared to approach black people in fear of being accused of being racist or in violation of hate crimes which is a hypocrisy. That they indeed harass law abiding do nothing whitey just to somehow feel they are doing their job or are justified. 
Apparently neither you or LF have lived in predominately black areas because it is quite the pandemic when it comes to what i am illustrating.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ROFL
> yup you guys got harrassed..WTF...man please give another example of how you and your family got oppressed by the white man...this shit is raw comedy...hold on have to blaze up to really enjoy the laugh


 My ancestry was harassed and oppressed, this is your argument. Not my argument, though the ironic part of what im illustrating is that whitey is more oppressed right here in America today more often than blacks,illegals or what ever else color or nationality.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> ...although he may not like gay marriage he's for it as it is a liberty of being in america...


have you heard his position on gay marriage? herman cain has a better position on the issue.

ron paul says it should all be up to the church. he supports DOMA. he is not a friend of marriage equality, not in the least.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> My ancestry was harassed and oppressed, this is your argument. Not my argument, though the ironic part of what im illustrating is that whitey is more oppressed right here in America today more often than blacks,illegals or what ever else color or nationality.


Don't you love how these two keeps bringing up issues then when we reply they try to twist it by pulling out excerpts of our replies and firing it back at us? Lovely adult conversation we are having here..


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ...they indeed harass law abiding do nothing whitey ...


they asked you a few questions and did nothing. 

your poor, poor soul. let me cry some fucking crocodile tears for you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ...whitey is more oppressed right here in America today more often than blacks,illegals or what ever else color or nationality.


i have often heard cries to "deport all whiteys!"

fucking amateur.


----------



## undertheice (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> making things right due the the wrongs of others...I guess we should not help those who got treated so unfairly and unjust in the past...nope just let them find their own way...FUCK THAT....like I said in my life time I have seen the cruelty and injustice done to people of color .....so maybe after I die and the next generation that did not have to go thru it you can try to have an argument...but for now FUCK YOU


as usual, you sidestep the issue. just like you, i have seen cruelty and injustice inflicted on people of every color, i've even been on the receiving end of a few instances of racially motivated violence, and i believe in offering everyone just treatment. but that's not what you're advocating, now is it. you aren't advocating the fresh start we all deserve, but an advantage based on skin color. in case you didn't understand it, that is the very essence of racism. you are demanding that the rights of the individual to the ownership of his belongings be abrogated. you seem to forget that every man has a right to his own opinion and to express it as he sees fit, even the most heinous and ignorant opinions. 

whatever happened to the sentiment expressed by the quote, "i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"? the statist philosophy has turned our society into a mockery of such high ideals. we have made a virtue of self-proclaimed victimhood and seek vengeance for every slight, real or imagined. one's right to free expression may end, as one of your fellow statists on these boards is so fond of stating, at the end of the next man's nose, but it would seem that the entitlements of some extend right past everyone else's noses, through their pocketbooks and on to everything we all own. we have allowed the state to start arbitrarily handing out rights that abridge those considered inalienable in a sorry attempt to redefine the meaning of the term "right".


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Don't you love how these two keeps bringing up issues then when we reply they try to twist it by pulling out excerpts of our replies and firing it back at us? Lovely adult conversation we are having here..


if you don't like having your liberties deprived from you, move to another state.

also, blacks had it better as slaves and whitey is more persecuted than illegals 

jesus. fucking. christ.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> have you heard his position on gay marriage? herman cain has a better position on the issue.
> 
> ron paul says it should all be up to the church. he supports DOMA. he is not a friend of marriage equality, not in the least.


I have not, honestly I don't care enough to reject him as a candidate when you look at the amazingly high $14.3 trillion debt we have racked up as a country, I believe his fiscal stance is what it 100x more important now, you argue over his civic beliefs as if we should let our country keeping burning up in debt and just worry about gay marriage, prohibition, and abortion instead... BUT I have watched a lot of his videos and heard nothing like that so please send me a link if you have one handy.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> even if i wanted to pay, they could deny me for any reason they want. they could disallow me because i was black, or white, or male, or whatever else they wanted.
> 
> point is, as a PRIVATE organization, that does not advertise as being 'open to the public', they are legally allowed to do such.
> 
> ...


So back to an earlier argument (not sure who said it) a gas station could open up and allow people to become members and they would be allowed to deny blacks? What if the organization advertised as "being open to the white public?" You can't nitpick because you feel bad the feelings of one party.

If you know the definition of a bigot (and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view") you would know that to discriminate someone because of their opinion is violation of the 1st amendment. 

That being said, I'm annoyed that my question earlier has lead to this racial debate.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if you don't like having your liberties deprived from you, move to another state.
> 
> also, blacks had it better as slaves and whitey is more persecuted than illegals
> 
> jesus. fucking. christ.


*facepalm* 

In a convoluted mind where you only pick out the worst and piece it together as you see fit to make us horrible idiots then sure that's exactly what we said.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I have not, honestly I don't care enough to reject him as a candidate when you look at the amazingly high $14.3 trillion debt we have racked up as a country, I believe his fiscal stance is what it 100x more important now, you argue over his civic beliefs as if we should let our country keeping burning up in debt and just worry about gay marriage, prohibition, and abortion instead... BUT I have watched a lot of his videos and heard nothing like that so please send me a link if you have one handy.


yes, let's forget basic liberties so we can focus on a republican-manufactured "armadebton" 

we have come back from worse before. the sky is not falling. reforms need to be made, we can make them.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> *facepalm*
> 
> In a convoluted mind where you only pick out the worst and piece it together as you see fit to make us horrible idiots then sure that's exactly what we said.


nonetheless, you and tryingtogrow said such horrible things.

and believed them


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> My ancestry was harassed and oppressed, this is your argument. Not my argument, though the ironic part of what im illustrating is that whitey is more oppressed right here in America today more often than blacks,illegals or what ever else color or nationality.


oh ok I thought you said that your ancestry was an oppressed people might have been someone else ...not even going to go back and check...but you are saying that the white man/woman is now more oppressed in America today then any other race or nationality...is that my understanding ???


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they asked you a few questions and did nothing.
> 
> your poor, poor soul. let me cry some fucking crocodile tears for you.


 you clearly lack reality.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> So back to an earlier argument (not sure who said it) a gas station could open up and allow people to become members and they would be allowed to deny blacks? What if the organization advertised as "being open to the white public?" You can't nitpick because you feel bad the feelings of one party.
> 
> If you know the definition of a bigot (and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view") you would know that to discriminate someone because of their opinion is violation of the 1st amendment.
> 
> That being said, I'm annoyed that my question earlier has lead to this racial debate.


Hey sync0s, how about we ignore these two and just keep on trucking? I mean obviously they are determined to undermine any conversation between people genuinely interested in supporting RP and no matter what anyone say will continue to do so, I know Mr. UncleBuck has nothing better to do, I'm posting here while attending to my studies so at least I have an excuse


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> *I dislike Ron Paul because he thinks its my right to discriminate at my places of business*





sync0s said:


> Is it okay for someone to have African American, or Asian only scholarships?
> 
> Is it okay for the NAACP to only defend people who are black?


We've been sidestepping the questions that got this all started. UB, you made the point that a golf club is private, okay I'll accept that. However, NAACP's will to defend blacks only, or a public scholarship that funds only people of a certain race (especially the government funded ones) are all public. If the government can perpetuate a racially segregated program, how can private business owners not be allowed to do the same? If you don't see that as hypocritical, well than your just being ignorant.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> you clearly lack reality.


says the guy who compares his non-consequential questioning from the police to the continued systematic discrimination faced by blacks to this day.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> We've been sidestepping the questions that got this all started. UB, you made the point that a golf club is private, okay I'll accept that. However, NAACP's will to defend blacks only, or a public scholarship that funds only people of a certain race (especially the government funded ones) are all public. If the government can perpetuate a racially segregated program, how can private business owners not be allowed to do the same? If you don't see that as hypocritical, well than your just being ignorant.


the naacp is a private organization. 

if you keep ignoring that, well than you are just being ignorant.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Hey sync0s, how about we ignore these two and just keep on trucking? I mean obviously they are determined to undermine any conversation between people genuinely interested in supporting RP and no matter what anyone say will continue to do so, I know Mr. UncleBuck has nothing better to do, I'm posting here while attending to my studies so at least I have an excuse


I can understand why they are angry. I asked a question after londonfog's that lead to ignorant (Michelle Backman related) points being made behind my questions. Kind of annoys me too that every time you try to make a sensible argument to make people understand your point of view, somebody else posts behind you and starts arguing their racial prejudices when the argument was not supposed to have anything to do with that.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'm posting here while attending to my studies so at least I have an excuse


junior college is not "studies", it is high school with an ashtray.

and i am attending to that which will provide my livelihood for months. so my excuse is pretty good, too.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> oh ok I thought you said that your ancestry was an oppressed people might have been someone else ...not even going to go back and check...but you are saying that the white man/woman is now more oppressed in America today then any other race or nationality...is that my understanding ???


 yes i am saying my ancestry was oppressed just as your saying yours was, difference is im not harping on it. Actually yes white people are indeed more oppressed in America today than in the past, and more than any other race.
This is why we have diaper checking of white six year old by TSA while a guy wearing a turbine looking of Islamic decent without an i.d. little own a passport gets on the plane with out any harassment by TSA.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the naacp is a private organization.
> 
> if you keep ignoring that, well than you are just being ignorant.


Private organization that serves the public. You drew these lines, I didn't. I actually agree that they are private, but so is a gas station on the corner of the street that is operated on private property. There is no difference.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

undertheice said:


> as usual, you sidestep the issue. just like you, i have seen cruelty and injustice inflicted on people of every color, i've even been on the receiving end of a few instances of racially motivated violence, and i believe in offering everyone just treatment. but that's not what you're advocating, now is it. you aren't advocating the fresh start we all deserve, but an advantage based on skin color. in case you didn't understand it, that is the very essence of racism. you are demanding that the rights of the individual to the ownership of his belongings be abrogated. you seem to forget that every man has a right to his own opinion and to express it as he sees fit, even the most heinous and ignorant opinions.
> 
> whatever happened to the sentiment expressed by the quote, "i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"? the statist philosophy has turned our society into a mockery of such high ideals. we have made a virtue of self-proclaimed victimhood and seek vengeance for every slight, real or imagined. one's right to free expression may end, as one of your fellow statists on these boards is so fond of stating, at the end of the next man's nose, but it would seem that the entitlements of some extend right past everyone else's noses, through their pocketbooks and on to everything we all own. we have allowed the state to start arbitrarily handing out rights that abridge those considered inalienable in a sorry attempt to redefine the meaning of the term "right".


Never said you can't say it...just like I can say FUCK YOU and your opinions...we are both allowed to do this...so again FUCK YOU and I expect you to defend my right to tell you so.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

I got a brilliant idea, let's skip the lip service and get to the point. Uncle Buck you clearly don't give a fuck about RP and noone here gives a fuck about your opinions (I've quickly learned how to do that) so how about fuck you and leave us alone? No? You can go start you own political rants in your own thread if you like doing so that much, I'm sure a talented fellow like yourself can figured how to start a thread..


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Private organization that serves the public. You drew these lines, I didn't. I actually agree that they are private, but so is a gas station on the corner of the street that is operated on private property. There is no difference.


there is a big difference that you willfully ignore. it is encoded in law, check the civil rights act.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I got a brilliant idea, let's skip the lip service and get to the point. Uncle Buck you clearly don't give a fuck about RP and noone here gives a fuck about your opinions (I've quickly learned how to do that) so how about fuck you and leave us alone? No? You can go start you own political rants in your own thread if you like doing so that much, I'm sure a talented fellow like yourself can figured how to start a thread..


now you want to silence dissenting opinion? classy.

it's a free country, i'll post where i please.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> there is a big difference that you willfully ignore. it is encoded in law, check the civil rights act.


You invoke the act that Ron Paul didn't support. The exact thing we are arguing here. Congrats, you just basically defined a word by it's self.\

Either way, please respond to my point about government funded scholarships to blacks only or other racially specific groups.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

You know what makes me laugh is the fact that most people don't even know that the NAACP was started by a group of white people who did not like the treatment of blacks back in the day...and for the record NAACP was founded on the notion of equal treatment for *all* ( sorry but white folks were not getting beaten, lynched, and treated unfairly so it was no need to defend them)...also anyone can join the NAACP even Mexicans..so I guess you might want to read upon the organization before you say what it did and did not do..


----------



## jdro (Jul 23, 2011)

That is all.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You invoke the act that Ron Paul didn't support. The exact thing we are arguing here. Congrats, you just basically defined a word by it's self.\


yes, ron paul supported a vision america where shop owners could ban blacks or whoever else they wanted, causing harm to those groups. thanks for reinforcing that point.



sync0s said:


> Either way, please respond to my point about government funded scholarships to blacks only or other racially specific groups.


show me some specific examples and i will respond.


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 23, 2011)

You want to see a business that engages in bigotry? Look at Delta Airlines, they (as a matter of law) will not fly Jewish passengers or anyone with an Israeli passport or stamp into Saudi Arabia. They defend their position as a matter of Saudi law (which it is), yet still make the decision to do business there. *I defend their right to take that* *position, and in turn make the decision not to do business with them.*

I don't see why any privately owned business (and this includes publicly traded corporations - as their ownership is still private) should not have the ability to discriminate. If this can be enforced on businesses, what's to keep the same from being enforced on private individuals? Do you want a government agent going through your financial records to ensure you engage in an equal or commensurate amount of business with white, black, Hispanic, and Asian owned businesses? Following the logic of some of these anti-discrimination laws, this is one of the next steps - the government just does not have the resources to enforce such laws at the scale it would require.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> You know what makes me laugh is the fact that most people don't even know that the NAACP was started by a group of white people who did not like the treatment of blacks back in the day...and for the record NAACP was founded on the notion of equal treatment for *all* ( sorry but white folks were not getting beaten, lynched, and treated unfairly so it was no need to defend them)...also anyone can join the NAACP even Mexicans..so I guess you might want to read upon the organization before you say what it did and did not do..


it is almost as if these people have not heard of the notion of an advocacy group for discriminated minorities.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

jdro said:


> View attachment 1703681
> That is all.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> now you want to silence dissenting opinion? classy.
> 
> it's a free country, i'll post where i please.



I want you to stop acting like a fucking idiot, you come into the thread with a personal vendetta as you've been on it all day, at least since I have, and have not stopped, your like the kid in class that wants everyone to look at him all the time, always screaming and kicking. You have cleary displayed you have next to no moderation, can't even agree with a single thing said here, wouldn't you be doing more good talking to people like minded? 


I haven't read up on it but apparently he supports the right in individuals which means they can have the choice to turn away people in private businesses, private being the key word there,owned by an individual for the private sector. I don't see why the government should have say there. 

Simply said any time the (Federal) government gets involved in anything it usually ends up making it a clusterfuck and jacking up prices. 

jdro is right through, I'm done fueling your fire Uncle Buck, whoever the fuck that is. haha


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it is almost as if these people have not heard of the notion of an advocacy group for discriminated minorities.


I blame it on them being young and not knowing history...hopefully after these debates they take the time and go read.....


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> You know what makes me laugh is the fact that most people don't even know that the NAACP was started by a group of white people who did not like the treatment of blacks back in the day...and for the record NAACP was founded on the notion of equal treatment for *all* ( sorry but white folks were not getting beaten, lynched, and treated unfairly so it was no need to defend them)...also anyone can join the NAACP even Mexicans..so I guess you might want to read upon the organization before you say what it did and did not do..


You know what makes me laugh, is the fact that you think that you know what you are arguing about. I'm certainly not arguing against the NAACP. I'm advocating that private groups SHOULD have the right to offer their services to whom they like. YOU are arguing against it, as little as you realize it. You and UB consistently have stuck behind the argument of "They may be on private land and privately owned, but they serve the public" and here you are finding a few organizations that meet the same criteria and you are defending it. How do you not see the hypocrisy in it? Can you not just stop and reflect on it momentarily and admit this fact?

It's so sad that I am sitting here, actually in support of these groups I mentioned, and trying to make a point of defending these groups RIGHTS, and in your "defense" of the group you are arguing AGAINST me. NAACP doesn't ask for a fee of membership to get an "African American" only scholarship (I put that in quotes because that term is wrong to be used on people who are not from Africa), so why should a private business have to do the same in order to do it? Would it be okay if the NAACP opened a private clinic on the corner only serving black people who can't afford health? Absolutely not, but we need to stop discriminating that right to certain organizations and denying others. It's not fair, it's not just, and it's not American.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You know what makes me laugh, is the fact that you think that you know what you are arguing about. I'm certainly not arguing against the NAACP. I'm advocating that private groups SHOULD have the right to offer their services to whom they like. YOU are arguing against it, as little as you realize it. You and UB consistently have stuck behind the argument of "They may be on private land and privately owned, but they serve the public" and here you are finding a few organizations that meet the same criteria and you are defending it. How do you not see the hypocrisy in it? Can you not just stop and reflect on it momentarily and admit this fact?
> 
> It's so sad that I am sitting here, actually in support of these groups I mentioned, and trying to make a point of defending these groups RIGHTS, and in your "defense" of the group you are arguing AGAINST me. NAACP doesn't ask for a fee of membership to get an "African American" only scholarship (I put that in quotes because that term is wrong to be used on people who are not from Africa), so why should a private business have to do the same in order to do it? Would it be okay if the NAACP opened a private clinic on the corner only serving black people who can't afford health? Absolutely not, but we need to stop discriminating that right to certain organizations and denying others. It's not fair, it's not just, and it's not American.


While I agree with you


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

and we come full circle.

if you do not worship at the altar of ron paul, you are a troll.

it doesn't matter if you support the ron paul clone who takes social positions that are more liberal....if you are not a worshipper, you are a troll.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You know what makes me laugh, is the fact that you think that you know what you are arguing about. I'm certainly not arguing against the NAACP. I'm advocating that private groups SHOULD have the right to offer their services to whom they like. YOU are arguing against it, as little as you realize it. You and UB consistently have stuck behind the argument of "They may be on private land and privately owned, but they serve the public" and here you are finding a few organizations that meet the same criteria and you are defending it. How do you not see the hypocrisy in it? Can you not just stop and reflect on it momentarily and admit this fact?
> 
> It's so sad that I am sitting here, actually in support of these groups I mentioned, and trying to make a point of defending these groups RIGHTS, and in your "defense" of the group you are arguing AGAINST me. NAACP doesn't ask for a fee of membership to get an "African American" only scholarship (I put that in quotes because that term is wrong to be used on people who are not from Africa), so why should a private business have to do the same in order to do it? Would it be okay if the NAACP opened a private clinic on the corner only serving black people who can't afford health? Absolutely not, but we need to stop discriminating that right to certain organizations and denying others. It's not fair, it's not just, and it's not American.


you are very confused...learn what a club/organization is...yes they do help the public but they are not a public group...if you want to start a club or organization and only help white people ...more power to you...if you are a place that does commerce business ( in which the NAACP does not) then you have to go by the law of the land..you can't pick your customers...please learn the difference..for you are failing in your argument trying to make NAACP a public business that does commerce...makes it seem once again that you have NO clue as to WTF you are talking about !!!!!!!


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

This could get fun


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

people trying to argue a point but have no idea about the law the Civil rights act of 64 brought forth 
Title II
Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private...

Now tell me what fuckin commerce the NAACP engages in..hint ( learn WTF commerce is )


----------



## beardo (Jul 23, 2011)

Ron Paul gets more votes per dollar than any other candidate


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> people trying to argue a point but have no idea about the law the Civil rights act of 64 brought forth
> Title II
> Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private...
> 
> Now tell me what fuckin commerce the NAACP engages in..hint ( learn WTF commerce is )


Lol. You make me laugh:



> _com·merce__noun_&#8195;/&#712;käm&#601;rs/&#8195;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please refer to definitions number 2, and realize how number 3 can impede your life with that law.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you are very confused...learn what a club/organization is...yes they do help the public but they are not a public group...if you want to start a club or organization and only help white people ...more power to you...if you are a place that does commerce business ( in which the NAACP does not) then you have to go by the law of the land..you can't pick your customers...please learn the difference..for you are failing in your argument trying to make NAACP a public business that does commerce...makes it seem once again that you have NO clue as to WTF you are talking about !!!!!!!


Yes, everyone who argues with you is always a confused child who doesn't know the history on the matter.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Yes, everyone who argues with you is always a confused child who doesn't know the history on the matter.


 exactly.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Lol. You make me laugh:
> 
> Please refer to definitions number 2, and realize how number 3 can impede your life with that law.


Wow you really are not that dumb to realize which definition would apply..yes words can have more then one meaning, but with a little education you should be able to figure out which one pertains to our conversation..go back and get that high school diploma guy...any woot its number 1..and to be more exact its *interstate commerce* n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money...now again I ask you what does the NAACP do that involves interstate commerce...I thought you were into marketing..funny how you don't know this...Now I hope you learned why the NAACP is different from joe blow store owner..one is in for the profit one is not....you still care to debate your stance on why the NAACP is the same and I say its not...I can break it down "for ya"...speaking of "for ya"..What ever happened to that little info you said you would get back to me on ?????never mind I already knew you couldn't


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Yes, everyone who argues with you is always a confused child who doesn't know the history on the matter.


there is a difference between being young and a child..now if you consider yourself as a child thats you ..I called you young...


londonfog said:


> I blame it on them being young and not knowing history...hopefully after these debates they take the time and go read.....


under 25 is young to me....and you have showed me over and over how you don't know your history..do I need to start pulling quotes ???


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

While I find it funny that both UncleBuck and londonfog fail to use even basic writing skills they claim everyone else is at fault and ignorant of everything, at least use good grammar if you want to portray a meaningful argument; anyways, you know the drill.

View attachment 1703765


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

when you speak the truth you get all kind of labels...truth hurts


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> While I find it funny that both UncleBuck and londonfog fail to use even basic writing skills they claim everyone else is at fault and ignorant of everything, at least use good grammar if you want to portray a meaningful argument; anyways, you know the drill.
> 
> View attachment 1703765


as you do what you say not to...lol...I could care less about your writing skills unless its a word I don't understand or if you do something like using "like" instead on "link"..example..."hey you got proof post a like (link)"


----------



## Carne Seca (Jul 23, 2011)

Two hundred forty pages of this? Seriously?


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> as you do what you say not to...lol...I could care less about your writing skills unless its a word I don't understand or if you do something like using "like" instead on "link"..example..."hey you got proof post a like (link)"


Ohh sure I have typos, that's what happens when your mind works quicker than your fingers, it's a symptom of too much frontal lobe development; at least I'm not constantly raping the basic English sentence structure. 

To the fellow with the cuddly panda avatar, sadly yes. we've resorted to proverbial name calling.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Wow you really are not that dumb to realize which definition would apply..yes words can have more then one meaning, but with a little education you should be able to figure out which one pertains to our conversation..go back and get that high school diploma guy...any woot its number 1..and to be more exact its *interstate commerce* n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money...now again I ask you what does the NAACP do that involves interstate commerce...I thought you were into marketing..funny how you don't know this...Now I hope you learned why the NAACP is different from joe blow store owner..one is in for the profit one is not....you still care to debate your stance on why the NAACP is the same and I say its not...I can break it down "for ya"...speaking of "for ya"..What ever happened to that little info you said you would get back to me on ?????never mind I already knew you couldn't


So you don't think that scholarships are "movement of goods or money?" How about offering free legal services, isn't that "commercial trade?" Good god.

[email protected] high school diploma. I've got a GED and am pursuing law, no need to get angry with personal insults, that is a prime example of what an unintelligent person would resort to in a debate 

I already posted that I can't find that info as the info I'm getting from the owners is to vague. So I admit wrongfulness in it, because a statement without proof is a wrongful one. I won't go into further detail.

You have two quotes to pull: The RP libertarian 88 and the bush quote. Pull them, defame my character, and avoid the point behind my argument. I seriously don't know why I waste my time with you.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Ohh sure I have typos, that's what happens when your mind works quicker than your fingers, it's a symptom of too much frontal lobe development; at lest I'm not constantly raping the basic English sentence structure. Hold on I forgot something... View attachment 1703795


Remember dude you are to ignore me and UB,,but somehow you keep coming back for more...Do you love me ??? and I was not talking about you and the link vs like ..someone actually did that to me and I had to ask did he mean link to make sure...I hate English and grammer..*ar·kan·sas*/&#712;ärk&#601;n&#716;sô/ and *kan·sas*/&#712;kanz&#601;s/...I mean really why to different saying for the word kansas...and what about I after E except after C or or when it sounds like A as in neighbor or weigh...well what about _anc*ie*nt_, _spec*ie*s_, _sc*ie*nce_, _suffic*ie*nt_ ..blows that rule to shit...nope I'm a math guy myself and I do love my chemistry


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

To answer your Arkansas and Kansas pronunciations; proper nouns kind of have their own rules. This is why the English language is one of the most difficult to learn.

The I before E except after C rule is a load of shit.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> So you don't think that scholarships are "movement of goods or money?" How about offering free legal services, isn't that "commercial trade?" Good god.
> 
> [email protected] high school diploma. I've got a GED and am pursuing law, no need to get angry with personal insults, that is a prime example of what an unintelligent person would resort to in a debate
> 
> ...


scholarships are not goods and money..goods meaning as in bread,eggs,a bed to sleep in and I'm sure you know what money is...commercial trade is better understood when you break the two words down..trade is the sale of goods or merchandise to retailers, to industrial, commercial, institutional, or other professional business users...and commercial again is relating to commerce or public selling/buying with profit being chief aim...you really should know this if you are in marketing...so again NAACP does not sell there services for profit guy...

Good job getting your GED..did not know you did that... I just read that you did not finish high school..I think it is very important to have one or the other, so I was being serious when I said you need it..... did not say it out of anger, but you got a GED so what do I know..and I take Civil Rights serious and will refuse to let anyone spread misleading info about an organization that fights for it..so if you don't want it from me I suggest you at least know what you are talking about...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> ...You know it makes since ...


and you criticize me based on my spelling and grammar?

i don't capitalize intentionally.

you don't know the difference between "sense" and "since". 



fucking amateur.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Remember dude you are to ignore me and UB,,but somehow you keep coming back for more...Do you love me ??? and I was not talking about you and the link vs like ..someone actually did that to me and I had to ask did he mean link to make sure...I hate English and grammer..*ar·kan·sas*/&#712;ärk&#601;n&#716;sô/ and *kan·sas*/&#712;kanz&#601;s/...I mean really why to different saying for the word kansas...and what about I after E except after C or or when it sounds like A as in neighbor or weigh...well what about _anc*ie*nt_, _spec*ie*s_, _sc*ie*nce_, _suffic*ie*nt_ ..blows that rule to shit...nope I'm a math guy myself and I do love my chemistry


Ohh yeah your my favorite.. Honestly you are at least sensible to talk to, I can understand your views to a degree. 






UncleBuck said:


> and you criticize me based on my spelling and grammar?
> 
> i don't capitalize intentionally.
> 
> ...


Mehh I'll take a couple typos while defending my beliefs amidst a storm of senseless attacks..


----------



## londonfog (Jul 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and you criticize me based on my spelling and grammar?
> 
> i don't capitalize intentionally.
> 
> ...


how come I knew you would find something...lol...fucking english language...you must have been a proof-reader in your former life


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Mehh I'll take a couple typos while defending my beliefs amidst a storm of senseless attacks..


"sense" vs "since" is not a typo. it is a misspelling of a word.

a very easy word.

a very, very fucking easy word.

you obviously do not know the difference.

junior college material all the way !


----------



## sync0s (Jul 23, 2011)

londonfog said:


> scholarships are not goods and money..goods meaning as in bread,eggs,a bed to sleep in and I'm sure you know what money is...commercial trade is better understood when you break the two words down..trade is the sale of goods or merchandise to retailers, to industrial, commercial, institutional, or other professional business users...and commercial again is relating to commerce or public selling/buying with profit being chief aim...you really should know this if you are in marketing...so again NAACP does not sell there services for profit guy...
> 
> Good job getting your GED..did not know you did that... I just read that you did not finish high school..I think it is very important to have one or the other, so I was being serious when I said you need it..... did not say it out of anger, but you got a GED so what do I know..and I take Civil Rights serious and will refuse to let anyone spread misleading info about an organization that fights for it..so if you don't want it from me I suggest you at least know what you are talking about...


I've already said that I support those groups, I'm not attacking them. I think whether you call it a club, private organization, or a private business, you should hold the right to operate your business under your own prerogative. 

Scholarship is a movement of money, it's definition is "A grant or payment made to support a student's education, awarded on the basis of academic or other achievement." I'm sorry to break it to you. As for the NAACP, just refer to their tax form (2004): http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/131/084/2004-131084135-01d71275-9.pdf



> 88 At any time during the year, did the organization own a 50% or greater interest in a taxable corporation or partnership, or an entity disregarded as separate from the organization under Regulations section 301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3?     CHECKED YES


The organization owns public corporations (magazine companies and what not) that they (NAACP) gains revenue from.

For your earlier request UB:


			
				NAACP tax form 990 said:
			
		

> 11a An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public. CHECKED


Please, actually pay attention to the point I am trying to make and stop blaspheming me like I am anti racial support organizations.


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

What I find strangely ironic is how many on the left love to bash the right for enforcing morals, and then enforce their own - the example of course being the CRA's enforcement upon private entities.  The CRA should have covered the government institutions only (city water fountains, public schools, public transportation, voting rights, etc.)

I'd like to hear someone in the left try to explain this to me... If the government should enforce morals (if your position is that racism is immoral and therefore should be banned), then which moral system should we adhere to when it comes to law, and then why shouldn't we ban recreational use of drugs if the majority deems it immoral? (to hit on a subject dear to us all)  Then... which moral/ethical system should it enforce?  Most of the nation derives its morals from religion, so which one do we pick?  Christianity, Judaism, or Islam?  That would probably lead to adultery, not worshiping, premarital sex, saying 'goddamn', and many other actions becoming a crime.  Should it be whichever the majority chooses?  Or should it just simply be majority rule on an issue by issue basis?  That's closer to a real democracy - and if you're all in for that... raise your glass of hemlock and toast to the tyranny of the majority (if you don't get this reference, read about the demise of Socrates).

My answer (which is also the basis of Paul's position):  Where the CRA went wrong was the blending of politics and morals, which are actually two different things.  Ethics and morality enforcement is not a proper function of government.  A proper government should only create laws to protect - not violate the rights of it's individual citizens.  Among those rights are the right to life, liberty, and property - In short, that pretty much means you can do as you please as long as you do not violate any other individual's right to the same.  If you want to expand the concept of rights to cover other things, so be it... as long as those 'new' rights do not violate the rights of aforementioned three.  Here is how creating a new 'right' can do such a thing...

When a business is owner is forced to deal with a person he would otherwise choose not to do deal with - you have violated his right to property (by controlling his business) and his right to liberty (by removing his liberty to conduct his business as chooses).  Because of this, a person has no 'right' not to be discriminated against by another individual.

A government however is different, as it is the only truly publicly owned entity.  Each citizen is an equal 'shareholder' so to speak.  As such it has no 'right' to discriminate, and must treat its citizen shareholders with equal consideration.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 24, 2011)

Address to Synco

well when you pass the bar go fight it in court..Scholarships are rewarded you can't buy or sell it..Scholarships awarded are tax free ( another clue).in order for something to be commerce you must have two parties..one selling /the other buying...NAACP does not participate in Interstate commerce ...They do not buy nor sell services for profit..They are a private organization open to all... now if you don't like the Civil Right acts laws, when you pass the bar go fight the law...for right now you are only speaking on opinion not law..Do you think you are the first to try this argument ????? If you want to start a private club/organization that only gives scholarships to who ever its your right to do so..not arguing that,

Title II of the Civil rights act states
Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; *exempted* private clubs without defining the term "private."

NAACP is considered a private club/organization
NAACP does not engaged in interstate commerce ( if they do please tell me what they buy or sell )


----------



## sync0s (Jul 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Address to Synco
> 
> well when you pass the bar go fight it in court..Scholarships are rewarded you can't buy or sell it..Scholarships awarded are tax free ( another clue).in order for something to be commerce you must have two parties..one selling /the other buying...NAACP does not participate in Interstate commerce ...They do not buy nor sell services for profit..They are a private organization open to all... now if you don't like the Civil Right acts laws, when you pass the bar go fight the law...for right now you are only speaking on opinion not law..Do you think you are the first to try this argument ????? If you want to state a private club/organization that only gives scholarships to who ever its your right to do so..not arguing that, but if you are for profit ( commerce) then you can't
> 
> ...


You and UB keep stating the same thing. I know you can't legally. I am arguing that it is not right. Just because the government tells you it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong. I started this to demonstrate why RP has the view that you so disagree with (your question on page 229 or something).


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> I'd like to hear someone in the left try to explain this to me... If the government should enforce morals (if your position is that racism is immoral and therefore should be banned)...


wow, way to miss the fucking point entirely.

i want civil rights enforced not (only) because i is the moral thing to do, but because it caused harm to those segregated and discriminated against.

your right to be a bigot ends when it harms others. period.



txpete77 said:


> When a business is owner is forced to deal with a person he would otherwise choose not to do deal with - you have violated his right to property (by controlling his business) and his right to liberty (by removing his liberty to conduct his business as chooses).


the guy that owns the gas station claims to be 'open to the public'.

if he refuses to sell gas to black people or jews or hispanics simply because they were born as such, they are causing harm to those people.

you want to open a private business that only interacts with members, be my guest.

you want to open a business that serves the general public, you must serve the general public, no matter what bunch of "inferiors" want to frequent it.

troublemakers and those disruptive to the business by choice, not by the way they were born, are the only ones you get to refuse service to.


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> if he refuses to sell gas to black people or jews or hispanics simply because they were born as such, they are causing harm to those people


Demonstrate the harm caused by the gas station owner, in terms of deprivation of life, liberty, or property...


----------



## deprave (Jul 24, 2011)

hey guys just saw one of these signs I see everyday








are these people criminal? Are they hurting peoples feelings? Most of all why can't government protect us from this? I decided not to investigate because no one fucking cares and the government won't help us.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You and UB keep stating the same thing. I know you can't legally. I am arguing that it is not right. Just because the government tells you it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong. I started this to demonstrate why RP has the view that you so disagree with (your question on page 229 or something).


I had to step out my skin for a minute and view your point...Seeing you did not live in a time when NAACP was REALLY REALLY needed and times have change somewhat I can see why you don't understand the role they have played in assuring equal rights for all...my question now is how many white people have ever called the NAACP for help and was denied or how many white ( I'm sure you would have to be poor ) college students have applied for a scholaship and was turned down do to skin tone..hmmmmm now that is a question I can't answer myself but I will make a call monday and ask this question to see...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> Demonstrate the harm caused by the gas station owner, in terms of deprivation of life, liberty, or property...


they have to drive to the next station over, which may or may not serve them. or the next one. or the next one. just to get what others get without discrimination.

or, they get to pump their gas....for twice as much.

do some research. empirical evidence of these practices before the CRA abounds. to deny such is to be ignorant of the uglier history of america.

ever heard of this?







it stopped being published after the CRA was passed.


----------



## deprave (Jul 24, 2011)

What did Mr Lender PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP HAVE TO SAY ABOUT RON PAUL ON THIS:




"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

(Article continues below)




"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

Click here to listen to the MP3 interview.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> hey guys just saw one of these signs I see everyday
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that sign is not the same as this sign....







do you not get the fucking difference?

one os for keeping out those who are disruptive to the business, the other is to keep people out based on factors beyond their control.

you fuckers dig your own grave on this issue. i can only hope ron paul gets the nomination and makes this a talking point.

if anti-miscegeny laws were still on the books, you guys would not even have to be bitching about how your rights are being taken away by some negro in the white house.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> What did Mr Lender PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP HAVE TO SAY ABOUT RON PAUL ON THIS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand that ...my problem is with the racist store owner who would take advantage of the change by not letting mexicans in his store


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> What did Mr Lender PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP HAVE TO SAY ABOUT RON PAUL ON THIS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i've said before that i don't believe ron paul is a racist.

i do believe he penned a racist newsletter, as it was written i the first person.

but the newsletter can be explained without acquitting him as a racist because he has a constituency that eats that shit up. 

immoral panderer to racists? sure. racist? probably not.

that said, paul's views on the CRA allow for racism to harm others. which is unacceptable to me.

fuck ron paul.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 24, 2011)

can anyone of you Ron Paul fan ask if he can come on RIU oneday so we can ask him some questions and have a debate...


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> can anyone of you Ron Paul fan ask if he can come on RIU oneday so we can ask him some questions and have a debate...


he would probably just keep saying "state rights" and "let's do some heroin!"

and then he would not realize the webcam was still on as he went on to fuck a turtle.


----------



## deprave (Jul 24, 2011)




----------



## deprave (Jul 24, 2011)

I can see the headlines now , Ron Paul amazingly has passed into law making racism and racist signs legal - miraculously millions became racist and put up signs, hail satan, today shall be ever known as sign day and the official song will be Ace of Base "I Saw the sign", hummina hummmmina, hail satan


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

deprave said:


>


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they have to drive to the next station over, which may or may not serve them. or the next one. or the next one. just to get what others get without discrimination.


You still did not demonstrate any harm to life, liberty, or property.


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and then he would not realize the webcam was still on as he went on to fuck a turtle.


Oh hell! I guess that means you just won this debate...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> You still did not demonstrate any harm to life, liberty, or property.


you are one of those that need to let it happen to you for you to understand


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> You still did not demonstrate any harm to life, liberty, or property.


ok, go ahead and drive to the next non-discriminating station and tell me that it did not cost more money to get there.

why the fuck do you think this stopped existing after 1964?


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ok, go ahead and drive to the next non-discriminating station and tell me that it did not cost more money to get there.


Would you like to go ahead and demonstrate the harm? Did the gas station owner take gas from someone's tank?


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you are one of those that need to let it happen to you for you to understand


I understand that racism is absolutely horrible and one of the most primitave forms of collectivism, but do not see how that trumps another person's right to control and dispose of their own property.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

I love that no matter how many people come upon this forum, the majority like, and will vote Ron Paul, and a serious pathetic small percentage cough "uncle buck and London frog" cough. dont like him because they dont like liberty.
Now quit trollin and move on if you dont like ron paul go cry somewhere else, i cant stand people that relay everything mainstream and act like they have some sort of personal first hand experience when really, you dont know a damn thing, and just because you say so, everyone who tells you your insane or living in a different reality (because clearly you are) are stupid and dont know what they are talking about. 
You guys just don't like liberty., and if so leave America because we dont want ya. 
If you so choose to stay and revolution breaks out, you will be the ones drug through the dirt in the street, even more so than you already do to your own rationale and logic by typing the ludicrous things you do.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> you will be the ones drug through the dirt in the street


Lol  Lol


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 24, 2011)

So much fail.... 











It's evident some people love to misinterpret written law. Personally I believe beating the civil rights issue like this is beating on a dead horse, bringing up issues that were entirely relevant 30 and 40 years ago doesn't really mean much to me. (albeit the issues are horrible towards race still a statement I'm sure will make me racist  ) I've always thought that America as a whole had moved on and minorities are only that because the government labels them as such. Certain people like to deploy fear mongering tactics and arguments bringing extreme examples into context as if suddenly the entire world and every single gas station is going to turn racist over night given the repeal of legislation that is only a problem because  it encroaches on personal liberties at the core.

A similar situation could be how O'Reilly's argument against medical marijuana is that crack and heroine addicts get scripts for "unlimited" amounts of marijuana from a dispensary and then proceed to sell the marijuana to kids a city block away to pay for their addiction..  While I'm sure a very small handful of desperate addicts may  try this I see them even getting their card being a problem in the first place.. 

Regardless, our nation isn't going to crumble if these civics aren't addressed immediately (they should be but all in due time) but the US cannot take anymore ludicrous spending. We need to bring our troops home and end our world empire, no more occupations. We need to restore the congressional power of the Senate to coin our national currency and stop letting the privately owned Federal Serve printing out money, every morning we wake up those bills in our pocket our now worth a little less everyday. 

What's wrong with that picture? Some would say nothing and I would say they need to fucking get real.


----------



## Parker (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> he would probably just keep saying "state rights" and "let's do some heroin!"
> 
> and then he would not realize the webcam was still on as he went on to fuck a turtle.


*londonfog and Carne Seca like this.*

really? londonfog and carne seca like your idiotic post? They'll click on anything that makes them look like tools wont they? Go ahead bring some more of your senseless garbage into this thread all the while continuing to prove what a complete walking pile of whale shit you are.
Have a nice day.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ...whitey is more oppressed right here in America today more often than blacks,illegals or what ever else color or nationality.





tryingtogrow89 said:


> ...slaves had a better way of life than when they were freed....





tryingtogrow89 said:


> ..."uncle buck and London frog" cough. dont like him because they dont like liberty....You guys just don't like liberty...


how much time do you spend on the planet earth?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> Would you like to go ahead and demonstrate the harm?  Did the gas station owner take gas from someone's tank?


are you fucking dense?

history is full of examples of stations that would charge twice as much to blacks as they would to whites for the "crime" of being born with a certain skin color.

for the "crime" of being born a certain color, they now have to spend more time and more money to get the same thing a white person would get without harassment.

if you can't see how that is harmful, you really need to hop in a time machine and go visit those days in person, because no amount of words will convince a dipshit ideologue who feels his right to bigotry trumps the rights of others not to be harmed by such bigotry.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

Parker said:


> *londonfog and Carne Seca like this.*
> 
> really? londonfog and carne seca like your idiotic post? They'll click on anything that makes them look like tools wont they? Go ahead bring some more of your senseless garbage into this thread all the while continuing to prove what a complete walking pile of whale shit you are.
> Have a nice day.


what smells like aspercreme?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> what smells like aspercreme?


a turtle just leaving Ron Paul's room


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> they now have to spend more time and more money to get the same thing a white person would get without harassment.


Did the gas station owner assault them? (violation of the right to life)
Did the gas station owner sell them gas at a higher than agreed rate? (fraud - violation of the right to property)
Did the gas station owner detain them? (violation of the right to liberty)

I can do this for days...



UncleBuck said:


> if you can't see how that is harmful, you really need to hop in a time machine and go visit those days in person, because no amount of words will convince a dipshit ideologue who feels his right to bigotry trumps the rights of others not to be harmed by such bigotry.


First, you just admitted a person has a right to be a bigot... now (again) show me where exercising this right has removed either life, liberty, or property of a 'victim'.  I'm looking for an example of force or fraud in part of the gas station owner.

A person's choice of inaction (unless contractually obliged otherwise) cannot be considered a 'harm' in the legal sense.  If this concept were not true, then why can't I go to the nearest strip bar and have a legal right to a job as a dancer?  Why can I not join a Curves fitness center?  The both are open to the public, they both advertise to the public.  It's not my fault I was born as a man, why am I not treated equally?

I'll tell you why I cannot force Curves to sell me a membership, or why I cannot force 'Bob's World of Boobs' to give me a job...

*I DON'T OWN A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN EITHER!  IT'S NOT MY FUCKING PROPERTY!  NOR IS THIS HYPOTHETICAL GAS STATION YOUR PROPERTY - YOU HAVE NO 'RIGHT' TO CONTROL SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.*


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> Did the gas station owner assault them? (violation of the right to life)
> Did the gas station owner sell them gas at a higher than agreed rate? (fraud - violation of the right to property)
> Did the gas station owner detain them? (violation of the right to liberty)
> 
> ...


you should go back in time and tell black people to stop complaining, that all this segregation is not hurting them in the least and to just shut up and quit being a bunch of crybabies. 

make sure to let them know that they have no right to expect to pay the same for gas as a white person, and that they are not allowed into any of the nice hotels because it makes the white folks uncomfortable.



why do you think your bigotry trumps everyone else's rights not to be harmed by your bigotry? is being a bigot THAT important to you?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

they stopped publishing this after civil rights was enacted. probably just coincidence, since no harm was caused to blacks in pre-civil rights times


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

and for your edification, i'm sure there are plenty of instances of fraudulent transactions, beyond the completely unscrupulous ones and the denial of service altogether. 

but unscrupulous business practices and denial of service never hurt anyone, did they, atticus finch?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

http://www.experiment-resources.com/stereotypes.html

The Clark Doll Test illustrates the ill effects of stereotyping and racial segregation in America. It illustrated the damage caused by systematic segregation and racism on children&#8217;s self-perception at the young age of five.
by Experiment-Resources.com (2010)
EXPERIMENT BACKGROUND

The Clark Doll test was conducted by Dr. Kenneth Clark and his wife Mamie Clark for her master&#8217;s degree thesis. The study focused on stereotypes and children&#8217;s self-perception in relation to their race. The results of Clark&#8217;s study were used to prove that school segregation was distorting the minds of young black kids, causing them to internalize stereotypes and racism, to the point of making them hate themselves.

The Clark Doll Test is well known due to its social relevance and impact although some say that the results lack experimental weight. It found contrasts among children attending segregated schools in Washington, DC versus those in integrated schools in New York.

In 1954 in Brown v Board of Education, the experiment helped to persuade the American Supreme Court that &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; schools for blacks and whites were anything but equal in practice and is therefore illegal or against the law. This made the experiment even more controversial. It marked the beginning of the end of Jim Crow.

METHODOLOGY

In the experiment, Clark showed black children with ages ranging from 6 to 9, two dolls, one white and the other black, and were asked the following questions in order:

Show me the doll that you like best or that you would like to play with.
Show me the doll that is the &#8216;nice&#8217; doll.

Show me the doll that looks &#8216;bad.&#8217;

Give me the doll that looks like a white child.

Give me the doll that looks like a colored child.

Give me the doll that looks like a Negro child.

Give me the doll that looks like you.

RESULTS

The researchers found that black children often chose to play with the white dolls more than the black ones. When the kids were asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin, they frequently chose a lighter shade than their actual skin color. The children also gave the color &#8216;white&#8217; positive attributes like good and pretty. On the contrary, &#8216;black&#8217; was attributed to being bad and ugly.

The last question asked by the researchers was considered the worse since by that point, most of the black children had already identified the black doll as the bad one. Among the subjects, 44% said the white doll looked like them. In past tests however, many of the children refused to pick either doll or just started crying and ran away.

The results were interpreted as good and reliable evidence that black children had internalized racism caused by being discriminated against and stigmatized by segregation.

The study shows the stereotyping of black people as bad and white as nice and more desirable.

CRITICISMS OF THE STUDY

The study has been criticized for being well known only for the reference in the court case as opposed to the intrinsic and experimental value of the work. Many argue that the study lacks theory and control of variables. According to critics, given that an African American couple was the team who conducted the studies, the desirable outcome of wanting to prove African Americans were negatively stereotyped may have caused some partiality or biases, and may have skewed the results.


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you should go back in time and tell black people to stop complaining


I never said they didn't have a legitimate argument.



UncleBuck said:


> make sure to let them know that they have no right to expect to pay the same for gas as a white person, and that they are not allowed into any of the nice hotels because it makes the white folks uncomfortable.


Absolutely! They have no 'right' to pay the same (although they can expect) as any other person, for whatever reason. They have a right to discriminate against using racist businesses, just the same as the racists have a right to discriminate against the races they hate.



UncleBuck said:


> why do you think your bigotry trumps everyone else's rights not to be harmed by your bigotry?


Intellectually dishonest attack...
First, you're painting me as a bigot - show me where I stated that anyone _*should*_ be a bigot. I simply have stated they have a right to be a bigot, not that they should be one. Supporting someone's right is not the same as advocating the action.
I also support the right of people to commit suicide, that doesn't mean I want to start passing out cyanide flavored cool-aide and begin a suicide drive.



UncleBuck said:


> is being a bigot THAT important to you?


You then twist the foundation of my argument for property rights, into an argument that bigotry in itself is a right (whereas it is a concept that guides one's thought and actions, not a right).



UncleBuck said:


> and for your edification, i'm sure there are plenty of instances of fraudulent transactions, beyond the completely unscrupulous ones and the denial of service altogether.
> 
> but unscrupulous business practices and denial of service never hurt anyone, did they, atticus finch?


If you're so sure, then you should provide real world examples... then have the business owner prosecuted for fraud, as it is and was illegal _prior_ to the CRA. Denial of service by a private entity is not a violation of an individual's rights.

Atticus Finch? Are we resorting to name calling?

I'm not going to engage in arguing with you as long as you twist my words into something I never claimed and then use it to attack me.

Your methods of debate are dishonest, emotionally based, and resort to name calling when any semblance of logic fails you.

I'm done with you... you've earned the first spot on my ignore list.


----------



## undertheice (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> Your methods of debate are dishonest, emotionally based, and resort to name calling when any semblance of logic fails you.


you're just figuring this out now? these are people whose entire philosophy is based on vengeance. you simply can't expect any sort of honesty from the redistributionist crowd.

by the way, don't be offended by his reference to good old atticus. that it refers to a story in which the failure of governmental institutions plays a predominant role, where the best intentions of the individual are swept aside by the regulations of the mob, shouldn't be forgotten.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> ...racists have a right to discriminate against the races they hate.


and you have the great honor of becoming part of my sig!

good luck with your racist arguments. i am sure they will catch on one of these days!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

undertheice said:


> you simply can't expect any sort of honesty from the redistributionist crowd.


are you speaking of the ones who want to cut services to the middle class and working poor so they can send it up to the uber-wealthy?

i'd have to agree. those people almost never argue honestly.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

All uncle buck does is repeat what he has watched on msnbc and fox and cnn. Then trolls the internet up repeating what he thinks he learned from it.
In reality though he lives in little white suburbia, where he feels safe from any minorities, and acts as though he is not racist, he tries so hard that its even more transparent than if he where just to say, i dont want to live in a town or state where my color skin "white" actually makes me a minority. If and when you ever do personally experience being a minority, let me know. Until then shut your mouth.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 24, 2011)




----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> All uncle buck does is repeat what he has watched on msnbc and fox and cnn. Then trolls the internet up repeating what he thinks he learned from it.
> In reality though he lives in little white suburbia, where he feels safe from any minorities, and acts as though he is not racist, he tries so hard that its even more  transparent than if he where just to say, i dont want to live in a town or state where my color skin "white" actually makes me a minority. If and when you ever do personally experience being a minority, let me know. Until then shut your mouth.


slaves were better off as slaves and fluoride is giving us chemical lobotomies.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Like Ron Paul, i also have sex with turtles.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

S.U.V's are causing are planet to warm up.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> S.U.V's are causing are planet to warm up.


the global warming hypothesis is a decades in the making conspiracy involving thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries who have produced tens of thousands of fraudulent data sets and their hoax has only recently been exposed by rush limbaugh and the group of dolts at fox news


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the global warming hypothesis is a decades in the making conspiracy involving thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries who have produced tens of thousands of fraudulent data sets and their hoax has only recently been exposed by rush limbaugh and the group of dolts at fox news


 Here you go again with you fox news bullshit. Man aren't you sick of being their  little propaganda bitch?
Anything these scientists were "on to"  was simply cycles. Because of the mainstream news and al gore's and little follower Uncle Bucks in the world. 
They thought they where on the tale of something about global waring blah mumbo jumbo fairy tale shit.
When in reality these people need to be hung for trying to say it is something that is not even possible and defy all physics.
Buck we have been through this and you are wrong.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 24, 2011)




----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Here you go again with you fox news bullshit. Man aren't you sick of being their  little propaganda bitch?
> Anything these scientists where "on to"  was simply cycles. Because of the mainstream news and al gore's and little follower Uncle Bucks in the world.
> They thought they where on the tale of something about global waring blah mumbo jumbo fairy tale shit.
> When in reality these people need to be hung for trying to say it is something that is not even possible and defy all physics.
> Buck we have been through this and you are wrong.


yes, you are right and the vast majority of scientists who write peer-reviewed research papers on the mater are not only wrong, but actively engaged in a worldwide conspiracy.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> In addition to having sex with turtles, I also fondle water buffalos against their will. I have no shame.


you are a sick man.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, you are right and the vast majority of scientists who write peer-reviewed research papers on the mater are not only wrong, but actively engaged in a worldwide conspiracy.


 Nice "quote" Is this piece Gore or Fox?


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 24, 2011)

*Originally Posted by hazyintentions  
                 In addition to having sex with turtles, I also fondle water buffalos against their will. I have no shame.
*


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

congratulations on arguing yourselves into humiliation, guys.

lots of good material for the old sig line.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

Oh cnn, ok,  got it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Oh cnn, ok, got it.


lalcks were better off as slaves and you, the white male, is the most discriminated of anyone.

poor baby. perhaps this will cheer you up.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 24, 2011)




----------



## txpete77 (Jul 24, 2011)

undertheice said:


> you're just figuring this out now? these are people whose entire philosophy is based on vengeance. you simply can't expect any sort of honesty from the redistributionist crowd.
> 
> by the way, don't be offended by his reference to good old atticus. that it refers to a story in which the failure of governmental institutions plays a predominant role, where the best intentions of the individual are swept aside by the regulations of the mob, shouldn't be forgotten.


The argument wasn't so much for him, but more for others to observe. I knew he would eventually resort to name-calling and accusations of racism. I've watched him do this in prior discussions by cherry picking statements and then dropping the context in which it was said.

The only regret I have is I did't take the opportunity soon enough to demonstrate how hate-speech laws are the next step in the evolution of the concept he was promoting. All he had to do was present the harm as being mental in nature... and he was so close to doing it.

I'm not offended - it takes a hell of a lot more than name calling to offend me, I just choose not to tolerate that style of debate. I've got a feeling that I'll be putting a few more on that ignore list, but they're going to have to earn it first.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 24, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> All he had to do was present the harm as being mental in nature... and he was so close to doing it.


did you miss the clark doll test i presented?

it does cause mental harm. why else would 44% of segregated black kids say the white doll is more representative of them than the black doll? that is, those who did not break down and cry or run out of the room.

want to know how many people i have on ignore? ZERO. because i am not some little vagina that can't handle dissenting opinion.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

Not opinion, fact!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

I believe the site is called rollitup not trollitup


----------



## undertheice (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> did you miss the clark doll test i presented?
> 
> it does cause mental harm. why else would 44% of segregated black kids say the white doll is more representative of them than the black doll? that is, those who did not break down and cry or run out of the room.


so are we to take away from this that these children were all effected by the attitude of the world around them or could it be that there was something lacking in their home lives, something that did not feed into the growth of their self-esteem? are we to take the supposition of psychiatric "experts" as gospel and determine policy based on their pseudo-scientific studies? this is, after all, the same voodoo science that has determined that a full ten percent of the population is in need of anti-depressant medication. the very fact that we would aim the violent forces of governmental regulation at our rights of private property based on the "harm" of hurt feelings and low self-esteem is a sad commentary on the state of our society.

while i don't see segregation as an answer to any of our problems, i also don't see that force has provided any relief either. it has, in fact, only exacerbated the friction that otherwise continues to lessen as the people themselves evolve their morality.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> are you fucking dense?
> 
> history is full of examples of stations that would charge twice as much to blacks as they would to whites for the "crime" of being born with a certain skin color.
> 
> ...


Maybe we should make laws that protect retarded people from being overcharged for cars at dealerships and when buying a house. I give people better deals on things I sell or buy based on how much I like them or how dumb they are. I mean, letting people negotiate prices is discriminatory to idiots. I know the world has been hard on you UB. Vote for me and I will make all dumbasses equal to smart people by jabbing a pencil in the brain of everyone above the IQ mid point. After all, they were born dumbasses, they didn't choose it.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> and you have the great honor of becoming part of my sig!
> 
> good luck with your racist arguments. i am sure they will catch on one of these days!


Put me back, bastard.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the global warming hypothesis is a decades in the making conspiracy involving thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries who have produced tens of thousands of fraudulent data sets and their hoax has only recently been exposed by rush limbaugh and the group of dolts at fox news


SUVs killed the dinosaurs too. What caused the ice age? Solar Power?


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> did you miss the clark doll test i presented?
> 
> it does cause mental harm. why else would 44% of segregated black kids say the white doll is more representative of them than the black doll? that is, those who did not break down and cry or run out of the room.
> 
> want to know how many people i have on ignore? ZERO. because i am not some little vagina that can't handle dissenting opinion.


Did you ever watch "The Eye of the Storm" by Jane Elliot? Interesting movie.

Have you ever seen a modern version of the doll study? If you offer me two blowup dolls, one indian looking and one white, Ill probably take the indian one. Dot Indian, not woo woo.You never know why the children picked the white dolls or drew themselves as yellow and white. Maybe they saw their people as lesser than whites, or maybe they saw their families who were poor as being poor due to being black and had unrealistic ideals of white people being better off simply due to being white and not due to systematic oppression. Public segregation is wrong. The government doesn't have the right to segregate or treat its citizens differently. People segregate themselves from all sorts of things, it is a very natural reaction. The government is not a person, and the government does not represent one race, it represents us all. It has no business treating anyone differently whether it be color, sex, age, marital status, having children, or sexual orientation.

You can't make and keep laws today based on something that happened 50 years ago. It is a different world. We are allowed to do things, and no allowed to do things today that would be unimaginable 50 and 100 years ago. If we made it to now without a CRA - would we still need to have one? The CRA was like a marshal law to try and fix a serious issue. I don't think anyone is arguing that racism was not an issue in those days.


----------



## undertheice (Jul 24, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that racism was not an issue in those days.


it isn't a matter of whether racism was a problem then or is a problem now. it's about whether declaring "martial law", as you have termed it, is a legitimate answer to such a problem. as you have pointed out, we segregate ourselves quite effectively. we often choose to surround ourselves with what is most familiar and to avoid the discomfort of what we see as the unknown. thanks to government interference, we are no longer afforded several of these avenues of avoidance. but has it really changed anything? have the worst elements of racism declined because of this interference or in spite of it?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> big girls like america need love too, even if it is somewhat non consensual. some chicks get off on rape fantasies, ya know.


 Yea you and the banksters would certainly agree.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yea you and the banksters would certainly agree.


Damn it, I was gonna throw that quote into my sig but you beat me to it XD


----------



## beardo (Jul 24, 2011)

Ron paul is going to rock the vote.....
Where is MTV when you need them?


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Put me back, bastard.


You mean I took your spot? Now I'm going to have to unhide one of his posts to see what he picked... 

Buck, I'm not going to read your reply (unless someone ends up quoting it), but I will proudly stand by and defend that statement on it's own.

See what it's like to have and stand by your principles?


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you should go back in time and tell black people to stop complaining, that all this segregation is not hurting them in the least and to just shut up and quit being a bunch of crybabies.
> 
> make sure to let them know that they have no right to expect to pay the same for gas as a white person, and that they are not allowed into any of the nice hotels because it makes the white folks uncomfortable.
> 
> ...


 why would we go back in time 50 years, why is 50 years ago even in this the discussion really? Your conspiracy theories are ridiculous. I assume you have a lot of hatred and possibly may have been victimized in your life, love your people, love freedom, love life, loosen up turtle fucker. 

Just curious, What is your personality type uncle buck? (i.e I am INFJ)


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

deprave said:


> why would we go back in time 50 years, why is 50 years ago even in this the discussion really? This is GOP2012 discussion. Your post and your pictures are offtopic, and your conspiracy theories are ridiculous.


I thought this was "A Truth about Ron Paul" discussion and due to the fact Ron Paul would like to change the Civil Rights act of 64, which *could* allow a store owner to kick someone out his/store store based on color or the lack of color, brought us to these topics...we could talk about how foolish it would be to make heroin legal...I feel if its a man made drug it should be illegal or heavily regulated


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

beardo said:


> Ron paul is going to rock the vote.....
> Where is MTV when you need them?


 Mtv Ron Paul Music Video from 2008
http://freedomftw.net/2011/07/ron-paul-revolution-mtvs-aimee-allen-uncensored-video/


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

No he wouldnt change the damn civil rights act how did you come to that idea? Read the damn speech and understand what it was please post #1 of the thread and many others - 200 hundred and 48 pages we made and you don't read the first post..pretty sure weve been over this...Currently I have debunked every Ron Paul conspiracy theory we have talked about. I am waiting for new conspiracy theories for over 170 pages. The result is they are all just going with 'Ron Paul fucks turtles' like a pack of children


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

are you trying to tell me that Paul did not say he would have voted against the Civil rights act in its current form ?????


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

All the videos you keep putting up and you missed this one..but I'm sure you would hear what you want..


[youtube]PvbJBHhqftc[/youtube]


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

no I am not saying that.......how do you connect this to Ron Paul getting rid of the civil rights act in the present or future?


----------



## Smirgen (Jul 25, 2011)

If Ron Paul is a racist he better rethink his position on Recreational drugs and whether the feds or the state should incarcerate non violent offenders, if he had his way it would keep hundreds of thousands of minorities out of prison .


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

never said he was a racist...his idea of property rights could allow racism


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

and just how could it do that? and why do you connect dots which are not there? and why do you fall for Chris Matthews nullification arguments, Chris Matthews a man which admited his job is to do whatever he can to help this administration. A man who does all he can to protect obama. This man sincerely believes his job is to support Obama, god bless him, he has a good heart and hes smart but he choose the wrong path. The path of being a bitch for 'the man', I prefer freedom, to each his own I guess.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

and your job is to support Ron Paul...sorry guy I disagree with Ron Paul and his view on property rights and I am a business owner...He might mean well, but his idea could lead to someone being racist that would go uncheck and if its just one person being racist, without being check on it, that is one too many...you look at the little pictue while I see the bigger picture...


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

Dude I am a linux administrator, its not my job to agree with Ron Paul trust me. I wish lol. I'd be good at that


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

If you don't realize how much you are in love with ROn Paul you are worst off then I thought...You spend more time defending him then Chris Matthews defending Obama, but at least he gets paid for it...How many threads have you started for Ron ????How many vids have you put up...OMG you a Ron Paul groupie...


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

I am also not a journalist, why are you going off a cliff here? how do you connect those dots, it was a speech on the floor where Ron Paul said he wouldn't of voted for it back in 1965 because it had infringements on the constitution, he never votes on something that violates the constitution, he commended the bill for all it had done to end segregation but thinks it could have been done differently. 

So how is what ron paul "would of done" in 1965 in anyway connected to him letting people put up racist signs today?


so if we had the civil rights act of 2010 that was the same as the one in 1965 ron paul wouldn't of voted for it.....so how......do you connect...this to your crazy conspiracy theory?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

just pointing out a fact...at least you can be honest about it and say yes I love Ron Paul because he loves freedom...anything else makes you seem like you are in denial...Care to discuss how making heroin legal represents freedom. ?????


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

I don't think It is necessary for me to say such a thing when its obviously the case...How making heroin legal represents freedom? 

First off Ron Paul would not outright make heroin legal unless that is what the people wanted, the only drug war issue he is passionate about is marijuana, medical marijuana, and states rights, I am not even going to go into how making drugs legal represents freedom because I think that's a little obvious, you are a pot smoker are you not?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

I don't put weed in the came category as man-made drugs guy...Its fucking crazy talk to even think or say heroin should be legal..It should not be a freaking state right...and thats what he stated that it should be a state right for no one would just go out and do it just because its legal..I say he fucking wrong..weed and heroin is not even the same...one is man made ..the other is not...one can kill your ass....the other does not...


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

whos going to legalize heroin? did someone say that they plan to legalize heroin?


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

Florida just passed mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients, are they going to legalize heroin next? Maybe...if Ron Paul is elected???WHAT???!?!?GTFO

How do you connect these dots? please tell us.

Opitates are free from the pharmacy, methadone is free in america, Vicodin and Morphine is a couple bucks sometimes?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

[youtube]LMIgT_NGgek[/youtube]

take the time to listen...he thinks it should be a states right...listen to what he says..if someone asked me if it should be legal ..I would say HELL NO...what about you ???


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

There is a big difference between planning to make heroin illegal and talking philosophically if it should be illegal, there is also a big difference in believing in the local governments over the federal, I would say of course it should be illegal so its not sold on store shelves for someone to spontaneously become addicted. If I had my way heroin would not exist but I can't wish it away, people are going to do heroin, they will likely end up in jail with the heroin possession or not. The law is really stupid in my belief, it doesn't help to stop heroin and it is unconstitutional and it serves to protect nobody. The drug war is barbaric its authoritarianism, its slavery, lock people in a cage? good plan? How do you feel about locking people in cages for doing drugs? How does it help anyone?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

I take a mans ideas as for what that he would stand for...he should of said no because its to dangerous of a man-made drug...Its a shame how you can find no fault in your hero...and why the hell he always talking this state right BS...same damn thing the South did to try and keep slavery.WTF...we are the United States...not The States Rights States...every decision with him, he whats to pass it as states right...WTF


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

so if he leaves it up to the states whos going to come out with the legalize heroin , is Courtney love going to make a petition? And take on capitol hill - Will they start putting "remember to vote" on syringe casings?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

you miss the point totally...I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANYONE WHO WOULD MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT IT SHOULD,COULD,or MAYBE LEGAL..I vote on a man's ideas...because until he gets the job thats the only thing you got to go on...you really to blind to see anything but your Ron Paul ...good luck getting out the primary...not looking good...got a plan for if ( when ) he does not make it out ????


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

so drug users belong in cages in your view? are you some kind of cop? what are you doing here?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

deprave said:


> so drug users belong in cages in your view? are you some kind of cop? what are you doing here?


yeah start talking stupid....I will as well....No I don't think drug users don't belong in jail unless they steal,kill, or hurt someone else...I also don't believe in being an enabler...I also believe that if you put dangerous drugs with no real medical benefits out to the public, it can and will get to our kids...tell you what take Ron's dick out your mouth and realize that maybe he should have not said that about heroin..again what is your plan after the Republicans reject him again...????Mitt Romney ????


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 25, 2011)

If it was legal, you could test it for strength and purity etc. Take it out of the black market. That argument can be applied to all drugs. 

Same with prostitutes, check em for STDs and whatnot. Why can pornstars make a living off of fucking, while hookers can't? Oh yeah, because we get to watch


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

wow could you imagine if meth was legal...OMG..


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

yea we'd probably have a meth outbreak out west and in the south, people would go into the supermarkets and buy sudafed and cook up meth oh wait.... that already happens


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

I think it would be more wide spread because now its legal...but after people see enough people lifes getting ruined they might slow down...I say might...Americans love their drugs


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> yeah start talking stupid....I will as well....No I don't think drug users don't belong in jail unless they steal,kill, or hurt someone else...I also don't believe in being an enabler...I also believe that if you put dangerous drugs with no real medical benefits out to the public, it can and will get to our kids...tell you what take Ron's dick out your mouth and realize that maybe he should have not said that about heroin..again what is your plan after the Republicans reject him again...????Mitt Romney ????


in my best Chris Matthews voice: then you think heroin should be legal? is that what your saying?


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

Sounds like you said a lot more then "hell no" should I not vote for you now?


----------



## deprave (Jul 25, 2011)

so london you like people, you like freedom, you don't think drug users should go to jail, so does that mean you want to make heroin legal? (I just put those words in your mouth just as chris matthews and the debate commentator did to Ron Paul)


So now whats your defense....."Hell no!" "drugs are bad"....or do you actually answer the question...like Ron Paul did....Like any person would...your saying he should of dodged the question?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

if you are a SMALL time dealer I would give you another chance ( two strikes and you do your time )..If you are a user I would try to get you some treatment ( no time but treatment )...If you are a trafficker I would lock your ass up....as a politician I damn sure wouldn't say make heroin legal...I know this is hard to understand because Ron Paul did not say it, but if you get his dick out your ass you just might see why making heroin legal would be a bad move for our society...I'm not big on man-made drugs that have no medical benefits and could very well kill your ass...


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I take a mans ideas as for what that he would stand for...he should of said no because its to dangerous of a man-made drug...Its a shame how you can find no fault in your hero...and why the hell he always talking this state right BS...same damn thing the South did to try and keep slavery.WTF...we are the United States...not The States Rights States...every decision with him, he whats to pass it as states right...WTF


You might want to read the 10th amendment (and probably the entire constitution) before you start bashing him for his position.


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


There is nothing in the Constitution that grants power to the federal govenment to regulate medicinal or recreational substances, thereby leaving this role to each and every individual state to decide, or to the people.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

I suggest you read the preamble of the Constitution that sets the spirit, fundamental purposes and guiding principles for the Constitution itself..

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

You can't promote the "general welfare" of the people if you start to promoting the legal sell of man-made drugs that have no medical benefits, but in fact can kill your ass and fuck up your life...hey everybody lets do some crack and heroin they say it can cure your problems..NOT


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

you can also read Artcle 1 section 8

you also see 
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

How the fuck will heroin make our country better


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 25, 2011)

The preamble contains no enforcable clause. Otherwise it would have been detailed in one of the first three articles, or the later amendments.

That argument is weak at best...



londonfog said:


> you can also read Artcle 1 section 8
> 
> you also see
> 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
> ...


That still doesn't give it free license to pass laws restricting products... Besides, Ron Paul is running for President, Article II contains the relevant powers to that office.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 25, 2011)

lol you asked where in constitution does it show FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to regulate..when I show you ...you say some weak shit like he running for POTUS so that don't count
...wtf...he made his statement about how heroin should be legal as a Congress member...you do realize what branch actually makes the laws...POTUS only has veto power...face it ron was wrong by making that statement ...bad judgement


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 25, 2011)

Also... when you say "How the fuck will heroin make our country better", you understand there are millions of Americans that are saying "How the fuck will marijuana make our country better"

How the fuck does prostitution make our country better? It has never been illegal under federal law, yet the states have been handling this for centuries.

In 1919, there were millions of Americans asking "How the fuck will alcohol make our country better" In 1933 the question was more like "What the fuck were we thinking?"

Then in 1937, when the ink of the 21st Amendment was barely dry, the people were asking "How the fuck will marihuana make our country better", and passed the Marihuana Tax Act... without an amendment to the Constitution. What was the constitutional justification of this? We'll get back to that one...

Ask yourself this... If a processed product (alcohol) had required a constitutional amendment to regulate, and a plant did not, how can you justify the regulation of another processed product (heroin) without an amendment? Your position demonstrates a failure to apply logic to this situation.

Back to the justification of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937... The justification was that they needed none. The act was later ruled unconstitutional, but on the grounds that it required incrimination to be compliant with the law (5A violation). The real answer is that progressives see no need for Constitutional justification to implement their plans. They ignore it, attack it, and discount it every chance they can until they think they can use it to make a gain in power (by generally by quoting the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clause).

The progressives are constantly contradicting themselves in terms concepts, they throw reason to the side, and have no solid principles... How are you any different in this?


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> never said he was a racist...his idea of property rights could allow racism



Okay I see your side BUT his "views" are soley based on what was written in the Constitution, he didn't pull the argument out of his ass. Just wanted to point that out. 

Also,



londonfog said:


> ...and why the hell he always talking this state right BS...


Wha wha what? States Rights is BS?? Power to the Federal Government we should all be zombies! 

I'm only kidding, I read the context but it's not a valid argument when someone does something like taking an excerpt like that and exploiting it huh? 
It can inherently get annoying.


----------



## beardo (Jul 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> wow could you imagine if meth was legal...OMG..


 .....meth was legal untill a few years ago...10 15 years ago you could buy it at the gas station....also ritilin is a type of meth-Do your research.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 25, 2011)

Finally a temporary peace... 

[video=youtube;VLu7XMqHTjs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLu7XMqHTjs&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Who's with letting the debt ceiling stay and the possibility of a default? 
It's part of the natural cycle of a free market so why attach all this fear to it? I'm tired of hearing people saying "Ohh if we don't raise it SS checks won't go out, la da da da da". Wouldn't that mean the administration would pick and choose not to pay SS checks? I'm tired of this bureaucracy scaring old people as if they are dumb, the were the people who saw america during it's prime, I think if any one they KNOW what's wrong, maybe that's why the fat feds are trying to scare them? Who knows?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Put me back, bastard.


no way.

your naivete pales in comparison to the out and out ignorance, bigotry, and racism expressed by your fellow comrade cultists.

i mean, slaves were better off as slaves? LOL!

you can't make this stuff up.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 25, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> I will proudly stand by and defend that statement on it's own.
> 
> See what it's like to have and stand by your principles?


i would not be proud of defending racism unless i was a proud racist.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 25, 2011)

londonfog said:


> yeah start talking stupid....I will as well....No I don't think drug users don't belong in jail unless they steal,kill, or hurt someone else...I also don't believe in being an enabler...I also believe that if you put dangerous drugs with no real medical benefits out to the public, it can and will get to our kids...tell you what take Ron's dick out your mouth and realize that maybe he should have not said that about heroin..again what is your plan after the Republicans reject him again...????Mitt Romney ????


For somebody who is on a website such as this you should surely realize the ignorance in this post. 

1) The government is being an enabler by imprisoning drug users. Why? When these people leave prison they not only have a criminal record, by they have to pay fines, could have lost their job, house, and loved ones. What will a drug addict resort to under such dire circumstances? Drugs.
2) How is allowing illegal black market cartels to control the drug sales in the United States more preventative of child usage than legalizing and having the ability to control?
3) Can't you realize that by legalizing a drug user could be prompted with treatment solutions during ever purchase (like gambling), as well as allow doctor supervision of the drug usage?

Have you ever seen one of those doctor shows like ER or scrubs and what not? Ever notice how all of them paint the picture of drug use affects and how their friends/family lie and say they don't know what is wrong with the person? Imagine if it was legal, and they had to buy from a doctor; the doctors could simply pull up the persons medical file and easily see what is wrong and would be able to treat the drug users much quicker and more efficient, and could, theoretically, increase the mortality rate of drug over doses.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> no way.
> 
> your naivete pales in comparison to the out and out ignorance, bigotry, and racism expressed by your fellow comrade cultists.
> 
> ...


Blacks were bought and paid for. 
Why would you abuse something you paid good money for?
They were usually taken care of.
My statement in your signature was taken out of context.
Don't twist this into me insinuating slavery is good.
You and your warming propaganda is more indicative of being a cultist than standing for liberty by a long shot.
You have allot to learn, have a nice day.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Blacks were bought and paid for.
> Why would you abuse something you paid good money for?
> They were usually taken care of..


To keep them in line....? Are you serious? If you call getting whipped, fingers cut off, shot and killed, and forced to make a child with the chosen male/female not being abused and being well taken care of.. your out of your mind.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 26, 2011)

sync0s said:


> To keep them in line....? Are you serious? If you call getting whipped, fingers cut off, shot and killed, and forced to make a child with the chosen male/female not being abused and being well taken care of.. your out of your mind.


 Fucked up shit happened then fucked up stuff happens now.
The situation you illustrated is not the only side of the story and the whipping was usually on the boats.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

sync0s said:


> For somebody who is on a website such as this you should surely realize the ignorance in this post.
> 
> 1) The government is being an enabler by imprisoning drug users. Why? When these people leave prison they not only have a criminal record, by they have to pay fines, could have lost their job, house, and loved ones. What will a drug addict resort to under such dire circumstances? Drugs. Did you not read when I said I would not lock up users, but have them seek treatment
> 2) How is allowing illegal black market cartels to control the drug sales in the United States more preventative of child usage than legalizing and having the ability to control?ask the kid who gets mothers stash of pills out of the medicine cabinet
> ...


 ok thanks for the haha...but imagine this you have a beautiful little girl that is now in college...she goes to a party and does heroin for it is now legal..she likes it, because it makes her feel good...now she does it only on the weekend..she loves it for it makes her feel powerful...she now starts doing it on the weekday as well ( after class)..hey it is legal now so she is all good, but what about her life..??? Now we have daddy's little girl hook on heroin with the help of daddy for he thought it to be a good idea to make it legal and readily obtainable


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok thanks for the haha...but imagine this you have a beautiful little girl that is now in college...she goes to a party and does heroin for it is now legal..she likes it, because it makes her feel good...now she does it only on the weekend..she loves it for it makes her feel powerful...she now starts doing it on the weekday as well ( after class)..hey it is legal now so she is all good, but what about her life..??? Now we have daddy's little girl hook on heroin with the help of daddy for he thought it to be a good idea to make it legal and readily obtainable


Following that logic THEN we should make alcohol illegal... wait, wasn't that tried already? More beautiful little college girls abuse alcohol THAN hard drugs. Maybe if parents spent more time with their kids instead of asking government to protect them, they would grow up to be responsible adults.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Following that logic THEN we should make alcohol illegal... wait, wasn't that tried already? More beautiful little college girls abuse alcohol THAN hard drugs. Maybe if parents spent more time with their kids instead of asking government to protect them, they would grow up to be responsible adults.


so you really comparing a beer to heroin ???


----------



## jdro (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so you really comparing a beer to heroin ???


Alcohol has 150 deaths per 100,000 users per year and heroin has 80 deaths per 100,000 users per year. It is comparable. In fact, alcohol by the numbers is far more dangerous.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 26, 2011)

Why are we arguing about heroin? Of course 99.9% of the users on this forum don't want it to be legal, it is the morality of the federal government enforcing which substances we as a people should and should not use that Ron Paul puts under fire, to run that idea straight into the preamble of "So Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin." is completely devoid of the point and a distraction to the real issue at hand.

I don't not believe Ron Paul is right on every single issue, I'm pro-choice and I think we the media drills him with the same-ole' "So you would support heroin legalization?" he needs to make it clear that personally he is not in favor of legalizing heroin but due to his straight constitutionalism that it would be against his character of defending ALL liberties, whether harmful of not, to say just one should stay illegal at the federal level. I feel what he wants is for the states to decide (AND i'm pretty damn sure not one state would even dream of legalizing heroin) so I believe the point is moot.



jdro said:


> Alcohol has 150 deaths per 100,000 users per year and heroin has 80 deaths per 100,000 users per year. It is comparable. In fact, alcohol by the numbers is far more dangerous.


The only problem with this statistic is that a person could turn it around on you and say "well alcohol is legal and widely used so therefore if heroin is legal it's numbers will soar" Of course that would be an idiotic statement but I can see someone like Bill O'reilly saying that. haha


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

jdro said:


> Alcohol has 150 deaths per 100,000 users per year and heroin has 80 deaths per 100,000 users per year. It is comparable. In fact, alcohol by the numbers is far more dangerous.


got link for those numbers...we like links...and also would those numbers change if we made heroin legal and more obtainable????


----------



## beardo (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok thanks for the haha...but imagine this you have a beautiful little girl that is now in college...she goes to a party and does heroin for it is now legal..she likes it, because it makes her feel good...now she does it only on the weekend..she loves it for it makes her feel powerful...she now starts doing it on the weekday as well ( after class)..hey it is legal now so she is all good, but what about her life..??? Now we have daddy's little girl hook on heroin with the help of daddy for he thought it to be a good idea to make it legal and readily obtainable


 Is their no heroin now available at collage parties for her to try?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Why are we arguing about heroin? Of course 99.9% of the users on this forum don't want it to be legal, it is the morality of the federal government enforcing which substances we as a people should and should not use that Ron Paul puts under fire, to run that idea straight into the preamble of "So Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin." is completely devoid of the point and a distraction to the real issue at hand.
> 
> I don't not believe Ron Paul is right on every single issue, I'm pro-choice and I think we the media drills him with the same-ole' "So you would support heroin legalization?" he needs to make it clear that personally he is not in favor of legalizing heroin but due to his straight constitutionalism that it would be against his character of defending ALL liberties, whether harmful of not, to say just one should stay illegal at the federal level. I feel what he wants is for the states to decide (AND I'm pretty damn sure not one state would even dream of legalizing heroin) so I believe the point is moot.
> 
> ...


at least you didn't try to defend the use of heroin like these others...I do believe that our government must make some harmful drugs illegal..Thats why they have them categorize ...Weed should not be one of them for it does not harm you ...never heard anyone dieing from weed, but herion, crack, and shit like that does nothing but hurt..but hey thats me


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

beardo said:


> Is their no heroin now available at collage parties for her to try?


It would be a better chance if it was legal...


----------



## jdro (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> It would be a better chance if it was legal...


Im not justifying heroin use. I believe in freedom and if someone wants to do heroin fuck it let em its their damn choice. Myself, I will never. Legal or not. The other thing about heroin is that most deaths come from shit that is not made right or fake and being sold as heroin. If it was controlled that would limit many deaths, as well as giving people addicted a chance to get clean by not incarcerating them and making the problem worse and giving them the chance at rehabs. If you know that marijuana is not bad for us then why does the government have it listed schedule 1 no medical value, why do you buy into the governments propaganda?

"*never heard anyone dieing from weed, but herion, crack, and shit like that does nothing but hurt..but hey thats me"

*You know that there is a ton of people who say marihuana is just as bad as heroin right? You know that there is people who say that if marijuana wasnt around less people would use heroin and crack because marijuana is the gateway drug right? You know that by making these things illegal you are losing your freedoms as a human being in this country. We should have our own right to do what we want with our lives as long as it does not hurt any other person. I agree that heroin and crack are not good, but I dont agree in big brother telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. The government even has made raw milk illegal to sell in the store. It is a disgrace that they can make something natural that has been used for hundreds of years illegal. Where I live, its easier for a 15 year old kid to get heroin than it is a pack of ciggarettes. Why do you think that is??

I pulled those numbers from google, which came from here-
http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/drugmort.htm


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so you really comparing a beer to heroin ???


LOL... No, you are... or don't you even remember what you said about making all man made drugs that have no medical benefit illegal?


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> LOL... No, you are... or don't you even remember what you said about making all man made drugs that have no medical benefit illegal?


I also stated it should be illegal or regulated...alcohol--regulated...heroin--illegal



londonfog said:


> I thought this was "A Truth about Ron Paul" discussion and due to the fact Ron Paul would like to change the Civil Rights act of 64, which *could* allow a store owner to kick someone out his/store store based on color or the lack of color, brought us to these topics...we could talk about how foolish it would be to make heroin legal...I feel if its a man made drug it should be illegal or heavily regulated


sometimes you have to read the whole thread before you jump in ..I understand your hatred of reading, but you must if you want to understand the full conversation...post #2478


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I also stated it should be illegal or regulated...alcohol--regulated...heroin--illegal
> 
> 
> sometimes you have to read the whole thread before you jump in ..I understand your hatred of reading, but you must if you want to understand the full conversation...post #2478



Post #2512: "You can't promote the "general welfare" of the people if you start to promoting the legal sell of man-made drugs that have no medical benefits, but in fact can kill your ass and fuck up your life...hey everybody lets do some crack and heroin they say it can cure your problems..NOT"

So what is it? Illegal or regulated? I know it's hard to use that grey matter for something else besides regurgitating all of that socialist crap that you've been brainwashed with, but you should try logical thinking sometime. BTW, my reading skills are fine, you might want to look into some basic english classes though. Don't worry, I won't point out your errors, lest you become a whiny, crying little puss bag like Dan Kone.


----------



## beardo (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> It would be a better chance if it was legal...


 I'm pretty sure that kids can get illegal drugs easier than the legal ones like alcohol a lot of times. I would also argue that their a lot of drugs legally available with worse side effects than heroin especially if you count pescription medications, I would argue that when heroin used to be legal and you could buy it from Sears it was not the major problem it is today.


----------



## jdro (Jul 26, 2011)

beardo said:


> I'm pretty sure that kids can get illegal drugs easier than the legal ones like alcohol a lot of times. I would also argue that their a lot of drugs legally available with worse side effects than heroin especially if you count pescription medications, I would argue that when heroin used to be legal and you could buy it from Sears it was not the major problem it is today.


beardo hit the nail on the head with that one. I mean how about oxycontin. I see that ruining the lives of way more people than ANY other drug. Its an epidemic far worse than crack or heroin.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 26, 2011)

Drug addiction will never go away. Legal drugs or illegal drugs, doesn't matter. There are people who are just prone to become addicts. 

Might as well get Americans back to work growing poppie fields and coca fields. Better than letting violent gangbangers do it. Test for strength and purity. Sell in small quantities to try and prevent OD. 

Now you can call me crazy.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 26, 2011)

On an unrelated note I wanna show my personal disdain of Mitt Romney, he is the biggest tool I have ever seen and a puppet, if we put him up as the nominee against Obama America and much less the republican party is screwed! 

Check it out [video=youtube;jw26CLX4VvE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw26CLX4VvE[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok thanks for the haha...but imagine this you have a beautiful little girl that is now in college...she goes to a party and does heroin for it is now legal..she likes it, because it makes her feel good...now she does it only on the weekend..she loves it for it makes her feel powerful...she now starts doing it on the weekday as well ( after class)..hey it is legal now so she is all good, but what about her life..??? Now we have daddy's little girl hook on heroin with the help of daddy for he thought it to be a good idea to make it legal and readily obtainable


I don't sacrifice liberty for safety. Scare tactics do not convince me. I would raise my daughter to make logical decisions, and if that so happened to result in drug use, than she reaps what she sews.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> at least you didn't try to defend the use of heroin like these others...I do believe that our government must make some harmful drugs illegal..Thats why they have them categorize ...Weed should not be one of them for it does not harm you ...never heard anyone dieing from weed, but herion, crack, and shit like that does nothing but hurt..but hey thats me


Who decides what is harmful? A lot of people think marijuana is harmful, they think alcohol is harmful, they think caffeine is harmful. Why stop at drugs? Doesn't a huge part of the country think abortions, being gay, having guns, ect ect ect are harmful? At what point do you decide where the cut off is at? Do you like being marginalized over marijuana use? There are many things that are harmful that we don't outlaw because it isn't right to meddle in the lives of others. Why do you think your opinion of what is right and wrong is more important that someone else's opinion, especially when it is their life and not your own.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Who decides what is harmful? A lot of people think marijuana is harmful, they think alcohol is harmful, they think caffeine is harmful. Why stop at drugs? Doesn't a huge part of the country think abortions, being gay, having guns, ect ect ect are harmful? At what point do you decide where the cut off is at? Do you like being marginalized over marijuana use? There are many things that are harmful that we don't outlaw because it isn't right to meddle in the lives of others. Why do you think your opinion of what is right and wrong is more important that someone else's opinion, especially when it is their life and not your own.


tell you what you do..first go roll the biggest joint you can....smoke it and remember how you feel...do this for a week...then go shoot up some heroin for a week...when done post and tell us what you think...Now don't post before you do this for I really want to prove a point to you ...good luck


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> tell you what you do..first go roll the biggest joint you can....smoke it and remember how you feel...do this for a week...then go shoot up some heroin for a week...when done post and tell us what you think...Now don't post before you do this for I really want to prove a point to you ...good luck


 Same thing with pharmaceuticals though....


----------



## sync0s (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> tell you what you do..first go roll the biggest joint you can....smoke it and remember how you feel...do this for a week...then go shoot up some heroin for a week...when done post and tell us what you think...Now don't post before you do this for I really want to prove a point to you ...good luck


While you argue that this drug should be illegal, the next post you are telling someone to go do it for a week... Amazing.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 26, 2011)

sync0s said:


> While you argue that this drug should be illegal, the next post you are telling someone to go do it for a week... Amazing.


wow you really didn't get it...right over your head


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 26, 2011)

londonfog said:


> wow you really didn't get it...right over your head


i think he got it but was just trying to make a point.

i have stayed out of this heroin legalization debate that i spurred unintentionally while i form my opinion.

i am still on the fence.i think i lean towards legalization, but either way it is a shitty choice to make.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i think he got it but was just trying to make a point.
> 
> i have stayed out of this heroin legalization debate that i spurred unintentionally while i form my opinion.
> 
> i am still on the fence.i think i lean towards legalization, but either way it is a shitty choice to make.


I have seen what heroin does first hand, so I left that fence a long time ago...shit can wreck your life with just ONE fix..One is too many and 1000 is never enough


----------



## jdro (Jul 27, 2011)

I have seen what alcohol can do to people. Not pretty, sad way to end your life. Shit can wreck your life before you even know what hit you. Should it be illegal? Better yet Oxycontin.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I have seen what heroin does first hand, so I left that fence a long time ago...shit can wreck your life with just ONE fix..One is too many and 1000 is never enough





> 3.8 million people (1.5 percent of the population above 12) say they have tried heroin at least once in their lifetimes.


Meaning less than 1 in every 100 Americans has tried heroin. The only way to not have seen heroin's effects first hand is to be blind, ignorant, or sheltered.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 27, 2011)

Heroin has never killed a single person in the history of mankind, people have killed themselves by using heroin. Giving a drug the magic power of deciding on who lives or dies is anthropomorphism to the extreme. The deadliest drug/substance known to man is for the most part 100% legal, sold in every corner of the USA. right now a 4 year old could very easily obtain this drug and use it by emulating their parents or other adults.


----------



## deprave (Jul 27, 2011)

Ron Paul would not legalize heroin, next Ron Paul conspiracy theory please....all conspiracies currently debunked 


500 internal server error please try again.


20? down

and

??? to go


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 27, 2011)

sync0s said:


> While you argue that this drug should be illegal, the next post you are telling someone to go do it for a week... Amazing.


sync0s... you're dropping the context of his argument, and then using it against him. I think his opinion on this is wrong, but what you just did there was dishonest. I've seen your arguments in here and I didn't expect that from you...

londonfog, nobody I've seen here is saying that heroin isn't a sure way to throw your life in the gutter. Carthoris has a hell of a good point I'd like to expand a bit. With as many people in this country as there is, there are almost as many different value systems. Who gets to decide? What if Romney or Huntsman gets in the White House? They're both Mormon, and if they hold true to their beliefs, they think ANY non-medicinal mind altering substance is not just harmful, but a moral wrong. What is to stop them from signing an executive order to outlaw those substances? JWH-018 (a synthetic cannabinoid) was just banned earlier this year, and not even by executive order - but by bureaucratic means from the DEA.

So who gets to decide what we are allowed to do? Are you going to leave this decision up to politicians and bureaucrats, who make these arbitrary decisions with special interest groups and the next election in mind? Or would you leave this to each and every individual to do what they think is best for themselves, based on each person's beliefs and values? I'm not asking you to answer any of these questions (they're more for others to ponder), but if possible I would like you to answer the following question with stark-naked honesty.

In conceptual terms, what is government's proper role, purpose, and limit (if any) in our lives? I don't need specifics, but I looking for more general ideas of what it should and should not do.

Anyone else here feel free to take a stab at this, I'd love to hear your answers (but I think I can guess a few of your answers already).


----------



## deprave (Jul 27, 2011)

The most important roles are to represent the people and follow the constitution, of which they do neither federally...


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 27, 2011)

The Governments number one function is to protect the rights of its citizens. Of course in the USA our government is sometimes the antithesis of that Ideal.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I have seen what heroin does first hand, so I left that fence a long time ago...shit can wreck your life with just ONE fix..One is too many and 1000 is never enough


three of my brother's best friends died from heroin in their 20's. he was the only one in that circle not to die, and only because we moved the year before they all got hooked.

i did heroin a few times when i thought it was opium. it is a HORRIBLE drug. i freebased it.

it will still be available to the abusers, legal or not. my decision on the issue is based on whether or not legalization will curb this deadly availability or not. i lean towards yes, but i have my doubts.

if you like puking up your guts after getting high, heroin is for you and should be legally prescribed.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jul 27, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> londonfog, nobody I've seen here is saying that heroin isn't a sure way to throw your life in the gutter.


yes it is.

i sit on the fence on this issue having listened to the news of family members dying on several occasions due to heroin.

it is a VERY addictive drug. 

it has HORRIBLE effects. those who compare it to oxycontin are fools.

if it were legal and regulated, would use go down?

all i want is to see less people fall victim to this drug.


----------



## londonfog (Jul 27, 2011)

well this seems like a discussion I will not convince you guys on...I guess you guys would also feel that it should be you right to wear a seat belt or to put your child in a car seat...Thank you for letting me know that we actually have people in this world who feel that heroin should be legal in the name of liberty..I will now bow out of this debate on heroin...


----------



## londonfog (Jul 27, 2011)

Which topic can we pick next

Hes Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

Hes Not For Federally Supported Public Education

He Doesnt Believe in the Separation of Church and State

He Doesnt Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

Why the Phuck does he Phuck with Alex Jones


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> He Doesn&#8217;t Believe in the Separation of Church and State


Where did you get that from?


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 27, 2011)

The more federal funding for education the more stupid the children become. Do we want a future that pans out to be exactly like Idiocracy?

[video=youtube;L0yQunhOaU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Jul 27, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Where did you get that from?


WORDS OF RON PAUL

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.[/FONT]

 _December 30, 2003_


----------



## beardo (Jul 27, 2011)

Truth is he is going to be a good president.
I also agree with him that we should be an English Speaking Christian Nation.


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I guess you guys would also feel that it should be you right to wear a seat belt or to put your child in a car seat...


For adults, yes. They should have the right to not wear a seat belt, they will suffer the consequences of their own actions as a result. For minors, no... they are not of the age or ability to make rationally sound decisions on their own, and their parent/guardian cannot/should not waive their children's right to life away by placing them in a dangerous situation.

My opinion on circumcision is fairly close to the same. A parent has no right to permanently mutilate their child, even for religious reasons. I can't believe I'm saying this, but San Francisco was right to want to ban this practice for minors.


----------



## exclusiveghost (Jul 27, 2011)

Dont Forget To Like Rollitup on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rollit...23363624389389 and follow them on twitter @rollituporg​


----------



## txpete77 (Jul 27, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The more federal funding for education the more stupid the children become. Do we want a future that pans out to be exactly like Idiocracy?


I like money... brought to you by Carl's Jr.


----------



## jdro (Jul 27, 2011)

I LIKE MONEY!! Water???? You mean.... like.... from the toilet???? hahahaha


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Which topic can we pick next
> 
> 
> He&#8217;s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
> ...


I don't know where he said he would like Roe VS Wade overturned but if he did i don't' agree with it but you can't ask anyone to be perfect, anyone else who has delivered 4000 plus babies into the world would probably lean towards being pro-life as well. 

I'm with his idea on abolishing such shammy sections of the federal government such as the FDA and letting the private sector determine what's safe and not safe, that would make everything more efficient and help to eliminate corruption that goes down , such as the current laws which drugs that can kill to be sold over the counter and deeming legitimate alternatives to cancer treatment (gerson's diet) to go unseen because they don't make money unless they are charging dieing people 10's of thousands of dollars for treatment that more than likely won't even work! FDA is flawed fundamentally. 


Federally supported public education is a FAILURE! I will tell you first hand that the more the fed gets involved in education the worst it gets, there used to be a time when kids where taught to be free thinkers and expand their views, there used to be a time which someone my age would work all summer and use that money to pay for college tuition,books, living expenses, dorms, and even the cost of owning a car over the school year. Now we are making teachers feed kinds information as fast as they can just to regurgitate it the coming Friday on a test only to have the kids forget what they "learned" within a weeks time. College costs are exponential to what they where in the 70's and early 80's, many students have to work 30 hour weeks year round to afford to be able to live and feed themselves while hardly even touching the tuition costs. That was all brought on once the Federal government tried to get involved in education. My word to them is fuck off! The only way federal government should helps kids is through the Pell grant by helping them afford the books and classes they made nearly unaffordable. And even then we wouldn't need that helps had the government left college and public schools alone. 

Ron Paul doesn't believe in the government having full control, and that statement he made is an iffy on but I'm not going to determine anything to I find out more. 
but 
Global warming is a sham! Now there is no doubt that we as a race are affecting our environment adversely but it's simply an exaggerated red herring to the fact that earth has warm and cool cycles it goes through. If anything we need to focus on ridding our dependance on fossil fuels and harnessing the free energy available to us (wind, water, solar).

No matter what people think of alex jones the fact remains that he has been accurate nearly detail for detail on 98% of what he predicted would happen. The "bilderburg" group is real and is a problem, whether people want to acknowledge that or not is out of my reach but I can say the america is stuck in an military/medical/industrial complex and most of the people who are involved in those annual meetings are influential in one or another segment of the corporations than our country's government is sleeping with.


----------



## beardo (Jul 27, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I don't know where he said he would like Roe VS Wade overturned but if he did i don't' agree with it but you can't ask anyone to be perfect, anyone else who has delivered 4000 plus babies into the world would probably lean towards being pro-life as well.
> .


 Why should the federal government defend the 'right' to end life?
Why should tax payers finance abortions?


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 27, 2011)

beardo said:


> Why should the federal government defend the 'right' to end life?
> Why should tax payers finance abortions?


You know I wasn't aware taxpayer dollars funded abortions, I was under the influence that women who wanted an abortion paid for it themselves..

But no matter my opinion I am very firm in that the federal government should have 0 say and it should be a states issue.


----------



## deprave (Jul 27, 2011)

Ron Paul back in 1984 Defending Freedom

[video=youtube;G87jOx1VJ3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87jOx1VJ3o&feature=player_embedded#at=70[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> tell you what you do..first go roll the biggest joint you can....smoke it and remember how you feel...do this for a week...then go shoot up some heroin for a week...when done post and tell us what you think...Now don't post before you do this for I really want to prove a point to you ...good luck


I have gotten shots of dilaudid day in and day out for longer than that on multiple occasions. The first time, after the week and change of shots, they sent me home with some in pill form. I still had some of them a year later when I had my first major complications after the shots. Dilaudid is every bit as strong as heroin and most junkies like it more if not as much. What do I think? Shots of dilaudid are better than sex. 

So, I guess your point was that YOU are afraid of what YOU might do if you tried it. I loved it. I am not afraid to admit it. I also very much enjoy bungie jumping and roller coasters. I even had a shot of adrenaline once(or a pharm version of it anway). It was fucking awesome too. Enjoying something and giving up your life for it are two different things. I enjoy it when my old lady picks my scabs, but I don't cut myself so I get scabs. If heroin and meth were legal would I go bang some? No, probably not. 

So the end result is your point really was you think that the things you justify in your life are ok, but the things others justify in their lives isn't.

My point was you shouldn't expect that your morals and ability to deal with things are everyone else's too. It wasn't that I think everyone should go do heroin. It was that you are no different than the people who are policing our lives by making marijuana illegal in the entire country.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 27, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Which topic can we pick next
> 
> 
> Hes Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
> ...


1) He isn't against Roe Vs Wade because it legalized abortion. He is against it because it really wasn't the federal governments place.
2) FDA has banned raw milk. Doesn't that strike you as a pretty obscene abuse of power for a federal agency? Not to mention pointless and stupid.
3) Federally funded education doesn't seem to be doing a very good job. Maybe he is against it because once again - it isn't the federal governments place.
4) Ya know the whole 'separation of church and state' isn't in the constitution right? That is more of a concept. I am not a Christian. Having a religion forced down my throat is unacceptable. However, a majority of our country is Christian. I don't care if children pray in school, I don't mind them having the word God in the pledge, I understand the concept of God and what it means to the people around me. I have my God too. The entire separation issue was so we wouldn't have a national religion - not so we wouldn't have religion visible in our public live. Do you ever wonder why a group of men, who I am pretty sure were nearly entirely Christian would do this?
5)Anthropogenic global warming is not a proven fact. It is more of theory. We know global warming and cooling happen alternatively. While I agree that man has some influence on the earth, is it enough for a massive drastic change? Maybe or maybe not. We have spikes and drop offs all the time in temperatures since the Earth was born (I bet that was one loose bitch). We might hit an ice age in 50 years, no one knows for sure. Man might not even be the major cause of the .3 degree temperature increase we see. I mean, we did have a bigger drastic drop 400 years ago than we are having as an increase now. 



6) Finally, I have no idea, he might as well have a furby talking conspiracy theories as a friend.


----------



## sync0s (Jul 27, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> sync0s... you're dropping the context of his argument, and then using it against him. I think his opinion on this is wrong, but what you just did there was dishonest. I've seen your arguments in here and I didn't expect that from you...


The post can be justified in any way you guys want. The bottom line, under any pretext what so ever, if you are for making something illegal on the basis of preventing further usage you should not advocate usage for any body else. I was making a valid point with that post, and there was no dishonesty in it at all. I would not try to argue against murder and than tell somebody to go commit murder so that they could understand why I am against it, that's just not me.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 27, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> You know I wasn't aware taxpayer dollars funded abortions, I was under the influence that women who wanted an abortion paid for it themselves..
> 
> But no matter my opinion I am very firm in that the federal government should have 0 say and it should be a states issue.


The federal government doesn't fund abortion outright (well, most of them, medically necessary, rape incent ect are approved and paid for by federal funds)

I think the conversation is that planned parenthood is giving abortions cheaper because receives federal funding for everything else, and that means that the federal government is supporting PP's abortions indirectly. While I personally feel that if you are willing to abort your baby you will make a shitty parent anyway and cause the child to be another bad person, I believe people should have the ability to get an abortion. I do not want to fund the abortions though. If it is your personal right and decision to have an abortion then it should also be your personal responsibility. Abortion is something the fed government should neither be for or against.


----------



## deprave (Jul 27, 2011)

Dr Ron Paul On FreedomWatch Yesterday on the Debt Ceiling...

Here are the doctors orders:

[video=youtube;B3X29g2pSug]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3X29g2pSug[/video]


----------



## deprave (Jul 27, 2011)

BIAST FOX NEWS POLLSTER BTW BUT HERE YA GO:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters currently indicate that Obama's top two contenders are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3% with a 95% level of confidence. The following surveys were taken between June 24 thru July 17, 2011. Here are the results - note that the candidates are ranked by those who pose the strongest challenge to Obama. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are currently the top two challengers. 

Romney 43% - Obama 42% = 1 point lead for Romney
Obama 41% - Paul 37% = 4 point lead for Obama

Obama 44% - Guliani 39% = 5 point lead for Obama
Obama 44% - Perry 39% = 6 point lead for Obama
Obama 46% - Bachmann 39% = 7 point lead for Obama
Obama 44% - Christie 37% = 7 point lead for Obama
Obama 47% - Palin 38% = 9 point lead for Obama
Obama 44% - Pawlenty 32% = 12 point lead for Obama
Obama 45% - Santorum 31% = 14 point lead for Obama
Obama 44% - Huntsman 28% = 16 point lead for Obama
Obama 48% - Gingrich 30% = 18 point lead for Obama
Obama 49% - Cain 28% = 21 point lead for Obama

The poll, dated July 22, 2011, states "Congressman Ron Paul may be a long shot to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he runs competitively with President Obama right now." 

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_41_ron_paul_37

A previous Rasmussen poll, dated April 14, 2010, placed Paul within 1 point of Obama: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41 

The fact that Ron Paul has proven himself as a top contender in two Rasmussen polls over a 15 month period is a clear indication that Paul is a top tier candidate for the GOP nomination in 2012. Please share!


----------



## deprave (Jul 27, 2011)

Today Ron Paul Builds Steam in IOWA

[video=youtube;O_zQ1Q6eMcE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_zQ1Q6eMcE[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Jul 28, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I don't know where he said he would like Roe VS Wade overturned but if he did i don't' agree with it but you can't ask anyone to be perfect, anyone else who has delivered 4000 plus babies into the world would probably lean towards being pro-life as well.


In his book (Revolution: A Manifesto), he talks about an experience with abortion:



Ron Paul: Revolution said:


> ...When I studied medicine at Duke Medical School from 1957 to 1961, the subject [of abortion] was never raised. By the time of my medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid-1960s, though, wholesale defiance of the laws against abortion was taking place in various parts of the country, including my own.
> 
> Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done. One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with the delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was...


I just thought a little background on why he has this view would be in order, especially being that everybody seems to think it's because of his religion.

He goes on...



> When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, striking down abortion laws all over the country, even some supporters of abortion were embarrassed by the decision as a matter of constitutional law. John Hart Ely, for instance, wrote in the Yale Law Review: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure." The decision, he said, "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
> 
> The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who will rule in accordance with the Constitution, however, Americans who care about our fundamental law and/or are concerned about abortion do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over broad categories of cases. In the wake of the 1857 Dred Scott decision, abolitionsts spoke of depriving the courts of jurisdiction in cases dealing with slaver. The courts were stripped of authority over Reconstruction policy in the late 1860s.
> 
> If the federal courts refuse to abide by the Constitution, the Congress should employ this constitutional remedy. By a simple majority, Congress could strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning the obviously unconstitutional Roe. At that point, the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs, since no appeal to federal courts on the matter could be heard. (I have proposed exactly this in H.R. 300.)


----------



## defeatedtea (Jul 28, 2011)

beardo said:


> Truth is he is going to be a good president.
> I also agree with him that we should be an English Speaking Christian Nation.


the bill of rights protect against this type of labeling


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 28, 2011)

> * Originally Posted by Ron Paul: Revolution, A Manifesto
> ...When I studied medicine at Duke Medical School from 1957 to 1961, the subject [of abortion] was never raised. By the time of my medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid-1960s, though, wholesale defiance of the laws against abortion was taking place in various parts of the country, including my own.
> 
> Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done. One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with the delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was...
> *



I don't even know what to say to that, just sickening. I need to pick up a copy of that book sometime and read up apparently.


----------



## Carthoris (Jul 28, 2011)

There has to be a limit as to how far into a pregnancy an abortion should be allowed. What Ron Paul witnessed was not an abortion, it was outright murder. I don't see how anyone could ever justify that.
*

*


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> In his book (Revolution: A Manifesto), he talks about an experience with abortion:


Excellent book. I have an autographed copy.


----------



## hazyintentions (Jul 29, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> There has to be a limit as to how far into a pregnancy an abortion should be allowed. What Ron Paul witnessed was not an abortion, it was outright murder. I don't see how anyone could ever justify that.
> *
> 
> *



This has kind of been my stance on the issue, but once again it should be determined by the states.


----------



## deprave (Aug 1, 2011)

New Ron Paul Vids today



Obama vs Ron Paul (Ron Paul wins!)
15 Minute Special
[video=youtube;CBa4cY5IWTk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBa4cY5IWTk[/video]



Ron Paul weekly audio update.
[video=youtube;FJztRiAu5os]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJztRiAu5os[/video]


*Ron Paul on The Wilkow Majority: Radio Show Appearance about Economy*


[video=youtube;lWAnzloesDc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWAnzloesDc[/video]


[video=youtube;wpqdYN-8JJ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpqdYN-8JJ4[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Aug 1, 2011)

The hardcore truth about Ron Paul is he will never get out the Republican primary as the winner and with that being said he will never be POTUS..He should have went independent from the start and maybe he could have been...I will take all bets on this


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 1, 2011)




----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 1, 2011)




----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 1, 2011)

The cold hard truth is Barry soetoro is a one term president.


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> The hardcore truth about Ron Paul is he will never get out the Republican primary as the winner and with that being said he will never be POTUS..He should have went independent from the start and maybe he could have been...I will take all bets on this


I wouldn't say _never_, but it is unlikely. If Paul is proved right with the Fed and other financial issues he may be able pull it off. A lot of this depends on whether or not the Tea Party maintains or gains momentum and how much they pay attention to the other candidates.

I think Paul could beat Obama, but not as an independent. He needs the GOP nomination if he is to win the election.


----------



## mame (Aug 1, 2011)

The Tea Party is *losing* momentum in terms of relations with the general public - "movement approval rating"(the link is fairly old... last night's CNN "debt ceiling" coverage showed a Tea Party approval rating below 25%...). They're being seen more and more as extremists than anything by more and more Americans which spells doom for any Tea Party candidate...

The only chance Republicans have is a moderate conservative but even then, the Tea Party may drag the Republican ticket down and the Republicans are likely to ultimately lose the '12 POTUS election in large part because of it... Aside from that you've anti-far right sentiment building in the midwest (Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) and multiple unpopular governers elswhere (florida, New Jersey come to mind)... How can anyone seriously believe a Tea Party candidate, even Ron Paul, has even the slightest chance of victory?


----------



## deprave (Aug 4, 2011)

Big NEWS: Dr Ron Paul has Introduced bill to cancel 1.6T in debt owed to fed.

[video=youtube;PdD8zndfWSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdD8zndfWSM[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 4, 2011)

mame said:


> The Tea Party is *losing* momentum in terms of relations with the general public - "movement approval rating"(the link is fairly old... last night's CNN "debt ceiling" coverage showed a Tea Party approval rating below 25%...). They're being seen more and more as extremists than anything by more and more Americans which spells doom for any Tea Party candidate...
> 
> The only chance Republicans have is a moderate conservative but even then, the Tea Party may drag the Republican ticket down and the Republicans are likely to ultimately lose the '12 POTUS election in large part because of it... Aside from that you've anti-far right sentiment building in the midwest (Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) and multiple unpopular governers elswhere (florida, New Jersey come to mind)... How can anyone seriously believe a Tea Party candidate, even Ron Paul, has even the slightest chance of victory?


Ron Paul would handily beat Obama in an election. He is only a few points behind Obama in polls. A debate of Obama vs Paul would be a blood bath. People would come away hearing Obama say the same things he has always said but never actually accomplished. Lets see how it would go:

Question; What will you do about the war in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/and every other asshole of the world that America has invaded.

Obama "I will really end the war this term. The first term I had to broaden the war by sending more troops while promising to end it, and then start a new war over uh,... democracy, yea thats it, democracy, in Libya"

Ron Paul would outright say "The war is over, we will begin an immediate withdrawl. Fuck Libya, Fuck Iraq, Fuck Afghanistan, Fuck Abuda duba in the middle of the desert that matters 0 to the US. Closing our hundreds of bases, and still securing America's borders while immediately reducing the budget by a substantial percentage. Our military is very important, and we need to be powerful. We do not need to be in every country at all times, however. Fully a quarter of our deficit could of been adverted if in the 2000's alone every President had not started wars with countries across the sea that do not affect America."

How will you fix the economy?

Obama: "I will continue spending trillions a year on things that I can't prove help, while I keep massive tax breaks for companies like GM. I will continue using federal money to prop up the economy so the next collapse will be even harder. I will continue my attempt to tax the rich more while not considering making the poor (you know, everyone who has under 60k a year with kids) pay any taxes while they use the most government benefits. I will basically do the same thing I have been doing and if it fails, I will blame the Republicans"

Ron Paul "I will stabilize the economy by stopping the free fall of our dollar. I will work to end the FED. I will work to reduce needless regulations and bureaucratic red tape so that our country can be competitive in manufacturing again. Lowering the cost of doing business will bring manufacturing back to our country, and keep that money in our own country. We need to understand as a people that printing money cannot create jobs in the long term. We spent almost 4 trillion dollars trying to get ourselves out of the recession. We lost 7 million jobs during this time, that money accomplished nothing. To put that into perspective 4 trillion dollars could of created 8 million jobs for 10 years making 50,000 a year. instead, we got nothing. Why? Printing money does not create jobs. Our economy would already have righted itself without government interference."


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 4, 2011)

deprave said:


> Big NEWS: Dr Ron Paul has Introduced bill to cancel 1.6T in debt owed to fed.
> 
> [video=youtube;PdD8zndfWSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdD8zndfWSM[/video]


You aren't allowed to point out that a bunch of the debt we owe is bullshit to begin with. It is amusing that no one there really has a clue what will happen. Why? Probably because we aren't sure what would happen if we take imaginary numbers off the balance sheet. Probably nothing - that is why it seems so complicated. How could 1.6 trillion dollars go poof and it not mean anything to anyone?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 4, 2011)

The funny thing is, you never hear the liberal mindset pooh pooh the Feds creation of $16 trillion dollars over the last 3 years. The majority of which went to overseas interests.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The funny thing is, you never hear the liberal mindset pooh pooh the Feds creation of $16 trillion dollars over the last 3 years. The majority of which went to overseas interests.


I don't think they even understand what the Fed does, they probably think it is Fort Knox.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 4, 2011)

You ever think there might be no bubbles to pop if there were no propping up of financial systems? Would there of been a housing bubble if the government had not encouraged lenders to loan money to people who couldn't pay it so they could be home owners? Wouldn't that of adverted the entire financial system meltdown?


----------



## Parker (Aug 7, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You ever think there might be no bubbles to pop if there were no propping up of financial systems? Would there of been a housing bubble if the government had not encouraged lenders to loan money to people who couldn't pay it so they could be home owners? Wouldn't that of adverted the entire financial system meltdown?


you are correct. That is why you treat the cause not the symptoms.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 7, 2011)

Parker said:


> you are correct. That is why you treat the cause not the symptoms.


+ rep...short and sweet, to the point, I love it... End the FED!!!


----------



## deprave (Aug 8, 2011)

Ron Paul weekly audio update.

Title: Super Congress: Easy Prey for the Military-Industrial Complex
[video=youtube;18QjfdhJEM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18QjfdhJEM4[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 8, 2011)

*Ron Paul Marijuana/Hemp/Medical Marijuana Video Compilation From 2003 to 2011*

Ron Paul pushes for Marijuana Legilization 2011
[video=youtube;XpRuciwYZn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpRuciwYZn0[/video]
[video=youtube;RkfQya3kTOI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfQya3kTOI[/video]



Medical Marijuana Patient Confronts Ron Paul in 2007
[video=youtube;JHS_y94H1Dk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk[/video]

2007 speech
[video=youtube;frWE3shyVz0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frWE3shyVz0[/video]

2006 - Ron Paul Introduces HR 1009 - American Hemp Farmers Act - To Legalize Hemp
[video=youtube;vDLiHJFPWsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDLiHJFPWsM[/video]



Ron Paul on Medical Marijuana in 2003
[video=youtube;XpRuciwYZn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpRuciwYZn0[/video]


Ron Paul 1998 - Speech on the floor opposing Drug War - Specifically marijuana
[video=youtube;26s6c9c3rls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26s6c9c3rls&feature=channel_video_title[/video]


Ron Paul 1988 - Ron Paul talks about the drug war and the CIA involvement
[video=youtube;SBh_hzU-jdI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBh_hzU-jdI&playnext=1&list=PL03C6192AC71377B1[/video]


Consistency.....


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

How does Ron Paul feel about Super Pacs and the 2010 Supreme Court decision to allow corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> How does Ron Paul feel about Super Pacs and the 2010 Supreme Court decision to allow corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates.


Obviously Ron Paul would follow the constitution and allow super pacs.
If you won the lottery right now, would you perhaps campaign for or against a politician? Let us say you really believe Ron Paul fucks turtles and hates black people. Wouldn't you want to do your best to try and keep him from winning? So you decide, IM GOING TO HELP OUT! So you take a million of your 150 million dollar win. (75 after being raped by taxes) and you go oh yea, Im going to cause a stir. BUT WAIT. You can't, you are federally limited in how you are allowed to spend your money. 

Ron Paul and you might not agree - but he would still want you to be allowed to represent yourself using your money. It is YOUR money after all. There is no reason why I should not be allowed to spend all the money I want supporting a candidate. 

Whether it is a business or a person - why would they not be allowed to spend money in support or opposition of any law or politician? Not supporting a private individual or businesses right to spend their own money promoting their ideas is the same thing as being against free speech. The government should of never been allowed to limit it to begin with.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Obviously Ron Paul would follow the constitution and allow super pacs.
> If you won the lottery right now, would you perhaps campaign for or against a politician? Let us say you really believe Ron Paul fucks turtles and hates black people. Wouldn't you want to do your best to try and keep him from winning? So you decide, IM GOING TO HELP OUT! So you take a million of your 150 million dollar win. (75 after being raped by taxes) and you go oh yea, Im going to cause a stir. BUT WAIT. You can't, you are federally limited in how you are allowed to spend your money.
> 
> Ron Paul and you might not agree - but he would still want you to be allowed to represent yourself using your money. It is YOUR money after all. There is no reason why I should not be allowed to spend all the money I want supporting a candidate.
> ...


I'm sorry where in the constitution does it say "Super Pacs"..I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..


----------



## beardo (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> .I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..


Didn't they all use their wealth to help them get elected?

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers and their supporters were wealthy.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Obviously Ron Paul would follow the constitution and allow super pacs.
> If you won the lottery right now, would you perhaps campaign for or against a politician? Let us say you really believe Ron Paul fucks turtles and hates black people. Wouldn't you want to do your best to try and keep him from winning? So you decide, IM GOING TO HELP OUT! So you take a million of your 150 million dollar win. (75 after being raped by taxes) and you go oh yea, Im going to cause a stir. BUT WAIT. You can't, you are federally limited in how you are allowed to spend your money.
> 
> Ron Paul and you might not agree - but he would still want you to be allowed to represent yourself using your money. It is YOUR money after all. There is no reason why I should not be allowed to spend all the money I want supporting a candidate.
> ...


If he is following the Constitution by interpreting the ideals of the founding fathers he would be anti-corporation:



> [FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]*"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson*


*
*


> [/FONT]&#8220;I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.&#8221;


 I don't know what the founding fathers would think about the workers unions.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm sorry where in the constitution does it say "Super Pacs"..I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..


Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the Federal Reserve, income tax, foreign aid, ObamaCare, bailing out banksters, bailing out ANYBODY, competition stifling regulations, continually adding to the debt without a repayment plan, invading sovereign nations for no good reason, stationing troops in over 140 countries or taking from some to give to another?


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

sync0s said:


> If he is following the Constitution by interpreting the ideals of the founding fathers he would be anti-corporation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I pretty much agree with you snyc0s...I do feel they would have tolerated the unions as long as they are for the people, but as we know SOME unions have become greedy and act more like management..some not all...!!!


----------



## sync0s (Aug 8, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the Federal Reserve, income tax, foreign aid, ObamaCare, bailing out banksters, bailing out ANYBODY, competition stifling regulations, continually adding to the debt without a repayment plan, invading sovereign nations for no good reason, stationing troops in over 140 countries or taking from some to give to another?


He asked a specific question out of general curiosity. It's best to try to give the best appropriate answer rather than going off on a tangent and dancing around it.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I pretty much agree with you snyc0s...I do feel they would have tolerated the unions as long as they are for the people, but as we know SOME unions have become greedy and act more like management..some not all...!!!


The only thing I know is the founding fathers saw unions as representatives of the citizens themselves. I don't think they imagined a union could get as big as they are today, however, those unions are often tied with the corporations. Eliminate corporations, I would imagine you might see the massive unions disappear as well.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

don't think he can provide one thats why I just ignored him...I was really curious as to why Ron Paul did not speak out on this one.. I don't think corporations should control elections...money should not control elections...you see how Romney just made an easy 1,000,000 bucks and this guy really didn't have to report who or where it came from...What if China create a company and donated 50,000,000 bucks to a candidate is that right..well it can be done now and we would never know


----------



## sync0s (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> don't think he can provide one that why I just ignored him...I was really curious as to why Ron Paul did not speak out on this one.. I don't think corporations should control elections...money should not control elections...you see how Romney just made an easy 1,000,000 bucks and this guy really didn't have to report who or where it came from...What if China create a company and donated 50,000,000 bucks to a candidate is that right..well it can be done now and we would never know


Right, and that is a major flaw of the American government. If we didn't have to deal with things like that our country today would be much different. Perhaps he has never spoken on it because it has never been asked. He talks a lot about certain issues like drugs because those are the ones he gets pounded with questions on.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm sorry where in the constitution does it say "Super Pacs"..I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..


Basically, anything not specifically outlawed in the constitution is legal - or at least it isn't within the federal governments power to outlaw. Any power not specifically given to the federal government is given to the states and the people.

Would the founding fathers have decided that someone could not print ads in the newspapers of the day to promote themselves or a candidate? Would the founding fathers have decided that you could not spend your money in whatever way you chose?


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Basically, anything not specifically outlawed in the constitution is legal - or at least it isn't within the federal governments power to outlaw. Any power not specifically given to the federal government is given to the states and the people.
> 
> Would the founding fathers have decided that someone could not print ads in the newspapers of the day to promote themselves or a candidate? Would the founding fathers have decided that you could not spend your money in whatever way you chose?


founding fathers would have said hell no to this BS today, but you say what you must..hurts your guy more then mine..Romney vs Obama 2012


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

sync0s said:


> If he is following the Constitution by interpreting the ideals of the founding fathers he would be anti-corporation:
> 
> *[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson[/FONT]*
> 
> ...


Those quotes don't go against what Ron Paul stands for. The first one is a condemnation of the Federal Reserve. The second one was in reference to the monopolies that were contracted by the English crown. He wasn't referring to corporations as we know them.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Those quotes don't go against what Ron Paul stands for. The first one is a condemnation of the Federal Reserve. The second one was in reference to the monopolies that were contracted by the English crown. He wasn't referring to corporations as we know them.


ummm I think its more to the mind-frame of how the founding fathers thought...but hey if you think that Ron Paul think its ok to give unlimited amounts of money to an election without knowing who or what gave it then ok...One more reason for me not to like him..but to be honest I think it would go against his character from the picture you guys have made him out to be..but what do I know about Ron Paul


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> founding fathers would have said hell no to this BS today, but you say what you must..hurts your guy more then mine..Romney vs Obama 2012


Neither of those two are a choice of mine. Both of them are fundamentally disgusting to me. My only hope for the election is that whoever wins is ineffectual instead of effectually destructive. They founding fathers would of revolted and had them both murdered, and for good cause. They would be thoroughly sickened by the election that only determines who gets to decide which scraps that are left of the freedoms they left us get destroyed next. Amusingly, the people in the USA would probably not vote for George Washington.(I' started to say first president, but he wasn't)

As far as you saying it hurts Romney more than Obama - are you serious?


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> but what do I know about Ron Paul



The most intelligent statement I've seen you make.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Neither of those two are a choice of mine. Both of them are fundamentally disgusting to me. My only hope for the election is that whoever wins is ineffectual instead of effectually destructive. They founding fathers would of revolted and had them both murdered, and for good cause. They would be thoroughly sickened by the election that only determines who gets to decide which scraps that are left of the freedoms they left us get destroyed next. Amusingly, the people in the USA would probably not vote for George Washington.(I' started to say first president, but he wasn't)
> 
> As far as you saying it hurts Romney more than Obama - are you serious?


ummm I said it hurts your guy more then mine...Your guy is Ron Paul...My guy is Obama....I say it will be Romney vs Obama 2012...understand now ? Ron Paul will be hurt by this thing you say he likes ( which I kinda doubt that he likes unlimited money in a campaign, but you will say anything before finding out facts)...


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 8, 2011)

Ron Paul-2002:

"The so-called reform legislation being proposed is clearly unconstitutional. The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring. While some in the media have raised First amendment questions, few seem to understand that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to regulate campaigns at all.

Campaign finance reform really means more regulations, more controls, more telling the American people how they can spend their money and how they can lobby Congress. Your freedoms should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. The problem is that there are members of Congress who yield to the temptation and influence of money, who effectively sell their votes to those who can give them money and keep them in office. If enough members did not yield to the temptation, they would not have to posture with phony campaign finance reform bills and they would not have to undermine the Constitution."


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ummm I think its more to the mind-frame of how the founding fathers thought...but hey if you think that Ron Paul think its ok to give unlimited amounts of money to an election without knowing who or what gave it then ok...One more reason for me not to like him..but to be honest I think it would go against his character from the picture you guys have made him out to be..but what do I know about Ron Paul


I'm guessing you know little to nothing about him. It shouldn't matter how much money I give to a candidate - it is my money. There is a law against foreign donations, so if China donated 10 million it would be illegal already. Where do you see there is no record keeping with super pacs? Ron Paul thinks you should mind your own business and stop being so worried about what others are doing with their money.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ummm I said it hurts your guy more then mine...Your guy is Ron Paul...My guy is Obama....I say it will be Romney vs Obama 2012...understand now ? Ron Paul will be hurt by this thing you say he likes ( which I kinda doubt that he likes unlimited money in a campaign, but you will say anything before finding out facts)...


It doesn't hurt Ron Paul. As far as saying things before finding out facts, I find that laughable coming from a person whose entire knowledge of Ron Paul is from people who hate him and think he is a turtle fucker. The turtle is a willing partner and his sexual preference is none of your business.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> It doesn't hurt Ron Paul. As far as saying things before finding out facts, I find that laughable coming from a person whose entire knowledge of Ron Paul is from people who hate him and think he is a turtle fucker. The turtle is a willing partner and his sexual preference is none of your business.


LOL..I think I know enough to make sure I will not vote for him...but like I said if you think Ron Paul likes the Citizens United decision then more power to you and Ron...again another reason not to like him...so I guess you will be forced to vote Romney uhhh


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> LOL..I think I know enough to make sure I will not vote for him...but like I said if you think Ron Paul likes the Citizens United decision then more power to you and Ron...again another reason not to like him...so I guess you will be forced to vote Romney uhhh


I have never really been excited about a politician before Ron Paul. I know that Obama is not to be trusted and that he is another in a long line of authoritarian douche bags. (R and D's). If I have to I will vote for Romney, but it will be an unhappy compromise vote. I know in my heart that whether Romney or Obama wins - the country is doomed without the leadership of people like Ron Paul. I see a glimmer of hope in the Republican and Independent ranks.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ummm I said it hurts your guy more then mine...Your guy is Ron Paul...My guy is Obama....I say it will be Romney vs Obama 2012...understand now ? Ron Paul will be hurt by this thing you say he likes ( which I kinda doubt that he likes unlimited money in a campaign, but you will say anything before finding out facts)...


 wow dude, you love obama so much you are willing to become a republican, vote in the repub primary for someone you know can't win against Obama. The only person you WON'T vote for is Ron Paul though. Telling, very telling. Shrewd.

Romney will be eaten alive by Obama.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> wow dude, you love obama so much you are willing to become a republican, vote in the repub primary for someone you know can't win against Obama. The only person you WON'T vote for is Ron Paul though. Telling, very telling. Shrewd.
> 
> Romney will be eaten alive by Obama.


Hey Nodrama how do you think Ron Paul feels about Super Pacs and the 2010 Supreme Court decision to allow corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates..so far it seems like Ron Paul supporters say Ron loves it ( except sync0 )...what say you


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Hey Nodrama how do you think Ron Paul feels about Super Pacs and the 2010 Supreme Court decision to allow corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates..so far it seems like Ron Paul supporters say Ron loves it ( except sync0 )...what say you


Why don't you just read what Dr Paul said, himself?


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Why don't you just read what Dr Paul said, himself?


hell what do you think I have been asking..do you have a link..I want to see what he says..


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Hey Nodrama how do you think Ron Paul feels about Super Pacs and the 2010 Supreme Court decision to allow corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates..so far it seems like Ron Paul supporters say Ron loves it ( except sync0 )...what say you


He is against campaign finance reform (Wrongly IMO). His basis is constitutional separation of powers. Its a legit view and constitutional. IMO I don't know what to do, i guess i would want some kind of limit or cap on how much could be spent. This would change every election of course, but how to admin it all is beyond me, I haven't really given it enough thought.

Here is the archive from 2002 when Dr Paul debated his point to congress.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070303215027/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr021302.htm

I am not sure what his views are for certain when it comes to superpacs, they are fairly new and a cursory search hasn't revealed his stance, though im sure the more astute RP observer could find it.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Thank you for the answer and pointing me in the right direction...ok I don't see why he would not be against this...After seeing how Romney just made an easy million dollars, it got me to thinking what would stop any* nation* from influencing our elections...Hell set up a dummy corporation , transfer money from corp to candidate...dissolve said company..Hell this could work for any nation..Saudi, Israel, China, Iran..hell nation with an interest of controlling America....This is not good


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Thank you for the answer and pointing me in the right direction...ok I don't see why he would not be against this...After seeing how Romney just made an easy million dollars, it got me to thinking what would stop any* nation* from influencing our elections...Hell set up a dummy corporation , transfer money from corp to candidate...dissolve said company..Hell this could work for any nation..Saudi, Israel, China, Iran..hell nation with an interest of controlling America....This is not good


I don't think you misunderstand what a super pac is. A 'pac' is a political action committee. They don't transfer money to the candidate, they merely work towards getting them elected. The 'super pac' is just a word they made up when they decided that restricting how much money private organizations can spend on promoting a candidate was a violation of free speech. This would be like me taking my personal money and running ads about Ron Paul. Obviously Ron Paul isn't telling me to run ads for him or what to run. It is already illegal for a foreign country to donate money to a political campaign - either directly or in the way that you mentioned. They call that fraud. There is nothing that kept them from doing that before now, and in fact Obama returned donations from other countries because of fraud. 

Making it illegal for me, you, and other American citizens to throw our full support behind a cause, candidate, or idea is nothing short of an extreme limitation on our rights to free speech. Why not limit the amount of time you can donate to a cause? Isn't working for months on a campaign worth more than 2500? I spent more drinking in Europe on my vacation than I am allowed to give to Ron Paul. If I had 10,000 I wanted to give to Ron Paul, would you consider that to be wrong? You are talking about a guy I honestly believe would keep our country from collapsing completely in the coming years. That is worth a lot more than the 2,500 I am allowed to give to him to me. I worked for the money - why would I not be able to buy 5k pounds of bologna or give Ron Paul a 2 minute commercial during prime time?

I trust stupid people to vote about as much as I trust a corporation. We should probably limit voting to people who can read and write. If they can't do those two things, they probably aren't capable of understanding the very politics they are voting on. That would be illegal though, and for good reason.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I don't think you misunderstand what a super pac is. A 'pac' is a political action committee. They don't transfer money to the candidate, they merely work towards getting them elected. The 'super pac' is just a word they made up when they decided that restricting how much money private organizations can spend on promoting a candidate was a violation of free speech. This would be like me taking my personal money and running ads about Ron Paul. Obviously Ron Paul isn't telling me to run ads for him or what to run. It is already illegal for a foreign country to donate money to a political campaign - either directly or in the way that you mentioned. They call that fraud. There is nothing that kept them from doing that before now, and in fact Obama returned donations from other countries because of fraud.
> 
> Making it illegal for me, you, and other American citizens to throw our full support behind a cause, candidate, or idea is nothing short of an extreme limitation on our rights to free speech. Why not limit the amount of time you can donate to a cause? Isn't working for months on a campaign worth more than 2500? I spent more drinking in Europe on my vacation than I am allowed to give to Ron Paul. If I had 10,000 I wanted to give to Ron Paul, would you consider that to be wrong? You are talking about a guy I honestly believe would keep our country from collapsing completely in the coming years. That is worth a lot more than the 2,500 I am allowed to give to him to me. I worked for the money - why would I not be able to buy 5k pounds of bologna or give Ron Paul a 2 minute commercial during prime time?
> 
> I trust stupid people to vote about as much as I trust a corporation. We should probably limit voting to people who can read and write. If they can't do those two things, they probably aren't capable of understanding the very politics they are voting on. That would be illegal though, and for good reason.


Man do you mean "understand."..shit I'm high and that fucked me up not understanding WTF you meant..lol...stop fucking with my high!!!!...Now sorry, but I do UNDERSTAND whats a superpac..I watched Steven Colbert..lol..but he did show how it can be misused...if you can start a corporation and then donate unlimted money to a committe organized to support ONE certain candidate we can be in a world of trouble...Now you keep thinking anything diffrent and you about to get left behind... read this

A company called W Spann LLC, formed on March 15th, has dissolved shortly after making a $1 million contribution on April 28th to Restore Our Future, a committee organized in support of GOP presidential hopeful *Mitt Romney*. According to corporate records *obtained by NBC News*, the business was formed by Boston-based lawyer *Cameron Casey* who, as she notes *in her online bio on her employer&#8217;s website*, specializes in &#8220;comprehensive estate planning advice to high-net-worth individuals and families.&#8221; 
The company was dissolved on July 12th, two weeks before Restore Our Future made its first campaign filing. A spokesperson for Ropes & Gray, the law firm for which Casey works, told NBC News that &#8220;the firm won&#8217;t be making any comment on this matter at this time.&#8221; Also noteworthy: Rope & Gray represents Bain Capital, an investment firm formerly headed by Romney. 
Adding to the mystery is the fact that the company&#8217;s purported address in midtown Manhattan has no records of such a tenant. 
A little more about *Restore Our Future*: The &#8220;super PAC,&#8221; which maintains that it functions as a separate entity from Romney&#8217;s official campaign, was founded by three of Romney&#8217;s former political aides. A glance at the group&#8217;s website shows *no mention of Romney specifically* and instead simply notes that &#8220;It is time that we restore our future by supporting candidates who have worked in the private sector and created jobs, who understand the economy, and who believe in America, American workers, and American values.&#8221; It also claims that it is &#8220;Not authorized by any candidate or candidate&#8217;s committee.&#8221;
Then again, as NBC points out, *Charles R. Spies*, the group&#8217;s treasurer and Romney&#8217;s general counsel during his 2008 presidential bid, *made it clear to The Washington Post* that the super PAC has a very clear, definite goal:


----------



## sync0s (Aug 8, 2011)

I support the idea of being able to freely choose where your money goes politically, don't get me wrong. However, I'm fully anti-corporation, and I think that if we followed our founding fathers words of wisdom and did everything we could to eliminate these massive corporations (and banks) than we wouldn't have to worry about prohibiting such things.

By the way, setting up a dummy corp and using it to funnel political funds through is money laundering and a felony. A president who was found to get large support like that would get massive heat (providing the media doesn't willfully shove their heads up their asses) and could possibly face impeachment.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 8, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I support the idea of being able to freely choose where your money goes politically, don't get me wrong. However, I'm fully anti-corporation, and I think that if we followed our founding fathers words of wisdom and did everything we could to eliminate these massive corporations (and banks) than we wouldn't have to worry about prohibiting such things.
> 
> By the way, setting up a dummy corp and using it to funnel political funds through is money laundering and a felony. A president who was found to get large support like that would get massive heat (providing the media doesn't willfully shove their heads up their asses) and could possibly face impeachment.


Dude do you know how much money laundering goes on in Washington...and thats just what was done with Romney and W Spann LLC..they just use a middle man...


----------



## deprave (Aug 9, 2011)

If we want to see how Ron Paul really feels about unions and monopolies I think its best to look back to this tape from 1983. Ron Paul explains his stance on unions here well, essentially he believes unions are good so long as they are allowed to compete and so long as they keep healthy competition in the job market. You might find it interesting to know that Ron Paul in his younger years(college), before becoming a congressman was essentially a liberal. 


Ladies and gentlemen, its time you understand that Ron Paul is the ANTI-CORPORATION, Ron Paul is the ANTI-MONOPOLY. Please remove Ron Paul from the right wing stereotype that comes to your mind when you hear catch phrases like "union busting" and the like, Ron Paul is not your typical right winger or conservative. Ron Paul does not fit into the the little bracket you have drawn for "Right wing nuts", he is outside of that box.

[video=youtube;8C4gRRk2i-M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M&feature=BFa&list=PLBEE6DCF5EB1234B0&index=4[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 9, 2011)

The Mitt romney article above also fails to mention that the total is 12.2 million dollars(I think it was 1.1 millionish but on about 10 occasions, cant remember the exact offhand), which funny enough is nearly all of the contributions the Romney campaign has received. I blogged about this and one of the comments was: "No shit, the sheeple don't even know who romney is why would they send him any money" - This comment is hilarious, but it is true. So scratch romney because this has been highly publicized, I really don't understand what kind of conservative would even like romney? now look who remains, easy targets for the msm only.....Will the msm finally push for Ron Paul? Not if their pay checks say otherwise..... The real question is, How good can they make bachman look?


Mitt romney meets a medical marijuana patient and turns his back

[video=youtube;iSnnUC8-y4Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnnUC8-y4Y[/video]


Ron Paul meets that same patient

[video=youtube;JHS_y94H1Dk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Aug 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude do you know how much money laundering goes on in Washington...and thats just what was done with Romney and W Spann LLC..they just use a middle man...


You're right. I at times choose to be partially ignorant towards that fact because it makes me hate my country when I think about it...


----------



## deprave (Aug 9, 2011)

Ron Paul on Bloomberg TV 8-8-11

[video=youtube;itWlILr6WAg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itWlILr6WAg[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 9, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Man do you mean "understand."..shit I'm high and that fucked me up not understanding WTF you meant..lol...stop fucking with my high!!!!...Now sorry, but I do UNDERSTAND whats a superpac..I watched Steven Colbert..lol..but he did show how it can be misused...if you can start a corporation and then donate unlimted money to a committe organized to support ONE certain candidate we can be in a world of trouble...Now you keep thinking anything diffrent and you about to get left behind... read this
> 
> A company called W Spann LLC, formed on March 15th, has dissolved shortly after making a $1 million contribution on April 28th to Restore Our Future, a committee organized in support of GOP presidential hopeful *Mitt Romney*. According to corporate records *obtained by NBC News*, the business was formed by Boston-based lawyer *Cameron Casey* who, as she notes *in her online bio on her employer&#8217;s website*, specializes in &#8220;comprehensive estate planning advice to high-net-worth individuals and families.&#8221;
> The company was dissolved on July 12th, two weeks before Restore Our Future made its first campaign filing. A spokesperson for Ropes & Gray, the law firm for which Casey works, told NBC News that &#8220;the firm won&#8217;t be making any comment on this matter at this time.&#8221; Also noteworthy: Rope & Gray represents Bain Capital, an investment firm formerly headed by Romney.
> ...



lol, I actually had written "I don't think you understand' but I thought that sounded mean, so I meant to rewrite it as "I think you are misunderstanding'. I don't hate you, and you were being fairly civil so I was trying to soften my language. lol. If it had the added benefit of fucking with you, then I can only say the world is as it is lol.

I watched the same Colbert report you are referring to. I love him, he is a very funny guy. The need for keeping track of the money no longer exists. The reason being is that any American citizen, and any American company can donate all the money they want to a pac. The biggest reason for keeping track before was to ensure no one gave over a certain $ amount (which was unconstitutional). It is still illegal for foreigners to donate money to the pacs.

Also, they know who donated the 1 million dollars. It was a single person, Ed Conrad. I have to say that keeping track of private money transactions is questionable. but they already track it anyway. Any bank transaction over a certain amount gets reported. So the issue isn't 'where did the money come from', since the government already knows. The issue is that it is not a matter of public scrutiny. My tax return, my mortgage, my car loan, the receipts from my shopping trip, and my doctor bills are not public matters. Why would donations to causes I believe worthy be any different? Sure, if there is fraud suspected, the government should investigate. However, the people have no inherent right to know what any other citizen does with their money, just as I have no right to know who you voted for.


----------



## Cali chronic (Aug 10, 2011)

I just re registered to vote as not a Repub or a Dem but open. No longer will I vote for Parties I will vote for the man. Ron Paul you are my man! I don't agree with your religious views but then again I don't like religion. It causes strife and wars.
Ron Paul 2012 President of the USA getting back on track.


----------



## beardo (Aug 10, 2011)

Cali chronic said:


> I just re registered to vote as not a Repub or a Dem but open. No longer will I vote for Parties I will vote for the man. Ron Paul you are my man! I don't agree with your religious views but then again I don't like religion. It causes strife and wars.
> Ron Paul 2012 President of the USA getting back on track.


I just registered as a Republican so I can vote for Paul in the primaries so he has the opportunity to run for president and win in 2012, If your not yet Register Republican and vote Ron Paul in the primary


----------



## beardo (Aug 10, 2011)

Rent a limo and pick up everyone you know to vote in the primaries


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> Rent a limo and pick up everyone you know to vote in the primaries


i can hike them on my bike


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> I just registered as a Republican so I can vote for Paul in the primaries so he has the opportunity to run for president and win in 2012, If your not yet Register Republican and vote Ron Paul in the primary


 isnt that next year?


----------



## beardo (Aug 10, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> isnt that next year?


Yeah but i'm OCD and get stressed out if I start putting things off and have shit to do it drives me crazy so I do it ahead of time.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> Yeah but i'm OCD and get stressed out if I start putting things off and have shit to do it drives me crazy so I do it ahead of time.


 Smoke a bong load, relax, sit back, vote in the primaries, in time, then sit back, smoke another bong load all the way to november 2012 and watch Ron Paul win, then smoke another bong load.


----------



## beardo (Aug 10, 2011)

[youtube]5CAU2k1Xw9U[/youtube]
Don't Stop Believeing-Ron Paul 2012


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

is that you beardo lol


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

New Interview (focus of discussion is on the financial crisis and the FED)

[video=youtube;qGcJECYz9OQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGcJECYz9OQ[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 11, 2011)

*I cant stand how they list ron paul very very last in this bull shit!**Also fails to acknowledge how well he is doing in iowa*.

*Republican debate comes two days before straw poll*


By John Whitesides
AMES, Iowa, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Eight Republican White House hopefuls meet in a nationally televised debate on Thursday, hoping to generate momentum two days before an Iowa straw poll that will test the strength of their campaigns.
The first Republican debate in nearly two months will give struggling contenders like Tim Pawlenty an opportunity to make an impression on Iowa voters before they deliver their verdict in Saturday's non-binding straw poll.
It also gives the rest of the pack a chance to directly confront front-runner Mitt Romney, who was not challenged at the last debate and has largely ignored his rivals to focus his campaign-trail attacks on President Barack Obama.
With less than six months remaining before Iowa holds the first presidential nominating contest in 2012, time is running short for candidates to begin making up ground.
"Given the placement in Iowa just ahead of the straw poll, you will see a lot of attention on this debate," said Donna Hoffman, a political scientist at the University of Northern Iowa.
"I think the campaigns are going to make a calculus that it is time to take on Romney," she said. "There will be a lot of people trying to get noticed and a lot of positioning on social issues."
The debate will be held at Iowa State University, site of Saturday's straw poll, an unofficial mock election that serves as an early gauge of the popularity and organizational muscle of Republican candidates in Iowa.
Looming over the debate is the likely candidacy of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is expected to make his intent to enter the race clear on Saturday during an appearance in South Carolina that coincides with the straw poll.
Perry also will travel to the early-voting state of New Hampshire on Saturday and visit Iowa on Sunday in a blitz that will steal attention from the straw poll winner and signal his intention to run an aggressive and broad campaign.
COMPETITION FOR ROMNEY
Perry, a staunch social and religious conservative, stresses his strong job creation record in Texas. That could help him compete with Romney for the party's pro-business wing and make him a formidable challenger to Obama.
Romney got into a debating mood during a morning visit to the Iowa state fair in Des Moines, where he had a heated exchange with a group of hecklers who pressed him on whether the wealthy should pay more into the Social Security retirement system.
They shouted and chanted "Wall Street greed" as he tried to answer. "If you don't like my answer, you can vote for someone else," Romney said. "I'm not going to raise taxes, that's my answer. If you want someone who will raise taxes, vote for Barack Obama."
Romney said Social Security and the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs for the elderly and poor would have to be part of a long-term solution to the budget deficit.
Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee who has not ruled out a presidential run, was expected to visit the state fair on Friday along with a swarm of other contenders.
The debate, which begins at 9 p.m. EDT (0100 GMT on Friday), also will feature plenty of other story lines in a field of potential challengers to Obama that has not impressed some Republicans.
U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann will try to repeat her successful performance in New Hampshire's June debate and continue her strong showing in Iowa, where she leads polls.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, whose campaign has stalled after a much anticipated debut in June, will be making his first debate appearance on the national stage.
Huntsman is not participating in the straw poll or competing in Iowa, focusing instead on New Hampshire and Florida. Romney also is not participating in the straw poll but says he will compete in the state's caucuses next year.
Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor who has lagged in single digits in polls in Iowa and nationally, faces a possible make-or-break test in the straw poll and the debate could be his last chance for a direct appeal to Iowa voters.
"He has to gin up some enthusiasm, and he just hasn't done it yet," Hoffman said.
Also participating in the debate will be former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, businessman Herman Cain, former Senator Rick Santorum and U.S. Representative Ron Paul.


----------



## beardo (Aug 11, 2011)

beardo said:


> [youtube]5CAU2k1Xw9U[/youtube]
> Don't Stop Believeing-Ron Paul 2012





deprave said:


> is that you beardo lol


No that's my boy Zuma Dogg- He ran for mayor


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 11, 2011)

*Fox news poll on the GOP debate, just another to add to the very long list!
*

*Debate Poll*

Make or break: Which candidate needs the strongest showing in the Iowa Straw Poll? 



Ron Paul 27.89% (2,503 votes) 

Michele Bachmann 15.47% (1,389 votes) 

Tim Pawlenty 14.45% (1,297 votes) 

Herman Cain 13.07% (1,173 votes) 

Mitt Romney 9.71% (872 votes) 

Newt Gingrich 9.16% (822 votes) 

Rick Santorum 5.47% (491 votes) 

Jon Huntsman 4.78% (429 votes) 


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-debates/index.html


----------



## Windsblow (Aug 11, 2011)

I see this thread woke back up....... MOrning Ya'll


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

FOX NEWS.COM: WHO WON THE DEBATE: 
Paul 5583 
Gingrich 3572 
Cain 1850 
Romney 1451 
Bachmann 1422
Santorum 683
Huntsman 252 
Pawlenty 197 
Votes as of 08:17 PM, 08/11/11


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 11, 2011)

*Link to all polls
** 
*
http://runronpaul.com/polls/post-debate-polls-vote-for-ron-paul/


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

Part 1
[video=youtube;rr9HV_wwssM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9HV_wwssM[/video]

Part 2
[video=youtube;sJYlsGvZGdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJYlsGvZGdc[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

Part 3 of More than 6:
[video=youtube;Lf8kRq2WqUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf8kRq2WqUY[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 11, 2011)

Thanks man i caught the ass end of it and couldn't find the full version.


----------



## beardo (Aug 11, 2011)

I liked the part when Ron Paul asked them not to Assassinate us


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

Part 4 of I believe 9
[video=youtube;4SA65acUvRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SA65acUvRw[/video]

Ron Paul at 12:39, yes hes actually there

Skipping the break and commentary

Part6: Starts with Ron Paul
[video=youtube;Ogseq-xh9ks]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogseq-xh9ks[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

part7: 
some of the best Ron Paul highlights are in this part, here they "debate" the wars.
[video=youtube;2ibuzGIAGjU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ibuzGIAGjU[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

Part 8

[video=youtube;CzWr_06vmmU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzWr_06vmmU[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

Part 9 - Newt gets asked about FED - Ron Paul gets rebuttal
[video=youtube;NNh70_KdUEc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNh70_KdUEc[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

No Post Debate Invterview with Ron Paul but interviews with all the others, I wonder why?

[video=youtube;Wv8IEEtYPuY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv8IEEtYPuY[/video]



Ron Paul highlights part 1:

[video=youtube;bSMsecpsDnA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSMsecpsDnA[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

Ron Paul Debate Highlights Part 2
[video=youtube;btg0Qdsf40o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btg0Qdsf40o[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 11, 2011)

*Ron Paul is getting bold.
He is in it to win it, and he figures either he will win, or retire, so its go big or go home.
Ron Paul is such a patriot and can easily be a spark in this bed of dry tender spreading revolution like wild fires in the name of prosperity.
Every article and news clip or debate i look at completely overlooks and ignores ron paul and its because they are very, very, very, afraid.*


----------



## beardo (Aug 11, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *Ron Paul is getting bold.*
> *He is in it to win it, and he figures either he will win, or retire, so its go big or go home.*
> *Ron Paul is such a patriot and can easily be a spark in this bed of dry tender spreading revolution like wild fires in the name of prosperity.*
> *Every article and news clip or debate i look at completely overlooks and ignores ron paul and its because they are very, very, very, afraid.*


Is that why the poll on who won the debate isn't on the fox news web site anymore?
I wonder who is ahead in the polls? I wonder who should get the nomination? I wonder who the front runners are.


----------



## deprave (Aug 11, 2011)

Guaranteed they dont report any of it and come up with some "insider" poll to tell the sheeples about in the morning lol happens every damn time, the truth is Ron Paul won the "debates" again and yet again won all of the authentic polls titled "who won the debate", Where are the people that sincelry think Ron Paul didn't win? Id sure like to meet one, I doubt they exist.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 11, 2011)

beardo said:


> Is that why the poll isn't on the fox news web site anymore?


 *I can guarantee it, there has been a massive attempt to black out Ron Paul, shit if i didnt know any better, id say ron paul was not in this debate all of us just watched, it was hard to even confirm he was in this debate while watching it!
Every article or news clip revolving about REP candidates black out Ron Paul.
I believe ron paul knows this and is starting to get allot more bold*.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 11, 2011)

man i saw the debate and really liked how Paul responded to the other dudes! What were you alls thoughts?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 11, 2011)

RON PAUL had some awesome things to say though tonight!
He is logical, sensible, practical, right, sharp, reasonable, and getting BOLD, i really seen a step up from last debate, i think we are all going to witness a very passionate grasping of all the sheeples and a vast shaking to wake them from their trance by Ron Paul, he is simply sick of all the bullshit. I believe now he wont stop, but for only that fire will fester and fester until its a raging inferno, that not the media or anyone or anything will be able to black out.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 12, 2011)

i feel ya! I was kinda iffy, but i liked how he took charge and became the authority on the stage! And that pussy that was freakn talkn all this shit towards him, pointing fingers and shit! that was weak on his part! but Paul whooped butt and i really liked that, he has my vote next year and i really hope he WINS!!!!





tryingtogrow89 said:


> RON PAUL had some awesome things to say though tonight!
> He is logical, sensible, practical, right, sharp, reasonable, and getting BOLD, i really seen a step up from last debate, i think we are all going to witness a very passionate grasping of all the sheeples and a vast shaking to wake them from their trance by Ron Paul, he is simply sick of all the bullshit. I believe now he wont stop, but for only that fire will fester and fester until its a raging inferno, that not the media or anyone or anything will be able to black out.


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

*Jordan Page - "The Light of Revolution" (Ron Paul 2012 song) *



[video=youtube;GIcfjUp-HZc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIcfjUp-HZc&feature=share[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i feel ya! I was kinda iffy, but i liked how he took charge and became the authority on the stage! And that pussy that was freakn talkn all this shit towards him, pointing fingers and shit! that was weak on his part! but Paul whooped butt and i really liked that, he has my vote next year and i really hope he WINS!!!!


 He stepped up and did some very bold things that i believe is just the pretext.
I feel revolution is a foot, he is very wise, schools all those idiots because he is a true career politician and a patriot and constitutional, he doesn't appeal to corporations or big government/private banks or any by-product leaching from those entities, but he massively appeals to THEPEOPLE!! he is speaking directly to the people when he is up there debating, people like what they hear and see, and they want america back. He is a very great man and makes it an honor to live in this country and know its founding documents and principles.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 12, 2011)

how do you think he will do in the polls after this?






tryingtogrow89 said:


> He stepped up and did some very bold things that i believe is just the pretext.
> I feel revolution is a foot, he is very wise, schools all those idiots because he is a true career politician and a patriot and constitutional, he doesn't appeal to corporations or big government/private banks or any by-product leaching from those entities, but he massively appeals to THEPEOPLE!! he is speaking directly to the people when he is up there debating, people like what they hear and see, and they want america back. He is a very great man and makes it an honor to live in this country and know its founding documents and principles.


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

* New Ron Paul Country Song - Landslide! - Ron Paul 2012 -
*


[video=youtube;XZpEP8MqSPM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZpEP8MqSPM&feature=share[/video]


New Ron Paul Rap Song - "What If Ron Paul Was President" - Rise, Consise & Krookid.

[video=youtube;PfYfxd7pmPw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfYfxd7pmPw&feature=share[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

Another New Ron Paul Song

* Freedoms TOO BIG To Fail (Unaware)* By: Allen Stone



[video=youtube;dCBJV5QkiTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCBJV5QkiTY&feature=share[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

Ron Paul Post Debate Interview on Stossel

[video=youtube;DB0Z1O5RKrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB0Z1O5RKrI[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

*In 2008 this episode of 20/20 where John Stossel interviews Ron Paul was banned after the initial airing*

[video=youtube;A6a9549ZeqQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6a9549ZeqQ&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;i1NDs4RMbHU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1NDs4RMbHU[/video]

[video=youtube;2tYcH1BeSc4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYcH1BeSc4[/video]
[video=youtube;XRIK2lt7H4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRIK2lt7H4M[/video]
[video=youtube;k5iXmAie4Xc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5iXmAie4Xc[/video]

[video=youtube;7hoiancRfxc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hoiancRfxc[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 12, 2011)

hey, how can i start rallying for Ron Paul if my area is full of dems?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 12, 2011)

Good question in general, how can people rally for ron paul?
I never gave a damn enough about any other candidate in my life to rally, so i kinda lack the know how. Deprave?


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

Well first you have to debunk the conspiracy theories, you can read about this by flipping through this thread, but the main thing is to touch on liberal issues such as unions, anti-trust, and free trade. If the person is not about issues but about identity here is a few points for your dem friends

*Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate

*Ron Paul is the only Physician of all the candidates

*Ron Paul is the only veteran

*Ron paul has the most experience in Washington, with flawless consistency in backing the people and standing by the constitution.

*Ron Paul is the only pro-marijuana candidate (if they smoke)

*Ron Paul is anti corporation and anti monopoly.

*Ron Pauls is the only vote that could be considered a yes for gay marriage among republicans

*Ron Paul fought to eliminate taxes on waitress tips.

*Technically Ron Paul is the most supportive of personal liberty and (don't say this because its a smartass remark but ironically this includes "social welfare")

*Ron Paul predicted the financial crisis 5 years in advance

*Ron Paul was the first ever to successfully audit the FED, he is the only person with real financial and monetary policy plans that is any different from the same old crap (see sig)

*Ron paul wants the most reform and the most change of all candidates and essentially he is a progressive in this sense, Ron Paul was also a democrat in his younger years before a becoming a congressman.


The Change the dems wanted in 2008? They didn't get it. Obama failed. Now its time for real change.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> Well first you have to debunk the conspiracy theories, you can read about this by flipping through this thread, but the main thing is to touch on liberal issues such as unions, anti-trust, and free trade. If the person is not about issues but about identity here is a few points for your dem friends
> 
> *Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate
> 
> ...


 Yeah i know his rap sheet, he has constant consistency in his voting record.
I guess im leaning more towards educating people about him who dont know who he is, and i would bring up all the facts that you mentioned plus more. 
Are there local level offices regionally for his campaign?


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

yes go to ronpaul2012.com and signup to volunteer in your area.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 12, 2011)

!!!!!!!!ATTENTION!!!!!!

Hey guys and this is to EVERYONE on here, i was just wondering if i could print out some good posts that i may find going through this whole thread, and i was asking if it was cool with you guys?

i want to put them on some paper and pass them out as fliers around my college and city..

thanks in advance! i really want this dude to win!


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

thats cool man go for it


----------



## sync0s (Aug 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yeah i know his rap sheet, he has constant consistency in his voting record.
> I guess im leaning more towards educating people about him who dont know who he is, and i would bring up all the facts that you mentioned plus more.
> Are there local level offices regionally for his campaign?


Join his campaign staff and go door to door or make phone calls for him. Educate the people on the policies of RP. I've already signed up and am anxious to start 

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/sign-up-as-volunteer/


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

Iowa says Ron Paul Won?
http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/08/ron-paul-slides-into-top-tier-wins-debate-by-telling-iowans-and-america-the-truth/



> *Ron Paul Slides into Top Tier &#8211; Wins Debate by Telling Iowans &#8212; and America &#8212; the Truth*
> AMES, IOWA &#8211; August 11, 2011 &#8211; Thomas Woods &#8211; Once again, Ron Paul distinguished himself in a Republican presidential debate by telling Americans the truth, answering the questions he was asked, and refusing to treat his countrymen like ten-year-olds who should be spoken to in bumper-sticker slogans.
> On the economy, everyone talked about lower taxes, cutting spending, and a balanced budget &#8211; the usual boilerplate. Only Ron Paul sought to explain why we have recessions in the first place. Only Ron Paul mentioned the critical role of the Federal Reserve System in blowing up the bubbles that have popped in America over the past decade. Only Ron Paul explained that the monetary system we have, whereby money can be created out of thin air whenever the political class wants it, is a recipe for the very kind of disaster we are living through right now.
> To be sure, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had some critical words for particular Fed policies, but surely his recent criticism of the Fed is one of the exceedingly rare times, if not the only time, he has made serious mention of the Federal Reserve in over three decades in public life.
> ...









--------------------------


*O**f course, Dr. Paul fears no one. At an event Wednesday in Mason City, Paul quickly --- and politely -- painted Perry as Mr. Establishment, connected him to Al Gore and then said his entry into the race was a tribute to free market principles... as in the more competition, the better. Now THAT is a man on message.

Looking on off-screen, his son, Sen. Rand Paul....

Video: http://bcove.me/vrxbolne
*


----------



## DelSlow (Aug 12, 2011)

Rick santorum is such a tool. Stfu and let Ron speak!


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

So today we wake up to more Polls removing Ron Paul, Polls that Ron Paul Won Intentionally being reset (fox), and Polls that Ron Paul won being ignored.....Whats new?

Ron Paul Removed:  http://www.therightscoop.com/poll-who-won-the-debate-tonight/

Fox Poll Reset and not mentioned on their shows:  http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas-newsroom/index.html
(Ron Paul winning the new reset poll again lol)

polls - looks like Ron Paul won all of these online polls and most of them by a wide margin: 

foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-debates/index.html 
dailycaller.com/2011/08/11/live-tweeting-the-iowa-gop-debate/
onlineiowastrawpoll.com/
facebook.com/questions/10150746441315389/
startribune.com/local/
facebook.com/questions/10150293512752360/?qa_ref=qd
topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11
live.foxnews.com/
vortexeffect.net/2011/08/11/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-fox-news-ames-republican-debate/
politics.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/11/7350500-who-do-you-think-won-the-gop-presidential-candidates-debate
facebook.com/questions/10150267058571336/?qa_ref=qd
therightscoop.com/poll-who-won-the-debate-tonight/
theblaze.com/blog/2011/08/11/who-won-tonights-debate/
reddogreport.com/2011/08/who-won-the-iowa-republican-debate
facebook.com/questions/10150260880095779/
facebook.com/questions/203356159719877/
news.yahoo.com/
knox912.com/?p=858
turner.mo2do.net/s/18129/Home
ipollnews.com/2011/08/11/iowa-debate/
ed.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/13/6851987-poll-who-won-tonights-gop-debate
foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/11/poll-who-do-you-think-came-out-on-top-of-the-iowa-republican-presidential-debate/



So whats new, Not much, They are still trying to keep people in the dark about Ron Paul, Ron Paul the only man with any real tangible support of the people is somehow not the "favorite", Ill believe that shit when pigs fly.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> So today we wake up to more Polls removing Ron Paul, Polls that Ron Paul Won Intentionally being reset (fox), and Polls that Ron Paul won being ignored.....Whats new?
> 
> Ron Paul Removed: http://www.therightscoop.com/poll-who-won-the-debate-tonight/
> 
> ...


Yet again, more shenanigans from those who wish to influence the voting public through deception and lies.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 12, 2011)

Damn shame the Republican party will not give Ron Paul the nod...When will he make the annoucement that he is tired of both parties and start his own independent run...


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 12, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Damn shame the Republican party will not give Ron Paul the nod...When will he make the annoucement that he is tired of both parties and start his own independent run...


That's the truth. Problem is that he'll never get any media attention as an independent. As uncle buck would say "he's fading away..." This debate was a sham, I pissed @ Fox news, I watched them reset the polls on their site after the debate. Chris Wallace is a joke, just another example of a right wing nut job imho.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 12, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> That's the truth. Problem is that he'll never get any media attention as an independent. As uncle buck would say "he's fading away..." This debate was a sham, I pissed @ Fox news, I watched them reset the polls on their site after the debate. Chris Wallace is a joke, just another example of a right wing nut job imho.


Can he switch it up now that he has finally gotten some media attention? And would you suggest he do so if he can/could?


----------



## londonfog (Aug 12, 2011)

No the problem is they will not give him the nod no matter what, so why even play the games with them..??? Leave then campaign right and the media will be force to give you time...rent out a stadium and fill it...if he can fill a stadium then we talking...can he fill a stadium ????


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Can he switch it up now that he has finally gotten some media attention? And would you suggest he do so if he can/could?


 I think you don't understand here, he hasn't got much media attention at all, although it is more than last year and hes on TV a lot, the problem is that is press coverage for the high rated shows like say good morning america, the show that people watch every morning getting ready for work for 20 years, all their coverage is negative......its basically this...The sheeples just dont know who Ron Paul is, all they know is what matt lower tells them, this morning I was listening to a talk radio show, they didn't even say Ron Pauls name, they just said santorum argued with 'everyone else' on Iran.


----------



## beardo (Aug 12, 2011)

deprave said:


> I think you don't understand here, he hasn't got much media attention at all, although it is more than last year and hes on TV a lot, the problem is that is press coverage for the high rated shows like say good morning america, the show that people watch every morning getting ready for work for 20 years, all their coverage is negative......its basically this...The sheeples just dont know who Ron Paul is, all they know is what matt lower tells them, this morning I was listening to a talk radio show, they didn't even say Ron Pauls name, they just said santorum argued with 'everyone else' on Iran.


Do you know how many people say Ron Paul is unelectable and crazy- and when I ask why, they don't know, and when I ask what he said, they don't know, and when I ask if they have listened to him or read his books or watched his debates they have not?


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

Yep, its a lot, most people...Don't Know who he is, or think he crazy but they dont know why, or think hes crazy because of some conspiracy theory.


----------



## deprave (Aug 12, 2011)

Heres for the Crazy ones...
[video=youtube;XKORcYc2V-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKORcYc2V-k[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 12, 2011)

Yeah i understand the media has been putting their spin on everything he says and does to make it look bad. Quoting out of context, mis-quoting, lying, manipulating online polls, etc.

But they can only spin it so many ways.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 12, 2011)

londonfog said:


> No the problem is they will not give him the nod no matter what, so why even play the games with them..??? Leave then campaign right and the media will be force to give you time...rent out a stadium and fill it...if he can fill a stadium then we talking...can he fill a stadium ????


Unfortunately I think you're right. A lot rest on this Ames Poll this Saturday and I think after the complete failure of a dignified debate which Fox hosted candidates like Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Santorum are done. I watched the little yes/no meter during the debate coverage online and during the post debate wrap up and the only candidates who were in the positive when the question was "Did "so and so" do good at the debate?" were Newt and Ron, both @ like 70%+ to 30% - . 

I believe given his supporters Ron Paul could most likely fill a stadium. Problem is he's a little stubborn in that he represent the Republican party as it used to be and won't let that go. If Ron Paul placed in the top 3 at the Ames Poll (which I believe he will) if not 1st then he I don't think Fox or anyone else can deny that the people are liking these ideas of individual rights, etc ,etc. 

The biggest problem is that if Ron Paul ran as an independent he will not garner any of the votes the republican nominee will get. Because let's face it, there are many people out there who are voting simply on party. And as it is a suprisingly large number of people still support Obama dearly. So as an independent there is no chance, Ron Paul has to get the Repuklican nomination. It's looking better but not promising. 

The media keeps playing Paul down by saying his "paulbots" flood the polls and so they are invalid, which I know isn't completely far fetched but at the same time is it not true that many people who follow these thigns so closely online are likely to have done a lot more research of the potential versus someone whos only exposure to the political battlefield in GMA of a similar show? Assuming that is that said people have a solid job. Point being is that I think Ron Paul supporters are simply people who are more informed than the average American. 

If only their was a fair way to expose each candidate from both sides equally and fairly to all people. It's hard for someone to support a candidate if they never get to hear or understand said candidates policies.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 12, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Unfortunately I think you're right. A lot rest on this Ames Poll this Saturday and I think after the complete failure of a dignified debate which Fox hosted candidates like Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Santorum are done. I watched the little yes/no meter during the debate coverage online and during the post debate wrap up and the only candidates who were in the positive when the question was "Did "so and so" do good at the debate?" were Newt and Ron, both @ like 70%+ to 30% - .
> 
> I believe given his supporters Ron Paul could most likely fill a stadium. Problem is he's a little stubborn in that he represent the Republican party as it used to be and won't let that go. If Ron Paul placed in the top 3 at the Ames Poll (which I believe he will) if not 1st then he I don't think Fox or anyone else can deny that the people are liking these ideas of individual rights, etc ,etc.
> 
> ...


i just read an article in which an MSNBC reporter declared that Ames is no longer relevant and is a waste of time lol.

*edit: Pretty sure it was msnbc. Will look for the link.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 12, 2011)

*This is bill o faggy and ann cunter bashing on paul from the last debate before iowa.
If this is not a psyche operation against ron paul then im god.
This shit needs to stop!
*[youtube]GRFVFb21C3M[/youtube]


----------



## DelSlow (Aug 12, 2011)

Most media outlets, even FOX, are trying to downplay Ron Paul. What's up with that? I've seen 2 republican debates so far and he's the only guy who answers questions. Everyone else just dances around shit. And he doesn't give BS answers, he knows what he's talking about. It would really be a shame if he lost the nomination to any of those clowns.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *This is bill o faggy and ann cunter bashing on paul from the last debate before iowa.
> If this is not a psyche operation against ron paul then im god.
> This shit needs to stop!
> *[youtube]GRFVFb21C3M[/youtube]


Damn infuriating isn't it?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 12, 2011)

i thought o'fagot was rep as well. Is he not?

I think he is a bit of a douche if you as me!





tryingtogrow89 said:


> *This is bill o faggy and ann cunter bashing on paul from the last debate before iowa.
> If this is not a psyche operation against ron paul then im god.
> This shit needs to stop!
> *[youtube]GRFVFb21C3M[/youtube]


----------



## sync0s (Aug 13, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *This is bill o faggy and ann cunter bashing on paul from the last debate before iowa.
> If this is not a psyche operation against ron paul then im god.
> This shit needs to stop!
> *[youtube]GRFVFb21C3M[/youtube]


Edited with old footage.


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

If you want to see examples of the media ignoring and smearing Ron Paul, just turn to the first post of this thread, I collected every media spin on Ron Paul for about 4 months, there you have dozens of examples of the media just the first 4 months of this year smearing Ron Paul.

@*hazyintentions*
You know whats funny, They say Ron Paul has a cult following well, where is the other candidates "cult following" - You know he does have a cult following, its everyone under 30, the people who use the internet for research as if it was their left hand...introverted people that would rather be on the internet studying....hmmm....its not just that freedom is a young Idea, your right its just simply people who are more informed, and when it comes to online polls again its people that are more informed because they apparently have access to the internet(obviously) so you make a good point. 

And furthermore, even, if people where cheating wouldn't they be the smart ones? Wouldn't cnn be the dumb ones for not using mod_security or proxyblock? Why don't Obama employees like chris matthews pay their IT department a descent wage? are they treated like crap so they dont protect their polls cause they just don't care? I really doubt it, Im sure their polls are protected with these basic programs that are 100% free open source software.


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

Tonite on Fascist Round Tables: They talked shit about them but one dude had his back(sorry Im really stoned)

this video got 178 thumbs down and 20 likes

[video=youtube;YyfiIF6ql9U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyfiIF6ql9U[/video]

According to a few of these sellout mother effers, Rick Perry, the guy who didn't even show up won the debate? How the hell do you win a debate that you don't participate in?


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

Also on Fox

*"Iowans Worried If Ron Paul Wins Ames Straw Poll That It Will Diminish The Influence Of The Poll" *

They just went out and said what was said recently in this thread "They are really worried Ron Paul is going to win" - Terrified...The Establishment is aiming for the nuts here

[video=youtube;F1EUJFSqHBc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1EUJFSqHBc[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

New Today: Ron Paul Interview On Willis Report, Business show always honest about Ron Paul, host claims hes favored to win straw poll tomorrow

[video=youtube;dY_pTu62DYw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY_pTu62DYw[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

New AUDIO - Radio Interview today on KTRH:

Ron Paul won their poll, they talk about all the polls Ron Paul Won Today including the Fox Polls, and how its looking promising for him to win this straw poll

[video=youtube;dY-NXotqkCQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY-NXotqkCQ[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

WHO RADIO IOWA ALSO SAYING RON PAUL WON THIS MORNING - another Ron Paul interview

[video=youtube;HE6UlJKe8Ws]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6UlJKe8Ws[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

Rachel Maddow Fact Checks the GOP Debate - Never mentions Ron Paul in this 10 minute Roast of every other candidate. This should make you ask yourself, who is the candidate that can beat Obama by winning the independent and democrat vote, clearly the answer is Ron Paul.
[video=youtube;j0L9sZaHJ5w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0L9sZaHJ5w[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

Alex Jones is calling it early, as he does with everything, for christ sakes he can't even wait to get to the office anymore, Alex says Ron Paul won the poll already:

[video=youtube;ysIDgy63Ihk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysIDgy63Ihk[/video]

he rants some more on his show about it

[video=youtube;n82zLisxU18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82zLisxU18[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

RT says he has a good chance to win also, Ron Paul finishing in first in every post debate poll in Iowa

[video=youtube;hxjgQBWSY10]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjgQBWSY10[/video]

She reports Ron Paul campaign is the the most numerous and organized and there is Ron Paul signs everywhere, she says it looks like a Ron Paul convention and that Ron Paul supporters are the vast 
majority.


Adams Review on the debate:

[video=youtube;xwM034yxifE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwM034yxifE[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

Ron Paul Fox Interview 8/12/11

Ron Paul owns this interview, amazing!

Wow he had a lot of adreniline, on top of his game, he knows he won the debate and he is very enthusiastic about it.

[video=youtube;lL7fi0_4HzU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL7fi0_4HzU[/video]


Washington Post: Ron Paul could win straw poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/could-ron-paul-wins-the-ames-straw-poll/2011/08/12/gIQA4wn5AJ_blog.html


Also Chris Matthews said bluntly "The Iowa straw polls don't count if Ron Paul wins" - not even going to dignify that with a video


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

Ron Paul Wins all the GOP Debate Polls by a landslide The Videos lol(Video Evidence)
[video=youtube;NcPUeWQ03yA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcPUeWQ03yA&feature=player_embedded#at=117[/video]


[video=youtube;Uz6liYKzLvE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz6liYKzLvE&feature=share[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 13, 2011)

deprave said:


> Sarah Palin Defends Ron Paul and says he has a strong chance of winning, I smell an endorsement
> 
> [video]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/sarah-palinron-paul-great-chance-winning-14292626[/video]


 you really think so?


----------



## deprave (Aug 13, 2011)

Not really, not until he is up against obama.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 13, 2011)

She said he had a great chance of winning the STRAW POLL, not the presidency.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 13, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> She said he had a great chance of winning the STRAW POLL, not the presidency.


Please don't spoil the illusion...Ron Paul supporters would like to believe she meant "he will win it all"


----------



## UGA (Aug 13, 2011)

nice thread deprave.

I am also voting for Ron Paul.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 13, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Please don't spoil the illusion...Ron Paul supporters would like to believe she meant "he will win it all"


I think most Ron Paul "supporters" are smart enough to know that he doesn't need pain's endorsement


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 13, 2011)

I think a Palin endorsement would likely worsen someones chances.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 13, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I think a Palin endorsement would likely worsen someones chances.


exactly. So I've started watching the live CNN stream, place is still mostly empty but I'm experiencing some apprehension on this poll. Now, I know RP will be a top three finish but it's looking like a battle for 1st between him and Bachmann *cough* idiot * cough*

Ummm, the guy came on an announced Bachmann as the winner and when they showed the numbers they didn't show Bachmann or Paul's numbers... wtf?

EDIT: So I found some numbers from USA today. 

1. Bachmann - 4,823 - 28.6%
2. Paul - 4,671 - 27.7%
3. Pawlenty - 2,293 - 13.6%

A close battle for Bachmann and Paul, with barely more than 150 votes more than Paul I would say that's a good result.


----------



## deprave (Aug 14, 2011)

well somehow bachman won(mind boggling) and Ron Paul took second, historically the 1st or 2nd place has always won the nomination so still a good sign....

I don't see any bachman supporters so not sure where they really came from?









L.A. Times wrote


> *Inside the arena, Bachmann arrived to the Elvis Presley song &#8220;A Little Less Conversation.&#8221; The Minnesota congresswoman spoke at length about her roots in Iowa; she was born in Waterloo.
> 
> She urged undeclared attendees to come with her to vote in the poll. &#8220;I&#8217;m asking for your vote to be the next president of the United States and take your voice to the White House," she said.
> 
> ...


----------



## sync0s (Aug 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> well somehow bachman one and Ron Paul took second, historically the 1st or 2nd place has always won the nomination so still a good sign....
> 
> 
> I don't see any bachman supporters so not sure where they really came from?
> ...


I already posted this above. She was born and raised in Iowa. She is also a Senator from Minnesota. Her whole support base rests in Iowa.


----------



## deprave (Aug 14, 2011)

so essentially she won because of her family lol


----------



## sync0s (Aug 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> so essentially she won because of her family lol


Dude, I don't even know how she has been getting reelected in Minnesota. She is a miracle worker, I give her that. Fucking made a deal with the devil or some shit.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 14, 2011)

In Iowa If you want to vote in the straw poll you need to pay a 30 dollar fee
It is also allowed for candidates to pay the fee and give out vote tickets

The Paul Campaign and the Bachmann campaign were shelling out thousands buying votes yesterday
google it. Its on pretty much any news site


----------



## deprave (Aug 14, 2011)

Rand Paul Interview about his fathers showing.
[video=youtube;_2kykUKiNuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2kykUKiNuo&feature=player_embedded#at=12[/video]



*"I think my challenge of Ron Paul hurt him. Michelle Bachmann should thank me."-Santorum - Cspan 
*


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 14, 2011)

Well at least Fox news actually gave credit to Ron Paul. Remember last time when they didn't even speak his name?

Notice that Rand never attacks Bachmann, but instead only compliments her?


----------



## deprave (Aug 14, 2011)

[video=youtube;5vRuy0m7IjA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vRuy0m7IjA&feature=player_embedded[/video]

"Santorum broke the golden rule by not pretending Ron Paul is invisible."

Headline: "Michelle bachman wins poll, Palewnty takesthird" (lol)


----------



## laughingduck (Aug 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Well at least Fox news actually gave credit to Ron Paul. Remember last time when they didn't even speak his name?
> 
> Notice that Rand never attacks Bachmann, but instead only compliments her?


 Signs of a future kick ass Statesman.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 14, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> In Iowa If you want to vote in the straw poll you need to pay a 30 dollar fee
> It is also allowed for candidates to pay the fee and give out vote tickets
> 
> The Paul Campaign and the Bachmann campaign were shelling out thousands buying votes yesterday
> google it. Its on pretty much any news site


i've read twice now that RP SOLD tickets while Bachmann gave them away.


----------



## Charlie Ventura (Aug 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Well at least Fox news actually gave credit to Ron Paul. Remember last time when they didn't even speak his name?
> 
> Notice that Rand never attacks Bachmann, but instead only compliments her?


Over the years, Fox has been more than fair to RP. He's gotten lots of coverage and has been a guest on several programs and was always treated with respect. We sure can't say the same for the Main-Slime media.


----------



## JoeCa1i (Aug 14, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]Lrj9-gHpQsw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 14, 2011)

why did people have to pay to vote in the straw poll?


----------



## sync0s (Aug 14, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> why did people have to pay to vote in the straw poll?


The tickets to the debate were $30 each. If you bought a ticket you could vote in the straw poll.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 15, 2011)

sync0s said:


> The tickets to the debate were $30 each. If you bought a ticket you could vote in the straw poll.


yup they use the expensive straws...Hell Ron Paul should bitch about that... consistency


----------



## tet1953 (Aug 15, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> why did people have to pay to vote in the straw poll?


To answer your question about why, it is a fundraiser for the Republican party.


----------



## tet1953 (Aug 15, 2011)

Wow. Second place. It was just a straw poll, but still. Very impressive showing. While I am not one of his diehard fans I do like him and could easily vote for him were he to get the nomination (voted for Obama). I really have to wonder why the media treats him like they do. In spite of his showing in Iowa, he is nothing more than an honorable mention in every news story. Why is that? Are they afraid of him? These are not baiting questions, I really don't get why he is shunned.


----------



## Smirgen (Aug 15, 2011)

This cant be true, Please tell me that our news media would never try to affect the outcome of the presidential election, LOL!. 
[youtube]5vRuy0m7IjA[/youtube]

Also notice at the one minute thirty three second mark where an article shows 1st place Michelle Bachman and 3rd place winner Tim Pawlenty yet completely omits Ron Paul in second place.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 15, 2011)

*mother fucking shit balls i hate the media.*


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 15, 2011)

tet1953 said:


> These are not baiting questions, I really don't get why he is shunned.


I tend to think it is because he would significantly change the status quo in DC.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 15, 2011)

He is shunned by the Republican party for the 1988 abandonment...and then that FED Reserve thing .. that really killed him...nope if Ron ever want a chance at the general election..he will have to do it as third party independent..wasting time and money hanging with these Repukes, but others say different


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 15, 2011)

So if you think the Federal Reserve system is bad.

Do you also think it is run by Jews?

I hear this a lot from Ron Paul Supporters


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 15, 2011)

_*JEWS CONTROL AMERICA.* This is because the Jews own the Federal Reserve Bank. Its not federal at all. Its privately owned. by Jews!_
_The money that President George Bush borrows in the billions of *$$$* at interest comes from the Jewish money lenders of the Federal Reserve Bank. They look so very professional & so legit dont they? But dont fall for it for they are bandits. _
_For how does President George Bush pay for these loans at Jewish high interest hmm? By taxing American Gentiles up the gazoo!_
_Presidential candidate Ron Paul says that we dont have to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank but can print our own $$$ at no interest. Ron Paul says that this is our Constitutional right. But Jews dont care about our Constitutional rights. All that Jews care about is what serves their own interests._

*THIS IS WHY THE RACISTS LOVE RP*

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=ron+paul+federal+reserve+jews&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=580575142019ba61&biw=1680&bih=946


----------



## londonfog (Aug 15, 2011)

ok do you know which Jews own it..is it a family of Jews ??? Whats their last name...I mean saying the Jews own it is a wide blanket.. I like conspiracy theory's


----------



## beardo (Aug 15, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> _*JEWS CONTROL AMERICA.* This is because the Jews own the Federal Reserve Bank. It&#8217;s not &#8220;federal&#8221; at all. It&#8217;s privately owned. by Jews!_
> _The money that President George Bush borrows in the billions of *$$$* at interest comes from the Jewish money lenders of the Federal Reserve Bank. They look so very professional & so legit don&#8217;t they? But don&#8217;t fall for it for they are bandits. _
> _For how does President George Bush pay for these loans at Jewish high interest hmm? By taxing American Gentiles up the gazoo!_
> _Presidential candidate Ron Paul says that we don&#8217;t have to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank but can print our own $$$ at no interest. Ron Paul says that this is our Constitutional right. But Jews don&#8217;t care about our Constitutional rights. All that Jews care about is what serves their own interests._
> ...


i'm not sure if you have heard but George Bush is no longer president


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 15, 2011)

HeyI'm putting out there why The white Supremacists love the Nutter from texas

Dont forget all the racist Quotes RP has given out and the fact he didnt support awarding Rosa parks any Honors


----------



## beardo (Aug 15, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> HeyI'm putting out there why The white Supremacists love the Nutter from texas
> 
> Dont forget all the racist Quotes RP has given out and the fact he didnt support awarding Rosa parks any Honors


Are you citing this as a reason you support or as a reason you oppose Paul? Not all rasists support Paul, I have a feeling Obama won't be voting for Paul


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 15, 2011)

Throwing down the race card... really?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 15, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> Throwing down the race card... really?



"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992 
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992 "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

GIVE ME A DECK THATS NOT FULL OF RACE CARDS, AND I WONT PLAY THEM mmKay?


----------



## DelSlow (Aug 15, 2011)

Dude, have you ever played football with black people?


----------



## sync0s (Aug 15, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992 "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992
> 
> GIVE ME A DECK THATS NOT FULL OF RACE CARDS, AND I WONT PLAY THEM mmKay?


For the millionth time: THOSE WERE NOT WRITTEN BY RON PAUL. Stop spreading lies, it makes you appear even more stupid. Although, you should have that appearance because you have no idea what you are talking about. Your last three post have been hate spewed propaganda bullshit that can only come from someone who hasn't even spent the time to learn the truth.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 15, 2011)

Those were in his Newsletter

Did I mention 

His newsletter

He also voted against honoring Rosa parks and his Son Rand wants to roll back the civil rights amendment


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 15, 2011)

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul&#8217;s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics


----------



## londonfog (Aug 15, 2011)

thats horrible, but everyone here says he is an honest guy


----------



## sync0s (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm growing tired of this argument. Think what you will, but just because you "think" there is a "possibility" that he wrote it doesn't mean he did. Imagine if you got convicted of murder because "there is a good chance" you did it.

I'm not even going to cover the comment about the 64 CRA. This forum frustrates me with how many circles we go in


----------



## londonfog (Aug 15, 2011)

well it is better when you are high..lol


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 16, 2011)

sync0s said:


> i'm growing tired of this argument. Think what you will, but just because you "think" there is a "possibility" that he wrote it doesn't mean he did. Imagine if you got convicted of murder because "there is a good chance" you did it.
> 
> I'm not even going to cover the comment about the 64 cra. This forum frustrates me with how many circles we go in


*dude his newsletter, his name on it he must of approved it at a minimum. Seriously put the bong down*


----------



## Smirgen (Aug 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *dude his newsletter, his name on it he must of approved it at a minimum. Seriously put the bong down*


Dude your really reaching... The best you can do is a newsletter somebody else wrote decades ago ?

If you really want to see a DIRECT Quote from Ron Paul check my sig.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> _*JEWS CONTROL AMERICA.* This is because the Jews own the Federal Reserve Bank. Its not federal at all. Its privately owned. by Jews!_
> _The money that President George Bush borrows in the billions of *$$$* at interest comes from the Jewish money lenders of the Federal Reserve Bank. They look so very professional & so legit dont they? But dont fall for it for they are bandits. _
> _For how does President George Bush pay for these loans at Jewish high interest hmm? By taxing American Gentiles up the gazoo!_
> _Presidential candidate Ron Paul says that we dont have to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank but can print our own $$$ at no interest. Ron Paul says that this is our Constitutional right. But Jews dont care about our Constitutional rights. All that Jews care about is what serves their own interests._
> ...



You are quoting what some random person said that just happened to include Ron Paul's name. Did he say those things you are quoting?

Also, there are reasons why Jews own all the banks. At one point Christians were not allowed to loan money for interest. The Jews were allowed to, however. They were restricted in which job they could have, also. This made them the bankers by default. After hundreds of years of being the only bankers, they had control of the banking scene. 

It is horrible to say the Jews control most of the banking only because you don't have any grasp of history or reality. No one trusts bankers(white, black, or yellow) it just happens that most of them are Jewish. The person above is right in assertions against bankers, but he is blaming Jews instead of bankers.

It is common for people to do this. Take the black culture for instance. They always insinuate or outright say that the white man is holding them down or oppressing them. The white man kept them as slaves and bought and sold their ancestors. That is the racist thought process. It is exactly the same as the Jewish statement you quoted. All Jews aren't bankers, and all whites weren't slave owners. All bankers aren't Jews, and all slave owners weren't white. 

When Obama talks about 'spreading the wealth' the socialist and communist parties in America get excited. They love Obama.
http://cpusa.org/fighting-for-our-future The communist party openly supports Obama - so he must be a communist too? Terrorists openly support Obama - so he must be a terrorist too. If everyone who supports you was a direct reflection of you, then Obama is a gay nonreligious communist terrorist lol.

Stop being stupid and trying to hide your intentions in your writing. You may think it is clever, but it isn't. You could just type: DEMOCRAT 2012 or RON PAUL IS A RACIST BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH HIM and just stop there.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok do you know which Jews own it..is it a family of Jews ??? Whats their last name...I mean saying the Jews own it is a wide blanket.. I like conspiracy theory's


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

You already knew that was the answer. lol. That being said, it makes sense in our world that the richest and most powerful families/businesses would have a lot of power. Them being Jewish is incidental.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> HeyI'm putting out there why The white Supremacists love the Nutter from texas
> 
> Dont forget all the racist Quotes RP has given out and the fact he didnt support awarding Rosa parks any Honors


Give us some racist RP quotes then. Black supremacist love Obama, as well as communists, socialists, and terrorists.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992 "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992
> 
> GIVE ME A DECK THATS NOT FULL OF RACE CARDS, AND I WONT PLAY THEM mmKay?


 "I want to kill all the white people." - Obama, 1992.

Typing it and it being what he said are two different things. If he really said that, please show us a youtube clip of him saying it. Please, find any one video of Ron Paul standing up and saying anything like that?

Here are some amusing ones I found by typing in 'Ron Paul Racist' Guess how many I found that actually had Ron Paul saying anything? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6sYZxZi4qQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EuNgqIiz60&feature=related


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Those were in his Newsletter
> 
> Did I mention
> 
> ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so

Ron Paul talking about it. He didn't agree with giving 30k in gold to Rosa Parks and paying for it with taxpayer dollars. That is horrible, how dare he not spend more than you likely make a year on something that does nothing useful. That bastard. Next he will want to stop bombing the sands of the middle east into glass.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 16, 2011)

londonfog said:


> well it is better when you are high..lol


I don't think I smoke enough Im going for as pure an indica as I can this time.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
> But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Pauls name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics



My first assumption would be that the ones that were signed by him were probably his, and the rest weren't. I sign my letters, don't you? You basically looked at the information and made up whatever answer you liked the best. You should be a journalist for Fox or MSNBC. Great stuff there.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *dude his newsletter, his name on it he must of approved it at a minimum. Seriously put the bong down*


 You would think so, but you would be completely WRONG! A newsletter with His Name on it, does not mean he wrote any of it or approved any of it. Just like the newsletter called "US Congress". Not a single congressperson writes that newsletter, not a single one.


----------



## beardo (Aug 16, 2011)

The truth about Ron Paul is that he will be on Fox News at 2:05 Today


----------



## jdro (Aug 16, 2011)

beardo said:


> The truth about Ron Paul is that he will be on Fox News at 2:05 Today


What timezone?


----------



## beardo (Aug 16, 2011)

jdro said:


> What timezone?


Fox time?..


----------



## undertheice (Aug 16, 2011)

i hope you realize that, no matter what anyone may say, ron paul *must* be a racist. it is a necessary part of statist ideology that the opposition be a conspicuous danger that can be rebelled against with a clear conscience. the justification for the expansion of government requires an enemy, the more obvious the enemy the better. just as anyone that can be labeled a conservative must be shown to be a racist, gun toting, bible thumping, greedy pig, so too must libertarianism be seen as a violent opposition to the agenda of _material_ equality. constitutionalists are called radicals, christians are described as imposing their beliefs on an unwilling public and individualists are decried as the very reason our society has failed to become the triumphant, homogenous entity promised by the liberal establishment.

it isn't that the left is the sole purveyor of such blatant propaganda, but that their particular brand is so incredibly disingenuous. the very radicalism that they accuse their opposition of is the mainstay of their entire agenda. handing the few sole power over even the minutia of our lives, something our founders never considered in their wildest nightmares, is their obvious and stated goal. we can certainly find instances of every sin imaginable wherever we look, but the honest man must admit that he himself is guilty to a certain degree of those same sins. this is something that the statist machine refuses to do. it instead renames those sins for itself and puts a face of false compassion on even the gravest of its crimes.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 16, 2011)

undertheice said:


> _i hope you realize that, no matter what anyone may say, ron paul *must* be a racist. it is a necessary part of statist ideology that the opposition be a conspicuous danger that can be rebelled against with a clear conscience. the justification for the expansion of government requires an enemy, the more obvious the enemy the better. just as anyone that can be labeled a conservative must be shown to be a racist, gun toting, bible thumping, greedy pig, so too must libertarianism be seen as a violent opposition to the agenda of material equality. constitutionalists are called radicals, christians are described as imposing their beliefs on an unwilling public and individualists are decried as the very reason our society has failed to become the triumphant, homogenous entity promised by the liberal establishment._
> 
> _it isn't that the left is the sole purveyor of such blatant propaganda, but that their particular brand is so incredibly disingenuous. the very radicalism that they accuse their opposition of is the mainstay of their entire agenda. handing the few sole power over even the minutia of our lives, something our founders never considered in their wildest nightmares, is their obvious and stated goal. we can certainly find instances of every sin imaginable wherever we look, but the honest man must admit that he himself is guilty to a certain degree of those same sins. this is something that the statist machine refuses to do. it instead renames those sins for itself and puts a face of false compassion on even the gravest of its crimes_.


Much better...


----------



## beardo (Aug 16, 2011)

beardo said:


> The truth about Ron Paul is that he will be on Fox News at 2:05 Today





jdro said:


> What timezone?


They said right now he's coming on next to talk about how he's not getting media coverage, It's commercial now, he should be on in a couple minutes


----------



## beardo (Aug 16, 2011)

He's on Live Now- Fox News


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 16, 2011)

what the fuck is up with all the media ignoring RP?

I was watching John Stewart and it seems he is on RP side and was showing all the skits where media outlets even fox news ignoring RP completely and some douche reporter saying hillybilly sara palin was more important then RP... what a douche


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 16, 2011)

how the hell is rick perry leading the republicans?

what bullshit


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 16, 2011)

It's the initial bump from Perry's announcement, he'll settle down in the field over the next few weeks. Wait until his issues start coming out...


----------



## beardo (Aug 16, 2011)

beardo said:


> He's on Live Now- Fox News


Anyone watch that?
He ruled that interview, He's not running for an office but to change the cource of history
Paul in 2012, Paul Republican Primaries


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 16, 2011)

i am making inroads within my local media and encouraging them to take a more serious look at Ron Paul, or at least broadcast it. ABC has been most open in my experience.

Likely a local thing though


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 16, 2011)

DAMN i wish i had heard about Ron Paul earlier!


----------



## beardo (Aug 16, 2011)

Ron Paul has the Common Sence we need


----------



## sync0s (Aug 16, 2011)

beardo said:


> [youtube]exIbfB205BY[/youtube]
> This is the logic and common sense that is missing from the main stream


Whoever recorded that video is so annoying I stopped watching before ron paul said a word.

Here

[video=youtube;a2tdIvcUlcA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2tdIvcUlcA[/video]


----------



## beardo (Aug 16, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Whoever recorded that video is so annoying I stopped watching before ron paul said a word.
> 
> Here
> 
> [video=youtube;a2tdIvcUlcA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2tdIvcUlcA[/video]


Thanks, I took mine down, yeah that was annoying, he talked through some of the best parts, Good find, thanks for posting the vid- That was an amazing interview


----------



## VTXDave (Aug 16, 2011)

That's a good interview. Ron Paul means to do what he says as well. More than I can say for our current Commander in Chief.


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

Ron Paul Speaks Out: Media Blackout, Economic Freedom, Intellectual Revolution 


[video=youtube;fzG_CEnS8sg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzG_CEnS8sg[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

[video=youtube;yb_P5tOsD2c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb_P5tOsD2c[/video]

Just so you guys know Stephen Colbert paid a bunch of people to vote for Rick Parry as a joke (not Rick Perry)...Rick Parry is the one that got "600" write in votes - Just for a Clarification. Michelle Bachman also paid for her votes, spending about 150k to buy tickets at 30$ dollars a pop, still only 89% of the tickets she bought actually voted for her, so I guess 11% of those people have a conscience and just kept the money lol not bad I guess.

The michelle bachman camp also offered free BBQ, Country Music Star Singer, and a Petting Zoo to voters. 






Consumed.



The Truth about the Ron Paul revolution is that it is a humanitarian cause, this is for humanity vs the machine.


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

Ok so whats New with Ron Paul? A Ton of news organizations local and national including celebrities like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert supporting Ron Paul....Media Explosion on this..(THE MEDIA COVERUPS ARE NOW MAINSTREAM) ... Ill Post a few videos but Im going to leave it short...you can catch the john stewart or stephen colbert episodes for free on hulu.com

[video=youtube;XG0jcNBzfwM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG0jcNBzfwM[/video]



RON PAUL ON PEIRCE INTERVIEW EXPOSING THE MEDIA COVERUP!

[video=youtube;AY3V6ECJLOE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY3V6ECJLOE[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Aug 17, 2011)

[video=hulu;306QOFRFg1YQRTGhmw5U-w]http://www.hulu.com/watch/268553/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-ron-paul-and-the-top-tier[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992 "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992*


This 'Newsletter' was a man playing as Ron Paul, it wasn't actually ron paul. Ron paul never said these things. This is addressed in the first post of this thread and many times thereafter.


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

RON PAUL ON MUTHER EFFIN ALAN COLMES BITCHES, THE DEMS/INDEPENDENTS ARE ROOTING FOR RON PAUL FINALLY - They must have read this thread lol j/k
[video=youtube;dkuP-eNU5mc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkuP-eNU5mc&feature=player_embedded[/video]

They Talk about John Stewarts show.


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

New Ron Paul commercial
[video=youtube;pChzOaIeyxY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## Smirgen (Aug 17, 2011)

Could Ron Paul be related to Nostradamus or does he have an unlicensed Time machine(More likely) ?
[youtube]48Gfzgxh3ZQ&feature[/youtube]


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 17, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Give us some racist RP quotes then. Black supremacist love Obama, as well as communists, socialists, and terrorists.


Actually Black Supremacists think Obama is a race traitor. They are just as stupid as the 88s


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

sync0s said:


> [video=hulu;306QOFRFg1YQRTGhmw5U-w]http://www.hulu.com/watch/268553/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-ron-paul-and-the-top-tier[/video]


Great peice and Im glad john stewart did this, I have to mention its been going on for years not just weeks, the smear campaign is just so obvious now I think it deserves some recognition, I hope the jig is up now, I haven't seen a whole lot of TV but there is not any Ron Paul smearing in possibly the last 24 hours which is coming close to beating the old record of 72 hours with no Ron Paul smears or ignores.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 17, 2011)

deprave said:


> Great peice and Im glad john stewart did this, I have to mention its been going on for years not just weeks, the smear campaign is just so obvious now I think it deserves some recognition, I hope the jig is up now, I haven't seen a whole lot of TV but there is not any Ron Paul smearing in possibly the last 24 hours which is coming close to beating the old record of 72 hours with no Ron Paul smears or ignores.


If anything, I think this is going to help Ron Paul greatly. All of the coverage over him being ignored is getting him more coverage than I think I've have ever known him to get. I think a lot of people will also pay closer attention to him to find out why the media has been doing this to him.


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

Id say the average is about 4 a day blatant deliberate ignores as evidenced by this thread in particular the first post of this thread which covers the smear campaign from febuary to april I believe.


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

Spoke to soon...Someone just said Rick Perry is the only candidate with military experience..but hell it was on Obamas show.
[video=youtube;atQ4Oy5DLsk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atQ4Oy5DLsk[/video]


His facebook is /matt.mackowiak . Feel free to write him&#65279; and chew him out.


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

*The Ron Paul Tipping Point*


Alex Jones says the Ron Paul Smear/Fear campaign is coming to an end, I hope hes right about something for once.

[video=youtube;wNxGoacJ8ac]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNxGoacJ8ac[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

Stewart has invited Ron Paul to come on the Daily show to talk about this. http://concord-nh.patch.com/articles/paul-wows-concord-crowd-video#video-7405943


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

[video=youtube;dZuHT9X7e3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZuHT9X7e3s[/video]


very well put at the end, I like to compare Ron Paul to Ralph nader myself in that they are both champions for the people, in this interview he says that they are alike because they are are both "True Believers"


----------



## deprave (Aug 17, 2011)

[video=youtube;BVJnJn40fUQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVJnJn40fUQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Aug 18, 2011)

Ron Paul own party leaders ignores him...why don't he take a hint and run independent.


----------



## BudMcLovin (Aug 18, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul own party leaders ignores him...why don't he take a hint and run independent.


Because he needs the republican machine to win. The 2 parties have had 150 years to stack the deck in their favor.


----------



## deprave (Aug 18, 2011)

Well I think we can all thank John Stewart who finaly blew the lid on this one, but its not over, at this point I believe there are much fewer people remaining who do not know about the media smear campaign/blackout of Ron Paul. Wolf Blitzer talks to Ron Paul about it on the situation room....Lets hope people continue to google Ron Paul. The establishment is very very afraid now. The only thing that can beat them is an all out Ron Paul Revolution, and its growing and growing and growing......GONE! OVER THE RIGHT FIELD LINE!

[video=youtube;n_rlfgPQaT8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_rlfgPQaT8[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 18, 2011)

According to this poll on Fox Biz today my predictions are correct...

Is Ron Paul being ignored by the media?
98% Yes

[video=youtube;WE1UAzvN2TI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE1UAzvN2TI[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 18, 2011)

*Ron Paul will not be ignored on August 20th 2011! *


[video=youtube;PMO7YG3Ul5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMO7YG3Ul5g[/video]
[video=youtube;7zGOfJ9Ed1I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zGOfJ9Ed1I[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 18, 2011)

[video=youtube;NskskoD9TOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NskskoD9TOw[/video]


* Jordan Page Debuts New Ron Paul Theme Song *

Introduction starts at 3:18 with an interview - song starts at 5:34
[video=youtube;hn0hMIgr7HY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0hMIgr7HY[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Aug 19, 2011)

Terrible math in the second video lol


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

Some of the Ron Paul media spin outlined in this new video, hundreds of thousands of views already once the view count ticket updates, its about 100k last I checked:
[video=youtube;8uew1hHBUz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uew1hHBUz8&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

CNN Candy Crowley is Fact Checked - She Deliberately Ignores Ron Paul


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 19, 2011)

Deprave, I just wanted to pop in, introduce myself, and thank you for your obvious tireless work to promote the principles liberty. If we do not come together in this most crucial moment in history, and support a man who has been fighting the good fight for longer than some of us have been alive, then this country is finished. It should be plainly obvious by now that the current Prez is just the same crap, different pile. I admire your activism from what I've seen, and just wanted to encourage you to keep fighting the good fight.
America without her freedoms, is like a body without a soul. Please consider donating to Ron Paul's Birthday moneybomb this Saturday. I have met Dr. Paul several times, and have a mutual friend with his brother. I can tell you FIRST HAND that HE IS THE REAL DEAL, and will work to liberate us from this police state noose that is tightening around our necks. 
He is the ONLY one who hasn't sold out to special interests. That is why the Corporate/Govt. controlled media is doing their best to marginalize him or ignore him, because he threatens their little crap game, and they are running scared.
Come join us on the DailyPaulDOTcom and get involved. Thanks again for your work. Remember the Birthday moneybomb this Saturday. WE WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT WE WILL NOT BE IGNORED!! We are trying to get at least 1 million people to donate at least $20.12 to fight back, and restore our freedom to grow what we want in our gardens, and not have to worry about intrusive govt. getting in the way. We need everyone's help here to get the job done. We CAN win, if we pull together and fight like our futures depend on it, because they literally do. The system is about to implode, and we must do whatever we can to peacefully make a change before the dollar collapses, and there are riots in the streets. If you think it can't happen here, then you are sadly mistaken. In Liberty, Jefferson


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

Thank for your kind words, Ill message you on dailypaul it won't let me message you here


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 19, 2011)

I post as "Jefferson". Hope to see you there. Thanks again for the support.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

Ron Paul Is Exploding

[video=youtube;Gg3EptrKOms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3EptrKOms[/video]


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

Probably The last thing Ron Paul wants is Media Attention

He does better when no one Knows What a nut case he is

And dont give me shit. I was emailing him in 2007 to run. Then i found out a lot more about him 

Guy is a racist whack job. And I am sorry Anarchy has never worked for any nation


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

*Brace yourselves- the media is about to attack Dr. Paul on the newsletters- again... via POLITICO*

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61555.html


> Ron Paul, who's rising in the 2012 cycle in a way he never has before nationally and who came in just behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames Straw Poll last weekend,complained yesterday to Fox News about why he isn't getting coverage in the mainstream press commensurate with his status:
> "They don't want to discuss my views because I think they're frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment."
> But there are reasons why Paul, and his fan base, might be grateful for the minimalist coverage that he's received, because a more thorough vetting of the kind that mainstream candidates generally receive would invariably lead to some of the newsletters that bore his name (if not his byline or direct authorship) decades earlier.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Probably The last thing Ron Paul wants is Media Attention
> 
> He does better when no one Knows What a nut case he is
> 
> ...


 I am sorry that you don't know what anarchy is if you associate it with Ron Paul, or you don't know Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is also not a racist whack job please read the thread.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

His Newsletters
His Name on it

Stop trying to misdirect the truth.
He has to take responsibility for it. And it doesnt help that he didnt want to Honor Rosa Parks.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> His Newsletters
> His Name on it
> 
> Stop trying to misdirect the truth.
> He has to take responsibility for it. And it doesnt help that he didnt want to Honor Rosa Parks.


 Your misinformed highly, please see the FIRST POST of this thread.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

Dude 
His Newsletters
Written with HIS permission

Espousing Racist Views

He Is *responsible* for their Content


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

He didn't write them and they weren't with HIS PERMISSION and wtf are you on about Rosa Parks, you are so gullible...no he is not responsible for their content he never even read it before.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

Check it out I got this paper here its got dukeanthonys name on it and it says hes a racist so he must be a racist the paper says so , here look for yourself BEHOLD!



dukeanthony said:


> Im a Racist


pass it on

Unquestionable evidence here, this paper has your name on it, clearly that mean it was written by you, The paper is even titled dukeanthony? ever herd of it? Didn't think so...anyways that doest matter, Mr Anthony I believe this is all the evidence we need to convict you of racsim, I charge you with racism and hear by sentance you to to the title of whackjob, have a seat in the back of my mind while I ignore you.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

Obama Doesnt write much on the www.whitehouse.gov website

he is however responsible for its content

Sorry. You lose.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

Controversial claims made by an unidentified author in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[137] Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[138]
*Paul had given his own account of the newsletters during March 2001, stating the documents were authored by ghostwriters, and that while he did not author the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication*


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

As I said Please refer to #4 of the first post and many posts therafter in this thread, this was not written by Ron Paul don't be so guiliable.

[video=youtube;uk7qiY-aoiQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk7qiY-aoiQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

Ron Paul would end the drug wars - crippling racism...Ron Paul is the enemy of racism, he is a libertarian.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

Libertarians by definition would allow businesses and people be as racist as they want.
Please quote me some classic Rand and Ron Paul


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 19, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Libertarians by definition would allow businesses and people be as racist as they want.
> Please quote me some classic Rand and Ron Paul


... and you would prefer the government to control how people think?


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Libertarians by definition would allow businesses and people be as racist as they want.
> Please quote me some classic Rand and Ron Paul


 by definition libertarian allow racism? lol

last time I checked the word racism is not in the definition of libertarianism, Libertarianism is about love for all and treating everyone equally, libertarianism is against harm to others so I don't really see the connection, infact its the polar opposite of racism so that is why I mentioned it. 

perhaps pseudo racism like pieces of paper you found maybe lol. Have you been victimized or something? Why do you have so much distrust and hatred for your fellow man? Are you a cop? You think if everyone is treated equally that this will cause racism...so misguided.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

New Speech footage today
*Ron Paul: America Is Ready for More Freedom and Less Government *


[video=youtube;UPimy1x1awc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPimy1x1awc[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

Boy Romney sure is a front runner, lol, maybe in the land of oz, I don't think Ive ever seen him have a civil conservation with another human being, in all fairness the gentlemen wasn't being civil in this clip but seeing romney clips where he is completely disconnected from the people are getting old, how the fuck is this guy still considered a front runner? Front Run among who? The establishment?

[video=youtube;rI1ZRT_iXNU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI1ZRT_iXNU[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 19, 2011)

deprave said:


> Boy Romney sure is a front runner, lol, maybe in the land of oz:
> 
> [video=youtube;rI1ZRT_iXNU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI1ZRT_iXNU[/video]



Looks like youtube is starting to go through with their plans to not let you embed their videos any more.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Looks like youtube is starting to go through with their plans to not let you embed their videos any more.


 na the author just disabled that, its an option when you upload a video to disable embedding


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 19, 2011)

Well what i said still stands, and they are going to start doing that, if they have not already.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Well what i said still stands, and they are going to start doing that, if they have not already.


 they haven't, if they did people would just use a different website.


----------



## deprave (Aug 19, 2011)

AP Coverage of the NH Speech

[video=youtube;ps05eTiqX5I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps05eTiqX5I[/video]


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

The truth about Ron Paul is he appeals to stoned stoners white supremacistss and conspiracy freaks


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 19, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> The truth about Ron Paul is he appeals to stoned stoners white supremacistss and conspiracy freaks


 Which i guess are the majority, lol


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 19, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Which i guess are the majority, lol


"Liberty makes strange bedfellows"

The "racist newsletter" dead horse, has been debunked and been beaten into a bloody pulp into the dirt a looong time ago. 

When one has no intellectual recourse against a 25+ year record of fidelity to the oath he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, (the supreme law of the land) and a record of having integrity, consistency, and honesty, they try to play the "race card".

Ron Paul has received more donations from the military than ALL of the other "R's" COMBINED. Even MORE than Ohmamma, who has turned out to be more of the same old slick talking BS artists. He also got the most in 2008. Even more than McStain.
If his foreign policy is so "crazy" then why such vast military support. You'd think they'd be scared that he'd put them out of a job. They know who has their best interests at heart. Not the bomb and fighter plane manufacturers, but the boots on the ground troops. The RECORD amount of suicides in the military should be testament enough to these insane, immoral, illegal wars of aggression.

The choice is simple. Follow the money. Look at the big donors to some of these media darlings, and you will see the connections between the military industrial complex, the banking cartels, and the foreign and special interest lobbies.

Ron Paul HAS NEVER sold out to special interests. That's why they try to demonize him. The media is not your friend. They have been the lapdog for the Govt. and corporations for at least a century. By 1926, 3 families owned all of the major newspapers in the US. 
Information is very powerful. CONTROL of information to "manage perception" is even MORE powerful.
Don't get fooled again America. Ron Paul is the last chance to get it right, before this country collapses into chaos, which is what the elite globalist societal engineers want to happen.
Moneybomb starts at midnight tonight. ronpaul2012DOTcom


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 19, 2011)

See #2
Conspiracy freaks


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 19, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> See #2
> Conspiracy freaks


The first sign of losing an argument is name calling. You can't do any better than that Duke?
What is your solution?


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 19, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> The first sign of losing an argument is name calling. You can't do any better than that Duke?
> What is your solution?


He has no solution, people like him and unclebuck will vagrantly criticize and name call but offer no ideas or solutions for said problem. With that said...


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 19, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> He has no solution, people like him and unclebuck will vagrantly criticize and name call but offer no ideas or solutions for said problem. With that said...


Forgive me for being a little slow, but are you inferring that I am the one being a "troll"?


----------



## sync0s (Aug 19, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> Forgive me for being a little slow, but are you inferring that I am the one being a "troll"?


Lol he was talking to you about dukeanthony, I believe.


----------



## beardo (Aug 19, 2011)

We all need Ron Paul to win


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 19, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Lol he was talking to you about dukeanthony, I believe.


 bingo , sorry for the confusion. 

I can respect and accept an opposing argument but when there is no argument and only blatant slander and name calling it just gets old real quick, where has the intelligence in American gone? 

Anyways, it occurred to me today that after any televised debate Of Ron Paul versus Obama that the public would stand behind Ron Paul's ideas. So I would venture to say that Ron Paul winning this nomination is the true battle, if he wins everything is going to be a downhill battle in the hopes of restoring America to it's shining pride. 

I fail to meet Obama supporters anywhere, everyone I talk too says the same, I can't grasp where it is that he gets he support base but it isn't near me.


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 19, 2011)

Cool. Thanks for clarification. It's alright. Anyone with half a brain, knows that when people just spout rhetoric or call names that they have nothing else to offer. I've never been accused of being a troll before, so I was a bit taken back..... 
I think if we pull together and get involved in our own communities, that we could have a chance. We are going against a deeply corrupt machine, but people are hungry for the truth, and are tired of the same old Barbie and Ken doll crap they've been fed. The mainstream media is losing credibility by the day, but there are still quite a few "washed brains" out there. 
And yes, Ron Paul would shred Ohmamma if they went head to head. It is getting him to that point that will be the challenge. I firmly believe from my research and experience that this is the last chance we have before total chaos engulfs this country. I want to try everything possible to put a stop to it peacefully. This isn't just about legalization and the failed drug war. (which is actually just a disguised war on our liberties) They have been shipping the stuff in since the late 70's. Google Cele Castillo who I have met on a couple of occasions, and is also the real deal. He is doing time here in Texas because he got set up. Anyway...It goes much deeper than that. The system is rotten to the core, and we have to come together, and make a stand.

BTW, Ron Paul's birthday is tomorrow, and his B-DAY moneybomb starts at midnight tonight. If you can, please donate at least $20.12. I'm in for 177.60 just because I have been so pissed at how the media is trying to ignore him. But... it tells me that they are scared shitless that his ideas "will light brushfires in the minds of men". Thanks again for clarifying. Cheers..
ronpaul2012DOTcom


----------



## deprave (Aug 20, 2011)

Im in for 20.12

*Thank you!*

Thank you for your generous donation!
Amount: $20.12


----------



## sync0s (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> bingo , sorry for the confusion.
> 
> I can respect and accept an opposing argument but when there is no argument and only blatant slander and name calling it just gets old real quick, where has the intelligence in American gone?
> 
> ...


The only Obama supporter I've talked to recently face to face said that he doesn't think McCain would have done a better job. I said "Okay. What policies of McCain makes you think that?" He stuttered and then shrugged his shoulders.


----------



## deprave (Aug 20, 2011)

the only obama supporters I have met have all been living under a rock for the past 4 years, one thinks obama is going to legalize weed, he plays world of warcraft 24/7 and smokes several ounces a day, its like hes frooze back in a time before world of warcraft


Another one he don't even know who Ron Paul is, his hobbies include gay jokes and..gay jokes..he doesn't work and gets unemployment and is a total moron.

Another one, has no idea and doesnt care, but he does vote, he just picks the democrat.

Two guys at work said Ron Paul was "unelectable" lol - didn't even want to get into that discussion at work, I just said 'I think he will beat obama"


But yeah...Ive yet to meet a single person who follows politics and is up on the issues be supportive of obama and claim they are going to vote for him again. I have known some intelligent people that will vote for Obama but its just because they don't care and they don't want to talk about, they just press the D.

I am still working on all these people and they will learn who Ron Paul is and the Truth About Ron Paul.


----------



## deprave (Aug 20, 2011)

Ron Paul interview Today:

*Ron Paul "I Don't Know How Something Like That Qualifies As A Question On National TV!" *



[video=youtube;NT5D27K0jQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT5D27K0jQo[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 20, 2011)

People on the streets of NYC are interviewed and asked about Ron Paul, only a couple people actually know who he is.
[video=youtube;UZadujLWPeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZadujLWPeE[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 20, 2011)

Ron Paul 1 hour 20 minute close up one on one amateur interview. Id like to see any other candidate do a good hour 1 on 1 interview with an amateur interviewer on a camcorder, would never happen, and Ron Paul does it every week.

[video=youtube;WJr7TEINZ10]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJr7TEINZ10[/video]


Very good interview actually, he asks Ron Paul some real tough questions and he opposes Ron Paul.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

The Truth about Ron Paul
He appeals to

-Stoners
-Conspiracy Nuts
-Racists
-Tea Vangelicals

Which groups do you fit in


----------



## Smirgen (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> The Truth about Ron Paul
> He appeals to
> 
> -Stoners
> ...


 
youre mad because he doesnt appeal to Trolls.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Smirgen said:


> youre mad because he doesnt appeal to Trolls.


Nice Picture in your avatar

What were you saying about trolls?


----------



## Smirgen (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Nice Picture in your avatar
> 
> What were you saying about trolls?


That there is a troll in this thread whose name is dukeanthony.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Smirgen said:


> That there is a troll in this thread whose name is dukeanthony.




Nice picture
Look in the mirror lately?


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> The Truth about Ron Paul
> He appeals to
> 
> -Stoners
> ...


Are you from Oregon?


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 20, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> Cool. Thanks for clarification. It's alright. Anyone with half a brain, knows that when people just spout rhetoric or call names that they have nothing else to offer. I've never been accused of being a troll before, so I was a bit taken back.....
> I think if we pull together and get involved in our own communities, that we could have a chance. We are going against a deeply corrupt machine, but people are hungry for the truth, and are tired of the same old Barbie and Ken doll crap they've been fed. The mainstream media is losing credibility by the day, but there are still quite a few "washed brains" out there.
> And yes, Ron Paul would shred Ohmamma if they went head to head. It is getting him to that point that will be the challenge. I firmly believe from my research and experience that this is the last chance we have before total chaos engulfs this country. I want to try everything possible to put a stop to it peacefully. This isn't just about legalization and the failed drug war. (which is actually just a disguised war on our liberties) They have been shipping the stuff in since the late 70's. Google Cele Castillo who I have met on a couple of occasions, and is also the real deal. He is doing time here in Texas because he got set up. Anyway...It goes much deeper than that. The system is rotten to the core, and we have to come together, and make a stand.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the biggest problem is still uninformed Americans, would you find it hard to believe that if every single American was given the history and voting records of Obama, Romney, Perry, and then Ron Paul it be just be that many many MANY more people would realize how corrupt the media is and realize just how much they like his ideas? 

Anyways, I don't have much but I am donating to the money bomb. I hope this sends a shock wave through the system after the straw poll and last weeks progress after people starting calling the media out for black listing Ron Paul .







dukeanthony said:


> The Truth about Ron Paul
> He appeals to
> 
> -Stoners
> ...


Give me a break. What your trying (and failing) to broadcast is that only stoners, conspiracy nuts, racists, and tea baggers care about ending the the the 5 or 6 illegal foreign wars, balancing the 14.4 trillion dollar deficit, protecting our liberties granted by the constitution, eliminating (or at least severely downgrading) the Federal Reserves role in our economy of counterfeiting money, ending the war on drugs, dismantling useless departments such as the DOEd, DOEn, and DOAg. 

So on and so forth, do you even realize how stupid you came across as when you say those ideas are only for those 4 categories? If you want to bring something to this thread why don't you back up your insults with at least a half ass explanation? 

Well my ranting with you is done


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> eliminating (or at least severely downgrading) the Federal Reserves role in our economy


If, as President, Dr Paul did nothing else but End the Fed, he would be the best President since Jackson.
Severely downgrading is not going to help, it has to be wiped out. That is the number 1 priority of a Paul administration. You can make all the cuts you want, you can raise taxes all you want, if the Fed remains, it's all for naught.
How can you be free in any aspect if you don't have economic freedom?


----------



## londonfog (Aug 20, 2011)

The truth about Ron Paul is he should have not ran for POTUS as a Republican candidate.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 20, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> If, as President, Dr Paul did nothing else but End the Fed, he would be the best President since Jackson.
> Severely downgrading is not going to help, it has to be wiped out. That is the number 1 priority of a Paul administration. You can make all the cuts you want, you can raise taxes all you want, if the Fed remains, it's all for naught.
> How can you be free in any aspect if you don't have economic freedom?


I say that because even if Ron Paul where president he would face massive adversity from Congress and while I think it should be abolished the first steps would be to at least stop their ability to print money. 
Personally I think Paul camp's number 1 priority should be to bring troops home, that and the ending the FED alone would begin an 180 swing for America's economy.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

The Truth about Ron Paul is that he can't win, won't win, and we are all better off for it being that way. 

Ron Paul can go make the most absurd campaign promises ever, FAR worse than anything Obama ever said. And, as I have pointed out before: Ron Paul (if elected, god saves us all) would have to become the greatest tyrant in the history of this country (and perhaps, world) to carry out his platform which would undoubtedly lead us into the Mad Max type scenarios him and is ilk prophesize about. His ideas for this country do not fit the constraints of REALITY.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> The Truth about Ron Paul is that he can't win, won't win, and we are all better off for it being that way.
> 
> Ron Paul can go make the most absurd campaign promises ever, FAR worse than anything Obama ever said. And, as I have pointed out before: Ron Paul (if elected, god saves us all) would have to become the greatest tyrant in the history of this country (and perhaps, world) to carry out his platform which would undoubtedly lead us into the Mad Max type scenarios him and is ilk prophesize about. His ideas for this country do not fit the constraints of REALITY.


_*But i spent money on firearms ammunition and Bug out bags. I got a 3 week supply of food and i dug out a bomb shelter underneath my garage. i am ready for a Ron Paul Presidency.*_
_*Dont let my money go to waste. Cause Anarchy rulez
*_


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> The Truth about Ron Paul is that he can't win, won't win, and we are all better off for it being that way.
> 
> Ron Paul can go make the most absurd campaign promises ever, FAR worse than anything Obama ever said. And, as I have pointed out before: Ron Paul (if elected, god saves us all) would have to become the greatest tyrant in the history of this country (and perhaps, world) to carry out his platform which would undoubtedly lead us into the Mad Max type scenarios him and is ilk prophesize about. His ideas for this country do not fit the constraints of REALITY.


What is so unreal about ending all of our ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wars? What is so unreal about going back to a gold standard? HR 429 introduced by Ron Paul has 169 co-sponsors in the House and 7 in the senate. What is so unreal about ending the war on drugs? What is so unreal about allowing the states to decide over the issues of marijuana, gay marriage, abortion and the such? 

PLEASE answer me that. I will have much more respect if you can least present an argument as to why his ideas are so "unrealistic".


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

HA!

I keep a bug out myself...I just never want to have to use it.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> What is so unreal about ending all of our ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wars? What is so unreal about going back to a gold standard? HR 429 introduced by Ron Paul has 169 co-sponsors in the House and 7 in the senate. What is so unreal about ending the war on drugs? What is so unreal about allowing the states to decide over the issues of marijuana, gay marriage, abortion and the such?
> 
> PLEASE answer me that. I will have much more respect if you can least present an argument as to why his ideas are so "unrealistic".


Funny Everytime I hear the Phrase "states rights" it is always at the expense of some groups rights that are protected federally.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> What is so unreal about ending all of our ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wars? What is so unreal about going back to a gold standard? HR 429 introduced by Ron Paul has 169 co-sponsors in the House and 7 in the senate. What is so unreal about ending the war on drugs? What is so unreal about allowing the states to decide over the issues of marijuana, gay marriage, abortion and the such?
> 
> PLEASE answer me that. I will have much more respect if you can least present an argument as to why his ideas are so "unrealistic".


 The property rights issue that Ron Paul wants could and would bring back violations of Civil Rights...


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> What is so unreal about ending all of our ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wars? What is so unreal about going back to a gold standard? HR 429 introduced by Ron Paul has 169 co-sponsors in the House and 7 in the senate. What is so unreal about ending the war on drugs? What is so unreal about allowing the states to decide over the issues of marijuana, gay marriage, abortion and the such?
> 
> PLEASE answer me that. I will have much more respect if you can least present an argument as to why his ideas are so "unrealistic".


I would really like to spend the time to go through one by one, but the fact of the matter is that I don't really have the patience for it. 

You are entitled to your beliefs. But, I won't spend my time debating the merits of Ron Paul's rhetoric.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

londonfog said:


> The property rights issue that Ron Paul wants could and would bring back violations of Civil Rights...


 Ron Paul has no Problems with businesses discriminating against Blacks gays Muslims whatever.
You can define businesses as landlords, employers or Starbucks
He also likes picking and choosing what parts of the constitution he Likes
For example The Nativists (read racists) love this one
he wants to do away with Birthright citizenship
Which is funny becuase except for Slaves and Native americans Brithright citizenship has been around since the founding of this country


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 20, 2011)

londonfog said:


> The property rights issue that Ron Paul wants could and would bring back violations of Civil Rights...


This is true, problem is you cannot expect everyone to be level headed and not racist, there will always be racists, unfortunately that's a sad fact of humanity, so either you have the government force people to hide their racism which drive them to usually resort to stuff like the KKK and the skinheads OR you let those people decided who they want to allow in their businesses and they will most likely go out of business because I know I for one wouldn't support any business that doesn't allow or treat minorities equally and I believe on top of loosing business from the people they turned away they would also loose business from the disgust of people who don't support such racist agendas, therefore I believe the whole "racist" partisan of Americans would slowly die out and shrivel up into a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population. 

I assume you where referring the allowing people who are racist to turn away people of certain minorities. And this doesn't just apply to whitey turning away the "chink", it can also mean that in other people of other race could freely turn away "whitey" if they so felt inclined. BUT overall I believe (at least hope) that in this day and age most all of America doesn't view people for skin color or origin but for their views and beliefs as a person. 

This is a controversial issue but when it comes down to brass tacks there will always be a ever so small numbers of racists, it's just a matter of either having the government try to tell them how to live or letting the people push them out as I know you couldn't run a very successful business if you were blatantly racist. Paul argument isn't to allow racism, his argument is that he can't support his Libertarian agenda without backing all of the people's rights and unfortunately (as I said before) there are bigots out there who own businesses. What i find silly is I get this image that people believe suddenly every corner gas stations is going to turn racist and riots will erupt, somehow I find that highly unlikely; it's just the same sort of fear mongering behind legalizing marijuana at a Federal level with some of the talking heads saying things like "people will become addicted" and "accident rates will increase" . Truth is if you don't smoke marijuana now you probably don't care too and it being legal and regulated won't affect you but WILL destroy the drug cartels who live off Americas ass backwards and corrupt laws. 

What I find appalling is why people don't discuss and debate policies of the big wig candidates such as Romney and Perry so passionately.... 





The Ruiner said:


> I would really like to spend the time to go through one by one, but the fact of the matter is that I don't really have the patience for it.
> 
> You are entitled to your beliefs. But, I won't spend my time debating the merits of Ron Paul's rhetoric.


Please enlighten me, I here to be as level and polite as I can if I receive the same, I don't ask for you to jump in joy and suddenly agree with me but I want to see the arguments here. I will very much so like to discuss why you wouldn't support bringing our troops home; that issues being the first one I mentioned and for me the most important for America's economy and safety.


----------



## Parker (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul has no Problems with businesses discriminating against Blacks gays Muslims whatever.You can define businesses as landlords, employers or Starbucks


Yes he does have a problem against it and has said so many times. He says it is not the role of government to force their sense of morality since government is not moral. It is the role of society.



dukeanthony said:


> He also likes picking and choosing what parts of the constitution he Likes
> For example The Nativists (read racists) love this one
> he wants to do away with Birthright citizenship
> Which is funny becuase except for Slaves and Native americans Brithright citizenship has been around since the founding of this country


He is very consistent. You do not know the foundation of the Constitution so why comment? Illegals sneak into this country 8 months pregnant and get rewarded with welfare when they give birth. They do not come here for the citizenship, they come for the entitlements. No one should profit from an illegal act.


----------



## Parker (Aug 20, 2011)

londonfog said:


> The property rights issue that Ron Paul wants could and would bring back violations of Civil Rights...


No the property rights issues that Ron Paul wants would bring us back our freedoms and our liberties. No one owns your work but you. No one should be able to force another to do work for them. If you are advocating the use of force to make someone work for you, go open up a plantation instead, same thing.

I hope you are not naive enough to realize the civil rights act has not stopped discrimination.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Funny Everytime I hear the Phrase "states rights" it is always at the expense of some groups rights that are protected federally.


The foundation of our Constitution and our country is individualism not collectivism.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 20, 2011)

Parker said:


> Yes he does have a problem against it and has said so many times. He says it is not the role of government to force their sense of morality since government is not moral. It is the role of society.
> 
> 
> He is very consistent. You do not know the foundation of the Constitution so why comment? Illegals sneak into this country 8 months pregnant and get rewarded with welfare when they give birth. They do not come here for the citizenship, they come for the entitlements. No one should profit from an illegal act.


Well put, I had to go in depth but your point about the idea of having the government decide what's moral is what I was aiming at.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> This is true, problem is you cannot expect everyone to be level headed and not racist, there will always be racists, unfortunately that's a sad fact of humanity, so either you have the government force people to hide their racism which drive them to usually resort to stuff like the KKK and the skinheads OR you let those people decided who they want to allow in their businesses and they will most likely go out of business because I know I for one wouldn't support any business that doesn't allow or treat minorities equally and I believe on top of loosing business from the people they turned away they would also loose business from the disgust of people who don't support such racist agendas, therefore I believe the whole "racist" partisan of Americans would slowly die out and shrivel up into a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population.
> 
> I assume you where referring the allowing people who are racist to turn away people of certain minorities. And this doesn't just apply to whitey turning away the "chink", it can also mean that in other people of other race could freely turn away "whitey" if they so felt inclined. BUT overall I believe (at least hope) that in this day and age most all of America doesn't view people for skin color or origin but for their views and beliefs as a person.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region. This is a direct conflict of interest to the other major players in the region (the Saudis, Israel, Turkey) which are of much more strategic value than Iran. It has been the US presence in the Persian Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (Which killed the idea of Pan-Arabism) and the fall of the Soviet Union that has kept Iran in check. If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. A disastrous result IMO. Given the two-decade propensity for Iran to resort to supporting terror tactics, this is something that just cannot be afforded at this time. We cant have a regional hegemon that openly advocates terrorists attacks against ANYONE period. A US presence in Iraq keeps the Iranians at bey, which will be needed for overall stability in the region. Also, if Iran is left to assume the power vaccum, this will undoubtedly press Israel to ramp-up any defensive posturing it feels necessary to take, which have already been difficult enough to constrain.

As for the effect of economy, we absolutely positively must retain a strong enough contingent to secure the flow of oil through the region. This will only be guarenteed by a continual US presence in the region. At this point the region is far too unstable to merit any sort of credibility on behalf of the region to secure this dynamic. The US is like a baby-sitter in the Near East, we are a force of balance and rationality to ambitious leaders of the region. They know that oil is the stranglehold of the modern world, I dont think anyone on a position to form US policy would be willing to leave that part of the world economy equation to chance by vacating the region and hoping for the best. There is too much at stake to take a chance on idealism.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Parker said:


> Yes he does have a problem against it and has said so many times. He says it is not the role of government to force their sense of morality since government is not moral. It is the role of society.
> 
> 
> He is very consistent. You do not know the foundation of the Constitution so why comment? Illegals sneak into this country 8 months pregnant and get rewarded with welfare when they give birth. They do not come here for the citizenship, they come for the entitlements. No one should profit from an illegal act.


You know the Great thing about the USA as a Vet I Proudly served with many of those "anchor Babies". And a point of fact which You skip over is. ILLEGALS pay more into the system then they get out of it


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region. This is a direct conflict of interest to the other major players in the region (the Saudis, Israel, Turkey) which are of much more strategic value than Iran. It has been the US presence in the Persian Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (Which killed the idea of Pan-Arabism) and the fall of the Soviet Union that has kept Iran in check. If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. A disastrous result IMO. Given the two-decade propensity for Iran to resort to supporting terror tactics, this is something that just cannot be afforded at this time. We cant have a regional hegemon that openly advocates terrorists attacks against ANYONE period. A US presence in Iraq keeps the Iranians at bey, which will be needed for overall stability in the region. Also, if Iran is left to assume the power vaccum, this will undoubtedly press Israel to ramp-up any defensive posturing it feels necessary to take, which have already been difficult enough to constrain.
> 
> As for the effect of economy, we absolutely positively must retain a strong enough contingent to secure the flow of oil through the region. This will only be guarenteed by a continual US presence in the region. At this point the region is far too unstable to merit any sort of credibility on behalf of the region to secure this dynamic. The US is like a baby-sitter in the Near East, we are a force of balance and rationality to ambitious leaders of the region. They know that oil is the stranglehold of the modern world, I dont think anyone on a position to form US policy would be willing to leave that part of the world economy equation to chance by vacating the region and hoping for the best. There is too much at stake to take a chance on idealism.


I disagree with you to a point. 
1 If we left Iraq alone. Iran would be surrounded by enemies. Turkey to the North, Iraq to the west and The USA in afghanistan. 

As far as why we are there. Its about OIL. Before Hussein Invaded Kuwait He asked for permission from us. We gave it to him. And when the Saudis made a deal with Poppa Bush We betrayed Hussein. Now we are stuck there and his Idiot son weakened the Biggest Enemy Iran ever had.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran.


Better to head off the making of the megalomaniacal decision making of a "Supreme Leader" in the U.S.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region. This is a direct conflict of interest to the other major players in the region (the Saudis, Israel, Turkey) which are of much more strategic value than Iran. It has been the US presence in the Persian Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (Which killed the idea of Pan-Arabism) and the fall of the Soviet Union that has kept Iran in check. If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. A disastrous result IMO. Given the two-decade propensity for Iran to resort to supporting terror tactics, this is something that just cannot be afforded at this time. We cant have a regional hegemon that openly advocates terrorists attacks against ANYONE period. A US presence in Iraq keeps the Iranians at bey, which will be needed for overall stability in the region. Also, if Iran is left to assume the power vaccum, this will undoubtedly press Israel to ramp-up any defensive posturing it feels necessary to take, which have already been difficult enough to constrain.
> 
> As for the effect of economy, we absolutely positively must retain a strong enough contingent to secure the flow of oil through the region. This will only be guarenteed by a continual US presence in the region. At this point the region is far too unstable to merit any sort of credibility on behalf of the region to secure this dynamic. The US is like a baby-sitter in the Near East, we are a force of balance and rationality to ambitious leaders of the region. They know that oil is the stranglehold of the modern world, I dont think anyone on a position to form US policy would be willing to leave that part of the world economy equation to chance by vacating the region and hoping for the best. There is too much at stake to take a chance on idealism.


I understand you point and agree it's a volatile system but it's not our job!! A US presence anywhere gets US troops dead with no real result except for our leaders saying "Ohh we are stopping something that COULD happen" it's like arresting someone before they killed someone saying "he was going to kill them and so he's getting charged with murder". 

How is the US supposed to be a force of "balance and rationality" when we can't even manage our own country?! 

If this "leader" is such a threat to the US how come we can't simply have the CIA take him out covertly? This may not agree with the ideal of Ron Paul but I believe the US could take out tyrants who ravage their nation and people, but we have NO say in how to run other people's countries. Also, since when does Iran have any sort of formidable military? 

As for the oil, The middle East actually only supplies about 1/3 of our oil and the countries that contribute the most have enough money to which they are somewhat secure from the "rule of an unchecked Iran", and even then the USA has plenty of oil to more than replace what we get from the middle East, while we can drill our own oil for now our ultimate goal SHOULD be to convert to electric vehicles because the technology is their and untapped, and don't try to call me on this on, I've spent an entire year building and electric vehicle and learning all the ins and outs of the system and the business. Their is enough free energy available from the wind, sun, and water to power America many times over.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

I counter that Iran already has a strong Shia contingent within Iraqi Parliment which I believe controls something like 2/3 already. Turkery, of course, but militarily, Turkey is in no position to get it's hands dirty, and just cannot possibly project an effective force past their own borders. They are more diplomatically gifted in terms of positioning. 

As far as Saddam and Kuwait, I don't necessarily see where he "asked" the US about anything. We didn't betray Hussein, if anyone did it was Hussein himself marginalizing himself amongst his peers. I do agree however, that we have eliminated the biggest obstacle to Iranian hegemony.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Better to head off the making of the megalomaniacal decision making of a "Supreme Leader" in the U.S.


There is no megalomaniac decision making of a "supreme leader" in the US, it simply does not exist. Even hinting at that notion destroys the idea of the "Elite ruling cabal."


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 20, 2011)

It's nice to see some intelligent responses in here. It somewhat restores my faith in humanity, until I see videos like Luke Rudkowsky interviewing people on the streets of DC, and I just have to shake my head.

Regardless, a tireless minority CAN prevail!! That''s the way it was in the 1st revolution. There are always going to be people who say "It can't be done", "Don't go against the king" etc. There is no telling what we can manifest if we pull together. It's not about right vs left. It's about the STATE vs YOU. Some people get it, and some don't.

It's interesting to read some of the preconditioned responses from people who watch MSNBC or whatever their flavor of BS is, and regurgitate whatever they were told by some talking head.
The truth is, the there IS NO TRUE ownership of property. If you don't believe me, then just stop paying your property taxes, and see what happens. What do you actually own, besides some crap probably made in China by some 8 year old Chinese kid?
Think you own your car? Just stop paying registration taxes on it, and see how far you get. 
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who actually believe they are free" 
It's an ILLUSION of freedom. The horse is allowed to roam the pasture, but there is always a fence around it.

Take 13 minutes to understand "the story of your enslavement", and you might have a different perspective. I'd be interested in some of your thoughts on this video. 
"To see the farm is to leave the farm"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

This misconception of property rights and "discrimination" being "racist" is BS that is fed to the masses from MSNBC, and the like.

What about signs that you see in businesses that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE"? That could mean, no shoes, no shirt, no service. Or, you're too drunk. Or your being an asshole to the other patrons etc. Or "we simply just don't like you and don't want to serve you for WHATEVER reason." Or "you're talking about something illegal in our business, and we can't accommodate that."
Nevermind the feared potential idiotic signs of "no blacks allowed", or "no whites allowed". If someone was stupid enough to put a sign like that in their business, word would spread so fast through the internet, and the media, that they would be out of business in a week. It's a fearmongering argument. Like we are all of the sudden go back to pre 1960's way of life or something. It's absurd.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> SNIP.


Sock Puppet Accounts

Ain't cool


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> I counter that Iran already has a strong Shia contingent within Iraqi Parliment which I believe controls something like 2/3 already. Turkery, of course, but militarily, Turkey is in no position to get it's hands dirty, and just cannot possibly project an effective force past their own borders. They are more diplomatically gifted in terms of positioning.
> 
> As far as Saddam and Kuwait, I don't necessarily see where he "asked" the US about anything. We didn't betray Hussein, if anyone did it was Hussein himself marginalizing himself amongst his peers. I do agree however, that we have eliminated the biggest obstacle to Iranian hegemony.


 
One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:
&#8220;We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship &#8212; not confrontation &#8212; regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?&#8221;Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:
&#8220;We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I understand you point and agree it's a volatile system but it's not our job!! A US presence anywhere gets US troops dead with no real result except for our leaders saying "Ohh we are stopping something that COULD happen" it's like arresting someone before they killed someone saying "he was going to kill them and so he's getting charged with murder".
> 
> How is the US supposed to be a force of "balance and rationality" when we can't even manage our own country?!
> 
> ...


It is our job, if we want to continue the way of life that we have here in the US (the high standard of living), it is imperative that we continue to pursue the unipolar world. 

The US by its very nature is a balance of power to the rest of the world. Our military and economy are by and large the most powerful the world has ever seen - that's a tough cookie to crack.

Well, 75% of the worlds oil goes through Iranian waters, I wouldn't leave them the keys - and neither would the rest of the world. As for the idea that we "ha(ve) plenty of oil" I am unaware as to your sources for that idea. As for electric vehicles, where is that energy going to come from when 40% of our electricity is generated by OIL. As for the "alternative" sources, that is something that is ambitious, idealist, and unrealistic under the current conditions. It's not about "what ifs" its about WHAT IS.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> It is our job, if we want to continue the way of life that we have here in the US (the high standard of living), it is imperative that we continue to pursue the unipolar world.
> 
> The US by its very nature is a balance of power to the rest of the world. Our military and economy are by and large the most powerful the world has ever seen - that's a tough cookie to crack.
> 
> Well, 75% of the worlds oil goes through Iranian waters, I wouldn't leave them the keys - and neither would the rest of the world. As for the idea that we "ha(ve) plenty of oil" I am unaware as to your sources for that idea. As for electric vehicles, where is that energy going to come from when 40% of our electricity is generated by OIL. As for the "alternative" sources, that is something that is ambitious, idealist, and unrealistic under the current conditions. It's not about "what ifs" its about WHAT IS.


As Correct as you are in the current state of affairs. You sound like a neo Con. We need to get off of OIL.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:
> &#8220;We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship &#8212; not confrontation &#8212; regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?&#8221;Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:
> &#8220;We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.


That doesn't sound like asking...


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> That doesn't sound like asking...


We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> As Correct as you are in the current state of affairs. You sound like a neo Con. We need to get off of OIL.


It won't happen as quickly as anyone would like, and we cant change that. 

I'm not a neo-con by any means. Just, a realist.


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.


 "It is over," Glaspie said. "Nobody wants to take the blame. I am quite happy to take the blame. Perhaps I was not able to make Saddam Hussein believe that we would do what we said we would do, but in all honesty, I don't think anybody in the world could have persuaded him."


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> It won't happen as quickly as anyone would like, and we cant change that.
> 
> I'm not a neo-con by any means. Just, a realist.


Unfortunatly your assessment is correct


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> It is our job, if we want to continue the way of life that we have here in the US (the high standard of living), it is imperative that we continue to pursue the unipolar world.
> 
> The US by its very nature is a balance of power to the rest of the world. Our military and economy are by and large the most powerful the world has ever seen - that's a tough cookie to crack.



I will wholeheartedly agree to disagree with you. We are not the police of the world, we are over extended. I don't know how else I could explain it, if the simple effect it has on our economy is not easy enough to understand then how about the fact that we (USA) became this presence after 9/11 further supporting conspiracy ideals that 9/11 was an excuse to go over there and honestly you seem to have bough into this idea that somehow we BELONG over there. 

As for the amount of oil traveling through Iranian waters, there should be other routes and if Iran does decide to attack shipments then I'm sure the countries of the world can ban together to protect their exports becuase as you said yourself America is a huge military power and I doubt we will have to worry much about Iran trying to take over the shipments, maybe some rag tag pirating but nothing more can be expected. 

In the issue of EV's, of course we can't suddenly switch, that's not what I'm suggesting, be a slow transgression from oil to electric, start developing more efficient technologies for creating and delivering electricity, build more nuclear power plants with extreme precautions taken and build them without a time table so that Americans can trust in them versus being on the edge as promoted by some media. Start supporting the small companies who are developing more efficient batteries, electric motors, and regenerative systems. 

In fact it's quite possible that given the right technology the USA can develop an electric vehicle with such an efficient self recharging system (hub generators) that in theory you can own an EV and never have to plug it in except maybe on extremely cold weather.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I will wholeheartedly agree to disagree with you. We are not the police of the world, we are over extended. I don't know how else I could explain it, if the simple effect it has on our economy is not easy enough to understand then how about the fact that we (USA) became this presence after 9/11 further supporting conspiracy ideals that 9/11 was an excuse to go over there and honestly you seem to have bough into this idea that somehow we BELONG over there.
> 
> As for the amount of oil traveling through Iranian waters, there should be other routes and if Iran does decide to attack shipments then I'm sure the countries of the world can ban together to protect their exports becuase as you said yourself America is a huge military power and I doubt we will have to worry much about Iran trying to take over the shipments, maybe some rag tag pirating but nothing more can be expected.
> 
> ...


.

NO there are no other reasonable routes and Iran already has plans to block the straights of Hormuz which is the choke point all tankers must go thru to get to open seas and onto the world markets


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I will wholeheartedly agree to disagree with you. We are not the police of the world, we are over extended. I don't know how else I could explain it, if the simple effect it has on our economy is not easy enough to understand then how about the fact that we (USA) became this presence after 9/11 further supporting conspiracy ideals that 9/11 was an excuse to go over there and honestly you seem to have bough into this idea that somehow we BELONG over there.
> 
> As for the amount of oil traveling through Iranian waters, there should be other routes and if Iran does decide to attack shipments then I'm sure the countries of the world can ban together to protect their exports becuase as you said yourself America is a huge military power and I doubt we will have to worry much about Iran trying to take over the shipments, maybe some rag tag pirating but nothing more can be expected.
> 
> ...


We have been the main (and dominant) super power since the end of WWII. This is not some sort of new development. As for Iran and Hormuz, dukeanthony nailed it.

As for EV's, it will be slow, indeed. And still there are no clear paths to take. And I do support smaller companies trying to make a difference...in fact I think I have my finger on that pulse pretty damn firmly at this point...and I don't think it will have to do with the energy source, rather the mechanisms of delivery.


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 20, 2011)

The truth of the matter is that if we wanted TRUE energy independence, we could have achieved it a long time ago. Tesla was a pioneer who's inventions were stolen by JP Morgan, and Edison and Co.
Why do you think hemp production was made illegal? Because it competed with DuPont's nylon petroleum based fiber.
There are companies TODAY right where I live, that could provide the fuels we need with full scale production being implemented in MONTHS, not years.
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/why-solar-fuel/overview

This and other technologies have been suppressed, because for man to be able to produce his own energy, and food, would take him off of the nanny state tit that they want to keep his mouth forced upon.

Once again. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
See the nature of the cage.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> SNIP.



Sock Puppetry should be a lifetime ban of IP address


----------



## londonfog (Aug 20, 2011)

damn did someone go invent another person because they are getting pwned as the old one...lol


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

londonfog said:


> damn did someone go invent another person because they are getting pwned as the old one...lol


This is very tame. On unmoderated sites Like CNN They have guys that run "Persona Management" software running 40+ accounts


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> This is very tame. On unmoderated sites Like CNN They have guys that run "Persona Management" software running 40+ accounts


WTF are you talking about? I don't need a "sock puppet" to smash you. You haven't come up with anything worth responding to. You've obviously got the mentality and geopolitical view of a 5 year old. Get over yourself.

I'll even go one further. The mods here are MORE than welcome to look at my "IP", and If they see that I am using 2 or more different names then I welcome them to ban me. If not, then maybe you should go find a little kids discussion to participate in.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> WTF are you talking about? I don't need a "sock puppet" to smash you. You haven't come up with anything worth responding to. You've obviously got the mentality and geopolitical view of a 5 year old. Get over yourself.
> 
> I'll even go one further. The mods here are MORE than welcome to look at my "IP", and If they see that I am using 2 or more different names then I welcome them to ban me. If not, then maybe you should go find a little kids discussion to participate in.


You are acting depraved


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

we will crush you!!


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> we will crush you!!View attachment 1744878


It was Khrushchev who said that they would bring us down, not from outside invasion but from within. Their task is almost complete.


----------



## beardo (Aug 20, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> It was Khrushchev who said that they would bring us down, not from outside invasion but from within. Their task is almost complete.


Things have been down hill for us regular people since we merged with the commies and faschists


----------



## The Ruiner (Aug 20, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> It was Khrushchev who said that they would bring us down, not from outside invasion but from within. Their task is almost complete.


Interesting...this touches on something I believe to be at the root of the general horrible lack of understanding that my generation suffers from, and that you are tacitly acknowledging, but I don't think you truly realize the implications of what you are saying. Or the mechanisms of how this could be possibly be attempted. The real players behind the scenes aren't trying all that hard to hide their hand. But, since so many focus their attention on what they're "supposed" to, damn near all fail to see it clearly, or how their beliefs have been manipulated into what they are today.


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 20, 2011)

beardo said:


> Things have been down hill for us regular people since we merged with the commies and faschists



The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. 
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (186, and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. 
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture&#8230; Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"&#8230; This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. 
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. 
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.


I'd say that pretty much covers most of it.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.


None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.
> 
> 
> None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....


So that cuts out Ron Paul
he likes picking and choosing the parts of the constitution he likes

Sort of like Thomas Jefferson and his Homemade bible


----------



## sync0s (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So that cuts out Ron Paul
> he likes picking and choosing the parts of the constitution he likes
> 
> Sort of like Thomas Jefferson and his Homemade bible


What are you talking about? Prove your statement Mr. anti 1st amendment.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Which one the known Ron Paul cherry picking the Constitution 

or the homemade Bible Jefferson made himself Cherry picking the new testament


----------



## sync0s (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Which one the known Ron Paul cherry picking the Constitution
> 
> or the homemade Bible Jefferson made himself Cherry picking the new testament


Ron Paul (10 Char)


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 20, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Interesting...this touches on something I believe to be at the root of the general horrible lack of understanding that my generation suffers from, and that you are tacitly acknowledging, but I don't think you truly realize the implications of what you are saying.


I think I do.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 20, 2011)

Ron Paul wants to end Birthright citizenship

Something we have had since the Founding of our country sans Slaves and Native Americans


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 20, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul wants to end Birthright citizenship
> 
> Something we have had since the Founding of our country sans Slaves and Native Americans


Advocating a change to the Constitution is not the same as cherry picking pieces out of the Constitution.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 20, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> Advocating a change to the Constitution is not the same as cherry picking pieces out of the Constitution.


Right. Cherry picking the constitution would be Obama hotlining no fly zone resolutions to bomb a country without the constitutional approval of congress.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 20, 2011)

Ron paul is about $75k from his $1.5 million today!


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 20, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Ron paul is about $75k from his $1.5 million today!


I donated today... rarely have I donated to political candidates. This is the first time I've given to a presidential candidate.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 20, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> I donated today... rarely have I donated to political candidates. This is the first time I've given to a presidential candidate.


I would but I lost my damn debit card and fucking wells fargo takes 5 business days. I also don't have netflix anymore because of this :/


----------



## beardo (Aug 20, 2011)

[youtube]fiCdMFB2iPw[/youtube]


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 20, 2011)

That sounds damned scary, if not outright evil at face value... I'll have to read the bill and see exactly what's in it before I comment any further.

Here's a link to the bill for anyone else who would like to read it.

Edit: Just read it, the bill was introduced in the 111th congress, and died in committee. HR 645 in the current congress deals with retirement savings withdrawls for unemployed individuals. I did not find any other bill in the 112th that looks like a reintroduction of the earlier bill.

The only things that bother me (outside of the constitutionality of the entire bill) are:

Section 2, Subsection B, Item 4:
to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

When congress has wording in a bill like this, they have given DHS a legal free-for-all on the use and purpose of these facilities.


Section 3, Subsections D & E:
Deals with preference to use closed military facilities.

While this in itself is not disturbing, it however gives them the capability to quickly set up detainment camps.

I can believe RP when he says they are getting ready for violence (when the FSA decides to riot), but I don't see a hidden purpose of setting up detainment centers - at least with the evidence currently presented to me (the youtube video and HR 645). It is definitely worth keeping an eye on it (our current president has no problem issuing executive orders for issues that did not make it in congress)


----------



## beardo (Aug 21, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> That sounds damned scary, if not outright evil at face value... I'll have to read the bill and see exactly what's in it before I comment any further.
> 
> Here's a link to the bill for anyone else who would like to read it.
> 
> ...


[youtube]UL0ZOutOJyE[/youtube]
Theirs also the U.N. small arms treaty before senate, and a George Soros backed plan to ban private property ownership or to encourage the use and spectrum of eminant domain.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=5463


----------



## Parker (Aug 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> You know the Great thing about the USA as a Vet I Proudly served with many of those "anchor Babies". And a point of fact which You skip over is. ILLEGALS pay more into the system then they get out of it


Because you have observed something does not discount the truth.

And no, illegals do not pay into the system. The anchor babies force schools to hire more teachers because of the increased enrollment. In some schools free and assisted lunches are the norm. Two schools in my area have over 90 percent of the students on free or assisted lunches. Anchor babies are poorly equipt coming into the school system and drag down performance. How could they not? The language barrier is very hard to overcome. Can you measure the effect of less educated students?

Illegals pregnancies have far greater unhealthier births percentage wise than non illegals. The jobs illegals take force other legals to end up on govt assistance. Did you factor that into the equation?

I'm all for looking after number one and I don't hate illegals. I dislike the system .


----------



## Parker (Aug 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul wants to end Birthright citizenship
> 
> Something we have had since the Founding of our country sans Slaves and Native Americans


Incorrect. He wants to change how it's interpreted. But then again you haven't got much correct in this thread so far anyway.


----------



## Parker (Aug 21, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region.


How? With what? Rocks?



The Ruiner said:


> *The US is like a baby-sitter in the Near East, we are a force of balance and rationality to ambitious leaders of the region. *


We used the CIA to overthrow a democratically elected leader in order to promote democracy???? On what planet is that rational???? 
We bribe other countries with aid and if they don't do what we say, we threaten to cut them off. If a country is real bad we impose embargoes which hurts the people, not the government of that country. I don't see rational.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 21, 2011)

Parker said:


> Incorrect. He wants to change how it's interpreted. But then again you haven't got much correct in this thread so far anyway.


Sorry........



ronpaul2012.com said:


> *COMMON SENSE REFORMS*
> 
> If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:
> * *Enforce Border Security* &#8211; America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
> ...


I'm indifferent on the enforcing the border, for no amnesty and no welfare state, against ending birthright citizenship, and absolutely for the protection and streamlining of lawful immigrants (We should be encouraging more through legal pathways!)


----------



## Parker (Aug 21, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Sorry........
> I'm indifferent on the enforcing the border, for no amnesty and no welfare state, against ending birthright citizenship, and absolutely for the protection and streamlining of lawful immigrants (We should be encouraging more through legal pathways!)


exactly. If they didn't come here and receive entitlements there would be less animosity towards illegals. In Texas that means Mexicans. The unintended consequences cause an us vs them mentality and prejudices arise and are reinforced in some people.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 21, 2011)

Parker said:


> exactly. If they didn't come here and receive entitlements there would be less animosity towards illegals. In Texas that means Mexicans. The unintended consequences cause an us vs them mentality and prejudices arise and are reinforced in some people.


Nah your just a prejudiced little dick and if you knew better you would know that illegals contribute more than they take in Texas

In a 2006 study, Texas earned more in taxes than it spent on public services to illegal immigrants. State and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. The Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.
Illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and local through sales and property taxes. A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well. Arizona and Texas' economies and tax policies are similar, suggesting Arizona may also receive net economic and fiscal benefits from illegal immigrants
Economic output of illegal immigrants in Texas was estimated at $17.7 billion in additional gross state product in 2005 alone. Experts estimate Arizona benefits from similar revenue and economic gains from its illegal immigrant population because of similar tax structures and proportionate illegal immigrant populations based on state populations.
Calls for closing the border and deporting all illegal immigrants &#8211; which some extreme anti-immigrant groups have called for in Arizona &#8211; would have dramatic negative impacts to state economies.

*This was on Foxbusiness.com*


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 21, 2011)

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/


Arizona&#8217;s recently-passed immigration law has drawn heated debate on both sides of the immigration issue, but there has been little focus on what economic impact illegal immigration has on border states &#8211; a phenomenon that&#8217;s likely larger than many people realize.
Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more of an economic contributor to state and local economies than politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of the population.
The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers&#8217; Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent to provide services. 


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/furl/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/#ixzz1VgB2rVYI​


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Nah your just a prejudiced little dick and if you knew better you would know that illegals contribute more than they take in Texas
> 
> In a 2006 study, Texas earned more in taxes than it spent on public services to illegal immigrants. State and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. The Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.
> Illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and local through sales and property taxes. A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well. Arizona and Texas' economies and tax policies are similar, suggesting Arizona may also receive net economic and fiscal benefits from illegal immigrants
> ...



So what you are saying is YOU just don't care about illegals if they get taxed.... Wait, doesn't that sound a lot like what the government would want? But how do you tax someone who's not even a citizen. If immigrants want to come into our country they should follow the system set up already, I've known many have went through the proper steps and I respect them; in fact a couple have told me they hate the illegals for disgracing their culture. If they cross the border illegally they ARE breaking the law and ARE responsible for the consequences. 

Stop trying to justify illegal immigration with cherry picked half truths and what not. It's just plain ignorant.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 21, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I would but I lost my damn debit card and fucking wells fargo takes 5 business days. I also don't have netflix anymore because of this :/


Well at least you saved some dough ....


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 21, 2011)

Really simple question

If they could come here legally
Doncha think they would?


----------



## Cali chronic (Aug 21, 2011)

Funny how these news whores always have to "run or Go" when someone is making sense and explaining a buzz word thrown out of context. Then they have to run to something like a cat fish derby as if that is more important then hearing what someone who wants to be representative of your country and our way of life has to say. 
Stephen Colbert is a Bible thumping Canadian with his Christian slanted Propaganda. Just listen to the foreigner sometime. BTW


----------



## sync0s (Aug 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Well at least you saved some dough ....


Hey now, we have our siggy bet, don't drag ron paul into this


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Really simple question
> 
> If they could come here legally
> Doncha think they would?


I just addressed this, can't you read? 
I've many many immigrants from Mexico who did come here legaaly, they went throu ghthe steps to get their work permits and paid what the government wanted. Something like a small chunk of each paycheck until they paid about 5,000 to the government for their citizenship. Not the most ideal way for it to be done but still realistic. 

What's unrealistic is allowing illegals to come here and then siphon off what work and money they can to send back Mexico and defend them for breaking the law! 





sync0s said:


> Hey now, we have our siggy bet, don't drag ron paul into this


hey, what was the bet again?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 21, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I just addressed this, can't you read?
> I've many many immigrants from Mexico who did come here legaaly, they went throu ghthe steps to get their work permits and paid what the government wanted. Something like a small chunk of each paycheck until they paid about 5,000 to the government for their citizenship. Not the most ideal way for it to be done but still realistic.
> 
> What's unrealistic is allowing illegals to come here and then siphon off what work and money they can to send back Mexico and defend them for breaking the law!
> ...


Sir with all due respect
You are Full of shit or they are. My wife and i went thru the Immigration Process. Lucky for us she wasnt Mexican. The wait to get a visa is decades if your a Mexican. And although it costs Money its no where near 5 grand.

F1 F2bs F3 and F4 visas are at a minimum 15 year wait just to get a visa
http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5542.html

Now you want to talk about Immigration? I been thru the process.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 21, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I just addressed this, can't you read?
> I've many many immigrants from Mexico who did come here legaaly, they went throu ghthe steps to get their work permits and paid what the government wanted. Something like a small chunk of each paycheck until they paid about 5,000 to the government for their citizenship. Not the most ideal way for it to be done but still realistic.
> 
> What's unrealistic is allowing illegals to come here and then siphon off what work and money they can to send back Mexico and defend them for breaking the law!
> ...


Actually it's really hard for foreigners to come to America, plus costs are rather outrageous. The most prosperous time for our nation followed the massive flux of immigration. Think about it: Nikola Tesla was an immigrant. Without him, me and you wouldn't be talking right now 

If ron paul wins the primaries he has to put his sig to whatever I want and vice versa.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Sir with all due respect
> You are Full of shit or they are. My wife and i went thru the Immigration Process. Lucky for us she wasnt Mexican. The wait to get a visa is decades if your a Mexican. And although it costs Money its no where near 5 grand.
> 
> F1 F2bs F3 and F4 visas are at a minimum 15 year wait just to get a visa
> ...


I must apologize, I never realize just how big of a bureaucratic clusterfuck our immigration have become. Now I must level and say the I do feel the pain of illegal immigrants and feel that we need to severely and completely redesign our immigration laws because it's all a undecipherable mess. 

With that said we can't as a nation let our borders become a feeble line drawn in the sand, we can't reward non citizens simply because they were born in a different country of poverty; albeit it's a shitty affair to be involved in if we we're to do that we might as well send a check out to every single citizen of every country for being born in a "3rd world country" because that's the message we are currently sending. We need to correct the root of the problem not try to disguise it by approaching the symptoms.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 21, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I must apologize, I never realize just how big of a bureaucratic clusterfuck our immigration have become. Now I must level and say the I do feel the pain of illegal immigrants and feel that we need to severely and completely redesign our immigration laws because it's all a undecipherable mess.
> 
> With that said we can't as a nation let our borders become a feeble line drawn in the sand, we can't reward non citizens simply because they were born in a different country of poverty; albeit it's a shitty affair to be involved in if we we're to do that we might as well send a check out to every single citizen of every country for being born in a "3rd world country" because that's the message we are currently sending. We need to correct the root of the problem not try to disguise it by approaching the symptoms.


You know I understand where you are about to go. SO let me relay this conversation I had with a Meatpacker a Farmer and a Restaurant owner.

They told me we need to fix immigration becuase they just cannot get enough College educated Professionals to 
cut the Meat
pick the crops
and do the dishes


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 21, 2011)

Immigration is one of the few things congress has constitutional authority on... and they have failed miserably. Many on the right seem to think that America is some type of country club, while many on the left wish to open the borders with little regard as to who is coming in. Both sides have at one time or another implemented quotas, and both have engaged in racism while doing so. Keeping a steady influx of immigrants keeps Americans productive, it keeps us from becoming lazy... so to speak.

What I think would be a proper immigration policy is to allow as many people in as we can process (however we cannot be giving them handouts, they must be able to support themselves or find assistance though private organizations). We should not require that they speak English (however we should not be catering to their native languages - perhaps supplying them with a whatever-English dictionary?). We should stop only those who have committed crimes against others in their country of origin (force and fraud types of laws), and stop those who carry communicable diseases (polio, smallpox carriers, etc. - would not include STDs, as those are not communicable to the public through everyday contact).

This idea that the United States is some type of exclusive club is one of the worst forms of collectivism out there, second only to racism. I think if we were to remove the government welfare systems, we would see a surge of support for a liberal immigration policy from everyone, including the right (of course there would still be a few asshats, but they and their racist/nationalist philosophy will die off soon enough).


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> You know I understand where you are about to go. SO let me relay this conversation I had with a Meatpacker a Farmer and a Restaurant owner.
> 
> They told me we need to fix immigration becuase they just cannot get enough College educated Professionals to
> cut the Meat
> ...


I honestly wasn't about to say illegal workers take our jobs, people who play that line are just as ignorant as I am towards the immigration process. The jobs up for competition are only ups for competition when the government gives illegal immigrants rights equal to our native born citizens.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 21, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I honestly wasn't about to say illegal workers take our jobs, people who play that line are just as ignorant as I am towards the immigration process. The jobs up for competition are only ups for competition when the government gives illegal immigrants rights equal to our native born citizens.


Other than what are founding Fathers intended for all People on our Soil

Can you name what rights they have that are equal to ours?


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Aug 21, 2011)

"Keeping a steady influx of immigrants keeps Americans productive"

Keeping a "steady influx of immigrants" (mostly illegal) is turning us into a third world nation, which is what the globalist societal engineers want. They are destroying the middle class, as the gap between rich and poor gets larger and larger.
It is all part of integrating the Mexico, the former USA, and Canada. It's called the NAU or North American Union. GWB, Vicente Fox, and that other ahole from Canada signed the documents in Texas at Baylor University a few years back.
The reason Congress has done nothing about it, is because they are irrelevant now. They've either been blackmailed, bribed, or threatened. Look how 81 of our supposed "elected representatives" just went to Israel. You think they have any allegiance to this country? AIPAC is running the show. Just look at the standing ovation NetenYAHOO got when he addressed the House, after Ohmamma told them to go back to their pre '67 borders. They laughed in his face.
Anyway, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent. This country is corrupt to the core. It is either going to be rebooted (getting back to the Constitution) by getting Ron Paul in the WH, or it is going to go up in flames, and then "they" will bring in "order out of chaos". NAU, Troops on the streets, dollar collapse, riots. If people think it can't happen here, then they are sadly mistaken.
The "immigrant" issue is but a small piece of the puzzle. Respectfully.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 21, 2011)

The left and the right hate immigrants. If any of you for one moment think that the right is any worse than the left on how they treat Mexicans, then you are sadly ignorant. Isn't Texas, California, and a huge portion of the land to the west is land we stole from these 'immigrants'. A war of American aggression at that.

I don't think coming to America should be near impossible. It is, and it is even harder post 2001. Duke has dealt with it, but I know what it is like from the Mexican side. It is different when you have nothing to start with and you are trying to come to America.

Ron Paul is not again immigration, he is against rewarding people who are breaking the law for breaking the law. It would be like giving money to people who speed.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 21, 2011)

you said it right when you stated "a huge portion of the land to the west is land we stole from these 'immigrants'. A war of American aggression at that."...I guess they just getting back what they are owed


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 21, 2011)

Jefferson's Ghost said:


> "Keeping a steady influx of immigrants keeps Americans productive"
> 
> Keeping a "steady influx of immigrants" (mostly illegal) is turning us into a third world nation, which is what the globalist societal engineers want. They are destroying the middle class, as the gap between rich and poor gets larger and larger.


For someone who uses Thomas Jefferson's name (unless your username refers to some other Jefferson - Perhaps George?), you should read up on some of his writings...



Thomas Jefferson said:


> I can not omit recommending a revisal of the laws on the subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary chances of human life, a denial of citizenship under a residence of 14 years is a denial to a great proportion of those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from their 1st settlement by many of these States, and still believed of consequence to their prosperity; and shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution indeed has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to everyone manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us, with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag, an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war that no endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress it?


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> The left and the right hate immigrants. If any of you for one moment think that the right is any worse than the left on how they treat Mexicans, then you are sadly ignorant. Isn't Texas, California, and a huge portion of the land to the west is land we stole from these 'immigrants'.


I cannot speak for California (I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to California history), but Texas joined the union voluntarily. Texas fought for its independence under similar circumstances as the American Revolution. 10 years after Texas had won its independence, we joined the United States.


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you said it right when you stated "a huge portion of the land to the west is land we stole from these 'immigrants'. A war of American aggression at that."...I guess they just getting back what they are owed


What was stolen from them was stolen by people who have been dead for generations, from people who have also been dead for generations. The immigration policy applied to Mexicans should be no more stringent or lax than the policy applied to other nationalities. See my previous post on what I believe to be a proper immigration policy.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 21, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> What was stolen from them was stolen by people who have been dead for generations, from people who have also been dead for generations. The immigration policy applied to Mexicans should be no more stringent or lax than the policy applied to other nationalities. See my previous post on what I believe to be a proper immigration policy.


I understand what you saying..but I'm just saying what goes around sometime comes back around..Their ancestors got robbed, so now its the other way around...


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I understand what you saying..but I'm just saying what goes around sometime comes back around..Their ancestors got robbed, so now its the other way around...


If that ever comes to fruition (Aztlan), those lands will be turned into the same shithole of corruption and murder that is happening south of the border on a daily basis. I often wonder how quickly that would end if drug prohibition (all of them) came to an end.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 21, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> If that ever comes to fruition (Aztlan), those lands will be turned into the same shithole of corruption and murder that is happening south of the border on a daily basis. I often wonder how quickly that would end if drug prohibition (all of them) came to an end.


I would say 3 days


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> I would say 3 days


It would be quick, that's for sure. The _longest _I would ever think it could last, is as long as it would take for the market to produce and distribute the desired products.

No more getting ripped off by shady dealers, no more risk of being mugged. How many people can bring their bag back to the dealer to demand a refund for shitty weed?


----------



## JoeCa1i (Aug 21, 2011)

No mention of this on puppet news yet http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-theyre-setting-the-stage-for-violence-in-this-country/


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

JoeCa1i said:


> No mention of this on puppet news yet http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-theyre-setting-the-stage-for-violence-in-this-country/



Alex jones? ? ?


----------



## Parker (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Nah your just a prejudiced little dick and if you knew better you would know that illegals contribute more than they take in Texas
> 
> In a 2006 study, Texas earned more in taxes than it spent on public services to illegal immigrants. State and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. The Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.
> Illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and local through sales and property taxes. A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well. Arizona and Texas' economies and tax policies are similar, suggesting Arizona may also receive net economic and fiscal benefits from illegal immigrants
> ...


you missed the point, douche. Legals will do the jobs, pay those taxes, AND by doing those jobs they no longer are on government assistance. You are not taking into account the future harm legals suffer because of the harm illegals do. How many illegals lost houses? Lost their future? 
Minorities are hit harder than anyone you repulsive sack of shit. Who do you think was doing the jobs the illegals are doing now?
The housing bill impacted minorities the most also. What little savings they had, meaning equity, was lost in the crash. The poor, meaning minorities, didn't get bailed out. So next time you regurgitate the sperm from your goats love muscle think before you call someone prejudiced.


----------



## Parker (Aug 22, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I just addressed this, can't you read?
> I've many many immigrants from Mexico who did come here legaaly, they went throu ghthe steps to get their work permits and paid what the government wanted. Something like a small chunk of each paycheck until they paid about 5,000 to the government for their citizenship. Not the most ideal way for it to be done but still realistic.
> What's unrealistic is allowing illegals to come here and then siphon off what work and money they can to send back Mexico and defend them for breaking the law!
> hey, what was the bet again?


exactly. people learn it's okay to cheat the system. The government is not exactly building character are they?


----------



## Parker (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> You know I understand where you are about to go. SO let me relay this conversation I had with a Meatpacker a Farmer and a Restaurant owner.
> 
> They told me we need to fix immigration becuase they just cannot get enough College educated Professionals to
> cut the Meat
> ...


No its because they can get illegals to work who will not report them OR collect disability. Check out the poultry industry. They are notorious for that.

They never had college educated people doing those jobs before so why would they need illegals now?


----------



## Parker (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Sir with all due respect
> You are Full of shit or they are. My wife and i went thru the Immigration Process. Lucky for us she wasnt Mexican. The wait to get a visa is decades if your a Mexican. And although it costs Money its no where near 5 grand.
> F1 F2bs F3 and F4 visas are at a minimum 15 year wait just to get a visa
> http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5542.html
> ...


Many illegals come here for the welfare and not to assimilate. America does not need low income people applying. That is destructive to an economy since many will end up on public asssitance. There are many opportunities to get work visas. Because someone applies for citizenship does not mean they are entitled to it. 

Why did it take you so long?

http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-citizenship-process.html
Depending on where and when you choose to file your application, the period of time between sending in the completed application and the interview to become a U.S. Citizen* can vary from five months to more than two years.*

http://immigration-law.freeadvice.com/immigration-law/citizenship/us_citizen_filing_length.htm
Once your application if filed, the approval time to become a U.S. citizen varies by person and location. If you live in an area with heavy immigrant populations, *it is not unusual to wait 2 years or more to become a naturalized citizen.* The INS claims to be working to reducing the processing time for naturalization to approximately 6 months. However, that goal has not yet been reached. In the meantime, you can take steps to prevent delays in your application.

http://uscitizenshiptestguide.com/text/apply.html
*Normally it takes approximately 6 month from the date the application is filed. *
However, according to the news released by US Citizenship and Immigrant Service (USCIS) on 1/16/2008, due to the significant increase in the number of applications filed, processing times have been affected. As a result, average processing times for certain application types filed after June 1, 2007, may become longer. *Citizenship applications may take approximately 16-18 months to process.*


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you said it right when you stated "a huge portion of the land to the west is land we stole from these 'immigrants'. A war of American aggression at that."...I guess they just getting back what they are owed


lol, thanks for being kind and leaving the first part of the sentence, which didn't connect, off. Drinking is bad.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> I cannot speak for California (I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to California history), but Texas joined the union voluntarily. Texas fought for its independence under similar circumstances as the American Revolution.  10 years after Texas had won its independence, we joined the United States.


Texas didn't rebel against Mexico, white people from the USA, many of them illegals, invaded Texas and then decided they were going to start there own country. Mexico never relinquished claim over Texas, and intended to retake the territory. America purposely admitted Texas to the USA with the reasoning that it could invade Mexico in self defense and then steal California and gain a footing on the other coast. This entire war was an outright invasion of Mexico. No one with knowledge of history would suggest otherwise.

Essentially, we gangstered the Mexicans. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War Or, as the Mexicans would call it "American invasion of Mexico".


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> It would be quick, that's for sure. The _longest _I would ever think it could last, is as long as it would take for the market to produce and distribute the desired products.
> 
> No more getting ripped off by shady dealers, no more risk of being mugged. How many people can bring their bag back to the dealer to demand a refund for shitty weed?


I wouldn't deal with someone who would sell me shitty weed and not fix it if he did. I guess we all have different standards


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

txpete77 said:


> What was stolen from them was stolen by people who have been dead for generations, from people who have also been dead for generations. The immigration policy applied to Mexicans should be no more stringent or lax than the policy applied to other nationalities. See my previous post on what I believe to be a proper immigration policy.


Agreed that it is over. I also feel that way about Israel having been remade. The people that were gangstered there are still alive though.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

Parker said:


> you missed the point, douche. Legals will do the jobs, pay those taxes, AND by doing those jobs they no longer are on government assistance. You are not taking into account the future harm legals suffer because of the harm illegals do. How many illegals lost houses? Lost their future?
> Minorities are hit harder than anyone you repulsive sack of shit. Who do you think was doing the jobs the illegals are doing now?
> The housing bill impacted minorities the most also. What little savings they had, meaning equity, was lost in the crash. The poor, meaning minorities, didn't get bailed out. So next time you regurgitate the sperm from your goats love muscle think before you call someone prejudiced.


Not to mention if you couldn't get people to pick tomatoes, you would offer more money to pick them. Eventually picking tomatoes would be a job worth doing or no one would do it. The price of tomatoes would go up to reflect this. This is the market fixing a lack of labor by increasing wages. In turn, this would cause labor needs in other industries as well, and wages would rise.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

Parker said:


> Many illegals come here for the welfare and not to assimilate. America does not need low income people applying. That is destructive to an economy since many will end up on public asssitance. There are many opportunities to get work visas. Because someone applies for citizenship does not mean they are entitled to it.
> 
> Why did it take you so long?
> 
> ...


I don't have an issue with limiting immigration, posting our military at the borders, building a 50 billion dollar tall fence My issue is how we treat these people who are just people like us. They aren't evil drug dealers coming over to mooch welfare, they are human beings who are coming here because they know they can make their lives better. Anyone who wouldn't break the laws if their family was starving and destitute is a coward. It isn't like they are robbing people or murdering, they are just crossing a border to come here for work. You get criminals of every race, most Mexicans are not criminals, just poor.

The real solution to the immigration problem has little to do with immigration. If we stopped buying from China and set Mexico up to succeed then we would have a neighbor who prospered and helped us to prosper. Mexico is a trade partner, China is a seller. We buy and sell in Mexico, we only buy in China.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 22, 2011)

Texas History lesson:

The Texians that won the Texas independence were there with permission from Mexico. They were actually Mexican citizens that rebelled after Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna took over control of Mexico and scrapped the constitution that the Texians agreed to adhere to when they came to settle the land with Mexicos PERMISSION.


----------



## file13 (Aug 22, 2011)

i know i have a couple cars full of people going with me to vote ron paul on election day


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

Parker said:


> Many illegals come here for the welfare and not to assimilate. America does not need low income people applying. That is destructive to an economy since many will end up on public asssitance. There are many opportunities to get work visas. Because someone applies for citizenship does not mean they are entitled to it.
> 
> .[/B]


1 ILLEGALS ARE NOT ELGIBLE FOR FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS
2 THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS WORKING ON VISAS FILED BEFORE 1996 FOR MEXICANS

SOME AS FAR BACK AS 1992. 

WHICH ISNT EXACTLY FAIR SINCE A EUROPEAN CAN GET HERE WITH THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS IN LESS THAN A YEAR
http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5452.html * <---- STATE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE CHECK OUT THE PROCESSING TIMES FOR MEXICANS YOURSELF
*


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

carthoris said:


> not to mention if you couldn't get people to pick tomatoes, you would offer more money to pick them. Eventually picking tomatoes would be a job worth doing or no one would do it. The price of tomatoes would go up to reflect this. This is the market fixing a lack of labor by increasing wages. In turn, this would cause labor needs in other industries as well, and wages would rise.


georgia farmers were paying 12-18 bucks an hour with attendance bonuses and sign up bonuses
when that didnt work the govenor tried forcing parolees to pick the feilds

your argument has been proven false in a state with over 9% unemployment


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Texas History lesson:
> 
> The Texians that won the Texas independence were there with permission from Mexico. They were actually Mexican citizens that rebelled after Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna took over control of Mexico and scrapped the constitution that the Texians agreed to adhere to when they came to settle the land with Mexicos PERMISSION.


Were sorry, your answer is wrong, thanks for playing.


In 1829, as a result of the large influx of American immigrants, the Americans outnumbered Mexicans in the Texas territory. The Mexican government decided to bring back the property tax, increase tariffs on U.S. shipped goods, and prohibit slavery. The settlers rejected the demands, which led to Mexico closing Texas to additional immigration. However, Americans continued to flow into the Texas territory. In 1834, General Antonio López de Santa Anna became the dictator of Mexico, abandoning the federal system. He decided to squash the semi-independence of Texas.

After this battle, which the Texans won, they made Santa Anna sign a paper under duress which was never ratified by their congress and so meant nothing. Previous to the United States annexing Texas and gangstering the Mexicans Texas was at best a disputed territory, and at worse it was part of Mexico and America invaded Mexico. Even our own politicians stated openly that this is what was going down. Texas, as a independent state, never existed. It went from being a Mexican territory to being annexed by America. 

There was never any treaty that made Texas an independent country. It wasn't until America decided to do this massive land grab that the papers Santa Anna signed while a prisoner in Texas were even considered 'treaties' when they clearly were not. This wasn't even legal without going to the point that Santa Anna had no legal standing to sign them to begin with.

No one really even cared about Texas. They wanted California.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> 1 ILLEGALS ARE NOT ELGIBLE FOR FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS
> 2 THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS WORKING ON VISAS FILED BEFORE 1996 FOR MEXICANS
> 
> SOME AS FAR BACK AS 1992.
> ...


Even though you are horribly wrong on most other things, you are right on this.

Hey, heres a funny question. Who was the last Mexican terrorist?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Even though you are horribly wrong on most other things, you are right on this.
> 
> Hey, heres a funny question. Who was the last Mexican terrorist?


Pancho Villa?


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> georgia farmers were paying 12-18 bucks an hour with attendance bonuses and sign up bonuses
> when that didnt work the govenor tried forcing parolees to pick the feilds
> 
> your argument has been proven false in a state with over 9% unemployment


When did it get proven false? When did anyone say it was instantaneous? The price of food needs to go up. It can not continue to be at the level it is at without what is illegal slave labor to keep the prices low. The free market is working exactly how it is supposed to. Crops are labor intensive, and to legally grow them costs more than we are currently paying. The people should pay whatever it costs to produce the crops legally. It might take a few years to get everything right, but it is what it is. 

I mean, we aren't talking about a long running law that is failing miserably(social security, medicare, disability, food stamps, DOE, ect). We are talking about something that just started.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Pancho Villa?


lol, we should all be afraid when people wear rugs cause they must be terrorists.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> georgia farmers were paying 12-18 bucks an hour with attendance bonuses and sign up bonuses
> when that didnt work the govenor tried forcing parolees to pick the feilds
> 
> your argument has been proven false in a state with over 9% unemployment


Was there a massive food shortage, and what happened with all the crops that didn't get picked?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Was there a massive food shortage, and what happened with all the crops that didn't get picked?


They rotted in the feilds and georgia lost billions

BTW 
That was 2 months ago


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

By Jeremy Redmon 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Gov. Nathan Deal on Tuesday offered what he called a &#8220;partial solution&#8221; to Georgia&#8217;s farm labor shortage: put people on criminal probation to work picking fruits and vegetables in South Georgia.
Enlarge photo

Vino Wong, [email protected]te survey suggests that there is potentially a need to fill as many as 11,080 agricultural jobs this year in Georgia.


*The Republican governor&#8217;s idea is drawing concern from the head of the American Probation and Parole Association and getting mixed reviews from farmers and their organizations, who have complained that a new immigration law was scaring away migrant farmworkers they need.*



Deal outlined his proposal the same day his office released the results of a state survey of farmers showing they have 11,080 jobs open, which is about 14 percent of the full-time positions that are filled annually. Deal asked for the survey last month


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

*LESLIE, Ga. (AP) *- It's 3:25 p.m. in a dusty cucumber field in south Georgia. A knot of criminal offenders who spent seven hours in the sun harvesting buckets of vegetables by hand have decided they're calling it quits - exactly as crew leader Benito Mendez predicted in the morning.
Unless the cucumbers come off the vine soon, they will become engorged with seeds, making them unsellable. Mendez's crew of Mexican and Guatemalan workers will keep harvesting until 6 p.m., maybe longer. Not so for the men participating in a new state-run program aimed at replacing the Latino migrants Georgia farmers say they've lost to a new immigration crackdown with unemployed probationers.
"Tired. The heat," said 33-year-old Tavares Jones, who left early and was walking down a dirt road toward a ride home. He promised Mendez he'd return the next morning. "It's hard work out here."
Mendez urged another man to stay. "I need you today," he said. "These cucumbers not going to wait until tomorrow."


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

Migrant farmworkers are bypassing Georgia because of the state&#8217;s tough new immigration enforcement law, creating a severe labor shortage among fruit and vegetable growers here and potentially putting hundreds of millions of dollars in crops in jeopardy, agricultural industry leaders said this week. [...]

Charles Hall, executive director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, said he has been in close contact with Labor Commissioner Mark Butler and Agricultural Commissioner Gary Black about the shortage, calling it the most severe he has seen. Hall said it's possible state officials could hold job fairs to steer some of Georgia&#8217;s unemployed workers to these farm jobs, which pay $12.50 an hour on average. The state&#8217;s unemployment rate is now at 9.9 percent.
Farmers, however, say they often have little luck recruiting Georgia residents to work in their fields because it is temporary, hot and physically demanding. To recruit more workers, some farmers are offering signing bonuses, Hall said.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> They rotted in the feilds and georgia lost billions
> 
> BTW
> That was 2 months ago


Where did you pull the magical billions number from? I looked and the only number I saw was 300 million. With that being said I must respond... "So what?" Even if it was 10 billion, I fail to see your point. You are justifying breaking the law because it made money for big business? Who lost those 'billions' of dollars? Oh, thats right, people who were breaking the law. Fuck em.

The fact that no one else wants the jobs just goes to show you that those 10% of people who aren't working are lazy fuckers who don't want to work for 10 bucks an hour. Remove their government support and I bet they will want those jobs. Of course, the farms may have to pay more. I don't see a negative in all this. This is is the free market fixing the issue. Vegetables will cost what they cost to produce in the coming years. If they don't pay enough - they wont get produced. It is very simple. You can't point out 1 growing season as the failure of a policy.

If they just gave those people the ability to be legal and pay taxes or perhaps just did away with the income tax altogether this wouldn't be as big of an issue.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Migrant farmworkers are bypassing Georgia because of the state&#8217;s tough new immigration enforcement law, creating a severe labor shortage among fruit and vegetable growers here and potentially putting hundreds of millions of dollars in crops in jeopardy, agricultural industry leaders said this week. [...]
> 
> Charles Hall, executive director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, said he has been in close contact with Labor Commissioner Mark Butler and Agricultural Commissioner Gary Black about the shortage, calling it the most severe he has seen. Hall said it's possible state officials could hold job fairs to steer some of Georgia&#8217;s unemployed workers to these farm jobs, which pay $12.50 an hour on average. The state&#8217;s unemployment rate is now at 9.9 percent.
> Farmers, however, say they often have little luck recruiting Georgia residents to work in their fields because it is temporary, hot and physically demanding. To recruit more workers, some farmers are offering signing bonuses, Hall said.


None of those said how much was lost in crops, or how many citizens got jobs because the illegal immigrants weren't there. Maybe if welfare, unemployment, social security, disability, ect weren't so generous people would want jobs? Those 10% of Georgia obviously are living somehow. If they offered more, more people would come to work there. It sounds to me like the farms just don't care to pay enough to get their stuff picked.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Of course, the farms may have to pay more. I don't see a negative in all this. This is is the free market fixing the issue. Vegetables will cost what they cost to produce in the coming years. If they don't pay enough - they wont get produced. It is very simple. You can't point out 1 growing season as the failure of a policy.
> 
> If they just gave those people the ability to be legal and pay taxes or perhaps just did away with the income tax altogether this wouldn't be as big of an issue.


How will the Free Market Fix a Farmer that goes out of business? And do you think rising food prices will create Inflation?
Do you actually think agribusiness begins and ends with a farmer?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

*Monday, June 27, 2011*

*GEORGIA AGRIBUSINESS LOSS MAY BE $1 BILLION *



The Georgia Agribusiness Council is estimating that the state of Georgia might lose up to $1 Billion (!) if crops would not be picked and rot in the fields, or not be processed after they are picked, because of the HB87 induced farming job shortage. This figure only includes this season's fruit and vegetables, and does not not include cotton and pecans that are up next for harvest in our state's cycle. Republicans who voted for HB87 sure found a great way to increase the state's budget problems!


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

Crop Losses Could Top $1B 
By Jeanne Bonner 
Updated: 2 months ago 


ATLANTA &#8212;




Farmers are picking a variety of signature Georgia crops right now. Some have said they are seeing labor shortages among migrant workers who fear the new immigration law.

An agriculture industry group estimates a shortage of migrant labor may wind up costing Georgia fruit and vegetable farmers $300 million in crop losses. Officials worry the total economic impact will be even greater if crops from the next harvest are lost.

The Georgia Agribusiness Council estimates the total loss stemming from spoiled and unpicked produce to be close to $1 billion.

And that doesn&#8217;t include other crops such as pecans and cotton that will be harvested next.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> How will the Free Market Fix a Farmer that goes out of business? And do you think rising food prices will create Inflation?
> Do you actually think agribusiness begins and ends with a farmer?


Rising prices don't create inflation. Keeping the prices of food artificially low is a bigger problem. The farmer wouldn't go out of business if he had a sound business plan. Tough titty for him. Will anyone cry for people who are making 10s of thousands of dollars a month growing marijuana if they make marijuana legal and those people can no longer make a living? Owning a business is a risk, and you know it going in. I am guessing you don't know anything about business in general. 

Stop trying to turn a short term problem into something else. This is like pulling your hand out of a fire and bumping your elbow. Sure the elbow hurts, but you wouldn't suggest leaving your hand in the fire.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Crop Losses Could Top $1B
> By Jeanne Bonner
> Updated: 2 months ago
> 
> ...


So it wasn't 'billions' it wasn't even 1 billion.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *Monday, June 27, 2011*
> 
> *GEORGIA AGRIBUSINESS LOSS MAY BE $1 BILLION *
> 
> ...


I wonder if the people who write the headlines read their own articles, or if you do for that matter. The billion dollar number was entirely made up, and the 300 million might be true. Once again - who cares? The rich people who own farms and profit from illegal labor. Why aren't they offering 20 dollars an hour to have people pick fruit and veggies then if they are rotting in the fields rather than losing their crops? Why is making people follow the law an issue in your eyes?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 22, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Why is making people follow the law an issue in your eyes?


Why do bad laws need to be Followed?

What site are you on again?


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 22, 2011)

300 Pages in this thread!  Woot Woot. 

Ohh were you having a conversation?


----------



## Parker (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> How will the Free Market Fix a Farmer that goes out of business? And do you think rising food prices will create Inflation?
> Do you actually think agribusiness begins and ends with a farmer?


The free market doesn't physically "fix" anything because it doesn't use manipulation. We tell the market if we want something or not through the peoples purchasing power.
Rising food prices are because of inflation you twit. Don't you know anything about the Federal reserve and how they print money?
Why work when you can get money from the government for free?


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 22, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Why do bad laws need to be Followed?
> 
> What site are you on again?


Got to admit, first thing you've said that I liked .


----------



## deprave (Aug 23, 2011)

I love how you guys are talking about free markets here and I will get involved and finished reading your post probably tomorrow, but I just want to add one thing: Electing Ron Paul for 4 to 8 years would not enable him to activate his entire philosophy into every aspect of our society, electing Ron Paul is at the least a step in the right direction. The politicians are very distant from the people right now, down in the authoritarian and centrist areas. Electing Ron Paul is a shove back in the direction of the people but unfortunately it would not be such a dramatic leap as some speculate, although i wish it was, because with Ron Pauls philosophy we all prosper and we restore the republic.

It may be fun to speculate about such changes or perhaps you fear them, but in the end it won't be as radical as most of you are imagining. Please listen and read about Ron Pauls plans for president, they really aren't all that dramatic as some would make you think. Also lets get real here for a minute, Ron Paul a man in his late 70's who served in congress and fought for the people for over 30 years and the founder of the liberty movement isn't plotting some kind of conspiracy or plans to take over the world or to give to the rich and steal from the poor or to bring back slavery, anarchy, hitler, or anything so ridiculous it should be blatantly obvious, GET REAL!
*
This is it the real shocker, Ron Pauls evil plot, its not complicated, brace yourself: *

*its the idea of liberty, written of by great revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and all great revolutionaries before and after him, real simple, Love for Humanity and Equality. This is the position Ron Paul consistently identifies with, you can call Ron Paul "Pro-life" but its not the pro-life your thinking about, the neocons and social conservatives with their ridiculous bills...the radical pro-lifers...Ron Paul has stated he will not support these people in their radical mission.*



Thomas Jefferson said:


> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


When you equate Ron Paul to the radical politicians that identify with items such as "Pro-Life" its like equating Gandhi to to King George because they both wore robes, without listening to what either of them has to say or looking at what they have done, Ron Paul has his own unique philosophy and he is a free-thinker. It all comes back to another thing, Identity Vs Philosophy, The Issues Vs Sexiness, sadly many Americans would prefer to see Britney spears over Pink Floyd or watch 2 and a half men or Monday night football instead of studying. This is why watching cable news is like watching Entertainment Tonight 24 hour coverage.


----------



## deprave (Aug 23, 2011)

Regarding Cannabis and Religion

What Would Jesus Do? I think he would support Ron Paul in ending the war on humanity and this includes the war on drugs, the slaying of young people for profit, the imprisonment of our youth.


*We as a society deserve cannabis, we need it, its our right, we need this more than ever, its a god given human right. It is also freedom of religion. Ask yourself what would Jesus do




- Jesus said that god gives us every herbs are "meat" given to us by god, he said that a time will come when cannabis will be forbidden and it is our duty to protest.




source: http://www.equalrights4all.org/religious/bible.htm

 God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.&#8230;To you it will be for meat." &#8230; And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:29-31) The Bible predicts some herb's prohibition. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some shall &#8230; speak lies in hypocrisy &#8230; commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (Paul: 1 Timothy 4:1-3) 


* * The Bible speaks of a special plant. "I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more." (Ezekiel 34:29) A healing plant. On either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare 12 manner of fruits, and yielding her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Revelations 22:1-2) A gift from God.

*


* Cannabis - especially medical cannabis...IS A RIGHT ...NOT A PRIVILEGE! Do what is right




*


----------



## deprave (Aug 23, 2011)

I believe the question was brought up, how will farmers make money? Or something over dramatic like that, I believe on the previous page, anyway......with cannabis anyone can be a farmer and make good money and start a business doing all kinds of things with cannabis and they wont need government subsidies, even without cannabis or hemp, in a truly free market its not necessary. We don't feed the world because a government entity controls the price of corn, its because of these government programs and because of Monsanto that the small guys don't stand a chance, the individual, corporations win, people lose(their health, their rights, their property, their American Dream, and unfortunately sometimes their loved ones or their own life)


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 23, 2011)

You didn't read enough b You apparently don't see the part where it talks about SFA and his 300 families. I guess you don't get that it was after Texians outnumbered mexicans that it was made illegal to come to Mexico. They were allowed to be there. You should read more books about it other than a Wikipedia article. 

I'm from Texas and own many books on the subject.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 23, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Why do bad laws need to be Followed?
> 
> What site are you on again?


By your logic I should go build a bunch of machine guns if I want. Why are the laws in question bad? You see what you did right? You tried to make me the enemy of the forum by comparing immigration to a harmless weed. Marijuana should be legal for adults, and immigration should be fixed so there are legal paths for people to become citizens of the United States. I also stated that if I were in the position of the Mexican's that I would cross the border and look for work, in fact I think my opinion of it is rather blunt 

"*They aren't evil drug dealers coming over to mooch welfare, they are human beings who are coming here because they know they can make their lives better. Anyone who wouldn't break the laws if their family was starving and destitute is a coward. It isn't like they are robbing people or murdering, they are just crossing a border to come here for work."

*The issue is more than just immigration. The issue is welfare, medicare, immigration, entitlements, ect. I am not suggesting that immigrants get a disproportionate percentage of those or that they come here to milk the system. However, allowing millions of dirt poor illegal immigrants citizenship is going to be a horrendous drag on those things. Those things are also in large part the reason we need the illegal immigrants here to begin with. If stupid people didn't get the government to take care of them, they would have to work doing something. The fact that food is artificially priced low in this country which in turn causes the wages for farm workers to be low so that people in this country refuse to do it is in large part caused by allowing illegal immigrants to work here in the fields. If American's did the jobs, the pay would be higher, the food prices would be higher, and would be sustainable without getting illegal immigrants. Either that or they would mechanize it. 

I think the immigrants bring a much needed work ethic to America, and in all honesty, I would trade quite a few 'americans' to Mexico for immigrants. Unfortunately, our civilization is toxic and after the first generation they completely lose their way and start acting like a big part of our population. Lazy, stupid, and ignorant.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 23, 2011)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You didn't read enough b You apparently don't see the part where it talks about SFA and his 300 families. I guess you don't get that it was after Texians outnumbered mexicans that it was made illegal to come to Mexico. They were allowed to be there. You should read more books about it other than a Wikipedia article.
> 
> I'm from Texas and own many books on the subject.


They did outnumber them, they were allowed to be there. They revolted because the Mexican government wanted them to pay taxes and outlawed slavery. Around this same time, they stopped immigration. It continued illegally for years before they rebelled. Many of the people who fought in the revolt were American 'adventurers'. Basically, they were just there to fight. Texas joined the USA for protection from Mexico. Then the USA took half of Texas and turned it into other states. Also, please note that we won Texas from Mexico when we invaded them and beat their asses. It would be like the CSA joining France and then France invading the USA because they invaded France for being in Georgia or something. Call it what you want, but we land grabbed Texas.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 23, 2011)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You didn't read enough b You apparently don't see the part where it talks about SFA and his 300 families. I guess you don't get that it was after Texians outnumbered mexicans that it was made illegal to come to Mexico. They were allowed to be there. You should read more books about it other than a Wikipedia article.
> 
> I'm from Texas and own many books on the subject.


It comes out the same either way. Texas got cut into pieces and now is part of the USA. Don't try to pretend it was some glorious rebellion though, it was just a land grab by the United States. 300 families is only 1500-2000 people tops with 500 or so able to fight. There were thousands in the army that beat Santa Anna, where do you suppose they came from? It is not a rebellion or a revolution when the entire army of the rebelling side are foreigners. It is called an invasion.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 23, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> It comes out the same either way. Texas got cut into pieces and now is part of the USA. Don't try to pretend it was some glorious rebellion though, it was just a land grab by the United States. 300 families is only 1500-2000 people tops with 500 or so able to fight. There were thousands in the army that beat Santa Anna, where do you suppose they came from? It is not a rebellion or a revolution when the entire army of the rebelling side are foreigners. It is called an invasion.


I don't know why you guys are arguing about this but here:



> Six months after the congress of the Republic of Texas accepts U.S. annexation of the territory, Texas is admitted into the United States as the 28th state.
> After gaining independence from Spain in the 1820s, Mexico welcomed foreign settlers to sparsely populated Texas, and a large group of Americans led by Stephen F. Austin settled along the Brazos River. The Americans soon outnumbered the resident Mexicans, and by the 1830s attempts by the Mexican government to regulate these semi-autonomous American communities led to rebellion. In March 1836, in the midst of armed conflict with the Mexican government, Texas declared its independence from Mexico.
> The Texas volunteers initially suffered defeat against the forces of Mexican General Santa Anna--the Alamo fell and Sam Houston's troops were forced into an eastward retreat. However, in late April, Houston's troops surprised a Mexican force at San Jacinto, and Santa Anna was captured, bringing an end to Mexico's efforts to subdue Texas.
> The citizens of the independent Republic of Texas elected Sam Houston president but also endorsed the entrance of Texas into the Union. The likelihood of Texas joining the Union as a slave state delayed any formal action by the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex the territory of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas entered the United States as a slave state, broadening the irrepressible differences in the United States over the issue of slavery and setting off the Mexican-American War.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I don't know why you guys are arguing about this but here:


Declaring independence and being independent are two different things. I can declare my yard an independent country, and Chavez would probably support me. However, if I pay my taxes, no one will care, it doesn't make my yard a country, and if Cuba lands an army in my yard, the Government will intervene. Texas joining the Union was a land grab and nothing more.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I don't know why you guys are arguing about this but here:
> *Six months after the congress of the Republic of Texas accepts U.S. annexation of the territory, Texas is admitted into the United States as the 28th state.
> After gaining independence from Spain in the 1820s, Mexico welcomed foreign settlers to sparsely populated Texas, and a large group of Americans led by Stephen F. Austin settled along the Brazos River. The Americans soon outnumbered the resident Mexicans, and by the 1830s attempts by the Mexican government to regulate these semi-autonomous American communities led to rebellion. In March 1836, in the midst of armed conflict with the Mexican government, Texas declared its independence from Mexico.
> The Texas volunteers initially suffered defeat against the forces of Mexican General Santa Anna--the Alamo fell and Sam Houston's troops were forced into an eastward retreat. However, in late April, Houston's troops surprised a Mexican force at San Jacinto, and Santa Anna was captured, bringing an end to Mexico's efforts to subdue Texas.
> The citizens of the independent Republic of Texas elected Sam Houston president but also endorsed the entrance of Texas into the Union. The likelihood of Texas joining the Union as a slave state delayed any formal action by the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex the territory of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas entered the United States as a slave state, broadening the irrepressible differences in the United States over the issue of slavery and setting off the Mexican-American War. *


Note that the statement above says"*The likelihood of Texas joining the Union as a slave state delayed any formal action by the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex the territory of Texas." *That means the US was trying to annex Texas before 1834. Texas didn't rebel until 1836. No serious historian would suggest that it was anything but a land grab by the US on Mexican territory. They even paid Mexico 15 million for Texas and California after the war ceased. See how the history kind of hints at the US land grabbing but ultimately tries to paint it more as neutral for blame or even blaming the Mexicans?

As far as why we were talking about it, I was pointing out that Mexicans aren't horrible immigrants coming to steal the white mans land.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 23, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Note that the statement above says"*The likelihood of Texas joining the Union as a slave state delayed any formal action by the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex the territory of Texas." *That means the US was trying to annex Texas before 1834. Texas didn't rebel until 1836. No serious historian would suggest that it was anything but a land grab by the US on Mexican territory. They even paid Mexico 15 million for Texas and California after the war ceased. See how the history kind of hints at the US land grabbing but ultimately tries to paint it more as neutral for blame or even blaming the Mexicans?
> 
> As far as why we were talking about it, I was pointing out that Mexicans aren't horrible immigrants coming to steal the white mans land.


Even if that were true, it is apparent that the Texas congress was torn between annexing California or joining the United States. Sounds to me like they fit in well!



> Internal politics of the Republic were based on the conflict between two factions. The nationalist faction, led by Lamar, advocated the continued independence of Texas, the expulsion of the Native Americans, and the expansion of Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Their opponents, led by Houston, advocated the annexation of Texas to the United States and peaceful co-existence with Native Americans. The Texas Congress even passed a resolution over Houston's veto claiming the Californias for Texas.[3] The 1844 presidential election split dramatically, with the newer western regions of the Republic preferring the nationalist candidate Edward Burleson, while the cotton country, particularly east of the Trinity River, went for Anson Jones.[4]


I see. People only take on that perspective against Mexicans because they can't take responsibility for themselves. They always want to look for someone to blame for the economy, their lack of a job, and their lack of a work ethic.


----------



## Parker (Aug 24, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Why do bad laws need to be Followed?
> 
> What site are you on again?


Our founders told us when those laws step on our rights, society has a duty to break those laws. Good for you for getting something right.


----------



## Parker (Aug 24, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I don't have an issue with limiting immigration, posting our military at the borders, building a 50 billion dollar tall fence My issue is how we treat these people who are just people like us. They aren't evil drug dealers coming over to mooch welfare, they are human beings who are coming here because they know they can make their lives better. Anyone who wouldn't break the laws if their family was starving and destitute is a coward. It isn't like they are robbing people or murdering, they are just crossing a border to come here for work. You get criminals of every race, most Mexicans are not criminals, just poor.
> 
> The real solution to the immigration problem has little to do with immigration. If we stopped buying from China and set Mexico up to succeed then we would have a neighbor who prospered and helped us to prosper. Mexico is a trade partner, China is a seller. We buy and sell in Mexico, we only buy in China.


agreed. The unintended consequences has caused animosity toward Mexicans. The problem isn't the people, the problem is policy.


----------



## KushM4ster (Aug 24, 2011)

rp videos*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B3Ij...ayer_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cznD7...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul#p/a/u/0/pChzOaIeyxY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxhzVGCNl44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_sU9d91brc&NR=1




*


----------



## deprave (Aug 25, 2011)

New Ron Paul speech, 46 minutes, cspan
[video=youtube;120CElnB9_k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=120CElnB9_k[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 25, 2011)

Ron Paul is asked on what he would do on his first day in office and given various scenarios
[video=youtube;8b6R33maw9k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b6R33maw9k[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 25, 2011)

Ron Paul interview with Lou Dobbs 8/24/11
[video=youtube;K07dH3qg5DQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K07dH3qg5DQ[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 25, 2011)

MSNBC
"Ron Paul Speaks about things that are not sexy, like the gold standard and the federal reserve"

Ill say it again

Sexiness Vs Philosophy


Who is the most sexy? Is that what is the most important to America, the issues or sexiness? Britney spears or Thomas Jefferson? time will tell. Its almost like 1984 vs 1776

[video=youtube;YWrqoIPyFH4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWrqoIPyFH4[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 25, 2011)

The Local Media Isn't ignoring Ron Paul - I am seeing more and more local news coverage like this:

[video=youtube;7SsZAVMGVvA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SsZAVMGVvA[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 26, 2011)

Ron Paul radio interview August 25th
[video=youtube;rYy7t36F2IA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYy7t36F2IA[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Aug 26, 2011)

[video=youtube;xoqY6CpgpSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoqY6CpgpSE&feature=feedf[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 26, 2011)

cool vid syncos missed that one.


New Photos:














This from a little while back:


----------



## deprave (Aug 26, 2011)

Updated Ron Paul 'For Liberty' DVD:

[video=youtube;GR4WYqabTxU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR4WYqabTxU[/video]


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 26, 2011)

Looks Like a whole bunch of black people in that Ron Paul stadium picture

I count ...none


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Looks Like a whole bunch of black people in that Ron Paul stadium picture
> 
> I count ...none


12.5 percent of the population is black. 90% of those black people support Obama, who Ron Paul is running against. That means that about 1 in 100 statistically should be black. Do you have some super power that allows you to tell from that picture if people who are facing away from the camera and have dark hair are black or not? That being said - what is your point? Oh, thats right, to continue to spread lies about Ron Paul outright or by suggestion.

If you are trying to insinuate racism, lets ask this question instead - why do almost all blacks support Obama when they don't support a white candidate with essentially the same views, running in the same party, and promising the same thing? 

Yea, kill whitey!


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Looks Like a whole bunch of black people in that Ron Paul stadium picture
> 
> I count ...none


Kinda hard for me to tell in the pic but isn't the guy in the red shirt sitting down in the bottom left corner black?


----------



## undertheice (Aug 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Looks Like a whole bunch of black people in that Ron Paul stadium picture
> 
> I count ...none


sounds like you spent a little too much time with those "where's waldo" books.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 26, 2011)

That is Obama in the red shirt. He is thinking of voting Ron Paul since his own ideas have failed.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 26, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> That is Obama in the red shirt. He is thinking of voting Ron Paul since his own ideas have failed.


So i was only half right?


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So i was only half right?


You would be totally right about it being a black guy if it was Michelle. lol.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Looks Like a whole bunch of black people in that Ron Paul stadium picture
> 
> I count ...none


said like a TRUE racist.


----------



## undertheice (Aug 26, 2011)

do you suppose duke is, right at this moment, pouring over those photos with a magnifying glass and a felt marker. i can imagine him painstakingly searching each face for some sign of african ancestry and keeping a careful tally. i'm sure that at any moment he will reappear on these boards, proudly proclaiming that only .75% of that crowd was black and not the 1% proposed in a previous post. therefore, *ron paul must be racist!*


----------



## deprave (Aug 26, 2011)

New Video, Ron Paul on the road:
[video=youtube;CNHzwicb7V4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNHzwicb7V4[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 26, 2011)

New Video, Ron Paul speaks at house party:
[video=youtube;VynYSqGS9xs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VynYSqGS9xs[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 26, 2011)

Ron Paul CBS NEWS: Ron Paul Gaining Mainstream Attention
[video=youtube;VKRBhIEuf48]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKRBhIEuf48[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 26, 2011)

Ron Paul Supporters Protest Outside FOX5 Studio In Las Vegas
[video=youtube;_NMUpOkXgFE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMUpOkXgFE[/video]


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 26, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul Supporters Protest Outside FOX5 Studio In Las Vegas
> [video=youtube;_NMUpOkXgFE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMUpOkXgFE[/video]


Is it just me or does it seem like that station is making it VERY clear they aren't owned by NewsCorp? Maybe perhaps because they sense that the national Fox News is losing what little credibility it had and don't want to get dragged down in the storm? 

Good news surrounds Ron Paul's campaign lately, things are looking up, Rick Perry may be at the top now but he hasn't even been in a single debate yet and I doubt he'll last through many so I'm betting he won't last long up top, and Romney is constantly dodging questions so maybe, just maybe I'm getting the feeling that with Ron Paul ever growing support base and the failure of the other candidates that this run for the nomination may end up with Ron Paul after all ? Only time will tell but I think the Republican voters are coming to their senses these days, going to be a historical next few months to say the least.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 26, 2011)

Well I think its more than just a coincidence that black people dont show up at Ron Paul Rallys and KKK meetings


----------



## undertheice (Aug 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Well I think its more than just a coincidence that black people don't show up at Ron Paul Rallys and KKK meetings


so you start off with the patently false statement that black folks don't come to ron paul rallies and then proceed to link those rallies to an admittedly racist organization, all thanks to your first falsehood. i'd say you either have a great career in politics or are destined to be found dead on a barroom floor. i have to wonder, since you don't find many black faces at a bar mitzvah, do you consider those to be racist gatherings as well?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 26, 2011)

for sure...





I could probably find MILLIONS of pics like this.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 26, 2011)

*Wednesday, August 15, 2007*


*African Americans For Ron Paul *



My African american sistas and brothas need to know about the scum we have in government.The Zionist Jewish supremacists that run and own the government behind the scenes lie and steal from our people.Ron paul is the only honest hope of Freedom we have left.
Barack,Jackson,and Sharpton are jewish pawns filling their pockets with dough.They don't truly care about us.They are race traitors working for their jewish rulers.Louis Farakhan is right about the jews.Ron Paul cares about minorities and middle class/poor people.Most of the government has jews who sometimes have european names to hide them being jewish.

He wants to stops illegals from coming here and killing our people like they did in NJ with the black college students.Mexican gangs(illegal aliens) trying to run the country and kill our young black children.

Here are a few young intelligent black people who support Ron Paul constitution and freedom campaign.Martin Luther King Jr. believed in FREEDOM and would vote for Ron Paul who believe what MLK Jr. believed.All the other candidates are liars and want to take our freedoms away more and more every day.They want to control us and herd us like animals.This has to STOP!Media is BIAS and owned by the Zionist Jewish supremacist

Videos on You Tube of our brothas and sistas who choose Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X15j4P0SUJs

*Always a Couple stupid ones in every race*


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *Wednesday, August 15, 2007*
> 
> 
> *African Americans For Ron Paul *
> ...


Your point is???? He's still a racist right?

Haha, sorry but the message of individual freedom shares no color boundaries, it is universal across the human intelligence, I personally pity you for not realizing that by now.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *Wednesday, August 15, 2007*
> 
> 
> *African Americans For Ron Paul *
> ...


You guys need to quit bickering with this idiot. ^^^^ He is obviously racist by hunting for skin color and then following that at up by calling them dumb.

You are ridiculous.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 26, 2011)

*African Americans For Ron Paul 



*My African american sistas and brothas need to know about the scum we have in government.The Zionist Jewish supremacists that run and own the government behind the scenes lie and steal from our people.Ron paul is the only honest hope of Freedom we have left.
Barack,Jackson,and Sharpton are jewish pawns filling their pockets with dough.They don't truly care about us.They are race traitors working for their jewish rulers.Louis Farakhan is right about the jews.Ron Paul cares about minorities and middle class/poor people.Most of the government has jews who sometimes have european names to hide them being jewish.

He wants to stops illegals from coming here and killing our people like they did in NJ with the black college students.Mexican gangs(illegal aliens) trying to run the country and kill our young black children.

Here are a few young intelligent black people who support Ron Paul constitution and freedom campaign.Martin Luther King Jr. believed in FREEDOM and would vote for Ron Paul who believe what MLK Jr. believed.All the other candidates are liars and want to take our freedoms away more and more every day.They want to control us and herd us like animals.This has to STOP!Media is BIAS and owned by the Zionist Jewish supremacist

Videos on You Tube of our brothas and sistas who choose Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X15j4P0SUJs


----------



## txpete77 (Aug 26, 2011)

Sigh.......


----------



## deprave (Aug 27, 2011)

Yea Im personally done talking to the racist, he doesn't read your response anyway lol....But yeah things are looking up for the Ron Paul campaign lately, way up, its been a constant battle but more and more people are learning about Ron Paul, soon they will learn about Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and buh bye michelle bachman cause Ron Paul is on a clear path straight to the top. 

I honestly believe that enough people will discover the truth this time around, the message spreads more and more rapidly everyday and the liberty movement after 30 years is now going mainstream.

The questions I have:

1. Is it mainstream enough to defeat the corporate monster? (AKA the established government)

2. is it mainstream enough to overcome the consumerism and apathy?

2. Is it really that mainstream at all? perhaps not but its certainly getting there.


I think that more people just have to learn the Truth about Ron Paul and become more open minded to his philosophy, and they also have to look at the big picture...and really even just the short term big picture, 10 years from now. Its going to be tough for Ron Paul to win against the sheeple and the establishment ( and king jp morgan of the royal crown lol)....but its not a battle we the people 'can not win' at this point Im not ruling out anything.


----------



## deprave (Aug 27, 2011)

Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto today (FOX)

[video=youtube;lvgMLEZiU9g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvgMLEZiU9g[/video]


----------



## redivider (Aug 27, 2011)

ron paul thinks we should do away with FEMA too... 

he should take a trip down to haiti. specifically port au prince.

see what happens when a country lacks properly funded and administered federal emergency management, while relying purely on charity and elbow grease.... 

this guy has toned down his rhetoric the last few years so as not to seem as wacko as he really is... HELL NO....


----------



## sync0s (Aug 27, 2011)

redivider said:


> ron paul thinks we should do away with FEMA too...
> 
> he should take a trip down to haiti. specifically port au prince.
> 
> ...


What are you rambling about properly funded and administered federal emergency management? What is this New Orleans? Where the fuck is that? Jesus your confusing me.

I suppose that is why you carefully worded "properly" and "administered," isn't it? FEMA is bureaucratic bullshit phenomenon. There is more proof that ghosts exist than there is that FEMA actually does a good job.


----------



## deprave (Aug 27, 2011)

redivider said:


> ron paul thinks we should do away with FEMA too...
> 
> he should take a trip down to haiti. specifically port au prince.
> 
> ...



You should of taken a trip to 9/11 ground zero in 2001 or New Orleans, or the Floods in the Midwest this summer and you would of witnessed that FEMA does jack shit, its the red cross and military that gives the real relief.

Fema is involved in all kinda of scandals, they are a waste of money and don't do shit, wtf, all they ever do is buy shit that we don't need you numbskull. You ever met anyone that works for FEMA? yeah didn't fucking think so....lol

I can see you have never been in a disaster in america, wtf does that have to do with haiti....Like syncos said there is more proof that ghosts exist


----------



## sync0s (Aug 27, 2011)

Hey guys: Lets not vote for Ron Paul and choose to vote Obama back in office so we can have more of this:



> Wow, the war between The White House and Fox News, which even has Democrats fretting since it's so amazingly dumb, is bubbling over, and now even the non-Fox media is outraged. Apparently The White House, true to its attempt to marginalzie the network, denied it an interview with the Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg, while giving one to other major networks.
> What the White House did not expect was that the other networks would defend Fox News, and demand that the White House play ball. Eventually Team Obama relented and let Feinberg be interviewed by Major Garrett. So in addition to the stupidity of marginalizing Fox, it looks like The White House has even created distance between in at friendlier news organizations.
> 
> Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/entire-media-in-revolt-after-white-house-denies-fox-an-interview-with-pay-czar-2009-10#ixzz1WD2JblyA​



Yeah... I'd love me some more of that....
​


----------



## deprave (Aug 27, 2011)

And some more swat teams, yay swat teams!


----------



## deprave (Aug 27, 2011)

Yesterday: Alex Jones sits down to interview Lew Rockwell about the Ron Paul Campaign. Lew talks about how if Ron Paul is to be elected that he believes all of congress would get behind him and significant changes would happen, he dubs it the 'Ron Paul new Deal' - Alex agrees and says that all these goofy politicians that are just trying to get elected will get behind Ron Paul and say "Ron Paul What do we do?" (Uses an example as the fed bill that ron paul wrote which passed unanimously.
[video=youtube;ecNHl_qx8QE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecNHl_qx8QE[/video]


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 27, 2011)

deprave said:


> Yea Im personally done talking to the racist, he doesn't read your response anyway lol....But yeah things are looking up for the Ron Paul campaign lately, way up, its been a constant battle but more and more people are learning about Ron Paul, soon they will learn about Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and buh bye michelle bachman cause Ron Paul is on a clear path straight to the top.
> 
> I honestly believe that enough people will discover the truth this time around, the message spreads more and more rapidly everyday and the liberty movement after 30 years is now going mainstream.
> 
> ...



I believe you are being cautiously optimistic but here's how I see the current GOP feild playing out. 

Ron Paul has garnered enough support to maintain a solid low to mid teens in polls and he has the record, conviction, and policies to support it, his polling average is only going to go up. 

Rick Perry has stolen Romney's crown and Romney continues to dodge questions and avoid the issues his support bases will become weaker and weaker as it become evident that he is simply a stooge of stooges .

Rick Perry has not been in one debate yet so despite his hauntingly high polling average I believe that he won't hold any water in a well organized, televised debate and GOP votes will realize just how idiotic and close to Bush in his failing years Perry is, also, many people will start to dig out the facts and shoot his only claim to fame of "creating almost 40% of new American jobs" when they see that those jobs are due to the Texas oil boom and have nothing to do with his policies. 

Point is that Rick Perry will not stand up top for long. Romney is an empty suit flip flopper, and Bachmann is a joke who's only point is "She's not Obama and Obama won't win another term" 

I believe ^that ^ clusterfuck of idiotic GOP candidates will implode upon itself and Ron Paul who is truly a miracle of politicians with conviction, clear and concise answers, and a shining voting record of his policies will only get strong and stronger as people get tired of the, as Jon Stewart put it, "tri-cornered hat" Ron Paul will emerge up top, if most American voters have any common sense they will see this.

also, against Obama Ron Paul has the greatest chance because he has support from more independents and Democrats fleeing Obama's neo-con (socialistic) agenda hidden behind the title of "liberal" than all other candidates combined. 

I saw 4 Ron Paul 2012 bumper stickers Thursday after school, want to know how many stickers I saw for Obama, Romney, or Rick Perry? 0 

I remain hopeful. Time will tell but the tide is swiftly changing as I think it's only good news from here on out.


----------



## deprave (Aug 27, 2011)

[video=youtube;zdlkJUU4HtU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdlkJUU4HtU[/video]


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 27, 2011)

redivider said:


> ron paul thinks we should do away with FEMA too...


 Yet another reason to vote for Dr Paul.


----------



## JoeCa1i (Aug 27, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]Eg8mWSF4oa0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 27, 2011)

[video=youtube;V6bdhFt5iJM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6bdhFt5iJM&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Ron Paul in 2008 on Obama's "Change" message. Boy I can't wait to see him square off with Hussein Obama.. I wonder how many "uhs" Obama will need to buy time between his answers?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 27, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> [video=youtube;V6bdhFt5iJM]Ron Paul in 2008 on Obama's "Change" message. Boy I can't wait to see him square off with *Hussein *Obama.. I wonder how many "uhs" Obama will need to buy time between his answers?


Wow You Emphasized his middle name

What exactly are you trying to convey adolph?


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 27, 2011)

redivider said:


> ron paul thinks we should do away with FEMA too...
> 
> he should take a trip down to haiti. specifically port au prince.
> 
> ...


Haiti was a pile of shit before the earthquake. The reason recovery was so slow there is because the entire country was essentially decimated by 1 natural disaster and is essentially the size of my balls. (granted, it was when I dropped a computer monitor on them). The entire country would fit inside of Florida like 10 times. It has a population of 7 million. Haiti was on the verge of collapse even before the earthquake. See what happens when a pile of shit gets stepped on? It becomes a squashed pile of shit. Still a pile of shit though.

FEMA did a hell of a job in Louisiana, I can see why you would want it to continue. 90% of what FEMA does is useless, and the useful 10% could be handled differently. Do we need to help people when there is a horrible storm and they risk dying? Yes. Do we need to support them for years after because they were too stupid to have insurance? No. "But they were poor and couldn't afford insurance" If they didn't have the money for insurance and they were that poor they probably didn't have anything of worth to begin with and didn't lose much. People are poor for a reason, it generally is because they accept being poor and don't work to remove themselves from it.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Wow You Emphasized his middle name
> 
> What exactly are you trying to convey adolph?


I don't know maybe that he more than likely has strong socialist ideals and probably wasn't even born in the USA, or maybe that all of his names has Islamic ties and well as his ties with many Islamic person in power some of whom have radical views??? 

Nahh that's not it, I just like using his Middle name  It's a free country bud


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 27, 2011)

They have Ron Paul banners on ebay for 25 bucks (3' x 6') and 50 for (4' x 8'). I'm considering painting Ron Paul on the side of my house.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 27, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I don't know maybe that he more than likely has strong socialist ideals and probably wasn't even born in the USA, or maybe that all of his names has Islamic ties and well as his ties with many Islamic person in power some of whom have radical views???
> 
> Nahh that's not it, I just like using his Middle name  It's a free country bud


Why do 60 million Americans say Obama is a &#8220;Muslim?&#8221; &#8211; Because they can&#8217;t call him &#8220;Ni**er&#8221;
by Holte Ender on Sep 8, 2010
....http://madmikesamerica.com/2010/09/why-do-60-million-americans-say-obama-is-a-muslim-because-they-cant-call-him-nigger/


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Why do 60 million Americans say Obama is a &#8220;Muslim?&#8221; &#8211; Because they can&#8217;t call him &#8220;Ni**er&#8221;
> by Holte Ender on Sep 8, 2010
> ....http://madmikesamerica.com/2010/09/why-do-60-million-americans-say-obama-is-a-muslim-because-they-cant-call-him-nigger/


I can , he's a nigger, nigger! NIGGER. That's pointless, Obama's half white anyways, so he's not even fully black at that, why are you so hung up on race, I don't care if he's fucking plated on 24k gold, he's fucked our economy and gotten us involved in more wars and is trying to enforce a healthcare act so widely disputed many states are suing the federal government, he's a horrible president. END OF STORY.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Why do 60 million Americans say Obama is a &#8220;Muslim?&#8221; &#8211; Because they can&#8217;t call him &#8220;Ni**er&#8221;
> by Holte Ender on Sep 8, 2010
> ....http://madmikesamerica.com/2010/09/why-do-60-million-americans-say-obama-is-a-muslim-because-they-cant-call-him-nigger/



figures a bigot like you would bring the n word into the discussion


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> figures a bigot like you would bring the n word into the discussion


gee what happens when you raise a little boy overseas in a country with a heavy muslim influence,


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 27, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> figures a bigot like you would bring the n word into the discussion


Im such a bigot I didnt even marry a white woman Like me mommy and daddy wanted


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Im such a bigot I didnt even marry a white woman Like me mommy and daddy wanted


yeah, cause bigot only refers to one kind of discrimination, sure, bigot


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

"uh oh someone dosent agree with my world view, they must be racist, cause the glorious leader is colored"-- duke anthony, lives in a van


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

a long walk from the river


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 27, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> They have Ron Paul banners on ebay for 25 bucks (3' x 6') and 50 for (4' x 8'). I'm considering painting Ron Paul on the side of my house.


that had ought to be great for property values.

draw him fucking a turtle.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 27, 2011)

I wonder just how many more pages of useless banter you can rack up UB? Ten, twenty,maybe thirty? Sky's the limit.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 27, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I wonder just how many more pages of useless banter you can rack up UB? Ten, twenty,maybe thirty? Sky's the limit.


fun fact: less than 0.00032 of voters chose paul in 2008.

some revolution 

ya know who got more votes? this guy:







obama faced off this guy, he shellacked him by over 2 to 1.

so let's see....obama>keyes>paul. by transitivity of loser, obama>paul.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> fun fact: less than 0.00032 of voters chose paul in 2008.
> 
> some revolution
> 
> ...


I'm willing to bet your going to eat those words come next year.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 27, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'm willing to bet your going to eat those words come next year.


you think paul stands any chance at getting the nomination?

yawn. too easy.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you think paul stands any chance at getting the nomination?
> 
> yawn. too easy.


the nwhy do spend so much time discrediting ron paul, you sure spend alot of energy for it being so easy

and oh no so when are they gonna come search my house for evidence? when did they say they'll get back to you, in fact give me the link and ill go enter a complaint against myself too


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 27, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> the nwhy do spend so much time discrediting ron paul, you sure spend alot of energy for it being so easy
> 
> and oh no so when are they gonna come search my house for evidence? when did they say they'll get back to you, in fact give me the link and ill go enter a complaint against myself too


i spend time discrediting ron paul because it drives you cult worshippers INSANE.

and i hate people that violate turtles.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i spend time discrediting ron paul because it drives you cult worshippers INSANE.
> 
> and i hate people that violate turtles.


if it drives us insane, why is you have to resort to threats of the FEC and post sexual advances on my profile instead of responding to the points i have made?


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 27, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> if it drives us insane, why is you have to resort to threats of the FEC and post sexual advances on my profile instead of responding to the points i have made?


i did. a million times.

ron paul wrote a bill specifically targeting gays, calling their lifestyle "unacceptable".

and ron paul could be related to hitler. we have never seen his birth certificate. where is it? why does he hide it?


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 27, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i did. a million times.
> 
> ron paul wrote a bill specifically targeting gays, calling their lifestyle "unacceptable".
> 
> and ron paul could be related to hitler. we have never seen his birth certificate. where is it? why does he hide it?



no you cant just say that, prove it, linguistically? you cant i have demonstrated that, nest point......


----------



## deprave (Aug 28, 2011)

Lew Rockwell talks about Ron Paul on anti-war radio today:
[video=youtube;fjcR-3AvitY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjcR-3AvitY[/video]


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

Ron Paul gets elected President and gets his way:

Thank you, now I can purchase every gas station in all medium sized markets. Bump up the price and rape you blind. What are you going to do? Nothing, because I now own them all.

Since I still have billions left I think I will purchase all the local utility companies also......... you figure out what happens next... mhuhahahahaa

Since dumbass Bill Clinton already signed the telecom bill and I own all the media in your area who are you going to complain to?

Etc.. etc..etc.... list goes on and on. It still amazes me that the average Full blown Libertarian citizen actually thinks all this crap would actually help. They are partially correct, it will help people already in position to take advantage of the situation. Your position in life will not improve except for the fact you could smoke more cannabis, legally, so as to drown your tears because your ass now hurts more than ever.
Stupid, ignorant people.

Total deregulation is retarded, period. 

Pro cannabis = good
Anti war = good

total deregulation = rape for the common citizen


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i did. a million times.
> 
> ron paul wrote a bill specifically targeting gays, calling their lifestyle "unacceptable".
> 
> and ron paul could be related to hitler. we have never seen his birth certificate. where is it? why does he hide it?


Can you provide a link to this? I have been searching and searching and all I can find is the liberal anti-paul websites (by searching for your quote) and very vague details on the MPA. That act has been shot down and reintroduced so many times that I would like validation.

Godwin's law is almost as factual as evolution...


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6175648 said:


> Ron Paul gets elected President and gets his way:
> 
> Thank you, now I can purchase every gas station in all medium sized markets. Bump up the price and rape you blind. What are you going to do? Nothing, because I now own them all.
> 
> ...


but you just described things that are happening right now? dont you know what standard oil is or who the rockefellers where? they are the result of federal intervention in the market which allowed monopolies to form, with a centralized power structure we are more likely to have our regulations influenced by those big money entities, now if we have more power left to the state the state would have al regulatory power over those very entities of which you speak, meaning they would have to buy out at the state level making it more expensive for them to influence our society in the same manner they do now. 

you see the regulations we have now dont protect small businesses they run them our of business and make it so that the small business or entrepeneur cannot compete in the market place, our societal engineers are building a world where you will work at mcdonalds law firm, 

Full blown libertariansim is ridiculous anyways, we need ronpaul in the presidency because he will stop this ridiculousness where our governmentis overstepping its constitutional limitations, that is the problem with our economy, our government is to big to support, we have to many government workers and not enough private sector jobs, we need federal deregulation and allow states to shoulder their own governing, no one is saying regulation, we are not Ayn Rand supporters, we are saying domestic policies that make sense, this means dont bomb and rebuild foreign countries, focus on developing the united states of america, because only through improving our own economy and infrastructure will we be able to once again help the rest of the world,

we have not been a responsible member of this world, and we must change our ways before we destroy our planet and our future, the only way to do this is take the reigns of our destiny from those puppets in DC that have lost touch with the citizens they represent, and put those reigns back in the hands of the states, so you dont have to fly across the country to let your representatives know what you think in person.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6175648 said:


> Ron Paul gets elected President and gets his way:
> 
> Thank you, now I can purchase every gas station in all medium sized markets. Bump up the price and rape you blind. What are you going to do? Nothing, because I now own them all.
> 
> ...


Actually if you look over history monopolies are created by government intervention. It takes the oppression of law to keep people from popping up the competition. I mean seriously, the anti-regulation argument is the ignorant one; just look at sugar quotas.

You could go ahead and buy all the gas stations. Go ahead, jack up the price on gas. Meanwhile, I'd build a station directly in the middle of two of yours, plummet the price of gas and raise the price of food in the store. Bet you I'd win out 

The true consumer rape is coming from government price controls that are preventing businesses from doing things like that. Of course in a regulated economy you (the monopoly) would simply lobby the local government to put a limit on how many gas stations can be in a certain area thus preventing me from ever starting. See how that works?


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Can you provide a link to this? I have been searching and searching and all I can find is the liberal anti-paul websites (by searching for your quote) and very vague details on the MPA. That act has been shot down and reintroduced so many times that I would like validation.
> 
> Godwin's law is almost as factual as evolution...


hr7955 is the bill in question, and oddly enough its currently under maintenance on the government webpage that lists it.


apparently the library of congress is shut down? due to scheduled hardware maintenance? and i have been unable to find the full text anywhere or anything but the anti-paul crap too


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> hr7955 is the bill in question, and oddly enough its currently under maintenance on the government webpage that lists it.
> 
> 
> apparently the library of congress is shut down? due to scheduled hardware maintenance? and i have been unable to find the full text anywhere or anything but the anti-paul crap too


I know what bill it is and I have been trying to load that site all night. I'm trying to see it somewhere else. I just have a feeling that it was one of the later revisions that had that quoted text in it and Ron Paul is getting blamed for it. Probably wrong, though, who knows?

I'd be surprised after how much Ron Paul has been against anti-homosexual bills plus hearing him on that hardcore christian radio show talking about homosexuality in the military.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6175648 said:


> Ron Paul gets elected President and gets his way:
> 
> Thank you, now I can purchase every gas station in all medium sized markets. Bump up the price and rape you blind. What are you going to do? Nothing, because I now own them all.
> 
> ...


[video=youtube;8C4gRRk2i-M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M[/video]


This is Ron Paul talking about monopolies a long time ago. He rightly points out that the government is the cause of all monopolies. In the video they also state this:

"If everyone haves the same price, you have collusion. If your price is to high, you are gouging the consumers. If your price is too low, you are trying to destroy the competition. The government can say you are monopolizing no matter what you do."


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6175648 said:


> Ron Paul gets elected President and gets his way:
> 
> Thank you, now I can purchase every gas station in all medium sized markets. Bump up the price and rape you blind. What are you going to do? Nothing, because I now own them all.
> 
> ...


If someone was gouging all the people by buying the gas stations in the medium sized markets. Wouldn't that cause independent people to go and open gas stations since now they can make money by selling gas? The issue would be if they made it so the gas station couldn't buy gas to compete with them. Amusingly, the biggest issues facing independent gas station owners is probably government regulations for having a gas station and profit margins. A monopoly by a gas seller causing the margin on gas to be higher would actually make it easier for independents to open up cause they would make more money per gallon.

Why are monopolies necessarily a bad thing? Make doing bad things as a monopoly illegal, but making monopolies illegal is wrong. All monopolies don't do evil things, a lot of them are just normal businesses that do well. Outlawing being a big business because you fear them is akin to the laws made against black people in the 1800s.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

Ron Paul is partially correct, bad regulation can cause severe issues. 

How are independents going to open their own stations when people like the Koch brothers already own the refineries........... your argument is void.

Stop being small minded thinking "free market" will fix shit, it won't as long as human beings are involved. Many people accuse Lefties of wanting to have a utopia, methinks Libertarians who don't think out more than a couple of moves are the ones either lying to themselves or wearing the rose coloured shades. 

Yes why are monopolies and deregulation evil....... Why don't you ask the average citizen of feudal times what they thought of their Lords and Barons and the monopolies they had. You may want to be a legal cannabis smoking serf but I don't.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176426 said:


> Ron Paul is partially correct, bad regulation can cause severe issues.
> 
> How are independents going to open their own stations when people like the Koch brothers already own the refineries........... your argument is void.
> 
> ...


Couldn't a bunch of Gas station owners form a Co op to build a refinery? Why yes, they could. But they couldn't do it today, becasue the EPA has banned the building of them. Therefore the EPA has directly given the Koch brothers a monopoly.

BTW you are already a serf they just call you a tenant now instead.

PS, If you own something its not a monopoly, its called private property.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

The EPA hasnt banned the Building of Refiniries. They do have a stringent application process combine that with NIMBY movements and they do not get built.

A regulated free market is good. An unregulated Free market ends up like the game of Monopoly. And we all know how shitty that is when 1 guy ends up owning everything on the board

*Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States*




*Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries* *in the* *United States*​The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of companies with large control over our nations gas markets that is directly causing these high prices.
*Myth 1:* Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.
*Fact:* *Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S.* From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for  and receiving  permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.[1]
*Myth 2:* The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive.
*Fact:* *Actually,* *industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector*. The largest five oil refiners in the United States (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell) now control over half (56.3%) of domestic oil refinery capacity; the top ten refiners control 83%. Only ten years ago, these top five oil companies only controlled about one-third (34.5%) of domestic refinery capacity; the top ten controlled 55.6%. This dramatic increase in the control of just the top five companies makes it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies in order to drive up prices. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up pricesall as a profit-maximizing strategy. A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report also found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher pricesand this report did not even include the large mergers after the year 2000, such as ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. Yet, just one week after Hurricane Katrina, the FTC approved yet another merger of refinery giantsValero Energy and Premcorgiving Valero 13% of the national market share. These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been challenged by the U.S. government. 
*Myth 3:* The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability.
*Fact:* *Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business.* A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet todays reformulated gasoline blend needs.
Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was *$228 billion*.
*Gutting environmental laws for oil refinery siting will not solve the high gas prices. *
*So what should be done?*

*Improve regulations over the over-concentrated oil industry*
The most effective way to protect consumers is to restore competitive markets. Congress should limit the financial incentives oil companies have to keep gasoline supplies artificially tight by mandating minimum storage of gasoline, reevaluating recent mergers, investigating anticompetitive practices, and re-regulating oil trading.

*Adopt tougher fuel economy standards*
In 2004, the EPA found that the average fuel economy of 2004 vehicles is 20.8 miles per gallon (mpg), compared to 22.1 mpg in 1987a six percent decline. This decline is attributable to the fact that fuel economy standards have not been meaningfully increased since the 1980s, while sales of fuel inefficient SUVs and pickups have exploded: in 1987, 28% of new vehicles sold were light trucks, compared to 48% in 2004. Billions of gallons of oil could be saved if significant fuel economy increases were mandated. Improving fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles from 27.5 to 40 mpg, and for light trucks (including SUVs and vans) from 20.7 to 27.5 mpg by 2015 would reduce our gasoline consumption by one-third. Dramatic reductions in consumption will not only reduce strain on Americas refinery output, but also on Americans pocketbooks.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Couldn't a bunch of Gas station owners form a Co op to build a refinery? Why yes, they could. But they couldn't do it today, becasue the EPA has banned the building of them. Therefore the EPA has directly given the Koch brothers a monopoly.
> 
> BTW you are already a serf they just call you a tenant now instead.
> 
> PS, If you own something its not a monopoly, its called private property.


In this scenario there are not a bunch of station owners there is one.

I am a tenant of nothing, my home and property (including water and mineral rights) are mine, paid off years ago. I work part time because I like to not because I have to.

If you also wish to be a legalized cannabis smoking serf be my guest and vote for a man who has many great ideas but also many more insane over the rainbow, wishful thinking ideas.

Ron Paul will never be President, just like no out of the closet atheist will ever be President in the near future.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> snip


Sorry dude, but Public Citizen is not a credible source.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Sorry dude, but Public Citizen is not a credible source.


Really? And why not?


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

Half of all refineries closed in the 1980's and 1990's and nothing was wrong with them. Why do we need more if we do not even use what we have / had? 

If you do not believe it is profit motivated you need to read a little more. If you do think it was profit motivated then as a Libertarian you should be happy your buddies are making more money at your expense.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Really? And why not?


Because the source info DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the statements they have made. 



http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:74099.wais i.e. "The Source" said:


> Let's take a look. There has not been a single new oil refinery built in this country in 25 years. 25 years. If you could build a new refinery, it would be almost impossible to build a new pipeline to get your product to market because of environmental regulations and other regulations. Look at the electricity situation in San Francisco. The population of the Bay area has grown 50 percent in the last 20 years, yet not one new power plant has been built to serve the area since 1982. We are going to talk today to a California executive who builds power plants about all of the problems they are having in that area. Secretary Richardson testified here before us in June. He summed up the situation pretty well. He said, ``We have dramatically increased demand; however, domestic oil production and domestic refinery capacity has not kept up with that demand.'' Why not? State and local laws play a part, but a big part of the problem is Federal regulation. Take a look at the oil business. Under all of the requirements of the Clean Air Act, it simply is not economical to build a new refinery in this country. You can't do it. In 1982, there were 231 refineries in the United States. Today, that's dropped to 155, and yet demand keeps rising. Yet at the same time, under the reformulated gasoline provisions of the Clean Air Act, refineries have to make as many as 15 different blends of gasoline in the summertime, so we have fewer refineries with much more demand by the government and by the population as far as the need is concerned. The result is that you have a system that is straining at its limits to meet demand. Under those conditions, all it takes is one small disruption to set off a crisis. And at the end of the summer, after struggling to meet the demand for gasoline all summer, they're not prepared for the home heating oil season.


And that is why they are not credible. The proof is awesome isn't it?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

So the problem I take it is. We need to take a more relaxed attitude towards poisoning our air and water. And after all how cool would it be to be able to start your Tap water on fire?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176504 said:


> In this scenario there are not a bunch of station owners there is one.
> 
> I am a tenant of nothing, my home and property (including water and mineral rights) are mine, paid off years ago. I work part time because I like to not because I have to.
> 
> ...


Sorry dude, but if you look at your home title, you are listed as a "Tenant". Know why? Becasue the house isn't really yours, it really belongs to the state/county/city you live in. Stop paying your property taxes and see who comes along and just takes your home away, regardless of whether you have title or not and irregardless of whether or not you made payment in full.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So the problem I take it is. We need to take a more relaxed attitude towards poisoning our air and water. And after all how cool would it be to be able to start your Tap water on fire?


 The master of the Straw Man argument strikes again. Hopefully, some day, you can actually debate the subject at hand without falling into the habit of just spewing logical fallacies that are very simple to defeat.

Who would want to poison our air and water? I don't know if you knew this or not, but refineries are not big polluters unless there is a spill of some kind.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

Don't know about yours but mine has tenant nowhere on the deed. My neighbors does but he and his wife both own the property. If you live in a Western state you have an 80% chance of not even owning your water and property rights. I do own mine.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

i just want to know what has happened in the last 4 years that makes any of this any different then the past.

not one person has brought any new points to this dead argument. on either side. 

ron paul will NEVER be president. 


you'd all be better off using your energy knitting. in the end, at least you'd have a pair of slippers to wear.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176592 said:


> Don't know about yours but mine has tenant nowhere on the deed. My neighbors does but he and his wife both own the property. If you live in a Western state you have an 80% chance of not even owning your water and property rights. I do own mine.


Why would it be on your deed? The deed is only a piece of paperwork showing the property transfer, you should look at your OWNERSHIP documents, its called a TITLE.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> i just want to know what has happened in the last 4 years that makes any of this any different then the past.
> 
> not one person has brought any new points to this dead argument. on either side.
> 
> ...


 So educating ones self has no value? That seems odd coming from someone who has tried to educate plenty of people on Growing MJ. Are you sure you should even post on this forum at all? I mean, wouldn't you be better off knitting yourself a sweater than coming to tell everyone that they don't need to really know what is going on in the world?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The master of the Straw Man argument strikes again. Hopefully, some day, you can actually debate the subject at hand without falling into the habit of just spewing logical fallacies that are very simple to defeat.
> 
> Who would want to poison our air and water? I don't know if you knew this or not, but refineries are not big polluters unless there is a spill of some kind.


CAN YOU DO THIS WITH YOUR TAP WATER? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

I dont know if you know this. But Refiniries stink up the area around them for miles. I lived by one (that burnt up btw) when I was a kid


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> So educating ones self has no value? That seems odd coming from someone who has tried to educate plenty of people on Growing MJ. Are you sure you should even post on this forum at all? I mean, wouldn't you be better off knitting yourself a sweater than coming to tell everyone that they don't need to really know what is going on in the world?




3100 posts of people arguing about ron paul is not "education".


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> 3100 posts of people arguing about ron paul is not "education".


It is entertainment

I used to support Ron Paul and begged him to run for office 

I know more about him now 

he will never get my vote. Nor will he even win the Primary. I know it you know it Ron Paul Knows it


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> 3100 posts of people arguing about ron paul is not "education".


Who made you the grand arbiter of what is educational and what isn't? I myself have learned a huge amount from those 3100 posts, just because you are not able doesn't mean others are not capable of it.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

Life tenant is not on all property titles and or deeds. There is the Homestead act (not much left here) and a few other options. If you go to a state and purchase real property without doing research you will more than likely get screwed more than 1 way. If you do not do your research and file the proper paperwork more than likely (at least in western states) you will end up with the structures on the property and the land without protection from the owners of the mineral rights, water rights and right of way (eminent domain, the State) procedures. Done properly you can protect yourself from all of these, including eminent domain.

*you forget, I used to be a crazy Libertarian (still am as far as personal freedoms ie. cannabis, guns etc.. etc). Lots of insane paperwork out there.... to bad most of it (not all) is a waste of time and space.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> CAN YOU DO THIS WITH YOUR TAP WATER?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A
> 
> I dont know if you know this. But Refiniries stink up the area around them for miles. I lived by one (that burnt up btw) when I was a kid


Really? I lived 1/4 mile away from one for over 10 years, never noticed a damn thing. My water came out just fine, no smell in the air, one of the cleanest states in the entire nation as far as air Quality goes. 

There goes all your assumptions down the drain...again.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Who made you the grand arbiter of what is educational and what isn't? I myself have learned a huge amount from those 3100 posts, just because you are not able doesn't mean others are not capable of it.


thought this thread was about ron paul. lol

sooo easy.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Really? I lived 1/4 mile away from one for over 10 years, never noticed a damn thing. My water came out just fine, no smell in the air, one of the cleanest states in the entire nation as far as air Quality goes.
> 
> There goes all your assumptions down the drain...again.


Its all fun and games now

WHo knows. You might be the benificiary of some new form of Cancer. And what Assumptions?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176661 said:


> Life tenant is not on all property titles and or deeds. There is the Homestead act (not much left here) and a few other options. If you go to a state and purchase real property without doing research you will more than likely get screwed more than 1 way. If you do not do your research and file the proper paperwork more than likely (at least in western states) you will end up with the structures on the property and the land without protection from the owners of the mineral rights, water rights and right of way (immanent domain, the State) procedures. Done properly you can protect yourself from all of these, including immanent domain.
> 
> *you forget, I used to be a crazy Libertarian (still am as far as personal freedoms ie. cannabis, guns etc.. etc). Lots of insane paperwork out there.... to bad most of it (not all) is a waste of time and space.


You are talking about Alloidial Title, Not the same thing.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Its all fun and games now
> 
> WHo knows. You might be the benificiary of some new form of Cancer. And what Assumptions?


You assume all Refineries cause water problems and smell the place up, which isn't true AT ALL.

I might get cancer, might not. If I don't, can I use that as proof that Refineries don't contribute to cancer? If an old man smokes Cigarettes all his lifge and lives to be 120 and dies from old age, is that proof cigarettes don't cause cancer too?

Logical Fallacies are so easy to defeat.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You are talking about Alloidial Title, Not the same thing.


All this talk about titles and deeds is not motivating me to go 4 feet over and look in the file cabinet. I actually dont know whats on mine. I do know that My mother and fathers title says they are prohibited from selling to Jews and blacks though


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

You are forgetting the "sovereign" paperwork and many other filings that must be done but it can be done.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You assume all Refineries cause water problems and smell the place up, which isn't true AT ALL.
> 
> I might get cancer, might not. If I don't, can I use that as proof that Refineries don't contribute to cancer? If an old man smokes Cigarettes all his lifge and lives to be 120 and dies from old age, is that proof cigarettes don't cause cancer too?
> 
> Logical Fallacies are so easy to defeat.


Google says otherwise
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=oil+reinery+pollution&pbx=1&oq=oil+reinery+pollution&aq=f&aqi=g-s2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1189l5550l0l5891l21l20l0l0l0l0l602l3587l3.13.3.5-1l20l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f582e101530810fb&biw=1680&bih=917


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Alloidial Title can only be Granted in Either Texas (limited) or Nevada. Anywhere else, you are a tenant.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Google says otherwise
> http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=oil+reinery+pollution&pbx=1&oq=oil+reinery+pollution&aq=f&aqi=g-s2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1189l5550l0l5891l21l20l0l0l0l0l602l3587l3.13.3.5-1l20l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f582e101530810fb&biw=1680&bih=917


That isn't proof of ANYTHING!! You have NOTHING! Please reference the document that says all Refineries smell the place up and cause your tap water to be flammable.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

so ron paul will be our next president?


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Alloidial Title can only be Granted in Either Texas (limited) or Nevada. Anywhere else, you are a tenant.


Correct except for the tenant part, a "fee simple title" can be had in any state with the proper filings. Eminent Domain is all that is left to file against. Taxation is something I do not mind living in a civilized society.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176787 said:


> Correct except for the tenant part, a "fee simple title" can be had in any state with the proper filings. Eminent Domain is all that is left to file against.


Are you guys real estate agents?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed.

Fee is the root word, derived from the Word Fief.



WIKI said:


> A *fief* (alternatively, *fee*, *feoff*, *fiefdom*) or _feudum_ (in Latin), under the system of medieval European feudalism, consisted of heritable lands or revenue-producing property granted by a lord to a vassal who held it in seisin in return for a form of allegiance, usually given by homage and fealty. Not only land but anything of value could be held in fief, such as an office, a right of exploitation (e.g., hunting, fishing) or any other type of revenue, rather than the land it comes from.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Are you guys real estate agents?


no, but some of us have bought and sold multiple properties. Willy seems better educated than I am on this subject. But, He still doesn't understand that the VAST majority of people who own real estate are really only tenants and really do not OWN said property but are allowed to live there as long as they pay taxes.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

You can also do "fee absolute" which is sorta in between fee simple and Alloidial

Not a real estate agent, just a concerned citizen trying to cover my ass as much as possible within the law.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Fee simple owners ( Absolute or defeasible) are subject to *property tax* and its funds directed to the municipality's general fund.

only true Alloidial Title (Nevada only) can get you out of being a tenant.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> no, but some of us have bought and sold multiple properties. Willy seems better educated than I am on this subject. But, He still doesn't understand that the VAST majority of people who own real estate are really only tenants and really do not OWN said property but are allowed to live there as long as they pay taxes.


I do understand. I understand most of this is not taught to our kids and many people get raped just because they have no idea what is going on. The majority of these laws are hidden bullshit and contrary to what you may think of me I do agree with 80-90% of Libertarian ideas. However, the one large idea I severely disagree with is deregulation.


Yes on the taxes, and as a member of a community that wishes to see everybody doing well I do not mind paying taxes. I do mind how they are spent on wasteful items tho.

BTW, my tax rate is 3.5% on all sales and less than 1% on property.An unincorporated County is the only place to live.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> That isn't proof of ANYTHING!! You have NOTHING! Please reference the document that says all Refineries smell the place up and cause your tap water to be flammable.


Fracking seems to start tap water on fire. 
Now as to refinierys smelling up the place

name a refinery just one and I will get you complaints about it from the neighbors

I challenge you


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

If paying taxes means you consider me a tenant so be it but it is nowhere on my ownership paperwork. I know my taxes do not go towards just this but I pay taxes to use public roads around my property, to send my kids to public school etc. I do not expect to use items maintained by others for free.

***Ok, I am done you are starting to make me think to hard........ time to medicate

Nice back and forth tho Mr. NoDrama


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176851 said:


> I do understand. I understand most of this is not taught to our kids and many people get raped just because they have no idea what is going on. The majority of these laws are hidden bullshit


Couldn't agree more, _I_ gave you a rep bomb today because I actually learned something. Thanks!!

BTW you got another bubble of rep.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176915 said:


> If paying taxes means you consider me a tenant so be it but it is nowhere on my ownership paperwork. I know my taxes do not go towards just this but I pay taxes to use public roads around my property, to send my kids to public school etc. I do not expect to use items maintained by others for free.
> 
> ***Ok, I am done you are starting to make me think to hard........ time to medicate
> 
> Nice back and forth tho Mr. NoDrama


Absolutley a great discussion. Needs its own thread. People need to be educated, imagine if every person had allodial title? What kind of power would the Government have then?


----------



## beardo (Aug 28, 2011)

I think we need more mines more iron works and steel mills more drilling and refineries we need more coal plants and we need factories to produce things and we need a balanced budget.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Fracking seems to start tap water on fire.
> Now as to refinierys smelling up the place
> 
> name a refinery just one and I will get you complaints about it from the neighbors
> ...


The burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one who stated that Refineries stink the place up and make tap water flammable.

Fracking causes tap water to catch fire? Umm no, natural gas injected into the water table does that. You will notice that the people complaining are on rural water sources, its a problem no doubt. Perhaps the owners should use the gas to fire a small generator and sell the power back to the Utility to cover the cost of getting a lawyer and suing the fuck out of the company that is responsible for the gas leaking in the first place? Nothing like a nice cease and desist order while the case goes through the system for the next 3-5 years to make a company attempt to settle things a bit.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

Regardless of whether or not oil refineries pollute the libertarian way would have them paying all the property owners around the refinery damages. The result of this would motivate the owners of the refineries to find ways to not pollute the surrounding area.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Regardless of whether or not oil refineries pollute the libertarian way would have them paying all the property owners around the refinery damages. The result of this would motivate the owners of the refineries to find ways to not pollute the surrounding area.


 
First the owners of adjacent properties have to PROVE that they are harmed. That takes years. And Corporations have Millions to hire attorneys

How much cash does adjacent property owners have to pursue legal remedies?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one who stated that Refineries stink the place up and make tap water flammable.
> 
> Fracking causes tap water to catch fire? Umm no, natural gas injected into the water table does that. You will notice that the people complaining are on rural water sources, its a problem no doubt. Perhaps the owners should use the gas to fire a small generator and sell the power back to the Utility to cover the cost of getting a lawyer and suing the fuck out of the company that is responsible for the gas leaking in the first place? Nothing like a nice cease and desist order while the case goes through the system for the next 3-5 years to make a company attempt to settle things a bit.


WTF you are impossible to reason with.


----------



## beardo (Aug 28, 2011)

we should be fracking Iraq-seroiusly weren't they supposed to reimburse us for the costs of liberating them? why aren't we taking their oil to pay down our debt?


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> First the owners of adjacent properties have to PROVE that they are harmed. That takes years. And Corporations have Millions to hire attorneys
> 
> How much cash does adjacent property owners have to pursue legal remedies?


First there is a simple rule for corporations when it comes to lawsuits. They will always settle if the cost of settling is less than the cost of fighting it. Look at how many stupid lawsuits Mcdonalds has settled outside of court that they could have very easily won if they fought it. To simply spend millions on an impressive team of lawyers for moral victory in business would not be wise.

Don't give me that can't afford it argument. I'm pursuing law, there is such a thing as contingency, and many lawyers are more than happy to do it.

How would it take years to gather the proof? You can test your property and water and for chemicals that come from oil refineries. Enough said.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

beardo said:


> we should be fracking Iraq-seroiusly weren't they supposed to reimburse us for the costs of liberating them? why aren't we taking their oil to pay down our debt?


NO that never came from the Bush administration. That came from one of Karl Roves operatives as a reason (not a good one) to Invade Iraq.

You cannot invade a country under false pretenses of Democracy and have an Overt imperialistic goal

WMDs Democracy and Freedom were the Given reasons
Regional control was the actual goal


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> First there is a simple rule for corporations when it comes to lawsuits. They will always settle if the cost of settling is less than the cost of fighting it. Look at how many stupid lawsuits Mcdonalds has settled outside of court that they could have very easily won if they fought it. To simply spend millions on an impressive team of lawyers for moral victory in business would not be wise.
> 
> Don't give me that can't afford it argument. I'm pursuing law, there is such a thing as contingency, and many lawyers are more than happy to do it.
> 
> How would it take years to gather the proof? You can test your property and water and for chemicals that come from oil refineries. Enough said.


How can you prove the chemicals actually came from the Frackers and werent present before they started fracking?
Want examples. 
Tobacco and Cancer.
Asbestos
Black Lung disease

Need any more


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> NO that never came from the Bush administration. That came from one of Karl Roves operatives as a reason (not a good one) to Invade Iraq.
> 
> You cannot invade a country under false pretenses of Democracy and have an Overt imperialistic goal
> 
> ...


The actual goal was KBM


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> How can you prove the chemicals actually came from the Frackers and werent present before they started fracking?
> Want examples.
> Tobacco and Cancer.
> Asbestos
> ...


You are talking about disease. I am talking about property damage. If you find oil or oil byproducts in your water or land you can easily prove its the refinery down the road.

Take one of these http://www.lamotte.com/pages/edu/air.html and record measurements in a circle around the refinery. You can find and prove the epicenter with that data.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> You are talking about disease. I am talking about property damage. If you find oil or oil byproducts in your water or land you can easily prove its the refinery down the road.
> 
> Take one of these http://www.lamotte.com/pages/edu/air.html and record measurements in a circle around the refinery. You can find and prove the epicenter with that data.


Again the Burden of Proof is on YOU to prove that their Operations caused damage to your property. 
You cannot say "hey look, My tap water is Flammable" Becuase they will turn around and say. "yep but your tap water has always been flammable since before we started operations here"


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Again the Burden of Proof is on YOU to prove that their Operations caused damage to your property.
> You cannot say "hey look, My tap water is Flammable" Becuase they will turn around and say. "yep but your tap water has always been flammable since before we started operations here"


Come on man I'm not going to go into all of the ways you can find and prove that they are doing it. If one has the will it is absolutely do able.


----------



## beardo (Aug 28, 2011)

Ron Paul knows the constitution.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6176426 said:


> Ron Paul is partially correct, bad regulation can cause severe issues.
> 
> How are independents going to open their own stations when people like the Koch brothers already own the refineries........... your argument is void.
> 
> ...


The fact that you really believe that you would become a serf because of a monopoly is silly. As a serf, you don't have any ability to even have competition. A monopoly might make competition harder, but there is always competition, you might not like the prices there though. Think Wal-Mart vs your local grocery store. You might consider actually reading about the great monopolies of the world and how they came to power and kept it. You will see that most regulations were a giant boon to monopolies as they hurt upstarts more than big corporations. 

Do you see the irony in this that most democrats actively want more government and they work towards that - centralizing the power of the country into a smaller group of people? I would say the federal government is getting close to having a monopoly on the country as they take more and more power from the state governments and the people. How could any of you seriously bitch about monopolies then go and want to create one that can change the very laws that govern its own existence.


----------



## undertheice (Aug 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> If one has the will it is absolutely do able.


i think that's the entire thrust of his post, as well as every other post he has entered in this forum. that one shouldn't have to rely on one's own resources. that the holy state should be responsible for all of your needs and desires.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> The EPA hasnt banned the Building of Refiniries. They do have a stringent application process combine that with NIMBY movements and they do not get built.
> 
> A regulated free market is good. An unregulated Free market ends up like the game of Monopoly. And we all know how shitty that is when 1 guy ends up owning everything on the board
> 
> ...


Myth 1: They don't bother asking for a permit they know will never make them money or that they will never get. It is like my applying for a billion dollar loan. I know I ain't getting it, why bother?

Myth 2: So what you are saying is 10 companies have a monopoly on the same exact product? 

Myth 3: You say the profit is 41 cents vs 23 cents before. The state and federal charge you 26-68 cents per gallon depending on state for an average of about 49 cents per gallon. That's not counting local governments which can and do add a tax in many states. Who deserves to profit more? The people making the gas or the people who don't do anything in regards to it? How much does a refinery cost? How long does it take to pay for it at 40 cents a gallon? You are talking billions of dollars to build a refinery. Even Exxon Mobile would have to pump out 5-10% of its profits for an entire year to open another refinery. When you consider that more gas would mean lower profits and the fact that you can buy one cheaper than build one - where would the rationale be for building one? They haven't build one since 76, that's 35 years ago. I bet they aren't bothering because they don't expect oil production to keep up with usage after this decade. It is hard to justify 10 billion dollars being spent to shore up refinery potential when there probably won't be enough oil being pumped out of the ground to use all the production we have now in 10 years. Oh, did you forget it would be 10-15 years before a refinery could even be finished and by that time it will be useless? It is no surprise they aren't standing in line to throw away billions of dollars. 

I also like how it goes on to say taking away choices from consumers and driving up vehicles prices are good for the consumer. Bravo bravo.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 28, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> i just want to know what has happened in the last 4 years that makes any of this any different then the past.
> 
> not one person has brought any new points to this dead argument. on either side.
> 
> ...


Who asked you?


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 28, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> i just want to know what has happened in the last 4 years that makes any of this any different then the past.
> 
> not one person has brought any new points to this dead argument. on either side.
> 
> ...


 
That's brainwashing right there man. Keep being a pawn bro.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Who asked you?





budlover13 said:


> That's brainwashing right there man. Keep being a pawn bro.


you have blasphemed at the altar of paul, and you must now repent!

seriously though, anyone can feel free to witness the same hysteria back in 2008, just go back in the archives.

that 2008 revolution netted about 40,000 votes, 0.00032% of the total votes.

considering he raised about $28 million for his campaign, that works out to about $700 per vote. 

hell, ron paul can get my vote this time around if he sends me $700.  not like he'd win anyway.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

Im rather happy to see the only 2012 campaign signs going up around the two states around me are "Ron Paul 2012" one of those states are democrat also.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you have blasphemed at the altar of paul, and you must now repent!
> 
> seriously though, anyone can feel free to witness the same hysteria back in 2008, just go back in the archives.
> 
> ...


YOu know how much he spent in iowas to get the votes he got?
The Iowa Straw poll you have to pay to vote in it. And its allowed for candidates to pay the fee in return for a vote

*Ron Paul gave out fewer Iowa Straw Poll tickets than Michele Bachmann*

By Alex Pappas--The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller &#8211; Sat, Aug 13, 2011


AMES, Iowa &#8212; It appears that while Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann beat Texas Rep. Ron Paul by 152 votes in the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday, she gave away far more admission tickets than he did.
Paul&#8217;s campaign gave out 4,750 tickets to straw poll voters, his campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, told The Daily Caller.
Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Bachmann, wouldn&#8217;t disclose the number of tickets her campaign distributed. But Ben Smith of Politico reported that Bachmann&#8217;s campaign gave away 6,000 tickets.
That would mean Paul gave out about 1,250 fewer tickets than Bachmann. She won the poll with 4,823 votes, followed by Paul at 4,671. *(BACHMANNIA: Michele Bachmann edges out Ron Paul for victory in Iowa Straw Poll)*
Candidates traditionally give away $30 tickets to supporters they hope will vote for them in the straw poll.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you have blasphemed at the altar of paul, and you must now repent!
> 
> seriously though, anyone can feel free to witness the same hysteria back in 2008, just go back in the archives.
> 
> ...


Will you if i send you $700?


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Will you if i send you $700?


I'll do it for 350


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> I'll do it for 350


i wish i had it man. Wish i had enough to buy enough votes to get this done lol! Some people do.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> YOu know how much he spent in iowas to get the votes he got?
> The Iowa Straw poll you have to pay to vote in it. And its allowed for candidates to pay the fee in return for a vote
> 
> *Ron Paul gave out fewer Iowa Straw Poll tickets than Michele Bachmann*
> ...



Just because you buy the persons ticket in no way ensures that they will vote for you.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Just because you buy the persons ticket in no way ensures that they will vote for you.


Ya ok

Still bought votes
Why dont you at least affirm that


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ya ok
> 
> Still bought votes
> Why dont you at least affirm that


OK. As opposed to.......?


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> The fact that you really believe that you would become a serf because of a monopoly is silly. As a serf, you don't have any ability to even have competition. A monopoly might make competition harder, but there is always competition, you might not like the prices there though. Think Wal-Mart vs your local grocery store. You might consider actually reading about the great monopolies of the world and how they came to power and kept it. You will see that most regulations were a giant boon to monopolies as they hurt upstarts more than big corporations.
> 
> Do you see the irony in this that most democrats actively want more government and they work towards that - centralizing the power of the country into a smaller group of people? I would say the federal government is getting close to having a monopoly on the country as they take more and more power from the state governments and the people. How could any of you seriously bitch about monopolies then go and want to create one that can change the very laws that govern its own existence.


I am not a democrat and never never have said the regulations now in place are good. All I have ever stated is total deregulation would be worse. If you actually believe everybody is going to behave and the "free market" (no such thing) will fix everything I have some old koolaid from jonestown I could part with for free.

I am to old to become a serf, it won't happen overnight with total deregulation but it will happen.


----------



## budlover13 (Aug 28, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6179041 said:


> I am not a democrat and never never have said the regulations now in place are good. All I have ever stated is total deregulation would be worse. If you actually believe everybody is going to behave and the "free market" (no such thing) will fix everything I have some old koolaid from jonestown I could part with for free.
> 
> I am to old to become a serf, it won't happen overnight with total deregulation but it will happen.


So you have no faith in your fellow man nor your ability to care for you and yours? Not trying to be provocative at all but i don't understand your position without the afore-mentioned assumptions.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 28, 2011)

Ron Paul wants to do away with FEDERAL regulations. The States will still regulate.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Ron Paul wants to do away with FEDERAL regulations. The States will still regulate.


States are easier to buy off

Ever notice the amount of Credit card companys in Maryland and Montana?


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 28, 2011)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/ron-paul-gold-standard_b_939905.html

normally, i do not like this guy. he does hit and run type of articles usually, but this one is pretty straightforward about ron paul's gold standard wet dream/pipe dream.

ron paul hates freedom, black, gays, and fucks turtles: we know that. new factoid: he sucks at math


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ya ok
> 
> Still bought votes
> Why dont you at least affirm that


 Ill affirm it by stating most of the footage showed in the media didnt show the 1000's of people holding "Ron Paul 2012" signs and wearing his shirts, hmm he must have bought those too.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/ron-paul-gold-standard_b_939905.html
> 
> normally, i do not like this guy. he does hit and run type of articles usually, but this one is pretty straightforward about ron paul's gold standard wet dream/pipe dream.
> 
> ron paul hates freedom, black, gays, and fucks turtles: we know that. new factoid: he sucks at math


So typical for you liberals to flip something in a 360 degree direction and try and pull the racists card just because you don't agree.
Its old and out dated and just pathetic.


----------



## Carne Seca (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/ron-paul-gold-standard_b_939905.html
> 
> normally, i do not like this guy. he does hit and run type of articles usually, but this one is pretty straightforward about ron paul's gold standard wet dream/pipe dream.
> 
> ron paul hates freedom, black, gays, and fucks turtles: we know that. new factoid: he sucks at math









Please. Save the turtles. Vote O'Bama 2012

Disapproving Turtle approves this message.... and very little else.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> Please. Save the turtles. Vote O'Bama 2012
> 
> Disapproving Turtle approves this message.... and very little else.


 If you liberals are the turtles, then ya, i guess you feel like you're getting fucked if he is to become president (good, fuck ya!) 
So you are the turtles and he fucks your nanny state bullshit bankster bailout cuntorama charade. 
Thus turtle fucker. 
Quit being so ass hurt!


----------



## beardo (Aug 28, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> Please. Save the turtles. Vote O'Bama 2012
> 
> Disapproving Turtle approves this message.... and very little else.


Ron Paul is the most open minded canidate and he supports your right to do gay stuff if that's your thing, he thinks you should be able to marry as many dudes as you want-Yes he thinks it's wrong and disagrees morraly but he realizes it's not his buisness or the governments what you want to do and in presuit of happieness you can do what you want and Dr Paul supports your right to do it.


----------



## beardo (Aug 28, 2011)

Ron Paul 2012-I'll Do What I Want


----------



## Carne Seca (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> If you liberals are the turtles, then ya, i guess you feel like you're getting fucked if he is to become president (good, fuck ya!)
> So you are the turtles and he fucks your nanny state bullshit bankster bailout cuntorama charade.
> Thus turtle fucker.
> Quit being so ass hurt!


When did I ever say I was a Liberal? The Liberal boogey man scare tactic doesn't fly anymore. People are seeing what the GOP is doing and they're tired of it.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> When did I ever say I was a Liberal? The Liberal boogey man scare tactic doesn't fly anymore. People are seeing what the GOP is doing and they're tired of it.


 Im not sure what you might believe you actually are, but i get a strong whiff of liberal.


----------



## Carne Seca (Aug 28, 2011)

beardo said:


> Ron Paul is the most open minded canidate and he supports your right to do gay stuff if that's your thing, he thinks you should be able to marry as many dudes as you want-Yes he thinks it's wrong and disagrees morraly but he realizes it's not his buisness or the governments what you want to do and in presuit of happieness you can do what you want and Dr Paul supports your right to do it.


*candidate
*morally
*business
*pursuit
*happiness

I know Ron Paul's stance on marriage and the LGBT's. I would never vote for him.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> So typical for you liberals to flip something in a 360 degree direction and try and pull the racists card just because you don't agree.
> Its old and out dated and just pathetic.



360 degrees would be straight ahead.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 28, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> Please. Save the turtles. Vote O'Bama 2012
> 
> Disapproving Turtle approves this message.... and very little else.


i nearly ripped my guts out laughing at that.

just...LOL

ron paul has crossed that turtle's path, you can be sure.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> 360 degrees would be straight ahead.


 *Well liberals live in Topsy turby land, so yeah, it would appear straight ahead to libs wouldn't it? 
Yes, yes it would. 
*


----------



## Carne Seca (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Im not sure what you might believe you actually are, but i get a strong whiff of liberal.


Well good for you darlin', but it sounds like your "whiff-er" is a little off.


----------



## Carne Seca (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i nearly ripped my guts out laughing at that.
> 
> just...LOL
> 
> ron paul has crossed that turtle's path, you can be sure.


That's the same look John McCain gets when he's disapproving. hmm... I wonder.


----------



## beardo (Aug 28, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> *candidate
> *morally
> *business
> *pursuit
> ...


What is LGBT's
Ron Paul is trying to save your life and our country


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *Well liberals live in Topsy turby land, so yeah, it would appear straight ahead to libs wouldn't it?
> Yes, yes it would.
> *


um, yeah, sure.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

*Ron Paul 2012

*


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *Well liberals live in Topsy turby land, so yeah, it would appear straight ahead to libs wouldn't it?
> Yes, yes it would.
> *


Well.. in flight a heading of 360 and 0 both mean going straight a north.... which could be could mean going straight ahead...

If you were to walk two steps forward, do a 360, and continue walking you would be going straight forward still...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Well.. in flight a heading of 360 and 0 both mean going straight a head....


 that's beside the point.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> that's beside the point.


No... it's not. What you meant was 180. (Plus I edited it, please re read lol)

360 degrees is a full circle.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

Its basically a constant 360 circle jerk.
So i stand by what i said


----------



## sync0s (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Its basically a constant 360 circle jerk.
> So i stand by what i said


Circle jerk???? What ever man, just admit that now you have learned that 360 degrees is a circle. Not a problem if you didn't know. Ignorance is refusal to acknowledge the facts.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Its basically a constant 360 circle jerk.
> So i stand by what i said


are you still going to start a revolution with your unemployment checks?


----------



## londonfog (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> are you still going to start a revolution with your unemployment checks?


then he would not get a check


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Its basically a constant 360 circle jerk.
> So i stand by what i said


and this is the logic of the typical ron paul supporter.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 28, 2011)

londonfog said:


> then he would not get a check


i don't think he comprehends that.

to him, a 360 is a reversal of directions. no mater how it is explained to him that he is 180 degrees backwards.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 28, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> and this is the logic of the typical ron paul supporter.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fdd2blk again.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 28, 2011)

Childish responses = comedy.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 28, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't think he comprehends that.
> 
> to him, a 360 is a reversal of directions. no mater how it is explained to him that he is 180 degrees backwards.


it's becoming rather evident that most Ron Paul supporters can't handle facts too well


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Its basically a constant 360 *circle jerk*.
> So i stand by what i said





tryingtogrow89 said:


> Childish responses = comedy.



just go roll a joint.


----------



## beardo (Aug 28, 2011)

londonfog said:


> it's becoming rather evident that most Ron Paul supporters can't handle facts too well


The Fact Is - It will be great to have a Real American for President, Ron Paul is The One


----------



## londonfog (Aug 28, 2011)

beardo said:


> The Fact Is - It will be great to have a Real American for President, Ron Paul is The One


Beardo do you really think he will get the Republican party to give him the nod to run in the general ????


----------



## deprave (Aug 29, 2011)

Today: Ron Paul gets interrogated on Fox news sunday by some douche shill named chris about topics such as fema and other conspiracy theories and talks about Libya and other topics, as usual Ron Paul schools this guy, literally.
[video=youtube;Cd85H9RpEVc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd85H9RpEVc[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't think he comprehends that.
> 
> to him, a 360 is a reversal of directions. no mater how it is explained to him that he is 180 degrees backwards.


Not fair....


----------



## deprave (Aug 29, 2011)

The latest in the Ron Paul Smear Campaign, Today ON PRIME-TIME CNN during a wolf blitzer interview regarding the hurricane in Maryland, Wolf actually asked the governor of Maryland

*"When You Hear Ron Paul Say Govt Shouldn't Be In The FEMA Business What Do You Say To Ron Paul?" *


lol yes he went there


[video=youtube;LluzwJqmz_U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LluzwJqmz_U[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 29, 2011)

Kind of interesting how we brought up fema and then all this went down isnt it?


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 29, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Beardo do you really think he will get the Republican party to give him the nod to run in the general ????


your comment demonstrates a complete and continuing lack of understanding as to how the primaries work,


----------



## sync0s (Aug 29, 2011)

A day ago people were throwing H.R. 7955 as proof that Ron Paul is anti-homosexual. Well seeing as the gov website is back up I looked up the bill. Let's take a look:



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m& said:


> *Title I: Education* - Abolishes the Department of Education and nullifies all regulations, contracts, licenses, or privileges issued by such Department prior to the effective date of this Act. Directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to provide for the orderly termination of the affairs of such Department. Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.
> Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.
> Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow an income tax credit for 100 percent of the amount of tuition paid for the elementary, secondary, or higher education of the taxpayer, spouse, or dependents; (2) allow an income tax deduction for amounts paid into an education savings account established to pay the educational expenses of a dependent child of a taxpayer; and (3) grant tax-exempt status to schools which are controlled by the parents of the children who attend them (parental schools).
> *Title II: Social Security and Retirement* - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individual taxpayers who support an elderly (age 60 or older) dependent a $1,000 income tax credit or a $5,000 income tax deduction.
> ...


In defense of his "anti-homosexual" part of the bill I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with it. I think it isn't right for the government to use federal taxpayer money (this includes money from people who are against homosexuality) to fund organizations that promote homosexuality. How in the world does this make him against homosexuals?
Although there are parts of that proposed bill I am somewhat against; overall I think it is an awesome bill that he wrote and proposed and if I were in congress I would have absolutely voted for it.

Seriously, for the people who say Ron Paul is pro corporations and anti-lower and middle class just look at how many tax deductions for the poor and middle class he proposed. Look at how much he promoted taking care of the elderly and providing the elderly with their entire social security check. It's truly sad that this got shot down.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 29, 2011)

sync0s said:


> A day ago people were throwing H.R. 7955 as proof that Ron Paul is anti-homosexual. Well seeing as the gov website is back up I looked up the bill. Let's take a look:
> 
> 
> In defense of his "anti-homosexual" part of the bill I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with it. I think it isn't right for the government to use federal taxpayer money (this includes money from people who are against homosexuality) to fund organizations that promote homosexuality. How in the world does this make him against homosexuals?
> ...


IMO, the only reason the bill even mentioned homosexuality was that it was proposed during the AIDS epidemic, which of course was a time when social engineering was really ramping up and expanding to things like Public service announcements. so given the time frame the specific issue is understandable,


----------



## sync0s (Aug 29, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> IMO, the only reason the bill even mentioned homosexuality was that it was proposed during the AIDS epidemic, which of course was a time when social engineering was really ramping up and expanding to things like Public service announcements. so given the time frame the specific issue is understandable,


Regardless of that it does nothing to say homosexuality is wrong, it only stops federal funding for organizations that do. I think that if the bill had attempted to stop federal funding of organizations that promote or demote homosexuality, it wouldn't have been as big of a deal.


----------



## deprave (Aug 29, 2011)

same old shit just a different day, Ive spent hours investigating Ron Paul conspiracy theories and they always turn out to be sensationalism or bullshit, read the bills people, follow the sources don't just take huffington posts word for it or the first thing you find on google.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 29, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> your comment demonstrates a complete and continuing lack of understanding as to how the primaries work,


I live in the real world and understand they might not be able to put up who they actually want, but they can stop who they don't like... hang around and you will see what I mean


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 29, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I live in the real world and understand they might not be able to put up who they actually want, but they can stop who they don't like... hang around and you will see what I mean


unfortunatley you have yet to show us these wonderful sources that prove that the republican party reviews the individual results of the states and then has opportunity to influence the representatives, thats kind of like saying that the current president gets to twist the arm of the electoral college, which is a gross misrepresentation of how the system works, 

so since last time i showed you all my sources demonstrating how the primaries are decided, how about you show us these figures where the state vote was changed by the republican "overseeing commitee" that you claim has so much power?

or are you full of shit?


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 29, 2011)

sync0s said:


> A day ago people were throwing H.R. 7955 as proof that Ron Paul is anti-homosexual. Well seeing as the gov website is back up I looked up the bill. Let's take a look:
> 
> 
> In defense of his "anti-homosexual" part of the bill I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with it. I think it isn't right for the government to use federal taxpayer money (this includes money from people who are against homosexuality) to fund organizations that promote homosexuality. How in the world does this make him against homosexuals?
> ...


look at how the original statement is not taken out of context (that is more directed at prefontaine).

yep, nothing mitigating or exculpatory about that. he just wants to make sure to do what he can to make sure homosexuality is not viewed as an acceptable lifestyle.

i would like for ron paul to tell my gay friends right to their faces: your lifestyle is not acceptable. i'd like it on film, too, and give the old turtle fucker the media attention he so dearly wants by plastering it on every media outlet.

something tells me that wouldn't curry him any favor.


----------



## beardo (Aug 29, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Beardo do you really think he will get the Republican party to give him the nod to run in the general ????


No.
I do think if a huge majority of citizens show up and vote for Paul in the primaries things will get real interesting- And in a way that's positive for our country.
If he gets numbers and turn out where it is impossible to hide or manipulate the fact and the perception that he is the choice of the people- I'm not sure exactly what they would do or what would happen and I'm not sure if they refuse to elect him what the peoples reaction would be.
I think Paul is still a ways off from the % of people it would take for a situation like i'm talking about, but every person who listens to Paul or reads one of his books should be another vote for Paul in the primaries- It is very hard to argue with Truth Reason and Logic and that is what Dr Paul brings to the table


----------



## sync0s (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> look at how the original statement is not taken out of context (that is more directed at prefontaine).
> 
> yep, nothing mitigating or exculpatory about that. he just wants to make sure to do what he can to make sure homosexuality is not viewed as an acceptable lifestyle.
> 
> ...


Doing everything he can, as you say, would be to outlaw it or ban it from marriage recognition. He has not done that in fact advocates a states rights to choose. With this he is merely stopping federal funded organizations from doing so with federal money.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> look at how the original statement is not taken out of context (that is more directed at prefontaine).
> 
> yep, nothing mitigating or exculpatory about that. he just wants to make sure to do what he can to make sure homosexuality is not viewed as an acceptable lifestyle.
> 
> ...


 It seems clear to me that you are not understanding this at all. RP has no qualms about gay people, he feels the Federal government should have no say and that no taxpayer should have to foot the bill on FEDERAL money. How you loons don't understand this is inconceivable to me. If RP decided he wanted to do away with Federal money paying for the Drug War, you all would interpret that to mean he does massive amounts of drugs and wants everyone to be an addict. Only a Simpleton would interpret it that way. Are you a simpleton?


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 29, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> It seems clear to me that you are not understanding this at all. RP has no qualms about gay people....


except that he feels that their lifestyle is not acceptable. i'd count that as a "qualm"



NoDrama said:


> he feels the Federal government should have no say...


then why does he write a bill on the federal level making sure that gays are deemed to have unacceptable lifestyles?



NoDrama said:


> and that no taxpayer should have to foot the bill on FEDERAL money. How you loons don't understand this is inconceivable to me. If RP decided he wanted to do away with Federal money paying for the Drug War, you all would interpret that to mean he does massive amounts of drugs and wants everyone to be an addict. Only a Simpleton would interpret it that way. Are you a simpleton?


i must be a loon and a simpleton for thinking that ron paul views gays as having an unacceptable lifestyle.

the insults really drive the point home.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> except that he feels that their lifestyle is not acceptable. i'd count that as a "qualm"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He never says that he feels it is unacceptable or anything of the sort. That's your pathetic twist on things. The only thing that bill does is cut funding to organizations who portray it as an acceptable lifestyle. Meaning he is pulling the federal government out of it.

This argument is just as stupid as the being anti-affirmative action makes you a racist argument.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 29, 2011)

sync0s said:


> He never says that he feels it is unacceptable or anything of the sort. That's your pathetic twist on things. The only thing that bill does is cut funding to organizations who portray it as an acceptable lifestyle. Meaning he is pulling the federal government out of it.
> 
> This argument is just as stupid as the being anti-affirmative action makes you a racist argument.


so, the bills you write have no reflection on your values?

could i write a bill that prohibits federal funding to any organization that tries to portray blacks as anything other than 95% criminals and incredibly fleet-footed and that would have no reflection on my values?

not to mention that this bill dispels the notion that ron paul only sees individuals, not groups. he clearly singled out a group AND labeled their lifestyle as not acceptable.

spin that any way you wish, it is a reflection on his values at the time.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i would like for ron paul to tell my gay friends right to their faces: your lifestyle is not acceptable. i'd like it on film, too, and give the old turtle fucker the media attention he so dearly wants by plastering it on every media outlet.


After already going over this I'll say it yet again. 

If Ron Paul was going to say anything to your gay friends' faces it would be " I don't think the federal government should finance any organization which portrays homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle" 

His personal opinion may be that he doesn't approve of gays but he is not trying to dictate other people. The bill you continually go back to only stops the federal government from funding these organizations, the idea being that government should not lean in either direction except to not get involved, do you understand that concept or should I put it in crayon for you?



UncleBuck said:


> spin that any way you wish, it is a reflection on his values at the time.


Says the guy trying to say that a politician supporting/introducing a bill stopping federal government from funding an organization of special interests therefore giving the Federal government a foothold in people's personal lives is the politician directly saying he doesn't think the group is acceptable. 

Grow up, or maybe we should all start drawing bubble maps ?


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 29, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> After already going over this I'll say it yet again.
> 
> If Ron Paul was going to say anything to your gay friends' faces it would be " I don't think the federal government should finance any organization which portrays homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle"


that would be acceptable for me. plaster that all over the news and wait for the reaction!



hazyintentions said:


> His personal opinion may be that he doesn't approve of gays but he is not trying to dictate other people.


that must be why he wrote a bill that dictates that gays do not have an acceptable lifestyle 



hazyintentions said:


> The bill you continually go back to only stops the federal government from funding these organizations, the idea being that government should not lean in either direction except to not get involved, do you understand that concept or should I put it in crayon for you?


if it should not lean in either direction, why did he pick a very specific, anti-gay direction in which to lean?

stumbling across hr 7955 was the best thing to happen to me this week. watching you guys try to spin and defend this is awesome. the better move would be to admit it is a stupid thing to put into an otherwise palatable bill, that his views have evolved (witness his recent dadt vote), and that this should be buried in the past. people make mistakes.

but no, you guys choose to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Carne Seca (Aug 29, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> It seems clear to me that you are not understanding this at all. RP has no qualms about gay people, he feels the Federal government should have no say and that no taxpayer should have to foot the bill on FEDERAL money. How you loons don't understand this is inconceivable to me. If RP decided he wanted to do away with Federal money paying for the Drug War, you all would interpret that to mean he does massive amounts of drugs and wants everyone to be an addict. Only a Simpleton would interpret it that way. Are you a simpleton?


I love how you all want to deify Ron Paul but the truth is, he said out of his own mouth, that if he had been in congress he would have voted yes on DOMA. As I stated earlier. I know what his stance is on marriage and the LGBT's. Everything else is bullshit and whitewash.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 29, 2011)

What is DOMA and LGBT?
nevermind...
Why are so many worried sick about what rights gay and lesbians have and no regard for the rights for ALL Americans?
Individualism vs Collectivism


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 29, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> What is DOMA and LGBT?
> nevermind...
> Why are so many worried sick about what rights gay and lesbians have and no regard for the rights for ALL Americans?
> Individualism vs Collectivism


Oh you mean your ok with discrimination as long as it isnt against you
Ok now i get ya


----------



## Mr Neutron (Aug 29, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Oh you mean your ok with discrimination as long as it isnt against you
> Ok now i get ya


ROTFLMAO... STOP IT... my sides hurt... LOL
You don't mind lying and spinning things in your favor, even when it is painfully obvious. You are a poser. You do not believe what you post. You are a sham, a scam and a fraud. I will waste no more time on you. bye


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 29, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> What is DOMA and LGBT?
> nevermind...
> Why are so many worried sick about what rights gay and lesbians have and no regard for the rights for ALL Americans?
> Individualism vs Collectivism


 Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 29, 2011)

guess gays aren't americans in your opinion?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 29, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> guess gays aren't americans in your opinion?


 Quit spinning shit around.
If you want to be that black and white with your sensationalism, and i were asked, "would you choose to support gays rights or human sovereignty?"
Obviously my answer is human sovereignty, because it would automatically give gays rights as long as those gays are human.
Get it? good.
Now maybe your head is only in your ass up to your ears, lets keep tugging though, or else it will be back to the base of your neck.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 29, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Regardless of that it does nothing to say homosexuality is wrong, it only stops federal funding for organizations that do. I think that if the bill had attempted to stop federal funding of organizations that promote or demote homosexuality, it wouldn't have been as big of a deal.


 I don't recall any federally funded organizations that were there to demote homosexuality.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 29, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Quit spinning shit around.
> If you want to be that black and white with your sensationalism, and i were asked, "would you choose to support gays rights or human sovereignty?"
> Obviously my answer is human sovereignty, because it would automatically give gays rights as long as those gays are human.
> Get it? good.
> Now maybe your head is only in your ass up to your ears, lets keep tugging though, or else it will be back to the base of your neck.


Unless of course they want to get married
OR
A state rules they should be imprisoned for Sodomy

Because Ron Paul is all about state rights and against the 1964 civil rights act
Which BTW protects employees from sexual harrassment


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, the bills you write have no reflection on your values?
> 
> could i write a bill that prohibits federal funding to any organization that tries to portray blacks as anything other than 95% criminals and incredibly fleet-footed and that would have no reflection on my values?
> 
> ...


Im sure it is a reflection of his values now, too. However, Ron Paul has one thing you, the rest of the politicians, and most people in general do not have. The ability to realize that even if he doesn't like something, he has no right to interfere in someone else's life because he doesn't want anyone interfering in his. That and the law on his side. The constitution does not provide for federal funding of homosexuality and thus it is illegal for the federal government to fund it. Promoting homosexuality is like promoting devil worshiping or christianity.. Sure, the people who are ok with devil worshiping/christianity see no problem with the government paying to promote their beliefs, but what about the people who are paying for it and believe it is wrong? Why should an atheist have to pay to support a religion and why should I, a straight man, have to pay to support something that I honestly believe is probably the result of mental trauma more often than not. That being said, I don't care if people are gay, they are still people and I even flirt with them, lol. Promoting it is not on my agenda of things to do, though, and I object to being taxed to pay for it. Why can't the homosexuals pay for their own promotion if they want promoted?


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 29, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Oh you mean your ok with discrimination as long as it isnt against you
> Ok now i get ya


I think I speak for all Ron Paul supporters when I say: If Ron Paul single handily wrote a bill about marriage it would not be very long. It would take away all privileges for being married and turn it into a private contract that does not involve the federal government in any way.

Or it could be a stick figure drawing of him and a turtle getting married. Its hard to say.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that would be acceptable for me. plaster that all over the news and wait for the reaction!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indefensible my ass. Let's do this in caps, maybe you might get it: WHY SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUND ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE ANY KIND OF SEXUALITY????? homosexual or heterosexual, this is absolutely no place for the federal government.

h.r. 7955 was in all actuality a very good proposal and if you guys paid attention to the rest of it it would completely debunk half of your arguments. For instance being for corporations, anti-middle and poor class, not giving a shit about the elderly, etc. However, you choose to focus on one line and you take that and spin it like it's a someone against affirmative action that you label a racist. Awesome.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 29, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Unless of course they want to get married
> OR
> A state rules they should be imprisoned for Sodomy
> 
> ...


 It seems that you are reading into something and over analyzing way way way to much.
It is quite simple really, you are referring to the 10th amendment of the constitution, state nullification, but the state nullification must remain constitutional.
Lets not get into sexual harassment, that is not constitutional.
Civil rights?
How about constitutional?
See how this works?


----------



## sync0s (Aug 29, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> It seems that you are reading into something and over analyzing way way way to much.
> It is quite simple really, you are referring to the 10th amendment of the constitution, state nullification, but the state nullification must remain constitutional.
> Lets not get into sexual harassment, that is not constitutional.
> Civil rights?
> ...


For someone who claims that he knows Ron Paul and "begged him to run," they sure don't know shit about him. I think proof that duke is an ignorant voter.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 29, 2011)

sync0s said:


> For someone who claims that he knows Ron Paul and "begged him to run," they sure don't know shit about him. I think proof that duke is an ignorant voter.


 Come again?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 29, 2011)

*According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these)**.
The mooore ya knooooow!
*


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 29, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these)**.
> The mooore ya knooooow!
> *


Missouri has a bill to get rid of child labor laws

STATES RIGHTS FTW


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 29, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> except that he feels that their lifestyle is not acceptable. i'd count that as a "qualm"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, its RP's OPINION that the Gay lifestyle is not for him, please show the bill that RP submitted that is trying to make LAWS against gays, please do show it. What? you can't ? Imagine that.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 29, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Missouri has a bill to get rid of child labor laws
> 
> STATES RIGHTS FTW


 Yep, crazy shit happens when we get unconstitutional.
I rest my case.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 29, 2011)

ron paul lets you take it up the ass.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 29, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Missouri has a bill to get rid of child labor laws
> 
> STATES RIGHTS FTW


 A bill is not a law or a rule or a statute. A bill is nothing until it is voted on, passes and signed into law. If Missouri actually makes Child employment a legal enterprise and you all of a sudden see children playing hooky from school to going to work in the salt mines, please let us all know. Stay vigilant! You never know when them Southerners will do something to make the children work long hours for little pay.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 29, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> A bill is not a law or a rule or a statute. A bill is nothing until it is voted on, passes and signed into law. If Missouri actually makes Child employment a legal enterprise and you all of a sudden see children playing hooky from school to going to work in the salt mines, please let us all know. Stay vigilant! You never know when them Southerners will do something to make the children work long hours for little pay.


It is so incredible people need this explained to them.


----------



## redivider (Aug 29, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> A bill is not a law or a rule or a statute. A bill is nothing until it is voted on, passes and signed into law. If Missouri actually makes Child employment a legal enterprise and you all of a sudden see children playing hooky from school to going to work in the salt mines, please let us all know. Stay vigilant! You never know when them Southerners will do something to make the children work long hours for little pay.


as soon as the law allows it...

google child labor america... 

we don't need child labor. get the unemployed adults working first....


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 29, 2011)

The law already allows it, I work the holy shit out of little kids. Work their fingers til they bleed, 60 hour workweeks are average, and I provide only $5 a week for pay plus room and board. I'm outright mean too, I yell and scream and curse them and perhaps someday I might have to mete out corporal punishment if it is warranted. Totally 100% legal child labor. I start em working digging trenches at age 5, by age 14 they have moved up to driving vehicles, doing accounting and spreadsheets, Ruminant animal care, haying operations, salvage and Mechanical repair. What can most kids do at age 14? Run a smart Phone and watch TV?


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 30, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul lets you take it up the ass.


I'm sure this must be a huge relief to you.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Aug 30, 2011)

redivider said:


> as soon as the law allows it...
> 
> google child labor america...
> 
> we don't need child labor. get the unemployed adults working first....


But you have to pay adults more than children, kids need werk2 !! lol


----------



## JoeCa1i (Aug 30, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]R9dM_Vb3cJ4[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]yGz0Qm1HaYY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 30, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I'm sure this must be a huge relief to you.


what, you don't care about the gays? 

why are you using being gay as an insult?


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 30, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul lets you take it up the ass.


Yes you do have the right to do what you want with your own genitalia or orifices and Ron Paul will protect that right.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 30, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> Yes you do have the right to do what you want with your own genitalia or orifices and Ron Paul will protect that right.


how so? by writing bills that say such an act between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes is not acceptable?

some protection.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 30, 2011)

ron paul will let you CONTINUE to take it up the ass.


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 30, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> what, you don't care about the gays?
> 
> why are you using being gay as an insult?





> *ron paul lets you take it up the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

You are familiar with the word hypocrisy, right?

In all honesty, I don't care about gays any more than I care about anyone else. I wouldn't support our piece of shit government forcing anything down anyones throat, whether it is an ideal or in this case, a dick.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 30, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> [/B][/B]
> 
> You are familiar with the word hypocrisy, right?
> 
> In all honesty, I don't care about gays any more than I care about anyone else. I wouldn't support our piece of shit government forcing anything down anyones throat, whether it is an ideal or in this case, a dick.


i was stating facts. how, in any way, was my comment offensive? 

ron paul rules.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 30, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> [/B][/B]
> 
> You are familiar with the word hypocrisy, right?
> 
> In all honesty, I don't care about gays any more than I care about anyone else. I wouldn't support our piece of shit government forcing anything down anyones throat, whether it is an ideal or in this case, a dick.


What makes you think a Gay would want to put a dick in your mouth? projecting maybe?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 30, 2011)

*ron paul 2012**!!!!!*


----------



## beardo (Aug 30, 2011)

Ron Paul would fix the economy by requiring that we be paid in Dollars- this alone would be enough to restore wealth to this nation.
On April 2, 1792, U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton reported to Congress the precise amount of silver found in Spanish milled dollar coins in common use in the States. As a result, the United States Dollar was defined[4] as a unit of weight equaling 371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of pure silver, or 416 grains of standard silver (standard silver being defined as 1,485 parts fine silver to 179 parts alloy[5]). It was specified that the "money of account" of the United States should be expressed in those same "dollars" or parts thereof. Additionally, all lesser-denomination coins were defined as percentages of the dollar coin, such that a half-dollar was to contain half as much silver as a dollar, quarter-dollars would contain one-fourth as much, and so on.


----------



## Smirgen (Aug 30, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul will let you CONTINUE to take it up the ass.


LOL exactly, and we all know that the idiots who gave Bush Jr a second term and want to give his Dopelganger Obama a second term like it up the ass... wayy up the ass, a Colon full of Faux Hope and Change.


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Ok looks like you guys have it all figured out, congratulations you win, Ron Paul will induce massive child labor, reinstate slavery, cater to the rich, permit racism, and the world will become in chaos, hatred will then become the new thing spawning new kkk members and walmart will take over the world, babies will begin crying and they will never stop, even when there isnt any babies around youd still hear babies crying. People would then begin to breed with turtles because they couldn't be gay......'I see it all so clearly now....please hold...me..' I need to be held there are bad people everywhere killing people left and right and fucking turtles. Bombs will then begin raining from the sky and bullets flying through the air. some dude would then ask "where is fema at a time like this" to which and lil john might reply 'we ain't got no fema bitch! What!' the dude then asks 'whos gunna fix my trailer now!'


So is this the story you guys are sticking to or what? Got anything else? Hey, how bout those lil green men, swell little fellas arent they?


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Ron Paul on Kudlow report cnbc 8/30/11

Ron Paul says "Who is Fema?"....."We would take care of the people regardless of fema"(paraphrase)
[video=youtube;KVVPfn8U-tA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVVPfn8U-tA[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Ron Paul On CNN 8/30/11 - About Fema again

[video=youtube;sa9-YytMA8g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa9-YytMA8g[/video]


and now I present to you londonfrog posting something about repukes nodding and then unclebuck posting a picture of a turtle again:


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Ron Paul on fox 8/30/11 - about FEMA again.
[video=youtube;19LqwuWsXM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19LqwuWsXM4[/video]


Also some comments on the medias treatment of the debates, and a comment from Neil that, if it was always like this then presidents like lincoln probably would of never gotten elected.


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 31, 2011)

Its a 100 year flood you fvcking whack job turtle fucker


----------



## Carthoris (Aug 31, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> What makes you think a Gay would want to put a dick in your mouth? projecting maybe?


Cause Im damn sexy, if I was gay, Id do me. Hell, if I could bend down far enough Id do me. lol.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 31, 2011)

"lemme lemme lemme finish..." haha made me laugh

and Cartoris, I'd fuck you silly bud bahaha


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Former FEMA Director Agrees With Ron Paul on Fema - the interviewer is surprised and upset that his attempted slam on Ron Paul backfired

[video=youtube;v7Z0NT5TWWQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Z0NT5TWWQ&feature=player_embedded#![/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Ron Paul On NPR 8/31/11
[video=youtube;hvIjhmujU0I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvIjhmujU0I[/video]


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Ron Paul on alex jones 8/31/11

[video=youtube;BPx-jsjDQE8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPx-jsjDQE8[/video]


----------



## dukeanthony (Aug 31, 2011)

deprave said:


> ron paul on alex jones 8/31/11


a perfect match


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 31, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> a perfect match


You know what else is a perfect match? Your mouth + Obama's big slong, just saying haha


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

This video has been banned allegedly on youtube many times, its about ron paul, MLK, and jfk
[video=youtube;SzaLP9dTXhE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzaLP9dTXhE&feature=player_embedded#![/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 31, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> You know what else is a perfect match? Your mouth + Obama's big slong, just saying haha


how do you know it was big? did it just feel big when it was in your ass?


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 31, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how do you know it was big? did it just feel big when it was in your ass?


Yeah, i felt it's power when he boned me and my future, it's pretty huge.


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 31, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Yeah, i felt it's power when he boned me and my future, it's pretty huge.


it would ruin my future if i got fucked in my ass like you did. sorry to hear.


----------



## hazyintentions (Aug 31, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it would ruin my future if i got fucked in my ass like you did. sorry to hear.


Yeah, I don't even have to hit the toilet seat to take a dump, just drop my boxers squat a little bit and it slides right out, haha.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 31, 2011)

and this is why ron paul will never be elected.


----------



## londonfog (Aug 31, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> and this is why Ron Paul will never be elected.


not true ..he can still will an election as a House of Representative member representing the 14th District of TX


----------



## VTXDave (Aug 31, 2011)

Some nicely articulated, well thought out and concise discussion going on in this thread.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Aug 31, 2011)

People need to quit spewing shit out in their typing.


----------



## deprave (Aug 31, 2011)

Ron Paul on Fox Biz Tonite - about FEMA again
[video=youtube;gk3DWf-hfhs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk3DWf-hfhs[/video]


Don't you get it, Ron Paul is advocating for what is essentially a better FEMA - fuck FEMA it fucking sucks - who wants a better FEMA? We do..


----------



## UncleBuck (Aug 31, 2011)

ron paul will personally row his boat up to your flooded house and rescue you, your loved ones, and your family pets.


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

Tonite, a milf interviews a nerd about Ron Paul.
Can Ron Paul Lead the 2012 GOP Field?
[video=youtube;VTLHGDAlsC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTLHGDAlsC8[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> Alex jones talks about Ron Paul today.


having Alex Jones talk about you is just about the same as having Sara Palin endorsing you...meaningless


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

Id have to agree on the meaningless but it seems a bit different then sarah palin.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

but yet you still put up the youtube video...


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

I try to put up all videos with Ron Paul in this Ron Paul Thread, if you have followed this thread you havent missed much.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

deprave said:


> I try to put up all videos with Ron Paul in this Ron Paul Thread, if you have followed this thread you havent missed much.


just thought you would aim for the ones that came from him or from people with meaning...not some fear monger...but hey enjoy


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> just thought you would aim for the ones that came from him or from people with meaning...not some fear monger...but hey enjoy


Your probably right, I thought it was an interview actually.. Actually I do apologize..I deleted it.


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

RON PAUL is EXPLODING (REMASTERED)1080p - 2012 Today

[video=youtube;t0mnATGwCkY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0mnATGwCkY[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

The Truth About Ron Paul - The video

[video=youtube;sbihjoH3x74]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbihjoH3x74[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

[video=youtube;bJb2Gq78ks8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJb2Gq78ks8[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

[video=youtube;oYQWt_fcun4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYQWt_fcun4[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul will personally row his boat up to your flooded house and rescue you, your loved ones, and your family pets.


If there is one person I believe would actually do it first hand, it would be Ron Paul.


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

I know obama/romney wouldnt, they would be to worried about getting their shoes wet


----------



## deprave (Sep 1, 2011)

[video=youtube;ueAkwbah5b4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAkwbah5b4[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> If there is one person I believe would actually do it first hand, it would be Ron Paul.


i don't think so, his old heart would give out.

why do you think he fucks turtles? slow and easy to catch.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't think so, his old heart would give out.
> 
> why do you think he fucks turtles? slow and easy to catch.


Says the guy probably sitting in his comfy computer chair, in A/C sipping a cold beer right? Yeah you tell 'em you go getter. 



> [video=youtube;4NeaOC4fm8Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NeaOC4fm8Q[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Says the guy probably sitting in his comfy computer chair, in A/C sipping a cold beer right? Yeah you tell 'em you go getter.


you got the cold beer part right, but i am sitting at the kitchen table on a kitchen chair. no A/C either, just some screen doors that i built myself. not hot enough today to open them, though.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you got the cold beer part right, but i am sitting at the kitchen table on a kitchen chair. no A/C either, just some screen doors that i built myself. not hot enough today to open them, though.


Awww does little gremlin wanna cookie now? Hey how about responding to my response to your claim Ron Paul is too old, I don't see Obama getting fit, but then again I'm not the one sucking his balls dry so I wouldn't know


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Awww does little gremlin wanna cookie now? Hey how about responding to my response to your claim Ron Paul is too old, I don't see Obama getting fit, but then again I'm not the one sucking his balls dry so I wouldn't know


too old to row upstream against a current.

obama would need a smoke break every so often, but he could do it.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> too old to row upstream against a current.
> 
> obama would need a smoke break every so often, but he could do it.


Ohh I'm sure he is, he's also too old to mow his own loan, prune his garden, ride 10 miles a day, and work all other of his 18 hour days right? 

Meanwhile your President enjoys luxury accommodations, gets pampered constantly and probably has a stewardess who wipes his ass for him. Yeah he's a real fine example of a "fit" president, you know name calling is a sure sign of a loosing argument, that is like rule #1 in general debate classes. 

And yes I said "your President" because I certainly disown him...


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Ohh I'm sure he is, he's also too old to mow his own loan, prune his garden, ride 10 miles a day, and work all other of his 18 hour days right?
> 
> Meanwhile your President enjoys luxury accommodations, gets pampered constantly and probably has a stewardess who wipes his ass for him. Yeah he's a real fine example of a "fit" president, you know name calling is a sure sign of a loosing argument, that is like rule #1 in general debate classes.
> 
> And yes I said "your President" because I certainly disown him...


did you know they collect the president's shit when he is out of the country so that those countries can not find out anything about the president's health?

oh, and he is your president, too.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> too old to row upstream against a current.
> 
> obama would need a smoke break every so often, but he could do it.


yeah gasping for air with his smokers lunges. He would have more trouble trying to figure out how to pace himself. it would be a real life example; tortoise vs the hare


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

you do realize the man plays full court basketball on the regular


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 1, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Awww does *little gremlin *wanna cookie now? Hey how about responding to my response to your claim Ron Paul is too old, I don't see Obama getting fit, but then again I'm not the one sucking his balls dry so I wouldn't know





hazyintentions said:


> Ohh I'm sure he is, he's also too old to mow his own loan, prune his garden, ride 10 miles a day, and work all other of his 18 hour days right?
> 
> Meanwhile your President enjoys luxury accommodations, gets pampered constantly and probably has a stewardess who wipes his ass for him. Yeah he's a real fine example of a "fit" president, *you know name calling is a sure sign of a loosing argument, that is like rule #1 in general debate classes. *
> 
> And yes I said "your President" because I certainly disown him...



you lose.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you do realize the man plays full court basketball on the regular


Because full court basketball in an A/C environment qualifies as a substantial workout. Now it's not like basketball amounts to nothing but come on, drop the "Ron Paul is too old" act.



fdd2blk said:


> you lose.


Hmm I guess that's why I never made the debate team, damn I never knew...


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> just thought you would aim for the ones that came from him or from people with meaning...not some fear monger...but hey enjoy


Alex Jones comes with some solid information and good financial advice.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> you lose.


nice catch.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Alex Jones comes with some solid information and good financial advice.


i wonder if you'll still be saying that when the gold bubble BURSTS. and it will, it has before.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you do realize the man plays full court basketball on the regular


really? who gives a flying fuck? though i couldn't help but notice he has had over 80 accounted for rounds of golf in 2 1\2 years, gee what a great pres, i suppose his basketball leisure time added to what was already mentioned was suppose to do anything to change the repulsiveness towards him? naw, i think it only added to.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Because full court basketball in an A/C environment qualifies as a substantial workout. Now it's not like basketball amounts to nothing but come on, drop the "Ron Paul is too old" act.


and now we can see that you also don't play basketball..in fact it can be a great cardio exercise...great for endurance


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 1, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> really? who gives a flying fuck? though i couldn't help but notice he has had over 80 accounted for rounds of golf in 2 1\2 years, gee what a great pres, i suppose his basketball leisure time added to what was already mentioned was suppose to do anything to change the repulsiveness towards him? naw, i think it only added to.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> really? who gives a flying fuck? though i couldn't help but notice he has had over 80 accounted for rounds of golf in 2 1\2 years, gee what a great pres, i suppose his basketball leisure time added to what was already mentioned was suppose to do anything to change the repulsiveness towards him? naw, i think it only added to.


golf is great for meetings...lots of business decisions are made on the golf course...great place for business tips and advice as well..but what would you know


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and now we can see that you also don't play basketball..in fact it can be a great cardio exercise...great for endurance


Actually, I played basketball as a leisure activity during my advanced weightlifting classes when we couldn't use the weight room, my shooting sucks but I got up and down the court all the time , so wrong ,try again.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 1, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


>


playing golf is one thing, i mean even bush quit golfing out of respect for fighting soldiers when we went to war, which he got congressional aproval, barry didnt. not to mention barry has played more fucking golf already than bush in two terms, gee what a chage for dure


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Actually, I played basketball as a leisure activity during my advanced weightlifting classes when we couldn't use the weight room, my shooting sucks but I got up and down the court all the time , so wrong ,try again.


so if you got up and down the court all the time you should know that it can be a good workout ( unless you walked up and down the court )


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> golf is great for meetings...lots of business decisions are made on the golf course...great place for business tips and advice as well..but what would you know


there is an old quote, not quite sure who said it, but it goes something like this:

you can learn more about a man during 18 holes on a golf course than you can after 19 years of dealing with him from behind a desk.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> golf is great for meetings...lots of business decisions are made on the golf course...great place for business tips and advice as well..but what would you know


the both funny and pathetically sad part is you actually believe and preach such bullshit.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> playing golf is one thing, i mean even bush quit golfing out of respect for fighting soldiers when we went to war...


august 4, 2002 (almost a year after the WTC attack)

[video=youtube;Z3p9y_OEAdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc[/video]


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> the both funny and pathetically sad part is you actually believe and preach such bullshit.


I believe it because thats how I was able to land a few contract deals and given some excellent advice on some tech stocks...


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> the both funny and pathetically sad part is you actually believe and preach such bullshit.


so do top CEOs and masters of enterprise.

those billionaires must be sad and pathetic, even more so than the guy collecting an unemployment check while rallying for the overthrow of the government on a pot website


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

oh now I see why he doesn't understand how golf and the business world connects...kinda hard when you waiting on unemployment checks to get a round in


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I believe it because thats how I was able to land a few contract deals and given some excellent advice on some tech stocks...


i've met some of my best clients on the golf course.

one dude i met last year lets me borrow his scythe every week to trim the grass in my greenhouse. when i was dead broke, he paid me his tab on the spot. he looked after my cats while i was on vacation a few months back. i'll be digging and burying an electrical conduit on his property next week for a good wage.

the golf course is a great place for getting business done.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> august 4, 2002 (almost a year after the WTC attack)
> 
> [video=youtube;Z3p9y_OEAdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc[/video]


yeah i can tell you lack in comprehensive skills. I said wen to war. your date does not matter, try again, you rode the short bus didnt you? yes, yes you did.


----------



## munch box (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> golf is great for meetings...lots of business decisions are made on the golf course...great place for business tips and advice as well..but what would you know


It looks bad when hes the commander and chief of the armed forces playing golf, while at the same time giving orders to our military to risk thier lives fighting a war everyday. Its like me taking a shit on you, while you're trying to clean my toilet. would that boost your marale?


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i wonder if you'll still be saying that when the gold bubble BURSTS. and it will, it has before.


Their is no gold bubble, and when it bursts it will go way up- when has a gold bubble ever burst? when they stole it last time?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so if you got up and down the court all the time you should know that it can be a good workout ( unless you walked up and down the court )


I'm not saying it isn't good for cardio but pales in comparison to what I've been through and in the end made no difference in my personal max outs. 

My point isn't to attack Obama, although admittingly I find it hard to not attack the guy, that's just me though.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 1, 2011)

you guys crack me up.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'm not saying it isn't good for cardio but pales in comparison to what I've been through and in the end made no difference in my personal max outs.
> 
> My point isn't to attack Obama, although admittingly I find it hard to not attack the guy, that's just me though.


ok now do you think Ron Paul can get up and down that basketball court ????


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok now do you think Ron Paul can get up and down that basketball court ????


I want a president who spends his time upholding the constitution, not playing sports.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

munch box said:


> It looks bad when hes the commander and chief of the armed forces playing golf, while at the same time giving orders to our military to risk thier lives fighting a war everyday. Its like me taking a shit on you, while you're trying to clean my toilet. would that boost your marale?


what is marale ????


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> I want a president who spends his time upholding the constitution, not playing sports.


Well said.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 1, 2011)

ron paul will take your golf away.


----------



## munch box (Sep 1, 2011)

morale. i spelt that wrong. Its kinda like uplifting spirits and encourage unity, teamwork


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

munch box said:


> morale. i spelt that wrong. Its kinda like uplifting spirits and encourage unity, teamwork


oh ok I know what morale is...I suppose I should have known thats what you meant, but Marale is actually a place, so it didn't make since to me when you used it.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 1, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul will take your golf away.


all in the name of states rights


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul will take your golf away.


An absolutely awesome statement, well I am so enlightened by that I think I'll go out and celebrate.


----------



## munch box (Sep 1, 2011)

I heard Ron Paul wants to legalize prostitution


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 1, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> yeah i can tell you lack in comprehensive skills. I said wen to war. your date does not matter, try again, you rode the short bus didnt you? yes, yes you did.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

afghanistan started on 9/14/2001

the video shows bush playing golf on 8/4/2002

so yes, bush played golf after we went to war.

do you not understand chronology?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
> 
> afghanistan started on 9/14/2001
> 
> ...



For once he's a got a point there... Meanwhile, Obama's shooting hoops, Palin's daughter has a kid, and the Tea Party are terrorists as people are dying all across the world directly because of our empire in other countries. Don't worry though that issues isn't nearly as important as our president's next tee-off.


----------



## munch box (Sep 1, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
> 
> afghanistan started on 9/14/2001
> 
> ...


 
*Bush gave up golf; took up biking.* On May 13, 2008, _Politico_ reported that Bush said he gave up golf in August 2003, quoting him saying: "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. ... I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." However, as _The Washington Post_ *reported*, "Although Bush says he has given up golf, he is a mountain-biking enthusiast who has been photographed taking part in rides. He took up biking after an injury sidelined him from running.

Bush was in office till 2008. Thats 5 years of no golf, and Obama lives life like its a PGA tour..


----------



## deprave (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok now do you think Ron Paul can get up and down that basketball court ????


 Ron Paul is actually in great shape and runs every day.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
> 
> afghanistan started on 9/14/2001
> 
> ...


invasion of iraq for wmd's 2003, would be the war. looking for less than 100 men in the afghan mountains is no war.


----------



## deprave (Sep 2, 2011)

Ron Paul on NECN 09/01/11
[video=youtube;PwHyK48iQrQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwHyK48iQrQ[/video]


----------



## Parker (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> *Bush gave up golf; took up biking.* On May 13, 2008, _Politico_ reported that Bush said he gave up golf in August 2003, quoting him saying: "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. ... I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." However, as _The Washington Post_ *reported*, "Although Bush says he has given up golf, he is a mountain-biking enthusiast who has been photographed taking part in rides. He took up biking after an injury sidelined him from running.
> 
> Bush was in office till 2008. Thats 5 years of no golf, and Obama lives life like its a PGA tour..


it was completely lost on that jackass it's not him playing golf sending the wrong message it's being over their occupying their sovereign nations that's the wrong message. You believe in property rights for all, not just for some.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i wonder if you'll still be saying that when the gold bubble BURSTS. and it will, it has before.


See, you don't even understand things you are commenting on. Gold doesn't really increase or decrease in value. Our money increases and decreases. Our money continues to go down the tubes, so gold continues to go up. Look to see Gold level off or slow but not fall substantially., and silver to increase in value to its traditional % of Gold value. Once again, Gold isn't really increasing. People are betting that the dollar will be worth less in the near future which means Gold is a good place to hold your wealth as the money inflates. The only future in which I see our dollar gaining is one of world war in which we wipe out the manufacturing of the world again and reign supreme for the next 30 years.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I heard Ron Paul wants to legalize prostitution


There is a big difference between wanting to legalize something and not outlawing something illegally.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I heard Ron Paul wants to legalize prostitution


Prostitution isn't even federally. The fed laws only deal with illegal immigrant prostitutes and transporting between states. That is why it is legal in Nevada.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

Hey, I've heard from a couple sources Obama has played more golf than Tiger Woods, if that's true I don't even know what to say there.

Ohh wait I do, keep on playing, at least he can't further degrade our country if he's busy golfing.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

Ron Paul will not be POTUS by the choices he made


----------



## deprave (Sep 2, 2011)

what choice is that


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

deprave said:


> what choice is that


and the retort?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

the choice to run under the Republican banner...not a chance in hell in receiving the nod


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> the choice to run under the Republican banner...not a chance in hell in receiving the nod



The choice wasn't really much of a choice, he would NEVER get coverage as an independent. Besides he represents what the Republican party used to stand for so he is really the only true republican, and being as it's only a matter of time before the other idiots in the GOP become rampant mistakes Ron Paul stead support bases will only grow.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> The choice wasn't really much of a choice, he would NEVER get coverage as an independent. Besides he represents what the Republican party used to stand for so he is really the only true republican, and being as it's only a matter of time before the other idiots in the GOP become rampant mistakes Ron Paul stead support bases will only grow.


so you are saying the Ron Paul movement is so weak that he can't get any coverage unless he runs as a Republican..in which he stills receive very little covergage..okay..well good luck with that..and I thought he was more of a Libertarian..I mean he did run as one in 1988 ... with approval ratings at a historic low for both parties this would be the most ideal time to give America a third choice...but you guys keep fooling yourself...please believe I'm going to rub this shit in when he once again waste his chance to become POTUS


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so you are saying the Ron Paul movement is so weak that he can't get any coverage unless he runs as a Republican..in which he stills receive very little covergage..okay..well good luck with that..and I thought he was more of a Libertarian..I mean he did run as one in 1988 ... with approval ratings at a historic low for both parties this would be the most ideal time to give America a third choice...but you guys keep fooling yourself...please believe I'm going to rub this shit in when he once again waste his chance to become POTUS


When was the last nationally televised Third party debate? Did i miss it?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so you are saying the Ron Paul movement is so weak that he can't get any coverage unless he runs as a Republican..in which he stills receive very little covergage..okay..well good luck with that..and I thought he was more of a Libertarian..I mean he did run as one in 1988 ... with approval ratings at a historic low for both parties this would be the most ideal time to give America a third choice...but you guys keep fooling yourself...please believe I'm going to rub this shit in when he once again waste his chance to become POTUS


You make the assumption that suddenly the media will pay attention if he's independent. 

YOU fail to admit that there is an obvious bias against him and his ideas in what is still most of the mainstream media outlets (yes you Fox news) . 
The idea of freedom is young and I am glad to support it, if all you can do is find negativity from a idea supported by the coming generation then I feel sorry for you. I have hope that after many my age made the mistake of supporting Obama they won't do it again. Sorry if your old age beliefs no longer fit into the minds of the upcoming generation. 

So keep saying the Revolution is weak, it doesn't change anything, Ron Paul is consistently polling in the low to mid teens, I would say he has a foothold in the GOP field. Your ingenious assumptions are more based on the resistance of the idea that people can support an honest politician than objectivity as for as I'm concerned.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so you are saying the Ron Paul movement is so weak that he can't get any coverage unless he runs as a Republican..in which he stills receive very little covergage..okay..well good luck with that..and I thought he was more of a Libertarian..I mean he did run as one in 1988 ... with approval ratings at a historic low for both parties this would be the most ideal time to give America a third choice...but you guys keep fooling yourself...please believe I'm going to rub this shit in when he once again waste his chance to become POTUS


If anybody runs against a republican that would split the votes between 3 candidates. Ron Paul does not want to split votes with a republican candidate, Obama would win in a landslide victory. Thats just stupid


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> You make the assumption that suddenly the media will pay attention if he's independent.
> 
> YOU fail to admit that there is an obvious bias against him and his ideas in what is still most of the mainstream media outlets (yes you Fox news) .
> The idea of freedom is young and I am glad to support it, if all you can do is find negativity from a idea supported by the coming generation then I feel sorry for you. I have hope that after many my age made the mistake of supporting Obama they won't do it again. Sorry if your old age beliefs no longer fit into the minds of the upcoming generation.
> ...


please show me a recent poll where he is in the mid teens...hell he is not even hitting double digits in some poll 11 is the highest I've seen...so please show or link what poll you looking at


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> If anybody runs against a republican that would split the votes between 3 candidates. Ron Paul does not want to split votes with a republican candidate, Obama would win in a landslide victory. Thats just stupid


Obama will either go against Perry or Romney...which would still mean an Obama win...now if the Repukes did give Paul the nod..then we might have a race, but they won't so why talk about it..


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> please show me a recent poll where he is in the mid teens...hell he is not even hitting double digits in some poll 11 is the highest I've seen...so please show or link what poll you looking at


Polls surrounding the NH and IA primaries. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Sure his national average is still like 8.5% including polls from as far back as a year ago. 
Why so indifferent to the idea that Ron Paul could be doing good?


Meanwhile you'll surely defend this 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Obama will either go against Perry or Romney...which would still mean an Obama win...now if the Repukes did give Paul the nod..then we might have a race, but they won't so why talk about it..


I agree, they probably won't. But Ron Paul seems to be the topic of conversation throughout these threads. the same were to go for Donald Trump. If he were to run, by far the best way to do it would be through the republican primaries. Running as an independant for president, would be destined to fail


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Polls surrounding the NH and IA primaries.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html
> 
> ...


Ron Paul polling at 8.5 is not good...what happened to the mid teens...and yes Obama has hit a low 43.7( for Obama), but it is not an all time low for a POTUS...congress is hitting at 12.5..ouchhh


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul polling at 8.5 is not good...what happened to the mid teens...and yes Obama has hit a low 43.7( for Obama), but it is not an all time low for a POTUS...congress is hitting at 12.5..ouchhh


8.5 is an average from all his polls combined, Perry's average is only from polls in the past month and he still hasn't even been in a debate. 

Also note that about 80% of the country believes we are going in the wrong direction....


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul polling at 8.5 is not good...what happened to the mid teens...and yes Obama has hit a low 43.7( for Obama), but it is not an all time low for a POTUS...congress is hitting at 12.5..ouchhh


Obama's low was 39% Its only gone up slightly becasue he hasn't given a speach lately. But as usual after he gives his speach on thurseday, his numbers will go back down. When he proposes his new jobs bill, Our economy will most likely take another hit. As soon as Obama says "raising taxes creates jobs" wall street is going to take a hit, and stocks will tumble


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Obama's low was 39% Its only gone up slightly becasue he hasn't given a speach lately. But as usual after he gives his speach on thurseday, his numbers will go back down. When he proposes his new jobs bill, Our economy will most likely take another hit. As soon as Obama says "raising taxes creates jobs" wall street is going to take a hit, and stocks will tumble


I'm sorry I already put you in the bullshitter catagory...unlike most on this, you seem to fail when it comes to providing sources or links...still waiting on that link that shows only senate approval ratings ( which are suppose to be lower then the house )..atill waiting on the link for the house approval rating as well


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I'm sorry I already put you in the bullshitter catagory...unlike most on this, you seem to fail when it comes to providing sources or links...still waiting on that link that shows only senate approval ratings ( which are suppose to be lower then the house )..atill waiting on the link for the house approval rating as well


F8ck you don't give out my homework assignments. What the hell do you want to see that for anyway.? whats that going to prove? I got proof that his approval dropped to 39% And his approval on handling the economy is 26%. hold on . you'll get you're proof.... douche


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> F8ck you don't give out my homework assignments. What the hell do you want to see that for anyway.? whats that going to prove? I got proof that his approval dropped to 39% And his approval on handling the economy is 26%. hold on . you'll get you're proof.... douche


you said it I didn't... so I said show me prove or you are a full of shit..so now we know that you are full of shit...I have found zero polls showing seperate pollings for house and senate...they are combined as congressional...so simple put.. don't just talk out the side of your ass...people will call you on it here...



munch box said:


> The senate has a really low rating, Americans are still upset with Harry Reid getting re-elected I think. The house has a better aproval rating, but then again they have Democrats there too. So ya Congress has low numbers becasue Democrats are still everywhere in Washington. They wanted to show the American people in 2008, that they can suck at thier job just as bad as George Bush. That they have my friend. that they have...


----------



## Justin00 (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> [video=youtube;23UXUTUrQIw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UXUTUrQIw&feature=related[/video]
> 
> the same guy who wanted to let the economy crash and published a racist newsletter also thinks my wife is not to be trusted with decisions about her own body.
> 
> three strikes right there.


I'm not trying to argue with you, well maybe i am but I have a lot of respect for you Uncle buck and your guides and how you respond to questions, and i also agree with many of your opinions. but i would like you to defend the statement i quoted a little more. what decision does he feel your wife cannot make about her own body? it is about wether she can remove the other body from it (the child) who requires her bodys aid to continue to live, granted it only requires her aid for up to 9 months, and it is requiring her aid because of a decision she made (99% of the time). 9 months is not exactly a huge part of 80+ year life is that you could be expected to devote to saving the life you chose to make? i mean prisoners have to devote there entire life to answering for decisions they make that often do not require the sacrifice of another life, granted some of them have taken another life or in some way stopped it from existing, and they are paying there dews for it.... but nine months of effort is to much to ask you to spend ensuring that this life has a chance? sure prisoners choose to commit there crimes know the possible outcomes, but i bet most of them don't try to get caught and have to pay the dews. i just saying if your gonna fuck you need to remember what fucking is, its making babies, if the risk is not worth the gain then grow the fuck up and start making your own decisions and answering for them. killing that baby is no different than killing a cop so you don't have to go to jail for a crime you committed. take responsibility for your actions and give 9 months of you life to ensuring that it gets one. There are plenty of ppl in this world who will happy pay for your mistakes and raise and care for that child and give it a chance at a life, there is no reason to kill it now just because you want to fuck everything that moves and never take responsibility. if having the baby is going to kill her, then that is the grey area i have no stance on, and actually lean towards abortion, i look at it like self defense, and we rarely consider it acceptable to take a persons life as a result of there actions.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you said it I didn't... so I said show me prove or you are a full of shit..so now we know that you are full of shit...I have found zero polls showing seperate pollings for house and senate...they are combined as congressional...so simple put.. don't just talk out the side of your ass...people will call you on it here...


 Are you kidding me? thats what you're bitching about? I guess if you can't find anything , then you can't call me out and tell me wrong then can you? You don't tell me what to do crybaby. I tell your mom what to do little boy. she works for me. If its so imoprtant to you, THEN YOU PROVE ME WRONG. and hurry the f*ck up. I want facts now bitch


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Are you kidding me? thats what you're bitching about? I guess if you can't find anything , then you can't call me out and tell me wrong then can you? You don't tell me what to do crybaby. I tell your mom what to do little boy. she works for me. If its so imoprtant to you, THEN YOU PROVE ME WRONG. and hurry the f*ck up. I want facts now bitch


how old are you ...must be under 21..hell I would say under 18...I proved you wrong by the fact you can't provide any links or proof...thats what we do here..we back up our statements with facts, proof, links etc etc..you just let shit run out your mouth and don't even bother to wipe...


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> how old are you ...must be under 21..hell I would say under 18...I proved you wrong by the fact you can't provide any links or proof...thats what we do here..we back up our statements with facts, proof, links etc etc..you just let shit run out your mouth and don't even bother to wipe...


I told you show me a link. so why don't you just show me the damn link? what the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I told you show me a link. so why don't you just show me the damn link? what the hell is wrong with you?


dumb ass there is no link for you made it up...NEXT


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Nanci palosi is still in the house, so obviously approval ratings are still low. All I'm saying is the senate's #s are a bit lower. And my theory is that its becasue of harry reid. I never said it was a fact. I said " I think" you go ahead and break down my words and analyze every little thing if you want to. Just becasue I'm not a liberal, doesn't mean I gotta be perfect. Tell me I gotta back sh*t up. I'll back my foot up your ass


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Nanci palosi is still in the house, so obviously approval ratings are still low. All I'm saying is the senate's #s are a bit lower. And my theory is that its becasue of harry reid. I never said it was a fact. I said " I think" you go ahead and break down my words and analyze every little thing if you want to. Just becasue I'm not a liberal, doesn't mean I gotta be perfect. Tell me I gotta back sh*t up. I'll back my foot up your ass


I'm the last one to correct ones spelling but you are unreal..because not becasue...dude thats like a third grade word...Uncle Buck does give english and grammar lessons if needed....and please stop with the internet threats..its rather childish


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Nanci palosi is still in the house, so obviously approval ratings are still low. All I'm saying is the senate's #s are a bit lower. And my theory is that its becasue of harry reid. I never said it was a fact. I said " I think" you go ahead and break down my words and analyze every little thing if you want to. Just becasue I'm not a liberal, doesn't mean I gotta be perfect. Tell me I gotta back sh*t up. I'll back my foot up your ass


*nancy pelosi

wow, so someone asks you to provide evidence and your response is threatening physical violence?

what a pussy.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> When was the last nationally televised Third party debate? Did i miss it?


Anyone?

(ten characters)


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Anyone?
> 
> (ten characters)


I understand what you saying...so Ron Paul must run as a Republican so he can debate...is that correct ???


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I understand what you saying...so Ron Paul must run as a Republican so he can debate...is that correct ???


Your stupid. nothing you say makes any sense. have you never seen how a primary works. get this little kid out of here. hes too slow to keep up with the rest of the class


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> *nancy pelosi
> 
> wow, so someone asks you to provide evidence and your response is threatening physical violence?
> 
> ...


People don't ask for shit, they just demand it. over and over again. LOL now I'm a pussy. come and get it bitch. where you at?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

I've got no fuckin problem whatever you wanna do. whats up?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Your stupid. nothing you say makes any sense. have you never seen how a primary works. get this little kid out of here. hes too slow to keep up with the rest of the class


do you mean "you're stupid" or even "you are stupid"..either would have worked...but "your stupid" does not...Uncle Buck please give this guy a free class...hell I will pay for it


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> do you mean "you're stupid" or even "you are stupid"..either would have worked...but "your stupid" does not...Uncle Buck please give this guy a free class...hell I will pay for it


He spent all his money paying me for your mom to suck his dick. theres nothing left


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

What the hell munch?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> He spent all his money paying me for your mom to suck his dick. theres nothing left


WOW...again how old are you ???


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Your stupid. nothing you say makes any sense. have you never seen how a primary works. get this little kid out of here. hes too slow to keep up with the rest of the class


*you're

pro tip: when attempting to insult someone's intelligence, don't make a mistake my 7 year old nephew would easily avoid.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> What the hell munch?


fuck you bitch . you want to jooin the parade? come get a piece. keep talkin shit. I don't give a fuck . you all want to jumpo on me. bring it


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> People don't ask for shit, they just demand it. over and over again. LOL now I'm a pussy. come and get it bitch. where you at?


i'm in your mom's bedroom, filming a porno involving her, a big black burly dude, a donkey, a horse, and a troupe of midgets.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> *you're
> 
> pro tip: when attempting to insult someone's intelligence, don't make a mistake my 7 year old nephew would easily avoid.


 I don't need your tips just more of your money. Londonfog's moms for sale


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm in your mom's bedroom, filming a porno involving her, a big black burly dude, a donkey, a horse, and a troupe of midgets.


Sounds like you've invested a lot of money. It also sounds like you take it up the ass


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> fuck you bitch . you want to jooin the parade? come get a piece. keep talkin shit. I don't give a fuck . you all want to jumpo on me. bring it


poor kid..do you feel that we all are picking on you???? we not ...only pointing out how dumb and ignorant you sound....


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> He spent all his money paying me for your mom to suck his dick. theres nothing left


why would i pay you to have londonfog's mom fellate me? i believe i would pay the one doing the fellating, not you. 

it is hard to believe that you do not understand how prostitution works, as it seems you are the type who, having no luck attempting to mate with willing, non-paid females, would have no other resort other than paying old, filthy, std-ridden, three-tooth having, meth snorting, open sore having, transexual hookers to sate your sexual desires.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

well come on over and show me then. Why don't you come get broken off? you keep talkin about it


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Sounds like you've invested a lot of money. It also sounds like you take it up the ass


no, your mom does this willingly, i just brought the camera. it is an old style camcorder, not digital, that i received as a gift in 2002. while the quality may not be superior, the illicit acts i am filming make it worth it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> well come on over and show me then. Why don't you come get broken off? you keep talkin about it


that sounds nice, are you going to break me off a piece?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> why would i pay you to have londonfog's mom fellate me? i believe i would pay the one doing the fellating, not you.
> 
> it is hard to believe that you do not understand how prostitution works, as it seems you are the type who, having no luck attempting to mate with willing, non-paid females, would have no other resort other than paying old, filthy, std-ridden, three-tooth having, meth snorting, open sore having, transexual hookers to sate your sexual desires.


If I don't care whether you live or die, why would I not want you to bring it. Back that shit up. right isn't that were supposed to do? have 5 people sweat 1 guy, mostly over bullshit.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> fuck you bitch . you want to jooin the parade? come get a piece. keep talkin shit. I don't give a fuck . you all want to jumpo on me. bring it


Ok. i will now call troll status here. Either that or just 15.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that sounds nice, are you going to break me off a piece?
> 
> 
> > you wouldn't feel so special after you get bust in the mouth


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

Gosh there are some douches here guys!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> UncleBuck said:
> 
> 
> > that sounds nice, are you going to break me off a piece?
> ...


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> munch box said:
> 
> 
> > UncleBuck said:
> ...


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Ok. i will now call troll status here. Either that or just 15.


this guy is fun. i'm glad i don't have much to do today.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you wouldn't feel so special after you get bust in the mouth


you want to bust in my mouth?

no thanks, i'm not gay.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> this guy is fun. i'm glad i don't have much to do today.


Even more fun than fucking your donkey and horse or whatever else it is you got? you know you wanna go be gay. thats why yoou only talk to me when 3 other people jump on top. you're a pussy ass bitch always will be. afucking punk. thats it


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> budlover13 said:
> 
> 
> > munch box said:
> ...


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you want to bust in my mouth?
> 
> no thanks, i'm not gay.


You said you wanted to fuck barney frank in his ass. don't lie


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Even more fun than fucking your donkey and horse or whatever else it is you got? you know you wanna go be gay. thats why yoou only talk to me when 3 other people jump on top. you're a pussy ass bitch always will be. afucking punk. thats it


i'm sorry, could you repeat that?

i don't speak douche.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

Or is that the little town?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> munch box said:
> 
> 
> > budlover13 said:
> ...


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

oh thats gangster. sorry i spelt that wrong


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

For what LOL!? To take care of business? Like you would know what that means?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Well lets meet in modesto. Im no gangsta, but I can show you I'm older than 15. how about off palendale ave?


i would be angry too if i lived in that shit hole they call modesto.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

no you called me a troll 15 or some shit. where i come from you throw down for that shit pussy. don't be a little bitch. And we are going to work everything out to when yoou don't show, everybody is going to know how big of a bitch you are. now i need to go check another thread . you and you're buddies uncle buck and londonfog are attacking me in the other thread


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> no you called me a troll 15 or some shit. where i come from you throw down for that shit pussy. don't be a little bitch. And we are going to work everything out to when yoou don't show, everybody is going to know how big of a bitch you are. now i need to go check another thread . you and you're buddies uncle buck and londonfog are attacking me in the other thread


attacking?

sorry, you're not worthy of attack. only mockery.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> no you called me a troll 15 or some shit. where i come from you throw down for that shit pussy. don't be a little bitch. And we are going to work everything out to when yoou don't show, everybody is going to know how big of a bitch you are. now i need to go check another thread . you and you're buddies uncle buck and londonfog are attacking me in the other thread


Whatever Hulk lol! i implied that based on the immaturity and uneducated and attacking posts you were a kid or a troll. You continue to support my accusation. Wanna meet halfway or is that too far to ride your bike?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> no you called me a troll 15 or some shit. where i come from you throw down for that shit pussy. don't be a little bitch. And we are going to work everything out to when yoou don't show, everybody is going to know how big of a bitch you are. now i need to go check another thread . you and you're buddies uncle buck and londonfog are attacking me in the other thread


BTW, who the hell said UB and LF were buddies? If you would do a little research you would see that we are opposed to each other in more ways than one. Of course, that would take some maturity and manhood.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> BTW, who the hell said UB and LF were buddies? If you would do a little research you would see that we are opposed to each other in more ways than one. Of course, that would take some maturity and manhood.


to be fair, we do kind of unite when a douche like munch cocks has a complete meltdown like the one we are witnessing.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> to be fair, we do kind of unite when a douche like munch cocks has a complete meltdown like the one we are witnessing.


you mean when 5 people all come on 1 thread to attack my spelling, and some bullshit they can't back up? just a punk


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> to be fair, we do kind of unite when a douche like munch cocks has a complete meltdown like the one we are witnessing.


 
why don't you go suck a dick and stop acting like you're not gay . you even admitted having a thing for Barney Frank. don't lie


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> why don't you go suck a dick and stop acting like you're not gay . you even admitted having a thing for Barney Frank. don't lie


that made me laugh


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

"Keep moving folks. Nothing to see here!" 


i've said that a few times in my life lol!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you mean when 5 people all come on 1 thread to attack my spelling, and some bullshit they can't back up? just a punk


BTW, who came to what thread? i would bet we have all posted here many times more than you over the last couple months. You came HERE son. Man up.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> why don't you go suck a dick and stop acting like you're not gay . you even admitted having a thing for Barney Frank. don't lie


Got something against gays as well has Hispanics and Blacks?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you mean when 5 people all come on 1 thread to attack my spelling, and some bullshit they can't back up? just a punk


all I asked is for you to provide a link to a statement you made..then you started with the "mother cracks" and name calling..go back and read and you will see that you brought this on yourself


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> all I asked is for you to provide a link to a statement you made..then you started with the "mother cracks" and name calling..go back and read and you will see that you brought this on yourself


i've learned to research my shit deeply before posting here. Relentless guys


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

ok here we go which one of you 3 bitches wants it first?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i've learned to research my shit deeply before posting here. Relentless guys


so have I...damn Nodrama and JohnnyO..lol..but it also helps you to defend your argument that much more


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> ok here we go which one of you 3 bitches wants it first?


I like it in the ear.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

since we've all moved from the other thread to come jump on me in this thread lets just stay here to keep it fair. I can't argue with 5 different liberals at the same time on 3 different threads. i can't type super fast


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> since we've all moved from the other thread to come jump on me in this thread lets just stay here to keep it fair. I can't argue with 5 different liberals at the same time on 3 different threads. i can't type super fast


Here it is:

Avoiding logical fallacies 
So you're having a debate and your argument just isn't working. You're being accused of ad homs, strawmanning, and red herrings. What the fuck are these people talking about? 

Let me tell you then.

A logical fallacy is an approach to making an argument or point by breaking rules that are known to not be sound in reasoning and logic. There are many _many_ of these fallacies but I'll list and describe some of the main ones.

*Ad Hominem* (the argument against the man) 
Attacking the person's character instead of attacking the argument.
Examples:
"Why should I listen to your opinion on philosophy, you barely graduated high school."
"You think you are capable of debating evolutionary theory while you sit there and smoke weed all day?" 

*Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc* (After this, therefore, because of this)
This one is a favorite of mine. Drawing a conclusion that two or more events are related when there is no real proof they are.
Examples:
"We ate fish tacos last night and this morning my head was pounding. Fish tacos give me headaches I guess" (the person isn't qualified to conclude fish tacos were definitely the cause of the headache)
"I had a dream I won the lotto, so I bought 20 scratch off tickets and one ended up being a winner for 500 bucks! I must be psychic."

*circular logic* (The conclusion of the argument is the same as the premise) 
Examples:
"The bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible."

*Ad baculum* (appeal to the stick or force)
An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force is used to justify the conclusion.
Examples: 
"If you don't repent your sins you will burn for eternity in hell, therefore you MUST repent."
"Don't argue with the king's policies or he will lock you up and toss away the key. Therefore keep your mouth shut."

*Ad lapidem* (throwing stones)
Dismissing a statement as absurd without giving reason why it is absurd.
Examples:
"You don't believe in a divine being? That's just fuckin' retarded!"
"You don't think marijuana is addictive? Are you crazy!? Pull your head out of your ass."

*Untestability fallacy*
Argument based on assertions that cannot be tested.
Examples:
"You're not old enough to really understand life." 
"Eating beans prouts may not kill you today, but one day you may eat a poisonous one and die. Therefore you should just avoid eating bean sprouts."
"All atheists secretly believe in a god."

*Red Herring*
An attempt to divert the argument or change the subject
Examples:
Person A- "Bush should have been tried as a war criminal."
Person B- "What about all the other people in the world that commit crimes and get away with it? What about that justice not served? In fact, the murder rate in Romania is bla bla yack yack....."

*loaded question* 
Asking a question that presupposes something that isn't yet proven.
Examples:
"Do you still beat children up with baseball bats?"
"Why is Obama afraid to admit he was born in Kenya?"

*Straw Man*
Misrepresenting a persons argument in such a way it would be easy to refute. Beating up the straw man.
Examples:
"Of course evolution isn't true. No one has ever seen a reptile turn into a bird."
"Liberals just want a big nanny state."

*Ad Populum* (appeal to the people)
Concluding an argument is true because a majority of people believe it to be true.
Examples:
"Most people in the US believe marijuana is a dangerous drug therefore it is."
"Majority of the world believes there is a divine being, they can't all be wrong."

*Subjectivist Fallacy*
Using the fact that one wants to believe something to be true as evidence of it's truth.
Examples:
"We are all beings of spirit and light."

Person A-"We are an electro-chemical system."
Person B-"That may be true to you, but that's not true to me. That's just your opinion."

*negative proof* (argument from ignorance)
Appealing to lack of proof of the negative. X is true because there is no proof X is false.
Examples:
"There is no evidence Glenn Beck didn't rape and kill a woman in 1984."
"You can't prove god doesn't exist!"

There are many many more but these are some of the most common. If you're in a debate and you see these tactics being used, call them out on their fallacies.

----------

Newly added fallacies as submitted by commenters.


*Argumentation ad misericordiam* - (appeal to pity) Recommended by Dryice
Using an emotion like pity, sympathy, or compassion for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
Examples:
"If you don't give me a job here, I can't donate to the starving children's fund! My life dream would be ruined."
"Of course the judges should vote me winner of the chili cookoff, I've recently had a death in the family."

*false dilemma* or *false dichotomy* - (either-or fallacy) Recommended by tongues
An argument where only two choices are given when there are in fact more.
Examples:
"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
"Either love your country with all it's problems or leave it."

*inductive fallacy* - (Hasty Generalization) Recommended by mrgoodsmoke
Fallacy committed when one comes to a quick conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
Examples:
"My town is mostly republican. Three of the five houses on my street have republican signs in them."
"I did a survey in my town by going to three different Dentists and they all said Crest was the best toothpaste to use so Crest must be the best." 


Study and return when 18, or at least acting as such.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> ok here we go which one of you 3 bitches wants it first?


that depends on what "it" is.

if "it" is a beer, yes please.

if "it" refers to some more diarrhea from that cock sucker of yours that you call a mouth, i'll pass.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> so have I...damn Nodrama and JohnnyO..lol..but it also helps you to defend your argument that much more


your a fuckin punk and a bitch. In real life coming at me sideways like that you'd get bust in the face no problem at all


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> since we've all moved from the other thread to come jump on me in this thread lets just stay here to keep it fair. I can't argue with 5 different liberals at the same time on 3 different threads. i can't type super fast



Are you crying? Why don't you get off the computer, and take a breather, realize that everything on here means absolutely nothing and stop stressing bro.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that depends on what "it" is.
> 
> if "it" is a beer, yes please.
> 
> if "it" refers to some more diarrhea from that cock sucker of yours that you call a mouth, i'll pass.


 
it is barney frank's dick in your ass


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> since we've all moved from the other thread to come jump on me in this thread lets just stay here to keep it fair. I can't argue with 5 different liberals at the same time on 3 different threads. i can't type super fast


i don't blame you for being unable to type fast, people with down's syndrome are not known so much for their typing speed.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Are you crying? Why don't you get off the computer, and take a breather, realize that everything on here means absolutely nothing and stop stressing bro.


that makes TWO pussies in this thread.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Are you crying? Why don't you get off the computer, and take a breather, realize that everything on here means absolutely nothing and stop stressing bro. ]


ya f*ck you. you fake ass mother f*cker. fake people make me stress. thats just the way it is


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't blame you for being unable to type fast, people with down's syndrome are not known so much for their typing speed.


i usually wouldn't laugh at that but can you say "Corky"? LOL!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that makes TWO pussies in this thread.


you hate pussy don't you. didn't you say you're allergic?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> it is barney frank's dick in your ass


how do you exercise such control over barney frank that you are able to select whose ass his dick is in at which time?

that must have taken a lot of blowjobs to accomplish. well done.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> ya f*ck you. you fake ass mother f*cker. fake people make me stress. thats just the way it is


Turn away from the mirror sir!


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you hate pussy don't you. didn't you say you're allergic?


i am allergic to pussies like you. however, cat dander and vaginas do not bother me.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i usually wouldn't laugh at that but can you say "Corky"? LOL!


That wasn't funny. it just shows how superior he thinks he is to everyone else. you stupid liberal. you london and uncle buck have no clue what you're talking about


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i am allergic to pussies like you. however, cat dander and vaginas do not bother me.


you like cat vaginas. thats sick . even for you buck. thats just sick


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> That wasn't funny. it just shows how superior he thinks he is to everyone else. you stupid liberal. you london and uncle buck have no clue what you're talking about



I'm getting a kick out of this thread now, who pissed in your corn flake's today?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> your a fuckin punk and a bitch. In real life coming at me sideways like that you'd get bust in the face no problem at all


ROFL..ok...doubt it but ok


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)




----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> That wasn't funny. it just shows how superior he thinks he is to everyone else. you stupid liberal. you london and uncle buck have no clue what you're talking about


You hear that guys? i'm a Liberal! LOL!!!!!


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you like cat vaginas. thats sick . even for you buck. thats just sick


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

see this is some bullshit. AS SOON as I get on a thread they leave and go attack me on another one. Its bitch shit. Uncle Buck is a way bigger bitch than I thought he was. and thats hard to say


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> see this is some bullshit. AS SOON as I get on a thread they leave and go attack me on another one. Its bitch shit. Uncle Buck is a way bigger bitch than I thought he was. and thats hard to say


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> see this is some bullshit. AS SOON as I get on a thread they leave and go attack me on another one. Its bitch shit. Uncle Buck is a way bigger bitch than I thought he was. and thats hard to say


thanks to you there is probably the first and only time I'll ever have to congratulate UB .....


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> see this is some bullshit. AS SOON as I get on a thread they leave and go attack me on another one. Its bitch shit. Uncle Buck is a way bigger bitch than I thought he was. and thats hard to say


See, i never saw you in another thread. i simply reacted to your vitriolic rants in this one. You're your own worst enemy i guess.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ROFL..ok...doubt it but ok


bring it pussy. back your shit up bitch


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> You hear that guys? i'm a Liberal! LOL!!!!!


when that happen...hope we can get you to vote Obama..lol


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> bring it pussy. back your shit up bitch


how about a send someone your age...what we talking 16-17???


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> bring it pussy. back your shit up bitch


Hold on lemme get me internet anti-troll spray out 







Now your equipped LF


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> bring it pussy. back your shit up bitch


2-Pacs alive!!!!!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> thanks to you there is probably the first and only time I'll ever have to congratulate UB .....


You coordinate with UB aLL the time. you're a fake ass moderate. thats coward shit. congradulate him with a dick up his ass. he says he loves it


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> bring it pussy. back your shit up bitch


yeah, london. you should probably back your shit up, just in case.







ya never know when a server will fail, and these things can be costly to your business. so back your shit up.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> how about a send someone your age...what we talking 16-17???


how about you send your face on a punching bag?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yeah, london. you should probably back your shit up, just in case.
> 
> 
> ya never know when a server will fail, and these things can be costly to your business. so back your shit up.


he really needs to becasue god know you can't. pussy


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> You coordinate with UB aLL the time. you're a fake ass moderate. thats coward shit. congradulate him with a dick up his ass. he says he loves it



hahah that made me laugh, hey UB how many times have we ever agreed on anything?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> You coordinate with UB aLL the time. you're a fake ass moderate. thats coward shit. congradulate him with a dick up his ass. he says he loves it


a dick:







does not fit inside of an ass:







it's just not physically possible.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> hahah that made me laugh, hey UB how many times have we ever agreed on anything?


only once, which is now. we both agree munch cocks is having a full blown meltdown right now, and that it is hilarious.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> hahah that made me laugh, hey UB how many times have we ever agreed on anything?


you both try and prove your points together by attacking people's spelling. it means you've ran out of arguements. thats why you and buck got to team up against people.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> only once, which is now. we both agree munch cocks is having a full blown meltdown right now, and that it is hilarious.


agreed. you think his head is screwed on still?




munch box said:


> you both try and prove your points together by attacking people's spelling. it means you've ran out of arguements. thats why you and buck got to team up against people.


Ohhhhhh hahahahahah you've been on this sub forum how long again? Anyone who frequents this place knows I have never agreed with UB and at first he knew how to get under my skin then I became desensitized...


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> how about you send your face on a punching bag?


I do want to thank you ...I have never laughed so hard on this site until today...


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> agreed. you think his head is screwed on still?


i hope so, i have all day to mess with this guy.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> only once, which is now. we both agree munch cocks is having a full blown meltdown right now, and that it is hilarious.


The only thing melting down is 5 libs jumping on me at once. I don't debate 5 people at once. thats not the way it works


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i hope so, i have all day to mess with this guy.


o great. he likes me cuz hes gay. If I was a chick he would have been out a long time ago


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

See munch? Had you come into this thread with a valid argument or facts or even assumptions, without the attacks, i would've sided with you in all likelihood given my opinion of LF and UB's stances.

But instead, you come in and call names, throw insults, and make outrageous claims. i'd rather side with Liberty or UB & LF than sit here and read your uneducated, hormone/testosterone driven, vitriolic, and egotistical rants.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you both try and prove your points together by attacking people's spelling. it means you've ran out of arguements. thats why you and buck got to team up against people.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> The only thing melting down is 5 libs jumping on me at once. I don't debate 5 people at once. thats not the way it works


okay, okay, goshhhhh . Everyone line up single file please?!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you both try and prove your points together by attacking people's spelling. it means you've ran out of arguements. thats why you and buck got to team up against people.


They've never attacked MY spelling. Just saying, maybe it is the content rather than the delivery that makes you sound like a douche.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I do want to thank you ...I have never laughed so hard on this site until today...


you think not proving your point is funny?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you both try and prove your points together by attacking people's spelling. it means you've ran out of arguements. thats why you and buck got to team up against people.


dude I only asked for a link...then you went plain loco...I'm not going to talk about your mother like you did mine..so I just pointed out if you are going to be insulting you might want to improve your spelling for it does make you look rather


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> The only thing melting down is 5 libs jumping on me at once. I don't debate 5 people at once. thats not the way it works


Yeah it is lol!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> They've never attacked MY spelling. Just saying, maybe it is the content rather than the delivery that makes you sound like a douche.


no . when you can't argue your case you find other ways to discredit people. you're a liberal. plain and simple


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> The only thing melting down is 5 libs jumping on me at once. I don't debate 5 people at once. thats not the way it works


tickle party!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Yeah it is lol!


if ron paul doesn't get the nominee you're going to vote for Obama. so ya you're a lib


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Yeah it is lol!


YUP that's just how it works here, for me my first time was getting ganged banged by UB,LF, Carne, mama, and redivider . you'll be ok champ


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> no . when you can't argue your case you find other ways to discredit people. you're a liberal. plain and simple


What case have i failed to argue? Can you read?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> dude I only asked for a link...then you went plain loco...I'm not going to talk about your mother like you did mine..so I just pointed out if you are going to be insulting you might want to improve your spelling for it does make you look rather


give me the link. you can't prove shit. everything you say is garbage you can't back any of it up


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> if ron paul doesn't get the nominee you're going to vote for Obama. so ya you're a lib


Honestly, IF it came down to it I would rather have a clueless president in office versus a guy like Perry who I believe to be involved in the murder of an innocent man.

this is fun, now I'm a liberal, hey everyone wanna have a liberal orgy together?
Sorry munchbox your not invited ;P


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> if ron paul doesn't get the nominee you're going to vote for Obama. so ya you're a lib


Wrong again chump! i will most likely either leave the nation or dig in. No votes for the unworthy imo.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> What case have i failed to argue? Can you read?


you as in you and your buddies buck london hazy and theres a couple more, but they are talking shit on another thread at the moment, but I'm sure they will be in here soon to talk shit about my spelling. 5 guys telling me to prove 3 different points at once


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> YUP that's just how it works here, for me my first time was getting ganged banged by UB,LF, Carne, mama, and redivider . you'll be ok champ


We have both been jumped i'm sure. But the difference is, we had valid arguments to argue our positions from without having to revert to grade-school insults.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Wrong again chump! i will most likely either leave the nation or dig in. No votes for the unworthy imo.


your so full of shit. like i said you're fake


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

hey look it's munchbox  






That'll make his head explode


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you as in you and your buddies buck london hazy and theres a couple more, but they are talking shit on another thread at the moment, but I'm sure they will be in here soon to talk shit about my spelling. 5 guys telling me to prove 3 different points at once


What thread? If undeserved i will defend you. They know that lol.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> We have both been jumped i'm sure. But the difference is, we had valid arguments to argue our positions from without having to revert to grade-school insults.


nope thats the way it goes bitch. you want to stoop low, i need to level the playing field


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Honestly, IF it came down to it I would rather have a clueless president in office versus a guy like Perry who I believe to be involved in the murder of an innocent man.
> 
> this is fun, now I'm a liberal, hey everyone wanna have a liberal orgy together?
> Sorry munchbox your not invited ;P


yay!


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

I thought the Whole Ann Coulter Liberalism is a disease thing died out with that magnetic ribbon fad


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> your so full of shit. like i said you're fake


Whatever dude. Whatever. LOL! What a frickin' BLAST!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> hey look it's munchbox
> 
> That'll make his head explode


do you and uncle buck post naked pictures of men just becasue you're gay, is there more to it?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> nope thats the way it goes bitch. you want to stoop low, i need to level the playing field


Losing you now, i graduated HS.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Whatever dude. Whatever. LOL! What a frickin' BLAST!


you sound like you're on a roller coaster ride. are you 12 years old?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> I thought the Whole Ann Coulter Liberalism is a disease thing died out with that magnetic ribbon fad


welcome dukeanthony, we have a surprise in store for you, I think you and me may even agree on something today.... lmao


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> nope thats the way it goes bitch. you want to stoop low, i need to level the playing field


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> give me the link. you can't prove shit. everything you say is garbage you can't back any of it up


I think this is what set it off


munch box said:


> Are you kidding me? thats what you're bitching about? I guess if you can't find anything , then you can't call me out and tell me wrong then can you? You don't tell me what to do crybaby. I tell your mom what to do little boy. she works for me. If its so imoprtant to you, THEN YOU PROVE ME WRONG. and hurry the f*ck up. I want facts now bitch


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you sound like you're on a roller coaster ride. are you 12 years old?


no, that's what we sound like while we're sticking it in eachother's asses in a continuous circle of liberal buttloving..


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Losing you now, i graduated HS.


you're pathetic. you think you're so smart. a liberal sitting behind a computer screen.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> do you and uncle buck post naked pictures of men just becasue you're gay, is there more to it?


someone doesn't want an invitation to our super awesome pillow fight tuesdays!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> no, that's what we sound like while we're sticking it in eachother's asses in a continuous circle of liberal buttloving..


well be sure to vote for your buddy obama again. just like you promised


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you sound like you're on a roller coaster ride. are you 12 years old?


"Uhhhhh, he wants me to say i'm underage on an 18+ forum so i can get booted even though i'm 37." lol

Oh yeah, a "narc" too huh?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> someone doesn't want an invitation to our super awesome pillow fight tuesdays!


No he won't fit in. Google "munch box" here's what I found on page 3


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> someone doesn't want an invitation to our super awesome pillow fight tuesdays!
> 
> ]


nobody wants to see your gay porn buck


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> hey look it's munchbox
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you're pathetic. you think you're so smart. a liberal sitting behind a computer screen.


LOL again! Someone thinks he's winning a debate by throwing out Ad Hominem, Straw men, etc. Go back to class son.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> "Uhhhhh, he wants me to say i'm underage on an 18+ forum so i can get booted even though i'm 37." lol
> 
> Oh yeah, a "narc" too huh?


I'm just the guy ready to put a foot in your liberal ass


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> no, that's what we sound like while we're sticking it in eachother's asses in a continuous circle of liberal buttloving..


Please remember that you now have to vote Obama being that you are a liberal now..lol


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I'm just the guy ready to put a foot in your liberal ass


Dinuba, Ca son. Can you ride that far?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Uploaded with ImageShack.us




HOLY SHIT that's good, I haven't laughed like that in a while, good stuff.. heym munch box, your friends are calling, the triumphant trio isn't anything without you


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> LOL again! Someone thinks he's winning a debate by throwing out Ad Hominem, Straw men, etc. Go back to class son.


even better. you want to teach me a lesson. then meet me in modesto. but you won't you're just an internet tuff guy


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I'm just the guy ready to put a foot in your liberal ass


you must be a big guy


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I'm just the guy ready to put a foot in your liberal ass


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Please remember that you now have to vote Obama being that you are a liberal now..lol


yup, so guys are we going to line up single file for munch box or what? He likes it's nice and slow, like a train .

This is what we're doing now...


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> even better. you want to teach me a lesson. then meet me in modesto. but you won't you're just an internet tuff guy


i've got no incentive to go to Modesto kid. i already know the outcome and have better things to do than drive north to meet a kid that i would get in trouble for schooling. YOU"RE the one who has the hard-on for me lol. Where'd you see my pic?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you must be a big guy


i think its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> i think its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that i can only post every 30 seconds


bwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> i think its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds



Sorry, but I'm not missing my train 







There's an extra spot for you too


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)




----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

Munch Cocks is this you ???

[youtube]Y-ImqHgXCOg[/youtube]


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. you think your cool cuz your a punk?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

This thread has gone from PRO RP to ANTI RP and back many times and finally turned into a rather intelligent conversation and debate.

BYE!


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> i think its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds


http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2010/10/Whaambulance.gif


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

you are all some real pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. you're all bitches


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. you think your cool cuz your a punk?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> i think its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds


i held my own many times through 352 pages. Learn how to do so.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you are all some real pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. you're all bitches


Then I'll volunteer to go first. Can you post a link to your claim that the Senate and the House Of Representatives were polled separately for approval ratings? 

Isn't that what started this?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. you think your cool cuz your a punk?


It's called being a "multi-tasker" or "educated" imo.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

you are all a bunch of punk ass bitches .its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. ​


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds.


perhaps if you keep saying the same thing over and over while gradually increasing the font size you'll make some progress.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you are all a bunch of punk ass bitches .its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. ​


Just won't give up on that "victimization' ploy huh? Again, get educated and learn to avoid that pitfall.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. ​


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you are all a bunch of punk ass bitches .its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. ​


Your still haven't answered my question. Waiting


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

you are all a bunch of punk ass bitches .its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. Hazy is too scared to debate me 1 on 1​


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

its some really annoying shit when 1 fucktard keeps posting the same thing every 30 seconds. ​


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you are all a bunch of punk ass bitches .its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. Hazy is too scared to debate me 1 on 1​


I'm right here, waiting on an answer pumpkin


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> its some really pussy shit when 6 people take advantage of the fact that I can only post every 30 seconds. ​


Bigger font may change my mind!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

One on one, when and where sir?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'm right here, waiting on an answer pumpkin




answer to what? you and 5 other people bitch. what the fu*ck you want?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> answer to what? You and 5 other people bitch. What the fu*ck you want?


when & where?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> answer to what? you and 5 other people bitch. what the fu*ck you want?


Where's is your link showing that Senate and House Of Reps were given two separate approval ratings? 

Politically I would never support the point of views of UB and LF but on a common sense standpoint you are failing dude, redeem yoself. 







yup I posted it


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Where's is your link showing that Senate and House Of Reps were given two separate approval ratings?
> 
> Politically I would never support the point of views of UB and LF but on a common sense standpoint you are failing dude, redeem yoself.
> 
> ...


are you f*cking kidding me. 2 seperate reports. 2 seperate reports. 2 seperate repots. you sound like your liberal butt buddy londonfog.how can you deny being a liberal?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'm right here, waiting on an answer pumpkin


good luck with that...you might have to read naughty things about your mother


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

ok so just so I'm clear, you all are pissed becasue the ooooo on my keyboard sticks and you want to see 2 seperate reports. Thats the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Go judge yourselves you arrogant fucks, cuz I don't care what you think about my keybooard or any of that other shit, you all bitch over the stupidest shit.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> are you f*cking kidding me. 2 seperate reports. 2 seperate reports. 2 seperate repots. you sound like your liberal butt buddy londonfog.how can you deny being a liberal?


I'll google it but you aren't posting a link, you told you that, Fox News? 

And if I'm a supporter of Obama my dick is blue, my ears are long, and I speak Cling-On. 


meanwhile, maybe this will brighten your day 







YUMMY


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> are you f*cking kidding me. 2 seperate reports. 2 seperate reports. 2 seperate repots. you sound like your liberal butt buddy londonfog.how can you deny being a liberal?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> ok so just so I'm clear, you all are pissed becasue the ooooo on my keyboard sticks and you want to see 2 seperate reports. Thats the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Go judge yourselves you arrogant fucks, cuz I don't care what you think about my keybooard or any of that other shit, you all bitch over the stupidest shit.


What are you talking about?? haha


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'll google it but you aren't posting a link, you told you that, Fox News?
> 
> And if I'm a supporter of Obama my dick is blue, my ears are long, and I speak Cling-On.
> 
> ...


no. I don't remember where I heard it, but when I find a source, I'll post it. Besides, my claim doesn't necessarily make dems or rep look bad. If I thought you would all be this pissed and ask me to back up a claim that doesn't attack anybody except the US senate as a general pop.and harry reid. But I really really don't like him. I wasn't even talking shit about your buddy Obama, and never expected everybody to get fired up about it and attack me. Big fuckin deal. you guys want to make a big deal out of some thing small? well then this is how its done 1 on 6. thats my only option. so thats the way its going to be


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> no. I don't remember where I heard it, but when I find a source, I'll post it. Besides, my claim doesn't necessarily make dems or rep look bad. If I thought you would all be this pissed and ask me to back up a claim that doesn't attack anybody except the US senate as a general pop.and harry reid. But I really really don't like him. I wasn't even talking shit about your buddy Obama, and never expected everybody to get fired up about it and attack me. Big fuckin deal. you guys want to make a big deal out of some thing small? well then this is how its done 1 on 6. thats my only option. so thats the way its going to be


Now was that so hard? Well if there is such a poll I'd like to see it, either way even if the spread is 5% our congress is doing horrible as a whole. 

I'm voting Ron Paul this year for good reasons after many hours of researching and looking up policies.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> ok so just so I'm clear, you all are pissed becasue the ooooo on my keyboard sticks and you want to see 2 seperate reports. Thats the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Go judge yourselves you arrogant fucks, cuz I don't care what you think about my keybooard or any of that other shit, you all bitch over the stupidest shit.


I don't think anyones pissed..this has actually been kinda fun...I personally caught you in a lie and you just flew off the handle about it...remember the only way you can learn is to admit error and move forward..not by talking about people and their mothers...


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'll google it but you aren't posting a link, you told you that, Fox News?
> 
> And if I'm a supporter of Obama my dick is blue, my ears are long, and I speak Cling-On.
> 
> ...


what strain is that guy


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Now was that so hard? Well if there is such a poll I'd like to see it, either way even if the spread is 5% our congress is doing horrible as a whole.
> 
> I'm voting Ron Paul this year for good reasons after many hours of researching and looking up policies.


Where I come from, when somebody calls somebody else out, its you that needs to prove the person you are calling out is either a liar, or misinformed. So for instance. It would be on you to prove to me that the house has lower approval ratings than the senate. And thats just the way it is. If Londofag can't do it, then he should just keep his mouth shut..


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I don't think anyones pissed..this has actually been kinda fun...I personally caught you in a lie and you just flew off the handle about it...remember the only way you can learn is to admit error and move forward..not by talking about people and their mothers...


SEE! this is the shit I'm talking about right here. YOU prove to me that the house has a lower approval, until then for you to call me a liar is a mistake. assuming this is real life. you ask me to back shit up you better ask nicely or I'm not going to go digging


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Where I come from, when somebody calls somebody else out, its you that needs to prove the person you are calling out is either a liar, or misinformed. So for instance. It would be on you to prove to me that the house has lower approval ratings than the senate. And thats just the way it is. If Londofag can't do it, then he should just keep his mouth shut..


Sorry don't work that way here...if you say something on RIU political forum you better be able to show proof or you will get called out..helps to stop all the false information and lies...happens to me all the time, in which I always provide a link to where I got the info...


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> SEE! this is the shit I'm talking about right here. YOU prove to me that the house has a lower approval, until then for you to call me a liar is a mistake. assuming this is real life. you ask me to back shit up you better ask nicely or I'm not going to go digging


again its like me saying that Obama will give 1000 dollars a month to everyone who owns a dog...you better want to see proof or you are just as much an idiot as me for spreading false rumors


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Sorry don't work that way here...if you say something on RIU political forum you better be able to show proof or you will get called out..helps to stop all the false information and lies...happens to me all the time, in which I always provide a link to where I got the info...


Bullshit. I've never seen you prove shit. All you do is attack other people, you're full of shit. Why don't you go fuck your mom, before Uncle Buck doubles down


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Bullshit. I've never seen you prove shit. All you do is attack other people, you're full of shit. Why don't you go fuck your mom, before Uncle Buck doubles down


every time you post, a puppy gets hit by a school bus full of children.

please stop. for the sake of the children, just shut the fuck up and go back to conversing with your friends about how the west side of your particular town is far superior to the east side of your particular town.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> again its like me saying that Obama will give 1000 dollars a month to everyone who owns a dog...you better want to see proof or you are just as much an idiot as me for spreading false rumors


You will never see proof when you attack people like a mad liberal. all I'm going to do is come back at you. besides, no ammount of proof in this world will make you see the truth.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> no. I don't remember where I heard it, but when I find a source, I'll post it. Besides, my claim doesn't necessarily make dems or rep look bad. If I thought you would all be this pissed and ask me to back up a claim that doesn't attack anybody except the US senate as a general pop.and harry reid. But I really really don't like him. I wasn't even talking shit about your buddy Obama, and never expected everybody to get fired up about it and attack me. Big fuckin deal. you guys want to make a big deal out of some thing small? well then this is how its done 1 on 6. thats my only option. so thats the way its going to be


And see, ALL my posts to you have stemmed not from the information you posted but simply the way you were treating other members. Nothing more.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> every time you post, a puppy gets hit by a school bus full of children.
> 
> please stop. for the sake of the children, just shut the fuck up and go back to conversing with your friends about how the west side of your particular town is far superior to the east side of your particular town.


i don't get it. I think its meant to be funny, but jsut doesn't make sense, so its noot


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

OK here we go all 5 of you back now? lets do this


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And see, ALL my posts to you have stemmed not from the information you posted but simply the way you were treating other members. Nothing more.


you're a bitch ass liberal. if you don't get you're way in the primaries, you're going to cry and vote for Obama


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> OK here we go all 5 of you back now? lets do this


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> you're a bitch ass liberal. if you don't get you're way in the primaries, you're going to cry and vote for Obama


Honestly we all get testy and its part of give an take

But the truth is you have crossed the line and need to take a time out.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> i don't get it. I think its meant to be funny, but jsut doesn't make sense, so its n(*m*)oot


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> i don't get it. I think its meant to be funny, but jsut doesn't make sense, so its noot


on the real do you suffer from dyslexia


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Honestly we all get testy and its part of give an take
> 
> But the truth is you have crossed the line and need to take a time out.


Wow duke! Just, wow! +rep


----------



## Parker (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


>


maybe you shouldn't respond. what little substance we have in the politics section is becoming harder to find
munch is going a bit overboard imo


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

I would give it back but

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

Munchbox
just chill for a day and come back tommorrow. bring evidence to back up your assertions


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Honestly we all get testy and its part of give an take
> 
> But the truth is you have crossed the line and need to take a time out.


shut the fuck up. The truth is you don't want to debate so anytime you got something to say I'm going to jump all over you fuckers like you liberals team up on me


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Munchbox
> just chill for a day and come back tommorrow. bring evidence to back up your assertions


another bitch that wants to tell me what to do. I'd rather ask joe biden


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> shut the fuck up. The truth is you don't want to debate so anytime you got something to say i'm going to jump all over you fuckers like you liberals team up on me


 
gangrape!!!!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Munchbox
> just chill for a day and come back tommorrow. bring evidence to back up your assertions


why don't you fucking make me seriously? you all tell me what to do but nobody knows how to ask. So guess what? NO!!! f******ck yoooooooooooooou


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> another bitch that wants to tell me what to do. I'd rather ask joe biden


Your eloquent use of the English language would surely win you favor with an educated man such as Mr. Biden. i'm sure of it.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> why don't you fucking make me seriously? you all tell me what to do but nobody knows how to ask. So guess what? NO!!! f******ck yoooooooooooooou


 
Will you please stop insulting our members?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Will you please stop insulting our members?


fine, but this is some bullshit. keep talking a bunch of shit I'm comin back...


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> fine, but this is some bullshit. keep talking a bunch of shit I'm comin back...


All i/we ask is that you attack the issues rather than the people debating said issues.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

I have smoked entirely way too much diesel today to realize noting more than the last 16-20 pages of this tread is a 3some on some unintellectual, uneducated level i cant even begin to try and compreend.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I have smoked entirely way too much diesel today to realize noting more than the last 16-20 pages of this tread is a 3some on some unintellectual, uneducated level i cant even begin to try and compreend.


Just got 2oz dry of SD off of an indoor lady. Still gotta cure now that i'm done drying


----------



## beardo (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I have smoked entirely way too much diesel today to realize noting more than the last 16-20 pages of this tread is a 3some on some unintellectual, uneducated level i cant even begin to try and compreend.


Eventhough some people are ignorant ron Paul fights for their freedom and for their right to life-


----------



## londonfog (Sep 2, 2011)

yeah I'm about to go meet the wife for drinks and dinner...


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

londonfog said:


> yeah I'm about to go meet the wife for drinks and dinner...


Sushi? Hibachi?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Sushi? Hibachi?


OOooohhh! Sushi and tepanyaki!


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> OOooohhh! Sushi and tepanyaki!


Man I wish
We just aint got the budget for it

A really good place here has all you can eat for 23 bucks sun-tues


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Just got 2oz dry of SD off of an indoor lady. Still gotta cure now that i'm done drying


bravo! it is exquisite, mine is nyc x sour diesel been cured for 5-6 weeks! im so ripped with such a pleasant long lasting fuel taste. oh ya! lets get intelligent!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Man I wish
> We just aint got the budget for it
> 
> A really good place here has all you can eat for 23 bucks sun-tues


Yeah, i haven't had any since i got my last giftcard when getting laid off a couple years ago. Still looks good when i drive by it though


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> bravo! it is exquisite, mine is nyc x sour diesel been cured for 5-6 weeks! im so ripped with such a pleasant long lasting fuel taste. oh ya! lets get intelligent!


i've got five of them outdoors right now. Can't wait for the trim and popcorn buds to make tincture and ISO rub as well as a little "oil".


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

i had some spicey californian rolls from my local market recently, not too bad.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i've got five of them outdoors right now. Can't wait for the trim and popcorn buds to make tincture and ISO rub as well as a little "oil".


Shit ya. im sitting on an 1oz 1/2 of dank trim, i was tinking BHO but possibly tincture as well, i want to make cannasoda! do you make the tincture with food grade glycerine?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> i had some spicey californian rolls from my local market recently, not too bad.


Dont like the Spicy ones they kill my appetite


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Shit ya. im sitting on an 1oz 1/2 of dank trim, i was tinking BHO but possibly tincture as well, i want to make cannasoda! do you make the tincture with food grade glycerine?


i've used Bacardi 151 in the past but i plan on glycerine this time around. Mom has been using the ISO rub for arthritis and sciatica but has balked at the alc in my tincture so i'm going to set her up right this time around.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Dont like the Spicy ones they kill my appetite


that is pretty shitty i love spicey food! I drench everything i eat (except sweets) with tapatio!!!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> that is pretty shitty i love spicey food! I drench everything i eat (except sweets) with tapatio!!!


LOL! i USED to! i was the white boy working at the drive in that would eat jalapenos all day long just to make the kids laugh lol.

Now, i am still trying to find out what is causing my severe GI issues


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i've used Bacardi 151 in the past but i plan on glycerine this time around. Mom has been using the ISO rub for arthritis and sciatica but has balked at the alc in my tincture so i'm going to set her up right this time around.


I was recently reaserching and taking the tincture sublingual is like 80-90% absorbtion of THC into te receptors, which is the most effecient! Your talking two to three drops under your tounge and its like you just consumed two to three bowls! now that is what the fuck im talking about!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I was recently reaserching and taking the tincture sublingual is like 80-90% absorbtion of THC into te receptors, which is the most effecient! Your talking two to three drops under your tounge and its like you just consumed two to three bowls! now that is what the fuck im talking about!


i was desperate a couple months ago because of back spasms/pain. i had tears in my eyes. Took a 1oz shot of my tincture and now my wife takes my phone when i medicate with it because i sent pics of my junk to one of her friends lol. Thank GOD it was a guy friend instead of a girl friend but talk about awkward!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i was desperate a couple months ago because of back spasms/pain. i had tears in my eyes. Took a 1oz shot of my tincture and now my wife takes my phone when i medicate with it because i sent pics of my junk to one of her friends lol. Thank GOD it was a guy friend instead of a girl friend but talk about awkward!


lmao. sounds real good!, well, the part where it was strong at least lol


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

Wanna know some shit? I lost 95% of my 5 foot tall White Widow, not to the hurricane but to a freak storm 3 days after the hurricane, snapped it clean off right at the lowest node, that was going to be at least a 4 oz plant, not all I have is the one medium sized branch that wasn't effect by the break and a couple small branches at the bottom. 

Yeah that sucks right?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Wanna know some shit? I lost 95% of my 5 foot tall White Widow, not to the hurricane but to a freak storm 3 days after the hurricane, snapped it clean off right at the lowest node, that was going to be at least a 4 oz plant, not all I have is the one medium sized branch that wasn't effect by the break and a couple small branches at the bottom.
> 
> Yeah that sucks right?


That more than sucks man, my buddy just lost his only outdoor plant to a predator. Hopefully that wasnt your only plant though? right?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Wanna know some shit? I lost 95% of my 5 foot tall White Widow, not to the hurricane but to a freak storm 3 days after the hurricane, snapped it clean off right at the lowest node, that was going to be at least a 4 oz plant, not all I have is the one medium sized branch that wasn't effect by the break and a couple small branches at the bottom.
> 
> Yeah that sucks right?


Damn!!!!!!


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> That more than sucks man, my buddy just lost his only outdoor plant to a predator. Hopefully that wasnt your only plant though? right?


It was my only White Widow, I have 3 Arjan's Haze #1, 2 White Rhinos and 2 autofloering freebies from Attitude going at it, I just really want to be able to have a couple nice zips of WW, plus the plant was SUPER healthy, green as green can get. Ohh It was such a heart breaker.

And when you consider than an ounce of sub par headies goes for $400 loosing a plant worth close to 4 or 5 ounces is like loosing $1500 - $2000, and being as this was WW it would probably go for more like $450/z


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> It was my only White Widow, I have 3 Arjan's Haze #1, 2 White Rhinos and 2 autofloering freebies from Attitude going at it, I just really want to be able to have a couple nice zips of WW, plus the plant was SUPER healthy, green as green can get. Ohh It was such a heart breaker.
> 
> And when you consider than an ounce of sub par headies goes for $400 loosing a plant worth close to 4 or 5 ounces is like loosing $1500 - $2000, and being as this was WW it would probably go for more like $450/z


i just pulled 6 oz off a diesel that was less than 3' tall and this was indoor under1000w, and diesel is suppose to be a medium yeild strain, if your WW was 5' chances are it could and should have yeilded close to a pound if not more. Not to rub it in but it should have been more than 4oz.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> i just pulled 6 oz off a diesel that was less than 3' tall and this was indoor under1000w, and diesel is suppose to be a medium yeild strain, if your WW was 5' chances are it could and should have yeilded close to a pound if not more. Not to rub it in but it should have been more than 4oz.


ouch, I was just shooting low because I like to be surprised, but damn. I am thinking I'm going to pull on of the smaller branches off and clone it, run it inside on my 250w HPS.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> ouch, I was just shooting low because I like to be surprised, but damn. I am thinking I'm going to pull on of the smaller branches off and clone it, run it inside on my 250w HPS.


Yea i like to low ball my self and get all suprised too. I got a pound off 3 plants 7 gal pots 1000w light. all plants were less than 3'.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

Yeah man clone that shit!!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

A border patrol agent was killed by one of the guns the US gave to Mexicans in the fast and furious program to fight off the cartel. Fox News says the white house has been covering it up, but still too soon to tell whos been covering up what


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> A border patrol agent was killed by one of the guns the US gave to Mexicans in the fast and furious program to fight off the cartel. Fox News says the white house has been covering it up, but still too soon to tell whos been covering up what


The head of ATF stepped down as well. The ATF is corrupt look at waco and ruby ridge.


----------



## beardo (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> A border patrol agent was killed by one of the guns the US gave to Mexicans in the fast and furious program to fight off the cartel. Fox News says the white house has been covering it up, but still too soon to tell whos been covering up what


They had to shut down the schools in Alcoploco because the teachers are scared and people are getting kidnapped and killed they're chopping off peoples heads- and we're supposed to be worried about libya and syria?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 2, 2011)

beardo said:


> They had to shut down the schools in Alcoploco because the teachers are scared and people are getting kidnapped and killed they're chopping off peoples heads- and we're supposed to be worried about libya and syria?


Are they doing it here?
Is this were you imply that Illegals will start chopping heads of americans here in the states?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

*Rep. Paul: Days of Unlimited Spending Have Ended*


http://video.foxnews.com/v/1141076849001/rep-paul-days-of-unlimited-spending-have-ended/?playlist_id=86858


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

I noticed fox news cuts off ron paul in the middle of thier interviews like they got more important shit to go do...


----------



## WillyBagseed (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I noticed fox news cuts off ron paul in the middle of thier interviews like they got more important shit to go do...


It is Faux News, they do have more important shit to do........ lol


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> I noticed fox news cuts off ron paul in the middle of thier interviews like they got more important shit to go do...


it's ron paul, they DO have more important shit to go do.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Al Gore's dad is a racist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EJB_r4cXM


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> it's ron paul, they DO have more important shit to go do.


 yea! fuck freedom!


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> yea! fuck freedom!


i'm free right now.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm free right now.


Sorry but voting soetoro is voting for tyranny.


----------



## beardo (Sep 2, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6209343 said:


> It is Faux News, they do have more important shit to do........ lol


The CFR that controlls the media doesn't want Ron Paul on the news to much because he speaks the truth- and that is not what they are trying to have on peoples minds


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Sorry but voting soetoro is voting for tyranny.


where did i say anything about voting for anyone?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> where did i say anything about voting for anyone?


 Because its quite clear you dont support Paul so therefore you support tyranny, its simple stuff.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Because its quite clear you dont support Paul so therefore you support tyranny, its simple stuff.


you are making assumptions. 

you support ron paul so you are a traitor to this country.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

It was so predictable. Solyndra, a San Francisco based solar panel company that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government, has declared bankruptcy. Last year President Obama touted the company as &#8220;leading the way&#8221; in the green jobs future he envisions.
Just a few months ago, ABC News revealed that one of the major financial backers for Solyndra is also a major donor to the Obama campaign.
The donor, Steve Westley, has subsequently been named to the President&#8217;s Energy Advisory Board. Solyndra was supposed to have produced 4,000 jobs with the loan guarantee. Now all of the company&#8217;s employees have been laid-off. Mr. Westley is still on the advisory board.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> you are making assumptions.
> 
> you support ron paul so you are a trader to this country.


 Bah haha ok, very funny.
I'm not making assumptions, ill make it real easy for you.
There are only two choices.
1. Ron Paul. (freedom)
2. Status quo. (tyranny)
I'm gonna pull an uncle buck and say trader? trader of goods? trader joes?
oooohh, you mean traitor?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

ron paul, or YOU SUCK. 

heard this all 4 years ago. it won't be over soon enough. 



i'm holding out for PALIN.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Bah haha ok, very funny.
> I'm not making assumptions, ill make it real easy for you.
> There are only two choices.
> 1. Ron Paul. (freedom)
> ...



you missed the part where "i'm already free". 


ron paul will feed on YOUR FEARS. 


oops, i made a spelling error. i fixed it, thanks.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul, or YOU SUCK.
> 
> heard this all 4 years ago. it won't be over soon enough.
> 
> ...


 you're nothing but a trader. LULZ


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> you're nothing but a trader. LULZ


and you're a ron paul *fan*atic. 



LOL


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> and you're a ron paul *fan*atic.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL


 Why thank you.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

At least one can be admired for being fanatical about freedom.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> At least one can be admired for being fanatical about freedom.


is there a republican candidate we should look out for? one that wants to take away our freedom?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> is there a republican candidate we should look out for? one that wants to take away our freedom?


you kinda have to be paranoid to be a ron paul supporter. otherwise it just doesn't work.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> is there a republican candidate we should look out for? one that wants to take away our freedom?


 Like Dr.Paul's stance.
They are all the status quo.
The only reason other Republicans are even bringing up the fed reserve is because of wise man Paul.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> you kinda have to be paranoid to be a ron paul supporter. otherwise it just doesn't work.


 hmm, i don't see your point. care to elaborate?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul, or YOU SUCK.
> 
> heard this all 4 years ago. it won't be over soon enough.
> 
> ...


 Also i didnt even know who he was in 08'.
many didn't know who he was.
2012 is a whole lot different.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Also i didnt even know who he was in 08'.
> many didn't know who he was.
> 2012 is a whole lot different.



BAwahahhahahahahahhahahaha


stick with that.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Al Gore's dad voted against the Civil Rights Act. And also Al Gore is a racist


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Al Gore's dad voted against the Civil Rights Act. And also Al Gore is a racist


 Yea you hear al with the latest about all global warming deniers should be looked at as this generations racists?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yea you hear al with the latest about all global warming deniers should be looked at as this generations racists?


now that the climate change hoax has been exposed, what is Algore going to do? He has made the leap. He has made the leap to discredited, crackpot, overpopulation theories. It is amazing. "In an appearance Monday in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution. He offered some ideas about what might be done for [women] in the name of stabilizing population growth. 'One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,' Gore said. 

"'You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children.'" He has acknowledged that he has no interest, no intention of controlling any sexual urges, so women better be prepared to deal with guys like him -- and they better be able to have access to abortion or what have you. There's much more to this. This is descent, folks, into inanity. Algore is doing Paul Ehrlich now: Overpopulation. The key is women. Women must be made to do the right thing, in order to save the planet.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

ron who?


LULZ


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> now that the climate change hoax has been exposed, what is Algore going to do? He has made the leap. He has made the leap to discredited, crackpot, overpopulation theories. It is amazing. "In an appearance Monday in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution. He offered some ideas about what might be done for [women] in the name of stabilizing population growth. 'One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,' Gore said.
> 
> "'You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children.'" He has acknowledged that he has no interest, no intention of controlling any sexual urges, so women better be prepared to deal with guys like him -- and they better be able to have access to abortion or what have you. There's much more to this. This is descent, folks, into inanity. Algore is doing Paul Ehrlich now: Overpopulation. The key is women. Women must be made to do the right thing, in order to save the planet.


the guy is such a piece of shit.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

> ron who?
> 
> 
> LULZ


 i voted nader.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

Not to mention the issues paul was injecting were not being studied very hard.
since then much has changed and people are starting to listen.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yea you hear al with the latest about all global warming deniers should be looked at as this generations racists?


obviously, you don't know what a simile is.

fluoride.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> obviously, you don't know what a simile is.
> 
> fluoride.


 errrrrrrr! wrong! try again! Wait no, you're done. No more tries for you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

ron paul raised $28~ million last time around.

he got 40,000~ votes.

$700 per vote 

0.00032% of those who voted.

apparently, i'm not alone in thinking that this time will be different.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> errrrrrrr! wrong! try again! Wait no, you're done. No more tries for you.


why would i listen to you?

you don't even now that august 4, 2002 came AFTER september 14th, 2001.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> why would i listen to you?
> 
> you don't even now that august 4, 2002 came AFTER september 14th, 2001.


he didn't even know who ron paul was 4 years ago, but he voted nader. 


i've been trolled.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yea you hear al with the latest about all global warming deniers should be looked at as this generations racists?


the word racist is too powerful of a word to be using in a simile.Al Gore wants to try and distance himself from his father. he doesn't want people to see his true core beliefs and racist bigotry. so al gore uncle buck and dukeanthony go around calling other people racist instead. Its insecurity combined with ego


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> he didn't even know who ron paul was 4 years ago, but he voted nader.
> 
> 
> i've been trolled.


i don't know, i have my doubts.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> the word racist is too powerful of a word to be using in a simile.Al Gore wants to try and distance himself from his father. he doesn't want people to see his true core beliefs and racist bigotry. so al gore uncle buck and dukeanthony go around calling other people racist instead. Its insecurity combined with ego


the simile police?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

LIAR! its not a simile. its the same rederick thats been coming out of the congressional black caucus. 





Rep. Andre Carson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus leadership, said Tea Party-aligned lawmakers view blacks as "second-class citizens" and would like to see African Americans "hanging on a tree."

The Indiana Democrat, speaking at a recent caucus event in Miami, charged that the Tea Party is working through its allies in Congress to block economic opportunities for blacks and other minorities."This is the effort that we're seeing of Jim Crow," said Carson, the caucus' whip or chief vote counter.

"Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens," he said. "Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree."


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 2, 2011)

I will be voting for Ron Paul.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

VTXDave said:


> I will be voting for Ron Paul.


that is fine with me, since you can put dates in chronological order.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

*Unclebuck's hero *



[youtube]sCJEf1fNMMQ[/youtube]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)




----------



## VTXDave (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that is fine with me, since you can put dates in chronological order.


 Thanks UB. At 51, the Alzheimer's hasn't set in yet, so I think I'm "good to go" there...at least for a few more years...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

*ManBearPig!*
[youtube]0VgdYJWdhRw[/youtube]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

*Al Gore the globalist whore.*
[youtube]fooYtalS9Gc&feature=related[/youtube]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

*Just one of thousands of debunkings.
[youtube]YugWzYdgedY[/youtube]*


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Al Gore and Andre Carson are both full of shit. People are called racist for the stupidest reasons that make absolutely no sense at all. WTF is wrong with people?


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Job growth for the month of August is 0. thats zero. a big goose egg. hasn't happened since 1945


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> Job growth for the month of August is 0. thats zero. a big goose egg. hasn't happened since 1945


true story ..


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged (0% change) in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent. The last time this occurred was in World War II (1945).

Employment in most major industries changed little over the month. Health care continued to add jobs, and a decline in information employment reflected a strike. Government employment continued to trend down, despite the return of workers from a partial government shutdown in Minnesota.

The number of unemployed persons, at 14.0 million, was essentially unchanged in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent. The rate has shown little change since April.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.9 percent), adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (25.4 percent), whites (8.0 percent), blacks (16.7 percent), and Hispanics (11.3 percent) showed little or no change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.1 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was about unchanged at 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the unemployed.

The labor force rose to 153.6 million in August. Both the civilian labor force participation rate, at 64.0 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 58.2 percent, were little changed.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.4 million to 8.8 million in August. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

About 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in August, up from 2.4 million a year earlier. These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 977,000 discouraged workers in August, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.6 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in August had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

So basically Obama's economy is starting to look like world war II


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged (0% change) in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent. The last time this occurred was in World War II (1945).
> 
> Employment in most major industries changed little over the month. Health care continued to add jobs, and a decline in information employment reflected a strike. Government employment continued to trend down, despite the return of workers from a partial government shutdown in Minnesota.
> 
> ...


Yet according the mame our economy is fine, and bendbrewer said it's actually recovering. Right... 

It's still Bushes fault I'm sure... 

This report only reaffirms that basically everyone is office at the Federal level is failing, and yes I mean Obama too.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Yet according the mame our economy is fine, and bendbrewer said it's actually recovering. Right...
> 
> It's still Bushes fault I'm sure...
> 
> This report only reaffirms that basically everyone is office at the Federal level is failing, and yes I mean Obama too.


 with an emphasis on soetoro!


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Solyndra was promised loans of up to $535 million under a guarantee program authorized by Congress as part of the 2009 stimulus package. The Energy Department has made more than 40 promises of guarantees, of which Solyndra was the first. It has committed $18 billion in guarantees and expects to allocate several billion dollars more by the time the program finishes at the end of September.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> with an emphasis on soetoro!


it is obama's fault that you sit on the computer all day trying to start a revolution while collecting unemployment instead of looking for a job?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it is obama's fault that you sit on the computer all day trying to start a revolution while collecting unemployment instead of looking for a job?


 *You just have period cramps!*


----------



## Parker (Sep 2, 2011)

munch box said:


> shut the fuck up. The truth is you don't want to debate so anytime you got something to say I'm going to jump all over you fuckers like you liberals team up on me


a liberal? I hope you get seeds in your next bag


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 2, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> it is obama's fault that you sit on the computer all day trying to start a revolution while collecting unemployment instead of looking for a job?


 *We hav**e been over this bu**ck.
I didn't take my job away or any of the rest of the people who are unemployed.
Because i had to be subjected to collect unemployment i somehow collect now still?
Because i jump on my favorite .org from time to time and share words of wisdom i sit on my computer all day?
No, i get it, yo**u rode the short bus*.


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Ron Paul did not support the funding of Solyndra, in fact has warned that passing the stimulus package would be akin to pouring kerosene on an already raging fire.
Paul, who is also a member of the House Financial Services Committee, warned that such measures will cause a recession to turn into a full scale depression possibly worse than that of the 1930s.
During a Television interview with CNN, Paul explained why he believes stimulus funding is such a destructive policy.
&#8220;It&#8217;s because the government is spending it. If the people were spending it it would be fine, but the government never does anything productive. They have to take money from productive individuals and spend it in non productive ways, so it&#8217;s just digging a bigger hole, getting us into bigger debt, and that is the problem.&#8221; Paul said.
&#8220;This stimulus package is going to cost each and every American $6700 of more debt, so how can that be beneficial? If debt was the answer we would of never had a problem.&#8221;
&#8220;We are doing exactly what we did in the 1930s, we are taking a recession and working very hard to try and turn it into a depression.&#8221; The Congressman added.
&#8220;What we&#8217;re worried about right now, well certainly I am, is that it&#8217;s worse than the 30&#8217;s because we&#8217;re on the verge of destroying the dollar. So if you think the financial crisis is bad, and the financial system isn&#8217;t working, wait &#8217;til you find out when the Dollar doesn&#8217;t work.&#8221;​


----------



## munch box (Sep 2, 2011)

Parker said:


> a liberal? I hope you get seeds in your next bag


me too. attitude better hook it up this time


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 2, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *We hav**e been over this bu**ck.
> I didn't take my job away or any of the rest of the people who are unemployed.
> Because i had to be subjected to collect unemployment i somehow collect now still?
> Because i jump on my favorite .org from time to time and share words of wisdom i sit on my computer all day?
> No, i get it, yo**u rode the short bus*.


you were "subjected to" unemployment?

nope. you have to APPLY for unemployment. AND look for work.

you CHOSE to collect unemployment.

and you have not yet denied that you STILL do.

that tells me a lot.


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you were "subjected to" unemployment?
> 
> nope. you have to APPLY for unemployment. AND look for work.
> 
> ...


What has that guy done to you personally, to make you ride him so hard like this? So hes having a touph time finding a job. Big deal so are a lot of people, like 14 million........ Or Maybe he could go apply for a job at Solyndra. Obama says he sees a lot of potential in that company. So if hes lucky, he'll have a job till October


----------



## deprave (Sep 3, 2011)

Ron Paul on Cavuto About Fema again
[video=youtube;slJzdhJNSKI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slJzdhJNSKI[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you were "subjected to" unemployment?
> 
> nope. you have to APPLY for unemployment. AND look for work.
> 
> ...


No somehow you find morale high ground making fun of the millions of americans unemployed.Further more i was subjected to it. Never once did i ever have to collect untill recently, what a great american you are.


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

Philip Klein: &#8220;No president since Harry Truman has been reelected with approval ratings this low, this late into his first term.&#8221;
 
(LA Times) &#8211;President Obama&#8217;s summer woes have dragged his approval rating to an all-time low, *sinking below 40% for the* *first time* in Gallup&#8217;s daily tracking poll.
New data posted Sunday shows that 39% of Americans approve of Obama&#8217;s job performance, while 54% disapprove. Both are the *worst numbers* of his presidency.
​


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

yep, i don't approve of obama's constant caving to republicans' demands. 

and he's really held himself up by not really demonstrating specifics as to how republicans on one side are against job creating policies, while asking for money to put those policies into practice in the back.

he's doing a good job of leading though.


----------



## Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> Ron Paul did not support the funding of Solyndra, in fact has warned that passing the stimulus package would be akin to pouring kerosene on an already raging fire.
> Paul, who is also a member of the House Financial Services Committee, warned that such measures will cause a recession to turn into a full scale depression possibly worse than that of the 1930s.
> During a Television interview with CNN, Paul explained why he believes stimulus funding is such a destructive policy.
> Its because the government is spending it. If the people were spending it it would be fine, but the government never does anything productive. They have to take money from productive individuals and spend it in non productive ways, so its just digging a bigger hole, getting us into bigger debt, and that is the problem. Paul said.
> ...


The benevolent ones who we allow to run our lives do not have our best interests in mind. Otherwise why repeat failed policies? I understand the ones who benefit directly (like bankers) would like the manipulation. I don't understand how the average person in the general population thinks they will benefit from any government manipulation in the long run.


----------



## Parker (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you were "subjected to" unemployment?
> nope. you have to APPLY for unemployment. AND look for work.
> you CHOSE to collect unemployment.
> and you have not yet denied that you STILL do.
> that tells me a lot.


He was forced to pay into the system. That's his money, of course he should get it back.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

Parker said:


> He was forced to pay into the system. That's his money, of course he should get it back.


 Thank you, i tried explaining it to the short bus rider, but his comprehension skills obviously lack. +rep


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 3, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> he didn't even know who ron paul was 4 years ago, but he voted nader.
> 
> 
> i've been trolled.


I knew his name but had never seen him on TV til 4 years ago. It wasn't until the republican debates of the last election that I actually heard him speak. It might of been the one where Rudy Giuliani got owned by Ron Paul. 

[video=youtube;KuX73Ixqtbg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg&feature=player_embedded[/video]

After that I actually started paying attention to him. The more I read about him, the more I heard him talk, the more I realized he was one of the few honest people I had ever seen on TV. He is even willing to put his personal convictions aside and uphold the Constitution as the laws everyone should live by. The only thing I ever really heard and disagreed with him about was abortion. I really didn't agree that abortion should be outlawed. I agree that it was morally wrong, but I think that women do have a right to their body. Then I actually looked up his positions on it and listened to him speak about it, like in this one where he talks about witnessing an abortion (1:55 in the video):
[video=youtube;FGyBUKMffaA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGyBUKMffaA[/video]

Or in this one, where he talks about it to the house or senate.

[video=youtube;Lg22y0mS7t4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg22y0mS7t4&feature=player_detailpage#t=154s[/video]

After hearing Ron Paul speak, and understanding his side. I can understand his position on it, I would never want a sexual partner of mine to have an abortion, except possibly if the baby had something horribly wrong with it or she had a high chance of dying.

So here was something I felt strongly about, and the politician that most closely mirrored my own beliefs was my polar opposite. I really had to question him and try to understand how someone who was 100% liberty and freedom could then go and believe in restricting someone's life or their body.

I am not catholic, and I don't think that condoms are a sin, I strongly support people using birth control, I think the morning after pill should be a lot easier to get, and I think Abortions up to a 
certain point are a persons choice. However, at what point is a baby a baby? Is it when it cries and breaths? Is it when you deliver it? Babies have been born and lived before 22 weeks. Once a baby is a baby and not just a pile of cum in a woman's stomach aborting it becomes murder. Murder is illegal per the Constitution. If the baby has a chance of living on its own, then it is murder to kill it. 

The realization that he is against letting people murder babies and not against abortion as an act made more sense. While I may not be 100% in agreement with Ron Paul about when a baby is a baby, I respect the fact that he thinks the federal government should not be legislating morality due to our constitution. He wants to leave it up to the states to decide, which makes a lot of sense. Our country is not a whole. It is 50 individual states with different beliefs and people. Ron Paul is so enamored with the Constitution that he votes against things he believes in because they are unconstitutional. 

The realization of all that took away the one reservation I had of Dr Ron Paul. In four years, this man has become the only politician in my lifetime who I honestly could love, or even like for that matter. I love Ron Paul as if he were my family. I would probably cry if I ever get the chance to meet him. He is unparalleled in his defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the people of the United States of America. He is a shining example of what a man could and should be. Even if he does not win, he has taught me something, and renewed my faith in humanity.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you were "subjected to" unemployment?
> 
> nope. you have to APPLY for unemployment. AND look for work.
> 
> you CHOSE to collect unemployment.


Yeah, most everyone unemployed chose to end of that way, we choose to not work and sit at home doing nothing. Right. 
Hey, what about you? You on this forum basically 24/7, where's you job? If you have one and are constantly browsing the politics forum of a pot growing website obviously it's not much of a job. 
What's your retort to that? 

And yes I'm on a lot too, I'm an unemployed full time student, unemployment rate for my demographic group is higher than the national average, I don't collect unemployment though, I refuse to milk the failing system even if I'll be paying for it in the long run anyways. Fuck this sytem your prefer to defend, it's completely flawed.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 3, 2011)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Carthoris again.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 3, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Carthoris again.


 Thanks for the attempt.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

i KNOW what Ron Paul would say to this.

http://offgridsurvival.com/livingoffthegridcrime/


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i KNOW what Ron Paul would say to this.
> 
> http://offgridsurvival.com/livingoffthegridcrime/


I say thats total Bullshit hassling people like that


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> No somehow you find morale high ground making fun of the millions of americans unemployed.Further more i was subjected to it. Never once did i ever have to collect untill recently, what a great american you are.


again, you have to apply for unemployment. they do not automatically start sending you checks in the mail.

you have to make a decision that you want to receive those checks.

so don't tell me you were "subjected to" unemployment, because you have to choose to subject yourself to unemployment.

when you try to make yourself out to be a victim you just end up making yourself look more pathetic.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

Parker said:


> He was forced to pay into the system. That's his money, of course he should get it back.


i agree.

but he was never forced to collect, or as he puts it "subjected to" unemployment. that was his choice.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Yeah, most everyone unemployed chose to end of that way, we choose to not work and sit at home doing nothing. Right.
> Hey, what about you? You on this forum basically 24/7, where's you job? If you have one and are constantly browsing the politics forum of a pot growing website obviously it's not much of a job.
> What's your retort to that?
> 
> And yes I'm on a lot too, I'm an unemployed full time student, unemployment rate for my demographic group is higher than the national average, I don't collect unemployment though, I refuse to milk the failing system even if I'll be paying for it in the long run anyways. Fuck this sytem your prefer to defend, it's completely flawed.


i grow plants with pretty flowers 

i didn't say he chose to be unemployed, i said he chose to collect unemployment checks.

and then sit there on the computer all day instead of looking for a job. 

and try to start revolutions against the very people sending him his checks.


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i agree.
> 
> but he was never forced to collect, or as he puts it "subjected to" unemployment. that was his choice.


"subjected to" means he got laid off. how come everybody always needs to retype it special just for you?


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

Why has Obama been fuckin around at Martha's Vinyard all this time? We should have heard this jobs speach months ago. America's problems seem to interfere with his vacations and fundraising.


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

Obama's jobs plan seems to interfere with the republican debate, so it MUST be moved.... lol


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> again, you have to apply for unemployment. they do not automatically start sending you checks in the mail.
> 
> you have to make a decision that you want to receive those checks.
> 
> ...


So why can i not choose to "unsubject" myself in the beginning by not paying into unemployment?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> I say thats total Bullshit hassling people like that


These poor people are costing nobody anything, harming nobody, and just keeping to themselves. My ideal lifestyle actually (well, mountains, not desert).


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *We hav**e been over this bu**ck.
> I didn't take my job away or any of the rest of the people who are unemployed.
> Because i had to be subjected to collect unemployment i somehow collect now still?
> Because i jump on my favorite .org from time to time and share words of wisdom i sit on my computer all day?
> No, i get it, yo**u rode the short bus*.





munch box said:


> "subjected to" means he got laid off. how come everybody always needs to retype it special just for you?


he wasn't "subjected to" unemployment, in his own words.

in his own words, he was "subjected to" collecting unemployment, which is flatly false. you have to file for unemployment, you can choose not to collect it.

the dude has a persecution complex and likes to lie, and you like defending it. enablers abound.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So why can i not choose to "unsubject" myself in the beginning by not paying into unemployment?


you can. abscond to the woods, move to somalia. you chose not to do so.


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you can. abscond to the woods, move to somalia. you chose not to do so.


you didn't answer the question... try again


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> you didn't answer the question... try again


he wanted to know how to avoid paying into UI, i gave him two options.

what are your answers?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you can. abscond to the woods, move to somalia. you chose not to do so.


You can't go to the woods or the desert. http://offgridsurvival.com/livingoffthegridcrime/

As for moving out of country, believe me..... it's been discussed seriously a time or two. But i was born an American and would like to stay and make this a better place.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> Obama's jobs plan seems to interfere with the republican debate, so it MUST be moved.... lol



The Sept.7 debate has been scheduled since long before Obama ever tried to plan his job's speech on Sept 7. Fact. 

The question is, did he do it for political points or was he that ignorant that he planned it then with no knowledge of the debate? 

I'll leave it to you to choose.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> So why can i not choose to "unsubject" myself in the beginning by not paying into unemployment?


how do you pay into unemployment..I think only two states that take money out for of employees for unemployment NJ and PA...unless you are an employer then how are you paying into it


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> how do you pay into unemployment..I think only two states that take money out for of employees for unemployment NJ and PA...unless you are an employer then how are you paying into it


not to the state. the feds take it out. either right then on the check, or you can pay them at the end of the year.


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

um, unemployment?? it's called FUTA and SUTA taxes taken out of payroll taxes if you are an employee. if you are paid by contract you pay the unemployment taxes in quaterly filings you must complete.

and the employer matches the employees payroll taxes. 

was that an answer anybody was looking for??


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> not to the state. the feds take it out. either right then on the check, or you can pay them at the end of the year.


wrong..only two states take money out for UI from the employee...the rest of the states the Employer pays for it


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> um, unemployment?? it's called FUTA and SUTA taxes taken out of payroll taxes if you are an employee. if you are paid by contract you pay the unemployment taxes in quaterly filings you must complete.
> 
> and the employer matches the employees payroll taxes.
> 
> was that an answer anybody was looking for??


again wrong
Most *employers* pay both a Federal and a state unemployment tax. 
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=104985,00.html


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> wrong..only two states take money out for UI from the employee...the rest of the states the Employer pays for it


I know. thats what I said. the feds take it out. When I've claimed partial unemployment in the past, there is a box if Icheck it the feds take out 30$ from my check. If I don't check the box the feds take the money out at the end of the year. And my boss says he doesn't pay dollar for dollar. his share is less...


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> I know. thats what I said. the feds take it out. When I've claimed partial unemployment in the past, there is a box if Icheck it the feds take out 30$ from my check. If I don't check the box the feds take the money out at the end of the year. And my boss says he doesn't pay dollar for dollar. his share is less...


Dude you as an EMPLOYEE do not pay UI at all..that is done by your EMPLOYER..you leave in Cali..only two states make EMPLOYEE pay for UI..PA and NJ


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

sorry bud, but i am not wrong.

the amount of payroll taxes the employer pays matches the employees.

for ex. 

if FUTA and SUTA taxes equal 8%. there are no other payroll taxes.

Company A has 3 emloyees and each make a salary of 100. 

THen employee Ramon takes home 92 dollars and 8 are withheld as payroll tax.

Juan Takes home 92 and 8 are with held.

Julio takes home 92 and 8 are with held.

At the end of the month the employer has to pay 48 in payroll taxes. 24 which he withheld from his employees and 24 which he matches.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> sorry bud, but i am not wrong.
> 
> the amount of payroll taxes the employer pays matches the employees.
> 
> ...


 
i will ask my wife for specifics when she gets home. She is an HR manager here in Cali.

It has been my understanding based on conversations with my employers and their accountants that you are correct, 50/50.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> sorry bud, but i am not wrong.
> 
> the amount of payroll taxes the employer pays matches the employees.
> 
> ...


Please show me a link ...I will provide two for you that says otherwise

*SUTA is paid by an employer* and is added to a fund that can be used by a qualifying employee in the event she is unemployed. The tax is determined by taxing a percentage of a worker's salary that is capped at a certain annual pay level. While most employers consider SUTA a tax, it was originally considered a type of insurance http://www.ehow.com/about_5038114_suta-tax_.html



The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), with state unemployment systems, provides for payments of unemployment compensation to workers who have lost their jobs. Most employers pay both a Federal and a state unemployment tax. A list of state unemployment tax agencies, including addresses and phone numbers, is available in Publication 926, Household Employer's Tax Guide. *Only the employer pays FUTA tax; it is not deducted from the employee's wages*. For more information, refer to the Instructions for Form 940 (PDF). 
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=104985,00.html

your turn


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i will ask my wife for specifics when she gets home. She is an HR manager here in Cali.
> 
> It has been my understanding based on conversations with my employers and their accountants that you are correct, 50/50.


if these companies are taking money out of the EMPLOYEES checks they are doing something illegal..they cannot and should not be doing this...trust me guys on this one

*Unemployment Insurance (UI)* is paid by employers. http://www.taxes.ca.gov/Payroll_Tax/doingbus1.shtml#Payroll


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> if these companies are taking money out of the EMPLOYEES checks they are doing something illegal..they cannot and should not be doing this...trust me guys on this one
> 
> *Unemployment Insurance (UI)* is paid by employers. http://www.taxes.ca.gov/Payroll_Tax/doingbus1.shtml#Payroll


My wife just returned and confirmed you right london, for Cali at least. Props man.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> My wife just returned and confirmed you right london, for Cali at least. Props man.


thanks..as an employer I had to find all this shit out...I would love to have my employees pay for their UI but I would lose my business doing such illegal actions


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> thanks..as an employer I had to find all this shit out...I would love to have my employees pay for their UI but I would lose my business doing such illegal actions


Need a hard-working employee?  Might have issues with a pre-employment test though


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Need a hard-working employee?  Might have issues with a pre-employment test though


no piss test here.Hell I would have to fire me...lol only if you get hurt on the job.. I do have to do background checks now...had a thief in my mist and would have found it had I did it prior...now I take no chances...cost 127 dollars everytime too


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

well i don't know now b/c i know the rates were lowered temporarily and what not.

but that's how they taught me how to account for payroll taxes in intermediate accounting when i was in college... all the way back in 2005... lol..


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> well i don't know now b/c i know the rates were lowered temporarily and what not.
> 
> but that's how they taught me how to account for payroll taxes in intermediate accounting when i was in college... all the way back in 2005... lol..


we talking specifically about Unemployment insurance..payroll taxes could be FICA and SECA and such..not UI


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

there's states that have something called FUTA, which is the federal unemployment tax act... then there's what we called SUTA, which is state unemployment, which i guess some states have, some don't.... this is all now coming back to me.. i hated these journal entries... lol...

FICA is social security n medicare i believe...


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> there's states that have something called FUTA, which is the federal unemployment tax act... then there's what we called SUTA, which is state unemployment, which i guess some states have, some don't.... this is all now coming back to me.. i hated these journal entries... lol...
> 
> FICA is social security n medicare i believe...


right but FUTA AND SUTA are paid by the employer both help cover the cost of UI...now NJ and PA are the only state that do take money out from the employee check to help cover UI cost, but those states are not very business friendly


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

but i have unemployment taxes taken out of my paycheck every stub. and i live in 'the south' where it IS business friendly..... 

well, now that i look at it it's not too specific... it just says Federal Withholding, SS, Medicare.... so i guess something changed with payroll taxes from when i went to school and now....

GAWDANGIT...gonna have to go back to school...


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> but i have unemployment taxes taken out of my paycheck every stub. and i live in 'the south' where it IS business friendly.....
> 
> well, now that i look at it it's not too specific... it just says Federal Withholding, SS, Medicare.... so i guess something changed with payroll taxes from when i went to school and now....
> 
> GAWDANGIT...gonna have to go back to school...


lol..trust they are not taking Unemployement tax out of your check..your employer is footing that bill


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> wrong..only two states take money out for UI from the employee...the rest of the states the Employer pays for it


Some people don't 'pay' for their health insurance from their employers either. However, they are still paying for it. Benefits, whether health, dental, disability, unemployment or other are essentially part of the pay that employees receive. Whether it shows up on your check stub like social security, or reduces the amount you would make to begin with it is still payed for by the employee. 

Also, if the employers payed for all the unemployment, then why did our deficit increase by billions to cover unemployment?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Some people don't 'pay' for their health insurance from their employers either. However, they are still paying for it. Benefits, whether health, dental, disability, unemployment or other are essentially part of the pay that employees receive. Whether it shows up on your check stub like social security, or reduces the amount you would make to begin with it is still payed for by the employee.
> 
> Also, if the employers payed for all the unemployment, then why did our deficit increase by billions to cover unemployment?


You just stated what i was trying to figure out how to. Thanks.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Some people don't 'pay' for their health insurance from their employers either. However, they are still paying for it. Benefits, whether health, dental, disability, unemployment or other are essentially part of the pay that employees receive. Whether it shows up on your check stub like social security, or reduces the amount you would make to begin with it is still payed for by the employee.
> 
> Also, if the employers payed for all the unemployment, then why did our deficit increase by billions to cover unemployment?


you get paid what you agree to work for...look at your pay stub and tell me which tax is covering UI..tell me the name of it.... and since we now have so many people unemployed the Federal Gov. now has to kick in dough to cover what the employer does not


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you get paid what you agree to work for...look at your pay stub and tell me which tax is covering UI..tell me the name of it and since we now have so many people unemployed the Federal Gov. now has to kick in dough to cover what the employer does not


If you didn't have to pay UI for your employees, would you pay them more and how much if so?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i grow plants with pretty flowers
> 
> i didn't say he chose to be unemployed, i said he chose to collect unemployment checks.
> 
> ...


 *no you sit on the computer all day.
Lets see you joined 2010 i joined 2008 you have thousands of more posts than i.
You rode the short bus i get it. You are the one with proof you sit on the computer all day. Once again you fail miserably.
Of course i will collect my money, its through me my job and my state, retard!*


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> no you sit on the computer all say.
> Lets see you joined 2010 i joined 2008 you have thousands of more posts than i.
> You rode the short bus i get it. You are the one with proof you sit on the computer all day. Once again you fail miserably.
> Of course i will collect my money, its through me my job and my state, retard!


i just watered the lawn.

now i have to change the hay in the chicken coop.

have fun starting that revolution with your unemployment check.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i just watered the lawn.
> 
> now i have to change the hay in the chicken coop.
> 
> have fun starting that revolution with your unemployment check.


lol, every time your type = pure comedy.
You assume much.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> lol, every time your type = pure comedy.
> You assume much.


at least i can put dates in chronological order.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> at least i can put dates in chronological order.


 OK? come again?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

*Operation Iraqi Freedom - 2003*


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> OK? come again?


that's what she said.

i've got hay to change out before it gets dark.

in the meantime, try not to die from auto-erotic asphyxiation during one of your marathon korean midget porn wankfests.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that's what she said.
> 
> i've got hay to change out before it gets dark.
> 
> in the meantime, try not to die from auto-erotic asphyxiation during one of your marathon korean midget porn wankfests.


 Sounds like your the pro on the subject.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> you get paid what you agree to work for...look at your pay stub and tell me which tax is covering UI..tell me the name of it.... and since we now have so many people unemployed the Federal Gov. now has to kick in dough to cover what the employer does not


I never said it was a tax that showed up on your check stub, so stop expanding my comments until they justify your retort. Just like inflation is a hidden tax, so is this. Ultimately the employee pays this tax, they just don't realize it. 

Random unemployment information: My employer pays it differently than what you are probably used to. I don't have to deal with all that paperwork myself as I have an underling who does all the invoicing, ect. I do know we pay per unemployment claim also. I actually get part of my bonus based on how many unemployment claims we pay for. Where I live you aren't supposed to get unemployment if you quit, or if you are fired for a good reason(its more involved than that). This motivates me to ensure that everything is done correctly and by policy. Everything is documented that happens with the employees. The unemployment hearing officers rarely sides with businesses, though, even if the employee outright quit. They never side with the business even if the employee has shown a continued and willful neglect of job duties or grow misconduct. I am unsure why they bother to have the rules involving it to be honest, since they don't mean anything.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> If you didn't have to pay UI for your employees, would you pay them more and how much if so?


to be perfectly honest guy when all is said and done we really don't pay as much as one would think we do..we pay a percentage on about the first 9000-13000 a employee makes ( depending on the state )..the percentage is based on your "experience rate" ( meaning how many claims you have had against you)..it could be as low as .03% to as high as 5%..so it would all depends..a low rating I would only have to pay about 270 per employee with the goverment footing the rest of the bill...a high rating I could pay more..now would I return that money to employee if I didn't have to pay...I think I would invest it ...I pay you what you agree to and thats abot 10-11 dollars hr ...12.50 if you speak spanish


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I never said it was a tax that showed up on your check stub, so stop expanding my comments until they justify your retort. Just like inflation is a hidden tax, so is this. Ultimately the employee pays this tax, they just don't realize it.
> 
> Random unemployment information: My employer pays it differently than what you are probably used to. I don't have to deal with all that paperwork myself as I have an underling who does all the invoicing, ect. I do know we pay per unemployment claim also. I actually get part of my bonus based on how many unemployment claims we pay for. Where I live you aren't supposed to get unemployment if you quit, or if you are fired for a good reason(its more involved than that). This motivates me to ensure that everything is done correctly and by policy. Everything is documented that happens with the employees. The unemployment hearing officers rarely sides with businesses, though, even if the employee outright quit. They never side with the business even if the employee has shown a continued and willful neglect of job duties or grow misconduct. I am unsure why they bother to have the rules involving it to be honest, since they don't mean anything.


its not a hidden tax..you don't pay for it..stop trying to make a hidden tax to justify your argument...and if your bonus is affected by unemployment you must be in management in which everything can have an affect...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I never said it was a tax that showed up on your check stub, so stop expanding my comments until they justify your retort. Just like inflation is a hidden tax, so is this. Ultimately the employee pays this tax, they just don't realize it.
> 
> Random unemployment information: My employer pays it differently than what you are probably used to. I don't have to deal with all that paperwork myself as I have an underling who does all the invoicing, ect. I do know we pay per unemployment claim also. I actually get part of my bonus based on how many unemployment claims we pay for. Where I live you aren't supposed to get unemployment if you quit, or if you are fired for a good reason(its more involved than that). This motivates me to ensure that everything is done correctly and by policy. Everything is documented that happens with the employees. The unemployment hearing officers rarely sides with businesses, though, even if the employee outright quit. They never side with the business even if the employee has shown a continued and willful neglect of job duties or grow misconduct. I am unsure why they bother to have the rules involving it to be honest, since they don't mean anything.


 Agreed! +rep


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

So does Ron Paul think the same thing as Rick Perry about paying into social security? Does he know its a ponzi scheme?

"We need to have a conversation with America, just like we're having right here today, and admit that is a Ponzi scheme for these young people," Perry said. "The idea that they're working and paying into Social Security today, the current program, that it's going to be there for them, is a lie."
Perry used similar "Ponzi scheme" language to describe Social Security in _Fed Up_, the book he wrote last year_. _A campaign spokesman tried to soft-pedal that view in an interview with the _Wall Street Journal_ this month, noting that the book was written before Perry decided to run for president, and saying it doesn't reflect the governor's current views.
But Perry himself made no such distinction at a weekend appearance in Des Moines.
"I haven't backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right," he said.


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

it is not a ponzi scheme.

a ponzi scheme is an illegal business venture.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> its not a hidden tax..you don't pay for it..stop trying to make a hidden tax to justify your argument...and if your bonus is affected by unemployment you must be in management in which everything can have an affect


You could make the argument that the customers pay for it in higher prices, I suppose. I think we both know that businesses don't reduce their profit to pay for things. They either pay less or charge more. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. 

You said you would probably not give it to your employees if you didn't have to pay it. That means they are losing something they get from you currently. If that isn't a reduction in compensation, then what the fuck is it? Santa Claus punishing you for being bad?

I am in management, yes. I get my bonus based on all sorts of stupid shit. Inventory turns, customer satisfaction, inventory level, profit, sales, unemployment, how many of what kind of worker I have. Now that you say that, I believe I do recall a conversation with one of the regional managers where we talked about trying to keep our % down and that was why my bonus was in part from unemployment numbers.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 3, 2011)

redivider said:


> it is not a ponzi scheme.
> 
> a ponzi scheme is an illegal business venture.


Um, unconstitutional and illegal are the same thing.


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

I heard the social security funds are running out, and that I keep paying taxes every week for money I'll never see when I get old, is that true?


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

well the social security fund is safe and sound for another 80 years or so. there's been reports that it'll run out by 2037. no .. that's just conservative alarmists obsessed with doing away with one of the most beloved social safety net programs in this country...


problem is politicians want to raid it and use the money for some other b/s....


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

*Social Security disability program running out of funds*

*Social Security disability program will be insolvent around 2017. The Social Security disability program aids Americans who have been injured even before they reach retirement age.*




By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press / August 22, 2011 

Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding the Social Security disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.
Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs.
The stampede for benefits is adding to a growing backlog of applicants &#8212; many wait two years or more before their cases are resolved &#8212; and worsening the financial problems of a program that's been running in the red for years.
New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security's much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry as well.

_If social security retirement runs out in 2 decades, then I will never see a dime of what I'm paying into it. Rick Perry may be on to something here. Could it be a "Ponzi Scheme" ?_


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You could make the argument that the customers pay for it in higher prices, I suppose. I think we both know that businesses don't reduce their profit to pay for things. They either pay less or charge more. Either way, it amounts to the same thing.
> 
> You said you would probably not give it to your employees if you didn't have to pay it. That means they are losing something they get from you currently. If that isn't a reduction in compensation, then what the fuck is it? Santa Claus punishing you for being bad?
> 
> I am in management, yes. I get my bonus based on all sorts of stupid shit. Inventory turns, customer satisfaction, inventory level, profit, sales, unemployment, how many of what kind of worker I have. Now that you say that, I believe I do recall a conversation with one of the regional managers where we talked about trying to keep our % down and that was why my bonus was in part from unemployment numbers.


hey I'm not your everyday greedy business man..I could rise my prices right now, but I don't for I realize times are very hard right now...I keep my prices lower then the next man ALWAYS....My employees are like my family and I went more then out my way to make sure I can provide them with benefits... every last one of them knows they can count on me when they really need it ( dont try to use me..I can see that too )...I'm also in the business to turn a profit for me, wife and children so that MUST come first...My employees are happy and if they are not they can always look for better employment with no hard feelings..I have a very very low turn over rate...in the last 3 years I have only had 1 person leave on bad terms and he was a thief...and you right about the hearing officers sideing with the employee..I told them he was fired for stealing and simple by the fact I didn't call the police ...they gave that bastard unemployment..WTF


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 3, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> The Sept.7 debate has been scheduled since long before Obama ever tried to plan his job's speech on Sept 7. Fact.
> 
> The question is, did he do it for political points or was he that ignorant that he planned it then with no knowledge of the debate?
> 
> I'll leave it to you to choose.


he informed them 
next day Boehner said
NO


----------



## Prefontaine (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> I heard the social security funds are running out, and that I keep paying taxes every week for money I'll never see when I get old, is that true?


my last social security report said that i would receive 700 dollars for every 1000 I was entitled


----------



## Prefontaine (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> hey I'm not your everyday greedy business man..I could rise my prices right now, but I don't for I realize times are very hard right now...I keep my prices lower then the next man ALWAYS....My employees are like my family and I went more then out my way to make sure I can provide them with benefits... every last one of them knows they can count on me when they really need it ( dont try to use me..I can see that too )...I'm also in the business to turn a profit for me, wife and children so that MUST come first...My employees are happy and if they are not they can always look for better employment with no hard feelings..I have a very very low turn over rate...in the last 3 years I have only had 1 person leave on bad terms and he was a thief...and you right about the hearing officers sideing with the employee..I told them he was fired for stealing and simple by the fact I didn't call the police ...they gave that bastard unemployment..WTF


And we applaud you for that, but your politics is Fucked, ha
as for that guy, if states rights were returned thievery would be punishable by loss of limb, at least in washington


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

Ron Paul can't get the nod from the Republicans to run as POTUS.

The question is does he keep running Republican just for political points or is he that ignorant that he think they will actually change their mind 

I'll leave it for you to choose.


----------



## Prefontaine (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> *Social Security disability program running out of funds*
> 
> *Social Security disability program will be insolvent around 2017. The Social Security disability program aids Americans who have been injured even before they reach retirement age.*
> 
> ...


I can fend for myself, Im just glad my old man is getting a fat check, and trust me he is, 40 year state retiree with after 65 retirement= a shit ton of model train money


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> And we applaud you for that, but your politics is Fucked, ha
> as for that guy, if states rights were returned thievery would be punishable by loss of limb, at least in washington


how was the run and I hoped you showered again..lol


----------



## redivider (Sep 3, 2011)

the 2011 report only says that funds COULD run out IF the downturn continues.

BUT, in the event that the economy grows, which means more people get back to work and therefore more payroll SS taxes are paid into the system, then it will be ok.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul can't get the nod from the Republicans to run as POTUS.
> 
> The question is does he keep running Republican just for political points or is he that ignorant that he think they will actually change their mind
> 
> I'll leave it for you to choose.


Ron Paul Doesnt want to win
Just make noise


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

^^^^get off my lawn^^^^states rights^^^^freedoms


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> I can fend for myself, Im just glad my old man is getting a fat check, and trust me he is, 40 year state retiree with after 65 retirement= a shit ton of model train money


Well if the money is going to run out within the next 40 years then I don't think I should have to invest, if I can't collect later. That doesn't sound right


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ^^^^get off my lawn^^^^states rights^^^^freedoms


 You dont appreciate the second amendment much do you?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You dont appreciate the second amendment much do you?


I have a bitch named TAT TAT that would answer that...also got a cuz named Kaboom that can clear the room...I support responsible gun ownership...now WTF does that have to do with my previous post...whos taking your guns ???


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You dont appreciate the second amendment much do you?


fluoride!!


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I have a bitch named TAT TAT that would answer that..I support responsible gun ownership...now WTF does that have to do with my previous post...whos taking your guns ???


fluoride will take his guns.

fucking fluoride.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> fluoride!!


 *You* dont appreciate the second amendment much do yo*u?*


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I have a bitch named TAT TAT that would answer that...also got a cuz named Kaboom that can clear the room...I support responsible gun ownership...now WTF does that have to do with my previous post...whos taking your guns ???


You dont appreciate the second amendment much do you?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul can't get the nod from the Republicans to run as POTUS.
> 
> The question is does he keep running Republican just for political points or is he that ignorant that he think they will actually change their mind
> 
> I'll leave it for you to choose.


KEEP running?

He ran Lib and got absolutely no coverage. i remember a guy who voted for him that year and i thought he was a frickin' loon. Never heard ANY positive coverage and independent media was rather rare then.

He ran 2008 Rep and got little coverage, was maligned, was attacked, was ignored, etc. But in the face of all that adversity, he GAINED GROUND in the American mind. Sure, maybe that was a crazy idea you last heard but the other 99 rang true. And he didn't lie about it. For crying out loud he was the inspiration for the now corrupt Tea Party!

This year, he works on nothing different than he has for the last 30+ years. And he's gaining even MORE ground. He is being identified, more and more, as the "Tea Party Member #0", the champion of the Constitution. The problem NOW is that the "Tea Party" has been hijacked by those that could feel the tide shifting and decided that they needed to be in on this heart-felt movement for whatever their reasons, usually power and greed. 

Ron Paul is the real deal folks. Not perfect. Not a god. Human, fallible, and a little extreme at times. Can you not identify with that? 

At VERY least he has been consistent and open AND he follows his constituents will as is proven by his record as well as the supreme law of our land, the Constitution. 

Take all the unConstitutional shit away and he will listen to what you DO want to be implemented.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> fluoride will take his guns.
> 
> fucking fluoride.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul can't get the nod from the Republicans to run as POTUS.
> 
> The question is does he keep running Republican just for political points or is he that ignorant that he think they will actually change their mind
> 
> I'll leave it for you to choose.


And once again, he CAN get the nod if everyone that said he "can't" would simply cast a ballot in his favor. By a fucking LANDSLIDE!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)




----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

wtf fuck does that have to do with what we talking about...hmmm do yo know what the 2nd amendment is...guess not


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And once again, he CAN get the nod if everyone that said he "can't" would simply cast a ballot in his favor. By a fucking LANDSLIDE!


lol...not a chance...The repuke leaders hate him since 1988


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> KEEP running?
> 
> He ran Lib and got absolutely no coverage. i remember a guy who voted for him that year and i thought he was a frickin' loon. Never heard ANY positive coverage and independent media was rather rare then.
> 
> ...


yeah but with all that said..it would take him until 2020 to actually win...can he live that long ?????


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> wtf fuck does that have to do with what we talking about...hmmm do yo know what the 2nd amendment is...guess not


 Ill try this one last time, i can tell you severely lack in comprehension skills dont you? 
You dont appreciate the second amendment much do you?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Ill try this one last time, i can tell you severely lack in comprehension skills dont you?
> You dont appreciate the second amendment much do you?


and I will tell you as many time as needed...WTF does that have to do with what we are talking about !!!!whos taking your guns confused man ???


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and I will tell you as many time as needed...WTF does that have to do with what we are talking about !!!!whos taking your guns confused man ???


 It was a question, you cant seem to comprehend the question. End of story.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul Doesnt want to win
> Just make noise


There is a HUGE difference in your statement and Ron Paul's campaign manager's response to the question of "will to win".

Does he WANT to? Not necessarily. He is pleased that he has brought his points to the forefront of the national debate. He doesn't SEEK the power of POTUS. He doesn't ENVY the power of POTUS. He doesn't really even WANT the position because i'm sure he understands what it entails (look at before and after POTUS pics).

The thing IS, for me, is that he is willing to give up the rest of his life if need be, be seperated from his family, be targeted by many people, be smeared by the media and public, etc. For crying out loud he should want to retire to (somewhere without hurricanes lol!). 

But he doesn't. He feels a heartfelt urge to serve his country and fellow man. At ALL costs. 

This man, without ever raising a gun in protest, has changed our country with nothing more than his interpretation of our Constitution (backed by precedent/case law/morals), a passionate heart, a willingness to surrender the very privacy that he holds so dear, and the open ears of a few people that have opened the ears of many more. 

The Revolution has begun, Ron Paul and i prefer it to be a peaceful one.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> lol...not a chance...The repuke leaders hate him since 1988


Stop saying that! Damnit! You can give me all the reasons why (based on our political/social systems/values) but if YOU would say yes, then so would those that look to you for their political guidance. Not everyone has the time to truly vett candidates. We do.

Ron Paul 2012!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> yeah but with all that said..it would take him until 2020 to actually win...can he live that long ?????


Doesn't HAVE to take that long to win. Vote Ron Paul 2012 and he MAY win. Better than what i've seen out there.

Who would you suggest OVER him that is an "electable" candidate?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> It was a question, you cant seem to comprehend the question. End of story.


bl13's translation: Al Gore can solve all our problems.

Now if that was meant as a joke (which i really hope it was) is lost on my medicated self and it was a chuckle. If you're serious, wth?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Doesn't HAVE to take that long to win. Vote Ron Paul 2012 and he MAY win. Better than what i've seen out there.
> 
> Who would you suggest OVER him that is an "electable" candidate?


NONE...I don't support most conservative republican views


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> bl13's translation: Al Gore can solve all our problems.
> 
> Now if that was meant as a joke (which i really hope it was) is lost on my medicated self and it was a chuckle. If you're serious, wth?


I didn't get it ...still don't...hopefully it goes away


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> NONE...I don't support most conservative republican views


ANY candidate you support? ANY party? i ask so i know where to take my research


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

Al Gore is a crackpot theory wacko


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> ANY candidate you support? ANY party? i ask so i know where to take my research


oh sorry ...Obama still has my vote guy..yes I do disagree with somethings the man has done, but he is still better then any others like Perry or Romney...sorry Paul lost me on his views of the civil rights act of 64...property rights to me does not supersede Civil rights..had the argument many times here...my mind is FIRMLY set


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> There is a HUGE difference in your statement and Ron Paul's campaign manager's response to the question of "will to win".
> 
> Does he WANT to? Not necessarily. He is pleased that he has brought his points to the forefront of the national debate. He doesn't SEEK the power of POTUS. He doesn't ENVY the power of POTUS. He doesn't really even WANT the position because i'm sure he understands what it entails (look at before and after POTUS pics).
> 
> ...



You must spread some reputation before giving it to bulover13 again.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> oh sorry ...Obama still has my vote guy..yes I do disagree with somethings the man has done, but he is still better then any others like Perry or Romney...sorry Paul lost me on his views of the civil rights act of 64...property rights to me does not supersede Civil rights..had the argument many times here...my mind is FIRMLY set


Is there anyone on the Dem ticket you would rather see in office, regardless of their chances? And why?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> oh sorry ...Obama still has my vote guy..yes I do disagree with somethings the man has done, but he is still better then any others like Perry or Romney...sorry Paul lost me on his views of the civil rights act of 64...property rights to me does not supersede Civil rights..had the argument many times here...my mind is FIRMLY set


So basically because you have one respectable beef with Ron Paul's beliefs your willing to reject him as a potential POTUS in favor a guy that a majority of nation is against? Ok, just making sure.


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

London is a big time liberal. Just won't admit it like John Stewert. He loves Obama


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> London is a big time liberal. Just won't admit it like John Stewert. He loves Obama


I love you too...unless you racist...I love all mankind unless they hate me...yes something I'm very liberal..when I'm packing my bong...very liberal..when it comes to buying clothes for myself conservative...heck Chris Rock said it best

Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. "I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullshit! Be a fucking person! _Lis-ten!_ Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some shit I'm conservative about, I've got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal! _Chris Rock "Never Scared"_


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> London is a big time liberal. Just won't admit it like John Stewert. He loves Obama


 Oh yeah huge anti-gun!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I love you too...unless you racist...I love all mankind unless they hate me...yes something I'm very liberal..when I'm packing my bong...very liberal..when it comes to buying clothes for myself conservative...heck Chris Rock said it best
> 
> Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. "I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullshit! Be a fucking person! _Lis-ten!_ Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some shit I'm conservative about, I've got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal! _Chris Rock "Never Scared"_


Chris Rock link?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Chris Rock link?


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock


NO! i'm not THAT conservative to not know who he is lol! 

a link to the DC show you referred to


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> NO! i'm not THAT conservative to not know who he is lol!
> 
> a link to the DC show you referred to


sorry I pulled the quote from there...it has his quotes..lol


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> I love you too...unless you racist...I love all mankind unless they hate me...yes something I'm very liberal..when I'm packing my bong...very liberal..when it comes to buying clothes for myself conservative...heck Chris Rock said it best
> 
> Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. "I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullshit! Be a fucking person! _Lis-ten!_ Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some shit I'm conservative about, I've got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal! _Chris Rock "Never Scared"_


so basically you go back and forth like Colin Powell? -----------Chis Rock says some racially charged jokes sometimes.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

ok found it...

[youtube]UIA4__0DIXE[/youtube]


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> so basically you go back and forth like Colin Powell? -----------Chis Rock says some racially charged jokes sometimes.


seriously man you need to know when to stop...No man is just one thing..and yes I do go back and forth...somethings I change my mind on..hell I'm against the death penalty..but any person that would kill or molest a child should die..


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok found it...
> 
> [youtube]UIA4__0DIXE[/youtube]


 Heh...I like Like Chris...You post shit like that though...Heads might explode.


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> hell I'm against the death penalty..but any person that would kill or molest a child should die..


 I fight that demon myself.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok found it...
> 
> [youtube]UIA4__0DIXE[/youtube]


Fuckin' A!!!!

Ron Paul/Chris Rock ticket. Your vote? lol.

i just might would based on what i have heard him speak about in his routines


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 3, 2011)

munch box said:


> so basically you go back and forth like Colin Powell? -----------Chis Rock says some racially charged jokes sometimes.


CR sure does lol! And it's funny as hell imo.

Racially charged jokes, in the right context, forum, and situation can be EXTREMELY positive in forming ethical/political/moral discussions.

It's comedy. Political comedy which makes it more acceptable imo, but comedy nonetheless.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> CR sure does lol! And it's funny as hell imo.
> 
> Racially charged jokes, in the right context, forum, and situation can be EXTREMELY positive in forming ethical/political/moral discussions.
> 
> It's comedy. Political comedy which makes it more acceptable imo, but comedy nonetheless.


 Except when white people tell them.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 3, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> CR sure does lol! And it's funny as hell imo.
> 
> Racially charged jokes, in the right context, forum, and situation can be EXTREMELY positive in forming ethical/political/moral discussions.
> 
> It's comedy. Political comedy which makes it more acceptable imo, but comedy nonetheless.


and believe me he talks about his own kind just as bad...but its funny as phuck


----------



## munch box (Sep 3, 2011)




----------



## deprave (Sep 4, 2011)

Ron Paul Another Fema interview: 09/03/11

[video=youtube;dJgqg6Lf36o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJgqg6Lf36o[/video]


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 4, 2011)

did he win yet? 



lol


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

Poll respondents to a recent Small Business California poll.

I recently noticed a poll in which owners noted the problems they wanted state legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown to tackle. But this single question is worth exploring further.
Many of the responders seem to be on their way out the door, one way or another. Fifty-three &#8212; 15.5% of those who gave fuller explanations of their response &#8212; specifically mentioned moving out of state.
Here are samples:

&#8220;We will go where we can operate profitably.&#8221;
&#8220;The way things are going we&#8217;ll have to move out of state just to survive.&#8221;
&#8220;Nevada and other states offer a much more friendly climate.&#8221;
&#8220;Ease of communication, travel and shipping make relocating less onerous.&#8221;
&#8220;If I am (still in business in 2014), it will be in another state. The business and regulatory climate in CA is too oppressive.&#8221;
&#8220;I already moved as much as possible out of CA, but I will not abandon my clients here and will keep a satellite office.&#8221;
A few of those leaving the Golden State mention their destination: Texas, Nevada, Arizona, the Midwest or Oregon.
These small guys are usually overlooked in news reports, but they&#8217;re not alone. In recent years so of California&#8217;s biggest companies have announced moves to other states including Apple expansion to North Carolina; Beckman Coulter in Brea expansion to Indianapolis, Ind.; Edwards Life Sciences in Irvine added 1,000 jobs in Draper, Utah; and Fluor moved its corporate headquarters from Irvine to Texas.
Others in the Small Business California poll plan to close completely, many by retirement. Here&#8217;s a sample of what the others said:

&#8220;Can&#8217;t afford to quit but not making much; I&#8217;m 63 and may just give up.&#8221;
&#8220;The business climate here is punishing and not conducive to small-business success. We&#8217;ve been in business for 16 years, but conditions keep worsening.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;re holding on by a thread and playing it day by day.&#8221;
&#8220;CARB (California Air Resources Board) will force us to shut our doors. Over-regulation and extremely high costs of doing business.&#8221;
&#8220;Way too difficult to do business here&#8230;everyone has their hand in your pocket. CA needs to get a grip on the fact that small business is the driver and without it, we are doomed.&#8221;


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

White House Cover Up makes investigation imperative

http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2011/09/04/white-house-cover-up-makes-continuation-of-fast-and-furious-investigation-imperative/


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

Just hours after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, federal officials tried to cover up evidence that the gun that killed Terry was one the government intentionally helped sell to the Mexican cartels in a weapons trafficking program known as Operation Fast and Furious.
The revelation comes just days after a huge shake-up of government officials who oversaw the failed anti-gun trafficking program and Congress renewed its demand for more answers.Also late Thursday, Sen. Charles Grassley's office revealed that 31 more Fast and Furious guns have been found at 12 violent crime scenes in Mexico.In an internal email the day after Terry's murder, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Emory Hurley and then-U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke decided not to disclose the connection, saying "this way we do not divulge our current case (Fast and Furious) or the Border Patrol shooting case."

​


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 4, 2011)

Where's the liberal mindset now? haha J/k

Who's gonna come up to bat for Obama's administration now? Looking forward to seeing the truth on this case.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

how many ron pauls does it take to screw in a light bulb?













































none. it is sexy time with the turtles.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> how many ron pauls does it take to screw in a light bulb?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you reptilian? LOL!

Those weird eyes would freak me out!


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

I wonder why the white house has been covering up the truth behind Brian Terry's murder. That seems suspicious. I always knew Obama is a racist, but never realized to what extent until now. I mean, why else would there be a cover up?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> I wonder why the white house has been covering up the truth behind Brian Terry's murder. That seems suspicious. I always knew Obama is a racist, but never realized to what extent until now. I mean, why else would there be a cover up?


why won't ron paul release his birth certificate?

because he was born in austria, that's why.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> why won't ron paul release his birth certificate?


 I thought it was because it's probably written on ancient papyrus and is too delicate after 1200 years to take out of its hermetically sealed, climate controlled container.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 4, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I thought it was because it's probably written on ancient papyrus and is too delicate after 1200 years to take out of its hermetically sealed, climate controlled container.




(message is too short)


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> why won't ron paul release his birth certificate?.


I don't know. The people to ask about that stuff would be Ron Paul supporters..... I only got his back if he gets the nominee. So until then I won't bother doing my homework on the guy.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> I don't know. The people to ask about that stuff would be Ron Paul supporters..... I only got his back if he gets the nominee. So until then I won't bother doing my homework on the guy.


THAT'S a mistake imo.


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

budlover13 your mailbox is full.......... I was very careful about not calling him a snitch. I just made reference to one. thats it. Can I say tatel tale?What do I call the kiddies?I thought small children were not allowed on this sight. Uncle Buck complains to you, but mostly EVERY other mod whenever somebody disagrees with his political views. So I'm sure he e-mails you all day asking you to ban me, because thats what Uncle Buck does. He has a known reputation for getting the moderators involved whenthings don't go his way. Isn't it obvious hes 15 years old? Do you really want Uncle Buck to PM you and cry like a little baby every time he has a diasagreement over politics? Usually Uncle Buck tatel tales to redivider when things don't go thier way. They are both ulta-far left socialists that don't like to see the facts, and don't like to be proven wrong.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> budlover13 your mailbox is full.......... I was very careful about not calling him a snitch. I just made reference to one. thats it. Can I say tatel tale?What do I call the kiddies?I thought small children were not allowed on this sight. Uncle Buck complains to you, but mostly EVERY other mod whenever somebody disagrees with his political views. So I'm sure he e-mails you all day asking you to ban me, because thats what Uncle Buck does. He has a known reputation for getting the moderators involved whenthings don't go his way. Isn't it obvious hes 15 years old? Do you really want Uncle Buck to PM you and cry like a little baby every time he has a diasagreement over politics? Usually Uncle Buck tatel tales to redivider when things don't go thier way. They are both ulta-far left socialists that don't like to see the facts, and don't like to be proven wrong.


i actually haven't talked to redivider yet 

but i am sending my second report for insults.

keep it up


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i actually haven't talked to redivider yet
> 
> but i am sending my second report for insults.
> 
> keep it up


 
Everybody see this? I think I need to copy and paste this a bit so people know a little bit more about you. Keep sharing. I'm really intrested in hearing more about what you were saying on the other thread. About how you hate white people.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> Everybody see this? I think I need to copy and paste this a bit so people know a little bit more about you. Keep sharing. I'm really intrested in hearing more about what you were saying on the other thread. About how you hate white people.


i hate myself? and my wife? and my parents? and my dear old grandma?

that's just about as plausible as ron paul winning.


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i hate myself? and my wife? and my parents? and my dear old grandma?
> 
> that's just about as plausible as ron paul winning.


I believe you. Everything about the way you act fits the profile. Its far more plausable than you sticking up for a racist I suppose. Then again maybe not.

Form the guy you supports book:

From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I CEASED TO ADVERISE MY MOTHER'S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
-Barrack Hussein Obama

Stop playing games. Lets advance the subject. I read the book, and now I have some questions. Why does Barrack Obama sound like a racist? Is he?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> I believe you. Everything about the way you act fits the profile. Its far more plausable than you sticking up for a racist I suppose. Then again maybe not.
> 
> Form the guy you supports book:
> 
> ...


i highly doubt that obama misspelled "advertise" 

something tells me you are pulling whatever you can and taking it out of context. i wonder why millions and millions of others would read his book and not draw the same conclusion.

oh, yeah. i know why. because they are not the type of person who tries to pick fights with people online, only to claim not to care what those people think 

comical.


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i highly doubt that obama misspelled "advertise"
> 
> something tells me you are pulling whatever you can and taking it out of context. i wonder why millions and millions of others would read his book and not draw the same conclusion.
> 
> ...


You started talking to me. The only reason I'm talking to you right now is to try and crack through your thick skull. The great thing about having the truth on my side is I don't need to argue all the time, I just show the facts and information, then watch you panic like a scared turkey. And Barrack Obama strikes me as exactly the type of guy to mispell words. I know you don't want to admit it. But the guy is human. write him a letter and let him know hes not captain planet.Also, hes sounding extemely racist in his books


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> You started talking to me. The only reason I'm talking to you right now is to try and crack through your thick skull. The great thing about having the truth on my side is I don't need to argue all the time, I just show the facts and information, then watch you panic like a scared turkey. And Barrack Obama strikes me as exactly the type of guy to mispell words. I know you don't want to admit it. But the guy is human. write him a letter and let him know hes not captain planet.Also, hes sounding extemely racist in his books


thick skull?

scared turkey?

those sound like fighting words.



i'll see you in modesto


----------



## munch box (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> thick skull?
> 
> scared turkey?
> 
> ...


 
OK. See you later kiddo. I gotta get some sleep


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> budlover13 your mailbox is full.......... I was very careful about not calling him a snitch. I just made reference to one. thats it. Can I say tatel tale?What do I call the kiddies?I thought small children were not allowed on this sight. Uncle Buck complains to you, but mostly EVERY other mod whenever somebody disagrees with his political views. So I'm sure he e-mails you all day asking you to ban me, because thats what Uncle Buck does. He has a known reputation for getting the moderators involved whenthings don't go his way. Isn't it obvious hes 15 years old? Do you really want Uncle Buck to PM you and cry like a little baby every time he has a diasagreement over politics? Usually Uncle Buck tatel tales to redivider when things don't go thier way. They are both ulta-far left socialists that don't like to see the facts, and don't like to be proven wrong.


First, UB and i have been butting heads with mutual respect for quite some time now. Do we PM? Sometimes. Does he PM or email ME to report posts? No. My email is automaticllay set up to receive reported posts. And he isn't the most prolific yet 

Secondly, i appreciate you watching you accusations and commend you on that. As for being rude or insulting, hey, it's politics. Gloves come off in this forum unless it directly and adversely affects the site imo. Then we get into the definition of "affect" which can be debated for days. 

Thirdly, UB, through conversation and intellectual debate has earned my respect. While i do not always agree with his tactics (we won't even START to talk political opinions lol) i can respect the fact that the MAN has lived a little life and done a bit of research regarding his passions. He definitely an onion in my book. However, he appears to be simply going straight to the rules of the site to defeat you in debate. Be careful to not give him ammunition imo.

There are rules to debate that i have posted to you in an earlier thread or earlier in this thread i believe. My advice is to learn them, follow them, use them to your advantage, and continue to converse with us all. There are members here that, had we been face to face, i would've wanted to express my displeasure with their assertions/accusations. Instead, i have listened to them, learned from them, considered and researched their positions, transformed my own somewhat, and enjoyed meaningful and constructive debate that is centered around fact and new ideas imo. 

Stay here, research, learn (i still am), follow those rules of debate (smelling a new thread {sticky?} ), and continue contributing. i have seen a drastic change in your posts since the name calling deletions. Thank you. It is greatly appreciated and positive.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 4, 2011)

munch box said:


> Everybody see this? I think I need to copy and paste this a bit so people know a little bit more about you. Keep sharing. I'm really intrested in hearing more about what you were saying on the other thread. About how you hate white people.


 Make it your signature so every time you post we can all be reminded of how he is a snitch!


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Make it your signature so every time you post we can all be reminded of how he is a snitch!


fluoride. fucking fluoride.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> fluoride. fucking fluoride.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 4, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


>


you're COOL


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 4, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you're COOL


 *Ice cold.*


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 4, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *Ice cold.*


 
Heartless Libertarian


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Heartless Libertarian


 LMAO!


----------



## deprave (Sep 5, 2011)

New Ron Paul promotional Video:

[video=youtube;Z9iTFqd7QBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9iTFqd7QBA&feature=share[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 5, 2011)

*Ron Paul's Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008 *



[video=youtube;evYwPJUY_cc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYwPJUY_cc[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 5, 2011)

NPR TODAY ON FEMA & USE OF GOVERNMENT FORCE
[video=youtube;RvrBsRHXEnE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvrBsRHXEnE[/video]


*Ron Paul to Congress: Show True Compassion by Abolishing FEMA*

​
[video=youtube;U11f9VU-gBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U11f9VU-gBA[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 5, 2011)

New Video

Ron Paul Economic History Lesson + TownHall Q&A - Camcorder 

[video=youtube;W3AR0D4WVPQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3AR0D4WVPQ[/video]


----------



## munch box (Sep 5, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> THAT'S a mistake imo.


I agree with a lot of things Ron Paul has to say.He was right for not wanting to invade Iraq. But we are there now. Whats done is done. It would be a mistake to leave, and turn the country over to Iran and Al-Quida. All that hard work and all those casualties would be in vein. With the power of Commander in Chief, also comes tramendous responsability. If Ron Paul were elected president, what assurance do we have that the good doctor will strongly consider the advice of his Generals, Admirals, etc?


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 5, 2011)

There are no combat troops in Iraq, we left already.


----------



## munch box (Sep 5, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> There are no combat troops in Iraq, we left already.


We have troops in Iraq. I'm not saying we should keep them there. But what is Ron Paul going to do to make sure it doesn't become terrorist sanctuary? Iraq has become a safe haven with Obama in the whitehouse.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 5, 2011)

munch box said:


> I agree with a lot of things Ron Paul has to say.He was right for not wanting to invade Iraq. But we are there now. Whats done is done. It would be a mistake to leave, and turn the country over to Iran and Al-Quida. All that hard work and all those casualties would be in vein. With the power of Commander in Chief, also comes tramendous responsability. If Ron Paul were elected president, what assurance do we have that the good doctor will strongly consider the advice of his Generals, Admirals, etc?


i would think that he would listen to his advisors but still insist on pulling our troops out. As for Iraq being a safe haven by Al Qaeda, we are funding them to invade Libya too. Doesn't make much sense.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 5, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i would think that he would listen to his advisors but still insist on pulling our troops out. As for Iraq being a safe haven by Al Qaeda, we are funding them to invade Libya too. Doesn't make much sense.



NO we are not.You cannot throw a stone in the middle east without hitting a male muslim that DIDN"T  fight U.S.forces in Iraq and afghanistan. The rebels goals run counter to Al Qaedas beliefs


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 5, 2011)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-583094

?


----------



## deprave (Sep 6, 2011)

better source not blogs cbs: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20048982-503543.html

idk though


----------



## deprave (Sep 6, 2011)

[video=youtube;m2wVHhmzysY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2wVHhmzysY[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 6, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXNqcYh0MpA&feature=player_embedded


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 6, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> NO we are not.You cannot throw a stone in the middle east without hitting a male muslim that DIDN"T  fight U.S.forces in Iraq and afghanistan. The rebels goals run counter to Al Qaedas beliefs


 Awwww is that what bill o Reilly told ya?
And if thats the case then we dont belong in that entanglement, what you just said didnt make anything about us backing al-CIA-duh in Libya sound any bettter, you fail, haha


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 6, 2011)

I can't believe you didn't get to this one yet deprave  

[video=youtube;UxPoURzProE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxPoURzProE&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 7, 2011)

Thanks hazy, Im really busy lately, appreciate it


----------



## deprave (Sep 7, 2011)

*Ron Paul on Freedom Watch 09/06/11*

​[video=youtube;0NwvKKRT9Fs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NwvKKRT9Fs[/video]


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 7, 2011)

More injustice: 

Politico's is cosponsoring the GOP debate tonight and as usual in an article linked from yahoo there is no mention of Ron Paul. 



> For the 2012 Republican hopefuls, Wednesday night is the first Fall Classic.
> Eight candidates are slated to take the stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., for the POLITICO/NBC News debate &#8212; the first face-off as the campaign kicks into high gear.
> It&#8217;s also the first debate that will include Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the new front-runner who has shaken up the slow-forming presidential contest and shifted the landscape for Mitt Romney, who&#8217;d been sitting atop the field for months.
> Five things to watch for as the candidates take the stage:





> 1) Does Perry stumble or survive?





> 2) Will Romney go after Perry by name?





> 3) Can Bachmann break through?





> 4) Will Jon Huntsman bring his &#8220;truth telling&#8221; from the Sunday talk shows to his opponents?





> 5) Can Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain prove that they&#8217;re relevant?


Wait, they do mention Ron Paul at the very end... 



> Other than using Paul &#8212; who is likely, as he has been doing with gusto, to complain about the lack of mainstream media coverage he receives &#8212; as a foil, each one needs to show a flash of something presidential, or at least serious on policy, to get consideration from voters going forward.



http://news.yahoo.com/debate-presents-crucial-gop-test-093000808.html


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 7, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> More injustice:
> 
> Politico's is cosponsoring the GOP debate tonight and as usual in an article linked from yahoo there is no mention of Ron Paul.
> 
> ...


 
Fucking bastards!


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

Ron Paul will NEVER get the nod from the Republicans...Some people just don't get it ...donating money to a lost cause...unless he decides to run Indy save your money ....


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 7, 2011)

i could give two shits what party he runs under, he's getting my vote. Write in or not.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i could give two shits what party he runs under, he's getting my vote. Write in or not.


Well if you guys want him to have a chance at winning, you guys need to let him know he needs to run independent


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Well if you guys want him to have a chance at winning, you guys need to let him know he needs to run independent


Like a broken record... broken record... broken record...


----------



## munch box (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Well if you guys want him to have a chance at winning, you guys need to let him know he needs to run independent


 You're funny. Why would Ron Paul want to make sure Obama wins by splitting votes with a Republican? Doesn't make any sense. How about Hillary runs as an Independant? That would be awesome.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 7, 2011)

munch box said:


> You're funny. Why would Ron Paul want to make sure Obama wins by splitting votes with a Republican? Doesn't make any sense. How about Hillary runs as an Independant? That would be awesome.


LOL, yeah, or how about Ralph Nader?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> LOL, yeah, or how about Ralph Nader?


Why not Ralph Nader at least he isnt a turtle fucking nut


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Well if you guys want him to have a chance at winning, you guys need to let him know he needs to run independent


DAMNIT he IS independent!!!!!

In thought, philosophy, record, tactics, etc. He is just trying to work within the machine.

i would say that there are a few Independents, such as you, that will not vote for him because of the Rep tag. It is expected. But i still don't see your logic in it.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 7, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Why not Ralph Nader at least he isnt a turtle fucking nut


That is very mature and intelligent, your parents must be proud.


----------



## munch box (Sep 7, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Why not Ralph Nader at least he isnt a turtle fucking nut


Nadar is a Socialist. Those words are all we need to know. If government takeover is not working for Obamassiah, then what what makes you think Ralph Nadar can do any better?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> That is very mature and intelligent, your parents must be proud.


How do you feel about gays marrying?

just wondering because Graham Chapman is a flaming homosexual


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Like a broken record... broken record... broken record...


Just remember when Ron Paul does not get the nod from the Republican what I said over and over again...I know the truth hurts but you must deal with...Don't worry I will remind you when that time comes


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

munch box said:


> You're funny. Why would Ron Paul want to make sure Obama wins by splitting votes with a Republican? Doesn't make any sense. How about Hillary runs as an Independant? That would be awesome.


Dude Obama will win if the Repukes put up Romney or Perry


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> DAMNIT he IS independent!!!!!
> 
> In thought, philosophy, record, tactics, etc. He is just trying to work within the machine.
> 
> i would say that there are a few Independents, such as you, that will not vote for him because of the Rep tag. It is expected. But i still don't see your logic in it.


come on don't get so uptight... I just hate to see someone keep doing something that always results in a losing outcome ...The logic has nothing to do with his Rep tag, but more to do with the Repukes hating him since 1988 and will never let the man in the driver seat.


----------



## munch box (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Dude Obama will win if the Repukes put up Romney or Perry


The election is 14 months away. A lot can happen. And thats a bold statement, judging from your boy's approval ratings.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

munch box said:


> The election is 14 months away. A lot can happen. And thats a bold statement, judging from your boy's approval ratings.


Obama is not "my boy"..he is the President of the United States


----------



## munch box (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Obama is not "my boy"..he is the President of the United States


Yes. But don't tell him too soon, hes learning things as we go along...


----------



## Prefontaine (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> come on don't get so uptight... I just hate to see someone keep doing something that always results in a losing outcome ...The logic has nothing to do with his Rep tag, but more to do with the Repukes hating him since 1988 and will never let the man in the driver seat.


Like you pretending to know how the primaries work? Sad very SAD


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> Like you pretending to know how the primaries work? Sad very SAD


and you foolish to think that they will allow someone to win that they don't want...I think you the only one that really don't get it..the others are just hoping


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Just remember when Ron Paul does not get the nod from the Republican what I said over and over again...I know the truth hurts but you must deal with...Don't worry I will remind you when that time comes


I'm sure you will. You get so few chances to gloat. You don't get the importance of his campaign even if he doesn't get the nomination.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Obama is not "my boy"..he is the President of the United States


He's somebody's "boy".


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 7, 2011)

Ron Paul has some good Ideas and he is honest. 
he also has some really really really fucked up ideas
And is a no go in my book


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 7, 2011)

Ron Paul 2012


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> He's somebody's "boy".


Calling a grown black man a boy can be viewed as disrespectful and racist..is that what you're shooting for ???


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Calling a grown black man a boy can be viewed as disrespectful and racist..is that what you're shooting for ???


Be prepared for some one saying your playing the race card


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Be prepared for some one saying your playing the race card


I ask a question..not saying that he is...up to him to say he is or not...and phuck that playing a race card BS must racist now try to use it as a cover up...I call it like I see it


----------



## Prefontaine (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> and you foolish to think that they will allow someone to win that they don't want...I think you the only one that really don't get it..the others are just hoping


 what they? who are these people of whom you speak? what are their names? you cant answer that because they have not yet been voted for or appointed as results from the primaries, in a similar fashion to the electoral college, now if the primaries are rigged, as you say, then there i no point in voting at all in the general because that would obviously be under the same influences, duh, so i would like to see this list of "nodders" to which you afford so much power.


----------



## Prefontaine (Sep 7, 2011)

calling any grown man a boy is disrespectful, delineating ownership to another man of another man, that is straight slave talk and should be offensive to anyone, given every races experiences in being slaves/indentured servants/ serfs/ whatever other shitty cast at the bottom of society you can think of which was leaned on for cheap labor and kept as livestock


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 7, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> what they? who are these people of whom you speak? what are their names? you cant answer that because they have not yet been voted for or appointed as results from the primaries, in a similar fashion to the electoral college, now if the primaries are rigged, as you say, then there i no point in voting at all in the general because that would obviously be under the same influences, duh, so i would like to see this list of "nodders" to which you afford so much power.


Stock market is going up. If you want to buy in buy aluminum foil stocks like alcoa or reynolds.



I beleive the demand for tin foil hats is on the upswing


----------



## Prefontaine (Sep 7, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Stock market is going up. If you want to buy in buy aluminum foil stocks like alcoa or reynolds.
> 
> 
> 
> I beleive the demand for tin foil hats is on the upswing


London fog is the one that says the GOP nomination is bought and paid for, i want him to back up his statement, or cant you boys keep up with FREE MEN


----------



## munch box (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Calling a grown black man a boy can be viewed as disrespectful and racist..is that what you're shooting for ???


Well then how come he looks like a man child on his re election poster?


----------



## Mr Neutron (Sep 7, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Calling a grown black man a boy can be viewed as disrespectful and racist..is that what you're shooting for ???


Yeah, that's what Im shooting for... sheesh. You all need to grow a pair. Over sensitive, emotional little cry babys. It means that he is under somebody's thumb. He takes his orders from someone else. It means he is someone's BOY, black, white, yellow, brown, green or blue makes no difference to me. You don't know me and to infer that I am a racist just shows how desperate you are. 
Your love affair with Obama is failing and your pissed, don't take it out on me because 7 out 10 think he sucks.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Yeah, that's what Im shooting for... sheesh. You all need to grow a pair. Over sensitive, emotional little cry babys. It means that he is under somebody's thumb. He takes his orders from someone else. It means he is someone's BOY, black, white, yellow, brown, green or blue makes no difference to me. You don't know me and to infer that I am a racist just shows how desperate you are.
> Your love affair with Obama is failing and your pissed, don't take it out on me because 7 out 10 think he sucks.


Ok ill play

Whose thumb is he under?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Yeah, that's what Im shooting for... sheesh. You all need to grow a pair. Over sensitive, emotional little cry babys. It means that he is under somebody's thumb. He takes his orders from someone else. It means he is someone's BOY, black, white, yellow, brown, green or blue makes no difference to me. You don't know me and to infer that I am a racist just shows how desperate you are.
> Your love affair with Obama is failing and your pissed, don't take it out on me because 7 out 10 think he sucks.


Hey I was asking you a question..only thing you needed to do was answer yes or no..never called you racist only ask is that what you are aiming at ...you say no then we move forward...and trust ...whoever is POTUS will not stop me from making me or getting mine


----------



## deprave (Sep 7, 2011)

Ron Paul Slams Bill O reily

what a bunch of pricks lol
[video=youtube;hxiPHP3-VOE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxiPHP3-VOE[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Sep 8, 2011)

The war cry fear mongering is sparking up again and, just like with Iraq, Bill O'Reilly is behind it. What a fucking loaded question is "Are you okay with Iran having nukes?" How can you possibly answer that question straight up without falling into their trap. Plus all of the American hermit crabs are shaking in their boots crying out for more bombs every time this subject is brought up. Fucking annoys me.....


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

*I love how O'faggy and his but buddy just straight lie about what the constitution says and misrepresent it, and somehow they are still on t.v. giving people blatant lies, the even worse part is a lot of who watches it will just bite right off the spoon they dish to the sheeple and actually think O'faggy is saying something that isn't blatant lies.*


deprave said:


> Ron Paul Slams Bill O reily
> 
> what a bunch of pricks lol
> [video=youtube;hxiPHP3-VOE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxiPHP3-VOE[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Ron Paul will NEVER get the nod from the Republicans...Some people just don't get it ...donating money to a lost cause...unless he decides to run Indy save your money ....


If the movement towards freedom continues to grow, then the money and time I have put into Ron Paul will be worth it 100%. How could you even suggest that people are wasting their money supporting a cause that doesn't succeed? This isn't about money, its about freedom and the future of the world. It is that important. You obviously don't get it. Are you wasting your time/money promoting the democrats? No chance they are going to win this time around.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Hey I was asking you a question..only thing you needed to do was answer yes or no..never called you racist only ask is that what you are aiming at ...you say no then we move forward...and trust ...whoever is POTUS will not stop me from making me or getting mine


Calling any man a 'boy' is disrespectful and is not an ethnic slur.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul Slams Bill O reily
> 
> what a bunch of pricks lol
> [video=youtube;hxiPHP3-VOE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxiPHP3-VOE[/video]


Since no one explained it. Ron Paul is indeed correct on what he said about the Constitution. Unfortunately he didn't realize that many Americans don't understand what the Constitution is and how it works to begin with. For you and me, the people who live here, the laws are negative. You CANNOT do this, you CANNOT do that. We assume that if there isn't a law about something, then it is ok to do it. So some of us put that understanding of laws towards the Constitution. This is incorrect. The Constitution grants powers to the federal government, all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. This means that if it is not in the Constitution as a federal power then the federal government is not allowed to do it.

Lets recap. The laws that govern us as individuals are largely negative. They tell us what we cannot do. Anything that there is not a law about is thereby legal. The laws that govern the federal government are largely positive. They tell the federal government what they can do. Anything that there is no law about is thereby illegal.

Bill was right in stating that the Constitution doesn't bring the subject up. What he either doesn't understand or is purposely avoiding is the fact that if it isn't brought up it is illegal for the federal government to do.


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

Debate highlights from last night, cali gop debate:
[video=youtube;nbmfC1vBtrA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbmfC1vBtrA[/video]


----------



## munch box (Sep 8, 2011)

Brian Williams is a douche


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 8, 2011)

You know, i was just thinking and remembered something i heard back in the 90's.

When speaking of government regulation and control, don't forget that the government came in and took over the Mustang Ranch in Nevada over tax issues. And promptly bankrupted it. Now if the government can fail at a business that legally sells sex and booze, why the hell would i want them in charge of anything?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul Slams Bill O reily
> 
> what a bunch of pricks lol
> [video=youtube;hxiPHP3-VOE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxiPHP3-VOE[/video]


"Sect. 10. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make&#65279; any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts"
Source, Library of Congress (government run site)
problem Billy?


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> "Sect. 10. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make&#65279; any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts"
> Source, Library of Congress (government run site)
> problem Billy?


The state isn't the ones printing the money, so this passage has nothing to do with it.


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

Left Centrist Extremist give their take on Ron Paul and the debates
[video=youtube;ucqb_9Rp1Ys]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucqb_9Rp1Ys[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

New Video - Ron Paul fires up a small crowd!

[video=youtube;HtzjgWZROrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzjgWZROrI[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

New Website - What has Ron Paul done? - http://whathasronpauldone.com/


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

the constitution clearly&#65279; states that
No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.
how can you mis read this?
paper is not money Gold and silver are, to have to sit here and convince people that gold has more value than paper is sad. they take your gold and give back a currency that slowly depreciates into the value of the paper it is printed on.
Bill Oreilly is a liar!
Go read
article 1 section 10 of the constitution
and you will see for yourself.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

The&#65279; Constitution is NOT a list of what the federal government cannot do. It is NOT a list of prohibitions on the federal government.
The Constitution IS a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with ALL ELSE being DENIED to it by default.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall&#8230;coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

A1S8: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". That is the actual transcript of article I Section 8. of the U.S. Constitution. It clearly states that Congress has the liberty to COIN Money. Emphasis on Coin, because this is what they meant. Article 1 Section 10 takes it further and says that Coin is to&#65279; be either gold or silver.


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

[video=youtube;tGk5ioEXlIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM[/video]


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 8, 2011)

*RON PAUL - 2012* *- END THE FED.*

*Because its run by Jews*
*Thats what David Duke says*

*And why he supports Ron Paul*


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

Who cares about David Duke? Who the fuck is that? wait..who cares..I don't


Flashback to an 08 promotional video - Ron Paul a true American underdog

[video=youtube;GGqQgmlwKZE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGqQgmlwKZE&feature=player_embedded#![/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *RON PAUL - 2012* *- END THE FED.*
> 
> *Because its run by Jews*
> *Thats what David Duke says*
> ...


Any insight as to why Hamas donated money to Obama's election funds illegally? One has to question what they think Obama is going to do for them. Does this make Obama a terrorist? I mean, you are saying Ron Paul is a racist because David Duke supports him, right?


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> the constitution clearly&#65279; states that
> No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.
> how can you mis read this?
> paper is not money Gold and silver are, to have to sit here and convince people that gold has more value than paper is sad. they take your gold and give back a currency that slowly depreciates into the value of the paper it is printed on.
> ...



Read the words. "No State shall...". You know I am against the fed and I love Ron Paul. The federal government is not a state. It is still illegal because the Constitution does not outright say "The Federal Government can print fiat money." Your point is 100% valid. It is illegal, but not because of Article 1, Section 10.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

deprave said:


> [video=youtube;tGk5ioEXlIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM[/video]


This is probably my all time favorite Youtube video. The American Dream is awesome.


----------



## munch box (Sep 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Any insight as to why Hamas donated money to Obama's election funds illegally? One has to question what they think Obama is going to do for them. Does this make Obama a terrorist? I mean, you are saying Ron Paul is a racist because David Duke supports him, right?


Barrack Obama is a racist. He talks about it in all his books. Don't make me have to start posting Obama quotes up in here.This whole "Ron Paul is a racist" bullsh*t is just a deflection from Obama. All Of IT. 
Just like Brian Williams. What a joke that guy is. 
Those MSNBC crackheads tried more than once to get the candidates to argue with each other but Newt called Williams Co-host, John Harris out for trying to stir up trouble between the candidates and then the candidates proceeded to argue with each other anyway. F*cking MSLSD. What a joke!

Williams started the controversy by accusing the republicans of creating the disaster to the country and leaving Obama to clean it up. The problem with Williams is his obvious dislike for republicans. He was not the man for the job and it showed. His bias toward liberalism showed his inherent ignorance of facts and he should have disqualified himself for his arrogant, bigoted attitude.
Perry and Mitt fell for the antics of Williams and Harris and began debating each other leaving the rest of the candidates standing there wondering if they would ever get to speak. The entire debate was another fiasco of entrapment on the part of the moderator and the gullibility of the candidates.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Read the words. "No State shall...". You know I am against the fed and I love Ron Paul. The federal government is not a state. It is still illegal because the Constitution does not outright say "The Federal Government can print fiat money." Your point is 100% valid. It is illegal, but not because of Article 1, Section 10.


 You're right its because the entire constitution as to why it is illegal.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

*The&#65279; Constitution is NOT a list of what the federal government cannot do. It is NOT a list of prohibitions on the federal government.
The Constitution IS a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with ALL ELSE being DENIED to it by default.*


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

munch box said:


> Barrack Obama is a racist. He talks about it in all his books. Don't make me have to start posting Obama quotes up in here.This whole "Ron Paul is a racist" bullsh*t is just a deflection from Obama. All Of IT.
> Just like Brian Williams. What a joke that guy is.
> Those MSNBC crackheads tried more than once to get the candidates to argue with each other but Newt called Williams&#8217; Co-host, John Harris out for trying to stir up trouble between the candidates and then the candidates proceeded to argue with each other anyway. F*cking MSLSD. What a joke!
> 
> ...


 Absofuckinglutely absolutely !


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You're right its because the entire constitution as to why it is illegal.


Trying, did you watch that youtube video that depraved posted? My wife found it a while back and asked me when i got home from work if that was what I went on about all the time. Then I watched it with her and she kept asking "are they serious?", she half thought it was tongue in cheek at first. It actually made her mad that the world is that fucked up and that is when she understood my Ron Paul cult membership.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *The&#65279; Constitution is NOT a list of what the federal government cannot do. It is NOT a list of prohibitions on the federal government.
> The Constitution IS a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with ALL ELSE being DENIED to it by default.*


Right, since the Constitution doesn't mention the federal government printing fiat money, it is illegal.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Right, since the Constitution doesn't mention the federal government printing fiat money, it is illegal.


 oh, we are just plain agreeing now.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Trying, did you watch that youtube video that depraved posted? My wife found it a while back and asked me when i got home from work if that was what I went on about all the time. Then I watched it with her and she kept asking "are they serious?", she half thought it was tongue in cheek at first. It actually made her mad that the world is that fucked up and that is when she understood my Ron Paul cult membership.


 I probably did see it, but which one to be exact?


----------



## munch box (Sep 8, 2011)




----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 8, 2011)

munch box said:


> Barrack Obama is a racist. He talks about it in all his books. Don't make me have to start posting Obama quotes up in here.This whole "Ron Paul is a racist" bullsh*t is just a deflection from Obama. All Of IT.
> Just like Brian Williams. What a joke that guy is.
> Those MSNBC crackheads tried more than once to get the candidates to argue with each other but Newt called Williams&#8217; Co-host, John Harris out for trying to stir up trouble between the candidates and then the candidates proceeded to argue with each other anyway. F*cking MSLSD. What a joke!
> 
> ...


so, your criticism is that brian williams is a liberal douche and yet he is still smarter than 7 of the candidates on that stage?



i think you just indicted the intelligence of everyone but newt. newt had the sharpest answers, too bad he is only there to sell books.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 8, 2011)

munch box said:


>


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


>


 Fuck yeah, bad ass, i like it.


----------



## munch box (Sep 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> so, your criticism is that brian williams is a liberal douche and yet he is still smarter than 7 of the candidates on that stage?
> 
> 
> 
> i think you just indicted the intelligence of everyone but newt. newt had the sharpest answers, too bad he is only there to sell books.


Newt has been known for debating issues. He is very well spoken.Been doing this a long time. Some of the candidates have some learning to do. I guess we can not ALL have teleprompters like Obama now can we?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Fuck yeah, bad ass, i like it.


notice the date? 

i'll be happy when all this ron paul nonsense is over and you guys shut the fuck up until 2016 comes around.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> notice the date?
> 
> i'll be happy when all this ron paul nonsense is over and you guys shut the fuck up until 2016 comes around.


No happiness for you UB 

i ain't shutting up regardless of outcome in this election.


----------



## munch box (Sep 8, 2011)

Is Obama going to call a joint session of congress every time he wants to give a campaign speech?


----------



## londonfog (Sep 8, 2011)

munch box said:


> Is Obama going to call a joint session of congress every time he wants to give a campaign speech?


your hatred of Obama is rather silly...you the type would vote for Bachmann if she was against Obama in the general


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

Ron Paul on Obamas speech
[video=youtube;QBSm1tceJWA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBSm1tceJWA[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> notice the date?
> 
> i'll be happy when all this ron paul nonsense is over and you guys shut the fuck up until 2016 comes around.


 Ron Paul nonsense?
The date?
Its about human sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and the constitution.
Freedom forever, neocon pig.
I cant wait until Soetoro makes such a bigger ass of himself in the little time that remains until he is OUT! Your man is done in 2012, sorry little guy.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> your hatred of Obama is rather silly...you the type would vote for Bachmann if she was against Obama in the general


i would write in Ron Paul


----------



## londonfog (Sep 8, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i would write in Ron Paul


but you keep it real... you been saying Ron the whole time...some would vote for anyone


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> but you keep it real... you been saying Ron the whole time...some would vote for anyone


 deerp.............


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> but you keep it real... you been saying Ron the whole time...some would vote for anyone


Unfortunately, i agree. i have been hearing some become disheartened. Sad imo.


----------



## munch box (Sep 8, 2011)

londonfog said:


> your hatred of Obama is rather silly...you the type would vote for Bachmann if she was against Obama in the general


 
well sorry if I'm able to see past all the BS. But I'm sure a lot of people share my opinion. I drove by Solyndra on my way home from work today . I was trying to figure out why there was all the news cameras outside. After getting home, I find out the FBI has raided Solyndra, and there is now a full investigation. Taxpayers worked hard to fund Obama's corrupt programs. And now all that wasted money, and all those people out of work. How is that a good thing? What good could poaasbly come from this? You don't make any sense. How does losing jobs on Obama's failed stimulus green jobs program help the economy? That idiot doesn't know the first thing about creating jobs


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Ron Paul nonsense?
> The date?
> Its about human sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and the constitution.
> Freedom forever, neocon pig.
> I cant wait until Soetoro makes such a bigger ass of himself in the little time that remains until he is OUT! Your man is done in 2012, sorry little guy.


neocon?

LOL!

time will tell. i've been predicting obama will not be re-elected, but there are 14 months from now until then.

and yes, RON PAUL NONSENSE. 

he is a non factor, always has been, will continue to be. 

if by some miracle he gets into the general election, people will not want to vote for an old curmudgeon. hate to say it, since politics should be based on more than that, but it's sadly true.

ron paul doesn't mind if my state prohibits me from growing, deems gays to be unacceptable, and feels the right to be racist trumps the right to not be hurt by racism.

in other words, his views are fucked. 

my condolences to you, kiddo. your man is unelectable.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> neocon?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ...


You just illustrated how clearly lost you are, again libs lie. nobody likes a liar.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 8, 2011)

Soetoro dont give a flying fuck about you or your grows, so what nonsense bullshit you spewing out that hole in your head?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 8, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Soetoro dont give a flying fuck about you or your grows, so what nonsense bullshit you spewing out that hole in your mouth?


i guess you forgot about the holder memo.

ron paul is unelectable outside of tx-14.


----------



## deprave (Sep 8, 2011)

which holder memo? the one to raid growers or the one to slow down on raiding growers


----------



## deprave (Sep 9, 2011)

Why Ron paul in 60 seconds

[video=youtube;jqxM0r0eNf4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxM0r0eNf4&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 9, 2011)

Well the libs are still all over this Rick perry looking agressive toward Paul Stuff, And they are really on the defense of Dr Paul - Today the huffington post reports: 
*Ron Paul Widens MSNBC/NBC Presidential Poll Lead; Over 205,000 Votes Now Cast *


http://www.huntingtonnews.net/9134


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 9, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I probably did see it, but which one to be exact?


The cartoon one in the last couple pages. It is a cartoon about the history of the federal reserve. It is outstandingly made, and pretty accurate. It is also funny as hell. It is called "The American Dream". Here is a the link for it.

[video=youtube;ZPWH5TlbloU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU[/video]


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 9, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> ron paul doesn't mind if my state prohibits me from growing, deems gays to be unacceptable, and feels the right to be racist trumps the right to not be hurt by racism.
> 
> in other words, his views are fucked.


Or in other words, he is granting you and the citizens of your state the ability to make decisions for yourselves. If you and your fellow citizens want to pass legislation where you all can masturbate on the street corner while rubbing yourselves down in Nutella, you can do that and the Federal Government won't intervene....even when your neighboring states catch wind of what you all are doing and disapprove.


----------



## deprave (Sep 9, 2011)

Actually with Perry getting knocked down so much lately I think that Ron Paul stands a good chance....I mean it is Ron Paul vs a Mormon who think corporations are people, Id say Ron has a real good chance now..


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 9, 2011)

deprave said:


> Actually with Perry getting knocked down so much lately I think that Ron Paul stands a good chance....I mean it is Ron Paul vs a Mormon who think corporations are people, Id say Ron has a real good chance now..


After that sickening yellow journalism at the debate I'm wary, Ron didn't have much of a chance to give clear views.


----------



## sync0s (Sep 10, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> After that sickening yellow journalism at the debate I'm wary, Ron didn't have much of a chance to give clear views.


The media picked and marketed their candidates. The debates aren't going to be what gets Ron more support.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 12, 2011)

sync0s said:


> The media picked and marketed their candidates. The debates aren't going to be what gets Ron more support.


Exactly, but he needs to do well in them to gain the mainstream attention to have a fighting chances in the early primaries, if he manages to strike down Romney/Perry in Iowa or New Hampshire it'll send waves through the establishment that can not be ignored or downplayed, after all, you can't call a state who's mottoe is "Live Free or Die." crazy can you? 

We shall see. Anyways, there is a GOP debate in Florida tonight hosted by CNN but I don't remember it being on any major schedule, seems like a sudden occurrence. And of course every news stream is marketing it as a battle between the pretty boys (Romney *cough* Perry) but I've held CNN to have a little more integrity than the sickeningly biased MSNBC or Fox, Wolf Blitzer is hosting the next debate so maybe this will be a better ball game and not just the same slug fest between Romney and Perry. 

MSNBC's debate was a vagrant example of the mainstream media's attempts to censor and blackball Ron Paul's support, thankfully they are stupid enough to be unaware that all this does is put them into the status quo category, especially after so much the publicity of Ron Paul being ignored. 

I find it depressing that I am only but 19 and yet the world I am being introduced too is just a huge cluster fuck of bias and yellow journalism where name calling and rhetoric have become common place and the idea of values and integrity are a foreign belief.
God help this nation, we are in dire straights.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 12, 2011)

watching debate now!


----------



## londonfog (Sep 12, 2011)

did you see how they booed Ron Paul...I thought he was the founder of the Tea Party...again why does he run Republican ???


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 12, 2011)

londonfog said:


> did you see how they booed Ron Paul...I thought he was the founder of the Tea Party...again why does he run Republican ???


 i heard about 5 booing people in the crowd, probably bought and paid for by the establishment.


----------



## londonfog (Sep 12, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> i heard about 5 booing people in the crowd, probably bought and paid for by the establishment.


ok lol...if that makes you feel better.... roll with it....I myself like to stick with facts and reality..tonight was not a good night for Ron...for the record I kinda agreed with what he was saying when they started to boo him....you should go work in a recording studio with that talent and ability to count the number of people booing in a crowd...lol

booing starts at 1:56 and 2:11....5 people you say???


[youtube]pfBKKh0C2eo[/youtube]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 12, 2011)

londonfog said:


> ok lol...if that makes you feel better.... roll with it....I myself like to stick with facts and reality..tonight was not a good night for Ron...for the record I kinda agreed with what he was saying when they started to boo him....you should go work in a recording studio with that talent and ability to count the number of people booing in a crowd...lol
> 
> booing starts at 1:56 and 2:11....5 people you say???
> 
> ...


 Besides even if it was more than five (which it sounds like) they were bought and paid for, did you see all the people calling in on skype? who's sign were they all holding? ok got ya.....


----------



## deprave (Sep 13, 2011)

Sigh I can not express in words how much this debate disappointed me, I can't believe they boo'd, and the next person was an afghan asking how can you help afghanistan?!?! Oh my god...I wish Ron Paul could of answered that one! but no, Ron Paul talked for all of 3 minutes in this hours long debate wtf? 

While the debate focused on the center stage Mitt and Perry - The people the establishment wants you to vote for....talking about obamacare again for hours wtf? Bachman, every time she spoke which was many...did not fail to mention obamacare in any speil she spit.

One of the most appauling things of all is the Question is asked....Would you audit the fed? AND RON PAUL DOESN'T EVEN GET TO TALK - THE MAN THAT AUDITS THE FED! THE MAN THAT THE OTHER CANDIDATES VOTED FOR ON AUDITING THE FED - THE FIRST MAN TO SUGGEST IT SINCE JFK!!! WTF!!!

[video=youtube;9z7UbwDaO7U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z7UbwDaO7U[/video]

Instead They talk tabout the things they learned from Ron Paul like its their ideas! Rick Santorum and others have now flipp flopped to talking about the FED and the Gold Standard apparently, even bachman is in the club ***sigh**** Circus Side show - where do they even get these people to ask these easy ass questions? 


And Wolf is a sellout, what a gd sellout....

And wtf is a democrat even doing at this debate? Is this some kind of joke? and he does it on purpose just casually brings up global warming and topics that aren't conservative constantly? its like hes on a suicide mission?(Huntsman) 



They are VERY VERY afraid....I hope this is the best they can do...cause its really not good enough...

Fuck it what can you do about these shitty ass "debates"...the good thing is Rick Perry got fucking owned.....and I think overall this could be good for the Ron Paul campaign if anything, after all, Ron Paul is only trailing him in the Gallup polls.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 13, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Exactly, but he needs to do well in them to gain the mainstream attention .


.
No to get Mainstream attention
he has to have mainstream views


----------



## deprave (Sep 14, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> .
> No to get Mainstream attention
> he has to have mainstream views


 to be one of the cool kids? I got news for you dukeanthony, your not in their club..your not one of the cool kids...you smoke weed...they want you dead you moron, you smoke weed, you could get a life sentence.....under Newt Gingrich you'd be sentenced to death...under Obama your going to jail...under the other republicans you could be water boarded. I vote Ron Paul....even if only for the fact that he would not let them kill me or ruin my life.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 14, 2011)

The people booing, the people who said yeah at letting people die who don't have insurance could very well just be hard core liberal types who planted themselves in the audience just to give the Tea Party a bad image, thereby taking away some of their momentum. Coulda happened. Either that or like any collection of people anywhere there ends up being a few that are out there a bit too far.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 14, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> The people booing, the people who said yeah at letting people die who don't have insurance could very well just be hard core liberal types who planted themselves in the audience just to give the Tea Party a bad image...


that's ALWAYS what it is...


----------



## deprave (Sep 14, 2011)

Total candidate talking time (in seconds): 4041

Percent of time by candidate:


​ Perry: 21.3%

Romney: 15.7%

Bachmann: 12.7%

Huntsman: 11.3%

Santorum: 10.4%

Gingrich: 10.8%

Paul: 9.6%

Cain: 8.2%
​


----------



## deprave (Sep 14, 2011)

Ron Paul Video - Ron Paul Predicted 9/11 - 13,050 New View This Weekend - and thats unique people that watched it all the way through.

[video=youtube;yXYd5eHfRIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXYd5eHfRIE&feature=player_embedded#![/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 14, 2011)

Amazing New Ron Paul Video - 11,500+ views over night so far
[video=youtube;ohKz9OeiI0g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKz9OeiI0g&feature=player_embedded#![/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 14, 2011)

deprave said:


> Total candidate talking time (in seconds): 4041
> 
> Percent of time by candidate:
> 
> ...


----------



## deprave (Sep 15, 2011)

*Some new Ron Paul Videos Today *



*Ron Paul on Solyndra Scam, Cheney Comments *


[video=youtube;Sk4GAt8rgaw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk4GAt8rgaw[/video]




DON LEMON ON CNN Re-ASKS THE DEBATE QUESTIONS AND ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS HE DID'T GET TO ANSWER AT THE DEBATE: -RON PAUL OWNS IT!






Ron Paul - NO INCOME TAX - Part of CNN INTERVIEW: w/ Don Lemon
[video=youtube;LiuPxFh5LOg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiuPxFh5LOg[/video]

Ron Paul - Why 9/11 Happened - Another Part Of the CNN Interview w/ Don Lemon
[video=youtube;taqzzLRQ9wc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taqzzLRQ9wc[/video]

Ron Paul - How Ron Paul will save the uninsured - Another Part of the CNN interview w/ Don Lemon
[video=youtube;vy7hIVGxgQU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy7hIVGxgQU[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 15, 2011)

*Republican Rebel: Ron Paul's Life Reimagined by Taiwanese Animators *


[video=youtube;xbApVKKbdzU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbApVKKbdzU&feature=relmfu[/video]

k the Tawiwanese like him, so America, are you gonna wake the fuck up yet? He gets more money from the military than anyone else, is a veteran and&#65279; physician, voted against everything that was unconstitutional, and talked about things no one even wanted to discuss like the Federal Reserve. How much more obvious can it get? Why would anyone want to vote for obvious pieces of shit like Perry or Romney? What's wrong with Ron. I've studied and he has been honest. Vote for common sense. Ron 2012.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 15, 2011)

deprave said:


> Total candidate talking time (in seconds): 4041
> 
> Percent of time by candidate:
> 
> ...



I can understand Ron Paul not getting as much time as Romney and Perry in some ways. Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum, and Gingrich though? Ron Paul is a full 2% over Bachmann in the real clear politics polls. He has more support than Cain, Santorum, and Huntsman put together. He polls almost twice what Gingrich does.


----------



## deprave (Sep 15, 2011)

Growers in Michigan are definitely pulling for Ron Paul - The DEA has won the right to the medical marijuana records and is likely planning to raid all the medical growers....


----------



## deprave (Sep 15, 2011)

*Ron Paul's Foreign Policy: Peace & Respect - Not Intimidation, Bribes & War *


[video=youtube;XtQTTSmc-CU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtQTTSmc-CU[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 16, 2011)

Ron paul 2012!


----------



## deprave (Sep 16, 2011)

*Ron Paul within striking distance of Obama, has Manilow support*

New Reuters Ipsos Poll has Paul as the best competitor vs Obama - http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb&id=80afc43dce&e=1f45cc75c4



> the latest Reuters Ipsos poll puts Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul within striking distance of President Obama, while Grammy-winning musician Barry Manilow sings Paul's praises. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul remains a significant Libertarian voice among the Republican Party's presidential contenders, and the latest Reuters Ipsos poll demonstrates Dr. Paul's strong appeal against President Obama. &#8220;Our campaign has been gaining momentum for some time now, and this is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive we are versus the President&#8221; Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said, according to FITS News. &#8220;Dr. Paul is gaining ground in poll after poll, affirming that people are looking for real change instead of the status quo they are being offered from the establishment.&#8221; This message of "real change" does not appear to be an appeal to a fringe audience of Libertarians, as the 2012 presidential election is increasingly shaping up to be a matter of one ideological direction versus another. Within the pendulum-swinging environment, potentially toward solutions in smaller government, Congressman Paul could have much to gain. In fact, Dr. Paul has found a voice in Grammy-winning musician Barry Manilow. &#8220;I like him. I like what he says, I do. I like what he says. I think he&#8217;s solid,&#8221; Mr. Manilow told The Daily Caller, in a report released on Wednesday. &#8220;I agree with just about everything he says. What can I tell you?&#8221; But Ron Paul still faces an uphill battle among the Republican establishment, many of whom reject his anti-militarism position, as reflected in the raucous boos he received at the GOP debate on Monday night in Tampa. Texas Governor Rick Perry continues to receive the leading support from the Republican faithful, although Bloomberg reports that many Republicans reject his views. This will likely lead to trouble among Independents, a population that may find Dr. Paul's views of interest.
> 
> Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/311565#ixzz1Y79Uvwwv


SOURCE: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/311565#ixzz1Y4evMOqL


----------



## deprave (Sep 16, 2011)

*Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect*

New Ron Paul Video - he addresses the viewer directly

[video=youtube;PoYGAxF-zWE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYGAxF-zWE&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 16, 2011)

Jay Leno has been making fun of Ron Paul three nights in a row now:

Leno went after Ron Paul for the 3rd night in a row Thursday night, this time right out of the gate at the beginning of the show.
http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/Monologue-Part-1-91511/1355678


----------



## deprave (Sep 18, 2011)

*Are Republican Presidential Candidates Just Pretending To Have Christian Values? *

Featuring A smear attempt on Ron Paul...I'm not surprised.
[video=youtube;dzXTLJr5BkY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzXTLJr5BkY[/video]


Nice try....Matthew 5 and the parable of the Good Samaritan are interactions between people. Not with the government being the mediator of "compassion". Charity is when you voluntarily do something for another. When the government is "compassionate" with your money, it's called Theft.
But yes, I do think all&#65279; the candidates (besides Ron Paul) invoke the name of Christ in order to gain votes.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 18, 2011)

Ron Paul won california straw poll!


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 18, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Ron Paul won california straw poll!


By a decent margin if i read correctly


----------



## londonfog (Sep 18, 2011)

Oh my he is a shoe in as the Republican candidate for the general election now...


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 18, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Oh my he is a shoe in as the Republican candidate for the general election now...


Awww, come on london! You can do better than that by just digging up the blog article already stating that he bought his win by a single donor giving $26k.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 18, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Awww, come on london! You can do better than that by just digging up the blog article already stating that he bought his win by a single donor giving $26k.


it's amazing the things people would rather do with $26k than have it


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 18, 2011)

*RON PAUL 2012! Whoooo yaaaaa!*
[youtube]t2JmIZaju6g[/youtube]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 18, 2011)

*President Paul!*
[youtube]GThKgmFo7Z4[/youtube]
[youtube]08-WXZpK5vs[/youtube]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 18, 2011)

[youtube]oWgd-uvZxdA[/youtube]


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 18, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *President Paul!*


what are words that will never be uttered?

_correct._

great. i'll take lakes of the world for $400, alex.


----------



## Mannie Phresh (Sep 18, 2011)

preaching to the chior.


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 18, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> *RON PAUL 2012! Whoooo yaaaaa!*
> [youtube]t2JmIZaju6g[/youtube]


 I read about this. I've been busy with other "stuff" lately, but I checked the news this morning (between taping up blisters...LOL!)...Definitely nice to hear. I remain steadfast in my support for the man.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 18, 2011)

[youtube]HeJB_O4meSE[/youtube]


----------



## deprave (Sep 19, 2011)

it hasn't even been really talked about on the news today, at least those are the only videos on the open Internet^ there is more amateur videos but they don't cover the full speech. The introduction, the man talks about how Ron Pauls first days as president:
[video=youtube;QjqaKwq-S5w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjqaKwq-S5w&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

Ron Paul won the California Straw poll taking in just over 44% of the vote. I believe this makes him 2 for 5 in winnings with 1 second place finish in Iowa - 3 of 5 1st or 2nd place finishes in straw polls..more then any other candidate.




> Paul bests nearest competition by 15 percent
> LAKE JACKSON, Texas&#8211; At today&#8217;s California state Republican fall convention, 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul won its presidential straw poll, picking up 45 percent of the ballots cast.
> &#8220;This win is just the latest indication of our campaign&#8217;s growing momentum,&#8221; said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. &#8220;Americans are sick and tired of the status quo and Dr. Paul offers a real change, and hope for a free and prosperous future.&#8221;
> 
> ...


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 19, 2011)

*Marijuana bill officially introduced to Congress by Ron Paul, Barney Frank*

June 23, 2011 |  4:16 pm 
      

  86


  224






Marijuana laws should be set at the state, not federal, level, Reps. *Ron Paul* and* Barney Frank *argued in a bill they introduced Thursday.
The goal of the bill, HR 2306, is not to legalize marijuana but to remove it from the list of federally controlled substances while allowing states to decide how they will regulate it.
"I do not advocate urging people to smoke marijuana. Neither do I urge them to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke tobacco," said Frank (D-Mass.). "But in none of these cases do I think prohibition enforced by criminal sanctions is good public policy.
"Criminally prosecuting adults for making the choice to smoke marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources and an intrusion on personal freedom," he added.
Frank admitted in a conference call Thursday that he didn't think the bill had a chance of passing, but according to Reason's Hit & Run blog, the congressman was "particularly struck by the hypocrisy of public officials who will themselves talk about smoking marijuana, wink at it, and then make it criminal for other people," which leads to "a very discriminatory pattern of enforcement."

The bill appears doomed on arrival, according to the Associated Press, which reported that House Judiciary Committee Chairman *Lamar Smith* said his panel, which the proposed law is required to venture through, would not even consider it.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 19, 2011)

I think Ron Paul answered the guy without health insurance question 100%. The MSNBC guy said he was without compassion and completely cut the actual answer out. There is still 4-5 months til the primaries start. Ron Paul is gaining in recognition and support. 

The Polls are not as telling as one might imagine, and it is really anyone's race at the moment. 

Here is the average of the polls on RCP. I rounded up and down by .1-.2% on many of them because it makes for easier comparison. 

Perry: 29%
Romney: 19%
Palin: 12%
Paul: 9%
Bachmann: 7.5%
Gingrich: 6%
Cain: 5%
Santorum: 2%
Huntsman 1%

Palin isn't running. Perry's number is overstated and is still factoring in his 'new guy in the race' explosion of the first week or so of his campaign.

I see the real numbers as being something like:
Perry: 25%
Romney: 20%
Paul: 9%
Bachmann 7.5%

Most of the others will drop out at some point in the race. It is hard to guess who those people that support them will go to. Also, note that about 20% of Republican primary voters are undecided. Also, if you look at Real Clear Politics listed polls the ones Palin isn't polled in Ron Paul and Bachmann jump a couple percent. She isn't running, so expect the actual votes to reflect this.

Here is a major piece of information that most people won't connect or have really thought about. Where was the 2007 Primary race at in this point of the primaries?

It was:

Giuliani: 34%
Thompson: 23% 
McCain: 16%

As we all know, McCain was the eventual winner with over 46%. Romney was 22%. Huckabee was 21%.

Why did the polls show McCain sucking so bad if he totally beat ass in the primaries? Independents get to vote in about half of the Republican primaries. I knew there were a few states that did but further searching into it shows that many states allow Independents to vote in the primaries, and others allow changes at the polls and such. 

Who do the polling people poll for the republican primaries? Republicans.

Ron Paul has a lot of support with Independents. This is the first time he has a real opportunity to win it. Libertarians will definitely vote for Ron Paul in the primaries if they think it will help. 

The truth is, I am excited. Ron Paul's supporters are not going anywhere, they love him. So he has a solid 10% he isn't going to lose and that is just with registered Republicans. He has nowhere to go but up.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 19, 2011)

Here is a list of open primary states. If you live in one of these states and you are independent and like Ron Paul at all, go for it! If you live in a state that requires you to register Republican, then please do so. You vote and enthusiasm is greatly needed to change the country.


Alabama
Arizona (Semi-closed, with primaries open only to unaffiliated or unrepresented voters, except for the Libertarian primary.)
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)
Idaho
Indiana
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
If your state is not listed, double check. Other states have rules that allow Independents to vote in the primaries too!


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 19, 2011)

Amendments to the list adding the other states that allow independents to vote.

Illinois does not require you to register. You announce it at the polling place and nothing changes! This is essentially the same thing.
Iowa voters can change theirs the same day.
Louisiana does some funky crap with their primaries, but the end result is that you can vote in the primaries without changing to Republican.
Massachusetts is semi closed. You can still vote I think.
Montana voters are allowed to vote in whatever primary they want.
New Hampshire allows you to change at the polls.
New Jersey lets you change it at the polls.
North Carolina lets you vote in whatever primary you want as a Independent.
Ohio lets you change it at the polls.


That is 28 states that you can vote no problem! Yay. There are others that allow it. If in question spend the moment to check your states primary rules. If you know someone who likes Ron Paul make sure they know they can vote in the primaries! Often without having to become Republican! Get the word out!


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 20, 2011)

Come on, we have to hit 400 pages!


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 20, 2011)

I can't believe no one replied to my posts about independents voting in primaries.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 20, 2011)

My vagina ain't handicapped, oh no, my vagina ain't handicapped.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 20, 2011)

Congressman Ron Paul to attend a Town Hall Meeting at Rivers Bend Convention Center (Salon C) Stoney Creek Inn, 300 3rd St., Sioux City, IA on Tuesday, September 20 at 2:00pm Central.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 20, 2011)

*Spencer Town Hall Meeting*

Congressman Ron Paul to attend a Town Hall Meeting at Clay County Regional Events Center (Rooms A & B), 800 West 18th Street, Spencer, IA 51301 on Tuesday, September 20 at 4:00pm Central.




*September 22, 2011*

*FOX News Presidential Debate-Orlando, FL*

Fox News Debate In Orlando, Florida on Thursday, September 22 at 6pm Eastern






*Florida CPAC Speech*

Congressman Ron Paul will speak at the Florida Conservative Political Action Conference at the South Concourse of the Orange County Convention Center, 9899 International Drive, Orlando, FL on Friday, September 23rd at 1:45pm Eastern


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 20, 2011)

*September 23, 2011*

*Ron Paul to Speak at Louisiana State University*

Congressman Ron Paul will speak at Louisiana State University, at LSU&#8217;s Union Theater located at the intersection of Highland and Raphael Semmes Roads, Baton Rouge, LA on Friday, September 23rd. The doors open at 4:00 pm Central.
*To RSVP for this free LSU event please visit: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/lsu-event/*


*Ron Paul to Attend Louisiana State Campaign Headquarters Grand Opening*

Congressman Ron Paul will attend Louisiana State Campaign Headquarters Grand Opening at 7047 Jefferson Highway, Suite B in Baton Rouge, LA on Friday, September 23rd beginning at 5:30 p.m. Central. FIND MORE EVENT DETAILS HERE.


*September 26, 2011*

*Interview with Jon Stewart-Daily Show*

Congressman Ron Paul will interview with Jon Stewart-Daily Show Monday September 26 5:30pm Eastern Time


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 20, 2011)

*September 27, 2011*

*Dubuque Town Hall Meeting*

Congressman Ron Paul to attend a Town Hall Meeting at Northeast Iowa Community College &#8211; Town Clock Center, 680 Main St. Dubuque, IA 52001 on Tuesday, September 27 at 12:00pm Central.




*Clinton Town Hall Meeting*

Congressman Ron Paul to attend a Town Hall Meeting at Technology Center &#8211; Clinton Community College, 1951 Manufacturing Dr. Clinton, IA on Tuesday, September 27 at 2:00 pm Central.




*Muscatine Town Hall Meeting*

Congressman Ron Paul to attend a Town Hall Meeting at Riverview Center, 110 Harbor Dr. Muscatine, IA on Tuesday, September 27 at 4:00 pm Central.




*September 27, 2011*

*Story County GOP Chili Supper*

Congressman Ron Paul to attend a GOP Chili Supper at Gates Hall, 825 15th St. Nevada, IA on Tuesday, September 27 at 6:00 pm Central.


----------



## "LIFE" (Sep 20, 2011)

Jesus christ Ron Paul all I ever hear is fucking Ron Paul aahhhhhghhhhh


----------



## deprave (Sep 21, 2011)

CNN: 
*Is Anyone Besides Ron Paul Serious About Our Deepening National Financial Crisis? *


[video=youtube;ux0ZMak4-KE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux0ZMak4-KE[/video]

Cafferty incredibly critical of Obamas shitty plan, questions if anyone is serious about the financial crisis aside from Ron Paul.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 21, 2011)

[QUOTE="LIFE";6316340]Jesus christ Ron Paul all I ever hear is fucking Ron Paul aahhhhhghhhhh[/QUOTE]
Maybe you shouldn't be in a Ron Paul thread if you don't want to hear about it?


----------



## nog (Sep 21, 2011)

do's Ronny lad grow some nice weed??? ive never fucking heard of him.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 21, 2011)

nog said:


> do's Ronny lad grow some nice weed??? ive never fucking heard of him.


I think I can translate that as "Does Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, grow weed?" lol. If that is indeed the question you are asking then I don't believe so. However, they want you to have the right to decide if you should smoke weed for yourself. 

[video=youtube;ZJow2ALVirk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJow2ALVirk&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

This is Ron Paul talking about why he thinks marijuana should not be illegal.

That being said, I would be surprised if Ran has not gotten high. Ron Paul, I'm not sure.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 21, 2011)

Anyone else notice that Ron Paul gives the same answers as he did before but none of the other politicians who were in the 2008 primaries do? It is good to learn and adjust your way of thinking if you find new information, but it is better to have known the right way to begin with. Ron Paul stands among his peers as an adult among children. 

To any of those who don't like Ron Paul. Did you think he was a kook when he talked about the housing bubble as the democrats were ramming 'give poor people homes they can't afford plans' through? How about when Bush continued to do it? I bet you did. You thought he was a kook when he said the Fed was a major issue. Now almost everyone thinks the Fed is doing something wrong. Our representatives surely do since they voted to audit the Fed. As time goes on, it becomes more and more obvious that all the things Ron Paul is saying come true. He is like a political Nostradamus. You have to stop and ask yourself if he is right on many of these other things even though you might not agree with them right now. In 10 years, will his words have fallen on death ears and all the worse things he suggested might happen come to pass? It was obvious with the financial bubble, housing bubble, and all the other issues we have have that our government, and the people, were like a child being told they would burn their hands playing with fire. Yet we still burned our hands, and touched the fire. Will the country now remember what 'crazy old grandpa Ron' said as we continue on and take heed of the very logical warnings? When will America get past its teen years and become a country of logical decisions instead of allowing the country to be ran like American Idol? 

I hope it is in the coming years. I want to have children, I want my children to grow up and have the opportunity to do with their lives whatever they want. I do not want my child to grow up with the chains of society holding at the level of mediocrity because that is the safe way of life. They should have the opportunity to be exactly who they were born to be, and not what society deems acceptable. I do not want slaves for children protected from themselves by the government. I want free children who get to choose their own path.

Ron Paul is the one man who has a chance to lead our country down this road at this moment. All others whether they have a R or a D beside their names are authoritarian. Whether they want to control the fruits of labor or our personal lives is entirely besides the point. They both want control of us. Ron Paul is the only one who seems to understand that though his personal beliefs may be his own, yours are your own and you should be allowed to live by your beliefs not forced to live by his. This is why I support Ron Paul and believe he is the right choice. There is nothing more important than freedom.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 21, 2011)

*Ron Paul is such an admirable bad ass.
[youtube]Vi1nxu-Sy-w&feature=related[/youtube]
*


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 22, 2011)

Just watched the debate in Florida, of course barely any time went to ron, but he certainly answered all his questions the most logically, mitt romny, and rick perry will beat each other out of the race, just watch, and like ron paul said tonight he wont mention who he would choose as VP because he is in the top 3 nationally and dont want to hurt anything, so Ron Paul knows he is close, he will be the one debating a president, a president with all time low approval rating, more so than out of any other president for a generation. Rick perry had his ass booed to death floridans do not like him, ron paul clearly won this florida debate had the loudest cheers and applause, Ron Paul is the only candidate left.
*Ron Paul 2012! He will be president 2012.*


----------



## Parker (Sep 23, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Anyone else notice that Ron Paul gives the same answers as he did before but none of the other politicians who were in the 2008 primaries do? It is good to learn and adjust your way of thinking if you find new information, but it is better to have known the right way to begin with. Ron Paul stands among his peers as an adult among children.
> 
> To any of those who don't like Ron Paul. Did you think he was a kook when he talked about the housing bubble as the democrats were ramming 'give poor people homes they can't afford plans' through? How about when Bush continued to do it? I bet you did. You thought he was a kook when he said the Fed was a major issue. Now almost everyone thinks the Fed is doing something wrong. Our representatives surely do since they voted to audit the Fed. As time goes on, it becomes more and more obvious that all the things Ron Paul is saying come true. He is like a political Nostradamus. You have to stop and ask yourself if he is right on many of these other things even though you might not agree with them right now. In 10 years, will his words have fallen on death ears and all the worse things he suggested might happen come to pass? It was obvious with the financial bubble, housing bubble, and all the other issues we have have that our government, and the people, were like a child being told they would burn their hands playing with fire. Yet we still burned our hands, and touched the fire. Will the country now remember what 'crazy old grandpa Ron' said as we continue on and take heed of the very logical warnings? When will America get past its teen years and become a country of logical decisions instead of allowing the country to be ran like American Idol?
> 
> ...


I noticed. If anyone watched Hannity after the debates they'd have seen him be respectful to Ron Paul. The other candidates are sounding a bit like Ron on some points which makes it harder for Hannity to attack Ron. Hannity said he agreed with Ron on 95 percent of economic issues but disagreed with him about his foreign policy. Then asked him to explain it. 
It's hard for me to believe Hannity agreed with much of Ron Pauls economic policies before since Ron hasn't changed. Although I don't watch Hannity much, maybe he's changed over the last few years on economics.


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Ron Paul ONLY - FL debate
[video=youtube;FsrxdF5byQM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsrxdF5byQM[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Interestingly enough for our resident bleeding heart, above Ron Paul is asked "Why do you support the morning after pill? and abortion in incidents of rape"

Ron Paul " We can't police the morning after pill"

There ya go UB, your wife can get her abortion under ron paul....


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Total Talk 

Romney 12:09 
Perry 11:10 
Huntsman 07:41 
Santorum 07:06 
Cain 06:23
Bachmann 06:13
Gingrich 05:44 
Ron Paul 04:33
Johnson 04:10


Total
1:05:09


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Full length Debate

[video=youtube;dKNNN0NvVrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKNNN0NvVrc&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

On the freedom watch they talk about the media ignoring Ron Paul:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1176964373001/why-the-media-ignores-ron-paul/?playlist_id=87185


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Ron Paul the most views on youtube according to youtube, yet has posted the least videos lol!

[video=youtube;u9aHJrcKAfk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9aHJrcKAfk[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Rep Ron Paul officially endorsed by Michigan Congressman Justin Amash

[video=youtube;rjPvuzcuDHs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjPvuzcuDHs[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Ron Paul won all of the debate polls again, some video evidence of the fox poll:


[video=youtube;-XKpNLRSq1Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XKpNLRSq1Y[/video]


lol it seems they did take down the poll


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Just watched the debate in Florida, of course barely any time went to ron, but he certainly answered all his questions the most logically, mitt romny, and rick perry will beat each other out of the race, just watch, and like ron paul said tonight he wont mention who he would choose as VP because he is in the top 3 nationally and dont want to hurt anything, so Ron Paul knows he is close, he will be the one debating a president, a president with all time low approval rating, more so than out of any other president for a generation. Rick perry had his ass booed to death floridans do not like him, ron paul clearly won this florida debate had the loudest cheers and applause, Ron Paul is the only candidate left.
> *Ron Paul 2012! He will be president 2012.*


 I knew he won, im not a prophet, no, but rather a good observer, ^^^^^^


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

This just in! Yahoo news! Headline: "ROMNEY TOOK SECOND IN POLLS FOLLOWED BY PERRY"

Wonder who got first? jesus christ are you kidding me?!?!?!? the media black out is still on for Ron Paul! Don't think they are going to let up anytime soon! Ughhhh


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Ron Paul this morning spoke at 2 breakfast places already:

[video=youtube;UPBDUkZvZcg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPBDUkZvZcg[/video]

[video=youtube;TVQFGHC1zz4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVQFGHC1zz4[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

By the way guys Ron Paul is going to be on John Stewart Tommorow


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

Is this a slip up or what? I didn't catch it before but Neil Cavuto said he actually saw the *VIDEO* of Perry Getting in Ron Pauls face.

[video=youtube;5aYQW9MxMpM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aYQW9MxMpM[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> This just in! Yahoo news! Headline: "ROMNEY TOOK SECOND IN POLLS FOLLOWED BY PERRY"
> 
> Wonder who got first? jesus christ are you kidding me?!?!?!? the media black out is still on for Ron Paul! Don't think they are going to let up anytime soon! Ughhhh


 How fucking pathetic.


----------



## deprave (Sep 23, 2011)

well on fox,msnbc, cnn articles of the debate ron paul is only mentioned in the lineup if the article contains a lineup, additionally the msnbc article said "Ron Paul was Ron Paul"...A lot of articles came up out that Romney beat perry and this eventually evolved into the articles with headlines like "Romney Wins in Orlando" 

The article "Romeney Wins Orlando" Doesn't even mention Ron pauls name once, even when the article goes as far to list all the "second tier candidates" Ron Paul is not among them, instead these second tier candidates are the polling in single digits, not even in the same league as Ron Paul.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/23/romney-wins-in-orlando/


So GREAT...Now people think romney won the polls...Lets hope Ron Paul's 4 minutes of talking time at least reached out to a few. The polls which they have since hidden the links to on their websites, the polls which Ron Paul finished first yet again by a wide margin each time.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

Romney wins the nomination...sorry folks, it's just going to happen.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Romney wins the nomination...sorry folks, it's just going to happen.


 bwahahaha ok buddy.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Romney wins the nomination...sorry folks, it's just going to happen.


Perry wins the nomination

Have to remember Romney is a Mormon
Xstains 
Aint gonna vote for a Mormon


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Perry wins the nomination
> 
> Have to remember Romney is a Mormon
> Xstains
> Aint gonna vote for a Mormon


 are you high or just incredibly stupid? perry third romney 2nd Ron Paul 1st! that is the result buddy, man you libs live in fairy tale land.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> are you high or just incredibly stupid? perry third romney 2nd Ron Paul 1st! that is the result buddy, man you libs live in fairy tale land.


want to bet on that?


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 23, 2011)

I actually think Obama will win a second term, people don't like change. Ron Paul probably WOULD win if everyone voted their conscience, but like I said, people don't like change, they will resist it without even knowing why. How else do you explain the second term of Bush jr?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 23, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I actually think Obama will win a second term, people don't like change. Ron Paul probably WOULD win if everyone voted their conscience, but like I said, people don't like change, they will resist it without even knowing why. How else do you explain the second term of Bush jr?


i was finishing up college at the time of his re-election. this was about the time facebook was getting big, so i still get to see a few of the righties i argued with make posts about how horrible obama's wars in libya and iraq are, and how he is spending all this fucking money, and how the debt ceiling is the end of the world, and so on and so forth.

it makes my day when i remind them who they adamantly defended in 2004 during our heated call center debates.

that goes doubly so when they use the old line about liberals being lazy, unmotivated welfare bums, and i get to remind them who out-earned them on donations 4 to 1 during those days and was pulling $25-$30 an hour on good nights while they never broke $15. 

never gets old.

/digression


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

Duke...

Perry doesn't stand a chance...how can the GOP knowingly nominate a candidate that was just years ago talking about secession from the Union? It's a poor choice. Furthermore, as I have said elsewhere, Romney has been coronated for this since about 2009. His connections are just WAY better than Perry's.

Also, another thought came to me today...

Do you know how you can usually go to a candidates site and find information about their advisors and whatnot...well, I went to find out more about Ron Paul's campaign advisors and found that he has two. Just two guys...neither of them seem to even have any stellar credentials.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Duke...
> 
> Perry doesn't stand a chance...how can the GOP knowingly nominate a candidate that was just years ago talking about secession from the Union? It's a poor choice. Furthermore, as I have said elsewhere, Romney has been coronated for this since about 2009. His connections are just WAY better than Perry's.
> 
> Also, another thought came to me today...



I'll agree with you on Perry being the wrong choice for Repubes wanting to win 2012 but Perry would surely loose to Obama and Romney would be like a 45- 55 spread against Obama, the only way to win is to gain the independents and only ROn Paul is truly doing that despite the other candidates taking ques from his lines. Who is the only candidates talking about bringing our troops home ? 

Okay point made. 



> Do you know how you can usually go to a candidates site and find information about their advisors and whatnot...well, I went to find out more about Ron Paul's campaign advisors and found that he has two. Just two guys...neither of them seem to even have any stellar credentials.


Hey bud, freedom doesn't have credentials, so it's irrelevant right? 

In this world you weigh "credentials" with a grain of salt.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'll agree with you on Perry being the wrong choice for Repubes wanting to win 2012 but Perry would surely loose to Obama and Romney would be like a 45- 55 spread against Obama, the only way to win is to gain the independents and only ROn Paul is truly doing that despite the other candidates taking ques from his lines. Who is the only candidates talking about bringing our troops home ?
> 
> Okay point made.
> 
> ...


What kind of non-sequitur talk is that? "freedom doesn't have credentials?" Of course it does...How do you figure that we can have people that don't know shit about shit running the country at a time like this? I weigh credentials, as would anyone seeking to make an INFORMED decision about who leads this country. Personally, I believe the president to be rather powerless in the decisions he/she will be forced to make, circumstance is what it is. But to say that we don't need qualified (credentialed) leaders is basically admitting that Ron Paul & his "team" are UNQUALIFIED for the office he seeks.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 23, 2011)

i vote based on hair alone.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 23, 2011)




----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

I'd still give Bachmann the business with that hair...it's probably what her real hair would look like anyway.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

Obama has the lowest approval rating out of any president at this point, the dude is not getting elected, even black community has low approval for him, his job is done with.
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
-- Barack H Obama, 38 percent
Obama is out!



​


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

wow...that's not racist at all.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> wow...that's not racist at all.


 You are the only one bringing up "racist" you have a guilty conscience?
Go preach somewhere else. Oh yeah but before you do you should look up the definition of racist so you dont use it so freely next time.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

Take your BS to stormfront or something...

Berate me for calling you out on your racist picture...grow up and take responsibility for your actions.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

*Bwahahahahah ^^^^^^^^ did you look up the definition yet bwoy?
*


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

Yeah, this is pointless. You refuse to be honest.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

I rest my case, no looking up of definitions, make up your own!


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

If you are so damn "educated" why don't you impart your knowledge of the word and it's usage?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> want to bet on that?


 *I dont bet but if i did i would bet you and win. You liberals need to quit being so liberal with your arrogance and not bet when the chips are stacked against you.*
* Fox News Pulls Poll Showing Ron Paul Debate Victory, Claims Mitt Romney Won *



       
 
Poll showed Paul trouncing Romney by 11,000 votes

Friday, September 23, 2011
The establishment media&#8217;s relentless campaign to denigrate Congressman Ron Paul&#8217;s presidential campaign has manifested itself once again, after a poll showing Paul had won last night&#8217;s Orlando debate was pulled by Fox News who later published an article claiming Mitt Romney had instead claimed the victory.
When we took a screenshot of the poll at around 5am CST this morning, the result showed Paul easily beating his nearest rival Romney by 11,000 clear votes, with Paul at almost 40% and Romney trailing at just under 23%.
After our screenshot of the poll was posted on the ever-popular Drudge Report website, Fox News pulled the page that had previously housed the poll entirely. But the network went further, subsequently publishing an article by National Review editor and Fox News contributor Rich Lowry opining that Mitt Romney had in fact won the debate, thereby completely ignoring their own website poll, which restricts users to one vote per IP address.
Indeed, Lowry didn&#8217;t even mention Ron Paul once in his 13 paragraph piece, despite giving praise to Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain &#8211; all of whom performed miserably in Fox News&#8217; own post-debate poll. Ron Paul got nearly double the amount of votes in the poll than all three of them put together, but Lowry completely omitted Paul&#8217;s name from his report.
As we have previously documented, Fox News, even more so than the likes of MSNBC and CNN, have constantly undermined Paul&#8217;s campaign with dirty tricks, including playing the wrong audio of a crowd booing Paul at this year&#8217;s CPAC event.
See the results of the original poll before Fox News pulled it below.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

Yeah, exactly...change the subject.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Yeah, exactly...change the subject.


 I wasnt talking to you, but i have no time for your cowardliness.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

"Cowardliness?" Explain that one while you are looking up "racist"


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

yep to cowardly to stand up for your self and back up how someone is racist seeing how the word just fly's from thy lips so freely and effortlessly.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> yep to cowardly to stand up for your self and back up how someone is racist seeing how the word just fly's from thy lips so freely and effortlessly.


You are too damn ignorant to have a pre-existing word knowledge pertinent to your own damn RACIST post.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> You are too damn ignorant to have a pre-existing word knowledge pertinent to your own damn RACIST post.


 Im not going around calling everyone racist because i dont agree.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

So, how would you describe the picture?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 23, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Obama has the lowest approval rating out of any president at this point, the dude is not getting elected, even black community has low approval for him, his job is done with.
> -- George W. Bush, 86 percent
> -- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
> -- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
> ...


there is NO way dubya had an 86% approval rating at this point in his first term.

and if his daddy had a 71% approval rating, that means your numbers don't mean shit, as he LOST.

and ruiner, arguing with this guy is just as pointless as arguing with the kitchen table. he thins fluoride is a conspiracy to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so that we turn into NAZIs. that is not exaggeration, that is a pretty precise paraphrase.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> So, how would you describe the picture?


i know how i would describe it


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 23, 2011)

That picture isn't racism, its stereotyping...big difference. BTW black people do indeed like soul food. Chicken is high on the list of foods with soul.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 23, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> That picture isn't racism, its stereotyping...big difference. BTW black people do indeed like soul food. Chicken is high on the list of foods with soul.


When you doctor a picture to portray someone with sterotypical RACIST features, that's RACISM...thus RACIST,


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 23, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> When you doctor a picture to portray someone with sterotypical RACIST features, that's RACISM...thus RACIST,


 I do not comprehend.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 24, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> When you doctor a picture to portray someone with sterotypical RACIST features, that's RACISM...thus RACIST,


 I was referring to UB's picture.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 24, 2011)

Wanna see racism?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Wanna see racism?


to be fair, every white person i know looks a lot like that 

not really. thank goodness.


----------



## Fight411 (Sep 24, 2011)

Perry with an A baby. Rick Parry!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> there is NO way dubya had an 86% approval rating at this point in his first term.
> 
> and if his daddy had a 71% approval rating, that means your numbers don't mean shit, as he LOST.
> 
> and ruiner, arguing with this guy is just as pointless as arguing with the kitchen table. he thins fluoride is a conspiracy to give us chemical lobotomies and make us passive so that we turn into NAZIs. that is not exaggeration, that is a pretty precise paraphrase.


 The point is obama fail.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

Its no longer epic fail there is a whole new word called 

*"Obamafail"*


----------



## londonfog (Sep 24, 2011)

do you pay attention to the obstruction this man has faced ???


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

Only an obstruction for someone with great arrogance and incompetence.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> The point is obama fail.


you're not going to bother with defending your wildly inaccurate numbers?

fine.

tells me all i need to know.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you're not going to bother with defending your wildly inaccurate numbers?
> 
> fine.
> 
> tells me all i need to know.


 Gallup has been polling Presidential approval since FDR. In the 71 years since this poll started Obama has the lowest approval at this point and in most cases he is ten or more points lower that every President all the way back to Truman.


----------



## Fight411 (Sep 24, 2011)

he's talking about the deficit. that proves his point even more.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Obama has the lowest approval rating out of any president at this point...





tryingtogrow89 said:


> Gallup has been polling Presidential approval since FDR. In the 71 years since this poll started Obama has the lowest approval at this point and in most cases he is ten or more points lower that every President all the way back to Truman.


key words: at this point

i guarantee you that dubya did not have an 86% approval rating AT THIS POINT into his term. maybe shortly after 9/11, but it faded quickly.

you are being dishonest, thus rendering your graph meaningless.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

Keep OBAMA OUT OF THE RON PAUL THREAD PLEASE! 

At least until Ron Paul wins the nomination


Anyway who wants to talk about some corporate puppet when we can talk about humanitarian issues, liberty, and TRUTH!


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

RON PAUL SPEAKS AT CPAC FLORIDA!
[video=youtube;VYhctabac70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYhctabac70[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

Tommorw Night Ron Paul is on the daily show tell your friends.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

Fox Focus Group, Ron Paul never mentioned, they all said mitt won:

They interview a bunch of people that don't follow politics, ace plan: 
[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1178501384001/voters-react-to-republican-presidential-debate/?playlist_id=86858[/video]
"....Mitts a stupid name I thought at first but last night he did good..."

Karl rove was interview on fox about the debates, not even going to post that, ofcourse no mention of Ron Paul.

Gop Debate: Who scored the most points , who missed opportunities - Ron Paul again not mentioned
[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1178347092001/gop-presidential-debate-who-scored-points-who-missed-out/?playlist_id=86858[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> key words: at this point
> 
> i guarantee you that dubya did not have an 86% approval rating AT THIS POINT into his term. maybe shortly after 9/11, but it faded quickly.
> 
> you are being dishonest, thus rendering your graph meaningless.


 Yeah you would like to ignore facts wouldn't ya.
Also you're right! "at this point" are key words because his ratings plummet weekly.
So thank you for validating the point.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

Another Fox show about the debates, this time from the allged 'tea party' perspective (ya right)

[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1178368946001/tea-party-take-on-gop-frontrunners/?playlist_id=86858[/video]

Oh yeah, no mention of Ron Paul on the alleged tea party video, hes only the father of the tea party. Got a feeling they probably cut out Ron Paul from the poll.

On the episode they talk to a man who seems to be slightly intoxicated..


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Yeah you would like to ignore facts wouldn't ya.


thank you for FAILING to admit that you were DEAD WRONG.

14 months before the 2004 election, W had an approval rating nowhere near 86%.







your meaningless chart is a lie, thanks for not being man enough to admit it. reflects poorly on your honesty.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> thank you for FAILING to admit that you were DEAD WRONG.
> 
> 14 months before the 2004 election, W had an approval rating nowhere near 86%.
> 
> ...


 Obama has a sweet spot and its the high 30 percentile, continuously dropping, i can care less about bush; but yes its fact that Obama is consistently lower than any other previous POTUS since the poll began 71 years ago. That's all there is to it, wanna cry now that you realize over half the nation not approve of your incompetent retard lord?, awwwwwww.


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 24, 2011)

If polatitions would stop the spin they might say something correct Like John 16:3 was exactly correct. Comparing numbers Poloski would have made a point and been correct if she had just stated apples and apples. Now goes down as twisting the truth even if it was 'technicaly correct.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

bush did have high approval rating around sept 11th, immediately after being elected 85% sounds like a lot but I know it was high..


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Obama has a sweet spot and its the high 30 percentile, continuously dropping, i can care less about bush; but yes its fact that Obama is consistently lower than any other previous POTUS since the poll began 71 years ago. That's all there is to it, wanna cry now that you realize over half the nation not approve of your incompetent retard lord?, awwwwwww.


you don't care that i have proven you to be a master bullshit artist with false numbers who likes to tell lies?

i can care less about how many people approve of obama, if you want to judge by what people think we can talk about how ron paul garnered a mere 0.0032% of the vote last election (some revolution).

my main point was that YOU ARE LYING.

good job at destroying your credibility, and better yet, failing to man up to your lies.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> Keep OBAMA OUT OF THE RON PAUL THREAD PLEASE!
> 
> At least until Ron Paul wins the nomination
> 
> ...


Whether he wants it or not
Ron Paul is the Biggest Corporate Puppet on the face of this earth
My God man do you ever listen to your self or even know Ron pauls Positions on states rights the federal goverment and he free market?
Ron Paul basically gives the keys to the Corporations and Expects the "free market" to regulate them

YOu should be able to figure out how that will work out for us


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you don't care that i have proven you to be a master bullshit artist with false numbers who likes to tell lies?
> 
> i can care less about how many people approve of obama, if you want to judge by what people think we can talk about how ron paul garnered a mere 0.0032% of the vote last election (some revolution).
> 
> ...


daaaaawwwwwwwwwwww


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> to be fair, every white person i know looks a lot like that
> 
> not really. thank goodness.


Black people don't look like the Obama picture that was posted either. Why is one racist and the other not? If you were making fun of a redneck, you would make their mullet bigger and give them a cut off jean shirt and a huge belt buckle and then portray them to be stupid. Why would making a black persons lips or nose bigger and giving them say a giant Mercedes emblem as a necklace and their pants hanging down around their knees be any different in practice?


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Its no longer epic fail there is a whole new word called
> 
> *"Obamafail"*



That chart isn't very accurate. We haven't had a surplus since 1957.

Here are two different views of our total debt.




Cut a lot of people out there in the middle, but no one ever suggests they balanced the budget in those years.

The 'balanced' budget thing gets its roots from the nearly illegal way they account for the money. There hasn't been anyone who balanced the budget since the 50s.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> key words: at this point
> 
> i guarantee you that dubya did not have an 86% approval rating AT THIS POINT into his term. maybe shortly after 9/11, but it faded quickly.
> 
> you are being dishonest, thus rendering your graph meaningless.


All graphs border on meaningless. Bush still had 55-60% approval at this point in his first term. Which would of been more than a year after 9/11. Obama isn't very many % from Bush's at this time in his 2nd term. That is a really horrible.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 24, 2011)

I know it's not much in retrospect to Romney and Perry's numbers BUT Ron Paul is polling an average of 3rd in National polls. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

How much longer will Romney and Perry bludgeon each-other? I like watching those fights.




I'm sorry but that made me laugh hard.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

Why are they saying that herman cain won now? and paul is fifth? it just keeps getting stranger.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Why are they saying that herman cain won now? and paul is fifth? it just keeps getting stranger.


Since when? lmao


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

romney is catching perry (based on the latest survey of likely voters, fuck all the surveys of registered voters).

all others lag behind. ron paul still in nowheresville with a whopping 7% or so of the vote.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Since when? lmao


Go to drudgereport.com its the main link....


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> romney is catching perry (based on the latest survey of likely voters, fuck all the surveys of registered voters).
> 
> all others lag behind. ron paul still in nowheresville with a whopping 7% or so of the vote.


I'm guessing you just made that number up and have nothing to support it in any way or form.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I'm guessing you just made that number up and have nothing to support it in any way or form.


according to the latest rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, he garnered 6%.

which is around 7% OR SO.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

nothing to support it except for a poll of 1,000 likely voters from a reputable polling source.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

i should also mention to tryingtogrow that not only were his numbers phony and dishonest (and he does not have the chutzpah to admit it), but obama scored an approval rating of 44% among 1500 likely voters, which is about his average as of late.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

tringtogrow, do you want to admit already that you published a bunch of phony and misleading numbers, or do you want to continue to occupy a cocoon devoid of reality?


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> according to the latest rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, he garnered 6%.
> 
> which is around 7% OR SO.
> 
> ...


It's funny that I know where you are coming from with that but really it's a matter of how you read those polls. If you go by average Ron Paul has a solid 9.8 % combined with all the polls averaged. Just pointing that out. 




UncleBuck said:


> i should also mention to tryingtogrow that not only were his numbers phony and dishonest (and he does not have the chutzpah to admit it), but obama scored an approval rating of 44% among 1500 likely voters, which is about his average as of late.
> 
> http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
> 
> tringtogrow, do you want to admit already that you published a bunch of phony and misleading numbers, or do you want to continue to occupy a cocoon devoid of reality?


UB you pinned him on that, but is it not honestly safe to say that we ALL have at one point misconstrued something before based on our personal beliefs? I'll be the first to say I have , it's human nature. 

Anyways, I thought it would also be fair to observe that a McClathy/Marist poll with a sample of 825 Republican voters knocked him down to that 39%, that's a given among the Red Camp. But what leads me to believe those numbers might be a fair representative is the Gallup poll released during the same survey period as the Rasmussen , 9/21-9/23, with a sample of 1500 anonymous people had the rating at 39% again. 

Obama will only have a chance of winning the White House a 2nd term if all the GOP primaries can muster is Perry, Romney, or god forbid Bachmann. Time will tell.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Go to drudgereport.com its the main link....


I'm aware now.. Not surprised, Herman has a message that people like, but I don't know if it was that many. 

Now is it possible to buy supporters in the Republican Florida straw poll? Let's rewind to 2008. 

[video=youtube;bDjPY_ngxNU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDjPY_ngxNU[/video]

Point made?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i should also mention to tryingtogrow that not only were his numbers phony and dishonest (and he does not have the chutzpah to admit it), but obama scored an approval rating of 44% among 1500 likely voters, which is about his average as of late.
> 
> http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
> 
> tringtogrow, do you want to admit already that you published a bunch of phony and misleading numbers, or do you want to continue to occupy a cocoon devoid of reality?


 He is gallup polling at the high 30's. what do you want?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I'm aware now.. Not surprised, Herman has a message that people like, but I don't know if it was that many.
> 
> Now is it possible to buy supporters in the Republican Florida straw poll? Let's rewind to 2008.
> 
> ...


 Yeah for sure, it was just weird. lol and there is no way perry is second with as many times he was booed, these are establishment conjured up numbers.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> It's funny that I know where you are coming from with that but really it's a matter of how you read those polls. If you go by average Ron Paul has a solid 9.8 % combined with all the polls averaged. Just pointing that out.


9.8% is still "7% or so", especially considering most of the rest of those polls used only registered voters, not likely ones.



hazyintentions said:


> UB you pinned him on that, but is it not honestly safe to say that we ALL have at one point misconstrued something before based on our personal beliefs? I'll be the first to say I have , it's human nature.
> 
> Anyways, I thought it would also be fair to observe that a McClathy/Marist poll with a sample of 825 Republican voters knocked him down to that 39%, that's a given among the Red Camp. But what leads me to believe those numbers might be a fair representative is the Gallup poll released during the same survey period as the Rasmussen , 9/21-9/23, with a sample of 1500 anonymous people had the rating at 39% again.
> 
> Obama will only have a chance of winning the White House a 2nd term if all the GOP primaries can muster is Perry, Romney, or god forbid Bachmann. Time will tell.


my predicition:

perry vs. obama = perry win

romney vs. obama = obama win (fucking asshole americans won' give mormons a chance)

paul vs. obama = fantasy, paul will NEVER get the nod.

if you want a bold prediction, here it is. romney or perry gets the nod, paul runs third party. he is old, this is his last chance. he said he will not even run for rep again. he siphons off enough votes from either candidate and obama wins.

i still don't think obama will win re-election, honestly (although i approve of his policies more than i disapprove of them).

you have revealed yourself as an honest enough person. what do you think?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> He is gallup polling at the high 30's. what do you want?


i want you to admit that you published a phony list of numbers.

even your fellow ron paulophile has admitted as much.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

*Perry Endorses Dr. Paul*


*
*​
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/183617-perry-dont-elect-the-smoothest-debater
"As conservatives we know that values and vision matter. Its not who is the slickest candidate or the smoothest debater that we need to elect. We need to elect the candidate with the best record and the best vision for this country,"
Gov. Perry thank you for your solid endorsement of Dr. Ron Paul.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

Ron Paul speaking at LSU today:

[video=youtube;ZWkve9kRzEc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWkve9kRzEc&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 24, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i want you to admit that you published a phony list of numbers.
> 
> even your fellow ron paulophile has admitted as much.


 Nope he is at the high 30's and has been, nothing phony about anything accept the fact you cant handle it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Nope he is at the high 30's and has been, nothing phony about anything accept the fact you cant handle it.


do you think i give a shit who polls what?

a majority of people does not a right make.

i would give two shits if he polled in the single digits. a figure head is not important to me in the least.

if anyone can't handle something, it is you who can't handle the fact that you are posting phony numbers and are not man enough to admit such, even while your fellow ron paul supporters readily agree with me.

obama can post a negative approval rating for all i care. what does it matter to me what others think now that my wife can buy health insurance and the tax breaks i received allowed me to invest enough to work for myself?

btw, mr. mailbox checker, obama also saved you some money by exempting the first $2,400 of unemployment that you collected from tax. you're welcome.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> nothing phony about anything accept the fact you cant handle it.


[video=youtube;-yB7J7DYi6M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yB7J7DYi6M[/video]


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> snip


i like you, deprave.

and i know you are among the reality-based ron paul supporters, and i know you will agree with me that tryingtogrow posted a list of numbers that did not comport with reality. george w bush did not have an 86% approval rating at this point in his term, as tryingtogrow tried to claim.

i also know that you support the notion that what a majority of people say or approve does not make it right.

finally, i know that you are one who readily admits their mistakes, unlike tryingtogrow.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't really care to argue the numbers or investigate that, but I will say that G Dub did have a high approval rating immediately after 9/11 and I will say that it is often claimed that obamas current approval ratings are incredibly low, I don't really care to investigate that either, Id say they are probably lower than ever in at least his history as president and possibly more....Don't really care about this statistic personally, its a number that can be quite misleading, especially when comparing one president to another one.


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

Next Ron Paul Moneybomb is being dubbed as Black-This-Out! (BlackThisOut.com) OCT 19


[video=youtube;lvibsyKLDSA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvibsyKLDSA&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

*





We are sick of your lies, and your refusal to admit Ron Paul is a frontrunner for the GOP nomination. The media BLACKOUT immediately after the 2012 Ames Straw Poll proves just how far the media will go to suppress the message of freedom. This is the last straw!
We will not let you dictate who we should vote for. This October 19th will go down as one of the greatest grassroots donation efforts in history. We will do it WITHOUT you.
So go ahead, BLACK THIS OUT!

Click to expand...


*


----------



## deprave (Sep 24, 2011)

I will say one thing though, I think gdub and bama both are probably the worse of all time up there with Nixon and GDubs Daddie, thats just my opinion though..If I had to pick one of these bunch I couldn't do it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> I don't really care to argue the numbers or investigate that, but I will say that G Dub did have a high approval rating immediately after 9/11 and I will say that it is often claimed that obamas current approval ratings are incredibly low, I don't really care to investigate that either, Id say they are probably lower than ever in at least his history as president and possibly more....Don't really care about this statistic personally, its a number that can be quite misleading, especially when comparing one president to another one.


wtf? you investigate everything!

if you let your fellow ron paul supporters go on with bullshit lies, it reflects badly on ALL of you


----------



## deprave (Sep 25, 2011)

sorry its just not something I am interested in, this thread is for debunking Ron Paul conspiracy theories so it is also off topic. Like I said, its also not relevant to compare 'Approval Ratings' to another president and it is easily skewed, I trust none of those graphs that either of you posted, very easy to smudge something like that. My personal 'Approval Rating' of each graph would be zilch, Id say both graphs are skewed/slanted without even looking it up. Id bet on that if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but I don't think it could. 

To be fair there is very few statistics that I do put weight on, I am not a statist, I am a philosopher and a realist. My personality is of Introverted Intuition with Extroverted Feeling (http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html), this is part of the reason I think that I like Ron Paul so much, he is the same type of person as me so its easy for me to identify with him, well, most politicians like him would be an ENFJ but I can tell from his way of thinking he is actually just an INFJ that has trained himself to give speeches.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

deprave said:


> sorry its just not something I am interested in, this thread is for debunking Ron Paul conspiracy theories so it is also off topic. Like I said, its also not relevant to compare 'Approval Ratings' to another president and it is easily skewed, I trust none of those graphs that either of you posted, very easy to smudge something like that. My personal 'Approval Rating' of each graph would be zilch, Id say both graphs are skewed/slanted without even looking it up. Id bet on that if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but I don't think it could.
> 
> To be fair there is very few statistics that I do put weight on, I am not a statist, I am a philosopher and a realist. My personality is of Introverted Intuition with Extroverted Feeling (http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html), this is part of the reason I think that I like Ron Paul so much, he is the same type of person as me so its easy for me to identify with him.


 Exactly, this is what it all boils down to in the end.


----------



## deprave (Sep 25, 2011)

you guys ever took personality tests? Just curious..


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 25, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I know it's not much in retrospect to Romney and Perry's numbers BUT Ron Paul is polling an average of 3rd in National polls.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
> 
> ...


Oh the wonders of photoshop and people who believe everything they see because it's OBAMA!!! dun dun dun!!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/phone.asp


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> Oh the wonders of photoshop and people who believe everything they see because it's OBAMA!!! dun dun dun!!!
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/phone.asp


 Who cares if its fake, its still quite funny and quite fitting, i do not know what is worse; saying hello Ohio to Florida, or saying there are 57 states. Or saying he believes the second amendment is for duck hunting. Or his deficit tripling or his unconstitutional wars, or his unconstitutional health care plans, six examples should be enough, or shall i keep going?
*"**Obamafail"*


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> according to the latest rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, he garnered 6%.
> 
> which is around 7% OR SO.
> 
> ...


While I agree with Rasmussen being a reputable poller. You notice that their Ron Paul % is not in line with the other polls? The day before that, the Gallup polls put him at 13% with registered voters. It is more complicated than likely or registered though. Why? The polls sway people from voting one way or another based on perception of who COULD win and could not. If Ron Paul gains another 3-4% they will have to start taking him serious even in the news. God forbid that Ron Paul hits the 20% mark in this primary, then add to it that he does really well against Obama. I am guessing he would really pick up a lot of momentum at that point. Just like 10% of the people supported Ron Paul in the last primary but he only got 1% - gotta pick between the turd sandwich and the giant douche, right? Hopefully Ron Paul gets his chance this time.

May I also point out that in the last 2 weeks or so Ron Paul is in double digits in 3 out of 7 polls that have been done. I have to assume the polls are mostly wrong by at least their margin of error.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i like you, deprave.
> 
> and i know you are among the reality-based ron paul supporters, and i know you will agree with me that tryingtogrow posted a list of numbers that did not comport with reality. george w bush did not have an 86% approval rating at this point in his term, as tryingtogrow tried to claim.
> 
> ...


 UB is either really high, is taking some new medication, or is setting up for the next big attack lol.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> 9.8% is still "7% or so", especially considering most of the rest of those polls used only registered voters, not likely ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think your predictions are, unfortunately, spot on. 

And sorry, I meant to say "registered" voters not "republican voters when I brought those polls up. 

I am beginning to seriously consider moving away from population and becoming self sufficient when I have the resources and money, especially given the path our country is going down. 

I'm Paul it's is obvious with the way Paul gets black listed during the debates getting few questions and most questions are just ridiculous (Rape Exception, really Fox? You are that low?) . 

So, with that said I can always have a littler glimmer of hope. But the real battle is the GOP nod, what amazing me is that the Red camp doesn't realize the only way they will make Obama a one term president is to give a GOP nominee who appeals to the independents and some of the people in the Blue camp tired of Obama's fleeting policies. 

Perry could never do that. 
Romney is an obvious flip flopper and wall street puppet; he won't win either. 
Ron Paul will have to become superman to win the nod, with like 18 weeks before the first primaries things are getting tight and the media hasn't allowed him a chance so I that is my reasoning. 





Carne Seca said:


> Oh the wonders of photoshop and people who believe everything they see because it's OBAMA!!! dun dun dun!!!
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/phone.asp


I just thought is was funny because of the serious look on Obama's face. Made it all the better.




Carthoris said:


> UB is either really high, is taking some new medication, or is setting up for the next big attack lol.


No, I believe UncleBuck is here to have a civil and complex debate, it seems that everyone on this forum eventually matures past the name calling, like the stages of life, only shorter, it's hard to explain but I'm glad I can at least see eye to eye with him rather than dealing with attacks and the outfield. Haha


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 25, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I am beginning to seriously consider moving away from population and becoming self sufficient when I have the resources and money, especially given the path our country is going down.
> 
> .


I know a guy that has done it since the Mid 70s
He lives in a log cabin on his fathers farm. No electricity and got a wood burning furnace to heat it finally about 10 years ago. His boss used to get on his ass for not cashing his pay checks. They are made out in his Fathers name and Chuck would collect 4 or 5 months worth of them before he would get em cashed. This guy was making 20 bucks an hour as a roofer


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 25, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> I know a guy that has done it since the Mid 70s
> He lives in a log cabin on his fathers farm. No electricity and got a wood burning furnace to heat it finally about 10 years ago. His boss used to get on his ass for not cashing his pay checks. They are made out in his Fathers name and Chuck would collect 4 or 5 months worth of them before he would get em cashed. This guy was making 20 bucks an hour as a roofer


I wouldn't be that extreme, I would build my own house, if I OWNED the land. Solar panels and wind turbines for power, massive battery pack for storage. Feed back energy to the grid. have my own garden with all the goodies. Raised chickens, cows, pigs, ducks. Hunt. you name it, I would even build my own EV and power it with my free energy.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 25, 2011)

There is no such thing as "self-sufficiency," it truly takes a community. If you think otherwise, you have never tried it for yourself.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 25, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> There is no such thing as "self-sufficiency," it truly takes a community. If you think otherwise, you have never tried it for yourself.


Disagree with you. Although the Example of my freind is more of "living off the Grid" than it is self suffiency
Chuck Still buys is beer every night and still has to pay for gas and any tools he needs for his job.

Chuck is a non person even though he exists. Make me wonder if he was a draft dodger during Nam


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 25, 2011)

Then I would re-assert the notion that you have never tried it...

I have personally lived in intentional communities, I know what it takes, and it is more than one person or family can handle. There is just way too much to do, especially if you want to retain any sort of quality to your life.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 25, 2011)

Like I said 
Chuck has no Plumbing and no electricity. For the first 25 years he had no heat source for winter.
He has his jeep and his job. And a battery powered radio


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 25, 2011)

Yeah...exactly, he is still dependent on the outside world. I am not trying to be combative, I am just being real. 

I mean, what does he do for food? Gas? Replacement parts? Laundry? Soap? Medical care? And a thousand other things he still needs to get by...


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 25, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> No, I believe UncleBuck is here to have a civil and complex debate, it seems that everyone on this forum eventually matures past the name calling, like the stages of life, only shorter, it's hard to explain but I'm glad I can at least see eye to eye with him rather than dealing with attacks and the outfield. Haha


I guess you missed the 50 or so pages full of turtle fucking jokes aimed at Ron Paul. lol.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 25, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Yeah...exactly, he is still dependent on the outside world. I am not trying to be combative, I am just being real.
> 
> I mean, what does he do for food? Gas? Replacement parts? Laundry? Soap? Medical care? And a thousand other things he still needs to get by...


There are still tribes who get by without any of that. A person would be no different. They might go insane, but they could still do so. In the USA it would be very hard due to the government wanting to be in your life and not leaving you alone. People did exist before there were governments in the way we know them. You wouldn't have the greatest life but it isn't like there is no life without society.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> I think your predictions are, unfortunately, spot on.
> 
> And sorry, I meant to say "registered" voters not "republican voters when I brought those polls up.
> 
> ...


i am totally with you on the slant that works against paul.

they either ask him "ron paul" questions or those out of nowhere ones. they rarely let him chime in on the main matters of the day.



hazyintentions said:


> I just thought is was funny because of the serious look on Obama's face. Made it all the better.


i thought it was real. i got duped.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I guess you missed the 50 or so pages full of turtle fucking jokes aimed at Ron Paul. lol.


i like turtles.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> There are still tribes who get by without any of that. A person would be no different. They might go insane, but they could still do so. In the USA it would be very hard due to the government wanting to be in your life and not leaving you alone. People did exist before there were governments in the way we know them. You wouldn't have the greatest life but it isn't like there is no life without society.


You are totally missing the point. And a tribe is not a person. A person attempting 100% self-sufficiency outside of a community setting is essentially doomed. I reiterate, I have lived in IC's, I know what goes into a life like that...It's terribly difficult to manage even 50% self-sufficiency. Unless you yourself have even ATTEMPTED life in this manner, you understand nothing about it. If one wanted to attempt 100% SS, they would live in squalor, and more than likely exceedingly poor mental and physical health.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 25, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> You are totally missing the point. And a tribe is not a person. A person attempting 100% self-sufficiency outside of a community setting is essentially doomed. I reiterate, I have lived in IC's, I know what goes into a life like that...It's terribly difficult to manage even 50% self-sufficiency. Unless you yourself have even ATTEMPTED life in this manner, you understand nothing about it. If one wanted to attempt 100% SS, they would live in squalor, and more than likely exceedingly poor mental and physical health.


I would agree that physical health would be be bad. Squalor was the constant state of like for humans before society. If you consider a family unit to be a tribe and tribe being government/society. Then there is no such think as being self sustained. If you mean could I take my wife and move to the wilderness without anything and live without ever being touched by society again, then I think I could. Would I live to be 100, doubtful. However, I would suggest the mental health would likely be better in this situation. If you dropped me off on a habitable planet naked and unarmed I am pretty sure I would live if it was possible. Would I live in air conditioned happiness - no. Loneliness would be the only issue in that situation. I'm guessing I would end up talking to coconuts like Tom Hanks did. If my wife was there, I am guessing my mental state would be better than it is now in the world we live in given that this world is artificial and not compatible with how we evolved.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I would agree that physical health would be be bad. Squalor was the constant state of like for humans before society. If you consider a family unit to be a tribe and tribe being government/society. Then there is no such think as being self sustained. If you mean could I take my wife and move to the wilderness without anything and live without ever being touched by society again, then I think I could. Would I live to be 100, doubtful. However, I would suggest the mental health would likely be better in this situation. If you dropped me off on a habitable planet naked and unarmed I am pretty sure I would live if it was possible. Would I live in air conditioned happiness - no. Loneliness would be the only issue in that situation. I'm guessing I would end up talking to coconuts like Tom Hanks did. If my wife was there, I am guessing my mental state would be better than it is now in the world we live in given that this world is artificial and not compatible with how we evolved.


Well, give it a shot...let us know how it goes.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 25, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Well, give it a shot...let us know how it goes.


Just because you don't want to live that way doesn't mean it isn't possible. Unfortunately, you couldn't do it in America due to the government control of every aspect of your life.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Just because you don't want to live that way doesn't mean it isn't possible. Unfortunately, you couldn't do it in America due to the government control of every aspect of your life.


i just pooped and a government official let me know i exceeded the 8 minute pooping time allowed under federal statute 113.87 section A, article XII, subsection omega.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i just pooped and a government official let me know i exceeded the 8 minute pooping time allowed under federal statute 113.87 section A, article XII, subsection omega.


I bet the government mandated how much water you could use to flush that turd down.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 25, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I bet the government mandated how much water you could use to flush that turd down.


I bet you will be grateful even modest water saving measures were enacted when water becomes a precious commodity


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> I bet the government mandated how much water you could use to flush that turd down.


yes. they also told me that i had failed to use a sufficient number of squares and cited me for it. even though the last wipe was clear as a whistle, it is compulsory to use 4 squares and 8 wipes. rules are rules.



dukeanthony said:


> I bet you will be grateful even modest water saving measures were enacted when water becomes a precious commodity


that is already happening in some places.

pretty soon, we will have to find pretty ingenious ways to move water if we want to produce enough food.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

Fuck UB he likes to try and make jokes about the unemployed of this country, i will never have respect for that POS.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Fuck UB he likes to try and make jokes about the unemployed of this country, i will never have respect for that POS.


He makes jokes about the willingly unemployed in my experience. He made fun of me for a long while until he realized that i was not one of the "free-loaders" that he and i both advocate against.

EDIT:*How did the FU smily get there? i simply quoted. Was it there in you're OP?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> He makes jokes about the willingly unemployed in my experience. He made fun of me for a long while until he realized that i was not one of the "free-loaders" that he and i both advocate against.
> 
> EDIT:*How did the FU smily get there? i simply quoted. Was it there in you're OP?


Also likes to lie and make stuff up about me, i cant have any respect for that shit, plain and simple.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Also likes to lie and make stuff up about me, i cant have any respect for that shit, plain and simple.


i can't have respect for people that post false numbers, get caught red-handed posting false numbers, and still can't admit that they posted false numbers.

why not be man enough to admit that you posted false numbers?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i can't have respect for people that post false numbers, get caught red-handed posting false numbers, and still can't admit that they posted false numbers.
> 
> why not be man enough to admit that you posted false numbers?


Obama is gallup polling at the high 30's, WTF are you looking for?
If you are so retarded to figure out that whatever UI i for one collected was and had nothing to do with the federal government, this is your own damn retardation problem, also you like to say i check my mailbox for my check, nope i haven't collected for months already, i find it funny as fuck that someone who thinks they know it all can only try and make shit up and LIE to try and win, thats as low as low can be, but i dont need to lie and make shit up, 
You already self destruct, especially with wild fairy tale land fables of your s.u.v. exhaust warming our planet up lol, do me a favor buck, dont vote and take your last breath because you dont fit in with this world.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Obama is gallup polling at the high 30's, WTF are you looking for?
> If you are so retarded to figure out that whatever UI i for one collected was and had nothing to do with the federal government, this is your own damn retardation problem, also you like to say i check my mailbox for my check, nope i haven't collected for months already, i find it funny as fuck that someone who thinks they know it all can only try and make shit up and LIE to try and win, thats as low as low can be, but i dont need to lie and make shit up,
> You already self destruct, especially with wild fairy tale land fables of your s.u.v. exhaust warming our planet up lol, do me a favor buck, dont vote and take your last breath because you dont fit in with this world.


now that i am am a mod, i can no longer reply to this with a picture of a vagisil container.

my life sucks. perhaps trimming pounds of weed will cheer me up.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> now that i am am a mod, i can no longer reply to this with a picture of a vagisil container.
> 
> my life sucks. perhaps trimming pounds of weed will cheer me up.


 Pounds of shwagg.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Pounds of shwagg.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


>


 5$ a gram hahah. real baller you are, try to accomplish stuff worth 400 an oz then we can talk what growing pounds truly means.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> 5$ a gram hahah. real baller you are, try to accomplish stuff worth 400 an oz then we can talk what growing pounds truly means.


mine would go for that much if there was the market for it, but i live in portlandia. you will NEVER see an ounce over $200 here.

my brother in AZ wants to move some for me at about that price though.

price does not have any say on quality. you can ask a few other people on this site what they think of my buds, just head on over to the oregon section and start a thread


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

mine is so superior that its always the same price and it fly's even when the matket is flooded with the years outdoor crop harvesters, which by the way my neck of the woods most people only pay around 190 an oz mine never goes below 400 an oz except for real close friends who need caregiving. Oh is the demand ever so increasing, if i were in portland so be it, you wont smoke or see my shit everyday its kinda like great value vs organic.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Pounds of shwagg.


That's sounding either uneducated or vindictive/jealous to me. Just saying.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> That's sounding either uneducated or vindictive/jealous to me. Just saying.


What would you expect at 5 dollar a gram?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> What would you expect at 5 dollar a gram?


Low to medium quality, but effective, in today's market. In tomorrow's market, the quality i grow now.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 25, 2011)

Hopefully one day even the best weed will be worth about 10 bucks an ounce


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Low to medium quality, but effective, in today's market. In tomorrow's market, the quality i grow now.


 Exactly, thats why i am saying that.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Exactly, thats why i am saying that.


But why be satisfied with today's market? i WANT the $5 a g top-shelf available to all. Or as duke said, a $10 ounce of my quality bud to everyone.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 25, 2011)

Why not get what you pay for?, you have 6 dollar 5th's of vodka, and $1,060,000 dollar 5ths of vodka, quality must be paid for, i can go buy jeans for 6 bucks at wal mart or if i want quality i can pay 100+ per pair of jeans, you see?
Why regulate everything to be the same price when varying producers can have staggering better quality which must and shall be compensated for.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Why not get what you pay for?, you have 6 dollar 5th's of vodka, and $1,060,000 dollar 5ths of vodka, quality must be paid for, i can go buy jeans for 6 bucks at wal mart or if i want quality i can pay 100+ per pair of jeans, you see?
> Why regulate everything to be the same price when varying producers can have staggering better quality which must and shall be compensated for.


i'm not arguing. i'm actually agreeing. 

Hey, if i can get $100 a g for my bud because someone likes it that much and/or is willing to pay that much then of course i'll take care of business, hypothetically speaking of course. But that doesn't mean i wouldn't let the same bud go for $5 a g to someone who wasn't able nor willing to pay an exhorbitant donation.

A free market would result in both imo.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 25, 2011)

When they legalize weed here is what will happen

Everyone will Grow It
prices will come down-Fast
SOme genetics will come out maybe even Commerically Researched that will make todays weed a fucking Joke

Imagine Genetically Modified weed thats like 80% THC
Or Plants you can sap like a Sugar maple tree
Most of your cost of buying at the 7/11 is going to be taxes
And the only people buying are the people that cant afford to buy a light


----------



## deprave (Sep 25, 2011)

why the hell do you guys buy weed, u serious about that?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> What would you expect at 5 dollar a gram?


why don't you ask zildjian, hazorazo, or [email protected]?

all of them have been back for my stuff repeatedly.

they haven't said it is low or medium quality, quite the opposite.

and your $400 ounces would be laughed and mocked unmercifully here in portland. you would make not a single penny. 

believe me, i have seen your harvest. nothing special.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> But why be satisfied with today's market? i WANT the $5 a g top-shelf available to all. Or as duke said, a $10 ounce of my quality bud to everyone.


i have $5 per gram top shelf.

i always give 110% of the weight as well, just so that everyone gets a better deal than expected.

the only customers i have not retained are the ones who finally learned to grow for themselves, usually with genetics supplied by yours truly


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> why don't you ask zildjian, hazorazo, or [email protected]?
> 
> all of them have been back for my stuff repeatedly.
> 
> ...


 You didnt see shit but a little run on a couple of genes being tried out, it is still rather impressive, shit last night i was around someone who couldn't smell, but they smelt my shit no problem, my shit is the shit even my little trials of genes i want to test out for moving on to mass produce, you dont know the half of it, i care give in a nice area where people who are medical expect medical grade top shelf grade A, its 400 an oz for a reason regardless of the market, they rely on me and my experience. My shit is so tasty and stinky and gets you so medicated it feels laced, almost over powering.
Nothing special?
dont make me laugh, you can go ahead and try to make a low yielding strain yield 1pound and a quarter under 1000w for a weekend project, that flawless looking, you wouldnt be able too.
*This is cultured botany,experience and connoisseur that you only wish you were puffin on, where is your shit? lets see it? 5$ grams huh? *








*You see them buds falling over? you see those suspension strings for the weight of the bud? what you have?*


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 26, 2011)

Really Nice Looking Plants
I have some popcorn and look forward to this Moderator Cat Fight


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

you use strings?

i've used a fork before. 



like i said, your shit is nothing special, and you would go broke trying to sell for $400 an ounce around here.

by the way, this was grown under a 250 watt lamp along with 5 others. each of the 6 harvested about 1-2 ounces. 

that is ~252 grams under 250 watts = 1 gram per watt. just basic grow and bloom nutes.

cannabis is not hard to grow. you flatter yourself. want a cookie?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You didnt see shit but a little run on a couple of genes being tried out, it is still rather impressive, shit last night i was around someone who couldn't smell, but they smelt my shit no problem, my shit is the shit even my little trials of genes i want to test out for moving on to mass produce, you dont know the half of it, i care give in a nice area where people who are medical expect medical grade top shelf grade A, its 400 an oz for a reason regardless of the market, they rely on me and my experience. My shit is so tasty and stinky and gets you so medicated it feels laced, almost over powering.
> Nothing special?
> dont make me laugh, you can go ahead and try to make a low yielding strain yield 1pound and a quarter under 1000w for a weekend project, that flawless looking, you wouldnt be able too.
> *This is cultured botany,experience and connoisseur that you only wish you were puffin on, where is your shit? lets see it? 5$ grams huh? *
> ...


F'ing beautiful


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> View attachment 1807836
> 
> you use strings?
> 
> ...


 Come on if we had to judge by pictures i think i won, i cant use a fork on 2 ft branches on a 3 ft plant, and id say i win because you have some nutrient problem.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Come on if we had to judge by pictures i think i won, i cant use a fork on 2 ft branches on a 3 ft plant, and id say i win because you have some nutrient problem.


that plant was grown in a cabinet that is 42'' tall floor to ceiling. add a container below and a lamp up top and i have to keep them that small.

a few dead leaves does not a nutrient problem make.

also, anyone who is any good at anything has a certain air of humility about themselves which you sorely lack.

besides, i couldn't care less about your little grow that you paraded in the toke and talk section as if it were the best day of your life as my entire house currently reeks of goodness, and i am only about a third of the way through my first plant after working for ~12 hours yesterday. and i still have 5 more to go after i finish the first.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Come on if we had to judge by pictures i think i won, i cant use a fork on 2 ft branches on a 3 ft plant, and id say i win because you have some nutrient problem.


also, that was one of the first harvests of my life. 

like i said, the plant grows itself. don't feel so special.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> that plant was grown in a cabinet that is 42'' tall floor to ceiling. add a container below and a lamp up top and i have to keep them that small.
> 
> a few dead leaves does not a nutrient problem make.
> 
> ...


 Dead leaves? i didnt have any nor should anyone have any if its that damn easy to grow, and if it is so damn easy to grow then how come so many people easily fuck shit up?
I would have to say you either have nutrient problem or ph or lockout, this will hinder the final result greatly.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Dead leaves? i didnt have any nor should anyone have any if its that damn easy to grow, and if it is so damn easy to grow then how come so many people easily fuck shit up?
> I would have to say you either have nutrient problem or ph or lockout, this will hinder the final result greatly.


Dying leaves near harvest is a natural thing.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> also, that was one of the first harvests of my life.
> 
> like i said, the plant grows itself. don't feel so special.


 Post your good shit then.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Dead leaves? i didnt have any nor should anyone have any if its that damn easy to grow, and if it is so damn easy to grow then how come so many people easily fuck shit up?
> I would have to say you either have nutrient problem or ph or lockout, this will hinder the final result greatly.


i would say that plant suffered from a little algae at the bottom of the container, as i was new to growing and not aware that transparent or slightly transparent containers were bad.

i'm sure you've never had a single dead leaf either. this is the internet, people ALWAYS tell the truth 

anyhoo, back to trimming i go (for the next month). enjoy your mega super awesome incredible fantastic super buds.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 26, 2011)

Ok. Off topic now. Back to Ron Paul and the Truth about him.

Here's your fat hanging curveball UB.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Post your good shit then.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Ok. Off topic now. Back to Ron Paul and the Truth about him.
> 
> Here's your fat hanging curveball UB.


i'll miss it anyway. golf completely ruined my baseball swing.


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'll miss it anyway. golf completely ruined my baseball swing.


Golf is a bitch isn't it?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i would say that plant suffered from a little algae at the bottom of the container, as i was new to growing and not aware that transparent or slightly transparent containers were bad.
> 
> i'm sure you've never had a single dead leaf either. this is the internet, people ALWAYS tell the truth
> 
> anyhoo, back to trimming i go (for the next month). enjoy your mega super awesome incredible fantastic super buds.


Oh i will.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 26, 2011)

*Black this out money bomb posted yesterday!
[youtube]Pp0sb46aehI[/youtube]
*


----------



## deprave (Sep 26, 2011)

Ron Paul Live on the daily show in 15 minutes: http://www.seeon.tv/view/17447/


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 26, 2011)

[youtube]7eK_zLD8hw4&feature=related[/youtube]


----------



## deprave (Sep 26, 2011)

I think John Stewart asked Ron Paul some great questions tonite, he asked him some pretty good questions that liberals are asking, common misunderstandings rather, he clarifyed them for the liberals, god bless you john stewart.


----------



## deprave (Sep 26, 2011)

I wish I was amazed that one of the only interviewers that I've ever seen engage Ron Paul in a meaningful way about his political philosophy, its real-world applications, and his well thought-out ideas about how to achieve root-and-branch systemic reform is a comedian, But it is not that surprising. Comedians are much more real and raw then politicians naturally.

He addresses "pipe dreams", liberatarian philosophy, and how can it work, and he clarifies Ron Paul's realistic goals for this country, also discusses states power vs federal power.

Additionally John Stewart drives the point home that Ron Paul is the only consistent candidate with honesty and integrity, and how Dr Paul is one of the few politicians left like this in the world today.

The interview will be available on hulu in 24 hours :\

Ron Paul knows his support is about to explode! Winning!

And, Now another new Ron Paul rap song:

[video=youtube;KBFHAJG9O3Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBFHAJG9O3Q[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 26, 2011)

Link To Ron Pauls Interview on the Daily show (new interview from 2 hours ago): http://vimeo.com/29646420


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 27, 2011)

[youtube]tOc0vpNEavs[/youtube]


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 27, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> [youtube]tOc0vpNEavs[/youtube]


So the Premise is Obama supporters are Blacks looking for hand outs and Ron Paul supporters are Blacks who dont know about his racist newsletters and views on Civil Rights?

I also notice she is the Only black person in the room


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So the Premise is Obama supporters are Blacks looking for hand outs and Ron Paul supporters are Blacks who dont know about his racist newsletters and views on Civil Rights?
> 
> I also notice she is the Only black person in the room


About 25% of Obama's votes were black votes. Almost every black person in the country voted for Obama(96%). 

We have Ron Paul supporters who are all but completely insane, but few of them are outright stupid and unintelligent. 

Democrats support welfare and entitlements. 96% of black voters are democrat as of the last presidential elections. Therefor most blacks support welfare and entitlements. 

96% of blacks are democrat. That leaves 4% of the black population to be anything else. 10% of Republicans support Ron Paul. You have 4% of 15% of the population. That is .6%. 6 black people per thousand. That is not even considering that white people are more likely to be Republican than the average. If there is 5 black people per 1000 at a Ron Paul even black people are over represented. Also, depending on what state or community he is in this could be insanely lower. Obviously Ron Paul is trying to win votes, so he probably isn't going to a black community to campaign since almost every black supports Obama, which makes the #'s even worse since the black population is concentrated in areas that would be pointless to campaign in.


----------



## Parker (Sep 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So the Premise is Obama supporters are Blacks looking for hand outs and Ron Paul supporters are Blacks who dont know about his racist newsletters and views on Civil Rights?
> 
> I also notice she is the Only black person in the room


He never wrote those newsletters. Only an uninformed tool like you or uncle douchebag would say such a moronic thing. Do some actual research, become informed, read a newspaper. Ron Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters for years as it changed hands. He did say he had a moral obligation to get his name off the newsletters. His views on Civil Rights have to do with property rights. Another thing you don't know about.
What are you going to repeat next? The earth is flat because someone said so?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 27, 2011)

Parker said:


> He never wrote those newsletters. Only an uninformed tool like you or uncle douchebag would say such a moronic thing. Do some actual research, become informed, read a newspaper. Ron Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters for years as it changed hands. He did say he had a moral obligation to get his name off the newsletters. His views on Civil Rights have to do with property rights. Another thing you don't know about.
> What are you going to repeat next? The earth is flat because someone said so?



So for years HIS newletter Carrying HIS Content made racist remarks and HE takes no Personal Responsibility?

This is the man you want running the country?

Isnt this the same guy that voted against Rosa parks and doesnt like the Civil Rights act?


----------



## budlover13 (Sep 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So for years HIS newletter Carrying HIS Content made racist remarks and HE takes no Personal Responsibility?
> 
> This is the man you want running the country?
> 
> Isnt this the same guy that voted against Rosa parks and doesnt like the Civil Rights act?


Same old tired blather.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So for years HIS newletter Carrying HIS Content made racist remarks and HE takes no Personal Responsibility?
> 
> This is the man you want running the country?
> 
> Isnt this the same guy that voted against Rosa parks and doesnt like the Civil Rights act?


Voted against giving someone thousands of dollars in gold for no reason.


----------



## smokebros (Sep 27, 2011)

The truth is that *Ron Paul* is the f*ckin man. Who cares about the couple people on RIU who don't like him? There's like a 100:1 ratio. There's a ton of ppl on here who like him and a few clowns who don't.

And for the ppl who don't like him... lolololol!!! at you!!!!!!!!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 27, 2011)

smokebros said:


> The truth is that *Ron Paul* is the f*ckin man. Who cares about the couple people on RIU who don't like him? There's like a 100:1 ratio. There's a ton of ppl on here who like him and a few clowns who don't.
> 
> And for the ppl who don't like him... lolololol!!! at you!!!!!!!!


 Its these people who dont support dr paul, warning this video is extremely disturbing.
[youtube]mm1KOBMg1Y8[/youtube]


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 27, 2011)

Dude, 

As a moderator, you should know that re-posting the SAME FUCKING VIDEO in different threads is equivalent to SPAM...

Mod FAIL.


----------



## smokebros (Sep 27, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Dude,
> 
> As a moderator, you should know that re-posting the SAME FUCKING VIDEO in different threads is equivalent to SPAM...
> 
> Mod FAIL.


What if the video is relevant to the thread?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 27, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Dude,
> 
> As a moderator, you should know that re-posting the SAME FUCKING VIDEO in different threads is equivalent to SPAM...
> 
> Mod FAIL.


Sure ok, buddy.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 27, 2011)

smokebros said:


> What if the video is relevant to the thread?


 Exactly, is it spam if i post it in one or more thread pertaining to the thread? yeah i think not.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 27, 2011)

a link would be sufficient.


----------



## hazyintentions (Sep 27, 2011)

smokebros said:


> The truth is that *Ron Paul* is the f*ckin man. Who cares about the couple people on RIU who don't like him? There's like a 100:1 ratio. There's a ton of ppl on here who like him and a few clowns who don't.
> 
> And for the ppl who don't like him... lolololol!!! at you!!!!!!!!


I liked that. Well said smokesbros..


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 27, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Voted against giving someone thousands of dollars in gold for no reason.


So an American Icon, a catalyst for Civil Rights is no reason?

Was it a sad day for you the day the Blacks got to sit in the front of the bus?


----------



## Parker (Sep 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So for years HIS newletter Carrying HIS Content made racist remarks and HE takes no Personal Responsibility?
> This is the man you want running the country?
> Isnt this the same guy that voted against Rosa parks and doesnt like the Civil Rights act?


I gave you the answer in the post you quoted, but you ignored it. You deserve the Congressional Medal of Douchebaggery. His name was on it period. He had nothing to do with the newsletter. Get it now?

He cites Rosa Parks as one of his heros for her civil disobediance as well as MLK and Ghandi, all people of color. (you didn't know that, did you moron?) YET doesn't vote for her to get the Congressional Metal of honor because its not his job. Congress has no authority to do so. He voted against Arnold Palmer from receiving one too. So I guess he doesn't like rich white males either.

Because Ron doesn't give his hero a medal you dont want him as president. Please don't vote.

ps tell that ruiner twat he's about as clueless as you are for giving you a like on your horseshit post.


----------



## Parker (Sep 27, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So an American Icon, a catalyst for Civil Rights is no reason?
> 
> Was it a sad day for you the day the Blacks got to sit in the front of the bus?


it was a sad day when government made the rule they had to sit in back. You forget that part asshat?
The bus companies didn't want that. Why would they since many blacks rode the bus. Government is not moral. Society does that job.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 28, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Its these people who dont support dr paul, warning this video is extremely disturbing.
> [youtube]mm1KOBMg1Y8[/youtube]


You know why this video is disturbing? Because it only shows how ignorant most people really are. It doesn't really say anything about people who voted for Obama any more than it says about people who voted for McCain or Ron Paul as there will be ignorant buffoons in every demographic, group and class.

What this video shows more than anything else is how the mass media has told the majority of people how and what to think. Shame on America for letting the Boob Tube turn them all into boobs.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Parker said:


> it was a sad day when government made the rule they had to sit in back. You forget that part asshat?


yes, as ron paul says he wants, local government made the decision to allow segregation and discrimination.

fed gov stepped in to disallow these actions.

your verbiage is purposely misleading.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 28, 2011)

Ron Paul is a reactionary, who wants a revolution that would turn the clock back on America, to the good ole days before FEMA, the EPA, the Dept. of Education, and federally &#8211; mandated and enforced Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws.He wants to dismantle the federal government, and "return the power to the states ", or in other words, have " states rights ", which was the cry of the confederate states that seceded from the union


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 28, 2011)

Parker said:


> I gave you the answer in the post you quoted, but you ignored it. You deserve the Congressional Medal of Douchebaggery. His name was on it period. He had nothing to do with the newsletter. Get it now?
> 
> He cites Rosa Parks as one of his heros for her civil disobediance as well as MLK and Ghandi, all people of color. (.


*Yeah He Also says he is against Federal Spending but is the Pork King of Texas*


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> So an American Icon, a catalyst for Civil Rights is no reason?
> 
> Was it a sad day for you the day the Blacks got to sit in the front of the bus?



People have done more important things. Not to mention this fact that you all seem to totally ignore: Rosa Parks gets all sorts of accolades, awards, and the like. It isn't like no one knows who she is or what she stood for. Should we give every soldier who came back from Iraq a pound of gold just for the hell of it? What do they make the purple heart out of? I mean, really. They went and did something that our country asked them to do. The war in Iraq is stupid and pointless, but many of them sacrificed their lives and those who didn't sacrificed their emotions and bodies. 

See how I made you anti veteran in that comment? lol. That really isn't what I was going for. What I was saying is compared to the hundreds of millions of other Americans - what has she done that is so special? She refused to give up her seat on a bus. It wasn't the act that was so significant. It was the meaning behind the act. However, is this an act that deserves the congressional medal of honor? No. 

Answer me this question: How many medals and awards does Rosa Parks have already for the same exact act? Meanwhile the people of the country don't even know anything about our founding fathers, the revolutionary war, or how many presidents came before George Washington(hint: it was a lot).


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul is a reactionary, who wants a revolution that would turn the clock back on America, to the good ole days before FEMA, the EPA, the Dept. of Education, and federally &#8211; mandated and enforced Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws.He wants to dismantle the federal government, and "return the power to the states ", or in other words, have " states rights ", which was the cry of the confederate states that seceded from the union


He wants to follow the Constitution. If you decide you don't like parts of the constitution and that our government should ignore them because they are unreasonable then you have to get rid of the whole 'free speech' and all that too. You realize it isn't a 'pick your own law' document. It is a all or nothing thing. Either we follow the constitution or we don't.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You know why this video is disturbing? Because it only shows how ignorant most people really are. It doesn't really say anything about people who voted for Obama any more than it says about people who voted for McCain or Ron Paul as there will be ignorant buffoons in every demographic, group and class.
> 
> What this video shows more than anything else is how the mass media has told the majority of people how and what to think. Shame on America for letting the Boob Tube turn them all into boobs.


I don't think you can blame the TV for that. I am guessing about the same part of the population was stupid before TV was invented. Those people are ignorant because they don't care. They just wanted to be part of a movement because it was cool. It is like a episode of South Park or something. I listen to NPR almost every day - I don't parrot what they say, I listen, put two and two together, research it and then make up my own mind. Many of us here do the same thing. That is what kind of people we are. Some people are incapable of caring about things that are not immediately beneficial to them. I think this is the main quality that makes people poor, stupid, and lazy.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul is a reactionary, who wants a revolution that would turn the clock back on America, to the good ole days before FEMA, the EPA, the Dept. of Education, and federally &#8211; mandated and enforced Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws.He wants to dismantle the federal government, and "return the power to the states ", or in other words, have " states rights ", which was the cry of the confederate states that seceded from the union


We can do this game both ways.

Barrack Hussein Obama wants to push us forward to the future. A future where everyone has the same, does the same, and is the same. He wants to get rid of prosperity and poverty in one fell swoop. He wants everyone to enjoy and suffer the same. He wants to raise taxes on those who prosper and give to those who do not. He wants to spread the wealth. He wants to give complete control to the federal government. He wants to take away your right to choose in your own life and give that to the federal government. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' which was the cry of the Bolshevik revolution.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 28, 2011)

parker said:


> it was a sad day when government made the rule they had to sit in back. You forget that part asshat?
> The bus companies didn't want that. Why would they since many blacks rode the bus. Government is not moral. Society does that job.


fucking please show me the law where blacks had to sit in the back of the bus


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

I like how people equate the Civil Rights Act with equality. Wouldn't a one sentence bill stating "All people are equal in America regardless of race, religion, creed, ect." have been better? Remember the governments of the country were oppressing blacks, not the individual. A simple amendment classifying that laws may not be made based on race, sex, ect would of fixed the problem without destroying personal property rights.

You realize the buses were already desegregating before the law - right? Why would they do that? Oh, thats right, because they were losing customers. You mean the free market does actually work?


----------



## deprave (Sep 28, 2011)

The judge 11 minute interview with Ron Paul at the National Debt Clock
[video=youtube;3WTLerItL00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WTLerItL00&feature=related[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I like how people equate the Civil Rights Act with equality. Wouldn't a one sentence bill stating "All people are equal in America regardless of race, religion, creed, ect." have been better? Remember the governments of the country were oppressing blacks, not the individual. A simple amendment classifying that laws may not be made based on race, sex, ect would of fixed the problem without destroying personal property rights.
> 
> You realize the buses were already desegregating before the law - right? Why would they do that? Oh, thats right, because they were losing customers. You mean the free market does actually work?


I'm not so sure about all that but I agree and I think we can all agree that the Civil Rights act was simply a piece of paper but this was the answer to the protests, to the issue that was still controversial, to the peoples movement in social justice. So this piece of paper does hold some significance in that it was a declaration of victory. A strong argument against the opposition and the oppression. Its not fair to say that this paper held NO significance but I think it is fair to say that this piece of paper could of been written better so that it did not violate our constitutional rights....and thats what Dr. Paul is saying in his "controversial" speech that is so often misinterpreted, Dr Paul is simply saying that this piece of paper could of been written better.

So carthosis says that we could of done it without a piece of paper, I would have to disagree, a piece of paper was necessary, its just too bad this peice of paper was written by any government, Id much rather MLK wrote the paper himself, like carthosis said, or even Ron Paul.....If Ron Paul wrote it then it would be just some simple common sense 1 paragraph simply saying "every man is equal" 

Its really too bad the first congress didn't accept Thomas Jefferson's philosophy, its too bad they had to remove the anti-slavery language from his own documents because of controversy, but you think back to that time when they were just some revolutionaries plotting in secrecy they needed to garner all the support against Britain that they could, even in the 1700s they had to be 'PC'.




> The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I like how people equate the Civil Rights Act with equality. Wouldn't a one sentence bill stating "All people are equal in America regardless of race, religion, creed, ect." have been better? Remember the governments of the country were oppressing blacks, not the individual. A simple amendment classifying that laws may not be made based on race, sex, ect would of fixed the problem without destroying personal property rights.
> 
> You realize the buses were already desegregating before the law - right? Why would they do that? Oh, thats right, because they were losing customers. You mean the free market does actually work?


isnt there a line about "all men are created Equal" In the constitution?
Yet for more than a century and a half this wasnt true in practice?


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> isnt there a line about "all men are created Equal" In the constitution?
> Yet for more than a century and a half this wasnt true in practice?


Hence my statement that a 1 sentence bill could of fixed all the issues. Declare men to have meant all humans of every race, creed, and religion. Taking away the rights of people to control their property was not the point of the movement to begin with.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Hence my statement that a 1 sentence bill could of fixed all the issues. Declare men to have meant all humans of every race, creed, and religion. Taking away the rights of people to control their property was not the point of the movement to begin with.


Well then why wasnt it fixed for 160 years?
obviously that one sentence in the constitution didnt mean Jack Shit if you were a Minority

yeah its open to the public except for you black brown and yellow motherfuckers
I get your drift adolph
States Rights


----------



## deprave (Sep 28, 2011)

this is what the bill should of said

[video=youtube;60m831gtz_U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60m831gtz_U&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

deprave said:


> I'm not so sure about all that but I agree and I think we can all agree that the Civil Rights act was simply a piece of paper but this was the answer to the protests, to the issue that was still controversial, to the peoples movement in social justice. So this piece of paper does hold some significance in that it was a declaration of victory. A strong argument against the opposition and the oppression. Its not fair to say that this paper held NO significance but I think it is fair to say that this piece of paper could of been written better so that it did not violate our constitutional rights....and thats what Dr. Paul is saying in his "controversial" speech that is so often misinterpreted, Dr Paul is simply saying that this piece of paper could of been written better.


Wouldn't my 1 sentence bill have done that? 


> So carthosis says that we could of done it without a piece of paper, I would have to disagree, a piece of paper was necessary, its just too bad this peice of paper was written by any government, Id much rather MLK wrote the paper himself, like carthosis said, or even Ron Paul.....If Ron Paul wrote it then it would be just some simple common sense 1 paragraph simply saying "every man is equal"


I didn't say we didn't need a paper that fixed it, I just think they did something completely different from what the movement seemed to be about. My very short bill would of addressed the underlying problem which was that the governments of the country did not treat the citizens equally, using race to discriminate against the citizens it was meant to protect. Keep in mind that the buses in Montgomery discriminated against blacks because there was a law that said they had to. Even if they wanted to, the protests and rallies that were taking place would of fixed the issue with the buses without the civil rights bills. The federal government should of just said that the laws may not discriminate based on who a person is and left it at that. Not only did they never do this, they did the exact opposite and many laws are now targeted at individual races once again.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 28, 2011)

carthoris said:


> wouldn't my 1 sentence bill have done that?


no


.........................


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Well then why wasnt it fixed for 160 years?
> obviously that one sentence in the constitution didnt mean Jack Shit if you were a Minority
> 
> yeah its open to the public except for you black brown and yellow motherfuckers
> ...


LOL, you have serious issues. I am not racist, I would not of supported slavery, and I would never not sell something to someone based on race, religion, or creed. However, if I were inclined to keep a group of people out of my PRIVATE BUSINESS then I should be allowed to do so. A public business would a government run business. A private business is private property run by a private individual. It isn't any different than your house. What they did was only a step away from declaring that people should not be allowed to choose their relationships and friendships based on whatever they want.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> no
> 
> 
> .........................


Why wouldn't it of?


----------



## deprave (Sep 28, 2011)

Cause theres more to it then that. One paragraph sure but one sentence...


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

deprave said:


> Cause theres more to it then that.


Removing the ability of the government to discriminate would of gone a long way towards fixing the problems. You might consider reading some of the information on the bus strikes. The businesses wanted to cave in long before the laws passed because they were losing business and thought maybe they would lose more. People didn't change because of the Civil Rights Act. People were still allowed to hate whoever they wanted. Do you honestly believe that any business that didn't want to serve blacks started serving them? People don't want to go somewhere that doesn't want them anyway. The bus companies were forced to segregate people.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 28, 2011)

Do you think the entire Civil rights Amendment was about a black lady on the Bus?
You do know the civil rights amendment also covers against sex discrimination?
You do know its more than Just Goverment that was discriminating?

Do you think its fair that 2 equally qualified people are elgible for a loan but the minority doesnt get it?
Thats the way it used to be
along with 
-Jobs
-Housing
-and Justice


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 28, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> You know why this video is disturbing? Because it only shows how ignorant most people really are. It doesn't really say anything about people who voted for Obama any more than it says about people who voted for McCain or Ron Paul as there will be ignorant buffoons in every demographic, group and class.
> 
> What this video shows more than anything else is how the mass media has told the majority of people how and what to think. Shame on America for letting the Boob Tube turn them all into boobs.


I disagree, with the real answers and issues ron paul injects, anyone who listens to him and then supports him is automatically at least a little more educated than the dumb asses in the video, if you ask any ron paul supporter why they support him they will give you straight, key, related answers, not hmms and haaaa's and because he is white.lol


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

deprave said:


> Cause theres more to it then that. One paragraph sure but one sentence...


lol, stop editing things I already replied to. Yea, it might be a run on sentence. lol My point was they did a lot of things that didn't accomplish anything and had nothing to do with the problem.


----------



## deprave (Sep 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Removing the ability of the government to discriminate would of gone a long way towards fixing the problems. You might consider reading some of the information on the bus strikes. The businesses wanted to cave in long before the laws passed because they were losing business and thought maybe they would lose more. People didn't change because of the Civil Rights Act. People were still allowed to hate whoever they wanted. Do you honestly believe that any business that didn't want to serve blacks started serving them? People don't want to go somewhere that doesn't want them anyway. The bus companies were forced to segregate people.


 Nope I sure don't believe that, I agree almost completely, I am just wording it differently, your going to the extreme, but it should get some credit, the piece of paper made it official, so it does deserve credit. Quite the Socio-logical impact.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Do you think the entire Civil rights Amendment was about a black lady on the Bus?
> You do know the civil rights amendment also covers against sex discrimination?
> You do know its more than Just Goverment that was discriminating?
> 
> ...


Now they reversed the roles and the minority gets special consideration for being a minority. Is that fair? No. How many people do you think would actually give up a sale or money because they were racist? Not very many. At this day and age we would basically be where we are at now even with the Civil Rights Act. In fact, I would argue that without 50 years of extreme PCness we would be in better shape with the issue than we are now.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 28, 2011)

deprave said:


> Nope I sure don't believe that, I agree almost completely, I am just wording it differently, your going to the extreme, but it should get some credit, the piece of paper made it official, so it does deserve credit. Quite the Socio-logical impact.


I know we are getting to the same point. Debate is a lot like negotiating a price. You start at extremes and work your way towards each other. Can you imagine if the dems or reps started at what they would actually accept? The other side would immediately set the goal closer. I agree it made an impact and that some of the impacts were really good, but at what cost. It is like promoting fire safety by outlawing stoves, lighters, and electrical appliances. The CRA did some great things, it just did them wrong. One expects everything that the government does to be of this nature. I still believe removing government interference would of been the best thing in the long run and fixed the problems faster.


----------



## deprave (Sep 28, 2011)

CNN - Ron Paul 'Might' have a chance...his popularity is exploding

The CNN clip today shows how scared they are.

"A man who doesn't want government running for government, seems like sort of a contradiction" LMAO
[video=youtube;HgPnZoHsY4Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgPnZoHsY4Q[/video]


----------



## deprave (Sep 29, 2011)

New Ron Paul commercial 
[video=youtube;ax2ejgTmCHs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax2ejgTmCHs[/video]

I wanted to let you all in on what I've heard is a bit of the campaign's strategy.

They are going to spend some money in the next few weeks to move up in the polls and become a serious contender in some specific states. The goal is to put Ron solidly into the #2 position. It's important to do this now before the other campaigns and their PACs begin to unload their warchests. If we can take 2nd place now it will be harder for them to unseat us from that position later on in the race. But starting in November there will be a lot of high-dollar marketing messages which we won't be able to compete with and if we don't move up soon that window may close and the opportunity could be lost forever. This is our chance!
_*
But we need the money NOW if we are going to win this thing!
*_ 
Rick Perry is teetering on the edge after his lousy performance at the previous debate. Many of his supporters have gone sour on him. To move up to and secure the #2 slot now the campaign must have the funds to do so. Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination by first doing well in Iowa and winning some of the the early states. This will create a snowball effect and as other candidates drop off we'll continue to be in the top tier and offer a choice against big-government Mitt Romney.

If you are going to give, give everything you've got BEFORE the 1st of October for the End of Quarter Push! It's do-or-die time. Step up to the plate and put your money where your mouth is if you want Ron to have a chance at winning this election! If you were holding back or planning to max out, now is the time!


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 29, 2011)

deprave said:


> CNN - Ron Paul 'Might' have a chance...his popularity is exploding
> 
> The CNN clip today shows how scared they are.
> 
> ...



You notice how they never said any reason why he was wrong about 9/11, just that he was crazy. Probably because there was no defense to what he said.


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 29, 2011)

Did you all see the latest poll from Fox? Herman Cain went up like 10 points. Other polls done in the last few days don't show him picking up any significant support.


----------



## deprave (Sep 29, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> Did you all see the latest poll from Fox? Herman Cain went up like 10 points. Other polls done in the last few days don't show him picking up any significant support.


 I guess this is there last result since perryfail 2011, we all know Romney isn't going to be the conservative choice so that only leaves Paul, now they desperately try to prop up cain, next they will break out the proverbial 'big-guns' Chris Christie against Paul when they realize cain is hopeless.

The people have something to say to the establishment crooks, we are in an intellectual revolution and change won't happen with anyone but Ron Paul in this election, the majority is recognizing this truth and as the snowball of liberty rolls further down the hill it grows bigger every second:

[video=youtube;ax-r22_WbiQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax-r22_WbiQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Sep 29, 2011)

deprave said:


> I guess this is there last result since perryfail 2012, we all know romney isn't going to be the conservative choice so that only leave paul, now they desperately try to prop up cain, next they will try to throw chris chrstie at us once cain fails


I figure it was cause they only polled 300 people lol. I mean, it is obvious when a poll was wrong by just looking at the results compared to other polls. Sure on average a poll of 300 people might show the general trend, but how could 6 people from each state being questioned really give you an accurate number? The latest polls also have Newt in front of Paul.


----------



## deprave (Sep 29, 2011)

I think a lot of people do like cain no doubt, he is probably the real second place, Id say Romney is probably the real last place only ahead of huntsman and santorum, but yeah its funny only FOX is touting this idea that cain is somehow a front runner all the sudden.

Id like to remind any reader of this that Mr Cain was the former chairman of the Federal Reserve in Kansas city.


----------



## deprave (Sep 29, 2011)

*What is the most important statistic, who can beat obama, Paul has consistently won in all of these polls at least getting better scores then his opposition each time, even when they don't beat obama, the hypothetical matchup Paul v Obama.

PPP Poll Florida*
9/22 - 9/25
476 voters
+/-4.5%

*General Election Matchups:

Paul brings Obama to the lowest support level at 45%
*

*Obama 45%*
*Paul 44%*


Obama 46%
Romney 45%


Obama 49%
Bachmann 44%


Obama 50%
Perry 43%


Obama 50%
Gingrich 42%

*Paul crushes amongst the swing voters. (THIS IS WHO YOU NEED TO WIN)*

*Independents:*

*Paul 52%*
*Obama 37%*


Obama 45%
Romney 42%


Obama 47%
Bachmann 43%


Obama 47%
Gingrich 38%


Obama 53%
Perry 40%


----------



## Parker (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> yes, as ron paul says he wants, local government made the decision to allow segregation and discrimination.
> fed gov stepped in to disallow these actions.
> your verbiage is purposely misleading.


Oh gee lets give the Feds props.  Who was it that made blacks 3/5 of a person? Who was it that forced Japanese into concentration camps in World War Two? Who gave the order to attack it's own ship the USS Liberty?
Who was it that said the Housing Bill would help low income (minorities) Americans? They were hurt the most in the end.
Quit relying on government.

As much crap as I give you, YOU could run this country better than the last two clowns.


----------



## Parker (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *Yeah He Also says he is against Federal Spending but is the Pork King of Texas*


He is getting back the money his constituents paid in. His belief, and I agree, is local officials know more about their own area than Washington. Same reasoning behind him wanting to do away with FEMA. They are horrible. He wanted the money to go into the hands of the locals and FEMA to butt out.
How about I come into your house, under the guise of helping, take money from you and decide what is the best way for you to run your house. Would you like that?


----------



## Parker (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> fucking please show me the law where blacks had to sit in the back of the bus


Jim Crow laws you buffoon. Blacks had to give up their seats to whites. Black school kids couldn't ride the bus to school in some places. Are you that ignorant?


----------



## Jefferson's Ghost (Sep 30, 2011)

For those who are Paul supporters, please remember that today is the LAST day of the quarter, and we are trying to get to 1.5 million. We just passed 1 million. Any financial help you can spare in needed and would be appreciated. I donated 100 bucks.

Hey Parker, do you also post on the Daily Paul? Just curious. There is another "Parker" there who's posts I enjoy as well.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

Where can I send my .02 cents COD?
I bet there is a Lot of money the NAACP will send Ron Paul
Tell him to stop trying to get money out of the White supremacists
They dont have any. Meth costs Ya know


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Where can I send my .02 cents COD?
> I bet there is a Lot of money the NAACP will send Ron Paul
> Tell him to stop trying to get money out of the White supremacists
> They dont have any. Meth costs Ya know


 You do realize how this makes you look, yes? Your statement is more telling of yourself than anything else.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

VTXDave said:


> You do realize how this makes you look, yes? Your statement is more telling of yourself than anything else.


Since when is asking for political donations on this Forum an accepted practice?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

VTXDave said:


> You do realize how this makes you look, yes? Your statement is more telling of yourself than anything else.


 Thats exactly what this is, anti-racist CODE for Anti-white.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Thats exactly what this is, anti-racist CODE for Anti-white.


you do realize he is white, don't you?

same here. i must hate myself


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you do realize he is white, don't you?
> 
> same here. i must hate myself


 Thats exactly what im saying.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Thats exactly what im saying.


i am enamored of myself. i masturbate into the mirror, such is the extent of my self love.

thus, your theory that "anti racist is code for anti white" has been proven quite wrong. but thanks for playing the race card, that always makes things a bit more lively.

sometimes it makes things so lively that i have to delete threads thanks to all the hatred it brings out.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i am enamored of myself. i masturbate into the mirror, such is the extent of my self love.
> 
> thus, your theory that "anti racist is code for anti white" has been proven quite wrong. but thanks for playing the race card, that always makes things a bit more lively.
> 
> sometimes it makes things so lively that i have to delete threads thanks to all the hatred it brings out.


 I didnt bring out the hatred, you and dukeanthony did, your fault not mine.
Im not polling the race card im simply pointing out your obviousness.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I didnt bring out the hatred, you and dukeanthony did, your fault not mine.
> Im not polling the race card im simply pointing out your obviousness.


starting a thread stating that you are worried that the white race will be exterminated s supposed to end with daffodils and unicorns shitting rainbows on fluffy white clouds?

it is clear to everyone here that you have very little in your arsenal besides the race card and making false statements....repeatedly.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> starting a thread stating that you are worried that the white race will be exterminated s supposed to end with daffodils and unicorns shitting rainbows on fluffy white clouds?
> 
> it is clear to everyone here that you have very little in your arsenal besides the race card and making false statements....repeatedly.


 Oh i see like you and your turtle fucker thread? ok got ya, hypocrite.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Oh i see like you and your turtle fucker thread? ok got ya, hypocrite.


the people have spoken.

they believe ron paul to be a turtle fucker.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> the people have spoken.
> 
> they believe ron paul to be a turtle fucker.


 You are one huge hypocrite, the poll you started actually resulted in nothing you claim, you're the one spreading hatred, my thread was in a question format, anyoe who decided to go on the thread and troll it is not my problem, nor you siding with people on your side who are completely breaking rules including your self.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> You are one huge hypocrite, the poll you started actually resulted in nothing you claim, your the one spreading hatred, my thread was in a question format, anyoe who decided to go on the thread and troll it is not my problem, nor you siding with people on your side who are completely breaking rules including your self.


my poll was in question form as well.

and you're right. the people who decided to say some of the most vile and hateful things imaginable were not your problem, they were mine. and i handled them as i saw fit.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

i'm tempted to delete your posts that accuse me of breaking rules and siding with those that do. i deleted posts by others that were insulting to you, just as i deleted your posts to others that accused them of being uneducated and lacking testicles.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 30, 2011)

UB...you have been pretty fair. You've let people have it out to a certain degree, but you definitely put and end when things cross the line. I appreciate that.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm tempted to delete your posts that accuse me of breaking rules and siding with those that do. i deleted posts by others that were insulting to you, just as i deleted your posts to others that accused them of being uneducated and lacking testicles.


 Delete it all you want screen shots dont lie.

I also never said anyone lacked testicles, thats a lie.
So as long as something in your interpretation is vile and hateful you delete it?
So as if asking if ron paul is a turtle fucker isn't vile and disgusting to you it isn't to others and we all have to deal?
I dont think so buck.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I also never said anyone lacked testicles, thats a lie.


i know what "grow a pair" means.

you are not a very good liar.

want to post the screenshot where you called a fellow poster uneducated and told them to grow a pair?

LOL!

don't get mad at me for deleting your inappropriate posts, just stop making inappropriate posts. pretty simple.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ok in your Format
> 
> Is tryingtogrow a racist douchebag who is dishonorable and lies constantly
> or
> ...


 please show me where i ever agreed to bet you, ask anyone on here, i dont bet, why dont you get it?
quit being a liar saying that i bet you, obviously all you got are lies.
your screen shot has been recorded.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> please show me where i ever agreed to bet you, ask anyone on here, i dont bet, why dont you get it?
> Quit being a liar saying that i bet you, obviously all you got are lies.
> Your screen shot has been recorded.





tryingtogrow89 said:


> is this a bet?


 
*hey check out my sig!!!*


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i know what "grow a pair" means.
> 
> you are not a very good liar.
> 
> ...


 I never have and as mentioned i didnt break any rules, you did, allowing someone an your side to call a fellow moderator a piece of shit and racist. You are so quick to accuse me of being a liar but what lie have i told, all i hear is a bunch of trash talking. what a great mod you are.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh duke, someone asking a question is not the same as agreeing to something. He never made a bet, he asked you if you were trying to make one. Totally different.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *hey check out my sig!!!*


 So me asking if this is a bet? is somehow agreeing to a bet? lol, is your comprehension that low?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Oh duke, someone asking a question is not the same as agreeing to something. He never made a bet, he asked you if you were trying to make one. Totally different.


Depends on their actions
In his case he started to find facts to support his contention 
In other words He acted like a bet was going on until he realized he was wrong and lost
Then he welsched on the bet


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> Oh duke, someone asking a question is not the same as agreeing to something. He never made a bet, he asked you if you were trying to make one. Totally different.


 Exactly, can people pull their heads out of their anus?


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I never have and as mentioned i didnt break any rules, you did, allowing someone an your side to call a fellow moderator a piece of shit and racist. You are so quick to accuse me of being a liar but what lie have i told, all i hear is a bunch of trash talking. what a great mod you are.


i can think of a few lies:

slaves had an equal opportunity as their owners
slaves had a better way of life than when they were freed
the founding fathers didn't own slaves or believe in them
only 1/3 of the founding fathers owned slaves (try about 3/4, monroe even executed his slaves)
you don't lie 

i've probably forgotten more lies than from you than i can remember.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Depends on their actions
> In his case he started to find facts to support his contention
> In other words He acted like a bet was going on until he realized he was wrong and lost
> Then he welsched on the bet


 Never did i agree to bet you, only someone who doesnt understand or comprehend things would think otherwise.
I have never nor will i bet anyone anytime.
Your conclusion i somehow lost an imaginary bet holds no ground, and the information i provided was relevant to inform you, you are wrong, does not indicate that i engaged in a bet.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Depends on their actions
> In his case he started to find facts to support his contention
> In other words He acted like a bet was going on until he realized he was wrong and lost
> Then he *welsched* on the bet


That's RACIST! hahahaha!!!! just fucking with you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> That's RACIST! hahahaha!!!! just fucking with you.


no, that's racist^^^^^


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i can think of a few lies:
> 
> slaves had an equal opportunity as their owners
> slaves had a better way of life than when they were freed
> ...


 .1. your misinterpretation. 
.2 true. Only you took it out of context.
.3 more true than saying they did, we went over this, I said they didnt because you said they did, both preposterous statements but one less by 2/3.
.4 your statement was "the ff owned slaves" which is preposterous considering you are misleading in your claim, only 1/3 did buck.
Your battle here is futile, your lack of understanding, taking thigs out of context, and misinterpreting does not reflect externally but internally from where its directed from, (you)
I did not lie once.
You claim that Ron Paul fucks turtles with your rhetoric, on top of many others, you are the only liar here buck.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> no, that's racist^^^^^


You got me there...good point on both accounts.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

YOu are a Liar and a Racist one at that




*HEY CHECK OUT MY SIGNATURE*


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 30, 2011)

A liar? come now, why?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> A liar? come now, why?


Check out My signature


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 30, 2011)

My apologies to all the Welsh people...I should have known how badly the sting of racist, derogatory statements burns. I too have been called bad things: cracker, white-bitch, whitey, blue-eyed punk...


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

Im a liar because i refuse to say "the founding fathers owned slaves" which is UB's direct claim, Because of the direct claim i said something of preposterous, but less profound by saying "the founding fathers did not own slaves" 
My statement is more than 2/3 correct
UB's statement is less than 1/3 correct
Do we all get it now?
Preposterous fought with preposterous but more truthful preposterous.
Less than 1/3 of the founding fathers owned slaves, and that is speculated, either way you chop it not very many of them owned slaves and is there doesnot seem to be definite information regardless.
28% of free blacks in the south owned slaves, slavery was huge back then, all over the world, it was Africa's people being enslaved and sold by their own people. 
With our founding fathers it is a matter of history, slavery was a big part of it, thomas jeffersons views changed through out his life, by the end of it, he didnt believe in slavery.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

*welsh*(w




lsh, w




lch) also *welch* (w




lch) 
_intr.v._ *welshed* also *welched*, *welsh·ing* also *welch·ing*, *welsh·es* also *welch·es* _Informal_ *1. *To swindle a person by not paying a debt or wager.
*2. *To fail to fulfill an obligation.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Bunch of useless meandering might as well just cut all your Lying crap out.


 

Check out my sig
Now Check out what you just wrote
You are Wrong Apologize for being a total dick about it. Make amens by actually reading a History book
And resign as moderator as you are Obligated to do under the terms of our wager


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> .1. your misinterpretation.


tell me an interpretation in which a slave had an equal opportunity in life as the person that owned them then.



tryingtogrow89 said:


> .2 true. Only you took it out of context.


so, tell me how blacks today would be better off providing free labor then.



tryingtogrow89 said:


> .3 more true than saying they did, we went over this, I said they didnt because you said they did, both preposterous statements but one less by 2/3.


your statement would only be true if you used the proper qualifier, i.e. "some". "some founding fathers didn't own slaves" is a true statement, but "the founding fathers did not own slaves" is a completely false statement, a lie. 

we can review the difference between "for some" and "for all" statements again, if you want.



tryingtogrow89 said:


> .4 your statement was "the ff owned slaves" which is preposterous considering you are misleading in your claim, only 1/3 did buck.


we can go back and forth about how to define a 'founding father', but at least 15 of them had plenty of slaves. i'm sure many of the rest had house slaves (not plantation slaves).

hell, james monroe didn't own so many slaves and didn't believe in slavery so much that he executed about 30 of his slaves 



tryingtogrow89 said:


> I did not lie once.


LOL!



tryingtogrow89 said:


> You claim that Ron Paul fucks turtles with your rhetoric, on top of many others, you are the only liar here buck.


i asked a question: is ron paul a turtle fucker?

the people have spoken.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> YOu are a Liar and a Racist one at that
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The founding fathers didnt allow slavery or police it, it just was, there is nothing incorrect in my statement, more than 2/3 of the founding fathers didnt own slaves, with most not believing in it at the end of their days, but lets not focus on that.
Get it through and interpret slavery in general as i have already brought up.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> My statement is more than 2/3 correct
> UB's statement is less than 1/3 correct


you do not get how logic works.

your statement was a 'FOR ALL' statement. "the founding fathers did not own slaves" is a 'FOR ALL' statement, and it is 100% false.

you would have been 100% right if you had simply made a 'FOR SOME' statement, i.e. "some of the founding fathers did not own slaves".

HOW DO YOU NOT GET THIS?


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> The founding fathers didnt allow slavery or police it, it just was, there is nothing incorrect in my statement, more than 2/3 of the founding fathers didnt own slaves, with most not believing in it at the end of their days, but lets not focus on that.
> Get it through and interpret slavery in general as i have already brought up.


If you and I were in a Bar together and you tried to pull this Shit on a bet
You be getting your azz kicked right now while i am taking your money off the bar


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Check out my sig
> Now Check out what you just wrote
> You are Wrong Apologize for being a total dick about it. Make amens by actually reading a History book
> And resign as moderator as you are Obligated to do under the terms of our wager


he never made a wager with you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> If you and I were in a Bar together and you tried to pull this Shit on a bet
> You be getting your azz kicked right now while i am taking your money off the bar


cool it on the violence.

i have to go make clones now. please, try to keep it civil.

that goes for two people specifically.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> he never made a wager with you.


Is this a bet?
Followed by actions to secure his part of the bet?
Yeah its always a bet until you realize you are about to lose


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> cool it on the violence.
> 
> i have to go make clones now. please, try to keep it civil.
> 
> that goes for two people specifically.


.
Tap water Small container
4-5 days roots growing out the stem
Forget all the Bullshit It works


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Is this a bet?
> Followed by actions to secure his part of the bet?
> Yeah its always a bet until you realize you are about to lose


i looked at the thread, he never accepted a bet with you.

trust me, he has refused to tae bets with me before. i offered to bet him that ron paul would lose but he would not accept


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> .
> Tap water Small container
> 4-5 days roots growing out the stem
> Forget all the Bullshit It works


perlite in a 9 oz cup with rooting powder.

i've done that method before for kicks, no roots after two weeks.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> perlite in a 9 oz cup with rooting powder.
> 
> i've done that method before for kicks, no roots after two weeks.


Then maybe its the Special tomatoe Plant I am working with
4 days I will take pictures


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> tell me an interpretation in which a slave had an equal opportunity in life as the person that owned them then.
> 
> 
> 
> so, tell me how blacks today would be better off providing free labor then.


This is an old conversation and i already explained myself thoroughly and have been agreed with and concurred with and kudosed. 





UncleBuck said:


> your statement would only be true if you used the proper qualifier, i.e. "some". "some founding fathers didn't own slaves" is a true statement, but "the founding fathers did not own slaves" is a completely false statement, a lie.
> 
> we can review the difference between "for some" and "for all" statements again, if you want.
> 
> ...


 I dont even know where to start with this one, first off, i already explained it to you, you were the first to say "the founding fathers owned slaves" which is preposterous because you were misleading by not stating SOME of the founding fathers owned slaves, you took the initiative first.Therefore your statement was misleading, lie, and preposterous to the degree of your statement being less than 1/3 correct. I then replied with "the founding fathers didnt own slaves" which is preposterous because i didnt say MOST didnt own slaves, do you get it? i was pulling what you were polling, and even though, i was still more correct than you. More than 2/3 correct vs less than 1/3 correct both preposterous, my preposterous statement was mirroring you. But still not as bad for the fact you were far more misleading than i, lie! 


hell, james monroe didn't own so many slaves and didn't believe in slavery so much that he executed about 30 of his slaves 





UncleBuck said:


> LOL!


LOL!




UncleBuck said:


> i asked a question: is ron paul a turtle fucker?
> 
> the people have spoken.


 Ron paul is not a turtle fucker your own poll states this, so LIE! (the people never spoke in your favor lie again)
Also your more than just having a poll "is ron paul a turtle fucker"
You also go around spitting "ron paul is a turtle fucker" so another lie.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you do not get how logic works.
> 
> your statement was a 'FOR ALL' statement. "the founding fathers did not own slaves" is a 'FOR ALL' statement, and it is 100% false.
> 
> ...


 I explained it all read my last post.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Is this a bet?
> Followed by actions to secure his part of the bet?
> Yeah its always a bet until you realize you are about to lose


 Then where was my agreement?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Check out my sig
> Now Check out what you just wrote
> You are Wrong Apologize for being a total dick about it. Make amens by actually reading a History book
> And resign as moderator as you are Obligated to do under the terms of our wager





dukeanthony said:


> If you and I were in a Bar together and you tried to pull this Shit on a bet
> You be getting your azz kicked right now while i am taking your money off the bar





dukeanthony said:


> Regardless then
> He is a luser anyway





dukeanthony said:


> YOu are a Liar and a Racist one at that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the mean time im allowed to be called names and insulted, while if sided with unclebuck, i rest my case. 
Is everyone seeing this?

Meanwhile as long as you are on the side of buck you can get away with this, but i tell somone to "grow a pair" and "educate yourself" my comments get deleted, Unclebuck does not belong abusing moderating tools in such ways, its bias unfair, and disrespectful. 
I too am a moderator i think i have an idea or 2 of how things work around here.
I dont rat but this abuse of mod tools has been submitted to the Admin, this is ridiculous.


----------



## dukeanthony (Sep 30, 2011)

You would be doing me a favor by banning me


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> In the mean time im allowed to be called names and insulted, while on the side with unclebuck, i rest my case.
> Is everyone seeing this?


 You can get away with it if you just spell badly. 
Dunt be such a luuser, broke dik, azzholwe.

See?


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *YOu are a Liar and a Racist one at that*


 Wow....Unbelievable.


----------



## VTXDave (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> You would be doing me a favor by banning me


 That would not be a bad thing. You claim to be "tolerant" but your posts/actions belie your claim.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Well Tryingtogrows posts have shown him to be a Liar and a racist
> Click on his Icon and see what claims has made about non whites


 again with false accusations, name calling and insults, all acceptable as long as your on UB's side, if your not on his side and say "grow a pair" or "get educated" watch the fuck out, he will delete your comments.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> I explained it all read my last post.


you can not be 33.33333% correct on a 'for all' claim as you made. you can be right or wrong, and you were wrong.

for your edification, i have already deleted one of duke's posts and warned him on another.

you can't even explain how a slave had equal opportunity as his owner. can't even back up your lies. you poor thing.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> again with false accusations, name calling and insults, all acceptable as long as your on UB's side, if your not on his side and say "grow a pair" or "get educated" watch the fuck out, he will delete your comments.


you even agreed with me that those comments were not appropriate.

pointing out that you tell lies is not an insult, as you have obviously been lying up and down. and duke calls so many people a racist that his words have lost all meaning, although your statements certainly lead me to believe that you have a racist streak in you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

i've deleted yet more comments, and am back off to make my final batch of clones.

if anyone wants to have a pissing match, take it to PM. i would hate to close this (epic) thread due to a few bad apples.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you can not be 33.33333% correct on a 'for all' claim as you made. you can be right or wrong, and you were wrong.
> 
> for your edification, i have already deleted one of duke's posts and warned him on another.
> 
> you can't even explain how a slave had equal opportunity as his owner. can't even back up your lies. you poor thing.


 Again i never lied and after this post hopefully you can get that through your head, if you have any questions, you need to re read because it was already answered.
My claim which was more than 33.3% correct was less preposterous than you not saying, FEW or SOME of the founding father owned slaves, no, you said "the founding fathers owned slaves" which is misleading and a lie, practice what you preach, you cant be one big hypocrite and then when i mirror your hypocrisy say im a liar when i was only fighting your preposterous with my own.
how come you dont comprehend that?
It was your lie i was mirroring, even though it was still more than 2/3 correct than your less than 1/3 correct, get it?
man its like im talking to a brick wall.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> no, you said "the founding fathers owned slaves"


go find it and quote it. until then, you're a towel.

[video=youtube;2NO8lnC7u3w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NO8lnC7u3w[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> you even agreed with me that those comments were not appropriate.
> 
> pointing out that you tell lies is not an insult, as you have obviously been lying up and down. and duke calls so many people a racist that his words have lost all meaning, although your statements certainly lead me to believe that you have a racist streak in you.


 haha you are clearly lost in your head, i never lied, i never agreed that they were of appropriateness or not, i said that was up to interpretation, but seeing how there is major lack of any comprehension or any interpretation we get no where.
you treid to present what you were claiming were lies but were nothing more than your blowing out of context, mis interpretation.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> i've deleted yet more comments, and am back off to make my final batch of clones.
> 
> if anyone wants to have a pissing match, take it to PM. i would hate to close this (epic) thread due to a few bad apples.


 After i brought attention to it, trying to make yourself look good, screen shots dont lie as mentioned before.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> After i brought attention to it, trying to make yourself look good, screen shots dont lie as mentioned before.


go ahead and post the screenshots.

they will show that i deleted your posts and dukeanthony's.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> go ahead and post the screenshots.
> 
> they will show that i deleted your posts and dukeanthony's.


Already sent to admin.
Yea i said "grow a pair" yet you leave his message calling me a racist and piece of shit, and thats exactly what the screen shot shows.


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> Already sent to admin.
> Yea i said "grow a pair" yet you leave his message calling me a racist and piece of shit, and thats exactly what the screen shot shows.


good for you.

i'm sure it is damning for ONE of us.

edit: you left out the part where you called him uneducated, and you're also neglecting that i had to delete insult after insult from you in that same thread. they will be able to see that WITHOUT screen shots.


----------



## deprave (Sep 30, 2011)

wtf 16+ pages of childish arguments, are you guys ever going to stop shitting on my ron paul thread?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> good for you.
> 
> i'm sure it is damning for ONE of us.
> 
> edit: you left out the part where you called him uneducated, and you're also neglecting that i had to delete insult after insult from you in that same thread. they will be able to see that WITHOUT screen shots.


 Oh my gosh i was sooo out of line, haha you ever listen to your self?

Such a joke.
You believe in the global warming fairy tale lie.
You say ron paul is a turtle fucker out side of your poll. So thats a lie.
Someone can call me a piece of shit and a racist but thats fine cause there siding with you, also you delete my comment where i said "grow a pair" and "educate your self". 
Oh boy did i cross the line there, but if i were on your side i can say, racist, liar, piece of shit, luser, kick your ass, retard, read a history book, dick, shall i keep going?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

deprave said:


> wtf 16+ pages of childish arguments, are you guys ever going to stop shitting on my ron paul thread?


 I apologize deprave, thats not right that its on your thread, but he is abusing mod tools against us unfairly, its all here to be read and mod abuse has been reported to the admin.


----------



## beardo (Sep 30, 2011)

Ron Paul Party Time Excellent ....


----------



## UncleBuck (Sep 30, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> ... if i were on your side i can say, racist, liar, piece of shit, luser, kick your ass, retard, read a history book, dick, shall i keep going?


did you not notice that comments were deleted?

le sigh.

i should come into your section and tell you how to moderate


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> Ron Paul Party Time Excellent ....


 WHAT did you do today? *NORML's Marijuana Legalization Question Tops 'Most Popular' List On White House's 'We The People' Website < cut and paste I NO!

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/legalize-and-regulate-marijuana-manner-similar-alcohol/y8l45gb1

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/leave-pledge-allegiance-alone-there-are-too-many-things-need-attention-now/PV9rrPrC
*


----------



## deprave (Sep 30, 2011)

Wheels UP! Ron Paul got a bike!

[video=youtube;IvWo8KC-5Ko]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvWo8KC-5Ko[/video]


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Sep 30, 2011)

deprave said:


> Wheels UP! Ron Paul got a bike!
> 
> [video=youtube;IvWo8KC-5Ko]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvWo8KC-5Ko[/video]


 I like how he was like "i guess, i dont kow, whatever" lol brilliant.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 1, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> *welsh*(w
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17998

En Garde!


----------



## Parker (Oct 3, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> If you and I were in a Bar together and you tried to pull this Shit on a bet
> You be getting your azz kicked right now while i am taking your money off the bar


10 year olds and primates are not allowed in bars.


----------



## Parker (Oct 3, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> You would be doing me a favor by banning me


Then leave, no one is forcing you to stay. You're an adult, make your own decisions or do you want government to make them for you?


----------



## hazyintentions (Oct 3, 2011)

Parker said:


> do you want government to make them for you?


Shake it more than twice and your playing with it. 

Onwards, 



> The targeted killing of Yemeni-based al-Qaeda "cleric" Anwar Al-Awlaki was guaranteed to be a flashpoint for controversy because it was essentially a White House-sanctioned assassination of an American citizen. Not surprisingly, it was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) who quickly moved to stake out what will no doubt become the minority position on the GOP side.


 Source

A day will come in the future when stuff like this is in history books and the human race will have advanced beyond upheavals, bigotry, and fascism and people will wonder were and why wasn't Ron Paul elected with these views...
I am glad to say I have held on to my integrity and strongly oppose our government killing anyone sole target, American citizen or not, with out first hold him to the due processes granted in our constitution.


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 3, 2011)

Ron Paul isnt going to get the nomination
You going to shut up then or just find another racist dickhead to back?


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 4, 2011)

Just found this. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-paul-im-not-going-to-kowtow-to-the-latino-vote/


----------



## hazyintentions (Oct 4, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul isnt going to get the nomination
> *You going to shut up then or just find another racist dickhead to back?*


Hey UB, come on mod, this is unacceptable. I mean really? 

Duke I am not even going to reply to that because your too short minded and beside yourself to try again be reasonable.


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 5, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Hey UB, come on mod, this is unacceptable. I mean really?
> 
> Duke I am not even going to reply to that because your too short minded and beside yourself to try again be reasonable.


Maybe David DUke will run 3rd party
Seems him and Ron Paul agree on almost everything


----------



## Sunbiz1 (Oct 5, 2011)

432 pages for someone that will never win...

Sounds like a thread born and based upon too many bong hits.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 5, 2011)

Sunbiz1 said:


> 432 pages for someone that will never win...
> 
> Sounds like a thread born and based upon too many bong hits.


 Also you just took your time to type this pathetic message, what does that say about you?


----------



## deprave (Oct 5, 2011)

Ron Paul Press conference today, the last money bomb taking in 8million dollars:

*Ron Paul - "We Have Crossed the Rubicon towards Empire and Tyranny "*


[video=youtube;MfXPezvwE0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfXPezvwE0w[/video]


----------



## beardo (Oct 5, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul isnt going to get the nomination
> You going to shut up then or just find another racist dickhead to back?


We won't be backing you regardless- you ignorant racist dick head


----------



## Parker (Oct 6, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron Paul isnt going to get the nomination
> You going to shut up then or just find *another racist dickhead* to back?


speaking of yourself since you fit the bolded part to a tee?

(mods, see how I adjusted my language on this post )


----------



## Parker (Oct 6, 2011)

hazyintentions said:


> Shake it more than twice and your playing with it.
> Onwards,
> Source
> A day will come in the future when stuff like this is in history books and the human race will have advanced beyond upheavals, bigotry, and fascism and people will wonder were and why wasn't Ron Paul elected with these views...
> I am glad to say I have held on to my integrity and strongly oppose our government killing anyone sole target, American citizen or not, with out first hold him to the due processes granted in our constitution.


instead of killing him they should have invited him to dinner for a chat. oh wait they did.....sigh

Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned. 

Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military&#8217;s outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

People need to wake up and quit supporting the status quo.


----------



## JoeCa1i (Oct 19, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=htF0LaaU4FY#!


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 20, 2011)

Who all donated to the "black this out money bomb" ? I did!


----------



## smokebros (Oct 20, 2011)

There are two people I've noticed that have an agenda here at RIU. That is dukeanthony and UncleBuck. I don't mind talking to left wing socialists who are borderline communist, but these two just attack Ron Paul time after time with no substance... As if they've never read an economics book... I don't think they have. All they can do is call him racist lol. All they post about him is conspiracy garbage just to try and sabotage him. That is the equivalent if I went around calling Obama a Kenyan in every political thread. Don't believe me? Just go to any Ron Paul thread or create your own and in the first 5 posts you'll find either one of them calling him a racist or turtle fucker. You two should be ashamed of yourselves for the ignorance you keep on displaying. Go read an economics book and maybe take a look at how credit default swaps work.


----------



## deprave (Oct 20, 2011)

They just enjoy being asleep and yea I donated the usual 20.12$ for the money bomb


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 20, 2011)

"Moneybomb?"

That just sounds like some greedy dick came up with the idea.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 20, 2011)

deprave said:


> They just enjoy being asleep and yea I donated the usual 20.12$ for the money bomb


boy, the things people would rather have than money. it never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 20, 2011)

smokebros said:


> There are two people I've noticed that have an agenda here at RIU. That is dukeanthony and UncleBuck. I don't mind talking to left wing socialists who are borderline communist, but these two just attack Ron Paul time after time with no substance... As if they've never read an economics book... I don't think they have. All they can do is call him racist lol. All they post about him is conspiracy garbage just to try and sabotage him. That is the equivalent if I went around calling Obama a Kenyan in every political thread. Don't believe me? Just go to any Ron Paul thread or create your own and in the first 5 posts you'll find either one of them calling him a racist or turtle fucker. You two should be ashamed of yourselves for the ignorance you keep on displaying. Go read an economics book and maybe take a look at how credit default swaps work.


Myself, I finally had to fuck a turtle and see what the hype was all about. Maybe if I cooked it first it would of been funner.


----------



## deprave (Oct 20, 2011)

"Money bombs" is how Ron Paul gets his money, without corporate PAC money and support from the establishment how else is he going to run for president. The people give Ron Paul millions of dollars, Ron Paul set a record for money raised in 24 hours for a presidential candidate at 12 million dollars and he continues to shatter records every month.

The money bomb the other day was called 'Black This Out!' 

[video=youtube;SlKcPNcQlSc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlKcPNcQlSc[/video]

[video=youtube;pgNzOy5Y1vM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNzOy5Y1vM[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 20, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> boy, the things people would rather have than money. it never ceases to amaze me.


Yeah. Like that silly Liberty idea along with sound money, no undeclared wars, less government, etc.

Silly people!


----------



## deprave (Oct 20, 2011)

Silly people on the marijuana forums with their legalizing hemp and marijuana bullshit and their 20$ HAH! GO BUY A DAMN DISNEY DVD WITH YOUR 20$ GEEZ!


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 20, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Yeah. Like that silly Liberty idea along with sound money, no undeclared wars, less government, etc.
> 
> Silly people!


throwing it at a losing candidate is better?

better off burying it in a tin can in the backyard.


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 20, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> throwing it at a losing candidate is better?
> 
> better off burying it in a tin can in the backyard.


So just give it up huh? Seeing as every other candidate is more of the same shit we've been getting for decades.


----------



## londonfog (Oct 21, 2011)

Been a while but the truth about Ron Paul is he will NEVER get the nod from the Republican party.....end of story...


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 21, 2011)

londonfog said:


> Been a while but the truth about Ron Paul is he will NEVER get the nod from the Republican party.....end of story...


You might be right. The issue isn't Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is the symbol of freedom for a huge part of the country. A huge and growing part of the country. There are wars and there are battles. If Ron Paul doesn't make it, we lose the battle, but the war continues. Even in losing 2008, he gained so much traction for liberty and freedom that it was definitely worth it. Once you become a Libertarian, you stay a Libertarian. The fact that Ron Paul is the catalyst for changing the Republican party to a Party that makes sense is pretty exciting. I have converted dozens of people to support Ron Paul. People who didn't care about politics before, and now understand them in a realistic way. Those people are going to teach their children some day. Liberty and Freedom do not die with Ron Paul, they live on in every American who accepts them. Lose the battle, perhaps, but the war isn't over until we stop fighting.

Welp, I need to take a shower and go eat some sushi! Bye Bye!


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You might be right. The issue isn't Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is the symbol of freedom for a huge part of the country. A huge and growing part of the country. There are wars and there are battles. If Ron Paul doesn't make it, we lose the battle, but the war continues. Even in losing 2008, he gained so much traction for liberty and freedom that it was definitely worth it. Once you become a Libertarian, you stay a Libertarian. The fact that Ron Paul is the catalyst for changing the Republican party to a Party that makes sense is pretty exciting. I have converted dozens of people to support Ron Paul. People who didn't care about politics before, and now understand them in a realistic way. Those people are going to teach their children some day. Liberty and Freedom do not die with Ron Paul, they live on in every American who accepts them. Lose the battle, perhaps, but the war isn't over until we stop fighting.
> 
> Welp, I need to take a shower and go eat some sushi! Bye Bye!


"You can't kill an idea."


----------



## smokebros (Oct 21, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> You might be right. The issue isn't Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is the symbol of freedom for a huge part of the country. A huge and growing part of the country. There are wars and there are battles. If Ron Paul doesn't make it, we lose the battle, but the war continues. Even in losing 2008, he gained so much traction for liberty and freedom that it was definitely worth it. Once you become a Libertarian, you stay a Libertarian. The fact that Ron Paul is the catalyst for changing the Republican party to a Party that makes sense is pretty exciting. I have converted dozens of people to support Ron Paul. People who didn't care about politics before, and now understand them in a realistic way. Those people are going to teach their children some day. Liberty and Freedom do not die with Ron Paul, they live on in every American who accepts them. Lose the battle, perhaps, but the war isn't over until we stop fighting.
> 
> Welp, I need to take a shower and go eat some sushi! Bye Bye!




This is as true as it gets


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 21, 2011)

Freedom is a young idea, if you want government to be this omnipotent being move your ass to another country, im voting ron paul for personal responsibility and freedom, not government handouts and being provided to from a nanny corrupt government, Im for ron pauls 0-0-0 plan, 0 TAXES - 0 WARS - 0 unnecessary spending.
Ron Paul in, big regulation out! Take responsibility for your life. Thats what true freedom is all about, me and my wife donated a lot of money, money is tight for all right now, but id rather be on my feet fighting as a free man than live on my knees a slave.


----------



## deprave (Oct 21, 2011)

Ron Paul speech at Iowa Youth Rally Today - another enthusiastic young crown.

*At The University Of Iowa*



[video=youtube;8CBJqH0wpr8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CBJqH0wpr8[/video]

[video=youtube;IwePbdK40gY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwePbdK40gY[/video]

[video=youtube;3wTSFqHUzQE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wTSFqHUzQE[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Oct 21, 2011)

This made me laugh
[video=youtube;QgK8pHaRN7Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QgK8pHaRN7Q[/video]

"if I had to pick anyone I would pick a democrat."
"There's not one issue to pick out because we're so educated and ready to go"

Question: So you do consider who wins the nomination, right? Response: "I didn't say that, sir." lol


----------



## deprave (Oct 21, 2011)

sync0s said:


> This made me laugh
> [video=youtube;QgK8pHaRN7Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QgK8pHaRN7Q[/video]
> 
> "if I had to pick anyone I would pick a democrat."
> ...


LoL funny shit


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 23, 2011)

Dr. Ron Paul on "Meet the Press".
10-23-11

[video]http://www.ronpauljournal.com/interviews/1343/ron-paul-on-meet-the-press-10232011/[/video]


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 23, 2011)

Yeah i saw it

He put another few nails in his Career (33 years) as a politician


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 23, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Yeah i saw it
> 
> He put another few nails in his Career (33 years) as a politician


i felt that it was a rather solid interview for him.


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 23, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i felt that it was a rather solid interview for him.


It was a Solid Interview for him. I admire that even when it makes him look like a Kook
Ron Paul is for the most part Honest


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 23, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> It was a Solid Interview for him. I admire that even when it makes him look like a Kook
> Ron Paul is for the most part Honest


Every once in awhile, those kooky ideas need a voice. And sometimes, the kookier they are, the better they work.


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 23, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Every once in awhile, those kooky ideas need a voice. And sometimes, the kookier they are, the better they work.


But Most of the time those Kooky ideas are just plain nuts


----------



## deprave (Oct 23, 2011)

Ron Paul won ANOTHER straw paul....OVERWHELMINGLY again ......in ohio....of course you won't hear about this on the main stream media except in 30 second segment where they urge you to go get a snack beforehand:

Paul wins OHIO with 53% of the vote, only reported on local news:

[video=youtube;fTHWqsH17yA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTHWqsH17yA[/video]


----------



## deprave (Oct 23, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> But Most of the time those Kooky ideas are just plain nuts


 like what?


----------



## malignant (Oct 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> like what?


yeah, he's solid on his views, which are constitutionally based.


----------



## sync0s (Oct 24, 2011)

They all considered Nikola Tesla to be crazy.........


----------



## malignant (Oct 24, 2011)

sync0s said:


> They all considered Nikola Tesla to be crazy.........


Damn good point!


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 24, 2011)

There is no comparing nikola tesla to ron paul...that's just a damn insult to tesla. 

Tesla had a demonstrable crazy high intellect. Ron Paul is no where near that of Tesla. Totally incomparable.


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 24, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> There is no comparing nikola tesla to ron paul...that's just a damn insult to tesla.
> 
> Tesla had a demonstrable crazy high intellect. Ron Paul is no where near that of Tesla. Totally incomparable.


i think the comparison was basically a man whose ideas are before their time. 

Well, in Paul's case, going back to what worked.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 25, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> There is no comparing nikola tesla to ron paul...that's just a damn insult to tesla.
> 
> Tesla had a demonstrable crazy high intellect. Ron Paul is no where near that of Tesla. Totally incomparable.


 who's to say tesla has the know to run a country the proper way.


----------



## SisterMaryElephant (Oct 25, 2011)

Only a small percentage of people think Ron "the bigot" Paul has the know-how to run a country the proper way either. 

What's your point?


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> Only a small percentage of people think Ron "the bigot" Paul has the know-how to run a country the proper way either.
> 
> What's your point?


 bigot? 
whats your point?


----------



## SisterMaryElephant (Oct 25, 2011)

tryingtogrow89 said:


> bigot?
> whats your point?


Yes, a bigot.

My point? My point was that The Ruiner was right.


----------



## sync0s (Oct 25, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> There is no comparing nikola tesla to ron paul...that's just a damn insult to tesla.
> 
> Tesla had a demonstrable crazy high intellect. Ron Paul is no where near that of Tesla. Totally incomparable.


What are you talking about? It wasn't his intellect that made people say he was crazy... it was Edison's constant defamation as well as his weird personal habits such as how he hated women's perfume and preferred to avoid women all together, as well as being obsessive compulsive.

You would only consider it an insult if you were against Ron Paul in the first place. Besides, it was a metaphor. If you'd like I can use the words "like" or "as" and make it a simile? Would that make you feel better?


----------



## sync0s (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> Yes, a bigot.
> 
> My point? My point was that The Ruiner was right.


By definition a bigot would be somebody who is intolerant of other ideas... Just so you know.


----------



## SisterMaryElephant (Oct 25, 2011)

sync0s said:


> By definition a bigot would be somebody who is intolerant of other ideas... Just so you know.


Kind of like Ron "the bigot" Paul supporters who don't tolerate people who don't support RP? Is that what you mean? Frankly, I don't care, tell nor even suggest who other people vote for and *everyone* is entitled to their opinions but their opinions can certainly prove that they are bigots as is the case with RP. 

Surely, you're not suggesting that.....let's say...rejecting the ideology of "the klan" makes people "anti-klan bigots," right? Rejection of intolerance (bigotry) is not the same thing, unless that person is just trying to argue semantics or feeling guilty, of course.

Hope that helps...


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 25, 2011)

Here we go with someone else trying to show how much of a bigot Dr. paul is.

Try reading the rest of the thread. i think it's been discussed rather extensively WITH evidence from both sides rather than just accusations.


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 25, 2011)

Ron Paul wants everyone to be treated the same. No special treatment for anyone. Rich, poor, black, or white. 




SisterMaryElephant said:


> Kind of like Ron "the bigot" Paul supporters who don't tolerate people who don't support RP? Is that what you mean? Frankly, I don't care, tell nor even suggest who other people vote for and *everyone* is entitled to their opinions but their opinions can certainly prove that they are bigots as is the case with RP.


This is a Ron Paul thread discussion. You are choosing to come into it and attack Ron Paul and his supporters. Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder since you can't leave us alone to discuss politics amongst ourselves. What does bigot mean to you? I'm guessing you have no idea what it means.



> Surely, you're not suggesting that.....let's say...rejecting the ideology of "the klan" makes people "anti-klan bigots," right? Rejection of intolerance (bigotry) is not the same thing, unless that person is just trying to argue semantics or feeling guilty, of course.
> 
> Hope that helps...


A *bigot* is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Bigots and Bigotry apply to all situations. The very fact that you went out of your way to come to a Ron Paul thread and abuse Ron Paul and his supporters makes you a bigot. You are showing animosity and intolerance towards Ron Paul for differing beliefs. They are not violent or racist beliefs that you are railing against. Ron Paul does not support racism.


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 25, 2011)

I wonder why the Liberals who so thoroughly call Ron Paul a racist for rejecting the CRA as unconstitutional and wrong turned their head as people like Senator Robert Byrd continued to lead their party for 60 years. Ron Paul had a reason for not accepting it, a very valid and real reason. 

Seriously, the longest serving senator, Robert Byrd, was in the KKK, against CRA, and yet the Democrats kept him as one of their own for 60 years. Someone wrote a news letter in Ron Paul's name and said something, and he is a racist. Robert Byrd outright says he was in the KKK and the democrats loved him. Someone has some serious fucked up values in the world, and it ain't Ron Paul and his supporters.


----------



## SisterMaryElephant (Oct 25, 2011)

1) I'm not reading a 437 page thread about Ron "the bigot" Paul but I'll join in whether or not his supporters like it. 

2) I don't know what was discussed defended denied or why. What I do know is that if a person knowingly supports a bigot, they must be a bigot themselves. You can't support "the klan," for example, and not be a bigot. If people don't know that RP is a bigot they're either ignorant or gullible. 

3) If Ron "the bigot" Paul supporters can't handle it when people aren't RP puppets or lemmings, that's not my problem. Just because this is a RP thread doesn't mean everyone has to agree with him.

4) As I said, pointing out that a bigot is a bigot doesn't make one a bigot unless they're feeling guilty about something or simply intelectually dishonest.

5) I wonder why anyone can support bigots, liberals, libertarians, whomever, bigotry is just wrong. Yes, Byrd was in the klan but they don't like to talk about that. More democrats voted against the CRA than Republicans yet they claim Republicans are the racists. Lincoln, the first Republican and a yankee, freed the slaves from dixie-democrat plantation owners, yet they still claim that Republicans are the racists. *shrug* That doesn't change the fact that Ron "the bigot" Paul *is* a bigot even if he denies it now and his supporters believe him or don't know or don't care.


Regardless, it really doesn't matter, RP will NEVER be elected and anyone that *REALLY* truely believes that he's going to win is deluded or otherwse not grounded in honesty nor reality. Vote for whomever you want to, I don't tell people who to vote for. The, what, 12 or so vocal RP supporters here can get mad if they want, Ron "the bigot" Paul has already ran twice and lost both times. Nobody has ever lost twice and then been elected President, EVER. Nobody votes for libertarians, that is a fact. We Republicans REJECTED him twice, he's done, he'll NEVER be President, thank God. 

Don't cry though...


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> 1) I'm not reading a 437 page thread about Ron "the bigot" Paul but I'll join in whether or not his supporters like it.
> 
> 2) I don't know what was discussed defended denied or why. What I do know is that if a person knowingly supports a bigot, they must be a bigot themselves. You can't support "the klan," for example, and not be a bigot. If people don't know that RP is a bigot they're either ignorant or gullible.
> 
> ...


And yet another perfect example of why our political process is in the mess it is.

When you educate yourself on the issues then we can discuss them. Until then, enjoy your ignorance.


----------



## SisterMaryElephant (Oct 25, 2011)

Yes, some of us aren't idiots, 90+% evidently. 

If that helps you sleep at night, kid...you keep thinking that.


----------



## SisterMaryElephant (Oct 25, 2011)

So, what part of what I posted are you refuting by attacking the messenger instead of the facts I provided?


----------



## sync0s (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> Kind of like Ron "the bigot" Paul supporters who don't tolerate people who don't support RP? Is that what you mean? Frankly, I don't care, tell nor even suggest who other people vote for and *everyone* is entitled to their opinions but their opinions can certainly prove that they are bigots as is the case with RP.
> 
> Surely, you're not suggesting that.....let's say...rejecting the ideology of "the klan" makes people "anti-klan bigots," right? Rejection of intolerance (bigotry) is not the same thing, unless that person is just trying to argue semantics or feeling guilty, of course.
> 
> Hope that helps...


Rejecting ideology is not bigotry.

So let me get this straight... because a supporter of Ron Paul is intolerant of opposing views.... that makes Ron Paul a bigot?

Interesting...


----------



## SisterMaryElephant (Oct 25, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Rejecting ideology is not bigotry.
> 
> So let me get this straight... because a supporter of Ron Paul is intolerant of opposing views.... that makes Ron Paul a bigot?
> 
> Interesting...


I'm glad we agree that rejecting bigotry is not bigotry.

No, I'm *not* saying that Ron "the bigot" Paul is a bigot *because* some of his supporters are intolerant of any other candidates or intolerant of people that don't support RP. I'm just pointing out that some RP supporters are intolerant of others, in reply to your previous post on the previous page. Are you claiming that's not correct? Plenty of posts here prove me right.

RP, however, is a bigot because of what RP does, he owns that himself. I believe in personal responsibility, too bad he doesn't.


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> I'm glad we agree that rejecting bigotry is not bigotry.
> 
> No, I'm *not* saying that Ron "the bigot" Paul is a bigot *because* some of his supporters are intolerant of any other candidates or intolerant of people that don't support RP. I'm just pointing out that some RP supporters are intolerant of others, in reply to your previous post on the previous page. Are you claiming that's not correct? Plenty of posts here prove me right.
> 
> RP, however, is a bigot because of what RP does, he owns that himself. I believe in personal responsibility, too bad he doesn't.



Ron Paul isn't a bigot. You already stated you aren't interested in proof or reading about it. You already made up your mind without any room to change otherwise regardless of the facts. Doesn't that make you just a big asshole? I wouldn't be surprised if you were someone else coming in to stir up problems. You know, like DukeAnthony or something. Out of your less than 40 posts, like 35 of them have been bashing Ron Paul.


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 25, 2011)

Ron PAUL IS A BIGOT 
And racist


Sorry Normal Rational People can already figure this out


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 25, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron PAUL IS A BIGOT
> And racist
> 
> 
> Sorry Normal Rational People can already figure this out


Not surprisingly.


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 25, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron PAUL IS A BIGOT
> And racist
> 
> 
> Sorry Normal Rational People can already figure this out


lol. No time for your hate-filled drivel today.


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> lol. No time for your hate-filled drivel today.


Hate filled drivel?

That would be a series of newsletters Ron Paul wrote


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 25, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Hate filled drivel?
> 
> That would be a series of newsletters Ron Paul wrote


i believe, if researched, one would find that MANY people have had to retract or denounce things written in their name. 

It happens to judges, ceo's, police departments, almost ALL levels of government.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 25, 2011)

Some people need to put the crack pipe down.


----------



## deprave (Oct 25, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron PAUL IS A BIGOT
> And racist
> 
> 
> Sorry Normal Rational People can already figure this out


 why would normal rational people have such abnormal irrational thoughts?


----------



## deprave (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> 1) I'm not reading a 437 page thread about Ron "the bigot" Paul but I'll join in whether or not his supporters like it.
> 
> 2) I don't know what was discussed defended denied or why. What I do know is that if a person knowingly supports a bigot, they must be a bigot themselves. You can't support "the klan," for example, and not be a bigot. If people don't know that RP is a bigot they're either ignorant or gullible. How does he support "the klan".
> 
> ...


 see red text above and please provide an actual argument if you would like to have a discussion otherwise just go away.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> i believe, if researched, one would find that MANY people have had to retract or denounce things written in their name.
> 
> It happens to judges, ceo's, police departments, almost ALL levels of government.


except he has stated that he wrote those before trying to say he didn't.


----------



## deprave (Oct 25, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> except he has stated that he wrote those before trying to say he didn't.


 *no he didn't* some dude from a Houston paper wrote that he "stated that" jesus christ.....we've been over this...he was never even really interviewed by that guy.


----------



## deprave (Oct 25, 2011)

I mean seriously...even if he did say that..which he didn't ..it would of been fucking 20 or 30 years ago the world was different...If you said black dudes can run fast 30 years ago I wouldn't think any damn different of you. Don't be so stupid! Just like duke can't even sit through that farakhan speech cause he said the word jew 3 times...Wtf is wrong with you people? Do you live in a god damn bubble? or is it just a stupid strawman argument? I suspect the later but I mean really whats the deal? Are you that big of crybabies? Have you ever been to the ghetto even once?


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 25, 2011)

deprave said:


> I mean seriously...even if he did say that..which he didn't ..it would of been fucking 20 or 30 years ago the world was different...If you said black dudes can run fast 30 years ago I wouldn't think any damn different of you. Don't be so stupid! Just like duke can't even sit through that farakhan speech cause he said the word jew 3 times...Wtf is wrong with you people? Do you live in a god damn bubble? or is it just a stupid strawman argument? I suspect the later but I mean really whats the deal? Are you that big of crybabies? Have you ever been to the ghetto even once?



I go to the ghetto all the time, it just happens to be where the best Caribbean food is. Oh, and Krystal Burgers.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 25, 2011)

*Ron paul won ohio straw poll 
[youtube]fTHWqsH17yA[/youtube]
*


----------



## sync0s (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> 1) I'm not reading a 437 page thread about Ron "the bigot" Paul but I'll join in whether or not his supporters like it.
> 
> 2) I don't know what was discussed defended denied or why. What I do know is that if a person knowingly supports a bigot, they must be a bigot themselves. You can't support "the klan," for example, and not be a bigot. If people don't know that RP is a bigot they're either ignorant or gullible.
> 
> ...


I don't know where you get off thinking you represent republicans, but seeing as you think you do: Who do "We Republicans" accept?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 25, 2011)

SisterMaryElephant said:


> 1) What I do know is that if a person knowingly supports a bigot, they must be a bigot themselves.


What if someone knowingly supports God? Does that make them like God? What if I support the incredible Hulk? Will I become green and Big? What If I support Mitt Romney? Will the big banks give me billions of dollars too? What if I support a known Gay person? does that make me gay? What if I support a known Murderer? Does that make me a murderer? If I support ....... you get the picture?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I go to the ghetto all the time, it just happens to be where the best Caribbean food is. Oh, and Krystal Burgers.


Soul Food is in the Ghetto, Fresh catfish and hushpuppies with okra and corn bread MMMMM


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 25, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Ron PAUL IS A BIGOT
> And racist
> 
> 
> Sorry Normal Rational People can already figure this out


 So you you haven't been able to figure it out then I assume?


----------



## deprave (Oct 25, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I go to the ghetto all the time, it just happens to be where the best Caribbean food is. Oh, and Krystal Burgers.


 Yea but, you know Ron Paul is the real deal for humanitarian issues, You've been to the ghettos that explains it.


----------



## deprave (Oct 26, 2011)

Ron Paul on Cavuto - 

[video=youtube;mhe6D8RZ_xw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhe6D8RZ_xw[/video]

Ron Paul raining in 2.75 million the last few days, nearly all small donations in the Black this out Money Bomb.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 26, 2011)

Thanks to the ones who donated, i think it means you aren't full of shit.


----------



## Parker (Oct 26, 2011)

UncleBuck said:


> except he has stated that he wrote those before trying to say he didn't.


Ron Paul never said he wrote them. You'll lie about anything. No proof just more of your bs.


----------



## Parker (Oct 26, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Hate filled drivel?
> 
> That would be a series of newsletters Ron Paul wrote


 nice try uncle duke. He never wrote the newsletter. Pay attention sometimes your different personalities on here sound too much alike. copy and paste more lies that'll make you feel better.


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 26, 2011)

Parker said:


> nice try uncle duke. He never wrote the newsletter. Pay attention sometimes your different personalities on here sound too much alike. copy and paste more lies that'll make you feel better.


Was it his Newsletter?
Was He responsible for its Content?
Think He ever Read it?


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 26, 2011)

NoDrama said:


> What if someone knowingly supports God? Does that make them like God? What if I support the incredible Hulk? Will I become green and Big? What If I support Mitt Romney? Will the big banks give me billions of dollars too? What if I support a known Gay person? does that make me gay? What if I support a known Murderer? Does that make me a murderer? If I support ....... you get the picture?


If I support Sister and Duke, does that make me an asshole?


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 26, 2011)

Parker said:


> nice try uncle duke. He never wrote the newsletter. Pay attention sometimes your different personalities on here sound too much alike. copy and paste more lies that'll make you feel better.


I don't know... they are both professional trolls, but at the same time Duke actually seems to be legitimately retarded. I am pretty sure UB knows he is full of shit and only does it for fun.


----------



## sync0s (Oct 27, 2011)

In response to your avatar (sorry for the tangent), have you seen the video where Moore refuses to admit he's in the top 1%?


----------



## Parker (Oct 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Was it his Newsletter?


no it wasn't the newsletter changed hands a few times he had nothing to do with it


dukeanthony said:


> Was He responsible for its Content?


since the newsletter wasn't his he was not responsible for it. He did say he had moral obligation since his name was on it


dukeanthony said:


> Think He ever Read it?


after he left the newsletter and it changed hands he did not

Does that little pea brain of yours ever work? a normal person would get it by now. Ron Paul has never uttered a racist word. No one has heard any. No slips up, nothing ever racist, when he speaks.


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 28, 2011)

Ron Paul refuses to rule out a third-party run.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/27/ron_paul_will_not_rule_out_a_third-party_run.html


----------



## dukeanthony (Oct 28, 2011)

Parker said:


> no it wasn't the newsletter changed hands a few times he had nothing to do with it
> 
> since the newsletter wasn't his he was not responsible for it. He did say he had moral obligation since his name was on it
> 
> ...


Its been posted so many times I guess i will just categorize you as hateful and delusional
Or maybe you actually know the real truth and just like being an asshole


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Oct 28, 2011)

How about these retarded OWS protesters huh guys?


----------



## Carthoris (Oct 28, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Its been posted so many times I guess i will just categorize you as hateful and delusional
> Or maybe you actually know the real truth and just like being an asshole


I remember hearing lots of people saying Obama was a Kenyan who was here to destroy the USA. It must be true, I sawed it posted.


----------



## beardo (Oct 28, 2011)

Carthoris said:


> I remember hearing lots of people saying Obama was a Kenyan who was here to destroy the USA. It must be true, I sawed it posted.


Ron Paul 2012


----------



## deprave (Oct 29, 2011)

Sunday at around 3 am eastern. I will be releasing my first movie, its a movie about Ron Paul, its 1 hour and 20 minutes, for the most part its a compilation of youtube clips from this year into one movie, it tells a story, and trys to appeal to everyone so nothing to crazy. 

It relates Ron Paul to JFK, MLK, and Gandhi the other champions of civil liberties in this century. It also trys to make comparisons to the other candidates. I hope you guys will enjoy it and provide some feedback. 

Its still pretty rough around the edges, mildly stated. I could really use some help on this project. I am pretty much running out time because I need to start burning this on to discs to hand out.

I am thinking of calling it Ron Paul Chasin' dem crazy baldheads out of town (a song in the movie) - Kusinich, Ron Paul, and Sanders are interrogating Ben Bernanke, greenspan, and that other bald guy and it breaks into...Bob Marley's - chase those crazy baldheads out of town - Featuring other baldheads such as herman cain and obama

or 

Into the Mind of A Paulbot


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 31, 2011)

Interesting commentary on CNN regarding Ron Paul and his latest straw poll win.

http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/10/cnn-political-analyst-oh-my-god-ron-paul-is-making-sense-oct-31-2011/


----------



## deprave (Nov 4, 2011)

New Interview with Ron Paul on PBS - Discussion on Economics.

*Ron Paul: "Fiat Money Is America's Biggest Export"*

​[video=youtube;tcwFr0ukJwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcwFr0ukJwE[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 4, 2011)

Found this piece discussing the Religious Right's slander and lies about Ron Paul. Thought i'd share 

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-lafayette-la/ron-paul-slandered-by-so-called-republican-christians


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 13, 2011)

This should become the new RP campaign theme song after last nights debate.

[video=youtube;AkFqg5wAuFk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFqg5wAuFk&feature=related[/video]


----------



## sync0s (Nov 13, 2011)

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388068n[/video]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-to-rick-perry-on-gaffe-that-happens-to-everybody-just-not-in-front-of-4-million-people/

Not only did he try helping his rival on stage, but he tried to make him feel better about it afterward. Character of Ron Paul just reaffirms him as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## The Ruiner (Nov 13, 2011)

Dude...leave Pantera out of this.


----------



## beardo (Nov 13, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Dude...leave Pantera out of this.


Ron Paul represented Texas
And would never support music Censorship


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 13, 2011)

The Ruiner said:


> Dude...leave Pantera out of this.


It's just time he stood up and got a little of the respect he deserves. He'll do it statesman-like if he does it i'm sure. He needs to get angry.


----------



## sync0s (Nov 13, 2011)

Terrible choice with Pantera. The only dirt against Ron Paul has been the racist newsletters and you choose a rock group that had white supremacy lyrics?


----------



## dukeanthony (Nov 14, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Terrible choice with Pantera. The only dirt against Ron Paul has been the racist newsletters and you choose a rock group that had white supremacy lyrics?


 -stoners
-conspiracy theorists
-racists

Any corrections to above list?


----------



## The Ruiner (Nov 14, 2011)

"Taught when we're young to hate one another 
It's time to have a new reign of power 
Make pride universal so no one gives in 
Turn our backs on those who oppose 
Then when confronted we ask them the question 
What's wrong with their mind? 
What's wrong with your mind? "

Don't fuck with Pantera...


----------



## beardo (Nov 14, 2011)

[youtube]tRnZ6rjLKqA[/youtube]
Now a new look in my eyes my spirit rise
Forget the past Present tense works and lasts
Got shit on Pissed on Spit on Stepped on Fucked with
Pointed at by lesser men
(Pre) New life in place of old life Unscarred by trials
(Chorus) A new level of confidence and power

Demanding plea for unity between us all
United stand Death before divided fall
In mock military order
Vulgar Power Impatient Because time is shorter

(Pre) (Chorus)

No fucking surrender Can't lose Life kills


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 14, 2011)

why isn't ron paul winning?

he should be blowing them out of the water.

there should be parades in the streets.

time is running short. when is he gonna start?


----------



## beardo (Nov 14, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> why isn't ron paul winning?
> 
> he should be blowing them out of the water.
> 
> ...


Ron Paul is winning- Don't believe the propaganda that says hes not


----------



## JoeCa1i (Nov 14, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]Qr7nL2xIZqI#![/YOUTUBE]


----------



## dukeanthony (Nov 14, 2011)

OMG 
So since 1971 The Dollar lost 80 % of its purchasing power?

Well ALLRIGHTY then

How much purchasing Power did the Dollar lose between 1931 and 1971 a identical period of time?


----------



## sync0s (Nov 14, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> -stoners
> -conspiracy theorists
> -racists
> 
> Any corrections to above list?


ummm.... what are you babbling about?


----------



## deprave (Nov 15, 2011)

I just quit posting every vid here, its too much to keep up with now, I work 60 hours a week :\

Ron Paul is winning, you wont hear that from sean hannity or rush limbaugh.


----------



## deprave (Nov 15, 2011)

*Ron Paul: Lets save Social Security

Interview


- Watch it and pay the fuck attention you SO CALLED liberals that block out Ron Paul - see the truth right in front of your eyes* - THIS IS THE ONLY MOTHER FUCKER THATS GOING TO DO JACK SHIT YOU GUYS COMON! 

[video=youtube;n9dCXE2QLHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9dCXE2QLHA[/video]


----------



## deprave (Nov 15, 2011)

Whats new with Ron Paul...Well he just keeps winning EVERY straw poll and EVERY post debate poll and the media just keep taking it down. The media keeps ignoring him its even worse then before.

Today winning another debate poll and they take the poll down.
[video=youtube;Hst8_K49r-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hst8_K49r-I&feature=related[/video]


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 15, 2011)

if ron paul were such a BADASS he wouldn't allow any of this.

i don't want a "pushover" running MY country. 

maybe if he cried a little louder.


----------



## mccumcumber (Nov 15, 2011)

So, if/when Ron Paul does not get the nomination, who are you all going to vote for? Or will you just right him in? Maybe Herman Cain and Ron Paul should team up to make one badass president/vp duo?


----------



## beardo (Nov 15, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> So, if/when Ron Paul does not get the nomination, who are you all going to vote for? Or will you just right him in? Maybe Herman Cain and Ron Paul should team up to make one badass president/vp duo?


 Im writing in Ron Paul and taking a picture of my ballot and ID and framing it so in the future I can tell people I tried.


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 15, 2011)

Ron Paul or bust.


----------



## beardo (Nov 15, 2011)

I think someone more computer smart than me and who's involved with trying to get Ron Paul elected should start a movement to have every Paul voter take a picture of their ballot and upload it on a site, make a page for it-
I know that the electoral collage decides but what if Paul gets 70% of the popular vote and it's verifiable with real ballots and real voters names in real time?
Would sure make things interesting.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 15, 2011)

this is funny.


----------



## cannaculturist (Nov 15, 2011)

Here are some of my past posts regarding Ron Paul and FREEDOM! follow this link to my blog...
http://thecannaculturist.blogspot.com/search/label/Ron Paul


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 15, 2011)

beardo said:


> I think someone more computer smart than me and who's involved with trying to get Ron Paul elected should start a movement to have every Paul voter take a picture of their ballot and upload it on a site, make a page for it-
> I know that the electoral collage decides but what if Paul gets 70% of the popular vote and it's verifiable with real ballots and real voters names in real time?
> Would sure make things interesting.


It would likely get derailed and those voting hit with some kind of fine and/or have their ballots nullified over some obscure election law about replicating official ballots or some bullshit like that.


----------



## deprave (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm writing in Ron Paul If I have to, hes the only logical choice this time.


----------



## tet1953 (Nov 16, 2011)

Well, he's in 2nd place now in most of the polls. I am not as huge a Paul supporter as some on here, but I like him. It really is incredible how they just ignore him, even in 2nd place. How do they get away with that, and how do we let them?


----------



## dukeanthony (Nov 16, 2011)

deprave said:


> I'm writing in Ron Paul If I have to, hes the only logical choice this time.


 Many people say the entire Paul campaign is just an effort to peel off democratic votes from impressionable young people


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 16, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Many people say the entire Paul campaign is just an effort to peel off democratic votes from impressionable young people


And many say that Obama has no authority to be president. Your point?


----------



## sync0s (Nov 17, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Many people say the entire Paul campaign is just an effort to peel off democratic votes from impressionable young people


Sounds like a typical progressive. The only way someone can possibly disagree with a progressive is if they "fell for the deceitful plot of the right-wing propaganda campaign."


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)

ron paul will NOT win.

it's that easy.


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul will NOT win.
> 
> it's that easy.


He has already won


----------



## deprave (Nov 17, 2011)

Ron Paul always wins


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)

deprave said:


> Ron Paul always wins


that's why Obama is president. 









he even let Obama steal his slogan.


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

Ideas are very powerful and can spread and grow and live much longer and have more impact than any person, ideas never die
Ron Paul wins with every speech he makes and every book he sells


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)

beardo said:


> Ideas are very powerful and can spread and grow and live much longer and have more impact than any person, ideas never die
> Ron Paul wins with every speech he makes and every book he sells


yeah, keep believing that. 

why don't you have a drivers license?


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> yeah, keep believing that.
> 
> why don't you have a drivers license?


Because of constitutional violations and violations of my civil libertys and rights,
I meen because Ron Paul is not in charge
See Paul v Virginia


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)

beardo said:


> Because of constitutional violations and violations of my civil libertys and rights,
> I meen because Ron Paul is not in charge




ron paul can't help you, only you can help you.

i bet you had one once, and then they took it away. 

ron paul will never win. if he was as badass as people claim him to be he would already be president.

back on the bus.


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul can't help you, only you can help you.
> 
> i bet you had one once, and then they took it away.
> 
> ...


JFK was a real baddass !
If Ron Paul doesnt get to be president Jessie Ventura may take the white house, then we will have a real life baddass in charge again.


----------



## mccumcumber (Nov 17, 2011)

How exactly was JFK a badass? I'm interested in hearing the answer to this one.


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> How exactly was JFK a badass? I'm interested in hearing the answer to this one.


He saved a bunch of guys during world war two, he swam with guys on his back to save their lives, he swam from one island to another and back to get water to save their lives- Real war hero.
He also stood up to Russia as president when they were threatening us with Nukes
He also started making United States Notes so our country could use it's own money.
He was a real bad ass- he also banged marylin monroe and she sang happy birthday to him


----------



## deprave (Nov 17, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> How exactly was JFK a badass? I'm interested in hearing the answer to this one.


my god...


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> How exactly was JFK a badass? I'm interested in hearing the answer to this one.


Monday, August 2, 1943 - On night patrol, PT 109 was rammed by a Japanese destroyer, killing two of the 13 crewmen. Jack rescued a nearly drowned crewman with bad burns, dragging him out of the water onto the floating hulk. In the process, Jack swallowed a lot of sea water and gasoline and would suffer lifelong stomach problems.
12 hours later they abandoned the wreckage of PT 109 and swam for a nearby island using a makeshift raft built from pieces of the boat. Jack swam while towing the burned crewman for four hours. That night Jack Kennedy swam out with a lantern and a pistol hoping to flag any patrolling PT boats, but was unsuccessful.
They moved to a larger island nearby, with Jack once again towing the injured crewman. Jack made two more attempts to flag PT boats without success. The men lived on coconut milk and rain water until they eventually made contact with friendly natives. Jack carved a rescue message into a coconut husk which made its way back to the Navy and the crew of PT 109 was rescued by PT boats


----------



## mccumcumber (Nov 17, 2011)

Just gonna ignore bay of pigs and Vietnam are we?


Edit: I have nothing against the guy, he just wasn't great. Wasn't terrible either, just a decent president for the time, imo.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)




----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)




----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)

beardo said:


>



[video=youtube;Oeqlm-D0eEU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeqlm-D0eEU[/video]


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

Nothing Changes
[youtube]gk3FwJTjVi4[/youtube]


----------



## sync0s (Nov 17, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> ron paul will never win. if he was as badass as people claim him to be he would already be president.


That's a load. Look throughout history and you find people who spoke truth are not only ignored but blasphemized. Charles Darwin, for example. More often than not, the ones who are praised by popularity are always wrong. Eventually, the truth always comes out.


----------



## deprave (Nov 17, 2011)

Guys..IDK if you know this but Ron Paul has been tied for first lately and a lot of the media is actually admitting he is a front runner and also saying the fact he got 89 secs in the last debate is BS


----------



## deprave (Nov 17, 2011)

Pauls campaign is actually at the same place as obama's in 07 right now , the establishment was pushing for Hillary and then obama won iowa...

Jerry Doyle interviews Ron Paul today
[video=youtube;shMfBCjtQOA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shMfBCjtQOA[/video]

Ron Paul on hannity today:

[video=youtube;7qU6GEQJIwM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qU6GEQJIwM[/video]


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)

they gave cain secret service protection.


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 17, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> they gave cain secret service protection.



Just read that. He is the first GOP hopeful to get it. Was he threatened?


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 17, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Just read that. He is the first GOP hopeful to get it. Was he threatened?


no. 

bghvgvjhvbjkh


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

Does that meen he's the next president? When are they putting him in power? Will they wait untill after the election and say he won? It would make sence since he did work for the fed and we just took over Greece and Italy, maybe bankers are going to openly take over?


----------



## deprave (Nov 17, 2011)

Congressman Ron Paul delivered a speech for the National Association of Home Builders at the 29th Annual Cato Monetary Conference yesterday. The key topics were the US monetary policy and the Federal Reserve
[video=youtube;dEnxqZfODfs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEnxqZfODfs[/video]


----------



## jpill (Nov 17, 2011)

RON PAUL 2012 ~! Although i don't think he's going to be president , The powers that be won't let it happen.


----------



## jpill (Nov 17, 2011)

If you pay attention to the republican Debates , you WILL notice that all the presidential nominees copy Ron Paul's answers to the Questions in the debates. It's pathetic.


----------



## beardo (Nov 17, 2011)

jpill said:


> If you pay attention to the republican Debates , you WILL notice that all the presidential nominees copy Ron Paul's answers to the Questions in the debates. It's pathetic.


They realized his ideas and policys are popular, true, and logical-
So they have tried to make it seem as if they are their positions and ideas rather than try to go against them


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 17, 2011)

beardo said:


> They realized his ideas and policys are popular, true, and logical-
> So they have tried to make it seem as if they are their positions and ideas rather than try to go against them


 
That's where the 30 year history and voting record come into play


----------



## deprave (Nov 18, 2011)

New Ron Paul song and video "where does Ron Paul's ideas come from?"
[video=youtube;HEw0S9rPX9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEw0S9rPX9Y[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Nov 18, 2011)

deprave said:


> New Ron Paul song and video "where does Ron Paul's ideas come from?"
> [video=youtube;HEw0S9rPX9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEw0S9rPX9Y[/video]



Is that PeeWee Herman in the bottom right? I always knew he must be some sort of genius since he was so fucked up. Hey, and is that guy beside him the one from Seinfeld? I think that might be Orville Redenbacher in the top left.


----------



## dukeanthony (Nov 18, 2011)

deprave said:


> New Ron Paul song and video "where does Ron Paul's ideas come from?"
> [video=youtube;HEw0S9rPX9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEw0S9rPX9Y[/video]


Lot of white men there. Surprised
George Wallace
Bull Conner ans
Adolh Hitler aren't there as well


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 18, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Lot of white men there. Surprised
> George Wallace
> Bull Conner ans
> Adolh Hitler aren't there as well


You sure seem pre-occupied with race Duke.


----------



## dukeanthony (Nov 18, 2011)

Well it's not like I wrote some Newsletters. Or never turned away Donations from a White Supremacist site
Or advocate for Discrimination as long as a state says its legal

Ya know?

And Please dont deny we have some 88s on this board


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 18, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Well it's not like I wrote some Newsletters. Or never turned away Donations from a White Supremacist site
> Or advocate for Discrimination as long as a state says its legal
> 
> Ya know?
> ...


Not going to argue the newsletters that were written in his name. Been there, done that. i win when debating this topic with most people but you are, well, unique i guess.

As for turning donations away, you know how the political money game goes and even withstanding that do those people not have a right to voice their opinion and have it heard? You know that when he accepted donations, or more accurately was paid to give his standard Liberty speech (enterprising fellow ain't he?) that he did not alter it to the crowd he was addressing right? He never does. He's not a panderer like that.

States rights is states rights. That's what made America beautiful. Out of 50 states, i'm sure you could find one or two that were in line with your political/social leanings.

As for the 88's, i have never heard the term personally or don't remember hearing it. i assume that it refers to white supremacists or racists? i would say there's a few of them on just about ANY board.


----------



## tet1953 (Nov 18, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> As for the 88's, i have never heard the term personally or don't remember hearing it. i assume that it refers to white supremacists or racists?


Had to look it up myself  I think it means neo-nazi. H being the 8th letter, it stands for Heil Hitler. According to Wiki anyway.


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 18, 2011)

tet1953 said:


> Had to look it up myself  I think it means neo-nazi. H being the 8th letter, it stands for Heil Hitler. According to Wiki anyway.


Thank you. Wasn't sure if it was some kinda play on "hater" or not.


----------



## deprave (Nov 21, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Lot of white men there. Surprised
> George Wallace
> Bull Conner ans
> Adolh Hitler aren't there as well


 Why does it matter? Are you racist? Yep 

Is the word 'race traitor' in your vocabulary? Yep 

Does that guarantee your a racist? Yep


----------



## growsolo (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm no "88", nor do I want to be, but I could be a "14", and I could easily support Ron Paul's ideals.


----------



## JoeCa1i (Nov 22, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]ihE8vMsUMZk#![/YOUTUBE]


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

New Campaign ad
[video=youtube;hXu5tR-mhzM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hXu5tR-mhzM[/video]


----------



## Carthoris (Nov 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> New Campaign ad
> [video=youtube;hXu5tR-mhzM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hXu5tR-mhzM[/video]


That is a great commercial and all of that is true... didn't I hear he wrote that he hated black people though?

You know, only one this really makes me feel better about the US. If they continue down the path that they are on the entire country collapses and there will be a civil war. At least the Democrats don't have guns.


----------



## dukeanthony (Nov 23, 2011)

Very old strategy. When people think everyone is bad they tend to either not vote OR vote against the incumbent. 
Ron Pauls only real purpose is to split off some Democratic votes


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

dukeanthony said:


> Very old strategy. When people think everyone is bad they tend to either not vote OR vote against the incumbent.
> Ron Pauls only real purpose is to split off some Democratic votes


lol..........


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

[video=youtube;xYgAbkXOAsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYgAbkXOAsw[/video]



In last nights debate everyone but Paul and Huntsman continue to show their ignorance, Mitt Romney even had the nerve to say that the Obama Administration is cutting military and putting it into obamacare lmao...and went on to say something like he would remove a dozen helicopters or something ridiculous, Ron Paul replied with "They aren't actually cutting anything, they never really make any significant cuts! its time we wake up!" (paraphrase). The pundits are saying Ron Paul is in Mitt Romney is out, here is some quotes:


Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: &#8220;Romney looked a little piqued at Ron Paul on the budget. I think Ron knows what he&#8217;s talking about.&#8221;

Red State&#8217;s Erick Erickson: &#8220;Ron Paul actually gets a great comeback at Mitt Romney and actually shows he knows more about the budget than Romney on this point. Wow.&#8221;

Talk radio host Neal Boortz: &#8220;Go get &#8216;em Ron Paul! They aren&#8217;t cutting anything out of anything. Base-line budgeting. So right.&#8221;

CNN&#8217;s Roland Martin: &#8220;Rep. Ron Paul just schooled Mitt Romney on what&#8217;s happening on Capitol Hill. Paul is there. Mitt isn&#8217;t. Who do you trust?&#8221;

Washington Examiner/American Spectator&#8217;s Philip Klein: &#8220;Ron Paul smart to turn military cuts question into general rant about how Congress never actually cuts spending.&#8221;

MSNBC&#8217;s Howard Fineman: &#8220;Ron Paul is dominating this debate! &#8216;They are not cutting anything out of anything.&#8217; He&#8217;s right, of course.&#8221;

Sarah Palin "America Needs to start listening to Ron Paul and get educated"

All but paul and hunstman said that we should keep or strengthen the patriot act and talked about dreams of more bloodshed, Cain claiming we should look at seyria seriously? lol like he fucking knows....while the rest talked about attacking IRAN.....


*RISE HUMANITY! RISE! *
[video=youtube;w8KQmps-Sog]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog&ob=av2n[/video]


----------



## beardo (Nov 23, 2011)

I don't know how every one is so stupid-
They talk about budget cuts but their is no spending cut- they just lie to us, and no one calls them on it- Even Ron Paul doesn't seem to stress it enough for all the stupid people to understand- On the T.V. they still try to discount Paul as if he wasn't the only one who makes sense and tells the truth


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

Yes maybe Paul is before his time , but the information revolution is here, the end of a 24,000 year cycle, a significant astrological event, The dawning of Aquarius, as many societies have predicted we are at the end of a time of great technological inventions, and end to materialism and in a sense we are at the heals of the great awaking that happens at the end of every 24,000 year cycle as predicted by the Greeks, Myans, Aztecs, Egyptians, and so on...


----------



## beardo (Nov 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> Yes maybe Paul is before his time , but the information revolution is here, the end of a 24,000 year cycle, a significant astrological event, The dawning of Aquarius, as many societies have predicted we are at the end of a time of great technological inventions, and end to materialism and in a sense we are at the heals of the great awaking that happens at the end of every 24,000 year cycle as predicted by the Greeks, Myans, Aztecs, Egyptians, and so on...


I just wonder if he is to smart and to respectful
We need Dr Paul as our president, I can't think of anyone I would rather trust to represent our country- all the other canidates are liers who take us for fools


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

Hey deprave. Where'd you get your avi? Looks like a softball-playing girl there.


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

Found it on the internet , came up in a search for libertarian images lol


----------



## sync0s (Nov 23, 2011)

I don't know about you guys, but I am seeing RP get a lot of coverage by the Washington Times lately.


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> Found it on the internet , came up in a search for libertarian images lol


LOL! Then i can freely say........DAMN!!!!!!!


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> I don't know about you guys, but I am seeing RP get a lot of coverage by the Washington Times lately.


As well as HuffPost.


----------



## sync0s (Nov 23, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> As well as HuffPost.


Interesting: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/great-political-debate/2011/nov/23/debate-question-ron-paul-viable-candidate/


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

sync0s said:


> Interesting: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/great-political-debate/2011/nov/23/debate-question-ron-paul-viable-candidate/


He appears to be polling well against Obama from what i've read.


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

Yea things are REALLY looking up...I know I always say that(because I try to be optimistic) but I think I might be right this time actually...Like I said a few posts back with quotes...the media is claiming "Romney Is out and Paul is in"

from drudge:


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

Hmm well FOX is still smearing Ron Paul :\

I guees its not as bad as usual...but I only started reviewing what people have been saying about Ron Paul lately on television...The articles have been pretty good and fair lately even coming from some major news organizations but looks like FOX is still running Ron Paul psyop's against the sheeple, the smear is illustrated for you in this video. In this video they play a clip from the debate, leaving out Ron Paul's rebutle(at 5:20 into the video) which clearly shattered newts entire falsity, Newt says that we need a police state to be free and safe! Dr. Paul opposition to the patroit act is demonized and then Jeb Bushe's butt buddy sides with the establishment women while the widely known "liberal" Alan Combs is defending Ron Paul and openly states he is a liberal................. .....Be warned, the sheer anger this video will bring to you can be shocking and viewing this is not recommend as it could give you the urge to bang your head against your desk continually...

Alan Colmes Defends Ron Paul & The Constitution From A Neocon On Fox 
[video=youtube;onaaPdYl1m4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onaaPdYl1m4[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> Hmm well FOX is still smearing Ron Paul :\
> 
> I guees its not as bad as usual...but I only started reviewing what people have been saying about Ron Paul lately on television...The articles have been pretty good and fair lately even coming from some major news organizations but looks like FOX is still running Ron Paul psyop's against the sheeple:
> 
> ...


FOX=Fuckers On Xanax imo.


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

Just One Reason To Vote For Ron Paul, hes the only choice to get rid of the patriot act.









The only anti- police state canididate for president of the United States. Period...Why vote for anyone else?

I choose liberty.


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

Local news man says its time for a reality check on Ron Paul, great piece:


[video=youtube;EKaq4qoQvOs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EKaq4qoQvOs[/video]


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

Damn deprave! Can't get my eyes to look at your posts. Keep getting stuck on your avi lol.


----------



## deprave (Nov 23, 2011)

Yea I think ill change it, its just too good lol


----------



## budlover13 (Nov 23, 2011)

deprave said:


> Yea I think ill change it, its just too good lol


 
Email it to me first 

That was a libertarian search right?


----------



## deprave (Nov 24, 2011)

[video=youtube;KBf4nrxsmnA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBf4nrxsmnA[/video]

Highlights from tha debate

Ron Paul talks about ending the drug war..


----------



## sync0s (Nov 24, 2011)

Ron Paul seems to have gotten a little feisty in this debate lol


----------



## deprave (Nov 24, 2011)

Yes he should be, someone has to stand up for the people with these monsters ranting on and on about killing people...


----------



## sync0s (Nov 24, 2011)

deprave said:


> View attachment 1903454
> 
> 
> Yes he should be, someone has to stand up for the people with these monsters ranting on and on about killing people...


Funny how the "racist" candidate is the only one who is against racial profiling.

I was a little shocked that a black guy was for racial profiling.


----------



## deprave (Nov 24, 2011)

Ron Paul looked to be mocking Rick Santorum lol


----------



## deprave (Nov 24, 2011)

Romney is such a silver spoon carrying prick...like a little spoiled child....Ron Paul is the new front runner.


----------



## tryingtogrow89 (Dec 16, 2011)

[youtube]rSFzDde4fQc&feature=g-u&context=G2b2d2b1FUAAAAAAAAAA[/youtube]


----------



## merkzilla (Dec 26, 2011)

I've been following Ron Paul since 2005, what I find surprising is that the Republican Party hasn't embraced him, he's the only true fiscal conservative in the race. Hell, fox made sure they hijacked the tea party from him and just turned it into another avenue for evangelicals to reinvent themselves and go on and endorse someone like Michelle Bachmann who made her money putting people in prison for not paying their taxes to the IRS. 

For the record, I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative with libertarian leanings.


----------



## Carthoris (Dec 26, 2011)

merkzilla said:


> I've been following Ron Paul since 2005, what I find surprising is that the Republican Party hasn't embraced him, he's the only true fiscal conservative in the race. Hell, fox made sure they hijacked the tea party from him and just turned it into another avenue for evangelicals to reinvent themselves and go on and endorse someone like Michelle Bachmann who made her money putting people in prison for not paying their taxes to the IRS.
> 
> For the record, I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative with libertarian leanings.


I think you would term yourself a Classic Liberal. Liberal means you control your financial and personal lives. At least, it did until the democrats decided it meant socialism and hijacked the word. The democrats aren't exactly socially liberal and the republicans aren't exactly fiscally conservative. Using the terms in that way confuses the true meaning. I mean... fiscal conservatives wouldn't vote for bailouts and spending money on wars for no reason. I would term both the left and right statists. One on the road to communism, the other on the road to facism. I actually feel excited that things may change. lol, time for me to drink the koolaid and buy into the hope and change riding a unicorn shit like the Obama followers did in 2008. 

Ron Paul 2012


----------



## londonfog (Dec 30, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> this is hilarious and revealing of the mindset of a dumb racist.
> 
> if blacks want civil rights, they need to uproot their existence, move somewhere else, buy land, start a new town and more.
> 
> ...


I was trying to remember this guy and his stance. thanks for the reminders


----------



## UncleBuck (Dec 30, 2014)

londonfog said:


> I was trying to remember this guy and his stance. thanks for the reminders


just another racist rawn pawl libertarian spamming us with his neo-confederate white supremacy views.


----------



## londonfog (Dec 30, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> look at this "hispanic" fatass.


that left foot screams reptilian.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 30, 2014)

Slow day at the drier?


----------



## londonfog (Dec 30, 2014)

Harrekin said:


> Slow day at the drier?


from what I see everything is running fine.


----------



## UncleBuck (Dec 30, 2014)

londonfog said:


> that left foot screams reptilian.


doesn't it just ooze racial superiority to you?


----------



## londonfog (Dec 30, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> doesn't it just ooze racial superiority to you?


more deformity


----------



## abandonconflict (Dec 30, 2014)




----------



## abandonconflict (Dec 30, 2014)




----------



## ChesusRice (May 17, 2016)

Ron Paul!!!!


----------



## bluntmassa1 (May 17, 2016)

ChesusRice said:


> Ron Paul!!!!


Better than Killary Cunton!!!


----------

