Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

2456762

Posts

  • Options
    CatoCato __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Well, this thread went from zero to shitstorm at impressive speed.

    Why not go all the way and accuse Ron Paul of wanting to crucify us on a cross of gold.

    Because he believes in bimetallism - William Jennings Bryan's main issue.

    Cato on
  • Options
    JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I like Ron Paul because he can speak English fluently.

    I've seen some guys elected who can't do that.

    His policies on deconstruction of the government are based primarily on turning those agencies and other government entities into either

    A) privately run industries

    B) state controlled and regulated entities


    I mean, I do not know a whole lot about European politics, but it sounds like he wants to turn America into a very large version of the European Union.

    Not a horrible idea?

    Jasconius on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jasconius wrote: »
    I like Ron Paul because he can speak English fluently.

    I've seen some guys elected who can't do that.

    His policies on deconstruction of the government are based primarily on turning those agencies and other government entities into either

    A) privately run industries

    B) state controlled and regulated entities


    I mean, I do not know a whole lot about European politics, but it sounds like he wants to turn America into a very large version of the European Union.

    Not a horrible idea?

    Except the European Union, by and large, has decent medical care.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Anyway, let's talk about Ron Paul. For some reason I keep hearing about him everywhere, despite the fact that he's pretty fucking crazy. Like, there are Ron Paul stickers all over my campus, for instance. I think that it's so refreshing to have a politician (a Republican, no less) that actually believes in something and isn't the usual talking-point soulless dipshit that they're willing to overlook the point that he's completely fucking batshit fucking loco.

    Or they are just the libertarian version of those dumbasses who wear Che t-shirts.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    CatoCato __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I've always though it weird how Andrew Jackson looks kind of like John Kerry.

    Cato on
  • Options
    Low KeyLow Key Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm actually pretty good at self regulating the impulse to rape babies.

    Regulating my working conditions to avoid being fucked over by every asshole that knows they can do whatever they like as long as I'm dependent on them for my survival? Not so crash hot on, but you'd be amazed how well I avoid raping babies all day long.

    Low Key on
  • Options
    KrizKriz Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The nice thing about Ron Paul is that his crazier ideas likely wouldn't fly through Congress as long as they manage to not fall asleep during meetings; he's said after most of his ideas "I'd get approval from Congress first".

    he's the only candidate who seems to remember that quaint little checks and balances system.

    Kriz on
  • Options
    The Laughing ManThe Laughing Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    I like Ron Paul because he can speak English fluently.

    I've seen some guys elected who can't do that.

    His policies on deconstruction of the government are based primarily on turning those agencies and other government entities into either

    A) privately run industries

    B) state controlled and regulated entities


    I mean, I do not know a whole lot about European politics, but it sounds like he wants to turn America into a very large version of the European Union.

    Not a horrible idea?

    Except the European Union, by and large, has decent medical care.

    Also, the European Union is an alliance of independent and sovereign states that group together for an economically beneficial relationship. The EU is not a nation, the EU is essentially a smaller Europe only UN/WTO that for the most part works.

    The United States on the other hand is not made up of sovereign states, the states are not self sufficient, and the last time someone went on a rant about state's supposed rights to govern themselves, mainly due to issues stemming from the ownership of other human beings and the "unjust" sanctions imposed on the American South for it which resulted in the American Civil War. The last time the states were treated as sovereign entities, which was under the Articles of Confederation, it nearly resulted in the destruction of the United States because it doesn't work. States aren't nation states, they never will be, and they never really were, yet again see the history of the US under the Articles of Confederation.

    Ron Paul and other people who go on about how they wish to return this nation to what the Founding Fathers wanted are delusional fools. You for one, you cannot apply an over two hundred year old political philosophy to today and expect anything other than failure to occur. It should also be noted that the Founding Fathers did the exact opposite of what Ron Paul wants to do when they held their offices after the American Revolution.

    People really need to pick up a history book and read it instead of using it to prop up their TVs so they can watch network news and some whack job political candidates talk about the "real issues".

    The Laughing Man on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    he's said that he won't torture dudes, which is basically something that no other republican except mccain has said, and that's good enough for me (or would be, if I were voting-age and had the ability to vote in the republican primaries)

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Kriz wrote: »
    The nice thing about Ron Paul is that his crazier ideas likely wouldn't fly through Congress as long as they manage to not fall asleep during meetings; he's said after most of his ideas "I'd get approval from Congress first".

    he's the only candidate who seems to remember that quaint little checks and balances system.

    There's still the issue with him possibly vetoing everything.

    jothki on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    With their track record these past eight years, why would you consider voting Republican?

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    Kriz wrote: »
    The nice thing about Ron Paul is that his crazier ideas likely wouldn't fly through Congress as long as they manage to not fall asleep during meetings; he's said after most of his ideas "I'd get approval from Congress first".

    he's the only candidate who seems to remember that quaint little checks and balances system.

    There's still the issue with him possibly vetoing everything.

    And the issue of having a president who refuses to do pretty much anything. I fail to see how a president who refuses to do most shit is better than a president who attempts to do shit but is prevented from doing it by Congress. At least in the latter case there is the possibility of Congress and the president coming to some form of agreement.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    Um...that's why we have two political parties?

    Also "a bit extreme" and "a bit racist" are both pretty ridiculous understatements.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    Um...that's why we have two political parties?

    Also "a bit extreme" and "a bit racist" are both pretty ridiculous understatements.
    Wish we had more, really, but there you go.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    Kriz wrote: »
    The nice thing about Ron Paul is that his crazier ideas likely wouldn't fly through Congress as long as they manage to not fall asleep during meetings; he's said after most of his ideas "I'd get approval from Congress first".

    he's the only candidate who seems to remember that quaint little checks and balances system.

    There's still the issue with him possibly vetoing everything.

    We'd just break Andrew Johnson's record. Only this time the 'radical republicans' would be in the white house instead of the congress.

    moniker on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    Um...that's why we have two political parties?

    Also "a bit extreme" and "a bit racist" are both pretty ridiculous understatements.
    Wish we had none, really, but there you go.

    Fixed

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    well, I guess I'm really asking why everyone is so focussed on crazy ron paul when he doesn't have a dentist's chance in japan of being nominated and some of the front-runners have as good as stated that they will start torturing muslims on the day they are sworn in

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    well, I guess I'm really asking why everyone is so focussed on crazy ron paul when he doesn't have a dentist's chance in japan of being nominated and some of the front-runners have as good as stated that they will start torturing muslims on the day they are sworn in

    Because people keep starting topics on how awesome he is.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    He also ignores Fred Thompson, the only Republican candidate other than Rudy who stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting nominated..

    Couscous on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    Um...that's why we have two political parties?

    Also "a bit extreme" and "a bit racist" are both pretty ridiculous understatements.
    Wish we had none, really, but there you go.

    Fixed
    You don't like political parties? I mean, I wish people could stand on thei own merits etc. etc. abloo bloo, but I understand why they're functionally necessary. Just wish we had more competition to weed out all the "people who disagree with me are communist anti-American terrorists" stuff.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    well, I guess I'm really asking why everyone is so focussed on crazy ron paul when he doesn't have a dentist's chance in japan of being nominated and some of the front-runners have as good as stated that they will start torturing muslims on the day they are sworn in

    Because people keep starting topics on how awesome he is.

    He also has a hardcore following that makes me want to punch kittens.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    Um...that's why we have two political parties?

    Also "a bit extreme" and "a bit racist" are both pretty ridiculous understatements.
    Wish we had more, really, but there you go.

    Meh. There is a good deal of nuance in the members of those parties. You just know what the unity/alliance government will wind up being beforehand rather than after the elections are held. We aren't any worse off with red and blue than Sweden or Germany etc. are with their rainbows. As far as POTUS is concerned, the primary system needs a good bit of work so this would hold true there as well.

    moniker on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The founding fathers' idea about there being a ton of candidates seeking election was idiotic and would result in nearly every presidential election being decided by the House of Representatives.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    Um...that's why we have two political parties?

    Also "a bit extreme" and "a bit racist" are both pretty ridiculous understatements.
    Wish we had none, really, but there you go.

    Fixed
    You don't like political parties? I mean, I wish people could stand on thei own merits etc. etc. abloo bloo, but I understand why they're functionally necessary.

    Why are they functionally necessary?

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    so which republican candidate are you planning on supporting over ron paul?

    rudy, who wants to keep guantanamo open indefinitely and keep sending dudes there?

    tom tancredo, who has promised to spy on Muslims "in their playgrounds and in their mosques?"

    romney, who is creepy as fuck and doesn't believe in evolution?

    like, obviously Ron Paul's ideas are a bit extreme and he is a bit racist, but there really isn't a republican who I'd consider voting for over him

    Um...that's why we have two political parties?

    Also "a bit extreme" and "a bit racist" are both pretty ridiculous understatements.
    Wish we had more, really, but there you go.

    Meh. There is a good deal of nuance in the members of those parties. You just know what the unity/alliance government will wind up being beforehand rather than after the elections are held. We aren't any worse off with red and blue than Sweden or Germany etc. are with their rainbows. As far as POTUS is concerned, the primary system needs a good bit of work so this would hold true there as well.
    It would just be nice if our political parties could pretend they cooperate and compromise on large-scale issues, rather than what they do now, which is essentially squabble over the moderates and centrists. I realize that's how it works in other countries, but at least it has the appearance of not being completely fucked.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    The founding fathers' idea about there being a ton of candidates seeking election was idiotic and would result in nearly every presidential election being decided by the House of Representatives.

    Well that's what they wanted.

    And really it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It'd be pretty close to the way Rome elected consuls.

    And Rome was tits.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    The founding fathers' idea about there being a ton of candidates seeking election was idiotic and would result in nearly every presidential election being decided by the House of Representatives.

    Well that's what they wanted.

    I know. I don't see how they were unable to realize that when a candidate without the highest amount of electoral votes won the election, the people would be really pissed.
    And really it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It'd be pretty close to the way Rome elected consuls.

    And Rome was tits.
    Rome is a great example of how not to set up a republic.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    The founding fathers' idea about there being a ton of candidates seeking election was idiotic and would result in nearly every presidential election being decided by the House of Representatives.

    Well that's what they wanted.

    I know. I don't see how they were unable to realize that when a candidate without the highest amount of electoral votes won the election, the people would be really pissed.

    Yeah, they should've just had the president elected directly by the House of Reps and Senate.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    You don't like political parties? I mean, I wish people could stand on thei own merits etc. etc. abloo bloo, but I understand why they're functionally necessary.

    Why are they functionally necessary?

    For one, human beings are tribal/social by nature rather than being more individualistic. For two, political parties are just organizational bodies of compromise. If you tow the party line on the honorable representative from the great state of Virginia's adendum to the agricultural promotion and retention act of ought 7, that heretofore pig farmers of jonesborro county be given a hogshead of apples per annum in the spirit of their anniversarial activities then the rest of the party members will tow the line when it comes to your own crazy ass needs. They're a more structured circle jerk within the larger, more anarchic circle jerk that is politics.

    moniker on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    You don't like political parties? I mean, I wish people could stand on thei own merits etc. etc. abloo bloo, but I understand why they're functionally necessary.

    Why are they functionally necessary?

    For one, human beings are tribal/social by nature rather than being more individualistic. For two, political parties are just organizational bodies of compromise. If you tow the party line on the honorable representative from the great state of Virginia's adendum to the agricultural promotion and retention act of ought 7, that heretofore pig farmers of jonesborro county be given a hogshead of apples per annum in the spirit of their anniversarial activities then the rest of the party members will tow the line when it comes to your own crazy ass needs. They're a more structured circle jerk within the larger, more anarchic circle jerk that is politics.

    Well, that just means they're inevitable, not necessary.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Well, this thread went from zero to shitstorm at impressive speed.

    Why not go all the way and accuse Ron Paul of wanting to crucify us on a cross of gold.

    Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

    Ron Paul - Building A Bridge To The Nineteenth Century.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    You don't like political parties? I mean, I wish people could stand on thei own merits etc. etc. abloo bloo, but I understand why they're functionally necessary.

    Why are they functionally necessary?

    For one, human beings are tribal/social by nature rather than being more individualistic. For two, political parties are just organizational bodies of compromise. If you tow the party line on the honorable representative from the great state of Virginia's adendum to the agricultural promotion and retention act of ought 7, that heretofore pig farmers of jonesborro county be given a hogshead of apples per annum in the spirit of their anniversarial activities then the rest of the party members will tow the line when it comes to your own crazy ass needs. They're a more structured circle jerk within the larger, more anarchic circle jerk that is politics.

    Well, that just means they're inevitable, not necessary.

    The fact that the inevitability manifested itself within just a couple sessions of the government (before then, actually if you want to count the Federalist/Anti-Federalist thing) seems to point towards their necessity in terms of having a functional governing body.

    moniker on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    And really it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It'd be pretty close to the way Rome elected consuls.

    And Rome was tits.
    Rome is a great example of how not to set up a republic.

    D:

    But...but...orgies and vomitoriums.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    QuazarQuazar Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Ron Paul is an extreme. I think it's nice that he's bringing attention to bloated government agencies. It would nice if it sparked some change in efficiency, but he doesn't really have a shot of being elected. I think education should be a state-level only thing, but the FDA needs to stay for sure. Like I've said before, other first world countries do more for their people, but they don't have 300 million people. It's different for us. Not to mention the fact that government employees essentially can't be fired and are typically lazy as hell. That definitely needs to change.

    As far as currency goes, I don't know much about it, but I did just watch "Money as Debt", and I am both confused and flabbergasted.

    Quazar on
    Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
    atl7hahahazo7.png
    XBL: QuazarX
  • Options
    Bloods EndBloods End Blade of Tyshalle Punch dimensionRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    And really it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It'd be pretty close to the way Rome elected consuls.

    And Rome was tits.
    Rome is a great example of how not to set up a republic.

    D:

    But...but...orgies and vomitoriums.

    Yeah and then they elected Palpatine and he killed all the Jedi.

    Is that what you want?

    Bloods End on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    Bloods End wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    And really it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It'd be pretty close to the way Rome elected consuls.

    And Rome was tits.
    Rome is a great example of how not to set up a republic.

    D:

    But...but...orgies and vomitoriums.

    Yeah and then they elected Palpatine and he killed all the Jedi.

    Is that what you want?

    Man fucking Rome gets a bad rap for turning into an Empire, but 500 years is a pretty good run, especially for the time period. Not to mention it build a foundation of stability that allowed it to last another 400

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Huckabee is the only Republican candidate I've seen who doesn't look like a genuine asshole. Not that I agree with him on most points, though. He just doesn't seem to be a toned-down, male Ann Coulter like the rest of the Republican candidates.

    His Corkiness on
  • Options
    DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited October 2007
    Wow the mods dropped the ball on this one. Apparently civil disagreement was left at the door. How utterly douchey of a lot of you.

    Unknown User on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Rygar wrote: »
    Wow the mods dropped the ball on this one. Apparently civil disagreement was left at the door. How utterly douchey of a lot of you.

    They make report buttons for that sort of thing, if you're not just upset that people aren't hailing Ron Paul as the anointed messiah who bringeth the rain and the barley and all the good things of the earth.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Rygar wrote: »
    Wow the mods dropped the ball on this one. Apparently civil disagreement was left at the door. How utterly douchey of a lot of you.

    They make report buttons for that sort of thing, if you're not just upset that people aren't hailing Ron Paul as the anointed messiah who bringeth the rain and the barley and all the good things of the earth.

    I am upset about the lack of that as well.

    Congress would never allow the crazyness to become law, and he would reform the Presidency to what it should be. What did become law would be earmarkless constitutional bills, unless the Republicans and Democrats allied against him.

    I hope he gets the nomination. I do think its possible. However, I think its much more likely he is spawning the movement that will realistically get someone in the future like him into the White House.

    Unknown User on
This discussion has been closed.