We would have also accepted "Smart woman supports Ron Paul."

Onion headline?

"The right to life is already in the Constitution, and no amendment should be required. What we need is a strong judiciary dedicated to defending life. Perhaps they could even quote the familiar line from children's literature, "A person's a person, not matter how small."


Listen guy, the government has no business stepping in an making medical decisions for your family. And that goes for non-viable fetuses and vegetative grandmothers.

You're well meaning, but you've got it fark all backwards.

If the states want to be autonomous I have no problem with them seceding and becoming their own countries.

I am sure Alaska will do well. They are so rugged and independent.

Ron Paul and his supporters seem upset that the Federal government is getting in the way of the State governments who wish to discriminate and restrict civil liberties for some minorities. I cannot support such a stance.

So it's let the states decide unless it has to do with mandating Pro-Life positions.

"The right to life is already in the Constitution, and no amendment should be required. What we need is a strong judiciary dedicated to defending life. Perhaps they could even quote the familiar line from children's literature, "A person's a person, not matter how small."

The 1st Amendment does not require one to speak. Nor does it require one to follow a religion. The 2nd Amendment does not require one to carry a firearm. Likewise the right to life does not require one to squeeze out a precious snowflake. Nor is abortion performed by the government. This Elizabeth Smart (the one who was kidnapped?) has an argument here completely devoid of thought or merit.

Ron Paul is a shell - a human shell inhabited by some sort of other-dimensional being. It would be unwise to support this unnatural entity which has inhabited the body of this old man.

Look closely at his eyes. They are deep and hollow, for they do not lead to a human brain. If this entity were elected President, it would spell doom for humanity. This planet would become the domain of a hostile race of creatures that "Ron Paul" would then open the door to.

Do not vote for Ron Paul. He is not technically human.

He also has the support of my wackadoodle, super-religious, far right "libertarian" who thinks we should eliminate all government funding for social programs but lives in government housing and survives on welfare, unemployment, and the generosity of his mother because he hasn't been able to hold down a steady job in 20 years because he's off his f*cking rocker cousin. (How's THAT for a run-on sentence!) He has a new rambling post complete with linked videos and articles on Facebook every day explaining why RON PAUL is the only viable republican candidate. So there's that, I guess.

GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Snarfangel: We would have also accepted "Smart woman supports Ron Paul."

Uhm, not exactly. She starts in on her "pro-life" screed in the final paragraphs.

Hint: check her name.

It's actually the city. It's in Illinois.

Clever headline subby.

/+1

CanisNoir: Those are really Pauls only sane opinions. Personally I wish the GOP would place the social issues on the back burner and embrace the idea of doing away with prohibition and I think they'd win over a heck of a lot more votes. Shait didn't work back in the day, isn't working now, why keep throwing money at it?

Paul is right in one thing, the Fed does have too much power.

The GOP sold themselves to the moral majority in the 80's and haven't had control of them since.

Smart, Normal, and supports Ron Paul? Ladies and gentlemen, the loneliest Venn diagram in the world.

Ugh, Ron Paul would have my support if he didn't have a batshiat insane suicidal foreign policy.

His son, though, is thoroughly despicable.

vygramul: Paul's wrong about that, too. Sure, the states should decide many issues. But civil rights? No thanks. The states have an awful record.

Alphax: Ron Paul and his supporters seem upset that the Federal government is getting in the way of the State governments who wish to discriminate and restrict civil liberties for some minorities. I cannot support such a stance.

Paulbots frequently whine about how everything should leave everything to the states, because the democratic public will be much better equip at dealing with abuses at the state level. But it's funny how when we see these abuses actually occurring at the state level, the Paulbots are completely silent and unconcerned.

For instance, the other day we had a fark headline about how a Michigan Governor Snyder gave himself the authority to dissolve any local government he doesn't approve of (See: Towns with black residents), and re-allocate to the control of corporations. Basically setting it so that local residents no longer have any say in their own town. If Paulbots think that states should have more power to give locals more say, then surely they would see this as a bad thing?

But they don't. Paul supporters were completely absent in that thread. And if you check out what Paul forums have to say on Benton harbor, they're generally supportive of Rick Snyder for doing this. There are a few objections, of course, but even then, most of the objections are over the fact he intends to build a bridge. They're fine with the part about dissolving local government.

Seth'n'Spectrum: Ugh, Ron Paul would have my support if he didn't have a batshiat insane suicidal foreign economic policy.

His son, though, is thoroughly despicable.

FTFY

Um, no. "Normal" people understand what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is.

Seth'n'Spectrum: Ugh, Ron Paul would have my support if he didn't have a batshiat insane suicidal foreign policy.

His son, though, is thoroughly despicable.

Suicidal? Iran can't even refine their own gasoline, but we're supposed to be afraid of them? Every GOP candidate except for Dr. Ron Paul has Israel's Richard in their mouths.

Ron Paul wants a non-interventionist policy; peace through trade. His appearance on Leno was amazing:

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

We can't afford to police the world anymore. We don't have the authority, anyway.

schrodinger: vygramul: Paul's wrong about that, too. Sure, the states should decide many issues. But civil rights? No thanks. The states have an awful record.

Alphax: Ron Paul and his supporters seem upset that the Federal government is getting in the way of the State governments who wish to discriminate and restrict civil liberties for some minorities. I cannot support such a stance.

I think the general stance is that government is imperfect, and it's going to make mistakes. Better to see what happens at state-level and have the other states learn from it, than to 'test' something on the whole country.
Besides, what if Snyder was President? He'd probably do the same thing. In that case independent states would be an advantage.

The right to life is already in the Constitution, and no amendment should be required.

1: If it's already in it, then why would it need amending to say so?
2: It's actually not in it, you got it mistaken with the Declaration of Independence.

Ron Paul only supports states' rights when the states want to take away rights that he doesn't agree with. Just like all these jerkoff republicans, he says the federal government shouldn't define marriage, but ask him if he wants to overturn DOMA - the federal law that does just that - and he says no. farking hypocrite.

Hector Remarkable: Ron Paul is a shell - a human shell inhabited by some sort of other-dimensional being. It would be unwise to support this unnatural entity which has inhabited the body of this old man.

Look closely at his eyes. They are deep and hollow, for they do not lead to a human brain. If this entity were elected President, it would spell doom for humanity. This planet would become the domain of a hostile race of creatures that "Ron Paul" would then open the door to.

Do not vote for Ron Paul. He is not technically human.

Both sides are bad, so vote Cthulhu

schrodinger:

Paulbots frequently whine about how everything should leave everything to the states, because the democratic public will be much better equip at dealing with abuses at the state level. But it's funny how when we see these abuses actually occurring at the state level, the Paulbots are completely silent and unconcerned.

For instance, the other day we had a fark headline about how a Michigan Governor Snyder gave himself the authority to dissolve any local government he doesn't approve of (See: Towns with black residents), and re-allocate to the control of corporations. Basically setting it so that local residents no longer have any say in their own town. If Paulbots think that states should have more power to give locals more say, then surely they would see this as a bad thing?

But they don't. Paul supporters were completely absent in that thread. And if you check out what Paul forums have to say on Benton harbor, they're generally supportive of Rick Snyder for doing this. There are a few objections, of course, but even then, most of the objections are over the fact he intends to build a bridge. They're fine with the part about dissolving local government.

A fairly significant number of libertarian solutions (and I know Paul isn't libertarian, but a lot of his supporters are), are essentially "be an upper middle class person". Incur unexpected medical debt? Pay it off over a few years. Home state or home city gets oppressive? Just move. Don't want to work until the day you die? Just put away 15% of your gross income.

Vaccinium Arboreum: Hector Remarkable: Ron Paul is a shell - a human shell inhabited by some sort of other-dimensional being. It would be unwise to support this unnatural entity which has inhabited the body of this old man.

Look closely at his eyes. They are deep and hollow, for they do not lead to a human brain. If this entity were elected President, it would spell doom for humanity. This planet would become the domain of a hostile race of creatures that "Ron Paul" would then open the door to.

Do not vote for Ron Paul. He is not technically human.

Both sides are bad, so vote Cthulhu

Cthulhu/Dagon 2012: NO MORE YEARS.

Karac: The right to life is already in the Constitution, and no amendment should be required.

1: If it's already in it, then why would it need amending to say so?
2: It's actually not in it, you got it mistaken with the Declaration of Independence.

Ron Paul only supports states' rights when the states want to take away rights that he doesn't agree with. Just like all these jerkoff republicans, he says the federal government shouldn't define marriage, but ask him if he wants to overturn DOMA - the federal law that does just that - and he says no. farking hypocrite.

It's funny hearing him gripe that the government has too much power and influence over private lives then start outlining how once elected he'd start using the government to interfere with private lives.

BSABSVR: A fairly significant number of libertarian solutions (and I know Paul isn't libertarian, but a lot of his supporters are), are essentially "be an upper middle class person". Incur unexpected medical debt? Pay it off over a few years. Home state or home city gets oppressive? Just move. Don't want to work until the day you die? Just put away 15% of your gross income.

If someone's too poor to do those things it must have been because they made bad choices. (The fact that it's usually a bad choice of parents seems to be lost on libertarians).

GentlemanJ: Both sides are bad, so vote Cthulhu

Cthulhu/Dagon 2012: NO MORE YEARS.

Cthulhu - Why vote for the lesser evil?

Karac: GentlemanJ: Both sides are bad, so vote Cthulhu

Cthulhu/Dagon 2012: NO MORE YEARS.

Cthulhu - Why vote for the lesser evil?

Vote Yog-Sototh: for honest translucence in govt.

whidbey: Karac: GentlemanJ: Both sides are bad, so vote Cthulhu

Cthulhu/Dagon 2012: NO MORE YEARS.

Cthulhu - Why vote for the lesser evil?

Vote Yog-Sototh: for honest translucence in govt.

I'm a Yig supporter. Of course since he's perfect for the job nobody votes for him.

TFA: he recognizes that the role of the government is primarily to preserve liberty.

and that's why he'd leave it to the states to deny basic liberties

wtf lady

Galius_Persnickety: I think the general stance is that government is imperfect, and it's going to make mistakes. Better to see what happens at state-level and have the other states learn from it, than to 'test' something on the whole country.

Most of this crap has already been "tested." For instance, disenfranchising black people from voting via poll taxes and other means of voter suppression. That's why we have Federal Laws like the "Voting Rights Act," which Ron Paul opposes.

Of course, most Paulbots are okay with preventing black people from voting, since Ron Paul has pointed out that "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions." Their

Besides, what if Snyder was President? He'd probably do the same thing. In that case independent states would be an advantage.

What if all the gold was owned by Nazis? Then Ron Paul would be giving all economic power to the third Reich.

Seriously, though, if Snyder ran for president, he would have been under a lot more scrutiny to a much wider audience. Barack Obama can't even pass something like health care for 9/11 workers without generating massive controversy.

USA! USA!

Link (new window)

A lot of people wish he was less cuckoo.

RedPhoenix122: Karac: Cthulhu - Why vote for the lesser evil?

Was gonna say this, but lost initiative roll.

It's funnier as "Why settle for the lesser evil?" Please make a note of it. Kthxbi.

Normal, IL is home to Illinois State University - the state's first Normal School (teacher's college) from which the town of Normal gets its name. It's attached to Bloomington, IL like a tiny, fashionable remora. Lots of conjoined towns here in IL for some reason.

Strongly doubt this is the same Elizabeth Smart that got kidnapped, since she's probably still living in/near Salt Lake City.

Karac: 1: If it's already in it, then why would it need amending to say so?

Because the question isn't over a 'right to life', it's over the point where a fertilized egg becomes a human being. The amendment would define life as beginning at conception.

Karac: 2: It's actually not in it, you got it mistaken with the Declaration of Independence.

See the Fifth Amendment.

mod3072: He also has the support of my wackadoodle, super-religious, far right "libertarian" who thinks we should eliminate all government funding for social programs but lives in government housing and survives on welfare, unemployment, and the generosity of his mother because he hasn't been able to hold down a steady job in 20 years because he's off his f*cking rocker cousin. (How's THAT for a run-on sentence!) He has a new rambling post complete with linked videos and articles on Facebook every day explaining why RON PAUL is the only viable republican candidate. So there's that, I guess.


Yep, he's also got the very vocal support of a facebook acquaintance of mine... a left-ish rabidly non-partisan "both sides are bad" extremist super-vegan who divides his time between posting anti-Monsanto/agribusiness/GMO foods/anti-vaccine conspiracy articles from tinfoil-hat "natural foods" websites, and pro-Occupy Wall Street posts.

Right or left, it seems like some people simply have to be "different from the sheep" in every possible way they can come up with.

The guy I just mentioned recently made a very impassioned "Ron Paul is the man for me!" post, and when the comments filled up with his left-leaning friends saying basically "are you farking insane?" He got sulky and went all "then just vote out all the incumbents because Obama just signed away the Bill of Rights!!!"

As "non-partisan" as he claims to be, and as left-leaning as he is on most issues, he's always seemed to absolutely despise Barack Obama. (I'm very unhappy with him myself, and REALLY pissed he didn't veto that defense bill, but he still beats anybody on the right, including Paul)

I think in much of the granola conspiracy literature he reads, Obama is the arch-villain teamed up with Monsanto, the FDA, the United Nations, and the vaccine manufacturers in a plot to destroy non-modified crops, outlaw personal farming, throw people in prison for drinking unpasteurized milk, sterilize the poor with vaccines, and launch a New World Order to enslave the masses to global corporate overlords.