Go back to 1890 cantankerous old man!

I'll believe it once Ron Paul actually wins, or comes close to winning, a single state.

Paschal: Go back to 1890 cantankerous old man!

More like 1390 by the way he wants to bring back the Dark Ages.

It's "nipping at the heels", you old fool.

Deucednuisance: It's "nipping at the heels", you old fool.

Romney's getting nippled to death?

RU PAUL!

thanks subby, I lol'd on a buisness call...

maybe the 2nd subby

Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

dahmers love zombie: It's "cats".

[i.imgur.com image 300x216]

Damnit I came here to do that.

MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

He has 17 delegates going into South Carolina.

Deal.

MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

The Ron Paul hate is strong in here, but I would suggest looking at him a little more objectively. This is a movement of young folks who understand how the government is ripping you off.

...or you can just keep supporting Obama. He will never lie to you.

HoodCrowd: MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

The Ron Paul hate is strong in here, but I would suggest looking at him a little more objectively. This is a movement of young folks who understand how the government is ripping you off.

...or you can just keep supporting Obama. He will never lie to you.

I do look at him objectively. More importantly I look at his actual policies rather than looking at who his supporters are. His actual policies are, in a word, terrible.

HoodCrowd: MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

The Ron Paul hate is strong in here, but I would suggest looking at him a little more objectively. This is a movement of young folks who understand how the government is ripping you off.

...or you can just keep supporting Obama. He will never lie to you.

Neither would Ron "Spending is too high, but not high enough for me not to funnel shiatloads of pork into my district" Paul

Ron "I'll take credit for my racist newsletter until someone points out 'Hey, that shiat's racist', then I'll blame it all on a staffer who also happens to read OB/GYN magazines, and claim I never had time to read said newsletter despite having time to hand write spam for it." Paul.

Ron "I love the Constitution, but states are free to create official churches, make atheists second class citizens, etc. Oh, and even though I'm for a small Government, I'd ban abortion because fark you that's why." Paul.

/Dude needs to get him some shorter nicknames.

HoodCrowd: MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

The Ron Paul hate is strong in here, but I would suggest looking at him a little more objectively. This is a movement of young folks who understand how the government is ripping you off.

...or you can just keep supporting Obama. He will never lie to you.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he seriously is crazy. He makes sense the first thirty seconds you listen to him make a point but then it delves into insanity. States all having their own currencies to compete with federal currency? No help for people that can not afford health care? Elimination of departments of energy, health and human services, education, IRS, homeland security, fema, and ICC?

If he could have his way the US would nose dive into anarchy.

MadMonk: HoodCrowd: MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

The Ron Paul hate is strong in here, but I would suggest looking at him a little more objectively. This is a movement of young folks who understand how the government is ripping you off.

...or you can just keep supporting Obama. He will never lie to you.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he seriously is crazy. He makes sense the first thirty seconds you listen to him make a point but then it delves into insanity. States all having their own currencies to compete with federal currency? No help for people that can not afford health care? Elimination of departments of energy, health and human services, education, IRS, homeland security, fema, and ICC?

If he could have his way the US would nose dive into anarchy.

Not anarchy, complete corporatocracy. Think Snow Crash. Libertarians and neo-confederates are linked in their desire to have a government that is exactly and only empowered to wage state violence and act as an enforcement arm for monied interests.

MadMonk: HoodCrowd: MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

The Ron Paul hate is strong in here, but I would suggest looking at him a little more objectively. This is a movement of young folks who understand how the government is ripping you off.

...or you can just keep supporting Obama. He will never lie to you.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he seriously is crazy. He makes sense the first thirty seconds you listen to him make a point but then it delves into insanity. States all having their own currencies to compete with federal currency? No help for people that can not afford health care? Elimination of departments of energy, health and human services, education, IRS, homeland security, fema, and ICC?

If he could have his way the US would nose dive into anarchy.

Not to mention banning abortion and allowing states to make atheists (and other members of non-state religions) second-class citizens.

The man is as big a theocrat as any other Republican, he just prefers his tyranny at a state level.

Lost Thought 00: Romney's getting nippled to death?

There's worse ways to go, I suppose...

LordJiro: HoodCrowd: MadMonk: Bah, the only thing that old fart is nibbling is milk toast. He doesn't have a chance in hell at the presidency, why does he keep doing this? It's going to be the same result for him come election night.

[i406.photobucket.com image 611x404]

The Ron Paul hate is strong in here, but I would suggest looking at him a little more objectively. This is a movement of young folks who understand how the government is ripping you off.

...or you can just keep supporting Obama. He will never lie to you.

Neither would Ron "Spending is too high, but not high enough for me not to funnel shiatloads of pork into my district" Paul

Ron "I'll take credit for my racist newsletter until someone points out 'Hey, that shiat's racist', then I'll blame it all on a staffer who also happens to read OB/GYN magazines, and claim I never had time to read said newsletter despite having time to hand write spam for it." Paul.

Ron "I love the Constitution, but states are free to create official churches, make atheists second class citizens, etc. Oh, and even though I'm for a small Government, I'd ban abortion because fark you that's why." Paul.

/Dude needs to get him some shorter nicknames.

Ron wouldn't ban abortion. He believes that's a state responsibility too, to create their own laws - see his kerfluffle with Personhood USA.

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that respecting the 10th Amendment = tyranny?

I've said this before, I'll say it again because it's still evident with posts like these - liberals seem to find their inner libertarian when things like respecting the 10th Amendment is brought up in political discourse. Suddenly, the states will fence up the borders and enslave teh atheists!!!1 All our Governors will pass laws that are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and authoritarian!

Deftoons: Ron wouldn't ban abortion. He believes that's a state responsibility too, to create their own laws - see his kerfluffle with Personhood USA.

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that respecting the 10th Amendment = tyranny?

I've said this before, I'll say it again because it's still evident with posts like these - liberals seem to find their inner libertarian when things like respecting the 10th Amendment is brought up in political discourse. Suddenly, the states will fence up the borders and enslave teh atheists!!!1 All our Governors will pass laws that are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and authoritarian!

You really should read some American history. Or the current news.

Giving states complete control would be a huge mistake because some of these governors that get elected are a hell of a lot more crazier than DC politicians. In Georgia they wanted to pass a law would make everyone pay their state taxes in gold. Just think of how bad things would get in Wisc. California would be completely broken, I'd hate to even think about what would be going on in Texas. Rick Scott in FL would be...would be....well, like Texas, I don't even want to imagine that nightmare.

MadMonk: Giving states complete control would be a huge mistake because some of these governors that get elected are a hell of a lot more crazier than DC politicians. In Georgia they wanted to pass a law would make everyone pay their state taxes in gold. Just think of how bad things would get in Wisc. California would be completely broken, I'd hate to even think about what would be going on in Texas. Rick Scott in FL would be...would be....well, like Texas, I don't even want to imagine that nightmare.

Look at the two Oklahoma threads from yesterday.

Philip Francis Queeg: Deftoons: Ron wouldn't ban abortion. He believes that's a state responsibility too, to create their own laws - see his kerfluffle with Personhood USA.

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that respecting the 10th Amendment = tyranny?

I've said this before, I'll say it again because it's still evident with posts like these - liberals seem to find their inner libertarian when things like respecting the 10th Amendment is brought up in political discourse. Suddenly, the states will fence up the borders and enslave teh atheists!!!1 All our Governors will pass laws that are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and authoritarian!

You really should read some American history. Or the current news.

I read about it probably more than you, Queef.

Can you explain just exactly how the aggregate of all states would regress into tyrannical authoritarian entities by passing most responsibilities of governance to them and ending federal involvement?

dahmers love zombie: It's "cats".

[i.imgur.com image 300x216]

I am so happy to have been beaten to this joke by like fifteen farking people.

/MEEEEESTEHR DAHMER'S LOVE ZOMBIE, MY GOOD AND DEAR FRIEND...

Deftoons: Philip Francis Queeg: Deftoons: Ron wouldn't ban abortion. He believes that's a state responsibility too, to create their own laws - see his kerfluffle with Personhood USA.

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that respecting the 10th Amendment = tyranny?

I've said this before, I'll say it again because it's still evident with posts like these - liberals seem to find their inner libertarian when things like respecting the 10th Amendment is brought up in political discourse. Suddenly, the states will fence up the borders and enslave teh atheists!!!1 All our Governors will pass laws that are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and authoritarian!

You really should read some American history. Or the current news.

I read about it probably more than you, Queef.

Can you explain just exactly how the aggregate of all states would regress into tyrannical authoritarian entities by passing most responsibilities of governance to them and ending federal involvement?

As I said, look at Oklahoma from yesterday. They'd happily restrict the rights of Muslims and homosexuals. Other states would be likely to pass other restrictions on freedom.

History show that State level tyranny of various types is not uncommon in the absence of strong Federal enforcement of the 14th Amendment.

Why would you believe that things would be any different in the future if those protections were removed?

Deftoons: Philip Francis Queeg: Deftoons: Ron wouldn't ban abortion. He believes that's a state responsibility too, to create their own laws - see his kerfluffle with Personhood USA.

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that respecting the 10th Amendment = tyranny?

I've said this before, I'll say it again because it's still evident with posts like these - liberals seem to find their inner libertarian when things like respecting the 10th Amendment is brought up in political discourse. Suddenly, the states will fence up the borders and enslave teh atheists!!!1 All our Governors will pass laws that are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and authoritarian!

You really should read some American history. Or the current news.

I read about it probably more than you, Queef.

Can you explain just exactly how the aggregate of all states would regress into tyrannical authoritarian entities by passing most responsibilities of governance to them and ending federal involvement?

I guess in your reading you skipped over the Jim Crow laws.

MadMonk: Giving states complete control would be a huge mistake because some of these governors that get elected are a hell of a lot more crazier than DC politicians. In Georgia they wanted to pass a law would make everyone pay their state taxes in gold. Just think of how bad things would get in Wisc. California would be completely broken, I'd hate to even think about what would be going on in Texas. Rick Scott in FL would be...would be....well, like Texas, I don't even want to imagine that nightmare.

Just the same, Vermont just passed single payer health care for the state, and if people don't want that, they can at least move to nearby New Hampshire where taxes are low and the economy is relatively free. More and more states are legalizing (to a certain extent) marijuana. New York legalized gay marriage. I think you're taking a "glass half empty" view.

If you don't like living in one state, you can at least move to another. Don't like living in America? Have fun getting dual citizenship. It's going to be much harder to do.

Deftoons: I read about it probably more than you, Queef.

Sorry, typo. My bad.

qorkfiend: I guess in your reading you skipped over the Jim Crow laws.

You think states will start adopting Jim Crow all over again? No offense but I feel that is terribly naive.

MadMonk: Giving states complete control would be a huge mistake because some of these governors that get elected are a hell of a lot more crazier than DC politicians. In Georgia they wanted to pass a law would make everyone pay their state taxes in gold. Just think of how bad things would get in Wisc. California would be completely broken, I'd hate to even think about what would be going on in Texas. Rick Scott in FL would be...would be....well, like Texas, I don't even want to imagine that nightmare.

I'd rather a few states pass stuff like NDAA, Patriot Act, etc.. than have fedgov do it. It would be easier to move away, and/or a complaining voice would be more loudly heard. At least until they threw you in the dungeon, anyway. Tennessee might come to my rescue. lol

How many states are going to legalize drugs, anyway? Heroin sold in gas stations? That would beat buying it in the parking lot I guess, it's cold outside!

How many southern states will pass "beat the minorities with whips" laws, then realize that the extremely high percentage of folks in their state is black, and they won't stand for it?

Are people, in this day and age, forgetting that it's 50 states that make up the country? That each state regulates most of its own violent crime laws and a bunch of other stuff? Why can't they manage the smaller things? All the US citizens live in a state I think, and each state makes TONS of it's own policies. Maybe we outta take all that away.....

Deftoons: qorkfiend: I guess in your reading you skipped over the Jim Crow laws.

You think states will start adopting Jim Crow all over again? No offense but I feel that is terribly naive.

You were asking for examples from history where, due to no federal involvement, the states had regressed, and Jim Crow is the prime example.

I still get a kick out of how all the Liberals and the Rush Limbaugh NeoCons/NearlyComs can get together and despise Ron Paul.

Knowing that the Derp on each end of the political spectrum agree on Paul....that is good enough for me to vote for him.

The only difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is that one is a little whiter than the other

Philip Francis Queeg: Why would you believe that things would be any different in the future if those protections were removed?

See my response to MadMonk above.

qorkfiend: Deftoons: qorkfiend: I guess in your reading you skipped over the Jim Crow laws.

You think states will start adopting Jim Crow all over again? No offense but I feel that is terribly naive.

You were asking for examples from history where, due to no federal involvement, the states had regressed, and Jim Crow is the prime example.

Fair enough, but we're also talking about today and what would happen in the future. I really don't see such cultural regression to make any significant headway, and if it did, the state would lose half of their population because I think people would migrate to freer states, and the freer states would have stronger economies.

qorkfiend: Deftoons: qorkfiend: I guess in your reading you skipped over the Jim Crow laws.

You think states will start adopting Jim Crow all over again? No offense but I feel that is terribly naive.

You were asking for examples from history where, due to no federal involvement, the states had regressed, and Jim Crow is the prime example.

Not so fast...the Federal Courts upheld many of the Jim Crow laws....Berea v Kentucky is a textbook example.

When the Federal Courts started ruling against discrimination....the states would have to eventually change their laws.

And, as the Liberal Derp whines about Ron Paul being against the Civil Rights Act of 1964...so too were Al Gore, Sr (Al Jr dad) and William Fulbright....Clinton's mentor. And they were Democrats. And you still voted for their progeny

Deftoons: Just the same, Vermont just passed single payer health care for the state, and if people don't want that, they can at least move to nearby New Hampshire where taxes are low and the economy is relatively free. More and more states are legalizing (to a certain extent) marijuana. New York legalized gay marriage. I think you're taking a "glass half empty" view.

If you don't like living in one state, you can at least move to another.

Picking 3 states - from the Northeast, no less - is just as glaring an example of a "glass half full" view.

"Vote with your feet" is wonderful in theory, but much more difficult in practice, especially for low-income residents who don't have the money for moving expenses, can't find another job in another state, etc. I'm sure that, during Jim Crow south, all the minorities stayed there because they really liked it. They could have just moved, after all.

UCFRoadWarrior: qorkfiend: Deftoons: qorkfiend: I guess in your reading you skipped over the Jim Crow laws.

You think states will start adopting Jim Crow all over again? No offense but I feel that is terribly naive.

You were asking for examples from history where, due to no federal involvement, the states had regressed, and Jim Crow is the prime example.

Not so fast...the Federal Courts upheld many of the Jim Crow laws....Berea v Kentucky is a textbook example.

When the Federal Courts started ruling against discrimination....the states would have to eventually change their laws.

And, as the Liberal Derp whines about Ron Paul being against the Civil Rights Act of 1964...so too were Al Gore, Sr (Al Jr dad) and William Fulbright....Clinton's mentor. And they were Democrats. And you still voted for their progeny

I was unaware that Al Gore, Sr. and William Fulbright were running for president at the moment.

Someone needs to shop this along with a reference to the Second Life griefing.

MadMonk: In Georgia they wanted to pass a law would make everyone pay their state taxes in gold.

I'd love a link please.

spickus: MadMonk: In Georgia they wanted to pass a law would make everyone pay their state taxes in gold.

I'd love a link please.

Ask and ye shall receive. It wasn't the governor but a legislator that was trying to get a bill passed Link

MadMonk: spickus: MadMonk: In Georgia they wanted to pass a law would make everyone pay their state taxes in gold.

I'd love a link please.

Ask and ye shall receive. It wasn't the governor but a legislator that was trying to get a bill passed Link

It's good to see that Georgia employs the handicapped.