Paul can be absolutely moronic when it comes to economic policy, but if Republican primary voters are going to boo the "let's not get involved in overseas conflicts in which we have no business" doctrine, we seriously need to question their ability to function in normal society.

Oops. He forgot to tell a joke.

Cue the imperialists to argue that a policy of endless wars and bribes is somehow a moral good that should never be questioned or discussed.

When I was in 4th or 5th grade we did reports on presidents. I got stuck with Millard Fillmore. I was like "Who?". So jealous of the other kids.

Once again, RON PAUL is right for the wrong reasons. The result? He's fiendishly, apocalyptically wrong about many other things.

A Dark Evil Omen: Once again, RON PAUL is right for the wrong reasons.


Which "wrong reasons" might those be?

Countries hate us for our freedoms, not because of the predator drones killing women and children.

/S Carolina will believe anything as long as it involves guns or God

Speak softly and carry a big stick has become use idiotic rhetoric and try to move while carrying a caber.

What is so terrible about this? This is one of rp's stopped clock moments.

War mongering and profiteering have become core tenants of the GOP faithful and of course stupidity, lots and lots of stupidity.

A Dark Evil Omen: Once again, RON PAUL is right for the wrong reasons.

As opposed to Bush and Obama, who were wrong for the right reasons. Maybe we should change it up and give someone a chance who is right for any reason.

Amos Quito: A Dark Evil Omen: Once again, RON PAUL is right for the wrong reasons.


Which "wrong reasons" might those be?

I'm no fan of RP myself, but I'm curious too. I don't see any misguided logic behind most of his foreign policy. A little too isolationist perhaps, but meh.

When I want to hear rational critique of the CFR, I go to Ron Paul.

When I want to hear rational critique of Ron Paul, I go to the CFR.

Amos Quito: A Dark Evil Omen: Once again, RON PAUL is right for the wrong reasons.


Which "wrong reasons" might those be?

He's a far-right supply-side capitalist and neo-conservative. In this case, it's the 35th rule of acquisition and because he hates government, and not because peace and circumspect military policy is good in and of itself, which is the right answer.

Truly Paul is a lunatic who must be silenced at any cost.

Headso: Speak softly and carry a big stick has become use idiotic rhetoric and try to move while carrying a caber.





Clearly the deep thinkers and subtle speakers that Teddy had in mind.

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Once again, RON PAUL is right for the wrong reasons.

As opposed to Bush and Obama, who were wrong for the right reasons. Maybe we should change it up and give someone a chance who is right for any reason.

I would say Obama is right about a lot more things than Ron Paul. At least his ideas are tangential to reality instead of randomly intersecting it and then veering back off into Wackyland.

kapaso: War mongering and profiteering have become core tenants of the GOP faithful and of course stupidity, lots and lots of stupidity.

The GOP faithful? Both parties fall over themselves to push this agenda. The only liberal candidate in the field is Paul. How putrid of a indictment on liberal effectiveness is that.

A Dark Evil Omen: I would say Obama is right about a lot more things than Ron Paul. At least his ideas are tangential to reality instead of randomly intersecting it and then veering back off into Wackyland.

Obama is no different than Bush before him. His actions have proved he is pro-imperialism, anti-rights, pro-police state and pro-crony capitalism. If those are positives to you, then I won't argue about how "right" Mr. Obama is. But if you consider yourself a liberal, you are delusional.

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: I would say Obama is right about a lot more things than Ron Paul. At least his ideas are tangential to reality instead of randomly intersecting it and then veering back off into Wackyland.

Obama is no different than Bush before him. His actions have proved he is pro-imperialism, anti-rights, pro-police state and pro-crony capitalism. If those are positives to you, then I won't argue about how "right" Mr. Obama is. But if you consider yourself a liberal, you are delusional.

I don't think any of those are positives. And I'm significantly left of liberal. That doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is right on basically one policy position and the rest of his ideas are completely out to lunch. Obama's work on PPACA and DADT alone prove he's better than Bush, so I don't want to hear your stupid "BOF SIDES BAD, VOTE FOR CRAZY OLD REPUBLICAN!" bullshiat.

Ah shiat.

I was thinking of the magazine Foreign Relations.

nvm

lockers: kapaso: War mongering and profiteering have become core tenants of the GOP faithful and of course stupidity, lots and lots of stupidity.

The GOP faithful? Both parties fall over themselves to push this agenda. The only liberal candidate in the field is Paul. How putrid of a indictment on liberal effectiveness is that.

Stop pretending they are the same. They aren't both equally warmongering, and it's obvious.

Smackledorfer: lockers: kapaso: War mongering and profiteering have become core tenants of the GOP faithful and of course stupidity, lots and lots of stupidity.

The GOP faithful? Both parties fall over themselves to push this agenda. The only liberal candidate in the field is Paul. How putrid of a indictment on liberal effectiveness is that.

Stop pretending they are the same. They aren't both equally warmongering, and it's obvious.

Really. If there were any basis for it the country would already be at war in Iran and Libya would be a morass of stupidity like Iraq and Afghanistan. But, hey, both sides are bad, so vote Republican, right?

A Dark Evil Omen: Obama's work on PPACA and DADT alone prove he's better than Bush, so I don't want to hear your stupid "BOF SIDES BAD, VOTE FOR CRAZY OLD REPUBLICAN!" bullshiat.

DADT was a throwaway niche social issue, the kind of thing that divides the country but isn't central to how this country is run. PPACA isn't in the least a liberal law, no matter how the conservatives want to paint it as such. If those are important liberal issues it's no wonder you can't give me a decent candidate who, you know, actually reflects important liberal values. What I would rather see is a candidate who is liberal, is at least as popular as Ron Paul, and takes the same ideological liberal stances consistently no matter what. So, what you democrats got for me?

A Dark Evil Omen: He's a far-right supply-side capitalist and neo-conservative



He's a WHUT?

Smackledorfer: Stop pretending they are the same. They aren't both equally warmongering, and it's obvious.

They shouldn't be the same, and certainly the Democrats have some outliers who, you know, vote against war mongering which is kinda a party platform. But the majority of Democrats support it. Obama himself is running all kinds of undeclared wars in all sorts of countries. Saying the parties are different in action is delusional.

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Obama's work on PPACA and DADT alone prove he's better than Bush, so I don't want to hear your stupid "BOF SIDES BAD, VOTE FOR CRAZY OLD REPUBLICAN!" bullshiat.

DADT was a throwaway niche social issue, the kind of thing that divides the country but isn't central to how this country is run. PPACA isn't in the least a liberal law, no matter how the conservatives want to paint it as such. If those are important liberal issues it's no wonder you can't give me a decent candidate who, you know, actually reflects important liberal values. What I would rather see is a candidate who is liberal, is at least as popular as Ron Paul, and takes the same ideological liberal stances consistently no matter what. So, what you democrats got for me?

Well, unfortunately, actual liberals have had their names dragged through the mud so the closest thing there is is center-right conservatives like Obama. You want to help get a campaign started for Bernie Sanders to run for President? I'm down. You could support Kent Mesplay or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stewart Alexander is running for the Socialist Party.

I'm not supporting a far right capitalist because we agree on one thing.

lockers: kapaso: War mongering and profiteering have become core tenants of the GOP faithful and of course stupidity, lots and lots of stupidity.

The GOP faithful? Both parties fall over themselves to push this agenda. The only liberal candidate in the field is Paul. How putrid of a indictment on liberal effectiveness is that.

You lost me there, is that how the Republican Faithful view Ron Paul?

You just reinforced my view that anyone who isn't goose stepping to just the right beat is considered a liberal.

I guess at this point anyone who makes sense on any occasion is now considered a liberal.

Amos Quito: A Dark Evil Omen: He's a far-right supply-side capitalist and neo-conservative

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 455x366]

He's a WHUT?

Bleh, I meant neo-confederate.

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Obama's work on PPACA and DADT alone prove he's better than Bush, so I don't want to hear your stupid "BOF SIDES BAD, VOTE FOR CRAZY OLD REPUBLICAN!" bullshiat.

DADT was a throwaway niche social issue, the kind of thing that divides the country but isn't central to how this country is run. PPACA isn't in the least a liberal law, no matter how the conservatives want to paint it as such. If those are important liberal issues it's no wonder you can't give me a decent candidate who, you know, actually reflects important liberal values. What I would rather see is a candidate who is liberal, is at least as popular as Ron Paul, and takes the same ideological liberal stances consistently no matter what. So, what you democrats got for me?

Equal rights is never a "throw away niche issue".

Philip Francis Queeg: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Obama's work on PPACA and DADT alone prove he's better than Bush, so I don't want to hear your stupid "BOF SIDES BAD, VOTE FOR CRAZY OLD REPUBLICAN!" bullshiat.

DADT was a throwaway niche social issue, the kind of thing that divides the country but isn't central to how this country is run. PPACA isn't in the least a liberal law, no matter how the conservatives want to paint it as such. If those are important liberal issues it's no wonder you can't give me a decent candidate who, you know, actually reflects important liberal values. What I would rather see is a candidate who is liberal, is at least as popular as Ron Paul, and takes the same ideological liberal stances consistently no matter what. So, what you democrats got for me?

Equal rights is never a "throw away niche issue".

Also, this. Everyone minimizing DADT needs a kick in the face.

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Obama's work on PPACA and DADT alone prove he's better than Bush, so I don't want to hear your stupid "BOF SIDES BAD, VOTE FOR CRAZY OLD REPUBLICAN!" bullshiat.

DADT was a throwaway niche social issue, the kind of thing that divides the country but isn't central to how this country is run. PPACA isn't in the least a liberal law, no matter how the conservatives want to paint it as such. If those are important liberal issues it's no wonder you can't give me a decent candidate who, you know, actually reflects important liberal values. What I would rather see is a candidate who is liberal, is at least as popular as Ron Paul, and takes the same ideological liberal stances consistently no matter what. So, what you democrats got for me?

Have some Hope and Change.

A Dark Evil Omen: Well, unfortunately, actual liberals have had their names dragged through the mud so the closest thing there is is center-right conservatives like Obama. You want to help get a campaign started for Bernie Sanders to run for President?

So Obama, or a third party that doesn't have a prayer of being organized by November. So I guess that's a no, no candidates for me. But hey, look on the bright side, at least I won't vote for Romney either, since we all know the Republicans will fall all over themselves to elect that stuffed suit.

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Well, unfortunately, actual liberals have had their names dragged through the mud so the closest thing there is is center-right conservatives like Obama. You want to help get a campaign started for Bernie Sanders to run for President?

So Obama, or a third party that doesn't have a prayer of being organized by November. So I guess that's a no, no candidates for me. But hey, look on the bright side, at least I won't vote for Romney either, since we all know the Republicans will fall all over themselves to elect that stuffed suit.

But you want to support perennial spoiler and joke candidate Ron Paul.

Silly Ron PAUL, moral equivalence is for Liberals.

Smackledorfer: I'm no fan of RP myself, but I'm curious too. I don't see any misguided logic behind most of his foreign policy. A little too isolationist perhaps, but meh.

Ron Paul was also against the US getting involved in WWII (Because HItler taking over Europe would have no impact on our nation, I'm sure) and thinks that Lincoln was a tyrant for not giving slave owners a huge pay offs which they could just use to buy more slaves.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that Ron Paul and the Time Cube guy are not the same person.

Philip Francis Queeg: Equal rights is never a "throw away niche issue".

Yes, it is. Just like abortion is a throw-away niche issue. These things are used to divide you into the neat little binary party system where you have no hope of getting anything legitimately changed about things that affect you far more daily. Instead you will just shake your head wonder why the light bearers of the party keep doing things that are clearly antithetical to it's supposed tenants. Conservatives get all sorts of hot and heavy anytime these bring-out-the-base niche issues get a little play. Meanwhile big government keeps rolling on with full complicit support of their representatives who say the hate it, but clearly support in action.

Meanwhile, war continue in our name, corruption runs rampant and your rights are being trampled. But at least you got one culture war throw away.

lockers: words

You'd have been pooh-poohing the civil rights marchers in the Sixties.

A Dark Evil Omen: But you want to support perennial spoiler and joke candidate Ron Paul.

No, I don't give a flying fark about you supporting him. I just find it funny that supposed liberals line up behind Obama whose actions prove he as much a Republican as Bush was.

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: But you want to support perennial spoiler and joke candidate Ron Paul.

No, I don't give a flying fark about you supporting him. I just find it funny that supposed liberals line up behind Obama whose actions prove he as much a Republican as Bush was.

Actually, I'm working with Occupy and do not particularly support or endorse any politician. But I will argue with you to the end of time if you're going to make the asinine assertion that any liberal or leftist should support Ron Paul.

Well, Fillmore's foreign policy was considerably less interventionist that that of his successor, Franklin Pierce.

A Dark Evil Omen: You'd have been pooh-poohing the civil rights marchers in the Sixties.

Wow. DADT is the same as the civil rights movement? That is sick, yo.

lockers: Philip Francis Queeg: Equal rights is never a "throw away niche issue".

Yes, it is. Just like abortion is a throw-away niche issue. These things are used to divide you into the neat little binary party system where you have no hope of getting anything legitimately changed about things that affect you far more daily. Instead you will just shake your head wonder why the light bearers of the party keep doing things that are clearly antithetical to it's supposed tenants. Conservatives get all sorts of hot and heavy anytime these bring-out-the-base niche issues get a little play. Meanwhile big government keeps rolling on with full complicit support of their representatives who say the hate it, but clearly support in action.

Meanwhile, war continue in our name, corruption runs rampant and your rights are being trampled. But at least you got one culture war throw away.

Bullshiat. Sorry, but that's and complete utter bullshiat. As long as it's not you being denied the equal protection of the laws you think it's unimportant. Just like your hero Dr. Paul.

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.

Do you agree with his sentiments in regards to the CRA?

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: You'd have been pooh-poohing the civil rights marchers in the Sixties.

Wow. DADT is the same as the civil rights movement? That is sick, yo.

No, I guess us queers should just shut the fark up.