If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   While most of the political focus is on Gingrich finally accepting the inevitable, one man maintains course and will give no quarter, show no mercy   (slate.com) divider line 199
    More: Obvious, Newt Gingrich, hard currencies, delegates, Ron Paul  
•       •       •

2855 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 May 2012 at 10:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-02 12:58:11 PM

GentDirkly: If these things make me a "Paultard"... well, what does that make you?


Not somebody who is interested in playing games with dickheads who communicate via loaded question.
 
2012-05-02 12:58:16 PM

Dwight_Yeast: slayer199: Socially liberal.

Not really; he's a social conservative who uses the phrase "let the states decide" to keep from having to answer questions on sodomy laws, gay marriage or abortion.


Socially liberal in comparison to the rest of the GOP. Not socially liberal in general.

I'm a libertarian and I won't vote for him if that tells you anything. I don't like him as a candidate.
 
2012-05-02 12:58:42 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: EWreckedSean: Cythraul: I can only imagine that it must be pure delusional egotism that drives these two at this point. Any 'book deals' or future political aspirations would be diminished by this point, since they are both starting to look like fools.

Because staying in it to the end last time didn't pay off for him? Did you miss the last four years? Every penny he collects here until the convention he can roll right into campaign for Liberty when it is over, plus he builds support for his much more mainstream bearable son Rand to take over the helm 4 years or 8 years out.

The guy who said he was fine with stores having "whites only" signs is more mainstream?


Then his father? Absolutely.
 
2012-05-02 01:01:35 PM

Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut: He says I believe x regarding issue y but don't feel I have the right to push my beliefs into your life so I won't. The states however can do whatever they like with your local laws about said belief.

And by doing so, he's not really interested in making the government "smaller"; he's just interested in imposing restrictions at a state or local level and ignoring the power of the Federal government to protect civil and personal rights.

He's a small government theocrat.


Actually he is a small federal government libertarian. He's not interested in imposing any restrictions. That is I believe his entire point. It's a heck of a lot easier to move states than it is to leave the country. Also The constitution was made as a limiting factor on the federal government not state governments.

Ask governor Walker about imposing truly unpopular laws on state sized populations how that's working out for him?

/States have the rights denied the federal government through the Constitution. Ron Paul just wants to get back to following the founding documents as much as possible.

//Even if elected a lot of his ideas wouldn't be implemented due to the need for congressional input.
/ Some would because they were implemented through presidential edicts. (bringing troops home from undeclared wars for example)
 
2012-05-02 01:02:13 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Millennium: It's a fascinating tactic. I'm kind of surprised that Dennis Kucinich hasn't started doing something similar among the Democrats.

That would be, "Because Dennis isn't interested in splintering his party, Ted."


Neither is Paul, really: what he's trying to do is move the party toward (he would say "back toward," though that's debatable) a libertarian philosophy. He can't really split the party anyway. Any new people he's attracted to the Republican side would, minus his influence, have voted for Democrats anyway. Any people he drew from the Republicans are still going to vote Republican, because the alternatives are to vote for Obama or to let him win. In the end, nothing really changes.
 
2012-05-02 01:03:07 PM

Jackson Herring: I say go ahead and eliminate the DOE, let the free market take care of the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, and radioactive waste disposal.

Better yet, leave our nuclear arsenal in control of the STATE GOVERNMENTS in which they reside.


Be serious. Those tasks would get moved to the DoD if DoE was eliminated.
 
2012-05-02 01:04:08 PM

GentDirkly: Those tasks would get moved to the DoD if DoE was eliminated.


Oh? And who would pay for it?

Be serious.
 
2012-05-02 01:05:50 PM

Jackson Herring: GentDirkly: Those tasks would get moved to the DoD if DoE was eliminated.

Oh? And who would pay for it?

Be serious.


Money saved from closing bases in Germany, Italy, UK, Spain, Greenland, Japan? I could go on.
 
2012-05-02 01:06:57 PM
Oh god go on, this is so dreamy
 
2012-05-02 01:07:03 PM

yousaywut: Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut: He says I believe x regarding issue y but don't feel I have the right to push my beliefs into your life so I won't. The states however can do whatever they like with your local laws about said belief.

And by doing so, he's not really interested in making the government "smaller"; he's just interested in imposing restrictions at a state or local level and ignoring the power of the Federal government to protect civil and personal rights.

He's a small government theocrat.

Actually he is a small federal government libertarian. He's not interested in imposing any restrictions. That is I believe his entire point. It's a heck of a lot easier to move states than it is to leave the country. Also The constitution was made as a limiting factor on the federal government not state governments.

Ask governor Walker about imposing truly unpopular laws on state sized populations how that's working out for him?

/States have the rights denied the federal government through the Constitution. Ron Paul just wants to get back to following the founding documents as much as possible.

//Even if elected a lot of his ideas wouldn't be implemented due to the need for congressional input.
/ Some would because they were implemented through presidential edicts. (bringing troops home from undeclared wars for example)


Yep Ron Paul thinks that the States should in no way be barred from enforcing strict and oppressive racial segregation. Look how easily the people of the South were able to move their sates to prohibit Jim Crow without the meddling of the Federal government. Nothing says "libertarian" like a "whites only " sign on a public place.
 
2012-05-02 01:08:48 PM
I've grown an extra inch of chest hair from the rugged individualism on display in this thread
 
2012-05-02 01:12:05 PM
Yeah how stupid for people to vote for the only person running who would end the wars, including the war on drugs. Enjoy having troops for another decade in Afghanistan. Enjoy having troops in what over 100 countries? Enjoy going bankrupt funding the largest military in the world. Enjoy having the Feds monitoring us more and more. I voted for Obama in 2008 but I will be voting for Ron Paul in 2012. I don't care about his wacky ideas when it comes to states rights and other issues. Those would never make it through congress. The President does not need any permission from congress to order the troops to come home. I am also pretty sure Ron Paul wouldn't lie like Obama did about the patriot act.
 
2012-05-02 01:12:29 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: yousaywut: Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut: He says I believe x regarding issue y but don't feel I have the right to push my beliefs into your life so I won't. The states however can do whatever they like with your local laws about said belief.

And by doing so, he's not really interested in making the government "smaller"; he's just interested in imposing restrictions at a state or local level and ignoring the power of the Federal government to protect civil and personal rights.

He's a small government theocrat.

Actually he is a small federal government libertarian. He's not interested in imposing any restrictions. That is I believe his entire point. It's a heck of a lot easier to move states than it is to leave the country. Also The constitution was made as a limiting factor on the federal government not state governments.

Ask governor Walker about imposing truly unpopular laws on state sized populations how that's working out for him?

/States have the rights denied the federal government through the Constitution. Ron Paul just wants to get back to following the founding documents as much as possible.

//Even if elected a lot of his ideas wouldn't be implemented due to the need for congressional input.
/ Some would because they were implemented through presidential edicts. (bringing troops home from undeclared wars for example)

Yep Ron Paul thinks that the States should in no way be barred from enforcing strict and oppressive racial segregation. Look how easily the people of the South were able to move their sates to prohibit Jim Crow without the meddling of the Federal government. Nothing says "libertarian" like a "whites only " sign on a public place.


Yesterday's solution to yesterday's problem is not the same as today's solution to today's problem.
 
2012-05-02 01:12:49 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep Ron Paul thinks that the States should in no way be barred from enforcing strict and oppressive racial segregation. Look how easily the people of the South were able to move their sates to prohibit Jim Crow without the meddling of the Federal government. Nothing says "libertarian" like a "whites only " sign on a public place.


There is a small (but loud and growing) strain of libertarianism that makes the case that civil rights and equal access would have happened faster in the south if only the government had gotten out of the way of the business people. After all, they say, why would you have a whites-only hotel/eatery/bait-n-tackle store willingly, when granting access to everyone would bring you more income?

Noticeably missing from this argument is the fact that having a shop that caters to whites only is significantly better than having a smoldering ash heap of egalitarianism. or a place that's being boycotted by the moneyed class because it serves "those types".
 
2012-05-02 01:15:46 PM
Ooh now we've reached the "only RON PAUL'S awesome ideas and none of his crazy ideas would be achievable anyway" portion of our thread.

Yes, gentle reader, that applies to EXACTLY what you personally consider awesome and what you consider crazy. Why would you think any differently?
 
2012-05-02 01:17:01 PM

enry: quatchi: fta: But they have learned. In order for Paul's name to be put into nomination at the Tampa convention, according to RNC Rule 40(b), the candidate needs a plurality of delegates from five states. They're sure they can pull that off. They won't say how. "We have a hard delegate count," says Benton, "but we keep it internal."

[wanttobelieve.jpg]

They're doing it. Paul's getting a boatload of delegates from various states. Maddow talked about it last night. The way they're doing it is:

1) Paultards show up at delegate elections in huge numbers
2) Paultard voted to become state RNC chair
3) Paultards become delegates via election and selected by state RNC chair
4) Profit(?)


Missed Maddow last night.

*off to rectify that situation*

MindStalker: He already has a plurality from 2 states and many of Santorums delegates have indicated they will go with him. While there is zero chance of Paul winning the presidency, if Romney really screws up and pulls hard left before the convention its possible for him to lose the nomination (its Romney's race to lose right now). And a Obama/Paul fight would be epically hilarious, while a Obama/Romney fight would just be a lot of boring talking points, zzzzz.


In the words of the Godfather of Soul...

i293.photobucket.com

/Agreed unlikely but so hilarious to contemplate.
 
2012-05-02 01:18:49 PM

BSABSVR: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep Ron Paul thinks that the States should in no way be barred from enforcing strict and oppressive racial segregation. Look how easily the people of the South were able to move their sates to prohibit Jim Crow without the meddling of the Federal government. Nothing says "libertarian" like a "whites only " sign on a public place.

There is a small (but loud and growing) strain of libertarianism that makes the case that civil rights and equal access would have happened faster in the south if only the government had gotten out of the way of the business people. After all, they say, why would you have a whites-only hotel/eatery/bait-n-tackle store willingly, when granting access to everyone would bring you more income?

Noticeably missing from this argument is the fact that having a shop that caters to whites only is significantly better than having a smoldering ash heap of egalitarianism. or a place that's being boycotted by the moneyed class because it serves "those types".


From my perspective, I support everyone's right to say "Get off my property" and not have to give a reason. I'm not pro-racism, but I want that right for myself and so I think everyone else should have it too. I think we would probably be in a healthier social environment if this stuff was more open and less taboo. Racism still exists, but we slapped a 'Civil Rights Act' on it and called it solved when that only represents a tiny slice of the racism pie (criminal justice system cough cough).
 
2012-05-02 01:19:43 PM

aragonphx: Yeah how stupid for people to vote for the only person running who would end the wars, including the war on drugs.


aragonphx: I don't care about his wacky ideas when it comes to states rights and other issues. Those would never make it through congress.


I hope you see what I'm getting at.
 
2012-05-02 01:19:48 PM

DozeNutz: /Broke and Chains '12 Chains we can bereave in


stop it
 
2012-05-02 01:20:01 PM
All the time I spend lurking on the Politics tab I never, ever, see anyone arguing this vehemently for Romney to become President. I know that for the most part Farkers are liberal, but even the few centrists and conservatives just never make pro-Romney arguments. It is all "Obama is black" arguments. So, after seeing the utter failure from the few Paultistic commenters here (where's cman anyways?) can't we all just agree that Obama is the only viable candidate in this race and move on to why Pokemon Red was better than Blue?
 
2012-05-02 01:20:09 PM

BSABSVR: Ooh now we've reached the "only RON PAUL'S awesome ideas and none of his crazy ideas would be achievable anyway" portion of our thread.

Yes, gentle reader, that applies to EXACTLY what you personally consider awesome and what you consider crazy. Why would you think any differently?


In many ways, RON PAUL exists in a state of quantum superposition just as profoundly as Mort Romney.
 
2012-05-02 01:25:37 PM

Jackson Herring: Oh god go on, this is so dreamy


Audit the Bed
 
2012-05-02 01:26:19 PM

GentDirkly: Philip Francis Queeg: yousaywut: Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut: He says I believe x regarding issue y but don't feel I have the right to push my beliefs into your life so I won't. The states however can do whatever they like with your local laws about said belief.

And by doing so, he's not really interested in making the government "smaller"; he's just interested in imposing restrictions at a state or local level and ignoring the power of the Federal government to protect civil and personal rights.

He's a small government theocrat.

Actually he is a small federal government libertarian. He's not interested in imposing any restrictions. That is I believe his entire point. It's a heck of a lot easier to move states than it is to leave the country. Also The constitution was made as a limiting factor on the federal government not state governments.

Ask governor Walker about imposing truly unpopular laws on state sized populations how that's working out for him?

/States have the rights denied the federal government through the Constitution. Ron Paul just wants to get back to following the founding documents as much as possible.

//Even if elected a lot of his ideas wouldn't be implemented due to the need for congressional input.
/ Some would because they were implemented through presidential edicts. (bringing troops home from undeclared wars for example)

Yep Ron Paul thinks that the States should in no way be barred from enforcing strict and oppressive racial segregation. Look how easily the people of the South were able to move their sates to prohibit Jim Crow without the meddling of the Federal government. Nothing says "libertarian" like a "whites only " sign on a public place.

Yesterday's solution to yesterday's problem is not the same as today's solution to today's problem.


RON PAUL doesn't think segregation was a problem. He thinks desegration was.
 
2012-05-02 01:27:35 PM
If they're really considering Ron Paul a viable candidate then why aren't they considering Vermin Supreme as well?

/brush your teeth
 
2012-05-02 01:30:13 PM

BSABSVR: Ooh now we've reached the "only RON PAUL'S awesome ideas and none of his crazy ideas would be achievable anyway" portion of our thread.

Yes, gentle reader, that applies to EXACTLY what you personally consider awesome and what you consider crazy. Why would you think any differently?


And your candidate of choice has no opinions you disagree with. Even if he did, his agenda is immune from the influence of a hostile congress because ______________.
 
2012-05-02 01:30:41 PM
Okay I am ready for some Objectivist Sex. Whoever orgasms first wins.
 
2012-05-02 01:32:47 PM
DirkGently
He's interested in making the Federal government smaller and giving greater leeway to states to decide about things like gay marriage and school curriculum. But he's never been involved in state government and doesn't intend to be. His judeo-christian views on gay marriage and school curriculum are therefore irrelevant in determining his fitness for the Presidency. Your stance can be compared to refusing to vote someone to City Council because they support or oppose a war.

To say that and be obtuse about the consequences for gay marriage and school curriculum if they're left totally up to the states, I just don't know if you haven't thought it through or you're pretending you haven't.

I live in Nebraska. It is effectively a one-party state from the state to local levels. It is bought and sold by agribusiness through and through. Rural politics affects what happens in Omaha far too greatly in this state, and that includes things like gay marriage, riverboat casinos, what times the bars close, and school curriculum. We have a guy in our legislature who thinks it's cool to let anyone walk onto a college campus with a gun. We have a governor that wanted to get rid of state-funded prenatal care for mothers whom are illegal immigrants, but whose unborn children would be US citizens. We had that really, really stupid and poorly written orphan law that had people driving across the country to drop their troubled kids off at our hospitals. The guy running to replace Ben Nelson is one of the plaintiffs on the ACA lawsuit that's been looked at by the Supreme Court.

So in light of this, excuse me if I'd like to have national education standards and some issues, like gay marriage, protected in the Constitution, so the yahoos from Nebraska's cornfields can't hide behind Jesus to discriminate against people, or try to challenge the teaching of scientific facts in our classrooms.

And the refusing to vote on City Council thing is false equivalency. Of course a City Councilman's stance on the war is irrelevant to his/her job normally; however, say there's a military base in that city, like mine, and their views on national defense will play into how nice they will play with the local military facility.
 
2012-05-02 01:34:27 PM
Ron Paul wants to:

* define life as starting at conception: Link

* build a fence along the US-Mexico border: Link

* prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

* pull out of the UN: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:

* disband NATO: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm

* end birthright citizenship: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:

* deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style": http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

* and abolish the Federal Reserve: Link

* in order to put America back on the gold standard: Link

* He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan: Link


Oh, and he

* believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas: Link

* is against gay marriage: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

* is against the popular vote: Linkl

* wants the estate tax repealed: Link

* is STILL making racist remarks: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

* believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States: Link

* and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories: Link

* not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control:Link
 
2012-05-02 01:34:59 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: Oh god go on, this is so dreamy

Audit the Bed


I love it when you talk dirty like that
 
2012-05-02 01:36:09 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: slayer199: Socially liberal.

hahaha what

Let the states decide whether to mandate an official ice cream flavor. Which is all well and good until one state mandates spaghetti flavor.


Mississippi?
 
2012-05-02 01:38:06 PM

sweetmelissa31: Okay I am ready for some Objectivist Sex. Whoever orgasms first wins.


careful, alan greenspan is going to kick down your door at like the exact moment that he orgasms, therefore winning
 
2012-05-02 01:40:25 PM

GentDirkly: BSABSVR: Ooh now we've reached the "only RON PAUL'S awesome ideas and none of his crazy ideas would be achievable anyway" portion of our thread.

Yes, gentle reader, that applies to EXACTLY what you personally consider awesome and what you consider crazy. Why would you think any differently?

And your candidate of choice has no opinions you disagree with. Even if he did, his agenda is immune from the influence of a hostile congress because ______________.


C'mon, really? There's things like, "I think the Democrats should've implemented a national healthcare system concurrent with tax raises and the end of the Bush tax cuts, and Pres. Obama should've stuck to his guns on it," and then there's "Ron Paul is okay with letting our civil rights be played with by one-sided state legislatures and governors with a hard-on for gays and atheists, but don't worry, that stuff wouldn't actually happen if he were elected."

Yeah there are things I don't believe the Democratic Party takes seriously enough. Yes I think they enable Republicans by taking their crackpot bullcrap seriously, instead of giving it the public ridicule it deserves. That said what Democrats actually want is feasible and tenable. What Ron Paul wants is basically 50 tiny oligarchies comprising one state.
 
2012-05-02 01:47:06 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: GentDirkly: Philip Francis Queeg: yousaywut: Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut:

RON PAUL doesn't think segregation was a problem. He thinks desegration was.


Where does it say that?
 
2012-05-02 01:48:30 PM
I love the butthurt over legalizing weed. Its easier to find pot for sale than a decent microbrew pilsner. I live in the sane town as uber consrvative Allan West, and I've seen people standing outside a bar smoking the stuff as a cop drove by. I have friends in law enforcement who say they never bother to arrest for small amounts of pot.

If you think thatd an important issue, you really do lead a sheltered life.
 
2012-05-02 01:49:42 PM

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: Oh god go on, this is so dreamy

Audit the Bed

I love it when you talk dirty like that


Get a room you two!

/and bring a videocamera, for us.
 
2012-05-02 01:49:47 PM

verbaltoxin: GentDirkly: BSABSVR: Ooh now we've reached the "only RON PAUL'S awesome ideas and none of his crazy ideas would be achievable anyway" portion of our thread.

Yes, gentle reader, that applies to EXACTLY what you personally consider awesome and what you consider crazy. Why would you think any differently?

And your candidate of choice has no opinions you disagree with. Even if he did, his agenda is immune from the influence of a hostile congress because ______________.

C'mon, really? There's things like, "I think the Democrats should've implemented a national healthcare system concurrent with tax raises and the end of the Bush tax cuts, and Pres. Obama should've stuck to his guns on it," and then there's "Ron Paul is okay with letting our civil rights be played with by one-sided state legislatures and governors with a hard-on for gays and atheists, but don't worry, that stuff wouldn't actually happen if he were elected."

Yeah there are things I don't believe the Democratic Party takes seriously enough. Yes I think they enable Republicans by taking their crackpot bullcrap seriously, instead of giving it the public ridicule it deserves. That said what Democrats actually want is feasible and tenable. What Ron Paul wants is basically 50 tiny oligarchies comprising one state.


You can only gerrymander and oligarch apathy. There is a lot of apathy in state elections. That would almost certainly change.
 
2012-05-02 01:51:00 PM
 
2012-05-02 02:00:17 PM

MisterRonbo: I love the butthurt over legalizing weed. Its easier to find pot for sale than a decent microbrew pilsner. I live in the sane town as uber consrvative Allan West, and I've seen people standing outside a bar smoking the stuff as a cop drove by. I have friends in law enforcement who say they never bother to arrest for small amounts of pot.

If you think thatd an important issue, you really do lead a sheltered life.


For one of my Paultard friends, this is one of his main issues. I do agree they should decriminalize the stuff, but he acts like it's such an unspeakable act of tyranny to not to be able to light up a doobie at Applebee's or whatever.
 
2012-05-02 02:02:39 PM

That Masked Man: From my perspective, I support everyone's right to say "Get off my property" and not have to give a reason. I'm not pro-racism, but I want that right for myself and so I think everyone else should have it too. I think we would probably be in a healthier social environment if this stuff was more open and less taboo. Racism still exists, but we slapped a 'Civil Rights Act' on it and called it solved when that only represents a tiny slice of the racism pie (criminal justice system cough cough).


But that's a completely different argument to say "I think that the negatives of allowing people to act racist are outweighed by the positives of stronger property rights". The argument I was referencing was "there would not be much (if any) racist behavior in a free market because nobody would want to deny themselves more money."
 
2012-05-02 02:04:09 PM

GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Here's a hint- I have no farking idea what I'm talking about.


Ooh, thanks, to be quite honest, I was getting that impression prior to this comment but now it is solidified in my mind. Thanks for making it so clear.
 
2012-05-02 02:06:38 PM

lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.


Well, considering Texas plays a major role on what material will be contained in the textbooks that Maine will use, you have to admit there is some merit to the idea.

I am okay with a combination of a federal MINIMUM curriculum that leaves plenty of room for the states and local gov't to add what they deem is necessary for their populace.

Short example:
Federal: Math and Reading ( since it is valuable to both New Jersey and Iowa)

State: Sailing and Boat repair (New Jersey); Agriculture and Tractor repair (Iowa)

Urban local area: Something pertaining to urban life Rural: how to grow your own garden.
 
2012-05-02 02:09:46 PM

GentDirkly: And your candidate of choice has no opinions you disagree with. Even if he did, his agenda is immune from the influence of a hostile congress because ______________.


Again: Not somebody who is interested in playing games with dickheads who communicate via loaded question. I've put up with RON PAUL arguments for 5 years now, so this isn't something new or wowing to me. You're not listening or communicating, nor are you remotely interested in doing so. You're using shopworn rhetorical devices to attempt to frame the answer into something that can fit your spin. . Ask a real question or go fark yourself. Either way, don't act like you're the first Ron Paul fanboy to do this stupid little dance.
 
2012-05-02 02:11:57 PM

lennavan: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Here's a hint- I have no farking idea what I'm talking about.

Ooh, thanks, to be quite honest, I was getting that impression prior to this comment but now it is solidified in my mind. Thanks for making it so clear.


The teachers I had didn't even adhere well to the curriculum standards set by the school board, let alone any other governing body. Yeah, we had standard textbooks, but chapters were (of course) skipped. Topics not in the text were added from other sources. There was no schoolwide final exam, let alone a districtwide one, let alone a national one. Where'd you go to school, and where did they find the robots to teach there?
 
2012-05-02 02:16:34 PM

MisterRonbo:
If you think thatd an important issue, you really do lead a sheltered life.


I love smoking, but I would certainly not let that factor in to who I vote for, as I think it will need to be a national change in opinion rather than an individual push from someone like RP.

That said, I think that saying it's unimportant is a bit dismissive depending on where you live, as there are folks around here in Central IL doing more jail time for
It's definitely not hard to find and it isn't hard to stay out of trouble if you aren't an idiot, so it doesn't go to high on my meter... would be nice if it was legal, but I can't say I care too much either way. Voting for someone on that basis is as dumb as voting for someone because they are against gay marriage. But there are definitely financial and infrastructure issues involved too that make it a bit more than you made it sound - just ask the cigarette/alcohol industries.
 
2012-05-02 02:17:28 PM

BSABSVR: That Masked Man: From my perspective, I support everyone's right to say "Get off my property" and not have to give a reason. I'm not pro-racism, but I want that right for myself and so I think everyone else should have it too. I think we would probably be in a healthier social environment if this stuff was more open and less taboo. Racism still exists, but we slapped a 'Civil Rights Act' on it and called it solved when that only represents a tiny slice of the racism pie (criminal justice system cough cough).

But that's a completely different argument to say "I think that the negatives of allowing people to act racist are outweighed by the positives of stronger property rights". The argument I was referencing was "there would not be much (if any) racist behavior in a free market because nobody would want to deny themselves more money."


I tend to think they're very similar issues. In a 'free market' (even though this term is pretty much just slang for 'in an imaginary world' these days) everyone's money spends the same so of course everyone who offers a product wants to offer it to the widest consumer base possible.

Property rights aside, by allowing racist individuals to run their businesses in an overtly discriminatory manner I think social behavior would be modified a lot faster because it would be easy to see the difference in success and social ostracization/pressure between someone that discriminates and someone that doesn't. Yes, I understand there are just die-hard racists out there that are going to hate who they're going to hate just because and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We might as well wrap our brains around that ugly truth and provide an environment where they can be identified and protested/boycotted/whatever rather than left to nurse secret grudges.
 
2012-05-02 02:17:38 PM

GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Here's a hint- I have no farking idea what I'm talking about.

Ooh, thanks, to be quite honest, I was getting that impression prior to this comment but now it is solidified in my mind. Thanks for making it so clear.

The teachers I had didn't even adhere well to the curriculum standards set by the school board, let alone any other governing body. Yeah, we had standard textbooks, but chapters were (of course) skipped. Topics not in the text were added from other sources. There was no schoolwide final exam, let alone a districtwide one, let alone a national one. Where'd you go to school, and where did they find the robots to teach there?



GentDirkly, mind sharing when you went to school? Thanks to a lot of NCLB policies, good people don't want to go into teaching and others adhere to the standards for fear of their jobs and not getting potential raises. Standardized testing is pretty common now (not a good idea, but common).
 
2012-05-02 02:19:06 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: DozeNutz: Philip Francis Queeg: GentDirkly: Philip Francis Queeg: yousaywut: Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut:

RON PAUL doesn't think segregation was a problem. He thinks desegration was.

Where does it say that?

In a speech in congress:

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.


The very next paragraph:

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.

So what you really meant to say was that he is for private property rights. Not 'he thinks desegregation was a problem', which is what you spew as defending private property rights.
 
2012-05-02 02:20:06 PM

GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Here's a hint- I have no farking idea what I'm talking about.

Ooh, thanks, to be quite honest, I was getting that impression prior to this comment but now it is solidified in my mind. Thanks for making it so clear.

The teachers I had didn't even adhere well to the curriculum standards set by the school board, let alone any other governing body. Yeah, we had standard textbooks, but chapters were (of course) skipped. Topics not in the text were added from other sources. There was no schoolwide final exam, let alone a districtwide one, let alone a national one. Where'd you go to school, and where did they find the robots to teach there?


So you went to a private school. Whatevs. No one is advocating the removal of private health insurance, private schools or private institutions donating food. We're advocating a social safety net where we set the minimum standard - everyone will get at least this level of medical care, at least this level of education and at least this level of nutrition.

Hopefully your private school taught you how to read. You were previously unaware of how the federal government can exert force on schools. After you read this Link you will be aware of how these things work. I have the utmost belief that you will read this link thoroughly, take time to understand it, and then subsequently fully retract your previous statement:

GentDirkly: Here's a hint- teachers teach what they want anyways. No federal policy can force teachers to teach something the local community doesn't agree with (i.e. comprehensive sex ed), or to not teach something that they feel is important (i.e., Bible as literature)


I apologize for re-posting your fundamentally retarded comment. I did not mean to embarrass you, just simply remind you of what your previous stance was before reading the link I provided you above. Let's hug it out.
 
2012-05-02 02:21:36 PM

Electromax:
That said, I think that saying it's unimportant is a bit dismissive depending on where you live, as there are folks around here in Central IL doing more jail time for


...for less than 1 oz of pot (couple hundred bucks) than rapists, and the paxpayers are footing that bill.

Guess Fark doesn't like less than signs if they aren't a tag.
 
2012-05-02 02:22:09 PM

BSABSVR: GentDirkly: And your candidate of choice has no opinions you disagree with. Even if he did, his agenda is immune from the influence of a hostile congress because ______________.

Again: Not somebody who is interested in playing games with dickheads who communicate via loaded question. I've put up with RON PAUL arguments for 5 years now, so this isn't something new or wowing to me. You're not listening or communicating, nor are you remotely interested in doing so. You're using shopworn rhetorical devices to attempt to frame the answer into something that can fit your spin. . Ask a real question or go fark yourself. Either way, don't act like you're the first Ron Paul fanboy to do this stupid little dance.


You made a long reply to tell me you're not interested in rhetorical games? What I'd give for your free time. Note: others actually responded with counterarguments. You responded to say you're not interested in responding.
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report