DreamWeaver: Forgot_my_password_again: why this guy is so popular is a mystery to me.

why people support endless wars, the tsa, patriot act, ndaa, sopa, drug wars, erasure of the 4th amendment, etc etc is a mystery to me.

Because if they don't, the other party will DESTROY AMERICA!

DreamWeaver: why people support endless wars, the tsa, patriot act, ndaa, sopa, drug wars, erasure of the 4th amendment, etc etc is a mystery to me.

So unless I support Ron Paul, I must be in favor of these?

Logic must also be a mystery to you, huh?

I don't see why he was campaigning at all after super tuesday. If he's doing the delegate strategy anyway, why bother running expensive ads, etc? Well, I can understand doing public speaking, but paying for ads is pointless. Just go with the delegate strategy and take over state conventions and make the Republican Party eat your shiat.

BronyMedic: DreamWeaver: why people support endless wars, the tsa, patriot act, ndaa, sopa, drug wars, erasure of the 4th amendment, etc etc is a mystery to me.

So unless I support Ron Paul, I must be in favor of these?

Logic must also be a mystery to you, huh?
-=-
It's so simple it must be hidden to you like you can't see a forest because of all the pesky trees in the way.
So it's like um, you know, you must be for that stuff if you are voting for anyone who supports that stuff... because you know... you are voting for that... and it just make me... uh... want to gag me with a spoon. (In my best Valley Girl voice.)

Of course, I am aware there are issues that trip your trigger like the gold standard, but it doesn't appear that these do. And it appears that the gold standard issue and other undesired issues are so much more important to you than what he listed.

Just an observation. (And I didn't even go through all the 350+ replies.)

Hey y'all, what's going on in this thread?

detritus: Apparently you didn't read the rest of the thread. Johnson a right wing conservative? The guy who passed the civil rights bill, medicare, medicaid, yeah a real right-winger.
By that logic, I can call Obama a right-wing conservative for drumming up the war machine while passing the health care bill.
Oh, and I served my country, and I have people in my family who did all the way back to the Revolutionary war.
I accept your apology.


Nixon passed a bunch of social programs, that doesn't change the fact he was a right wing conservative.

I couldn't care less if you served your country, the topic here is top Republican politicians not serving.

Stoker: Of course, I am aware there are issues that trip your trigger like the gold standard, but it doesn't appear that these do. And it appears that the gold standard issue and other undesired issues are so much more important to you than what he listed.

Let me spell this out for you.

I don't care if he's willing to make a presidental edict that every person who recorded a vote for him is going to get a two million dollar grant, tax free, once he's elected to the position of President, AND give me a free years supply of Marijuana.. (Which he and his followers also seem to think is that of Captain King High Admiral Lord of the Sith, with the things he says he would do in office.)

When you cohort with racists, and are willing to sell out the civil protections and basic human rights of the minority to push a centrally theocratic view under the guise of "letting the states decide", as well as support blatent and flagrent medical quackery like the DSHEA and "defunding" the FDA, then yes. I will not support him.

It does not matter what he believes RIGHT. It matters what he would do that is WRONG that overweighs that.

Kit Fister: [citation needed]


To what? Is there something not in the public domain you need help finding?

Kit Fister: Everyone pans Paul as crazy, but he's the only one who has solid points on what he thinks need to be done. Mr. Mitt "I can be that candidate! You want more liberal? I can be more liberal!" Romney, and Mr. Barack "First I was kenyan, then not a kenyan, then a muslim, the not a muslim, then socialist, then not socialist, then the president nobody even really understands or actually listens to" Obama have some level of vacillation on the issues, but not Paul.

It's really scary, though, when you're a right-leaning independent and Ron Paul is the sanest of all of the candidates they put forth...

You need to start taking your medicine again. Seriously.

The words you're saying have no connection to any actual physical reality.

HighOnCraic: You know why that's true today? Because we now live in an age where "whites only signs" were taken down 48 years ago, due the Federal law that Ron Paul claims destroyed freedom.

So you think the federal government can actively control the behavior and views of millions of people like an on/off switch?

I bet you also think places like North Carolina has prevented people from being gay and marrying another of the same sex; and you must also think the war on drugs has prevented people from both selling and doing drugs.

In other words, what you seem to ignore was the culture change that happened since the 60's - the law doesn't make people suddenly not-racist. You're putting the cart before the horse, it's the other way around; the people were driving the laws through a semi-democratic process.

HighOnCraic: The free market never would've ended segregation.

Yet you just spent more than half of your post literally contradicting yourself. You just showed that Jim Crow laws were, in fact, legally-enforced institutionalized racism: "No business owner in the Jim Crow South segregated because he was free to do so or not, depending on how he felt about the issue." Your words. The segregation happened because of Jim Crow laws, not because of some market push. A free market would have no Jim Crow laws. All states and localities would not have any civil or economic laws that would require racial separation. I think the problem Ron Paul, and other libertarians have, is that small part (literally only a few tracts) of the Civil Rights Act which is viewed an over-reach of federal power on private property; thus it's believed the proper course of action would be to work within both local and state governments to repeal/abolish all Jim Crow laws (and any related racist laws) without the federal government making something illegal.

I really don't think Congress is all that good in trying to resolve societal issues (Congress can't even pass a farking budget for cripes sakes), I honestly feel it's up to you and me and everyone else to volunteer and make a difference ourselves.

Whatever it takes to keep those evil bastards from gaining power. You think you like them now but wait until they force you to sell your plasma for food.

Forgot_my_password_again: why this guy is so popular is a mystery to me.

Really? You can't understand the allure?

He's a man of principles, sure some of them are bad and you can find contradictions pretty easily, but he has them. He believes in a better place, a better time, a hearkening back to days of yore when everything was better, even if those days never existed. He practices what he preaches, most of the time, and as long as you accept very technical definitions of what he practices and preaches. And perhaps most importantly he takes the rich, white, trustafarian republicans and tells them it's okay to be privileged.

And let's be honest, out of all the republicans on the board, he's probably the least evil. Every last one of them stands for deregulation, increased privatization, reducing taxes, selling public trusts, gutting social services, continuing the war on women, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and less public safety.

But Ron Paul DOESN'T stand for continuing the war on drugs, continuing the war on terror, corporate welfare, raising taxes on the poor, or locking down the internet.

Is he good? No. Is he the least bad out of the Republican field? I believe yes. And if you're the kind of person who is kind of smart but not TOO smart or particularly experienced he really speaks to you. He offers a world where the society that seems to hold you back won't exist, you just don't realize his world doesn't have a society that protects you either. At the very least if he had somehow miraculously (i.e. the corporate media had given him a fair shake) gotten the nomination we would have had more interesting debates. Imagine, a GOP candidate who is pro-legalization? I have mixed feelings about legalizing drugs but I think it's a topic that should get more honest discussion.

Ron Paul is not a hero and he'd be a lousy president but he most definitely has his uses.

Deftoons: So you think the federal government can actively control the behavior and views of millions of people like an on/off switch?

It took the Federal Government putting US Army troops with M14s and fixed bayonettes in Southern States to force the integration of schools, and prevent the teenagers who's only crimes were being black from being savagely beaten and murdered.

For decades, southern cops were free to beat and murder black men who didn't follow Jim Crow laws, because there were no federal laws prohibiting this. Hate Crimes, as a concept, didn't exist, and murder of these indiviudals only involved the feds if they were stupid enough to kill a federal employee or soldier.

Deftoons: I bet you also think places like North Carolina has prevented people from being gay and marrying another of the same sex; and you must also think the war on drugs has prevented people from both selling and doing drugs.

Which is proof that the states cannot be entrusted to ensure the protection of the minority groups in the United States. What Paul wants is, essentially, testamount to the "tyranny of the majority", or mob rule. It doesn't matter what is morally or ethically right, or what group is being discriminated against - as long as the majority holds the view that they should be discriminated against, they rule.

THIS IS WHY THE FEDERAL SYSTEM HAS HISTORICALLY HAD TO STEP IN AND SAY WOAH.

Nice strawman with the war on drugs, by the way. Really, really has nothing to do with the protection of civil rights, but....yeah....

Deftoons: In other words, what you seem to ignore was the culture change that happened since the 60's - the law doesn't make people suddenly not-racist. You're putting the cart before the horse, it's the other way around; the people were driving the laws through a semi-democratic process.

No. The cultural change happened outside of the states where racism and discrimination was predominantly occuring. The Southern Jim Crow states didn't. give. a. shiat. It took a massive amount of bloodshed from African Americans and Civil Rights leaders for anything to happen, and the only reason for THAT was because the Government realized it was setting on a powder keg.

Deftoons: Yet you just spent more than half of your post literally contradicting yourself. You just showed that Jim Crow laws were, in fact, legally-enforced institutionalized racism: "No business owner in the Jim Crow South segregated because he was free to do so or not, depending on how he felt about the issue."

Which happened at? Dun dun dun .... the STATE AND LOCAL levels, where Ron Paul says all power should lie for civil rights protections.

Deftoons: The segregation happened because of Jim Crow laws, not because of some market push. A free market would have no Jim Crow laws. All states and localities would not have any civil or economic laws that would require racial separation. I think the problem Ron Paul, and other libertarians have, is that small part (literally only a few tracts) of the Civil Rights Act which is viewed an over-reach of federal power on private property; thus it's believed the proper course of action would be to work within both local and state governments to repeal/abolish all Jim Crow laws (and any related racist laws) without the federal government making something illegal.

And that statement in bold means you have a piss-poor grasp of the history of minority civil rights in the United States. Nothing changes at the local level unless the majority of people want it to. And no one wanted it to in the 60s and 70s.

Deftoons: I honestly feel it's up to you and me and everyone else to volunteer and make a difference ourselves.

That's cool. I like touchy, feely sentiment too. So, uh, tell me how you - alone - on the topic of, as an example, gay marrage - are going to be able to get a referendum passed protecting the rights of gay individuals when a preacher and his 70,000 congregation megachurch all are voting against you because of what their 2000 year old book says?

RobertBruce: It's no surprise that a complacent population perfectly OK with adomestic fleet of surveillance drones wouldn't vote for a president who would prefer to leave them alone.

So "prefer to leave them alone" is the new Conservative euphemism for "repeal Roe v. Wade" now?

TheBigJerk: corporate welfare


Gutting regulation and handing the keys to the hen house to the corporate foxes is the biggest form of corporate welfare there is. The antiwar and antidrug war stances are just populist ideas stolen from progressive democrats and socialists to trick you into still voting not Democrat every election.

detritus: DERP

Well, somebody's about to get mocked mercilessly.

rufus-t-firefly:
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."
-Ron Paul

The worst part of that quote is that he referred to the Ninth Amendment, which does NOT refer to states' ...

He's wrong and right. The 9th amendment (affirmed by the SCOTUS in both Loving and Griswold) means that just because a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it still exists. In this case, the Right to Privacy is a real right that the people have.

Maybe Paul smoked too many banana skins and mistook "states rights" for "people's rights" or something.

Bucky Katt: paygun: I've already heard from some die-hard Paul loonies that he never intended to win.

HA! They're shameless.

Much like Paul, they're right for the wrong reasons.

He DIDN'T intend to win. Never did. Because he doesn't WANT to. As a Congresscritter, his act works; he can pretend to be 'principled' and 'libertarian', without actually doing anything about it. When his vote matters, he votes how Republicans want him to. When it doesn't, he stuffs pork into whatever he can, and votes against it since it'll pass anyway.

P.T. Barnum would be proud.

BronyMedic: DreamWeaver: why people support endless wars, the tsa, patriot act, ndaa, sopa, drug wars, erasure of the 4th amendment, etc etc is a mystery to me.

So unless I support Ron Paul, I must be in favor of these?

Logic must also be a mystery to you, huh?

Of course. Ron Paul is Libertarian Jesus, don't you know. He's the ONLY person who can save us from those horrible evils. And so, if you don't support him, you must support them, because otherwise you'd support him.

DreamWeaver: WE LOVE MORE LAWS WE WANT MORE LAWS YAAARRRGGHHH

So, since you are mocking politicians who pass laws, or maybe people who vote for politicians who pass laws, I suppose you consider yourself a fan of "small government," yes? Which means, unlike Ron Paul, you fully support a woman's right to make choices about her own body?

ciberido: DreamWeaver: WE LOVE MORE LAWS WE WANT MORE LAWS YAAARRRGGHHH

So, since you are mocking politicians who pass laws, or maybe people who vote for politicians who pass laws, I suppose you consider yourself a fan of "small government," yes? Which means, unlike Ron Paul, you fully support a woman's right to make choices about her own body?

Jesus dude, stop toying with it. Just eat its head and torso off and leave the ass-end on the back doorstep like my cat does.

Bucky Katt: When you're getting screwed by government it matters what color of condom is being used.

It also matters that when you are Marcellus Wallace, and the State and it's majority are played by Zed, and raping you on a pommel horse anally, that the Federal Government can play the role of Butch and shoot that guy in the crotch.

I'd suspend my campaign too, Diablo 3 just came out.

that bosnian sniper: detritus: DERP

Well, somebody's about to get mocked mercilessly.

I was one president off - Truman was still VP so please, spare me my dignity.

About.
Damn.
Time.

Trance750: Citrate1007: I'm hoping that Santorum and Paul both try to shake things up at the convention...do it for the lulz.

Santorum obama comes across as a smug know-it-all elitest.


yet he (unfortunatly) still won

Fish_Fight!: Trance750: Citrate1007: I'm hoping that Santorum and Paul both try to shake things up at the convention...do it for the lulz.

Santorum obama comes across as a smug know-it-all elitest.


yet he (unfortunatly) still won

Can you explain to me why Obama's the smug know-it-all elisit, and not Santorum?

Obama's not the one telling my wife that she's going to hell because we don't want to have children yet, and she dares take a morning after pill when the condom breaks.

DreamWeaver: thats why hes stopping. Why spend millions campaigning when the media wont even mention it? Save the money for tv ads round tampa time.

If you want media attention, then try winning a state in the popular vote. Otherwise, stop whining.

Lost Thought 00: Very likely, he was told by the party that if he didn't stop his shiat, they would ban him from all future Republican ballots, kick him out of the caucus, and primary his congressional seat.

Either that, or he finally bargained a VP spot for Rand.

Ron Paul is already retiring from Congress.

The real reason he's dropping out is to punish his cult for not throwing enough money at him, and to scare them into thinking that he needs their money now more than ever.

Maud Dib: rufus-t-firefly:
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."
-Ron Paul



I've found that Paultards have selective amnesia when it comes down to it.

It is in-fact illegal (in some states) to co-habitate and commit lewd acts if not married. This is consistent with Ron Paul's interpretation and apparently constitutional. ALSO the UCMJ makes sodomy (including oral sex) illegal.

TDBoedy: It is in-fact illegal (in some states) to co-habitate and commit lewd acts if not married. This is consistent with Ron Paul's interpretation and apparently constitutional. ALSO the UCMJ makes sodomy (including oral sex) illegal.

I thought the US Supreme Court Decision Lawrence V. Texas invalidated every sodomy law in the United States, including the UCMJ, based on the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

But Ron Paul would like to protect you from this vastly overreaching act of stealing your liberties away by activist judges! States rights!

BronyMedic: Stoker: Of course, I am aware there are issues that trip your trigger like the gold standard, but it doesn't appear that these do. And it appears that the gold standard issue and other undesired issues are so much more important to you than what he listed.

Let me spell this out for you.

I don't care if he's willing to make a presidental edict that every person who recorded a vote for him is going to get a two million dollar grant, tax free, once he's elected to the position of President, AND give me a free years supply of Marijuana.. (Which he and his followers also seem to think is that of Captain King High Admiral Lord of the Sith, with the things he says he would do in office.)

When you cohort with racists, and are willing to sell out the civil protections and basic human rights of the minority to push a centrally theocratic view under the guise of "letting the states decide", as well as support blatent and flagrent medical quackery like the DSHEA and "defunding" the FDA, then yes. I will not support him.

It does not matter what he believes RIGHT. It matters what he would do that is WRONG that overweighs that.
-=-
So, the current situation is so much not that? Division of the races and such that has been continuing unheeded that ol' Ron Paul is going to make it worse? Ooooh, the sky is falling!

Selling out civil protections? Where have you been for the last 12 years? I think you been smoking more than marijuana, perhaps opium? You're like "watch out for the right hand of Ron Paul" while allowing the several left hands to pick our pockets. You spout about how Ron will do the opposite of what he claims he would do, but you recognize nothing that what you claim to worry about has already been happening. You have nothing running that will protect what you claim you are afraid of. You have been cavorting with racist and enemies of America all along.

It's all been bad, they have all lied and is obvious they have not been looking out for you. But the one man who has kept his place in order has been Ron. The data is there. Oh sure, just like this newsletter from decades ago is there. But you look at what he says, said and voted and they are consistent. And not voting for his bill is because it was no longer his bill. It was adulterated. You're familiar with that. Why would I pass a bill that when I introduced it it said "thou shall not steal" but by the time it gets to the floor for a vote it says " "thou shall not steal, except this group of thieves can".

No, Ron is no Savior, no wizard, not a baritone voice, and his religious side scares me. At least he professes as he has for 40 years to honor the Constitution. No one (else) in sight, not even this so called Constitutional Scholar we have as a President is honoring the Constitution. I really think you want to keep it that way.

You Commie!

/heh, heh, heh.

And if you are worried about "States Rights" then you shouldn't be voting in the clowns who are willing to sell out the civil protections and basic human rights, which are the people you have had for the last decade+ selling out the civil protections and basic human rights to the Government and Corporations. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

You claim to worry about these things, Ron Paul is the least of your worries of the available choices. (And I really hope he asks Johnson to be his vice.) But what have YOU got? Romney? Obama? Yeah, like they have proven themselves as protectors of freedom.

Congress is there to Protect our Freedom, and they sold us out. And it's all your fault. Uh huh.
/Not sure if I'm trollin'

Stoker: So, the current situation is so much not that? Division of the races and such that has been continuing unheeded that ol' Ron Paul is going to make it worse? Ooooh, the sky is falling!

You know, Obama may not have delivered universal healthcare, but back in the day, he didn't hang around with the Klan to court their funds for his campeign, and release newsletters about how the darkies and jews are all to blame for the troubles of the United States.

But, hey. Ron Paul did. If Mitt Romney's act of bullying a gay kid in high school is admissible to scrutiny, so is Paul's record.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newslet t ers-exclusive

Stoker: Selling out civil protections? Where have you been for the last 12 years? I think you been smoking more than marijuana, perhaps opium? You're like "watch out for the right hand of Ron Paul" while allowing the several left hands to pick our pockets.

Ignoring the fact that the "reforms" Paul would wish to institute would require him stacking the Judiciary, House, and Senate with like-minded fellow libertarians, or making the Ron Paul Revolution a second amendment solution to the problems of Big Government (Being the President does not make one the King of the United States. You should remember that.), this is like saying we should just throw the baby out with the bath water, because the system is broken. Forget the fact that there is a reason historically for the implementation of Federal legislature and judiciary protection of distinct minority groups, forget the fact there is a historical reason why we have the systems of food and drug protection in place today, the system of medical licensure we have in place today, we should just toss all of that out. The tyranny of the majority can TOTALLY be trusted to do all of this at the state level, individually with each state, for cheaper than the federal government can do from scratch.

That's what Paul is saying. And that's why he's a farking idiot.

Stoker: You spout about how Ron will do the opposite of what he claims he would do, but you recognize nothing that what you claim to worry about has already been happening.

I have? I am? I'm spouting off about his blatant hypocracy and desire to promote revisionist history with his ideals. Rather than learning from the mistakes of the past, Ron Paul wants us to repeat them.

Stoker: You have nothing running that will protect what you claim you are afraid of. You have been cavorting with racist and enemies of America all along.

Really? The Pure Food and Drug Acts don't exist for a reason? The Federal Government didn't have to step in and force integration and protect the rights of African Americans in the south? The States have totally done what is just and ethical for the human rights of gay and lesbian citizens?

HELL. If it wasn't for Lawrence V. Texas, the STATES would still be free to throw men and women in jail because - God Forbid - they dared violate sodomy statues and do something other than Jesus Praising Missionary Position Sex.

If it wasn't for the federal Government, Southern States would still have VALID laws on the books stating that anyone who's not a Christian can't hold political office or work for city governments.

When states have dominant legal power over the Federal system, they tend to do very nasty things. Blue laws, religious test laws, interstate commerce embargo and taxes, civil rights violations, and print their own money have traditionally all been shenanigans the federal government has had to step in and take care of.

Stoker: It's all been bad, they have all lied and is obvious they have not been looking out for you. But the one man who has kept his place in order has been Ron.

Ron has said one thing, and blatantly done another. Each time he's done so under the guise of PROTECTING STATES RIGHTS, a convenient excuse for flip-flopping that his supporters lap up like a starving dog being given milk.

His positions on the criminalization of legitimate medical abortion and the rights of women to seek birth control and contraception, and on the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act - which literally de-toothed the FDA to deal with a LOT of the medical quackery going on in the United States right now, all while crying about how it should be the "State's choices" have done a lot to turn me off on him.

Stoker: And not voting for his bill is because it was no longer his bill. It was adulterated. You're familiar with that. Why would I pass a bill that when I introduced it it said "thou shall not steal" but by the time it gets to the floor for a vote it says " "thou shall not steal, except this group of thieves can".

Yeah...Ron Paul would never slip in riders for pork projects in his congressional district. Totally hone....oh, wait.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/ron-paul-texas-federal-sp e nding-pork

As a libertarian, Paul says he opposes federal disaster relief, but one of Paul's staffers told me that his office has shepherded hundreds of FEMA claims, ensured the reconstruction of the county's seawall, and won federal funding for an extensive beach nourishment project. Indeed, between 1999 and 2009 (the most recent year available), federal spending in Galveston County quadrupled to more than $4 billion. In 2009, the county received $14,707 per resident, topping average per capita federal spending in 46 of the 50 states. Paul earmarked some $60 million for projects in and around the city that year.

*GASP* Is that Ron Paul, using the FEMA money which he says the Federal Government has no right to fund in the first place?!

Stoker: No, Ron is no Savior, no wizard, not a baritone voice, and his religious side scares me. At least he professes as he has for 40 years to honor the Constitution. No one (else) in sight, not even this so called Constitutional Scholar we have as a President is honoring the Constitution. I really think you want to keep it that way.

Oh. I see. So you're argument boils down to "Yeah, he's an evil theocrat. But he's not AS EVIL as the others, so it's totes ok."

And the hillarious thing is, unless he suddenly shredded the constitution, and all other forms of Government in the United States, he would NEVER be able to deliver the promises he has made in his campaigns.

That's something his followers seem oblivious to. Including yourself.

Stoker: You Commie!

/heh, heh, heh.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, I'm going to call you an idiot.

Stoker: And if you are worried about "States Rights" then you shouldn't be voting in the clowns who are willing to sell out the civil protections and basic human rights, which are the people you have had for the last decade+ selling out the civil protections and basic human rights to the Government and Corporations. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

You claim to worry about these things, Ron Paul is the least of your worries of the available choices. (And I really hope he asks Johnson to be his vice.) But what have YOU got? Romney? Obama? Yeah, like they have proven themselves as protectors of freedom.

So, what you're saying is that I should waste my vote? I mean, really. Ron Paul has traditionally accomplished
So you keep telling me how I'm a corporate whore. I'll just shrug, and be thankful that someone who fancies himself the next Emperor of Rome isn't going to be getting the Oval Office anytime soon.

b>Stoker: Congress is there to Protect our Freedom, and they sold us out. And it's all your fault. Uh huh.

Dunno who YOU voted for, but the people I voted for didn't vote to approve things like the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage act, and SOPA/PIPA.

TDBoedy: Maud Dib: rufus-t-firefly:

I've found that Paultards have selective amnesia when it comes down to it.

It is in-fact illegal (in some states) to co-habitate and commit lewd acts if not married. This is consistent with Ron Paul's interpretation and apparently constitutional. ALSO the UCMJ makes sodomy (including oral sex) illegal.

Yeah, it's your job to change those laws in your state and challenge them if they are ever enforced (which is highly unlikely - can you cite any real prosecutions in the past 20 years?). If it is, either elect legislators who will change it, or get it on the ballot for a vote if you state constitution allows it. Show me a state where this has been upheld by the state supreme court, anywhere.

And if it's not in your state? Not your problem! I don't give a fark what happens in Texas and Florida or anywhere else, because I don't live there.

detritus: Yeah, it's your job to change those laws in your state and challenge them if they are ever enforced (which is highly unlikely - can you cite any real prosecutions in the past 20 years?). If it is, either elect legislators who will change it, or get it on the ballot for a vote if you state constitution allows it. Show me a state where this has been upheld by the state supreme court, anywhere.

Uh. I'll give you a helpful hint on the last 50 years of civil rights in the United States. Every meaningful reform has been either enforced, enacted, or upheld by the Federal level.

It wasn't the states that forced integration. In fact, this was something that Ron Paul himself decried, and called Martin Luther KIng Jr. everything but a whore for promoting.

Also, it HAS happened, even in the 21st Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAD TO STRIKE DOWN LAWS ALLOWING 13 US STATES TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE UNDER THE GUISE OF SODOMY.

Lawrence, and his gay partner Garner, were arrested and sentenced to jail in Texas for violation of the "homosexual conduct law", a sodomy law which - among other things, prohibited anal, oral, and vaginal intercourse other than missionary position sex.

detritus: And if it's not in your state? Not your problem! I don't give a fark what happens in Texas and Florida or anywhere else, because I don't live there.

You know, a poem comes to mind. First they came for the communists, and I didn't care - I wasn't a communist.

An injustice anywhere in the United States is an injustice at my doorstep. To elaborate: Evil triumphs when good men who have the power to stop it do nothing. And they are just as evil as the people who perpetrate those injustices.

That's the completely farking scary thing about Paul's true believers like you. You want everyone to turn a blind eye to injustice and oppression, under the guise of "it's the state's right to decide, not the nation as a whole". You want tyranny of the majority, while double-speaking it as "freedom"

I commend you on your setting up the quotes and replies, well done sir.
(I'll try the same since fark can't do it for us.)

_{Stoker: So, the current situation is so much not that? Division of the races and such that has been continuing unheeded that ol' Ron Paul is going to make it worse? Ooooh, the sky is falling!}

BronyMedic You know, Obama may not have delivered universal healthcare, but back in the day, he didn't hang around with the Klan to court their funds for his campeign, and release newsletters about how the darkies and jews are all to blame for the troubles of the United States.

But, hey. Ron Paul did. If Mitt Romney's act of bullying a gay kid in high school is admissible to scrutiny, so is Paul's record.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newslet t ers-exclusive
-=-
The first one I looked at... "This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
Actual words were- "King, as FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage teenage boys and girls". So he was repeating FBI files, that happened to be lies. He was duped to believe the lies of that administration. Naw, really, I'm just yankin' your chain, he's a real Archie Bunker bigot. (Heh, Heh) Yeah, you have me really worried that he will be stacking the deck with racist libertarians. What really bothered me about the one I just read is lower down, he said he's against condoms in school 20 years ago.

_{Stoker: Selling out civil protections? Where have you been for the last 12 years? I think you been smoking more than marijuana, perhaps opium? You're like "watch out for the right hand of Ron Paul" while allowing the several left hands to pick our pockets.}


BronyMedic Ignoring the fact that the "reforms" Paul would wish to institute would require him stacking the Judiciary, House, and Senate with like-minded fellow libertarians, or making the Ron Paul Revolution a second amendment solution to the problems of Big Government (Being the President does not make one the King of the United States. You should remember that.), this is like saying we should just throw the baby out with the bath water, because the system is broken.
-=-
Ignoring the fact that the "reforms" Paul would wish to institute would require him stacking the Judiciary, House, and Senate with like-minded fellow libertarians. Being the President does not make one the King of the United States. You should remember that.

BronyMedic Forget the fact that there is a reason historically for the implementation of Federal legislature and judiciary protection of distinct minority groups, forget the fact there is a historical reason why we have the systems of food and drug protection in place today, the system of medical licensure we have in place today, we should just toss all of that out. The tyranny of the majority can TOTALLY be trusted to do all of this at the state level, individually with each state, for cheaper than the federal government can do from scratch.
-=-
Okay, here, I can't disagree with you.
We need some form of a Dept of Education to maintain standards...standards of 30 years ago. This crap of lowering the bar to make student "pass" is wrong. They have to earn it. Today they are getting awards for just showing up. But since the DOE isn't doing their job, if you can't fix it, break it and build a new one.

We don't need the Dept of Commerce. We have seen several stories here of how they have pushed jobs overseas. Break it and build a new one.

Well, the Dept of Energy is important, if they were not stuck on supporting the oil companies and did actual efforts to get us off the oil tit. They should consider renewable and alternative sources of energy as national security so we do have any oil issues. So break that one and build it again.

We really, really do need the EPA. That is a no brainer. But they don't seem to be helping those folks having gas in their water, or preventing other places from being fracked. The most of it comes from pressure from 'the powers that be" and that is what happens.

Interior and Housing and Urban Development? Housing sounds important. But I really can't say much about them, got to go to bed. (Too tired to enlighten myself.)

That's why I say vote all Democrat except Ron Paul.
He is for eliminating the Bush tax cuts and the dems would love that.
You do know that being the President does not make one the King of the United States.

HoagieBoy: I'd suspend my campaign too, Diablo 3 just came out.

Yuppo. I may be cutting my Fark time in half for a month or so because of that.

BuckTurgidson: ciberido: DreamWeaver: WE LOVE MORE LAWS WE WANT MORE LAWS YAAARRRGGHHH

So, since you are mocking politicians who pass laws, or maybe people who vote for politicians who pass laws, I suppose you consider yourself a fan of "small government," yes? Which means, unlike Ron Paul, you fully support a woman's right to make choices about her own body?

Jesus dude, stop toying with it. Just eat its head and torso off and leave the ass-end on the back doorstep like my cat does.

Lawls. THESE.

Forgot_my_password_again: why this guy is so popular is a mystery to me.

Some people don't like to be lied to by their would-be leaders. Strange, I get it.

so what does this mean for all the paulites who were planning on taking over the convention?


I hope those goofy bastards still pull some shennanigans.

GoldSpider: Some people don't like to be lied to by their would-be leaders. Strange, I get it.

Must be why I don't like Paul, then.

cameroncrazy1984: Hunter_S_Thompson: o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: So you support discrimination against people with body ink?

I support the rights of a jewish or black business owner who decides not to do business with a white supremacist

See, this is the racism I keep talking about. What if a white business owner were to choose not to do business with an African-American that proclaims he "hates crackers"? Equality. Look up the definition.

I believe *any* business owner should be able to choose who he does or doesn't do business with. If, in this day and age, a white business owner chooses to "not serve blacks" as dumb FARK-ers will claim would happen, he would be run out of business in a heartbeat. I support the rights of anyone, black, white, jewish, Hispanic, Asian, to not do business with ANY customer who openly proclaims his or her hate for the owner's race.

Is that so hard?

It's so cute that Paulites are so naive as to think that racism no longer exists in any part of this country.

No, "Paulites" acknowledge that racism does exist but they dont believe in force being used by the state to make people change how they way they think or conduct private business. It is even more idiotic to listen to liberals who think they have a personal mission to round up and stamp out every last vestige of racism that exists. You can change how people think with education - not force. So long as they do not hurt others, I support someone's right to be racist.

If someone wants to hang a "whites only" sign in front of their store, so be it. They will go out of business. If someone doesn't want to hire qualified members of a certain group of people, then their competitors surely will. Never forget that the last institutions to integrate were public schools, public buses, public buildings, public colleges and universities, and the military. Racism was still rooted in the public domain (mostly by democrats, mind you) long after most of the private world had come around.