If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
A candidate that believes in, and has a track record of voting on the basis of, the Constitution isn't hype. There are certainly things that I, as a full libertarian, disagree with Ron on. But he's still far far better than any of the other main party candidates with regard to small government and real liberty for everyone.
Khet, I'm sorry that you have come to the conclusion that you no longer believe in the benefits of liberty. I find that sad. But you're young yet; hopefully you'll come around again once you get more experience of the folly of government "protection".
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
A candidate that believes in, and has a track record of voting on the basis of, the Constitution isn't hype. There are certainly things that I, as a full libertarian, disagree with Ron on. But he's still far far better than any of the other main party candidates with regard to small government and real liberty for everyone.
Khet, I'm sorry that you have come to the conclusion that you no longer believe in the benefits of liberty. I find that sad.
PhilB
we're screwed either way IMO. Just look away and try not to notice your freedom going down the toliet.
Either ron paul wont stay true to his word, will get assinated, or will run the country into the ground...maybe a mix of the 3
Gravel and Paul are the nutty fringe on their respective podiums. Unhappy Republicans who can't quite get themselves to abandon the (terminally corrupted) Party are latching onto Paul as a personal face-saving move.
Paul is not the nutty fringe of the Republican party. He is a fundamentalist. I think his libertarian stance sometimes shines through though. He's a staunch supporter of lower taxes, limited government, and following the Constitution.
Yes, he's a proponent of states' rights. You're living in a federalized government, just FYI.
Gravel and Paul are the nutty fringe on their respective podiums. Unhappy Republicans who can't quite get themselves to abandon the (terminally corrupted) Party are latching onto Paul as a personal face-saving move.
Any of the other Dems would be a fine president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Choco
great...you're a socialist.
and you're saying paul will make people suffer? you're as funny as you are retarded.
Yes, he's a socialist. Barking.
On some levels, I find it amazing that there are people who still believe in socialism, given the history lessons of the 19th and 20th centuries. But on another level, there's plenty of evidence that most people are perfectly willing to continue to believe irrational and disprovable belief systems, and perpetuate them in their cultures for thousands of years.
Oh well.
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
who are these others suffering if you dont mind me asking.
The effect he would have is both direct and indirect. He would not move to prevent state governments from infringing on our right(for lack of a better word) to have abortions, marry the same sex, or any other activity fundies see fit to outlaw. The direct problems he would cause are: lack of stem cell research funding, preventing both members of a same-sex couple from adopting a child, and less separation between church and state.
I'm not gay, I don't have a disease for stem cells to help cure, I've never needed to have a baby aborted, and I've never had religious nonsense shoved down my throat by the public school system; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't care about those who do have these problems. It all boils down to religious oppression to me. The government should serve everyone, not just Christians.
Well, now the democrats are feeling threatened. He must be doing something right!
As I said, I'm not a democrat -- just far from being a republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Choco
great...you're a socialist.
and you're saying paul will make people suffer? you're as funny as you are retarded.
Oh, looks like I struck a chord with someone. Is what I'm saying a little too true for you? Read everything again except without your bias getting in the way.
The effect he would have is both direct and indirect. He would not move to prevent state governments from infringing on our right(for lack of a better word) to have abortions, marry the same sex, or any other activity fundies see fit to outlaw. The direct problems he would cause are: lack of stem cell research funding, preventing both members of a same-sex couple from adopting a child, and less separation between church and state.
I'm not gay, I don't have a disease for stem cells to help cure, I've never needed to have a baby aborted, and I've never had religious nonsense shoved down my throat by the public school system; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't care about those who do have these problems. It all boils down to religious oppression to me. The government should serve everyone, not just Christians.
Dude, Ron Paul is the last person that would shove anything down anybody's throat. Sure, he might be against those things PERSONALLY, but look at his voting record, he thinks along the same lines as you do. He thinks the government should have nothing to do with it. Shouldn't ban it or endorse it. Simple as that.
By the way, he's running for President, which is part of the federal government, he's not running for Governor, so he's not going to say what the states can or can't do about these issues. That's over stepping the constitution.
__________________
.
.
. Ron Paul: Making the Constitution cool again. ..
.
.
.
your 3 guys promote socialized health care. more will suffer under that scheme than any of this other crap your posting. last i checked, the state gov'ts are the ones that do not infringe rights of abortion, same sex marriage, and stem cell research.
i think you may be confused by what "federal" and "state" mean.
Khet, I'm sorry that you have come to the conclusion that you no longer believe in the benefits of liberty. I find that sad. But you're young yet; hopefully you'll come around again once you get more experience of the folly of government "protection".
PhilB
If only economic freedom were a benefit. It causes more strife than good. So instead of thinking the government should help I should just bend over and let it happen? Corporations have to be controlled. You didn't trust them to share their profit fairly with their employees fairly did you? More people stand to gain by adopting aspects of socialism. Pure capitalism is very overrated.
And FFS, no, I am not a socialist or a democrat. Also, I think some of you may be confusing socialism with communism. Many European nations have adopted various aspects of socialism already. Looks like it's working fine to me.
Oh, looks like I struck a chord with someone. Is what I'm saying a little too true for you? Read everything again except without your bias getting in the way.
Linear Mode
