Every douchebag poser on the internet loves Ron Paul

So..punknews really has no choice I guess

(if only I was joking)

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

only on digg

Backed.

Because monetary reform is sooo insane.

Report  
whatchokesbegin (December 29, 2007)

Monetary reform? Have you seen the way so many people on the internet are giving him ludicrous amounts of money? That's a scam if I ever saw one, and its just furthering the cause of money corrupting politics.

If you are against evolution, women's rights, racial equality, gay rights, secularism, socialized medicine and in favor dismantling society, religious fundamentalism and corporatism, then Ron Paul is your man. On the other hand, if you're NOT insane, vote for someone else.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

hahaha most inaccurate statement ever. he's actually pro-gay rights, believes in evolution, has spoken out against the mix of religion and politics on NUMEROUS occasions, and hates corporations. he would abolish ALL corporate welfare - something neither Dems nor Reps will do.

you know nothing about Paul.

Report  
jscrbf1989 (December 29, 2007)

If he were pro-gay rights, he'd stop voting against gays. Just sayin'. He's also a xenophobe, he's scared of the mexicans. And he's a racist. So...three strikes you're out?

Go drink you're kool aid, I'll be voting for someone who doesn't answer "states issue" every time.

Report  
mikeinflames (December 29, 2007)

well i'm sure your decision on what party you vote for will be a sound and educated one. considering you can't even master the difference between your and you're.

Report  
john_stone (January 2, 2008)

You might want to look into mastering proper punctuation and capitalization before you go correcting other people's grammar. Just saying.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

WRONG. he's voted against the gay marriage amendment every time, unlike many democrats. he supported Massachusetts decision as a state to legalize it.

he's a racist? no way, in fact, he wants to eliminate the most racist thing in America today - the war on drugs!

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

the guy you are arguing with gets his facts from fox news, i'm assuming. so he tooooootally knows what he's talking about!

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

wouldnt surprise me, fox news absolutely hates Paul

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

yes they do. and my guess is they make it seem like he has a lot less support than he actually does. i wouldn't be surprised if he has enough support to be a top running candidate. but people will see that he has no chance on big fucking news media stations and turn to the whole "lesser of two evils" bullshit come election time.

Report  
UNTJosh (December 29, 2007)

has anyone actually read anything from his website? the dude is a nutjob conspiracy theorist. he wants the US to remove itself from the UN because he thinks the UN is going to try to run the country. he also wants the US to withdraw from ALL international organization. he also thinks NAFTA is building a superhighway inline with that dumbass zeitgeist movie which will make Mexico Canada and the US into one country.

please dont vote for him. if for nothing else realize he's from texas. being from here, i dont want another texan in the white house for a very long time. just vote against him for being a texan.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

yes... thats logical. vote against him solely on the fact that he is from texas. riiiiiiight. and labeling someone as a "conspiracy theorist" is so stupid. do you have any better real information about what's going on than he does. i doubt it. and there is small amounts of evidence backing up his claims out there.

Report  
UNTJosh (December 29, 2007)

well not voting for him because hes from texas wasnt really serious.

i do have better evidence than he does. im not a moron. does anyone really think the US would become a solid country with canada and mexico? simple logic tells me he's a conspiracy theorist.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

certain people would stand to gain a whole lot from that union. while everyone else suffered. its really not that far-fetched.

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

NAU is a done deal.

all you democrat nut huggers who back candidates like obama that voted for the patriot act and try to slam ron paul on his civil liberties must not know how to read.

ron paul is the mlk of our time.

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

Hey who's Stormfront supporting again?

Oh..

Hey at least hes not associated with the Minutemen..

Oh..

Well he's still for personal freedoms

Oh..except for abortions you say..

But, you can't deny he's fought against discrimination

What? Ron considers affirmative action discriminatory against whites..ohhhhh

I don't care if you support him but stop denying the obvious. Your guy is a shit sack



Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

how is affirmative action supportable by people who think all people are created equal.

that was a retarded solution.

thats just reverse racism.

"who's stormfront supporting again"

5 $ to whoever can tell me which logical fallacy that is as to a reason to not support the political positions of dr paul.

;)



Report  
marcusd (December 29, 2007)

he wants america to run on the gold standard, correct?

welcome to pre populist movement america.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

he wants the monetary system to be based on something tangible. not just printed out of thin air to be able to pay an ever increasing interest on loaned money from a private source.

Report  
douglas_is_rad (December 29, 2007)

Amount of gold in world: worth around 4 trillion dollars
American GDP: 13.3 trillion dollars.

This plan will work FLAWLESSLY, and is a common practice in the economies in Britain and the EU. Except not.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

i said something. its obviously got to be something other than gold. but money should still be based upon a tangible object.

Report  
RRK (December 29, 2007)

Really, and why is that?

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

because without money being based on something tangible it has no real 'worth'. you can't just say... "this paper is now money. this is worth $1." and have it be so. that is how the dollar has become increasingly worthless in such a short amount of time. when we need more money, the federal reserve (which has nothing to do with "federal" anything) prints more up for us at interest. that's not how money works. when you don't have any you can't just make more up out of thin air. how can you pay interest on 100%?

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

Y'know Ron Paul has about 80 different "theories" on who runs the world..ranging no doubt from Jews to Masons to Nazis to Aliens but he somehow misses the fucking obvious.

Which doesn't make much sense since its so easy to spin into anti-semitism.

Finance capital controls everything today..the speculator is King..don't think so? Try explaining the world currency situation in any other way than massive, rampant speculation run amok..

Yes sir, I agree. The Constitution is absolutely NUTS.

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

I don't know about NUTS but it sucks a big one, thats for sure

No popular recall of the "executive", no way to introduce popular initiatives as referendums..

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

its a republican document, not a democratic one.

democracies historically also included stuff like personas non grata getting death penalties just because some angry shithead brought their name up at a townhall meeting.

Agreed.

Yeah, let's elect a man who wants to eviscerate the entire government infrastructure and weaken us as a nation. Good fucking idea.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

in all honesty, we aren't really very powerful right now. think about what would happen if we were attacked IN america right now. with like... 90% of our troops off in other countries that they shouldn't be in, we'd be fucked. he wants to rebuild the government the way it should be done. the current state of the government will turn us into a 3rd world country in the relatively near future.

Report  
DonkeyMan (December 29, 2007)

90% of our troops are NOT deployed. There are a LOT more ready for immediate action not in Iraq and Afghanistan than you realize. And the American government may be stupid but the American military most certainly is not. They will never be caught with their pants around their ankles by an invasion. The initial military strike maybe, but the attacking force would be quickly annihilated after that.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

and it would be the perfect excuse for the govt to enable a complete state of martial law. maybe that's where they are trying to go with it. i dunno. all i know is i fucking hate the state of our military usage right now.

Ron Paul sucks.

wow, i'm really glad you're not of voting age.

Seeing how you're not of voting age, how do you feel about the fact that he wants to cut funding to education? This is a serious question, I know your first instinct is most likely "up teh punx, fukc school!" but think about it. It's sad enough most Americans aren't cultured as it is.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

doesn't he want to cut funding on a federal level? education should be taken care of on a state level anyway. when things are centralized through the federal government you get people in kansas learning things that people in new york should be learning, not things relevant to their specific location. sorry if i worded that oddly, i'm hung over and don't feel like rereading and editing.

Report  
JerryCola (December 29, 2007)

What the fuck are you talking about? The things you learn at an elementary to high school level should have little to do with where you're located.

Ok Kansas kids, instead of learning about Science like the New York kids do, we'll be teaching you the dangers of having sex with your own family members.

Hmmm... maybe it is for the better.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

i dunno... most kids don't leave the area they grew up in. what is relevant to someone growing up and living in urban new york city may be the last thing a person growing up and living in rural kansas needs to be learning to survive in the future. education at that early level should definitely have a lot to do with where you are located.

Report  
JerryCola (December 29, 2007)

I disagree. I think with science, history, math, health, enlgish, and etc, there is really little that needs to be different per state.

I don't see how basing education on location is going to imporve our education system overall.

Since I live near Chicago, what was I taught that wouldn't prepare me for living in a small ass farm town in Kansas?

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

regardless of any of that. states should be responsible for school funding. that is where you pay taxes that directly go to education anyways. there isn't really any federal tax you are paying that benefits education. sure... people will tell you that income tax goes to a whoooooooole bunch of things that benefit the country. but it doesn't do any of that. it goes to line the pockets of rich private bankers, with a TINY amount going to "national defense". so where would money for education funding come from if not from the state level anyways? add a new tax at the federal level? yeah, sounds great. cause you know they aren't getting rid of the income tax, which is already 25-35% of your yearly income. you pay state taxes for things like education, road maintenance, etc...

Report  
douglas_is_rad (December 29, 2007)

There are certain education standards that can be changed at the state level, which is why Alabama now has it's own set of math text books that have been dumbed down from the ones circulated on a national level.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

the federal government should not be funding education, No Child Left Behind is a failure.

Report  
skankbook (December 29, 2007)

While I agree No Child Left Behind is a failure, the money has to come from somewhere, and there should be at least some uniform standards for what is taught in schools. While we're all victims of using slang here and there, the grammar and spelling of Americans is terrible, and not enough schools place an emphasis on the importance of knowing a second language, especially at a young age.

Report  
NotPatriotic (December 29, 2007)

"The Federal government should not be funding education" Wow. You really like making ridiculous statements. I agree no child left behind is a failure, but the federal government not funding education would be a catastrophe. Some states would succeed and others would be terrible. There would be all sorts of geographical segregation and many people would recieve terrible education. You like Ron Paul who is against welfare. Then, in regards to the poor, you would probably say, "oh it is their own fault for not working." You need a good education system for a country to prosper.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

and you aren't going to get a good education system through federal government! look at everything the current govt has touched on a national level. there's not much that they DO right. and then we could get into the fact that the people running the country right now want to keep it that way. hence, keeping education on a national level at a certain degree will keep people just learning enough to think they are getting an education. stupid people are a whole lot easier to control and pull a sheet over their heads.

he's not an isolationist, he's an interventionist

and you're right, his abortion belief is regrettable, but on everything else he is a pure libertarian.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

and i doubt he would actually ban abortion. his stance sucks, but... he'd be far more concerned with more important matters.

Report  
RRK (December 29, 2007)

He is libertarian in the sense that he champions freedom for US citizens but spits on anyone of another nationality.

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

all libertarians are non-interventionists.

do you believe our bombs really bring freedom to the countries we use them on ;)

that they go off and lovely freedom comes out?

get real.

non intervention is the only way to save our rep and save foreign lives, we ARE the terror state.

whether its darfur, iraq, sudan, uganda, just because we think we are better than someone doesn't qualify us to fix their social problems as an alien culture at the opposite end of an m16.

vote obama/bush/clinton or any other CFR candidate for MORE INTERVENTIONIST WAR.

I don't get where you people get the abortion stuff from. I did some reading up on it and from what I gathered his stance was "I am pro-life but I would leave it up to each individual state on what kind of abortion laws they wanted".

Could you post a reference stating anything that says contrary?

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

they're referring to his support of the Sanctity of Life Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Political_positions

Report  
PatrickEwing (December 29, 2007)

Still doesn't take away from what I said. The guy wants to abolish federal abortion laws and make them state sanctioned. I see issues with that, but it goes along with his fundamental concept of minimizing the federal government and giving more power to the state governments. I'm as pro-choice as you get, but the fact of the matter is, I don't think it's a ridiculous idea to move to a particular state because you agree with their state laws more than another. It sucks for minors, but if you are 18 and older you get the chance to move to different areas that share your political beliefs.

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

personally, i don't think abortion rights should be left up to the states....the last thing we need is some influx of coat hanger abortions when some state outlaws it based on 'moral' principles

i just think the anti-Ron Paul people are over blowing this issue...there's significant opposition to overturning Roe vs. Wade...it's not like he steps in office and it's immediately gone

Report  
kevgren (December 29, 2007)

Roe vs. Wade is the ruling which made abortion a federal issue and prevented it from being left up to the states. This was done because, it's been argued, abortion rights are at a risk of disappearing if they aren't federally mandated.

So, basically, he supports overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Report  
NotPatriotic (December 29, 2007)

But overturning Roe Vs. Wade would just lead to legislation that would ban abortion nationwide and I would bet money Paul would sign that legislation.

Report  
kevgren (December 29, 2007)

Agreed.

Report  
amateursuperhero (December 29, 2007)

His view is that the legality of abortion should be a state issue, why is that an issue? If North Dakota doesn't want abortion clinics, how is it anyone's place to say otherwise? I gurantee many of the same individuals who have a problem with this would denounce a federal barring of prostitution or gambling.

Report  
jacknife737 (December 29, 2007)

" how is it anyone's place to say otherwise"

Because this issues deals with human rights. A women's right to chose must be protected universally, while you'd be hard pressed to argue that gambling is a 'human right'

You get the gold star of truthiness for the week.

Report  
jscrbf1989 (December 29, 2007)

Addendum to that, "because Ron Paul is batshit insane."

just wondering... where do you get these tidbits of falsity from? you realize that federally funded education is the reason that america is one of the stupidest countries in the "educated" world, right? and yes, ron paul is a christian, but on NUMEROUS occasions he's made it known that he wants his religion as FAR AWAY from politics as possible. as said up further in the comments... he isn't against gay rights. he actually voted for massachusetts to keep gay marriage legal. most issues should be left at a state level. the federal government should focus on a select few things and run them properly. instead of focusing on EVERYTHING and running them all poorly. what is the point of having states in the first place if everything is done on a federal level? why not just be one big country?

Report  
travisdork (December 29, 2007)
i agree that the federal government is fucked up, but who's to say that state governments are all fine and dandy. i hate it when people keep constantly defending paul on the "states rights" issue. as if that is the end-all to everyone's problems. education should be funded on a federal level. about 20x more than it is right now. "no child left behind" should be thrown out, and by the way, that's not the only part of the education system that the government funds.

there are good and bad things about the feds as a whole. what we need to do is weed out the bad, and support the good, not abolish everything and leave it all up to the states. there are a lot of states that would delve deep into the toilet. imagine a 16 year old rape victim in need of an abortion in the deep south, with no way to get out of state. imagine what would happen to air

show rest of commenti agree that the federal government is fucked up, but who's to say that state governments are all fine and dandy. i hate it when people keep constantly defending paul on the "states rights" issue. as if that is the end-all to everyone's problems. education should be funded on a federal level. about 20x more than it is right now. "no child left behind" should be thrown out, and by the way, that's not the only part of the education system that the government funds.

there are good and bad things about the feds as a whole. what we need to do is weed out the bad, and support the good, not abolish everything and leave it all up to the states. there are a lot of states that would delve deep into the toilet. imagine a 16 year old rape victim in need of an abortion in the deep south, with no way to get out of state. imagine what would happen to air quality in certain states when they leave the regulations up to the industry thats polluting in the first place, or to the state government that would sooner sell off every last natural resource for a "safe" place to dump nuclear waste.

i grew up in utah, where it seems that the entire state-government is made up of mormon fundamentalists, and i can't even imagine what things would be like if everything was left up to the state government there. ughghg. pube-taclar.

so you support No Child Left Behind, a neo-con piece of legislation?

Report  
PatrickEwing (December 29, 2007)

I hate the No Child Left Behind legislation, but sadly it's been working. What does this show? Teachers in the US are worthless for the most part. I fully stand behind this statement too. Between the teachers I've had and the teachers I interact with on a semi daily basis, they are all basically thoughtless. I run into teachers that don't use or have email. How can you teach kids growing up in a digital age if you don't know anything about it? You can't do it effectively. Teachers need to be told what to teach and when it should be taught by. Otherwise they would teach the same shit they did 15 years ago because they are too lazy to come up with a new lesson plan.

Seriously, fuck lazy teachers and the ten year that keeps them from getting shit canned.

Report  
NotPatriotic (December 29, 2007)

OK I agree with many points you are making. But the big issue is salary. Many people don't want to become teachers because it is a tough job and you don't get paid that much. If teachers started to make 50-60 thousands first year out of college there would be plenty of great teachers.

Report  
kevgren (December 29, 2007)

You'd also have to make standards way tougher, because everyone would want that money and standards are really low as is.

Report  
NotPatriotic (December 29, 2007)

I agree.

Report  
PatrickEwing (December 29, 2007)

I've done the math. I'm in NJ and NJ teachers are some of the highest paid. On average they make slightly less than $40k a year out of college. If you figure the hours they work and the days they work, they are making about the same per day as someone making $60k a year. Why should they get paid $50-60k a year out of school if they are only working 180 days when the average person is working 240?

Report  
jacknife737 (December 29, 2007)

"Why should they get paid $50-60k a year out of school if they are only working 180 days when the average person is working 240?"

1) for the amount of effort/money they invest in their education to become teachers.
2) And being a teacher (especially if your in an inner-city/low income area) is as hard/ if not harder as any other job.
3) also, teacher's work a lot more then the "official school hours" you have to count in extra curricular activities and work down outside of the classroom (ie marking, prepping for other classes, etc)


Report  
PatrickEwing (December 30, 2007)
1) That's BS. Teachers invest as much as any other college graduate. There are plenty of college grads in various fields that get paid shit. A prime example is the arts. On a whole, those people make dick. So your whole investment in their future thing is flawed to say the least.

2) Maybe, maybe not. That's circumstantial. Even if it is harder, the end result is inner city schools in general still suck so obviously they aren't putting in enough work to get results. Results pay the bills in every other industry. Why can't the education industry be the same? It's how private schools work and stay in business.

3) This stance is a load of shit. What about when a teacher hands out an assignment during class and sits on their ass for 30 minutes? Well if they are in HS, they are doing this 5-6 times a day. So they work all of an hou

show rest of comment1) That's BS. Teachers invest as much as any other college graduate. There are plenty of college grads in various fields that get paid shit. A prime example is the arts. On a whole, those people make dick. So your whole investment in their future thing is flawed to say the least.

2) Maybe, maybe not. That's circumstantial. Even if it is harder, the end result is inner city schools in general still suck so obviously they aren't putting in enough work to get results. Results pay the bills in every other industry. Why can't the education industry be the same? It's how private schools work and stay in business.

3) This stance is a load of shit. What about when a teacher hands out an assignment during class and sits on their ass for 30 minutes? Well if they are in HS, they are doing this 5-6 times a day. So they work all of an hour that day? Then they bitch they have to spend time grading the papers at home but they don't realize they did dick all day. School is only 6 hours long and they have lunch and class periods off. They have atleast 2 hours every day free to do their extra work. Also there are days they don't have any extra work. It all evens out.

Report  
The4footpartysub (December 29, 2007)

the no child left behind act only works in certain places. in the high school i was in, it didn't work. my four years there were hell because our school got very low funding for bad test scores. how is that fair? why do i have to get the ass end of the deal even though i had straight a's?

Report  
sceneholocaust (December 30, 2007)

Did you say "ten year"??? Don't you mean tenure??

HAHAHAHAAAHAAHAHH

How old are you, kid? Are you even old enough to remember Patrick Ewing getting big-timed by MJ and the Bulls???

learn 2 read.

this imaginary positions you have made up for ron paul are astounding.

you mean the same ron paul that said he would pardon all non violent drug offenders?

I disagree: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCvui820b6M

Paul has a big chance in the primaries, he has a ton of support in New Hampshire and Iowa

Report  
jacknife737 (December 29, 2007)

No he doesn't. I'll admit that its a fallacy that many supporters of frontrunners claim that he only has 2-4%, however, if he gets the nomination I’ll eat my laptop. Sure he gets a decent amount of internet support/ fundraising, however the point remains, he has to win over registered republicans, which he won’t. Romney or Giuliani will get the nomination.

Report  
RRK (December 29, 2007)

And how many electoral votes does a candidate net from taking New Hampshire and Iowa?

Report  
Nameless (December 31, 2007)

Iowa: 7
New Hampshire: 4

Yeah... that'll get him in office.

and its thinking like this that will keep america in its current downward spiral. if everyone that thought this way voted for someone outside of the major media news networks "top" candidates, well... this country would be a very different place.

Elephant dwarf you are exactly right. As long as people think like this we will be stuck with the same two party system forever. In my opinion a vote for for one of the other candidates is a protest vote against the two party system.

Report  
skamanifesto (December 30, 2007)

great. and as you protest, another republican president will take power becuase your "protest vote" is just a lost vote for the liberals. awesome.

Hey, at least he'll be taking away from republican votes this year.

how much do the democratic party and republican party really differ? its wrong to assume that because someone is more liberal or conservative the candidate from that major party automatically is "entitled" to their vote. instead we are left with a coke or pepsi choice while candidates willing to make real change are dismissed by people like you. while i agree ron paul is a fucking idiot i admire him trying to at least shake things up. the two party system needs to be broken.

You Ronulans are just gonna ignore this, aren't you?

Report  
jacknife737 (December 29, 2007)

Shhhhh, it'll ruin their fantasy.

Wow, a candidate that truly reflects all of my inane beliefs!

Oh, you forgot to list his resolution to make the U.S. the center of the universe.

nice cherry picking.
[
ron paul opposes federal funding for anything, as he thinks the federal government should be small. why do you cherry pick certain ones that seem racist out of context, because simply explaining his small government libertarian idealogy in 2 sentences doesn't sound as inflammatory?

i'm in the same exact boat you're in... i don't agree with his economic views at all, and normally i'd support Kucinich... but right now in 2007 the two biggest issues for me in this election is our foreign policy and our privacy rights, and i'm willing to support a candidate who i dont agree with economically in order to end our destructive policy overseas.

if we continue our Empire and all this nation-building and keeping troops everywhere overseas, we are destined to fall as a nation. we're spending over $30 billion dollars a month on that shit, it needs to stop immediately. and since Paul actually has a chance (unlike Kucinich) he has my support

Report  
spalmer (December 29, 2007)

Foreign policy and domestic inequalities are directly linked. Why do we spend on the military? Because that's a rigid and hierarchical way for the government to subsidize research funded by taxpayers.

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

Ron Paul only really cares about economic issues is the thing. The rest is the thinnest of subterfuge to fool particularly susceptible doody-heads.

Hate to be the one to tell you but..

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

you're absolutely right, he doesnt care at all about foreign policy...

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

Most of Paul's isolationist stuff is sheer bravado aimed at survivalist nuts and wanna-be theocrats; Paul's agenda is clearly economic. That doesn't exclude foreign policy at all, unless you believe that international commerce can simply be rolled back with a stroke of the pen (it can't)

Further you have to separate out the xenophobia aspect and the fact that he's only one step removed from calling for a "back to Africa" expulsion.

To be sucked in by some paper-thin anti-war stump speeches is ludicrous. And you are also failing to keep national defense and war separated. Paul's one spending program would be a massive standing force for national defense..in other words, the defense contractors won't go out of business. Paul would just prefer to turn it on brown people here rather than "over there"..

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)
im with you on some stuff, but to say he would "turn it on brown people here" is totally unintelligent

he vehemently opposes anything unconstitutional such as policing on our own soil. he istthe strongest defender of our bill of rights protections in congress.

anyone who cherry picks a vote of his to make him sound bad just didn't read the other implications in the bill besides the title.

thats outrageous, he opposes illegal immigration, not mexicans, because he lives on a border state which is getting negative returns on federal funding to the point of hospitals shutting down and other awesome fiscal problems.

if you oppose his views on the gold standard, or think the federal reserve is going to do great things, or that our foreign adventurism is important, yes, then you have bones to pick with hiim.
but if you seriously beleive

show rest of commentim with you on some stuff, but to say he would "turn it on brown people here" is totally unintelligent

he vehemently opposes anything unconstitutional such as policing on our own soil. he istthe strongest defender of our bill of rights protections in congress.

anyone who cherry picks a vote of his to make him sound bad just didn't read the other implications in the bill besides the title.

thats outrageous, he opposes illegal immigration, not mexicans, because he lives on a border state which is getting negative returns on federal funding to the point of hospitals shutting down and other awesome fiscal problems.

if you oppose his views on the gold standard, or think the federal reserve is going to do great things, or that our foreign adventurism is important, yes, then you have bones to pick with hiim.
but if you seriously beleive hes going to put together death camps for people based on race, you really gotta learn to read or stop writing totally false hit pieces.

Who cares if we end our "overseas empire" if our government and infrastructure is obliterated and the country is in ruins?

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

our country is going to be in ruins because of our overseas empire pretty soon if it's not stopped. not sure why you put it in quotes; its as if you support it... as for me, i think we need to bring all of our troops home now - not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Germany, South Korea, etc

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

don't forget the military influence the US has in Columbia, Mexico, and is trying so hard to have in Venezuela under the guise of the drug war

Report  
HOISTDATRAG (December 29, 2007)

To bring the troops home from iraq would start a bigger war than there is now. Not only would it be breaking the treaty we have with israel, but the Sunni, Shi'ite civil war in Iraq would explode after the surrounding Sunni and Shi'ite countries join in on this religious civil war. AND because the United States is not there to protect Israel, the middle eastern countries would attack Israel. That would end with the entire middle east, including Israel, as enemies of the united states, and therefore, barely any oil for us, creating huge inflation in the united states and putting us in a position where no candidate could help us.


Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

dramatic much?

everyone take a deep breath, if Ron Paul was elected the country would not disintegrate into the ocean...i promise

Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

Maybe not, but if he did the things he says he'd like to do we'd be pretty fucked.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

with a Democratic Congress, virtually none of his domestic stuff would go through. we would leave Iraq immediately, however with a Paul - Democratic Congress alliance. Clinton would wait until at least 2010, probably longer

Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

And I'm not voting for Clinton so that doesn't matter to me. I don't think bringing all the troops home from Iraq immediately and all at once is a good idea anyways.

Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

Also, it's not safe to assume that there's gonna be a Democratic congress come 2009. With how much they fucked up this year, who knows if the GOP will be able to get the majority again.

Report  
HOISTDATRAG (December 29, 2007)

We need until 2010, if we leave now, our country will be in ruins.

Report  
HOISTDATRAG (December 29, 2007)

not to mention the whole middle east...

never mind the $500 he collected from a white supremacist. that's cool.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

yes, he should screen 57,000 new donors in one day. a questionnaire asking potential donors if they are racist.
and then after he gets that random donation, he should return the 500 dollars back to the guy, so he can then donate his 500 dollars to a racist organization.

that makes a whole lot of sense.

meanwhile your Democrats support the racist War on Drugs, and i'm sure you do too.

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

meanwhile your Democrats support the racist War on Drugs, and i'm sure you do too.

uh oh, i hope not! or else he'll probably discount all my replies in this thread because i was high when posting them!

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

yeah you're right....we should be more worried about $500 or $1000 from a white supremacist than the hundreds of thousands of dollars going to other candidates from corporate interests

He's definitely the Corporation candidate.

He's only against corporate welfare and taxes because he doesn't believe in taxes or welfare. Not because he dislikes corporation.

He wants to privatize everything. Benefit = corporations in the biggest way possible.

He consistently votes with oil companies against the environment. Benefit = corporations.

A lot of the important parts of a candidate aren't what they believe, but why they believe in. Ron Paul believes in a very Corporate America, essentially isolated from the rest of the world. He's a moron.

Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

Not to mention he's ardently against antitrust laws.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

you didnt read what i said correctly, he wants to END corporate tax-breaks. that's not eliminating them.

he has voted constantly against subsidies to big oil companies... Exxon and company absolutely hate Paul for this.

if he won the nomination, corporate America would support Hillary Clinton all the way - they're already funding her entire campaign (paul wont take ANY corporate money). try explaining that....

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

perhaps you could explain why then it took a huge event like $6M in donations in a day or whatever for Paul to get more than a glance in the corporate controlled media?

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

i'm registered independent, never been registered Democrat b/c i think they're shit.

i'm asking liberals like myself to support Paul b/c he's the only one with a real shot who will get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with Latin America, South Korea, and Germany. he'll also avoid a conflict in Iran, while Clinton has already declared the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization, the first step to war.

Paul has a better shot than you're letting on

Report  
kevgren (December 29, 2007)

If you're registered independent, how are you voting in a Republican primary?

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

i'm gonna switch temporarily, although i'm in NC so it really doesnt matter b/c our primary isnt until around April

Report  
kevgren (December 29, 2007)

Gotcha.

I certainly don't agree with everything you're saying in these threads, but I honor your commitment.

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

many states are open. i am a registered libertarian and will be voting in the republican primary for paul in tennessee, where the primary is open to anyone registered for any party.

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

capitalism hasn't existed in america since the establishment of the personhood of the corporation.

free markets lower prices and best manage goods.

period.

how is a socialist system going to tell you how much a raw material is used to manufacture different goods?

what if you made too much ethanol where you should have made food grain?

try those complex things without a market. the USSR did!

if you try to use our current PUBLIC CORPORATIST CORPORATE WELFARE system as an example your arguing for free market economy.

study austrian economic theory and explain the flaws in willing, free interaction by everyone.

If people still believe anarchy is good, they should probably grow up.

Report  
mikeinflames (December 29, 2007)

agreed.
anarchy would be the worst possible outcome for any country.
most of these little kids who like anarchy is such a great thing would be eaten alive if it actually came into play.

If anarchists are against burning the flag and education but are pro-semiautomatic firearms and ICBMs, then I guess so.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

actually anarchists would be against gun control, so thanks for pointing that similarity out
he doesnt support ICBMS, in fact he wants to stop building them and wants to cut military spending. unlike your precious Democrats.
and the flag burning thing... i was unaware about his position on that, if that is true, then i disagree with him on that. you're never going to find a perfect candidate, oh well.

so you thought of three things, two of them being inaccurate. good job


Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

He wants to stop building them but he's introduced bills prohibiting their dismantling? Hm.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.1665:
ht tp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.3769:

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

he's against international treaties, thats why it looks like he would continue them

look, out of all the candidates, he's the one who would cut military spending the most. end of story, period.

Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

I don't happen to think that cutting military spending and bringing the troops home would solve every problem ever. Things need to be weighed out. I'd rather not have a significant cut in military spending and not have to worry about how I'm gonna pay for my medicine. But that's just me.

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

so you're saying you're okay with not cutting any money to the military but you want a universal health system implemented?

are you aware of the enormous amount of debt this country has right now? we are headed for a fiscal disaster

Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

I said I'm okay with not cutting an enormous amount of military spending right away. I just want affordable health care, not necessarily universal health care run by the govt.

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

well of course, everyone wants affordable health care...but i think you're a little out of touch with reality

the money has to come from somewhere if it's going to be socialized on a federal level

yet, you don't seem to support that, but are at the same time vehemently against Ron Paul who would suggest opening it up to the competition of a free market, which in turn would drive prices down

personally, i am for socialized health care

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

me too, i think if we stopped spending $30 billion a month in Iraq, we would have enough to provide a not-for-profit health care system AND still have enough money left over to cut taxes on lower income families and the middle class

Report  
NotPatriotic (December 29, 2007)

You don't need gun control to be against guns. Most anarchists I know are against guns, not gun control. Anarchists are against control. There will probably never be a true anarchistic society in my lifetime with more than 2000 people so even discussing it is sort of pointless.

Anarchism is a left-wing theory. It is a more extreme version of communism- it emphasizes collectivism. So American libertarians are actually pretty damn far from anarchy.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

but no government. which is what Paul wants here.

Report  
elephantdwarf (December 29, 2007)

paul wants government. just a govt. in the correct usage, not what our govt has become. people shouldn't be scared of the government, the government should be scared of the people.

if we're going with the "punx" metaphor, then ron paul is a "poseur".

he is marauding as a libertarian in a republican suit, for "freedom" but against a woman's right to choose, a "humanist" in favor of building a fence to keep Mexicans out of the US, and a pacifist against peace-seeking diplomatic organizations and allied groups like the UN.

No Paul is, if anything, the most opposed to anarchism. I'm a unity guy and figure that anarchists, communists, socialists, nihilists, etc are all after the same thing. Ron Paul's entire ideology is a reactionary retaliation against the above mentioned.

If thats not immediately obvious consider the anarchist maxim Property Is Theft.

Remind me again what RP thinks of private property

hahahahahahahahaha..anarchist? yeah right. You must really love the smell of bullshit. Savor the aroma until you can taste it.

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

your confusing marxist for anarchist.

just because "collectivist anarchists' have adopted marxism(why? not sure) doesn't mean anarchy is socialism.

Anarchy has always been promoted in the punk scene as a kind of social libertarianism--ie I'll take what drugs I wanna take, fuck who I wanna fuck, do what I want to do, fuck the police--which is the kind of anarchy Paul is specifically against. He's against gay marriage and abortion rights.

I know you'll come back with "he's for ending the drug war" blah blah blah, but until he comes down on the cops and the prison industry, who profit very much from having a drug war, it won't happen. An anti-prison/police Republican? That I'd love to see.

Report  
Someone (December 29, 2007)

thank you for your voice of sanity

Report  
Hasheesh (December 30, 2007)

Whaaaaat how did a "someone" sneak in here?

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

yes, he has referred to it as the prison industrial complex. he definately opposes the drug war on all levels and would see it defeated were he president.

libertarians oppose any non aggressive act being considered illegal.

yes, it may annoy you because of where you stand on the guy

but he's assembling what might be one of the largest/most successful grassroots campaigns in history....and that's a good thing

whether you like the guy or not, politics in this country needed a shake up because we've been fed the same shit from both major parties for way too long

Report  
GlassPipeMurder (December 29, 2007)

i think the shakeup we need is from the left though, not 4+ more years of conservatism.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

i've always considered Paul to have some very liberal ideas, very radical ideas

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

He said "from the left" not liberalism

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

except that we haven't had 7 years of conservatism...we've had 7 years of authoritarianism

the shakeup is needed either way

erase the terms Republican and Democrat from your memory

look at people as people and positions as positions...party affiliation is meaningless anymore

Report  
NotPatriotic (December 29, 2007)

Why the hell would I vote for someone who describes themselves as a republican? Party affiliation is not meaningless. People still vote straight down the ballot for their party, hence, it is not meaningless.

Report  
MattTGS (December 29, 2007)

really? look at ron paul's voting record...he is very far away from voting straight down the republican line.... he voted against the patriot act, against the iraq war, he's a traditional republican...which is for small government, that's the exact opposite of the republican party today.

Report  
NotPatriotic (December 29, 2007)

No, I'm not saying Ron Paul votes straight republican. I'm saying many Americans go into a voting booth and just vote republican or democrat on every issue. They don't even care what the measure or person represents.

Report  
The4footpartysub (December 29, 2007)

he's running as a republican so he has more of a chance.

haha, this post makes me think of the last couple Rx Bandits shows i've been to

so many anti-consumerist lyrics being sung by some of the most blatantly consumerist kids i've ever seen

Report  
vaginalinferno (December 29, 2007)

hmmm ... what? i'm a bandits fan and the only shit i buy that i don't need to survive is band stuff to support bands. are you knockin bandits fans for buying their merch? because yunno... bands need that kind of support to stay alive

Report  
baseball (December 29, 2007)

no, i wasn't referring to anything bought from the band

i agree with you here... for me though, its just a matter of foreign policy being at the forefront of the issues right now. and as silly as it sounds, i really want a president who will brign the folly of the war on drugs to attention

Taking the car emissions angle, thats exactly how capitalism works for us. A state like CA will come along with standards that are HIGHER than what the EPA will muster up, and since the manufactures need to sell the most cars at the lowest cost they will have to conform to what CA does. Ford would be like "eh, I guess we just wont make cars for CA anymore" and cut out 33M customers, nor would they come up with a different design just for CA.

that blog post is rife with inaccuracies

not to mention an extreme liberal bias....there's plenty wrong with liberals in this country and that guy seems to be an extreme apologist

nice sources there...

Report  
tomgabelassaultedme (December 29, 2007)
Paul's a social conservative who tries to make people think otherwise. He's just the same as the other Republican candidates, along with a few especially insane ideas thrown in:

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
No Fairness Doctrine: no equal time if morally objectionable. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

I know how to use sources, it's just that

show rest of commentPaul's a social conservative who tries to make people think otherwise. He's just the same as the other Republican candidates, along with a few especially insane ideas thrown in:

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
No Fairness Doctrine: no equal time if morally objectionable. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

I know how to use sources, it's just that that post basically summed up how dangerous this guy's policies actually are and actually thought about the consequences of a Ron Paul presidency.

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
http:// www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/240507ontherecord.htm

you were rad in goonies!

you believe in evolution? not very American of you!

Report  
AmericaRules (December 29, 2007)

Of course I don't, I for one sure as hell is not descended from a monkey. Dr Paul agrees with me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Report  
fallingupwards84 (December 29, 2007)

got me, good job.. i just remember during that one debate he didnt raise his hand when they asked who didnt believe in evolution

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

I don't "believe" in anything, but its pretty much a sure bet that neo-Darwinism is a very poor model of evolution. In particular gradualization and reductionism are on their last legs.



Report  
Jay3313 (December 30, 2007)

You sound like a bad wikipedia entry.

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

agreed.

you're an idiot. no one cares what you have to say

You Suck Dick, everyband on conservative punk sucks as hard as Graves.

Report  
Hasheesh (December 30, 2007)

This coming from a man who brags about having STDs and will fawn over any shitty ska band that comes remotely close to I-94 West.

Nobody cares about you, the phrase conservative punk is a fucking oxymoron.

for a 'conservative' you sure do endorse the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter in his debates against Ronald Reagan in 1980. hahaha.

Hey, you're just like that one irrtating Ron Paul kid on every message board on the internet who protects Ron Paul like someone is making fun of his mommy and completley ignores his obvious downfalls.

zing!

I see Fallingupward has yet to comment on his beloved Ron Paul admitting that he does not believe in Evoltuion.

It hurts be wrong...so very wrong.

nice edit ;)

Let me tell you, they are most certainly not.

we both have very similar views, just slightly different approaches for what to do in the 2008 election season. as social libertarians who hold collectivist economic views its difficult to determine which candidate to back when no single candidate is completely in line with what we believe. i'm a little more willing to focus entirely on foreign policy issues in this election than he is, however, i still struggle with this decision because i would really like to see universal health care in this country. fixing our foreign policy and ending the war on drugs are so important to me right now though, that i've put it at the forefront of my concerns.

Report  
victim (December 29, 2007)

So basically you're for collectivism..except you also worship at the trough of "individualism" and "personal freedom" with all of the typical baggage -- like forgetting that people who can't even afford to eat are hardly "free" no matter how hard you twist and contort the word

"Social" libertarian? Meaningless pablum

Report  
barrydonegan (December 31, 2007)

agreed. social libertarian with collectivist economic values = mainstream democrat.

hahaha

we share a few viewpoints, mostly pertaining to drugs or the drug war, that's all

plus he likes mxpx and i don't

His teachers probably showed him Birth of a Nation instead of making him read about Darwin.

You haven't heard yet, but "he didn't write or say that". According to his supporters.

Just like Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman."

Or how anyone in the Bush administration "doesn't recall" things.

i don't feel like any of that was too racist. anyone who tries to talk about the black crime rate is an instant racist. he didn't get too crazy in that article, stating only that the numbers are pretty ridiculous, and goddamn it let people talk about the issues without pulling the race card every opportunity you can

Report  
Badger_Legion (December 29, 2007)

"we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

He says it's rational to be afraid of black men, and you don't consider that racist?

But he didn't just VOTE for the bills myself and Angiepants are talking about. He sponsored them.

I'd rather have John McCain over almost every other candidate regardless of party. And yeah, Ron Paul SPONSORED all of those bills I posted earlier.

Report  
Torgo (December 29, 2007)

He sponsors bills that overturns extra spending from the government, that's his general policy. Even if there are pretty pathetic things he sponsors (namely everything environmentally related), he’s not a flip flopper or gets persuaded by colleagues. If anything else, he's the only person running with personal integrity.

Report  
veidt (December 29, 2007)

Who cares when his ideas are just as insane as the rest of his party? Regardless of if those ideas are of a different nature or not.

And it's not "just sponsoring some crazy bills", he wanted to REPEAL the antitrust acts that busted up the monopolies in the early 1900s. Come on!

Report  
Angiepants (December 29, 2007)

Are you KIDDING me?

How is H.R.2597: "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." helping to curtail extra spending? How is H.J.RES.80: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags." going to cut back on wasteful spending?

Come on, people.



Report  
Torgo (December 29, 2007)

I didn't say all his bills are to curtail spending. And wow, he's a pro-life Republican, I so did not know that, good pick up.

I'm pretty afraid of all four of them.

Its not an either/or situation. I'm not a fucking liberal, I'm a communist. Ron Paul isn't out of his mind, he knows exactly what he's advocating for. That's the problem.

What the fuck?

but not on the inside

Report  
Badger_Legion (December 29, 2007)

If someone is brown on the inside, that person has serious medical problems.

Report  
ibitchslappedyourmama (December 29, 2007)

oh no you di'nt!!!

i love your argument there.

very eloquent.

You're STILL a douche.

what would propagandhi do ?

debunked.

learn to read media that fact checks.

yeah its a debunked hit piece graveyard up in here.

obama is just as bad as billary.