Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 104
  1. #61
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueOreo View Post
    I'm with this guy. ^

    I abstained from voting in 2008 for this reason.

    There was no way McCain/Palin was going to get my vote, and I wasn't swept away by Obama's illusion of 'change. yes we can!' like the rest of dumb kids in their 20s.
    http://forums.darkfallonline.com/sho...83#post5358783
    Boy, what a crock of shit that was.
    I like how every single person that voted for Obama must have done it because "They were brainwashed and stupid". Clearly couldn't had been any other reason to support him, like his ideology was in line with theirs and that he was clearly the better candidate of the 2.

    Most annoying thing about RP is that we will never get to see RP get into office and fail miserably. We will never see him in a position where he is forced to make a big decision or make some kind of compromise. Right now he has never had to make those decisions because he holds a relatively low position in Congress, but we'll never know what he's like as a President. Which means we'll never get to look back at your candidate and realize what a fuck up he really was.

  2. #62

    Default

    Do you really think most people in general would actually admit when someone they support and have put their time and energy behind fucks up? It would be someone else fault.

    ‘tis the way of the world.
    Last edited by doomahx; 03-16-2012 at 17:39.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    I like how every single person that voted for Obama must have done it because "They were brainwashed and stupid". Clearly couldn't had been any other reason to support him, like his ideology was in line with theirs and that he was clearly the better candidate of the 2.

    Most annoying thing about RP is that we will never get to see RP get into office and fail miserably. We will never see him in a position where he is forced to make a big decision or make some kind of compromise. Right now he has never had to make those decisions because he holds a relatively low position in Congress, but we'll never know what he's like as a President. Which means we'll never get to look back at your candidate and realize what a fuck up he really was.
    Essentially your acknowledging that when you call him a fuckup that it's completely baseless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exevos View Post
    nacitar has never used any (to my knowledge) exploit maneuvers, glitches, and/or bugs... He has always been adamant in his ways, ... having been totally legit since launch, a feat many of us have failed.

  4. #64
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abaratican View Post
    Essentially your acknowledging that when you call him a fuckup that it's completely baseless.
    I've never called him a fuck up, ever. I acknowledge right now his record is pretty straight forward as far as I can tell, I don't know much of his back story but he seems the most legit of anyone that I can tell. I simply disagree with a lot of what he says, I don't agree with his tenthism at all, really only siding with him on foreign policy. The only thing I've ever said that could be seen as in the family of insults is that his views are naive/illogical and that he isn't truly a libertarian because he doesn't seek to protect individual rights due to his stance that the President should just pass the buck to the states on most of these issues and let them deal with it.

    EDIT: And that a good portion of his supporters are angry, uneducated idiot kids who have held him in God-like reverence that is both disturbing and annoying.
    Last edited by Apex Vertigo; 03-16-2012 at 17:48.

  5. #65
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    that he isn't truly a libertarian because he doesn't seek to protect individual rights due to his stance that the President should just pass the buck to the states on most of these issues and let them deal with it.
    And you've never been able to justify this baseless misunderstanding of his position on rights in spite of many conversations on the matter. You do not understand that which you criticize.

    Name a right he will not protect?
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    I like how every single person that voted for Obama must have done it because "They were brainwashed and stupid". Clearly couldn't had been any other reason to support him, like his ideology was in line with theirs and that he was clearly the better candidate of the 2.
    What ideology? The ideology of broken promises?

  7. #67
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    And you've never been able to justify this baseless misunderstanding of his position on rights in spite of many conversations on the matter. You do not understand that which you criticize.

    Name a right he will not protect?
    First I should say the following are not our basic rights, obviously, like freedom of speech. It wouldn't make sense for me to assume he doesn't support these rights that are directly described in the Bill of Rights because RP is such a staunch supporter of the constitution which is where he derives his tenthism. The following are more social issues, rights that people should have but which have not been affirmed and would not under an RP presidency.

    - Gay Marriage: Paul doesn't agree with same-sex marriage but thinks they should be allowed to if States decide it's ok.

    - Seperation of Church and State: RP is against it, partly due to the fact that he's a Creationist and partly because he thinks the Founding Fathers would be against it (except clearly some weren't). Again, he doesn't want a federally imposed seperation but would rather let someone else decide this for him.

    I have work so I'll stop here and list more when I return. But, I want to say no one that I can remember has ever tried to argue this point with me, most people have accepted the fact that RP, in many cases, does not take a hard stance on a certain right or social issue and passes the job of making that decision to the State level.
    Last edited by Apex Vertigo; 03-16-2012 at 18:17.

  8. #68
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bissen View Post
    What ideology? The ideology of broken promises?
    You're so fucking funny Bissen. Remember when I use to try to actually debate things with you but then you used that dumb ass emoticon so much and made so many childish "I'm better than you because I'm different" jokes/insults that I stopped taking you seriously? Good times.
    Last edited by Apex Vertigo; 03-16-2012 at 18:19.

  9. #69
    1000+ Wonderboy2402's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Your Mother, USA
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    If not Ron Paul then I would have to vote Obama. No way would I vote for the other nutty three.
    "Locked. Saying Scots have thievery in their genes is a no-no."

    "That's like being the best cripple in the special Olympics."

  10. #70
    2000+
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wedged in a Midget
    Posts
    2,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    First I should say the following are not our basic rights, obviously, like freedom of speech. It wouldn't make sense for me to assume he doesn't support these rights that are directly described in the Bill of Rights because RP is such a staunch supporter of the constitution which is where he derives his tenthism. The following are more social issues, rights that people should have but which have not been affirmed and would not under an RP presidency.

    - Gay Marriage: Paul doesn't agree with same-sex marriage but thinks they should be allowed to if States decide it's ok.

    - Seperation of Church and State: RP is against it, partly due to the fact that he's a Creationist and partly because he thinks the Founding Fathers would be against it (except clearly some weren't). Again, he doesn't want a federally imposed seperation but would rather let someone else decide this for him.

    I have work so I'll stop here and list more when I return. But, I want to say no one that I can remember has ever tried to argue this point with me, most people have accepted the fact that RP, in many cases, does not take a hard stance on a certain right or social issue and passes the job of making that decision to the State level.
    This outlook should be expected from RP who is a very big advocate for states rights. It would largely defeat his purpose if he continued to govern everything from a federal level.

  11. #71
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    First I should say the following are not our basic rights, obviously, like freedom of speech. It wouldn't make sense for me to assume he doesn't support these rights that are directly described in the Bill of Rights because RP is such a staunch supporter of the constitution which is where he derives his tenthism. The following are more social issues, rights that people should have but which have not been affirmed and would not under an RP presidency.
    OK, so you are wrong about rights or choose to misrepresent his position in order to make yours appear more principled.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    - Gay Marriage: Paul doesn't agree with same-sex marriage but thinks they should be allowed to if States decide it's ok.
    Like you said, not a right. Any power not enumerated in the Constitution as a federal power is left to the people and/or the states. His position on gay marriage is the only position that is legitimate. If you fight for it at the state level and win, you can amend the Constitution. Seems like he has even laid out the roadmap to gay marriage.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    - Seperation of Church and State: RP is against it, partly due to the fact that he's a Creationist and partly because he thinks the Founding Fathers would be against it (except clearly some weren't). Again, he doesn't want a federally imposed seperation but would rather let someone else decide this for him.
    Bullshit. Just plain bullshit. I know I've already covered the fact that every president we have ever had (99.9% of them) is either a Creationist or a hypocrite; but beyond that, how can you even make that claim? What sound bite or partial quote of his are you basing that opinion on?
    Last edited by StainlessSteelRat; 03-16-2012 at 19:06.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  12. #72
    2000+ The Grixxitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    NOLA 70116
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    If Ron Paul weren't running Id vote for any other Independent or 3rd party candidate.

    One of the main reasons why the entire political process is absolute shit in the US has to do with the 2 party system.

    Its the Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwhich. Every. Single. Time

    - The Grixxitt, Alfar Supremacist - NAxx

  13. #73
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    OK, so you are wrong about rights or choose to misrepresent his position in order to make yours appear more principled.
    There is a debate going on about what your rights are, I tend to be on the side that says you have more rights than what are granted to you right now and I don't care if it isn't included in a document written 200+ years ago. I miused the term "right" in the legal sense, because they aren't established rights and of course he protects basic rights... like I said it does't make sense for me to call him a tenthist and then say he does't protect the Bill of Rights because a tenthist would have no problems protecting those, so you either misunderstood me or intentionally didn't listen because you can't get through half a sentence without having a rage fit.

    So, tl;dr: He doesn't protect rights that are "up for grabs" so to speak where as I believe a true libertarian would how the responsibility of protecting all of our rights as human beings. If he was he wouldn't be so quick to throw modern human rights under the bus to be trampled on by states like Texas.

    Bullshit. Just plain bullshit. I know I've already covered the fact that every president we have ever had (99.9% of them) is either a Creationist or a hypocrite; but beyond that, how can you even make that claim? What sound bite or partial quote of his are you basing that opinion on?
    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion."

    This is one of the quotes from Ron Paul.

    "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'Separation of Church and State' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."

    Another one. There's a laundry list of these, some in his news letters, so on the House floor, some in his speeches... it's everywhere. Now I don't know how you're going to come back in light of these black and white quotes but I would have to assume you at least need to recognize the qualifications "Bullshit. Just plain bullshit." is at least a little reactive/extreme given that I didn't have to look more than 10 seconds to find a barrage of Paul hating on separation of church and state.

    Also I don't care if every President we've had has (in public) been a theist of some kind, doesn't make it any less crazy. However, several office holders can be suspected of being religious for the sake of their position, Paul is more on the legitimate religious side.

  14. #74
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    There is a debate going on about what your rights are, I tend to be on the side that says you have more rights than what are granted to you right now and I don't care if it isn't included in a document written 200+ years ago. I miused the term "right" in the legal sense, because they aren't established rights and of course he protects basic rights... like I said it does't make sense for me to call him a tenthist and then say he does't protect the Bill of Rights because a tenthist would have no problems protecting those, so you either misunderstood me or intentionally didn't listen because you can't get through half a sentence without having a rage fit.

    So, tl;dr: He doesn't protect rights that are "up for grabs" so to speak where as I believe a true libertarian would how the responsibility of protecting all of our rights as human beings. If he was he wouldn't be so quick to throw modern human rights under the bus to be trampled on by states like Texas.
    There are no rights up for grabs. Your fantasy rights don't count. Or as I already explained the proper path laid out in our Constitution which is the foundation of the most successful and powerful country in the world runs through the states. I'm sure you think its blind luck that the US achieved all it has; I happen to believe its the ideals laid out in that 'old document'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion."

    This is one of the quotes from Ron Paul.

    "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'Separation of Church and State' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."
    Nothing wrong or inaccurate about those quotes nor do they bear any meaning with your original premise. Or are you simply choosing to ignore the significant qualifier "rigid" that he used?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    Another one. There's a laundry list of these, some in his news letters, so on the House floor, some in his speeches... it's everywhere. Now I don't know how you're going to come back in light of these black and white quotes but I would have to assume you at least need to recognize the qualifications "Bullshit. Just plain bullshit." is at least a little reactive/extreme given that I didn't have to look more than 10 seconds to find a barrage of Paul hating on separation of church and state.

    Also I don't care if every President we've had has (in public) been a theist of some kind, doesn't make it any less crazy. However, several office holders can be suspected of being religious for the sake of their position, Paul is more on the legitimate religious side.
    It is bullshit. You completely misrepresent his quotes based on your belief that separation of church and state is rigid. Nothing written or spoken by the founders supports your belief. He, on the other hand, can cite (easily) references that support his opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  15. #75
    11,000+ Death's Chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,219

    Default

    Religion should not influence the government, but likewise, the government should not infringe on religion either so Ron Paul isn't wrong at all in that statement.


    Yummy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •