Ron Paul 2012

[OstrichSaK]

Here's the deal w/Ron Paul: even if you don't like his views all of them are for you to be able to make your own decision. He respects you as an intelligent adult who doesn't need the government to lead you around by the hand & tell you how to live your life.

 

[batgeek]

All the more reason to vote Ron Paul 2012. If someone as anti-system as RP...

Ron Paul has always been a part of the system. he was GOP until 1987, when he left for the Libertarian Party...

suffice to say, he's back in the GOP. i would have a little bit more respect for him if never left the LP and ran for president(as he did in '88).

the hardest thing for a libertarian to do is vote for the LP candidate. too many Republicans in there. Badnarik and Browne are the only non-ex-Republicans that have recieved the LP nomination since i've been able to vote.

new boss, old boss....

 

[ElasticNinja]

Without the Constitution, we have nothing. Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate against NDAA ans SOPA. He has voted based on the constitution consistently. He seeks to preserve and restore it.

The Constitution is the base set of laws for a country. It is not the be all and end all, just guidelines that laws must comply with. It can be modified democratically.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Ron Paul has always been a part of the system. he was GOP until 1987, when he left for the Libertarian Party...

suffice to say, he's back in the GOP. i would have a little bit more respect for him if never left the LP and ran for president(as he did in '88).

the hardest thing for a libertarian to do is vote for the LP candidate. too many Republicans in there. Badnarik and Browne are the only non-ex-Republicans that have recieved the LP nomination since i've been able to vote.

new boss, old boss....

I disagree because he's still the same guy regardless of LP or (R) title. One just gets him a better chance at becoming president. I completely understand why he changed his affiliation and also recognize that he compromised zero of his ideals in doing so. To try to cloud the facts with trivial observations serves only to further dilute the important items.

 

[OstrichSaK]

The Constitution is the base set of laws for a country. It is not the be all and end all, just guidelines that laws must comply with. It can be modified democratically.

The US Constitution is the rights we are all BORN with as free human beings written out as to define them so the can't be infringed upon. It wasn't meant for law makers to reinterpret and adjust to the point of changing the meaning entirely the way they have over the decades in so many ways. Our founding fathers would take up arms against the current government if they were here right now based on what's happened.

 

[batgeek]

I disagree because he's still the same guy regardless of LP or (R) title. One just gets him a better chance at becoming president. I completely understand why he changed his affiliation and also recognize that he compromised zero of his ideals in doing so. To try to cloud the facts with trivial observations serves only to further dilute the important items.

wrong.

ermmm or ummmm....i disagree.

if he was a true proponent of libertarian ideals, he never would have left the LP. he sold out for "a better chance".

that's as bad as a flip flop. what else is he going to change just for "a better chance"? you may think it trivial, but it shows a lack of integrity. all in all, it doesn't matter what either of us think.

old boss, new boss. nothing changes. at all. period. nada. zero.

 

[TJGoSurf]

Ron Paul coming in second shows how much the voting public is starting to change. Sadly the problem with people from my generation(X for those keeping score) are quite Democrat. If they only listened to what Ron Paul has to say, they would know he doesn't tailor his speeches to a particular audience, like our most popular politicians. I can't figure out why the stoner crowd hasn't gotten behind this guy, along with the Tea Party. He was preaching about Tea Party values before the Tea Party was around. This is a guy who really can reach across all parties, but no one is taking him seriously. You would think the lack of attention he gets during all these debates, and the lack of coverage in the media would tell people he is for real. He doesn't buddy up to anyone with a checkbook.

Ron Paul has a better chance than before, but its still a long shot. If anyone can turn this abortion around it would be him. But I think both parties in Congress would be unified in fighting him on everything. We have corruption in all levels of government, yet people are still willing to toe the party line because their parents were (insert party here), and so were their parents, and their parents parents, and after that probably the Wig party I guess.

I'm going to Mexico, at least there I can buy my way out of trouble openly without having to make "campaign contributions".

 

[OstrichSaK]

wrong.

ermmm or ummmm....i disagree.

if he was a true proponent of libertarian ideals, he never would have left the LP. he sold out for "a better chance".

that's as bad as a flip flop. what else is he going to change just for "a better chance"? you may think it trivial, but it shows a lack of integrity. all in all, it doesn't matter what either of us think.

old boss, new boss. nothing changes. at all. period. nada. zero.

Okay, then just don't vote. After all, they're all the same, right?

I'm voting Ron Paul in 2012.

 

[batgeek]

as usual, if you can't win a discussion...resort to extremes. a tactic worn out by the liberals. sad that you have to resort to that, i know you're not a liberal.

i never said i wasn't going to vote. i vote for candidates that I feel best represent my political views, without prior political baggage.

i never said they are ALL the same. but Ron Paul has shown me his colors and i do not think he is worth MY vote. i'll vote, it just won't be for Ron Paul.

you are willing to write him in if he doesn't get the RNC nomination?

 

[TJGoSurf]

as usual, if you can't win a discussion...resort to extremes. a tactic worn out by the liberals. sad that you have to resort to that, i know you're not a liberal.

i never said i wasn't going to vote. i vote for candidates that I feel best represent my political views, without prior political baggage.

i never said they are ALL the same. but Ron Paul has shown me his colors and i do not think he is worth MY vote. i'll vote, it just won't be for Ron Paul.

you are willing to write him in if he doesn't get the RNC nomination?

Yes, I will write him in. but maybe I missed it, what are your reasons for not liking him?

 

[batgeek]

posts #52 & #56. really?

 

[TJGoSurf]

posts #52 & #56. really?

Yeah, really. The reasons you gave are flimsy at best. I would love to hear your ideal candidate

 

[batgeek]

not Ron Paul.

do you even read posts? really?

you <choose your candidate> cheerleaders really get annoying real quick.

i'm all happy for those of you that have found Ron Paul to be to one you wish to vote for, for whatever reasons you wish to vote for him.

you aren't changing my mind. Ron Paul isn't changing my mind. good for you. good for Mr. Paul. *clap*

 

[OstrichSaK]

Now I'm a cheerleader?

 

[TJGoSurf]

not Ron Paul.

do you even read posts? really?

you &lt;choose your candidate&gt; cheerleaders really get annoying real quick.

i'm all happy for those of you that have found Ron Paul to be to one you wish to vote for, for whatever reasons you wish to vote for him.

you aren't changing my mind. Ron Paul isn't changing my mind. good for you. good for Mr. Paul. *clap*

The fact you can't cite a candidate means you're hating just to hate.

Don't worry about me reading your posts because I won't engage you anymore.

 

[9to5cynic]

Slightly on topic, (re: ron paul)... I was watching The Daily Show this morning (yes, reruns in the morning ) and the topic was how RP got 2nd. Then they showed some talkshow host saying that if you don't count RP, then huntsmen was in 2nd. Lolwhat?


Maybe I missed something, but Batgeek, your reason for not liking RP is because he switched parties? (this isn't meant as anything negative, just want some clarity)

 

[ElasticNinja]

The US Constitution is the rights we are all BORN with as free human beings written out as to define them so the can't be infringed upon. It wasn't meant for law makers to reinterpret and adjust to the point of changing the meaning entirely the way they have over the decades in so many ways. Our founding fathers would take up arms against the current government if they were here right now based on what's happened.

Yes, the US constitution gives a set set of rights, as do most constitutions. It wasnt meant by who? A lot of the founding fathers were very foward thinking for the time, and I'm sure would not object to adding or removing things from the constitution if it was reasonable. The constitution has been ammended over twenty times, democratically. The founding fathers have been dead two hundred years. I'd imagine they'd faint if they saw the world today

Anyway, I'm not sure why said founding fathers would have views on who pays for radiotherapy, when such things could not have been considered then. Not that a constitution should be so specific.

 

[Frisco]

Now I'm a cheerleader?

Well, maybe your avi.

 

[TJGoSurf]

Not that a constitution should be so specific.

So many cool points were gained here...

 

[OstrichSaK]

A lot of the founding fathers were very foward thinking for the time, and I'm sure would not object to adding or removing things from the constitution if it was reasonable.

This is the problem. Who decides that limiting our constitutional rights is reasonable? We've gotten to the point where politicians tried removing rights via amendments (see the 18th which was prohibition) which was a HUGE failure (then promptly overturned via the 21st... giving the right to choose for themselves back to the people) so now they just pass these long winded bills with titles that make most sheeple think it's a good thing for them since they sure as hell won't read it themselves. Now they want a 'Super congress' to expedite the law making process. People don't realize that it's supposed to be difficult BY DESIGN! We have WAY too many laws telling people what they can't do and the list grows daily. After all, what good are law makers who aren't making laws? Have to maintain job security somehow. The framers knew changes would have to be made which is why it was never set in stone. They didn't make it a quick and simple process for a reason though. Liberty is inherently dangerous. It's incredible how quickly people are willing to give up their liberties for some alleged security.

 

[ElasticNinja]

So many cool points were gained here...

I dont know if you are being sarcastic or not

This is the problem. Who decides that limiting our constitutional rights is reasonable?

The people's representatives, or the people themselves.

We've gotten to the point where politicians tried removing rights via amendments (see the 18th which was prohibition) which was a HUGE failure (then promptly overturned via the 21st... giving the right to choose for themselves back to the people) so now they just pass these long winded bills with titles that make most sheeple think it's a good thing for them since they sure as hell won't read it themselves.

A short bill is no good either, not enough exclusions or detail.

Now they want a 'Super congress' to expedite the law making process. People don't realize that it's supposed to be difficult BY DESIGN!

From a European perspective, passing federal bills takes an extraordinary amount in the US. Difficult by design was done with good intent, the world works faster these days however. All that happens is that bills get diluted and watered down, and modified to suit special interest (See: healthcare).

Liberty is inherently dangerous. It's incredible how quickly people are willing to give up their liberties for some alleged security.

Sometimes, you have to trade a little liberty to get some more. Like trading your right to attack your neighbour, in return for being able to complain about his eh, wild parties, without fear of being stabbed.
Of course, I don't agree with many of the draconian laws of late in the US, I dont know how people can let their privacy be infringed so much.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Like trading your right to attack your neighbour

This has NEVER been a right. It would be a direct violation on their civil rights so therefore would NOT be permissible. Sorry, but I see no reason to trade liberty for security. You give me liberty and I'll secure myself and my loved ones thanks. You can keep the rest.

 

[ElasticNinja]

This has NEVER been a right. It would be a direct violation on their civil rights so therefore would NOT be permissible. Sorry, but I see no reason to trade liberty for security. You give me liberty and I'll secure myself and my loved ones thanks. You can keep the rest.

Did I ever say it was in the US? The fact is, you don't have the liberty to attack people, which gives you the freedom of security and being able to go about your business.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Did I ever say it was in the US?

This thread is about Ron Paul in 2012 which is a US presidential subject. What else could you possibly be talking about that would be understood w/o specifying it?

The fact is, you don't have the liberty to attack people, which gives you the freedom of security and being able to go about your business.

No, my right to defend myself against any attack is what makes me free and secure to be able to go about my business.

 

[mike114]

It still amazes me how many people still don't understand the purpose of the Constitution, regardless of how old it is. The federal gov't is to have LIMITED powers, even in today's fast moving world.

And trading liberty for any reason is wrong headed and dangerous.