The only one pretending here is the ones thinking "the lesser of two evils" is a good thing. That is simply retarded.
And yes, Ron Paul would instantly start decreasing the size of government the day he took office.
The only one pretending here is the ones thinking "the lesser of two evils" is a good thing. That is simply retarded.
And yes, Ron Paul would instantly start decreasing the size of government the day he took office.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,918
- 10,250
- 136
For those of you who denounce the concept of a President stopping the growth of government. Imagine for a moment the repercussions of what you?re telling us.
That the government cannot be reduced through peaceful means. Now also take into account that it cannot sustain its growth through peaceful means. There is only one course for our future.
That the government cannot be reduced through peaceful means. Now also take into account that it cannot sustain its growth through peaceful means. There is only one course for our future.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
And where did you think I said "the lesser of two evils" is a "good thing"? You must still be pretending...
Someday you'll grow up. Hopefully it's sooner than later but it really depends on how soon you wake up to the reality of our political system.
Of course you do.
What is your opinion of George Wallace? Since you seem to believe that state rights trump individual rights, I'm pretty sure you are a huge fan of him.
Most of what you people saying other should grow up seem to indicate that it is immature to think that things should be done the right way if the odds are against you. That we should accept the injustices so that we might have the occasional concession in our favor. That because compromise is important and necessary in interpersonal relationships we should extend compromise to the deepest parts of our soul and trade what we believe in for what others have convinced us is the "best we can get" ...
If you still hold on to the beliefs that inspired you, why not put your vote in for Ron Paul in the primary and see what might happen. When he loses, feel free to go back to your "reality" and compromise. Because if it's not worth it to support Ron Paul, then why does it matter who wins the election? All the other candidates seem like different sides of the same coin compared to him.
If you still hold on to the beliefs that inspired you, why not put your vote in for Ron Paul in the primary and see what might happen. When he loses, feel free to go back to your "reality" and compromise. Because if it's not worth it to support Ron Paul, then why does it matter who wins the election? All the other candidates seem like different sides of the same coin compared to him.
How is that research coming along? You didn't? No wonder.
Whats this about state right over individual rights? Why just a lame statement and no proof? Normal for you.
Ahh the old "pretending" bit. Maybe when you wake up from your delusion there won't be a probe up your ass trying to find out what you had for dinner last night, provided, the government is downsized by then.
I cant think of anything that Bill Clinton Acutally Did for our country. He probably did more for China than the USA. Maybe by basically doing nothing he saved the day. Sometimes the Less government tries to solve problems the better the world is.
So, you do support the likes of George Wallace then, I'm not surprised coming from you.
Wow, that sounds familiar. Although Wallace was able to actually get votes, but he didn't hide his racism behind a bunch of newsletters.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Wrong - that's not what I've said at all. Growing up doesn't mean you should abandon your thinking about things being done right, but it has everything to do with knowing what the system is and how it works. It just doesn't work the way the RP2 bots seem to think it does. RP2 can not come in day 1 and reduce the gov't - it's not set up in a way that allows him to do so.
I do still hold on to my beliefs same as I once did, however, I've learned to pick my battles(in the arena of ideas) and learned that there is no "perfect" candidate.
Unfortunately I think you're 100% wrong on it's RP2 or the same coin. RP2 is not so magically different - hell, he's been in congress for how long now? He speaks of Constitutionality - so does Fred. Federalism - Fred. Fred Fred Fred. He's got the basics of Federalism and limited gov't without the radical fringe that RP2 has. IMO ofcourse
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Uh, because Bush doesn't speak for the base? The leader wandering off the plantation doesn't mean the base abandoned it's principles. Sheesh.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
If you'd have followed the conversation - you'd realize that I was specifically talking to RP2 supporters who act as though he's the 2nd coming of Christ. He's not. He's not the "savior" RP2 bots keep trying to claim he is. Yes, he has some solid limited gov't ideas but he's in never never land on others. Waking up to the political realities involves understanding the process and how much Presidents actually control. RP2 could not make gov't smaller on day one like his followers seem to think. He controls very little from day one and would have to get Congress to reduce the gov't. It's the way our system is - and for good reason.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Except the base did abandon their principles. Every Republican in congress is in lockstep with Bush. Massive spending, increasing debt, huge increases in the size of the federal government, unnecessary wars. There's nothing conservative about the Republican party anymore, unless you include hating gays and abortion.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
There are plenty of agencies directly under the control of the president, in addition to the president being Commander in Chief. The president could, on day one, order the various branches of the military to being planning immediately for orderly withdrawal from Iraq and in the next sentence disband the DEA, and follow that up with instructions to the FBI to no longer enforce congress' unconstitutional drug laws.
You just lack vision.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
I took a hard look at everyone running. I got sick to my stomach. Not one person running that stands for the republic of the united states of america not one. Hasn't been one since befor ABE . Everthing after Abe and including abe has worked hard to change the US bill of rights.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Originally posted by: bamacre
Yes, the first time I read this bill I thought it was rather ludicris.
But in researching the 2nd Amendment found that this was exactly how the Constitution was understood from it's creation till about the 1870's. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 changed pretty much everything.
Until the 14th the Coinstitution was basically a pact between the federal government and the states. And yes, it was a limitation on the fed gov. It was NOT seen as a pact between the federal gov and citizens. Each state had it's own Constitution - that was the pact between citizens and their (state) government.
Concepts like freedon of speech and the right to bear arms were not seen as rights that could be guaranteed to citizens because they were seen as God-given inalienable rights that were supra-Constitutional (i.e., exceeded anything that could be guaranteed by a constitution - you can't guarantee what is beyond you).
The effect of the 14th, and how it has been interpreted, has greatly weakened states' rights, our own rights, and significantly changed the political process resulting in the supremecy of the two-party system IMO. I recognize the civil attrocitites it corrected, but the manner in which it acheived was il-conceived and I think could have been done without the attending negatives.
In sum, Ron Paul's position is "old school" constitutionally correct.
Fern
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Pay attention much? I guess not. The base has not been pleased at all with Bush on quite an array of issues. Just because some/most/whatever support the war along side Bush does NOT mean they are lockstep with Bush. Sheesh. Immigration, Pork, etc. The base is not exactly pleased with Bush.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nope, I don't lack vision but you like the others seem to lack a sense of reality. It's just not going to happen even in the never never land where RP2 wins.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Whatever you say. :roll:
If people were displeased with Bush, why are they all voting for Bush 2.0? How are the current frontrunners in the GOP any different than Bush? No, the GOP is quite pleased with Bush. If you don't see that, it's worse than lacking vision, you're completely blind.
You lying sack of shit. Ron Paul didn't write those words and you know it. Prove he wrote them here and now or stop trolling.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:roll: There is no Bush 2.0 running. There are candidates that are similar to Bush but all have quite stark differences with him. So just because they don't support RP2 doesn't mean they are abandoning principles or "quite pleased with Bush".
You know - it's people like you that really turn me off to RP2. More than likely we agree on 80%+ of the issues but yet you can't see how anyone could support anyone but RP2. It's statements like "base did abandon their principles" that makes you people look stupid and turn people off to your guy. Wake up - open your eyes - think outside the cult. Sheesh. I mean - he's fine and all and I agree with a lot of what he says but that doesn't mean I can't support someone I think is better suited for the job.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter