Obama, Hillary, McCain and Paul

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko
I didn't say that most Americans are geniuses, just that the over-zealous fans, such as yourself, actually turn people off to him. Not only do you flood every political discussion (hence the name, Paulbot), there IS an absurd sense of elitism amongst many Ron Paul fans.

I'm telling you nothing you haven't heard before, but then again, we're still getting crythreads from Paulbots, so we might as well continue the circle.

Oh, I'm flooding the boards with "crythreads?" Now YOU are being ridiculous. I haven't posted a single Ron Paul thread in months I imagine.

*checks to make sure he is still in a RP crythread*

I didn't say you started the threads. It could be you or any of your 4 or 5 paulbot buddies - but they still exist, and they're still largely populated by you and your 4 or 5 paulbot buddies.

However, I'm glad you had the common senes not to refute the obvious - that the loud, obnoxious, elitist attitude of Ron Paul's fans ultimately cost him from crossing that magical 4% support barrier!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Let's not change the direction of the argument here. Back to 70% of Americans thinking Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

So, you were not fooled into thinking that Saddam was responsible. I wasn't either. So, I wonder why 70% of Americans were. Could it be, perhaps, and excuse my elitism here, because they aren't too bright?

And do you really think it's a good idea to go to war over UN mandates? I find this dangerous.

A lot of people get worried or scared or are mislead by the government. With the news repeating soundbites every 10 minutes of Cheney, Rummy, Bush, Rice, among others repeating the mantra of "9/11.......and Iraq with their WMDs", it can mislead quite a few people. Especially those who don't have the time or wherewithal to study these things. That doesn't make them stupid.

We've gone to war over much more dangerous things. We chose to be in the UN.

However, as it stands, the argument about the UN sanctions and mandates are pointless, since Iraq wasn't violating them and any evidence they were were false.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Deeko
However, I'm glad you had the common senes not to refute the obvious - that the loud, obnoxious, elitist attitude of Ron Paul's fans ultimately cost him from crossing that magical 4% support barrier!

lol, the "magical 4% support barrier!". nice!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Deeko
*checks to make sure he is still in a RP crythread*

I didn't say you started the threads. It could be you or any of your 4 or 5 paulbot buddies - but they still exist, and they're still largely populated by you and your 4 or 5 paulbot buddies.

However, I'm glad you had the common senes not to refute the obvious - that the loud, obnoxious, elitist attitude of Ron Paul's fans ultimately cost him from crossing that magical 4% support barrier!

My posts in this thread began with nothing concerning Ron Paul. Of course, many twisted my words.

I'm not going to hold all Obama supporters accountable for the plethora of anti-McCain threads, so not sure why you are holding me...

Not only do you flood every political discussion...

... accountable for every Ron Paul thread.

As I have said before, Paul at this point is irrelevant. Nominations are locked up. He's too old to run again. But there's nothing wrong with liking and carrying on some of his beliefs.

 

[Deeko]

The magic of the English language - you has two meanings! There is a singular you, and a plural you! I'm glad I could educate you on that fact, especially since you took time out of your busy day to insult the intelligence of most Americans.

Now that we've got that clear - remember, there are two meanings of the word you - let's revisit that post you (the singular version this time!) just partly quoted, shall we?

I didn't say that most Americans are geniuses, just that the over-zealous fans, such as yourself, actually turn people off to him. Not only do you flood every political discussion (hence the name, Paulbot), there IS an absurd sense of elitism amongst many Ron Paul fans.

Let us take a little time to analyze this passage. Notice the first sentence where I reference Ron Paul's fans, and make reference to you being a part of that group. This is clearly the key you are missing! Now, take this knowledge, and apply it to the second sentence, with which you take issue. It all makes sense now, doesn't it! That was the plural you! I must have been talking about Ron Paul fans as a whole! Wow, we've made some great strides today, I truly feel like this was a breakthrough for you. Congratulations!

On a related note, I'm not sure if you've reached the addition, let alone division, phase of your lesson yet, but you've accounted for a fairly high number of posts in this thread. How do you justify saying you shouldn't be held accountable for Paulbot postings, when you quite fervently join the discussions?

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its not as if Ron Paul lied, its just the fact that these kind of Libertarian ideas have never been really been put into practice in the history of the world.

Uhhh, what country are you living in?

The Constitution was never practiced?

The Constitution was a framework that included, but not exclusively, some of the rights of the people and methodologies for running the government. As time adapted, so did the form of government, according to the people's will. Provided that the people are still represented in their desire for the goods and services the government uses, then there is no problem with those goods or services.

You only have to look at some of the endevours and ambitions of the founding fathers to see that they went far outside of the mandate "foundation" of the Constitution in wielding federal power.

I'm going to stop you right there.

"Rights of the people" and "Constitution" should not be in the same sentence. The Constitution was meant to be a set of restrictions on government power. Period. Rights cannot be granted or taken away by paper otherwise they wouldn't be inalienable rights. The founding fathers understood that placing rights on paper meant that those rights could be stripped by those seeking power. Even some of those who agreed to add what we call "Bill of Rights" regretted in doing so because they felt it would mislead people into believing that the only rights they have are the ones expressly placed on paper.

However the wording of the Constitution is aimed at government and not the people. The very idea of inalienable rights comes from common people standing up to the King of England and forcing his hand to pass power to the people. That time bore the concept of Natural Law and Natural Rights. Concepts like "natural person" and "human being" in law. Ideas the founding fathers took to heart and tried their best to implement.

Since long ago we have outsourced the protection and interpretation of the Constitution to the federal and state education system, law professors, constitutional experts, federal and state governments, SCOTUS and finally the leader of our nations. Never once stopping to think for ourselves and instead letting others do it all for us. They have succeeded in making people think that their rights are derived from the Constitution.

You all fight so feverishly among yourselves, Left and Right, for the scraps of what's left over from a piece of paper that you miss your Natural and God given rights that no elected body or tyrant can ever take away.

Edit: Changed for clarity.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure you can rank Obama when it comes to credibility. He has too short of a record.
We can't go back and look at his previous positions and see where he changed his mind.

Voting for Obama is a big risk. He could turn out to be exactly what he claims he is, or he could turn out totally different.
At least with McCain we have a long record to look at and can guess and what he will be like as President.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For once I agree with PJ 100%, we can guess that McCain will be too much like GWB and that is a damning statement to make. Making Obama a no brainer far better choice.

PJ, you and the GOP did not listen to us GWB&co critics, and now the GOP is going to pay the price for it. You already got that big shot fired across the bow on 11/6/06, the GOP still did not wise up, again putting GWB political power before results, and now the final end will come on 11/4/08.

I doubt those GOP Senators and Congressmen who fail to win re election will learn a damn thing from it either, but they will be out of office and will no longer matter.

Will you cut it out already before you jinx the whole damn thing???

 

[badkarma1399]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
Let's not change the direction of the argument here. Back to 70% of Americans thinking Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

So, you were not fooled into thinking that Saddam was responsible. I wasn't either. So, I wonder why 70% of Americans were. Could it be, perhaps, and excuse my elitism here, because they aren't too bright?

And do you really think it's a good idea to go to war over UN mandates? I find this dangerous.

A lot of people get worried or scared or are mislead by the government. With the news repeating soundbites every 10 minutes of Cheney, Rummy, Bush, Rice, among others repeating the mantra of "9/11.......and Iraq with their WMDs", it can mislead quite a few people. Especially those who don't have the time or wherewithal to study these things. That doesn't make them stupid.

While I agree, It doesn't necessarily make them smart. The only thing I take away from this is a very real lesson on how easily it is for the masses to be blinded by dishonest or ill-guided politicians. The tragedy of democracy is that most people simply can't be counted on to make educated opinions, especially how everything is dumbed down by the media and sensationalized. To me, reducing the size/power of government seems to be a logical way of reducing these sort of "mistakes".

The Republicans all but abandoned their positions as the smaller non-interventionist party. At the heart of most Ron Paul supporters is a desire for smaller government and less war. And ultimately, you may say his ideas of monetary policy or w/e are loony, but they're no crazier than the Republican's ideas of preemptive war or the idea that a large bureaucracy of a government can successfully provide for our welfare. Personally, I'd say Paul's loony ideas are the best of the worst, but to each his own...

 

[NoStateofMind]

This thread has proven a point.

Let me get this right. LOL

Ron Paul tells you the truth yet you won't vote for him because of what he believes.

Obama, Hillary and McCain say what you like to hear and change their mind later on positions. Lying through their teeth. Essentially you don't know what the hell they believe!

Do you see what you're saying here? You are telling the politicians to lie to you. Sweet talk you and you'll vote for them. You're kinda like an 18yr old girl on her first date, he gives you a meal that tastes good but in the morning you're sick. You want to be lied to, you prove it with your vote. As long as they are saying what you want to hear you really don't care what happens after that or even if you do its too late.

Where are your morals? Do you have any? Knowingly voting for someone you know is going to lie or change his views is like gambling. I'm sorry, but if you willing vote for hope thieves you need to check your morals.

So while you're morally inept the rest of the country suffers from your ignorance. Wake up! How about you demand more from officials? Like honesty for one. Let's just stay with that ONE for now I don't want to overload your brain.


Cliffs: People vote for sweet talking liars & are preferred politicians over morally valued candidates.

 

[palehorse]

Ron Paul is amazingly honest about his many whacked-out ideas.

/thread

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Ron Paul is amazingly honest about his many whacked-out ideas.

/thread

 

[TheEarthWillShake]

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha, yes, Ron Paul is most likely to do what he says of any candidates, I don't think many people deny that.

Problem is, the VAST majority of Americans think his ideas are insane.

It's not that his ideas are insane, it's that the American people are insane.