RE: The Ron Paul Evolution

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 7:02:38 AM

LondonArt

Posts: 101
Joined: 4/14/2008
Status: offline

http://paulville.org/
Having all Ron Paul supporters voluntarily lock themselves away in the ass end of Texas seems a fair compromise.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 7:17:30 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Funny thing is they didn't even put the development in Ron Paul's district. You'd think they'd want to actually support their namesake.

(in reply to LondonArt)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 7:18:27 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Hilariously, Ron Paul actually said that 9/11 was partly to blame on the US Middle-East foreign policy...

quote:

Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?

That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?

The Huffington Post

And where's the media outrage over that?

quote:

Naturally, the difference here is that Congressman Paul is a white Republican, and Reverend Wright is crazy shouting black pastor. Many (too many) white Americans fear angry black people, even though, given the historical record, we all ought to fear old, white, powerful Republicans a little more than we do right now.

Makes sense, hmmm? (Same link reference.)

Paul's too old anyway. And he won't be elected, so it's a waste of a vote. But if people like wasting their ballot... oh well, all the less power to them

.

_____________________________

(in reply to LondonArt)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 10:08:45 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Dusty, I must disagree that Paul thinks abortion should not be a federal issue. Years ago he introduced legislation that would've given human rights to fetus' from the moment of conception. The act was written such that a pregnant Woman could be prosecuted if she got drunk and fell down a flight of stairs.

He is staunchly anti abortion. His main flaw IMO. Another flaw is his religion. Any religion is a flaw IMO, especially for a government leader.

I have said for a long time that abortion is murder, and I am all for it. As long as our young can't keep their panties on, it is a necessary evil.

I would actually support government sponsored abortions if there is one condition - that except in cases of rape or incest, it comes with a free tubal ligation. Other exceptions include when the Mother's life is in danger, but modern medicine, as much as they do screw up has done well for this.

For example in the case of an ecoptic pregnancy. It is not that likely that an abortion would be necessary, they are pretty good at ceasarians. But that in itself is surgical intervention. I know a Woman who had two ecoptic pregnancies, both taken to term. The kids are fine but an ecoptic pregnancy is one in which the fetus is concieved in the tube, something like that, and you only get two tubes.

So if an abortion is requested, of course tie the other tube, but if not one wonderful girl I know would have never been able to smash a car and get three seperate citations within a year of starting driving. They were told that it was very unlikely to concieve after the first one, but she did not want her tube(s) tied. The girl I mentioned was pretty much a miracle baby, and it took eight years to do it. Apparently her Husband had enough sperm to get the job done and as a result there is one less only child in the world.

The issues go back and forth, to force sterilization on someone who wants an abortion is seen as barbaric by some, but I see nothing that could be more humane. You are preventing future murders. Of course it would probably be right to not make that requirement of a girl under eighteen, but of course such a policy would have to be thought out.

So I am almost diametrically opposed to Paul's stance on abortion, but bear a few things in mind before you dismiss him. First, the President of the US cannot make abortion illegal overnight. It is simply not within his power. He couldn't even make it legal for states to outlaw abortion and expand the Mann act. The President can only write executive orders, and I don't think he would use that priveledge for this purpose. Other than EOs, all he does is sign or veto. The military is a different issue.

Actually the military issue is a big one, one that warrants electing him. He might have the common sense to control the massive power of the military and that drawfs the abortion issue by several orders of magnitude.

The thing is what stands out foremost in my mind, where was Ron Paul twenty years ago ? That would have been the time for him to be President. I doubt he'd make it through two terms now. Not that he is in poor health, far from it but he is old. And I mean old. And no matter how radical his actions in office, it would surely take two terms to clean this mess up.

A vote for Ron Paul might not be a waste though. If enough people do it the PTB might take some notice. I don't care how much money they got, without the votes, they are screwed. Ron Paul has supporters in alot of states, in fact I heard that much of his campaign financing comes from out of state, but mostly from private Citizens.

So possibly this might not totally be an exercise in futility. They will count the votes (maybe) but then when they count the "wasted" votes for Ron Paul, they might take notice. Might. If there are no votes for Ron Paul, the neocons will just figure they have the support of the people. In a way, I guess they would be right.

So you decide. Isit worth it to go down there and cast the "wasted" vote ? Well if you normally do vote and are registered, how bad can it be ? Get in line, no worse than being somewhere crowded. Wait your turn. If you have any trouble voting for Paul, raise a stink about it. Be a sore thumb, a squeaky wheel. Don't get yourself thrown in jail though, OH NO, you WANT to be bothered by the exit polls. You do have to stop short of disrupting the place, but believe me, the worst thing to do is to just give up.

You can't elect him, but you can send a message. Maybe, if enough of us do it.

T

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 10:21:40 AM

subfever

Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

You can't elect him, but you can send a message. Maybe, if enough of us do it.

Count me in.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 12:35:17 PM

QuietlySeeking

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
But if people like wasting their ballot... oh well, all the less power to them .

You mean like the losing half each election?

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 12:44:50 PM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

No, that's not what I meant

.

_____________________________

(in reply to QuietlySeeking)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 2:05:45 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Gonna lose anyway kit. But before we go down, they take a hit. They know we do not want them anymore. They know we are not fooled anymore.

T

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 2:20:54 PM

NeedToUseYou

Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Hilariously, Ron Paul actually said that 9/11 was partly to blame on the US Middle-East foreign policy...

quote:

Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?

That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?

The Huffington Post

And where's the media outrage over that?

quote:

Naturally, the difference here is that Congressman Paul is a white Republican, and Reverend Wright is crazy shouting black pastor. Many (too many) white Americans fear angry black people, even though, given the historical record, we all ought to fear old, white, powerful Republicans a little more than we do right now.

Makes sense, hmmm? (Same link reference.)

Paul's too old anyway. And he won't be elected, so it's a waste of a vote. But if people like wasting their ballot... oh well, all the less power to them .

Yeah, the US is PARTIALLY to blame for the situation in the middle east, and therefore as an extention of that environment, which encourages radicalization, partially responsible for 9-11. To say otherwise would be to believe our actions have no consequences.

As far as wright goes the only thing I don't particularly care for is his focus on race all the time, that's about it, the majority of what he says has some truth to it.

And I'm back to writing in Ron Paul, again. Why because I was leaning to throwing my vote away on obama, until he threw his supporter under the bus(figurative speech), for saying kids in trees were acting like monkeys. He's a hypocrite. Sorry. All that shit DomKen has listed we've already been over on this forum, I've posted on most of them. I'm fully aware of everything he's listed, and there is a reasoning for it, and everyone of the reasons is more plausible and believable, than for example Obama(the liar, and hypocrite), claiming that he wasn't aware of Wrights statements. Whatever, he was in that church for 20 years. I'm not anti-Obama because of Wright, I'm anti-Obama now, because he's a liar, and complete hypocrite. Sorry, facts are facts.

So, were should I vote, KittinSol, For a liar and a hypocrite? Hillary, has so much shit in her background I trust her even less than Obama, I'm not even going to go through the trouble of listing it, if even 20% of it is true she's still worse.

So, essentially, you are saying, I'm throwing my vote away, if I don't vote for liars and hypocrites. Brilliant.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 3:54:34 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I love how he's still fooling some folks.

I love it when fools post garbage.

So rather than asking what I'm talking about you go straight to flames. Sounds like you're one of the ones who suspects he's playing all of his supporters and are wishing it wasn't so hard enough to bring tinkerbell back to life.

Unfortunately the evidence is clear. He does not actually respect the Constitution as written. He did consort with racists and allow them to spew their garbage in his publications. He does put his extreme religious beliefs ahead of his ethical requirements as a doctor and in opposition to exactly what the Libertarian Party claims to stand for. He does make a big deal of voting against all spending bills while ensuring that the pork does come home to his district.

About as clear as those pictures of Obama being sworn in on a Koran?

I've already been down this road. Reread these threads you participated in.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1132196/mpage_1/tm.htm
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1525375/mpage_1/tm.htm

Yes, you've been proven conclusively to repeat fabricated hate gossip in several threads, and to run away when asked for proof... your point?

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 4:46:23 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Alumbrado, you said you've been involved in "more than 200 arrests."
Yet, when repeatedly queried as to which law enforcement agency you worked for you say nothing.
I was in the U.S. Coast Guard and I have no problem providing "proof" of that.
Do you have an older Ford Crown Vic parked in your driveway? A retired former police cruiser? Maybe you have a "security" badge and handcuffs?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 4:51:49 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I've already been down this road. Reread these threads you participated in.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1132196/mpage_1/tm.htm
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1525375/mpage_1/tm.htm

Yes, you've been proven conclusively to repeat fabricated hate gossip in several threads, and to run away when asked for proof... your point?

That you are an absolute cretin?

If you had actually examined the threads you would have found that I showed that Paul was at best a hypocrite on a whole range of issues not least of which is his supposed reverence for the US Constitution.

I will further note that your last post in both threads my last post was after yours. So who ran away? Perhaps you'd be well served to not tell such easily disproved lies.

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:16:30 PM

GoddessDustyGold

Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

~FR~
The point is that Ron Paul is personally opoposed to abortion, but that shouldn't make a difference. Everyone is permitted to have personal views. His stance is that his personal views should not even have to come into play on this issue (and others, I am sure), if the Federal Governemnt was not mixing in where they don't belong.
As to reverence for the consitution, I guess it depends on how one interprets the original intent of that document.
I think he is on the money. Many don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

You can't elect him, but you can send a message. Maybe, if enough of us do it.

Count me in.

Count Me in also. I have been stating this as My position for many months.

quote:

RON PAUL HAS:

never voted to raise taxes

never voted for an unbalanced budget

never voted to raise congressional pay

never taken a government paid junket

never voted to increase the power of the executive branch

voted against regulating the internet

not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program

repeatedly been named the "Taxpayers' Best Friend" in Congress:

A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY WILL:

let Americans keep more of their own money

end the IRS

stop the central bankers "inflation tax"

stop unconsitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy

stop the financial dependancy on China, Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments

oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American independance (including the UN, GATT, NAFTA, NAU, WTO, CAFTA,, ICC)

protect our privacy and stop the national ID card

protect our constitutional rights and end the "Patriot" Act.

secure our borders and end illegal immigration

end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens

bring our troops home from no win "police actions"

Not to say that he could accomplish all this if he ever did get into the white house, but he could make a dent, and it should come to the attention of the PTB that more of America than they think is sick and tired of what has been happening.

The only way, IMO, that I can throw away or waste My vote is by not voting at all. And that is not going to happen.

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:28:28 PM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

So, essentially, you are saying, I'm throwing my vote away, if I don't vote for liars and hypocrites. Brilliant.

Like it or not, you WILL be throwing your vote away. Unless you are convinced Ron Paul will get elected... which would mean that you live in cloud cuckooland. Which I doubt very much.

_____________________________

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:39:03 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

We can't just vote for those we're "convinced" will win... get enough people to vote for a third way, and others may become interested, then involved, and it can grow.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:48:19 PM

NeedToUseYou

Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

So, essentially, you are saying, I'm throwing my vote away, if I don't vote for liars and hypocrites. Brilliant.

Like it or not, you WILL be throwing your vote away. Unless you are convinced Ron Paul will get elected... which would mean that you live in cloud cuckooland. Which I doubt very much.

That makes no sense, so if Stalin, and Hitler were the two viable candidates, and Obama was running but had no chance, you'd vote for who?

I'm not saying they are as bad as Stalin or Hitler, but point is voting for bad, is voting for bad, it's condoning it. Maybe your tolerance for bad politicians is higher than mine is, but they've all reach my threshold of considering them shit. Obama was the last to reach that level of contempt for me, but he just keeps working hard at standing for nothing. I'd still be voting for him over McCain, and Hillary, if he just fucking admitted he knew Wright said all those things. I just don't like him blatantly lying about it. Not to mention kicking one of supporters to the curb, for what was a benign comment that shows he has no loyalty and will drop people out of convenience.

The order the present candidates turned to complete crap in my mind was, Hillary, McCain, Obama. I can't vote for someone I think is bad. How can anyone do that. I thought before maybe Obama was sorta neutral, but he went straight to lying as soon as he got in a little controversy. Unacceptable.

In my opinion not admitting he knew Wright said those things, will hurt him more than what Wright actually said. Remember Clinton, lying about his affair, I really didn't care he had an affair, but it did bother me that he lied WELL about it, and directly to me on national TV, and I believed him at first. I don't like liars. And let's not forget another good liar, Bush and the WMD's. No thanks I've had a belly full of liars already, and if Obama is going to lie about this, he'll lie about important stuff later. This is nothing worth lying about it, but he is. Thus I can't vote for him.

IMO.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:48:47 PM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Depends on your priorities I suppose. If you're voting to assert your democratic right and express your discontent at the pool of mainstream candidates, why not? If, however, you are voting to implement a definite change, then you don't have the luxury to 'waste' your vote on a 'luxury' candidate (remember the Nader fiasco?).

_____________________________

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:52:39 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Like it or not, you WILL be throwing your vote away. Unless you are convinced Ron Paul will get elected... which would mean that you live in cloud cuckooland. Which I doubt very much.

Well, things are obviously going to get worse before they get better anyway, no matter which one of the major party candidates wins. But if a significant percentage of the population voted for Ron Paul instead, it would be damn exciting and would send a message writ large. Among the major party candidates, I don't have anybody to vote for in this election anyway. My vote for Ron Paul may be wasted in the tally, but at least it won't be meaningless.

K.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:53:12 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

Okay, but what if the "definitive change" is one not offered by a mainstream candidate? Change doesn't only come at the hands of those in the Oval Office.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/1/2008 6:58:02 PM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

If you think Ron Paul's your man, who am I to argue? I can't even vote in this fucking contest. I just believe it's a waste of a ballot - but it's yours. Enjoy it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 40