NationStates Jolt Archive

Paul Poses Serious Threat to Hillary Clinton in a General Election Match up

Analysis: The antiwar Republican congressman from Texas poses a serious threat to Hillary Clinton and potential Democratic rivals in the general election.

The presidential race has to a great extent turned into a two issue campaign, immigration and the war in Iraq. Democratic candidates are capitalizing on popular antiwar sentiments among the public but are swimming up stream by apparently supporting President Bush’s policy of turning a blind eye toward illegal immigration and unsecured borders.

Republicans running for president, unless sentiments change, are generally positioned against public opinion with their support for the war, however, they are riding the tide of public opinion when it comes to securing the borders and stopping illegal immigration and terrorists from entering the country. (Even if half of them are faking it)

Two Presidential candidates, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, clearly support protecting U.S. borders from illegal immigration and terrorist attacks. Both candidates have opposed President Bush’s seeming support of the Council On Foreign Relations plans to replace the United States with a North American Union by integrating North America and erasing national boundaries.

Ron Paul sets himself apart from other Republicans by being decidedly antiwar. In a general election this may actually put Paul at a decided advantage over Hillary Clinton and most of her Democratic rivals. Paul will likely steal the thunder from Clinton’s antiwar rhetoric since he voted against the Iraq war that Hillary Clinton voted for.

At least among those voters that believe the Iraq war was a mistake, including Democrats, Paul will demonstrate his foresight was better than Clinton’s.

In a general election on the issue of protecting U.S. borders, Paul would likely ride public opinion with his support for protecting U.S. borders while Clinton would be positioned against public opinion.

Paul is generally considered more credible with his popular positions on the war and immigration than his Democratic rivals.

Paul certainly isn’t the only Republican that would give Clinton a run for her money he is however, the only Republican that would be getting energized support from both Republican and the Democratic base voters.

Of course, winning the Republican primary is still an uphill battle at this point, unless of course Paul can effectively argue that he is the most likely Republican to win a general election, which only GOP primary voters can decide
My fellow Americans, you are needed to vote in the GOP primaries and get Ron Paul elected! We have had enough with failed neo-conservative leadership and we I shudder to think of what would happen under Democrat "Leadership". I know that voting for the GOP may not sit well with many of you, but let's face it...if you are voting for Ron Paul, it's a TOTALLY different political machine than if you were voting from a neo-conservative from the GOP. So, come on Americans, stand up, rise up and Let's bring Ron Paul from Texas to the White House!
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=86752

I'm voting for Ron Paul. Actually, I might consider registering as a Republican simply to vote for him in the primaries...

Paul is the second worse candidate, Thompson manages to actually have worse positions. His supporters are all loonies for one reason or another. The day I vote for Ron Paul is the day hell freezes over, Satan moves into heaven, and my dog turns into a mother fucking chinchilla.

What's his stance on drug policy?
His policy isn't the problem, it is why he holds the policy that is. If people don't get that, they shouldn't be voting.

Not USian, but, fuck Ron Paul. Typical American fiscal conservatism at the expense of a healthy, happy population. Fuck any politician against government subsidised, socialised healthcare or for unregulated gun ownership. Triple megafuck any self-proclaimed "Libertarian" who opposes abortion.

Paul is the second worse candidate..............*
Where I stopped paying attention. :)
I'm voting for Ron Paul. Actually, I might consider registering as a Republican simply to vote for him in the primaries...
Excellent, I strongly encourage this. Spread the word, we need to get this guy into the White House! This will be the first election I can vote in. If your in a university/college...spread the word around to get this guy elected. If you have a job, spread the word of Ron Paul around your work!

I've been looking more and more at Ron Paul as the one to get my vote.

What's his stance on drug policy? Any ideas who he's looking at as running mate?

Paul is the second worse candidate, Thompson manages to actually have worse positions. His supporters are all loonies for one reason or another. The day I vote for Ron Paul is the day hell freezes over, Satan moves into heaven, and my dog turns into a mother fucking chinchilla.

You might have left that door too open.

Not USian, but, fuck Ron Paul. Typical American fiscal conservatism at the expense of a healthy, happy population. Fuck any politician against government subsidised, socialised healthcare or for unregulated gun ownership. Triple megafuck any self-proclaimed "Libertarian" who opposes abortion.
1. I know your not "USian"...since there is no such thing...so join the club. I'm not "USian" either!:) Anyway, why don't you just enjoy the fact that you can "megafuck" anyone all you want, but since you arn't American, you voice concerning who gets or who does not get elected in America..matters as much as a piece of bear shit in the middle of the forest. It doesn't matter.
I've been looking more and more at Ron Paul as the one to get my vote.

What's his stance on drug policy? Any ideas who he's looking at as running mate?
No idea about the running mate, I'll keep looking if there is anything on it:
Medical marijuana
Paul was Co-Sponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana and is affirmative to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?"[85][86] The federal government's involvement in this industry has led to regulatory conflict with the states that have made it an option, such as California after passage of Proposition 215.


[edit] Industrial hemp
Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp farming.[87] This would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.[87]

In 2005 he introduced H.R. 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005, “to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes”.[88] This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States.

On February 13, 2007 Paul introduced H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007", with nine original co-sponsors: Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).[89] The Economist wrote that his support for hemp farming could appeal to farmers in Iowa.[89]


[edit] Prohibition
The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. When asked about his position on implementing the 10th Amendment Republican Senator Ron Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail not the Federal Government."

Speaking specifically about DEA raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They’re unconstitutional..." He went on to advocate states' rights and personal choice; "You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who’s suffering from cancer or AIDS… People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this."

Paul sees prohibition of drugs as ineffective. "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime."

Ron Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws. "...when people commit violence whether they’re under the influence of drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs or alcohol they should be punished severely. We shouldn’t be putting people in prison for life with no chance of getting out… that never have committed a violent crime. At the same time we hear of cases were murderers or rapists get out after five or ten years or never even go to prison, it doesn’t make any sense."

I am aware that my opinion doesn't matter in terms of voting power, but I consider my post important because it allows otherwise uninformed USians pondering voting for this bag insight into his backwards policies.

You're USian whether you like it or not.

You obviously know nothing about American politics. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in the primaries or the general elections. You focus too much on those two issues. Ron Paul also believes in eliminating the FBI, CIA, Medicare, Social Security, income tax, the education department, department of homeland security, and basically anything that would make the government a government. I like him because he is the only candidate who seems truly genuine, but he is crazy. He wants to go back to the 1890's.

matters as much as a piece of bear shit in the middle of the forest. It doesn't matter.


Tell that to the ecosystem...

Problem 1 with Ron Paul: He is a libertarian. He places the "invisible hand" above all else. The invisible hand has been seen to be bullshit for years. Especially now when the economic landscape is completely different from the one the philosophy was invented in. Ron Paul doesn't support net neutrality because he thinks the "invisible hand" will keep telecoms from fucking us in the ass. He opposes trade agreements but only because it puts limits on corporations, but wants unlimited and total free trade.

Problem 2 with Ron Paul: He is a fucking social conservative. He opposes abortion and gay marriage, and is currently actively working to shut down the judicial appeal process. He has submitted one bill that would have prevented people from challenging gay marriage laws in court. Currently he submitted a bill (cleverly called the We The People Act) which would prevent people from challenging sexual orientation, sexual practice, abortion, and religious laws in court.


Cold fucking day in hell.

Ron Paul is a class a Nut that makes GWB look like a saint. I shall not be voting for Paul in the 2008 Republican Primary.

Tell that to the ecosystem...
:D
I am aware that my opinion doesn't matter in terms of voting power, but I consider my post important because it allows otherwise uninformed USians pondering voting for this bag insight into his backwards policies.

You're USian whether you like it or not.
Yes yes...run along and do something else now..we have your post and I'm sure we will uh...take it into consideration. Oh, and when you leave..take this with you: ;)

Capital Washington, D.C.
38°53′N, 77°02′W
Largest city: New York City
National language: English (de facto)1
Demonym: American :)
Government Federal constitutional republic
- President George W. Bush (R)
- Vice President Dick Cheney (R)
- Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi (D)
- Chief Justice John Roberts

So...who's word will I take. Some internet Eurofag* personality...or...perhaps the oficial demonym of our nation....hmm...let me think on that a while, I'll get back to you.:)


*Nothing against Europeans in general, just you.

You obviously know nothing about American politics. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in the primaries or the general elections. You focus too much on those two issues. Ron Paul also believes in eliminating the FBI, CIA,

Why I am not in support of him.

Social Security, income tax, the education department

These three do need to go.

Ron Paul is an isolationist, not a non-interventionist. I don't care what he says, I've seen his policies.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. Actually, I might consider registering as a Republican simply to vote for him in the primaries...

Vetalia, Vetalia, Vetalia...how far you have fallen...

I'd consider registering as a Republican to vote AGAINST Ron Paul in the primaries. We don't need his kind of bullshit.

While I would not wish Ron Paul's government on my USian friends, I fully support his foreign policy, as it may actually convince the US government to leave the rest of us alone.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

When was the last time we tried nonintervention? Oh yes...I believe it was back when Jefferson was president and France and Britain were at each other's throats with us caught in the middle.

While I would not wish Ron Paul's government on my USian friends, I fully support his foreign policy, as it may actually convince the US government to leave the rest of us alone.

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

Hm. On one hand, I'd have to switch to the GOP in order to do this. On the other hand, it might be fun to sabotage the party in doing so.
Back to the first hand, Paul's policies are, with few exceptions, atrocious. On the other hand, they might lead to open rebellion.
What to do?

So...who's word will I take. Some internet Eurofag* personality...or...perhaps the oficial demonym of our nation....hmm...let me think on that a while, I'll get back to you.:)


*Nothing against Europeans in general, just you.

You are unable to defend his policies therefore resort to flaming me. Amusingly juvenile.

Paul is the second worse candidate, Thompson manages to actually have worse positions. His supporters are all loonies for one reason or another. The day I vote for Ron Paul is the day hell freezes over, Satan moves into heaven, and my dog turns into a mother fucking chinchilla.
I'd have been disappointed if you'd said any less.


Aren't you the poster child for MoveOver.org? Or is the DailyKroc?

I'm voting for Ron Paul. Actually, I might consider registering as a Republican simply to vote for him in the primaries...
It's a tough call. Cancel out my wife's vote for Hillary, or throw one away on Paul... I'm glad I have a few months to decide.

Then again, maybe I'll get a second chance if he decides to go after the LP nomination, as well.

Do you guys take pleasure in terrifying the world by putting/potentially putting madmen in office?

I was thinking more of the many times that the US intervened when it shouldn't:

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

I agree there are times when we shouldn't intervene but what if there is a situation that we have to intervene? Would Ron Paul do so?

When was the last time we tried nonintervention? Oh yes...I believe it was back when Jefferson was president and France and Britain were at each other's throats with us caught in the middle.

I was thinking more of the many times that the US intervened when it shouldn't:

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

Do you guys take pleasure in terrifying the world by putting/potentially putting madmen in office?

Have we had a sane president in the last 40 years? Its no wonder the world is terrified of us now. The last few have either been overly agressive, or overly passive. But at least with Ron Paul, everyone would know where we stand from his first day in office.

On the other hand, does anyone really want to see Hillary shutdown all independent medical research in the country when she attempts, for a second time, to transition us to a single payer health care system.

Have we had a sane president in the last 40 years? Its no wonder the world is terrified of us now. The last few have either been overly agressive, or overly passive. But at least with Ron Paul, everyone would know where we stand from his first day in office.
Yeah. A social conservative in libertarian clothing. Great. Add to that, one that is prepared to go back to 1800s economics. Even if we did know what he stands for (I doubt he's any better than any other politician), I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot bargepole.

On the other hand, does anyone really want to see Hillary shutdown all independent medical research in the country when she attempts, for a second time, to transition us to a single payer health care system.
I know which I'd have. And, for the record, single payer does not involve shutting down private medical centres.

Only in America could a hard-line social conservative be described as a 'Libertarian'. :p

If I was American I'd register as a Republican and vote for Sam Brownback, because if he's the Republican nominee then the Democrats are virtually guaranteed victory.

Do you guys take pleasure in terrifying the world by putting/potentially putting madmen in office?

Not only do we take pleasure in it, it's practically obligatory. That's why, earlier this year, when Clinton and Obama needed to prove they were made of presidential mettle, they created an international incident with the Obama-Clinton "Let's bomb Pakistan/Let's NUKE Pakistan!" show. John Edwards is anti-gay rights, so as to relieve all of us burdened by complex legal concepts that even a former lawyer doesn't know what "equal protection" means.

And I haven't even gotten to the Republicans, a bumper crop of idiots, ideologues, and theocrats. If I had an hour, I might be able to summarize what's wrong with every one of them.

I'm already putting out feelers for post-doc jobs abroad.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

Ron Paul is not even on the map.

Only in America could a hard-line social conservative be described as a 'Libertarian'. :p

No kidding. On behalf of myself and my fellow anarchists, we'd like our adjective back.

Meh. I'll just end up voting for the LP candidate anyway.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

Ron Paul is not even on the map.

It disappoints me that Clinton is so far ahead of Obama. I don't know anything about Clinton's policies, and I generally like Obama, but Hillary looks like a Lovecraftian sea devil.

It disappoints me that Clinton is so far ahead of Obama. I don't know anything about Clinton's policies, and I generally like Obama, but Hillary looks like a Lovecraftian sea devil.

Ugh...Clinton versus Giuliani. Same shit, different asshole.

There's a reason she looks that way.

Evolution gone awry?

There's a reason she looks that way.

Evolution gone awry?

LMAO!

It disappoints me that Clinton is so far ahead of Obama. I don't know anything about Clinton's policies, and I generally like Obama, but Hillary looks like a Lovecraftian sea devil.

There's a reason she looks that way.

There's a reason she looks that way.

is it because she IS a lovecraftian sea devil?

Only in America could a hard-line social conservative be described as a 'Libertarian'. :p

If I was American I'd register as a Republican and vote for Sam Brownback, because if he's the Republican nominee then the Democrats are virtually guaranteed victory.

I've never really considered Paul a libertarian. Always saw him much more as a Constitutionalist.

Some of his ideas appeal to me, others don't. I'll probably end up voting for him, more out of protest than anything else...

is it because she IS a lovecraftian sea devil?

Nah, the Elder Gods are more ethical.

Paul Poses Serious Threat to Hillary Clinton in a General Election Match up


My fellow Americans, you are needed to vote in the GOP primaries and get Ron Paul elected! We have had enough with failed neo-conservative leadership and we I shudder to think of what would happen under Democrat "Leadership". I know that voting for the GOP may not sit well with many of you, but let's face it...if you are voting for Ron Paul, it's a TOTALLY different political machine than if you were voting from a neo-conservative from the GOP. So, come on Americans, stand up, rise up and Let's bring Ron Paul from Texas to the White House!
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=86752

so who IS this "usa daily" and where do they get the stupid notion that a man polling below the margin of error would have a chance to win anything?

Obama > not Hillary (D) > Paul > Hillary > not Paul (R).

Question: Is it possible to register for a party to vote in their primary and then switch for the next election?
If so, is there a bunch of bullshit to go through?

Don't you know anything about the Clintons? If Ron Paul truly posed a serious threat to them, he'd end up dead. :p

Obama > not Hillary (D) > Paul > Hillary > not Paul (R).

Hmm, I see it more like this:

Obama> Paul >Not Edwards (D)> Not Hillary (D)> Not Romney> Not Thompson> Not Paul (R).

so who IS this "usa daily" and where do they get the stupid notion that a man polling below the margin of error would have a chance to win anything?

Woo woos I bet.

Don't you know anything about the Clintons? If Ron Paul truly posed a serious threat to them, he'd end up dead. :p

yeah but it would be suicide so no fault of theirs.

Haha... Ron Paul doesn't pose a serious threat to anyone.

If he ran, he would be crushed overwhelmingly.

Haha... Ron Paul doesn't pose a serious threat to anyone.

If he ran, he would be crushed overwhelmingly.

He already is :D

He already is :D

In the general election, I mean.

And he will be crushed overwhelmingly in the primaries too. Much to my disappointment... it would be wonderful if he ran on the Republican ticket, because it would destroy the Republican Party.

In the general election, I mean.

And he will be crushed overwhelmingly in the primaries too. Much to my disappointment... it would be wonderful if he ran on the Republican ticket, because it would destroy the Republican Party.

Probably certain elements but not the party as a whole.

Yes yes...run along and do something else now..we have your post and I'm sure we will uh...take it into consideration. Oh, and when you leave..take this with you: ;)


So...who's word will I take. Some internet Eurofag* personality...or...perhaps the oficial demonym of our nation....hmm...let me think on that a while, I'll get back to you.:)


*Nothing against Europeans in general, just you.

The Mindset's distinct lack of tact does not excuse your flaming. Let's not do that again.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Obama> Paul

This makes no sense.

Obama and Clinton are more or less politically identical... Ron Paul, on the other hand, is, with the exception of his foreign policy stance (and they are hardly close there), very near their political opposite.

Have we had a sane president in the last 40 years? Its no wonder the world is terrified of us now. The last few have either been overly agressive, or overly passive. But at least with Ron Paul, everyone would know where we stand from his first day in office.

Apparently we're trying to emulate the Roman Republic right down to the last days of Rome.

On the other hand, does anyone really want to see Hillary shutdown all independent medical research in the country when she attempts, for a second time, to transition us to a single payer health care system.

You mean the independent medical research that ends up producing new breakthrough drugs that are locked into decades long exclusive patents with eye-gouging prices that the people who need them most will never see?

Apparently we're trying to emulate the Roman Republic right down to the last days of Rome.



You mean the independent medical research that ends up producing new breakthrough drugs that are locked into decades long exclusive patents with eye-gouging prices that the people who need them most will never see?

no i think he means the "independant research" that relies on the efforts of those working at universities doing research funded by public money that is then taken over by drug companies and patented.

Yeah. A social conservative in libertarian clothing. Great. Add to that, one that is prepared to go back to 1800s economics. Even if we did know what he stands for (I doubt he's any better than any other politician), I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot bargepole.


I know which I'd have. And, for the record, single payer does not involve shutting down private medical centres.


For the record, it is the pharmecueticals that do and pay for the vast majority of the "private" medical research. I am not talking about government-sponsered research, of that done by universities. If we went to single-payer, that single payer would control 100% of the costs of said pharmecueticals, that is how they keep the costs low. If they control that much of the costs, those private firms have less money to pay for their research, therefore they spend less of their money on such efforts. Therefore it does shutdown private research.

Consider what happened with the Flu vaccine. The government started buying up all of the vaccine to distribute across the country at a lower cost. The price was so low, that none of the companies could afford to do research to improve the vaccine. The only research that was being done, was by colleges and universities, with some private funds, to develop the nasal flu spray, but actual advancements in producing the flu vaccine are non-existent, we still use aggs just like we have for the past 30+ years.

Now, if the government was the only payer, and it did its job of negotiating the lowest possible costs, then private pharmecueticals would have no money to spend on drug research and therefore private research would end.

And I haven't even gotten to the Republicans, a bumper crop of idiots, ideologues, and theocrats.

You must have forgotten about Giuliani, you left off hypocrits.

You must have forgotten about Giuliani, you left off hypocrits.

Most, if not all, politicians are hypocrits.

You mean the independent medical research that ends up producing new breakthrough drugs that are locked into decades long exclusive patents with eye-gouging prices that the people who need them most will never see?


Yes, and under single-payer, they won't exist anymore so I suppose nothing will really change.

no i think he means the "independant research" that relies on the efforts of those working at universities doing research funded by public money that is then taken over by drug companies and patented.


No, I mean the research done by the private pharmacuetical companies. The work done at universities are done largely by public grants, and government funds. Therefore, unless Hillary decides to cut those funds too, those funds shouldn't be touched.

Although, I won't be surprised if she felt that was a waste too, and cut the funds to help balance the budget.

I intend to vote for neither that Machievellian bitch nor that right-wing lunatic. If November '08 actually does come down to the two of them, I really am defecting to Canada.

I intend to vote for neither that Machievellian bitch nor that right-wing lunatic. If November '08 actually does come down to the two of them, I really am defecting to Canada.

At least Ron Paul wouldn't invade Canada if he knew it would get him votes...

At least Ron Paul wouldn't invade Canada if he knew it would get him votes...

That's not enough of a reason to vote for that nutjob.

I intend to vote for neither that Machievellian bitch nor that right-wing lunatic. If November '08 actually does come down to the two of them, I really am defecting to Canada.
Meh...big deal. What does that mean...relocating you and everything you've ever known about 2 miles north of you? :D

I'm voting Rock and Pebble, 08!

PS - Fuck all the Candidates, I'd seriously would rather see literal bull shit piled onto the Oval Office's President's Chair before any of these pathetic douche bags take office.

Fuck "USians", fuck "EuroFags", and fuck the Maple Flag.

Down with the Government, Down with the Economy, Down with the Social Class System.

Fuck you, and you, and fuck you.

These are the true words of yours truly, moi.
Bad day at the office, dearest?

Bad day at the office, dearest?

Hah, actually just very very harsh sarcasm...didn't see many anarchist posts :-P

To be even more honest, honey poo, -

Paul is alright, just he's never going to get enough votes. All the Dems are, of course, shit. Lieberman is another guy I do like, but he's never getting enough votes either.

So, to stick with-in realistic boundaries, all the candidates that do have a shitting chance in hell -

I seriously would rather vote in the Rock that wet my living room carpet before I'd see any one of them address me and my fellow Americans as our leader.

Meh...big deal. What does that mean...relocating you and everything you've ever known about 2 miles north of you? :D

About 100 or so miles east. As for everything I've ever known, I don't have all that much stuff, and I wouldn't really be leaving a lot of loved ones behind, as I don't have family and most of my friends would probably defect along with me.

Rumor is Paul is just Lyndon LaRouche after plastic surgery.

And he has about the same chance.

You obviously know nothing about American politics. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in the primaries or the general elections. You focus too much on those two issues. Ron Paul also believes in eliminating the FBI, CIA, Medicare, Social Security, income tax, the education department, department of homeland security, and basically anything that would make the government a government. I like him because he is the only candidate who seems truly genuine, but he is crazy. He wants to go back to the 1890's.

....pulling out of all of our trade agreements (which would actually take us further from free trade, rather than closer to it), the UN, the World Court, the WTO, and pretty much every other worldwide organization. Getting rid of the department of education.

He is perfectly willing to attempt to put his own personal moral viewpoints regarding homosexuality and abortion into law.

He thinks that the federal government can't trample over your rights (unless its to put women in danger), but it's perfectly ok (even desirable, in some cases) for the states to do it.

He thinks that being a "natural born" citizen isn't enough to make you a citizen.

He thinks all soldiers anywhere in the world but on US soldier should be pulled out - effectively removing the US from NATO and setting the world stage for WWIII.

And I could go on....

no i think he means the "independant research" that relies on the efforts of those working at universities doing research funded by public money that is then taken over by drug companies and patented.

Yeah, that public money that Paul, if given his way, would shut down completely.

Of course, he's all for public funding of private companies researching space tourism. It's all that actually useful medical research that he wants to cut out.

He is perfectly willing to attempt to put his own personal moral viewpoints regarding homosexuality and abortion into law.

He thinks that the federal government can't trample over your rights (unless its to put women in danger), but it's perfectly ok (even desirable, in some cases) for the states to do it.

He thinks that being a "natural born" citizen isn't enough to make you a citizen.
I read somewhere that in his younger years he was writing for some racist, survivalist newsletter (oh, yes, here's the link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)). I think that tells you all you need to know how he came to call himself "libertarian".

The man is a nutcase.

Obama > not Hillary (D) > Paul > Hillary > not Paul (R).

Obama is the only candidate I can see myself voting for right now. Anyone else and I'd be voting for the "least worst" again. I don't see any of the halfway viable (as in, could possibly win the primary) Dem candidates as worse than Paul, so...

Question: Is it possible to register for a party to vote in their primary and then switch for the next election?
If so, is there a bunch of bullshit to go through?

I think this varies by state. In my state, you're essentially considered to be member of whatever party primary you vote in. Anyone can vote in either primary, but only in one.

When was the last time we tried nonintervention? Oh yes...I believe it was back when Jefferson was president and France and Britain were at each other's throats with us caught in the middle.

No, we've done it since then. Helped lead to both world wars. Well, isolationism did - and that's actually what Ron Paul's policies are, regardless of what term he wants to use for them.

It's a tough call. Cancel out my wife's vote for Hillary, or throw one away on Paul... I'm glad I have a few months to decide.
I think you should seek peace within the family and vote along with your wife. :D

Yeah, that public money that Paul, if given his way, would shut down completely.

Of course, he's all for public funding of private companies researching space tourism. It's all that actually useful medical research that he wants to cut out.

yeah. im not in favor of libertarian policies. they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

but if i were a republican (*spit* *shudder* *spit*) i certainly wouldnt vote for a guy who doesnt even believe in the principles of the party but is a republican only because no one would ever elect a libertarian.

One vote for Ron Paul by me.

I mean honestly, he's the only candidate that even remotely suggests that the government should stay out of our lives. I believe America needs another do-nothing president and looking at Dr. No's voting record, I believe Paul will push for nothing.

For all the critics concerning Paul's personal views, here's a quick reminder. Ron Paul has openly claimed that his opinion doesn't matter, only the populous'. In my books, that beats every other candidate who is so insistent on pushing their opinions onto the country.

One vote for Ron Paul by me.

I mean honestly, he's the only candidate that even remotely suggests that the government should stay out of our lives.Wrong.
He thinks the federal government should stay out of our lives and the state governments should be unhindered in governing how we should live.

I think you should seek peace within the family and vote along with your wife. :D

Heh, my parents are like that. My dad almost invariably votes Republican, and my mom almost invariably votes Democrat. Now that I can vote, and have made my political beliefs clear, he's considering changing sides since balance is no longer possible.

I read somewhere that in his younger years he was writing for some racist, survivalist newsletter (oh, yes, here's the link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)). I think that tells you all you need to know how he came to call himself "libertarian".

The man is a nutcase.

I personally don't doubt that there is at least some truth to this, but for future reference, the Daily Kos isn't generally accpeted as a reliable source. How can I and others nail the right-wingers for linking to blogs and pretending they're legitimate news sources if our side does it?

Heh, my parents are like that. My dad almost invariably votes Republican, and my mom almost invariably votes Democrat. Now that I can vote, and have made my political beliefs clear, he's considering changing sides since balance is no longer possible.
Don't you think you could force some deals? You know, I'll trade you a vote for ...

Mmm...<yawn>...

I suppose if one of the current batch of Republicans were to win the election, Paul would be the best choice.

Mind you, this is an exercise in picking out the best smelling turd in the pile, but there you are.

Even the worst of the Democrats(Hillary) is better than the best of the Republicans(Paul?). If Eisenhower, or his revenant corpse, were running I'd vote for him, or it, over this whole bunch.

Wrong.
He thinks the federal government should stay out of our lives and the state governments should be unhindered in governing how we should live.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

California, New York, and Massachusetts would still be the lands of high taxes and gun control, while the rest of the country could live a more normal life.

This RuPaul character does not impress me much.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

California, New York, and Massachusetts would still be the lands of high taxes and gun control, while the rest of the country could live a more normal life.

Yeah! And you can start using those, "No Niggers," signs in Alabama.
Yahoo!

Paul is staunchly against abortion, got an A+ rating from a group of gun-nuts, thinks states should be able to use capital punishment, is against same-sex marriage and adoption, is for don't ask don't tell and opposes universal health care.

And although he has some interesting positions on foreign policy and drugs, I'd sooner vote for LaRoache.

Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the republican party.

I especially love this part:

Two Presidential candidates, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, clearly support protecting U.S. borders from illegal immigration and terrorist attacks. Both candidates have opposed President Bush’s seeming support of the Council On Foreign Relations plans to replace the United States with a North American Union by integrating North America and erasing national boundaries.

If only the candidates had such insightful strategists working for them! All they need to do to win the election is hold a press conference and explain:

" My fellow Americans. I promise, if elected, to defend against the secret conspiracy of George Bush and the Council on Foreign Relations to get rid of America and replace it with the North American Union, which would make you all equal to Mexicans. I first became aware of it, ladies and gentlemen, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly.

Loss of essence.

I can assure you it has not recurred, my fellows.. Women...women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, gentlemen ...but I do deny them my essence. "

Why, he'd win every state!

....pulling out of all of our trade agreements (which would actually take us further from free trade, rather than closer to it), the UN, the World Court, the WTO, and pretty much every other worldwide organization. Getting rid of the department of education.

He is perfectly willing to attempt to put his own personal moral viewpoints regarding homosexuality and abortion into law.

He thinks that the federal government can't trample over your rights (unless its to put women in danger), but it's perfectly ok (even desirable, in some cases) for the states to do it.

He thinks that being a "natural born" citizen isn't enough to make you a citizen.

He thinks all soldiers anywhere in the world but on US soldier should be pulled out - effectively removing the US from NATO and setting the world stage for WWIII.

And I could go on....

Exactly. Ron Paul is a bad joke. The only reason he does not pose a serious threat to our Republic is that he has no chance of being elected.

Wrong.
He thinks the federal government should stay out of our lives and the state governments should be unhindered in governing how we should live.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

California, New York, and Massachusetts would still be the lands of high taxes and gun control, while the rest of the country could live a more normal life.

Um. It is a bad thing.

Some of us consider the 14th Amendment and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to be a good thing.

Um. It is a bad thing.

Some of us consider the 14th Amendment and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to be a good thing.
Yes, under Ron Paul, states can limit religious expression, sexual practices, sexual orientation, abortion, and probably any other damn thing they want and the people would be denied their legal recourse. Bye bye judicial branch of government.

I mean honestly, he's the only candidate that even remotely suggests that the government should stay out of our lives.

*blink*

How does banning abortion procedures and treating some as second-class citizens simply because of their sexual orientation work into your "stay out of our lives" ideal?

I believe America needs another do-nothing president and looking at Dr. No's voting record, I believe Paul will push for nothing.

You haven't looked very far into his voting record or the policies he espouses, have you?

For all the critics concerning Paul's personal views, here's a quick reminder. Ron Paul has openly claimed that his opinion doesn't matter, only the populous'. In my books, that beats every other candidate who is so insistent on pushing their opinions onto the country.

He can claim that all he wants, but his voting record and the policies he espouses make it clear that it isn't what he actually wants to do.



Wrong.
He thinks the federal government should stay out of our lives and the state governments should be unhindered in governing how we should live.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is. The idea that it is bad for the federal government to trample all over human and civil rights but perfectly ok for the states to do it is utterly ridiculous.

Some of us consider the 14th Amendment and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to be a good thing.

There's a lot of distance between what the Constitution requires of States and what the Federal government demands from them. Last time I checked we were supposed to be a union of states and not a monolithic nation run by one central government.

It is. The idea that it is bad for the federal government to trample all over human and civil rights but perfectly ok for the states to do it is utterly ridiculous.
It is possible to have states that are unburdened by Federal regulation, while still upholding the requirements of the Constitution.

The onerous requirements of the EPA and OSHA spring to mind immediately. What right does the Federal government have to tell States how to manage safety, or environmental affairs -- Don't say interstate commerce, that's the most abused excuse for Federal meddling, I've ever seen.

It is possible to have states that are unburdened by Federal regulation, while still upholding the requirements of the Constitution.

And yet, that isn't what Paul argues for. He argues for essentially unfettered meddling of the state governments in our lives.

And yet, that isn't what Paul argues for. He argues for essentially unfettered meddling of the state governments in our lives.
When I read his stands on campaign issues, it appears he stands solidly behind the Constitution -- 14th Amendment, incorporation, and all. It's the imperialistic demands of the Federal government that he opposes.

But then, someone who's more in favor of a dominant federal government would be likely to misread or misstate that stand.

And yet, that isn't what Paul argues for. He argues for essentially unfettered meddling of the state governments in our lives.

Except that no state law can contradict the US Constitution.

There's a lot of distance between what the Constitution requires of States and what the Federal government demands from them. Last time I checked we were supposed to be a union of states and not a monolithic nation run by one central government.
Ya coulda fooled me....I think y'all have been a very vociferous Bushevik to date......and man does that guy represent a monolithic nation!!

Except that no state law can contradict the US Constitution.
Ahhhh the Busheviks are coming out of the woods!! :D

Ya coulda fooled me....I think y'all have been a very vociferous Bushevik to date......and man does that guy represent a monolithic nation!!
Apparently so. I see you have fallen into the trap of thinking that anyone that doesn't violently and irrationally oppose what Bush has done, must be faithfully devoted to him.

I challenge you to find a single sentence of mine that praises Bush for anything more than cutting taxes when the economy sucked in 2001 and for fighting Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When I read his stands on campaign issues, it appears he stands solidly behind the Constitution -- 14th Amendment, incorporation, and all. It's the imperialistic demands of the Federal government that he opposes.

But then, someone who's more in favor of a dominant federal government would be likely to misread or misstate that stand.

Meh. Apparently you aren't as familiar with Ron Paul's positions as you seem to assume.

Read the We The People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:), for example, and explain how it is anything other than an attempt to hamstring the judiciary and free states from their obligations to obey the 14th Amendment and the incorporated Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul also supports the assertion of Federal power in many cases involving his right-wing agenda -- abortion and gay rights being the most obvious cases. How is that consistent with your characterization of Paul's "stand"?

Meh. Apparently you aren't as familiar with Ron Paul's positions as you seem to assume.

Read the We The People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:), for example, and explain how it is anything other than an attempt to hamstring the judiciary and free states from their obligations to obey the 14th Amendment and the incorporated Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul also supports the assertion of Federal power in many cases involving his right-wing agenda -- abortion and gay rights being the most obvious cases. How is that consistent with your characterization of Paul's "stand"?

I'll stipulate that he has some screwy ideas. I don't think that's unique to his campaign. There is no such thing as an ideal candidate.

Except that no state law can contradict the US Constitution.

:headbang:

You aren't really following the train of thought here are you?

:headbang:

You aren't really following the train of thought here are you?

Actually yes. Ron Paul would basically do away with the Constitution and re-institute the Articles of Confederation.

When I read his stands on campaign issues, it appears he stands solidly behind the Constitution -- 14th Amendment, incorporation, and all.

And that's why he thinks homosexuals should be treated as second class citizens and voted as such? And that's why he voted for a federal ban on an abortion procedure because he finds it icky? And that's why he thinks it would be perfectly alright for states to decide to treat homosexuals as second class citizens and to deny bodily autonomy to women?

It's the imperialistic demands of the Federal government that he opposes.

Indeed. He thinks the states should do it as well.

But then, someone who's more in favor of a dominant federal government would be likely to misread or misstate that stand.

Actually, I think the federal government is too powerful. I just don't think the answer is handing power no government entity should have to the states instead.


Except that no state law can contradict the US Constitution.

You would think this would be an issue, don't you? Of course, Paul interprets the Constitution as he pleases, while decrying the fact that others interpret it at all.


Read the We The People Act, for example, and explain how it is anything other than an attempt to hamstring the judiciary and free states from their obligations to obey the 14th Amendment and the incorporated Bill of Rights.

Or this one.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h108-1546

Ron Paul is an idiot, half of you maniacs only support him becuase you think he'll legalize Drugs for you.

When I hear "Ron Paul" I hear "Corporate Police State within 20 years."

When the "Market" steps in, I know people are going to end up ****ed.

Because the Market doesn't give a crap about you. The government HAS to give a crap. The Market doesn't.

My 18th birthday is after the primaries, but I totally would vote for him in it if I could. I will make the general election though.

My 18th birthday is after the primaries, but I totally would vote for him in it if I could. I will make the general election though.

And why would you vote for this sleezebag?

so who IS this "usa daily" and where do they get the stupid notion that a man polling below the margin of error would have a chance to win anything?
Us Daily is a right wing nutcase news site.

Actually yes. Ron Paul would basically do away with the Constitution and re-institute the Articles of Confederation.

And you approve of that?! Are you fucking NUTS?! There's a very damned good reason the country gave that up back in 1787 when the Constitution was written, and that was when our nation was naught but an agricultural society! You really think that's going to work in the hear and now?!

Seriously, I don't understand this "state rights" crap. So states were at one time more separate than they are now...whoop de doo. States are, in my mind, merely a smaller level of government from the central federal level. They are not some separate institutional organized body. This is ONE NATION, not a collection of states, most of which could not maintain their economies without the others. That's why we use "The United States is" rather than "The United States are" and so on and so forth. We are a united people. There are only thirteen out of fifty states that could have ever truly laid any sort of claim to being their own little sub-nation...we simply kept the organizational structure after that because it works. You don't see provinces and states in other countries trying to separate and act like their own little subnation, do you? (Apart from Quebec, nitpickers.)

And you approve of that?! Are you fucking NUTS?!

I guess you missed it where I said I AM NOT VOTING for this moron in the primaries. I do not support Ron Paul nor will I ever support Ron Paul.

There's a very damned good reason the country gave that up back in 1787 when the Constitution was written, and that was when our nation was naught but an agricultural society! You really think that's going to work in the hear and now?!

Oh hell no. Hence why I do not support him nor will ever vote for him.

Lol, you do realize right that Paul will never get the nomination, that's why he's saying all this stuff about the war and the like. Notice how he almost never goes into his crazy libertarian ideals, not even the GOP NC are crazy enough to endorse this guy.

Ron Paul is an idiot, half of you maniacs only support him becuase you think he'll legalize Drugs for you.

When I hear "Ron Paul" I hear "Corporate Police State within 20 years."

When the "Market" steps in, I know people are going to end up ****ed.

Because the Market doesn't give a crap about you. The government HAS to give a crap. The Market doesn't.

Exactly, I'd rather put my hands of a few bureaucrats than the blind utility of some numbers in a computer.

Problem 2 with Ron Paul: He is a fucking social conservative. He opposes abortion and gay marriage, and is currently actively working to shut down the judicial appeal process. He has submitted one bill that would have prevented people from challenging gay marriage laws in court. Currently he submitted a bill (cleverly called the We The People Act) which would prevent people from challenging sexual orientation, sexual practice, abortion, and religious laws in court.

Cold fucking day in hell.

I did not know that.I did know he opposed the [un]Patriot Act. Well thats it.How can you stop people from challengong.You control everything we do basically.

I guess you missed it where I said I AM NOT VOTING for this moron in the primaries. I do not support Ron Paul nor will I ever support Ron Paul.



Oh hell no. Hence why I do not support him nor will ever vote for him.
Oh. Whoops. Yay for a lack of reading comprehension!

Ah well...my points still stand to those who actually do support him.

My 18th birthday is after the primaries, but I totally would vote for him in it if I could. I will make the general election though.

Well - and tellingly - he has the children's vote locked down.

:rolleyes:

Us Daily is a right wing nutcase news site.

do they do any reporting on their own or just post news stories from various sources and (maybe) do a few editorials?

Ahhhh the Busheviks are coming out of the woods!! :D

So are you saying that we should ignore the part in the Constitution that states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land?

Ron Paul is only popular because he is the only republican in favour of withdrawal from Iraq. Some reason, that makes him a saint to many armchair activists.

Except that no state law can contradict the US Constitution.
They effectively can if Ron Paul gets his way and blocks any appeal to federal courts.

My 18th birthday is after the primaries, but I totally would vote for him in it if I could. I will make the general election though.

Too bad your birthday isn't later then it would be one less misinformed and uninformed voter for another 4 years.

Question: What do George Bush (USA), Gordon Brown (UK) and every other modern world leader have in common?

Answer: Every one of them is a political communitarian, and communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. The communitarian dialectic of Hegel has become so culturally entrenched in our thinking that true libertarianism (at least Paul's extreme type) will never become reality. Sorry to spoil the fun.

I did not know that.I did know he opposed the [un]Patriot Act. Well thats it.How can you stop people from challengong.You control everything we do basically.

Congratulations, you know nothing. The Congress is capable of telling the judiciary what they are able to hear. Ron Paul wants to destroy the judiciary.

They effectively can if Ron Paul gets his way and blocks any appeal to federal courts.

Indeed. hence my comment about the Articles of Confederation because that is what it will amount to if this scumbag ever got elected.

Question: What do George Bush (USA), Gordon Brown (UK) and every other modern world leader have in common?

Answer: Every one of them is a political communitarian, and communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. The communitarian dialectic of Hegel has become so culturally entrenched in our thinking that true libertarianism (at least Paul's extreme type) will never become reality. Sorry to spoil the fun.

Are you for Ron Paul or against?

Are you for Ron Paul or against?

Um...you know, I'm not surprised that you're asking, considering your lack of ability to judge character, but this is Andaras Prime. Pay attention. He's the Stalinist, remember? Of course he doesn't support Ron Paul.

Um...you know, I'm not surprised that you're asking, considering your lack of ability to judge character, but this is Andaras Prime. Pay attention. He's the Stalinist, remember? Of course he doesn't support Ron Paul.

No kidding he's a stalinist. I even called him that. I am just curious but then, he never does answer straight questions.

Um...you know, I'm not surprised that you're asking, considering your lack of ability to judge character, but this is Andaras Prime. Pay attention. He's the Stalinist, remember? Of course he doesn't support Ron Paul.

Marxist/Leninist, but that isn't the point, I was simply pointing out the reality.

I am aware that my opinion doesn't matter in terms of voting power, but I consider my post important because it allows otherwise uninformed USians pondering voting for this bag insight into his backwards policies.

You're USian whether you like it or not.

I just want to point out, there's no such thing as a "USian". We're called Americans.

I just want to point out, there's no such thing as a "USian". We're called Americans.

God, don't start this debate again. I think the reasoning is, the US doesn't control all of North America or South America, so it can't claim to represent all of America.

Hah, actually just very very harsh sarcasm...didn't see many anarchist posts :-P

To be even more honest, honey poo, -

Paul is alright, just he's never going to get enough votes. All the Dems are, of course, shit. Lieberman is another guy I do like, but he's never getting enough votes either.

So, to stick with-in realistic boundaries, all the candidates that do have a shitting chance in hell -

I seriously would rather vote in the Rock that wet my living room carpet before I'd see any one of them address me and my fellow Americans as our leader.

Lieberman's a kissass and an idiot. Trust me to know this, he's (unfortunately) been my senator for a while.

God, don't start this debate again. I think the reasoning is, the US doesn't control all of North America or South America, so it can't claim to represent all of America.

It's not a debate. It's a FACT that people from the US are referred to as Americans (and whenever someone hears the term American, they KNOW what country is being referred to).

And nobody is saying that the US is claiming to represent all of North and South America.

Exactly, I'd rather put my hands of a few bureaucrats than the blind utility of some numbers in a computer.
Or a future right out of Jennifer Government.
... Wow, didn't see that happen before.

It's not a debate. It's a FACT that people from the US are referred to as Americans (and whenever someone hears the term American, they KNOW what country is being referred to).

And nobody is saying that the US is claiming to represent all of North and South America.

The term American is also used to describe people from the Americas. The term USian is often used by those who wish to differentiate between people from the Americas and people from the US.

Some USians do not like the word, I gather.

The term American is also used to describe people from the Americas. The term USian is often used by those who wish to differentiate between people from the Americas and people from the US.

Some USians do not like the word, I gather.

You ask 100 people on the street what country Americans come from, and I'd bet more than 90 of them would say from the US.

I wouldn't mind being called a USian, if it weren't used in a derogatory manner most of the time.

The term American is also used to describe people from the Americas. The term USian is often used by those who wish to differentiate between people from the Americas and people from the US.

Some USians do not like the word, I gather.

Meh. People, this is stupid stuff.

I wouldn't mind the word USian -- if it were a freaking word.

You won't find USian in the Oxford English Dictionary.

You will find American used to describe "USians" since the 1700s.

No one seriously is confused by the term American. But some do like to deliberately irritate those that object to the term USian.

No one seriously is confused by the term American. But some do like to deliberately irritate those that object to the term USian.

I never heard the term until I started lurking around NS.

People that use the term USian to describe Americans sound like a-holes. That is what I think every time someone insists on using the term. I really could care less what a few a-holes think anyway.

"USian" is a weasel's, pissant's word, just like "democrat senator" or "democrat party."

Find a person who uses "USian," and you have found a perfect illustration of the of the word "sniveling."

I'm not going to debate this. I don't use USian as a derogatory term. I use it as I explained above. Since me, my family and many members of my community come from various parts of the Americas, we often use the term Americans to self identify rather than call ourselves Latino-Canadian Quebecois Portuguese speakers, or some variant thereof.

Please feel free to be offended or not as the case may be.

EDIT: In the hopes of hijacking this thread roughly in the direction of the OP, I would sooner vote for RuPaul than either of the two candidates mentioned in the OP.

"USian" is a weasel's, pissant's word, just like "democrat senator" or "democrat party."

Find a person who uses "USian," and you have found a perfect illustration of the of the word "sniveling."

Well until Ontario, Zulia, São Paulo and the rest are states of the US, then we are perfectly entitled to say USian.

Well until Ontario, Zulia, São Paulo and the rest are states of the US, then we are perfectly entitled to say USian.

There is no law against sniveling, that's for sure.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone take the OP seriously--like, does anyone really believe that Ron Paul, even if he were to get the nomination, would pose a serious threat even to Hillary Clinton? Outside of the regular mouth-breathers, I mean.

There's a very damned good reason the country gave that up back in 1787 when the Constitution was written...

because the counterrevolutionary elitists hated liberty and loved centralizing power for themselves?

You won't find USian in the Oxford English Dictionary.

give it time

give it time

Yeah seriously. There's no guarantee that it'll make the leap--the pronunciation is a big hurdle for it to overcome--but if US citizens (my preferred nomenclature) do something stupid like, say, elect another mental midget of a Republican to the presidency in 2008, it might get enough cachet by the other people of North, Central and South America to get some traction, pronunciation be damned.

There is no law against sniveling, that's for sure.

I can feel the heat from your rage all the way through the tubes. Breath.... USian.

Socially, Paul is a neocon version of the average neocon. And under a Paul administration the poor would get poorer and the rich would get richer, at even more extreme rate then under Bush. I'd prefer a 3rd term for GWB if the only alternative is to let this lunatic into the white house.

Obama for President!

Hmm, who is the current Green Party candidate?

Edit: what the hell is the term USian being thrown around? Never heard it before, and never want to again. It looks and sounds like crap.

USian is less polite than Jesuslander, but definitely more polite than Dumbfuckistani.

lol

Probably certain elements but not the party as a whole.

Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination would be a temple curtain tearing, earth quaking and rock splitting sort of event.

But he hasn't got a chance, so it's a moot point.

Like hell.

USian is less polite than Jesuslander, but definitely more polite than Dumbfuckistani.

How about good ol' American? Ever heard of that?

I never heard the term until I started lurking around NS.

People that use the term USian to describe Americans sound like a-holes. That is what I think every time someone insists on using the term. I really could care less what a few a-holes think anyway.

I would use it a bit when I'm typing because USians takes less time to type than American. If I'm talking then I would generally say American because I have no clue how to pronounce USian and it makes less sense (what can i say, I'm lazy :p).
If people use it just to offend people, thats just stupid. On the other hand if people go out of their way to point it out when it's use in a non-degotary sense, just because they don't like the word, then thats daft as well.

because the counterrevolutionary elitists hated liberty and loved centralizing power for themselves?

or the AoC just flat out failed utterly.

You won't find USian in the Oxford English Dictionary.


Perhaps not, but it's been in the Merriam Webster Dictionary since at least the 1930s.

USian is less polite than Jesuslander, but definitely more polite than Dumbfuckistani.
Though the fact that this thread seems to have doubled in size solely discussing "USian," I will have to lean towards Dumbfuckistani.

My problem, Gift-of-God with the word USian is that it is used in a derogatory fashion 95% or so of the time. Sure, there are a few, such as yourself, that use it in a sense I would consider approrpriate, but most don't.

We Americans don't insist on calling people from other nations our own pet names. We use the names all English speakers use...Japanese for those from Japan, Germans for those from Germany, and so on and so forth. (Me, personally, I would like to learn what each country calls itself in its own native/most-used language and then refer to them as that, but it would get confusing, saying Nipponese and Deustch and Mexicano and so on and so forth, which might not even be correct!)

We've used the term American to refer to people from our nation since our founding, more or less. People know that when they use the term American, they're talking about people from the United States. Very few people are actually confused about whether it means someone from the U.S. or from all of the Americas. Fewer still actually truly believe we are trying to claim ourselves as representing all of the Americas. Both are false reasons presented as justification for those who simply wish to use a derogatory word.

What is wrong with allowing us to define a term we use for ourselves just like everyone else does? Why can't we be allowed to continue calling ourselves Americans as we have?

That's my problem. Not whether the word itself might actually be appropriate, but simply the fact that it is used in a derogatory fashion to insult Americans from people who are bigoted, just like many Republicans will use terms like Democrat Party and Democrats will use terms like Rethuglicans. I'm sure others here can think of examples for their own countries.

My problem, Gift-of-God(Or may I just call you Matthew?) with the word USian is that it is used in a derogatory fashion 95% or so of the time. Sure, there are a few, such as yourself, that use it in a sense I would consider approrpriate, but most don't.

We Americans don't insist on calling people from other nations our own pet names. We use the names all English speakers use...Japanese for those from Japan, Germans for those from Germany, and so on and so forth. (Me, personally, I would like to learn what each country calls itself in its own native/most-used language and then refer to them as that, but it would get confusing, saying Nipponese and Deustch and Mexicano and so on and so forth, which might not even be correct!)

We've used the term American to refer to people from our nation since our founding, more or less. People know that when they use the term American, they're talking about people from the United States. Very few people are actually confused about whether it means someone from the U.S. or from all of the Americas. Fewer still actually truly believe we are trying to claim ourselves as representing all of the Americas. Both are false reasons presented as justification for those who simply wish to use a derogatory word.

What is wrong with allowing us to define a term we use for ourselves just like everyone else does? Why can't we be allowed to continue calling ourselves Americans as we have?

That's my problem. Not whether the word itself might actually be appropriate, but simply the fact that it is used in a derogatory fashion to insult Americans from people who are bigoted, just like many Republicans will use terms like Democrat Party and Democrats will use terms like Rethuglicans. I'm sure others here can think of examples for their own countries.

But unlike 'Rethuglicans' USian is not inherently a derogatory term, it has no literary offensive meaning in it, it's purely the intention of the user to be offensive in using it, which says more about them than it does about the actual term, which is for the most part accurate. The difference also being that Germany or Japan control within their nation states the geographical territories of Germany and Japan, while the US does not control the entire continental America within it's state. Whether or not the US has claim to all of America is irrelevant, I suggest if that is the case you stop calling people in the DPRK 'North Koreans' or those in the RoK 'South Koreans' it's probably equally offensive to them.

Therefore it seems to me that your problem is with the people who supposedly use the term derogatorily, not the term itself. And seeing how it's pretty difficult to see someone being derogative about this term when the term isn't inherently offensive (like for example fuck), especially given this is a forum on the net. Then I must assume that either you have had people in RL use it derogatorily or instead that if only on the net, that your offense is for the most part self-inflicted.

I can feel the heat from your rage all the way through the tubes. Breath.... USian.

No rage involved, just calling sniveling as I see it.

Whether it is "democrat party" or "USian," small and petty people are snivelers.

No, Andaras Prime. Words are only inherently offensive if a person perceives that word to be inherently offensive or are almost always used in an offensive manner. I, for example, find the word fuck unoffensive.

I find USian offensive because it is used in a derogatory fashion in almost every instance I have ever heard of it being used. Ever. Gift-of-god is a rare example indeed...possibly one of only three times I've ever seen it used in a non-derogatory fashion.

Furthermore, it's simply not the term that I wish to use. I use the term American as I have my whole life, as have people their whole lives throughout the history of this nation.

Also, geographical territories are given names that are appropriate. Germany did not always contain all of the territory currently within its borders nor were the territory contained within referred to as Germanic for most of history. The United States WAS America to Europeans and other immigrants. It was the sum total of it, because everywhere else was either populated by savages(as perceived at that time) or uninhabited, and to the people of that time, therefore, the rest of the continents were irrelevant.

Since then, common usage has continued to dictate the use of the term American well beyond the point where it might have been best to change it and/or when it might have been chosen differently due to a different time of conception of the United States.

As such, we refer to ourselves as Americans, whether it is entirely appropriate per the definition of the word or not, and that should be respected, just as we respect the words other nations use to define themselves and their citizenry.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7236/offtopicph1.jpg

Perhaps not, but it's been in the Merriam Webster Dictionary since at least the 1930s.

Really? Are you sure? Can you provide any evidence?

It does not appear in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary I have on my desk (1974). Nor does it appear on Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/USian).

EDIT: For the record, USian also does not appear anywhere under Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/USian) and the only match in One Look Dictionary (http://www.onelook.com/?w=USian&ls=a) is to the disputed Wikipedia article.

the term USian SHOULD be a typical stupid net term for those who dont want to type out united states citizen or american. the political equivalent of "ur" for your. so if you are OK with those who use net abbreviations then you might be OK with those who use USian for this reason

too bad the term has been irreparably poisoned by those who insist that it is CORRECT and that the term "american" is incorrect. this insistence on denying the term that citizens of the united states have used to describe themselves for over 200 years has pissed americans on this forum off so much that USian cannot be read without annoyance.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7236/offtopicph1.jpg
Well, nobody's going to take a thread about Ron Paul winning the Presidency seriously, are they?

Really? Are you sure? Can you provide any evidence?

It does not appear in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary I have on my desk (1974). Nor does it appear on Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/USian).

Actually, I concede my mistake. It's in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, which isn't actually a dictionary, but a style-guide. In any case, I completely fail to see what the problem is. USian is simply a word, and, like any word, its meaning is not dictated by dictionaries. It's dictated by usage, and in that one case I used it to describe American citizens.

Oh lord, it's the "USian" time of year on the forums.

Sigh.

He thinks all soldiers anywhere in the world but on US soldier should be pulled out



That gets the British Army vote then...will make things a lot safer for them!:upyours:

or the AoC just flat out failed utterly.

except that they didn't by any reasonable measure. fuck man, they were good enough to take on the fucking british empire and win. the only thing they failed at doing was creating a centralized state and trampling local autonomy. but since they were designed to not do that, that is no failure at all.

Oh lord, it's the "USian" time of year on the forums.

Sigh.

I just follow the discussion where it goes.

I'd like to see Ron win the Primary, but no way in hell do I ever want to see him within 100 yards of the Oval office.

For one thing, he'd destroy the UN. The ****ing UN! He's insane!

Man I really want Ron Paul to win. Eliminate social programs, Get out of Iraq, repeal drug laws, secure our borders. I agree with him on every major issue!

I'd like to see Ron win the Primary, but no way in hell do I ever want to see him within 100 yards of the Oval office.

For one thing, he'd destroy the UN. The ****ing UN! He's insane!

Fuck the UN. Nobody needs them. They try to pass laws and control the world but they mostly just fuckup. Africa especially would be doing alot better without the UN.

Man I really want Ron Paul to win. Eliminate social programs, Get out of Iraq, repeal drug laws, secure our borders. I agree with him on every major issue!

He also wants to pull out of the UN and NATO, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and the ICC because they "damage the sovereignty of our nation". Oh yes, and he wants to eliminate the Department of Education.

That's insane.

Fuck the UN. Nobody needs them. They try to pass laws and control the world but they mostly just fuckup. Africa especially would be doing alot better without the UN.

Wow. You could not be more wrong, my friend.

He also wants to pull out of the UN and NATO, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and the ICC because they "damage the sovereignty of our nation". Oh yes, and he wants to eliminate the Department of Education.

That's insane.

Ever notice that people who complain the most about how the U.N. infringes on U.S. sovreignty seem to care the least about any other nation's sovreignty?

Ever notice that people who complain the most about how the U.N. infringes on U.S. sovreignty seem to care the least about any other nation's sovreignty?

US: The UN World Heritage sites are such an infringement on our sovereignty! How dare those UN bastards try and protect places of universal historical and environmental significance on our soil! I mean, other countries are paying for the upkeep of important sites that our taxes should be paying for!

Iraq: Hey dude, could you get your troops out of our country...

US: SHUT UP! WE'LL BE HERE AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR YOU TO LEARN TO EMBRACE AMERICAN-STYLE DEMOCRACY AND IDEALS!

So...who's word will I take. Some internet Eurofag* personality...or...perhaps the oficial demonym of our nation....hmm...let me think on that a while, I'll get back to you.:)


*Nothing against Europeans in general, just you.

Jesus, relax, willya?

Fuck the UN. Nobody needs them. They try to pass laws and control the world but they mostly just fuckup. Africa especially would be doing alot better without the UN.
Could you give me a law that the UN has passed, while we're at it?

He also wants to pull out of the UN and NATO, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and the ICC because they "damage the sovereignty of our nation". Oh yes, and he wants to eliminate the Department of Education.

That's insane.

And make the federal government a paper tiger. This is no a fucking commonwealth, the US couldn't even hold it's shit together when it was a commonwealth under a weak federal government and Ron Paul wants to bring us back to that. Hurray for conservatively social libertarians and their time machines that bring us back to when everything was fucking stupid.

The government HAS to give a crap.
Lol!

I personally don't doubt that there is at least some truth to this, but for future reference, the Daily Kos isn't generally accpeted as a reliable source. How can I and others nail the right-wingers for linking to blogs and pretending they're legitimate news sources if our side does it?
I know, but it fits perfectly with the vibe I'm getting from him.

I mean, there is just no consistency whatsoever in his views. He calls himself libertarian, but would find it perfectly okay for states (which are just another branch of government) to outlaw abortion and thus override the sovereignty of the individual over her body. He calls himself libertarian, but adheres slavishly to the arbitrary "legal/illegal" distinction imposed upon immigrants by, you guessed it, government.

Those aren't beliefs of someone who was convinced of libertarianism by rational arguments and weighing up pros and cons. They're the beliefs of someone who just happened to hate the federal government, one of those "state's rights" fanatics (no, states have no rights, they're not people, in general there's nothing worth defending about a branch of government) who deny they have to pay taxes and so on and so forth. The real "lives in forest hut somewhere in Kentucky" survivalist type.

I seriously don't like the idea that there are libertarians who think he should win. Yes, some of his policies overlap with some of ours. That doesn't justify supporting him - it would be the same crap Chicago economists pulled with Pinochet and lefties are pulling with Chávez.

They try to pass laws and control the world...

The United Nations is entirely incapable of doing any such thing. By design.

I guess we have determined, then, that there's absolutely no validity to the idea that Paul would pose a real electoral threat to Clinton or any other Democrat likely to get the nomination, right?

I guess we have determined, then, that there's absolutely no validity to the idea that Paul would pose a real electoral threat to Clinton or any other Democrat likely to get the nomination, right?

i think so.

i was quite surprised to find that usadaily.com (where the link inthe op came from) wasnt a spoof site.

i think so.

i was quite surprised to find that usadaily.com (where the link inthe op came from) wasnt a spoof site.

These are their columnists:
Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, Alan Caruba, Mona Charen, Susan Estrich, Lawrence Kudlow, Michelle Malkin, Geoff Metcalf,Oliver North, Robert D. Novak,Debra Saunders, Murray Sabrin, Connie Schultz.

As far as I'm concerned, that makes it a spoof site. ;)

I guess we have determined, then, that there's absolutely no validity to the idea that Paul would pose a real electoral threat to Clinton or any other Democrat likely to get the nomination, right?

He would have to win the Republican nomination first. He has almost no chance of doing that, now that Mr. "Law and Order" has entered the race. I suspect that all the other minor candidates -- Rudy included -- are just going to keep falling in the polls from now until the beginning of the primaries.

On the matter of Clinton's biggest threat -- I think that continues to be herself. Anyone with the kind of negatives that she has, won't make a good candidate in the general election.

If I were a US citizen i'd definatly vote for Ron Paul - the only real decent candidate out there. The rest are just the usual CFR toadies as well as the usual oil and military industrial complex cartel thugs. As a Canadian, I urge all Americans to vote Ron Paul. Furthermore, Aaron Russo (regretably deceased) should be considered a true patriot!
Good thing you can't vote.

If I were a US citizen i'd definatly vote for Ron Paul - the only real decent candidate out there. The rest are just the usual CFR toadies as well as the usual oil and military industrial complex cartel thugs. As a Canadian, I urge all Americans to vote Ron Paul. Furthermore, Aaron Russo (regretably deceased) should be considered a true patriot!

Good thing you can't vote.

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?

Because you just showed yourself to be truly ignorant of just what Paul stands for. You also do not realize that Ron Paul is a class A nutcase.

If I were a US citizen i'd definatly vote for Ron Paul - the only real decent candidate out there. The rest are just the usual CFR toadies as well as the usual oil and military industrial complex cartel thugs. As a Canadian, I urge all Americans to vote Ron Paul. Furthermore, Aaron Russo (regretably deceased) should be considered a true patriot!

does this mean that you would like a similar person to be prime minister of canada?

Because you just showed yourself to be truly ignorant of just what Paul stands for.

Really? Again how do you come to this conclusion? You only say this because you do not like the candidate. Here is what he stands for; http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

It's what I stand for. So much for your accusation of ignorance.

You also do not realize that Ron Paul is a class A nutcase.

Calling something so does not make it so. I support his platform and his ideals, its as simple as that. So sue me.

does this mean that you would like a similar person to be prime minister of canada?

You bet!

except that they didn't by any reasonable measure. fuck man, they were good enough to take on the fucking british empire and win. the only thing they failed at doing was creating a centralized state and trampling local autonomy. but since they were designed to not do that, that is no failure at all.

The Articles of Confederation weren't even made into an official government until 1781. Their sole purpose was to make a government. They failed miserably. Hell, they failed miserably at making a goddamn military. Washington attacked them mercilessly for that.

I mean, there is just no consistency whatsoever in his views. He calls himself libertarian, but would find it perfectly okay for states (which are just another branch of government) to outlaw abortion and thus override the sovereignty of the individual over her body. He calls himself libertarian, but adheres slavishly to the arbitrary "legal/illegal" distinction imposed upon immigrants by, you guessed it, government.

Screw the states, he thinks that the federal government should outlaw abortion.

You bet!
I take it you don't like your government supported health care and cheap drugs then?

Really? Again how do you come to this conclusion? You only say this because you do not like the candidate. Here is what he stands for; http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

It's what I stand for. So much for your accusation of ignorance.

Funny--that page doesn't mention his well documented support for and by white supremacist groups. Wonder why that is? Oh wait--it's couched in prettier terms in that section on immigration and building the wall.

Funny--that page doesn't mention his well documented support for and by white supremacist groups. Wonder why that is? Oh wait--it's couched in prettier terms in that section on immigration and building the wall.

i doubt it mentions his flirtation with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists either.

I guess Sskiss hates all those government based programs he gets there in Canada like cheaper drugs and healthcare and whatever else they get in Canada.

Screw the states, he thinks that the federal government should outlaw abortion.

Indeed. And his excuse? "I think this is unconstitutional use of federal power, but I think it might save innocent lives, so screw the Constitution."

Indeed. And his excuse? "I think this is unconstitutional use of federal power, but I think it might save innocent lives, so screw the Constitution."
Like I said, Ron Paul is the second worst candidate: he combines neocon social policies with excessive libertarian positions.
Fred Thompson is the worst because he has neocon social policies, plus the libertarian style attitude towards business and then the neocon international policy, by which I mean real-life Risk.

I guess Sskiss hates all those government based programs he gets there in Canada like cheaper drugs and healthcare and whatever else they get in Canada.

If he doesn't like those things, he can come down here to the U.S. and I'll move to Canada.