NationStates Jolt Archive

Ron Paul or Obama?

You're just trying to avoid the label of 'NSer who starts the most sex-related threads'. :D

Yay, got the first vote in the poll!!!! Pounced!! :D

Though I'm sure the Paulbots will descend and bury Barack in short order. :upyours:

You're just trying to avoid the label of 'NSer who starts the most sex-related threads'. :D

I'm actually trying to avoid the label, 'most closeted NSer'. Politics is a very straight thing, right? :D

You're just trying to avoid the label of 'NSer who starts the most sex-related threads'. :D
Nah, he can't.

*sticks the label at Soviestan*

I would vote for My cat!

My reason here! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13330565&postcount=21)

I'd prefer Ron Paul.

I'd rather have Obama than Hilary, though.

Having an executive branch is so overated.

anyone but Ron Paul, however because the US is rather far away from my current position I say Hilary for empress

I seriously considered voting for my sisters beagle dog.

*shudder* Although I disagree with both of these candidates on foreign policy, Ron Paul and I have a good amount in common when it comes to domestic issues, so probably him as the lesser of two evils.

By the way, if it was Obama/Clinton, I'm pretty sure I'd vote for SaintB's sister's dog, too. :P

obama.

id vote for obama over any republican candidate

Ron Paul or Obama?

Given those choices: Obama, Ron Paul is a loon with no concept of how the federal government works, or what each department therein does.

Of the choices, Obama. He won't get elected, of course, because he's actually good for America. Racism plays out like that. Honestly, America needs is some kind of revolution to get people to comprehend what freedom actually is.

Of course, he also won't get elected if he doesn't serve corporate interests, which he doesn't from the looks of his campaign funding total.

I'm actually trying to avoid the label, 'most closeted NSer'. Politics is a very straight thing, right? :D

Politics is full of the closeted.

Get a boyfriend, and kiss him in public. Closeted people don't do that.

I rather Soviestan win than Paul.

Given those choices: Obama, Ron Paul is a loon with no concept of how the federal government works, or what each department therein does.

Oh, he knows, and that is the problem.

Oh, he knows, and that is the problem.

Based on what I've seen about him, no he doesn't.

Based on what I've seen about him, no he doesn't.

No one could formulate policies that completely destructive without knowing.

No one could formulate policies that completely destructive without knowing.

I concede the point; well stated. :(

Why anyone on this forum could of possibly voted for Obama is beyond me.

Ron Paul or Obama?

Ron Paul!

although I'm not a U.S citizen.

Yay, got the first vote in the poll!!!! Pounced!! :D

Though I'm sure the Paulbots will descend and bury Barack in short order. :upyours:

:upyours: I wish.

Why anyone on this forum could of possibly voted for Obama is beyond me.

:)

Obama

Ron Paul is hope for America. I don't want to see a liberal or a neocon in the presidency. I'm tired of war and I'm tired of bureaucracy.

Why anyone on this forum could of possibly voted for Obama is beyond me.

Why not?

Ron Paul is hope for America. I don't want to see a liberal or a neocon in the presidency. I'm tired of war and I'm tired of bureaucracy.

Ron Paul is a loon

Ron Paul is a loon
And all the rest of the Republicans are neocon warmongers. The Democrat side is mostly Communists and otherwise uber-liberals that would only keep America down its dark path.

Ron Paul stands for liberty, he stands for America. If you don't like liberty, you don't like America. If you don't like America, you don't have a damn right to be voting in the first place.

Why not?
Obama is no different than any of the other democrats running right now. None of them would be good for the job.

Ron Paul is a loon

No he's not.

Maybe you are?

No he's not.

He thinks that there's a global Jewish banking conspiracy. He's a fucking nutjob.

No he's not.
He thinks that there's a global Jewish banking conspiracy. He's a fucking nutjob.
Yup, he is
Maybe you are?
I'm not ruling out that possibility :D

Ron Paul stands for liberty, he stands for America. If you don't like liberty, you don't like America. If you don't like America, you don't have a damn right to be voting in the first place.

Remember, kiddies, it's only extremist if the perspective is the one you're against! If you're for it, then everyone else is wrong and evil and hates freedom!

Remember, kiddies, it's only extremist if the perspective is the one you're against! If you're for it, then everyone else is wrong and evil and hates freedom!

Cookie for you!

Remember, kiddies, it's only extremist if the perspective is the one you're against! If you're for it, then everyone else is wrong and evil and hates freedom!
By not voting for Ron Paul, you are voting for:
- Illegal Foreign War
- Illegal Immigration Invasion
- PATRIOT Act
- Federal Control (via burgeoning bureaucracy)
- IRS Control
- Federal Reserve Control

You sure love your freedom, don't you! As long as the government says it's alright for you to do, you're free do it whatever way you please.

Now that's the America I want to live in!

Remember, kiddies, it's only extremist if the perspective is the one you're against! If you're for it, then everyone else is wrong and evil and hates freedom!

LOL

*hands lots of cookies to Vectrova*

By not voting for Ron Paul, you are voting for:
- Illegal Foreign War
False
- Illegal Immigration Invasion
False
- PATRIOT Act
False
- Federal Control (via burgeoning bureaucracy)
False
- IRS Control
False
- Federal Reserve Control
False

You sure love your freedom, don't you! As long as the government says it's alright for you to do, you're free do it whatever way you please.

Now that's the America I want to live in!

You really are clueless aren't you?

By not voting for Ron Paul, you are voting for:
- Illegal Foreign War
- Illegal Immigration Invasion
- PATRIOT Act
- Federal Control (via burgeoning bureaucracy)
- IRS Control
- Federal Reserve Control

You sure love your freedom, don't you! As long as the government says it's alright for you to do, you're free do it whatever way you please.

Now that's the America I want to live in!

And you are under the delusion that America isn't a corporatocracy, as well as that Ron Paul is a few fries short of a happy meal.


And by the way, the legal system already tells you what is alright for you. WHERE IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION NOW!?

It seems I'm in the ownership of a lot of cookies. Thanks! :D

You really are clueless aren't you?
What utterly amazing logic.

Read a book other than the Communist Manifesto, watch the news for once, and try looking out a window. If you don't see what liberal policies are doing to America, you obviously are the clueless one.

What utterly amazing logic.

Read a book other than the Communist Manifesto, watch the news for once, and try looking out a window. If you don't see what liberal policies are doing to America, you obviously are the clueless one.

Oh boy. This is fun. :)

You're calling people communists, and saying stuff is too liberal. Nope, no extremism here. None at all.

And you are under the delusion that America isn't a corporatocracy, as well as that Ron Paul is a few fries short of a happy meal.


And by the way, the legal system already tells you what is alright for you. WHERE IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION NOW!?
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Have a Nice Day.

Oh boy. This is fun. :)

You're calling people communists, and saying stuff is too liberal. Nope, no extremism here. None at all.
Having a conservative opinion makes me an extremist. Oh no, I disagree with you, and that automatically makes me extremist and means I must think that all of you are the real extremists.

I love your hypocrisy. Please continue.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Have a Nice Day.

FREEDOMANDGLORY? IS THAT YOU?

FREEDOMANDGLORY? IS THAT YOU?
Who?

Having a conservative opinion makes me an extremist. Oh no, I disagree with you, and that automatically makes me extremist and means I must think that all of you are the real extremists.

I love your hypocrisy. Please continue.

I'm a hypocrite? Fascinating preliminary thesis. Now, where is your support?

I'm not the one making inane claims on how the sky will fall if we don't elect a batshit insane canidate, nor forming at the mouth about 'evil liberal policies' and calling people communists for disagreeing with me.

You, however, are. I have support, you do not. Kthxplzdrivethru.

What utterly amazing logic.

Read a book other than the Communist Manifesto, watch the news for once, and try looking out a window. If you don't see what liberal policies are doing to America, you obviously are the clueless one.

So you think that all the problems with America are due to Liberals?

Patriot Act not by liberals
War in Iraq not by liberals
Illegal Immigration Invasion how is that the fault of liberals?
Federal Control Apparently Abraham Lincoln was a liberal
IRS Control of what?
Federal Reserve Control Again, of what? they set the interest rate, that's hardly controlling anything

I've never read the communist manifesto, I do watch the news, and I fail to see what looking out the window has to do with being politically aware.

And all the rest of the Republicans are neocon warmongers. The Democrat side is mostly Communists and otherwise uber-liberals that would only keep America down its dark path.

Bahahahahahahahah!
That's brilli-- oh what? You're serious?

Wow. Thanks for shattering the last vestiges of my hope for any intelligence whatsoever in the human race.


Ron Paul stands for liberty, he stands for America. If you don't like liberty, you don't like America. If you don't like America, you don't have a damn right to be voting in the first place.
I totally agree. 110%.
He stands for liberty, like when he voted for a bill that he explicitly said was unconstitutional. A bill that had only one impact: to increase danger for women seeking abortions.
Like his vote against net neutrality. Our freedoms are obviously the best protected when he have to pay large bribes to companies for people to be able to access our websites.
Like when he claimed that there should be no separation of Church and state in America; clearly, we'll be the most free if a specific religion is forced upon us, but only if that religion is Christianity.
Like his support for states' "rights" to pass anti-sodomy laws; after all, what consenting adults do in the privacy in their bedrooms is of grave concern to the state, and it is surely in the best interest of liberty to ban them from doing icky things.

He stands for equality, like when he claimed that the justice system should treat black people and white people differently.
Like when he spoke in favor of DOMA; homosexuals should obviously not be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals, how equal would that be?

These examples, and many more, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is for liberty and freedom, and all supporters of every other candidate hate America.

No he's not.

Maybe you are?

Of course he's not. There really is a giant liberal-Jew conspiracy to create a single World Government and destroy America.

He stands for liberty, like when he voted for a bill that he explicitly said was unconstitutional. A bill that had only one impact: to increase danger for women seeking abortions.
Liberty in states rights. States have the right, constitutionally, to pass laws not dictated by the federal government and thus forced upon them unlawfully. You're failing already.

Like his vote against net neutrality. Our freedoms are obviously the best protected when he have to pay large bribes to companies for people to be able to access our websites.
Ron Paul supports Net Neutrality. You fail again.

Like when he claimed that there should be no separation of Church and state in America; clearly, we'll be the most free if a specific religion is forced upon us, but only if that religion is Christianity.
His personal opinions do not mean he'd be passing laws - or even manage to successfully do so if he did - in such a way. Wow, man.

Like his support for states' "rights" to pass anti-sodomy laws; after all, what consenting adults do in the privacy in their bedrooms is of grave concern to the state, and it is surely in the best interest of liberty to ban them from doing icky things.
Again, states have the right to pass laws that equally would allow sodomy. Do you even listen to what you're saying?

He stands for equality, like when he claimed that the justice system should treat black people and white people differently.
He said it treats them different already, and that they should be treated the same. Paul stands for equal treatment under law, not racial quotas and special treatment of minorities or otherwise. Where the hell are you getting your information?

Like when he spoke in favor of DOMA; homosexuals should obviously not be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals, how equal would that be?
Homosexuals should not be given special privileges and rights, just like the racial issue. Read up a bit, would you?

These examples, and many more, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is for liberty and freedom, and all supporters of every other candidate hate America.
Apparently.

Of course he's not. There really is a giant liberal-Jew conspiracy to create a single World Government and destroy America.
Apparently supporting a conservative libertarian candidate makes me a Jew-hating anti-semitic Nazi. Thanks for telling me, I hadn't realized.

One thing I hate about debating with anyone on these forums is how ignorant the mainstream of you folks can be.

Based on what I've seen about him, no he doesn't.
What have you seen that makes you say that?

Says the guy who said most Democrats are "communists".
Congratulations for misinterpreting everything I have said. Would like a cookie, too?

One thing I hate about debating with anyone on these forums is how ignorant the mainstream of you folks can be.

Says the guy who said most Democrats are "communists".

So you think that all the problems with America are due to Liberals?

Patriot Act is a liberal domestic policy.
War in Iraq is a liberal foreign policy.
Illegal Immigration Invasion is a threat to American security, and liberals are doing nothing to secure the border.
Federal Control, when it becomes too extensive, goes against our right to "limited government" as promised by the constitution. A liberal view of "limited government" would mean it to be larger than most would consider limited, or utterly ignore that promise altogether as it becomes today. Conservatives are for limited government.
IRS Control in terms of taxes.
Federal Reserve Control in terms of our money, able to set interests, print money we don't have, etc., and continue us down the path of depression and trillions of dollars of debt.

I would, as a matter of fact.
*hands you a cookie*

Congratulations for misinterpreting everything I have said. Would like a cookie, too?

I would, as a matter of fact.

Ron Paul or Obama?
Not a tough choice.

Inexperienced and naive Barack Obama might be, but at least he's not batshit insane. :p

Ron Paul isn't even the good kind of insane. You know; the 'waving your penis at passing cars' insane. He's the 'I Know Best' Fred Phelps/Joseph Stalin kind of insane. :p

I'd vote for a president that waves his penis at passing cars. :)

Patriot Act is a liberal domestic policy.

lol wut? Taking away as many freedoms as possible in the name of national security is a liberal policy? Bush and his Republican Congress back when the PATRIOT Act went through, those guys and girls were all liberals? So the Democrats are Ultra-liberal Commies, and the Republicans are just garden variety liberals, right?


Reality, Oaky, do you percieve it?

Patriot Act is a liberal domestic policy.
War in Iraq is a liberal foreign policy.
Illegal Immigration Invasion is a threat to American security, and liberals are doing nothing to secure the border.

Patriot act: Instituted by a Conservative President AND Congress.
War in Iraq: Spawned by a Conservative President bowing to the wishes of corporations, AND approved by a Conservative Congress.
Illegal Immigration Invasion: Caused by Mexico being a shithole. No politics involved in the USA.

Really, this is just precious.

Patriot Act is a liberal domestic policy.
War in Iraq is a liberal foreign policy.
Illegal Immigration Invasion is a threat to American security, and liberals are doing nothing to secure the border.
Federal Control, when it becomes too extensive, goes against our right to "limited government" as promised by the constitution. A liberal view of "limited government" would mean it to be larger than most would consider limited, or utterly ignore that promise altogether as it becomes today. Conservatives are for limited government.
IRS Control in terms of taxes.
Federal Reserve Control in terms of our money, able to set interests, print money we don't have, etc., and continue us down the path of depression and trillions of dollars of debt.I'd agree with you on the first two. Neo-liberals like Bush and Cheney are responsible for that crap.

I'd agree with you on the first two. Neo-liberals like Bush and Cheney are responsible for that crap.

Uh...?

Ron Paul or Obama?

I could not care less. A more important topic to me is whether or not to put milk in my coffee.

Obama!!! Please!!!

He wouldn't be my first choice among viable candidates, but against Ron Paul? Oh, gods, Obama, yes!!

Uh...?Yes. You read correctly. "Liberal" has a different meaning than what is commonly attributed to it in the American political landscape.

Yes. You read correctly. "Liberal" has a different meaning than what is commonly attributed to it in the American political landscape.
Oh, great. Another person who has decided to act like Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland and screw around with the commonly understood meaning of words just to be fancy. :rolleyes:

Although I have heard a rumor that the neoconservatives have decided to start calling themselves neoliberals, since Bush and Cheney gave such a bad stink to their original moniker. I guess they hope no one will notice it's the same losers selling the same crap. That gets a double :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes. You read correctly. "Liberal" has a different meaning than what is commonly attributed to it in the American political landscape.

It means pro-liberty does it not? And for reform? :confused:

I could not care less. A more important topic to me is whether or not to put milk in my coffee.

coffee without milk?!

Ron Paul isn't the only madman it appears

It means pro-liberty does it not? And for reform? :confused:

In America is means anything opposed to or by the Rebuplican party.

Liberty in states rights. States have the right, constitutionally, to pass laws not dictated by the federal government and thus forced upon them unlawfully. You're failing already.

Fail. States do not have the right to deny you the rights to which you are entitled.

Ron Paul supports Net Neutrality. You fail again.

Damn right he does. That was why he voted against a bill for net neutrality, claiming that it was unfair regulation of ISPs.

His personal opinions do not mean he'd be passing laws - or even manage to successfully do so if he did - in such a way. Wow, man.

He claims that there is no legal separation of Church and state. Do you really think that his (idiotic) opinion on the basics of US Law would not influence his political decisions? Really? If it was my opinion that the US should be under Shariah, and I somehow got elected to the presidency, do you really think I wouldn't pass laws that were in line with the Qu'ran?

Again, states have the right to pass laws that equally would allow sodomy. Do you even listen to what you're saying?

What is the basis for allowing states to deprive citizens of their rights?

He said it treats them different already, and that they should be treated the same. Paul stands for equal treatment under law, not racial quotas and special treatment of minorities or otherwise. Where the hell are you getting your information?

An article that he claims was written by a ghostwriter in his name. It also includes such ridiculous claims as "95% of blacks are criminal or semi-criminal."
Even if it was ghostwritten, the fact that he put his stamp of approval on it indicates that he agrees.

Homosexuals should not be given special privileges and rights, just like the racial issue. Read up a bit, would you?

:rolleyes:
How would requiring states to recognize marriages performed in other states give homosexuals special rights? They must currently recognize any other legal document from other states (Full faith and credit clause).
Furthermore, how would allowing gay marriage in the first place give homosexuals rights that heterosexuals do not have? Has straight marriage suddenly been abolished?


Apparently.

:rolleyes:


Apparently supporting a conservative libertarian candidate makes me a Jew-hating anti-semitic Nazi. Thanks for telling me, I hadn't realized.

No, but Ron Paul is an insane conspiracy nut.


One thing I hate about debating with anyone on these forums is how ignorant the mainstream of you folks can be.
:rolleyes:
Ron Paul is not, by any means, mainstream.

I would definitely vote Soviestan for President. :D

I would definitely vote Soviestan for President. :D

More people would vote for some guy who makes sex polls on NSG than for Ron Paul. That speaks volumes about the latter's political idiocy.

Oh, great. Another person who has decided to act like Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland and screw around with the commonly understood meaning of words just to be fancy. :rolleyes:

Although I have heard a rumor that the neoconservatives have decided to start calling themselves neoliberals, since Bush and Cheney gave such a bad stink to their original moniker. I guess they hope no one will notice it's the same losers selling the same crap. That gets a double :rolleyes::rolleyes:That the American definition is the common one is highly debatable. I'm not the one screwing around with it, actually. Bush is regularly referred to as a Neo-Liberal for his extreme liberal economic stance.

It means pro-liberty does it not? And for reform? :confused:Yes, but it's typically associated with free markets and privatization over state-ownership.

I would definitely vote Soviestan for President. :DDunno. I'd think the first muslim president should have a bit more common sense.

That the American definition is the common one is highly debatable. I'm not the one screwing around with it, actually. Bush is regularly referred to as a Neo-Liberal for his extreme liberal economic stance.
<snip>
US politics is the topic, so I will go with the American definitions of liberal and conservative in this thread. Farting around with other usages will only further muddy a muddy-enough discussion.

coffee without milk?!

Ron Paul isn't the only madman it appears

Sometimes I do not have any milk at hand, dammit!

Yes, but it's typically associated with free markets and privatization over state-ownership.

That is Libertarian. The popular association for liberals in America is Devil-worshiping fiends who eat aborted fetuses for brunch. :D

Having an executive branch is so overated.
Quoted for Truth.

Anyways, of the two I'd take Obama. That may sound strange to those who know my view on economic issues, but Ron Paul simply lacks any sort of coherent program to create a more libertarian US. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the man couldn't give a shit about individual rights, he only cares about states' rights. He's not anti-government, he's anti-federal government.

Interfering or abandoning the Fed would be a huge mistake, as would be his non-vision of American foreign policy. His economic policies would never actually make it through Washington and its lobbyists and career politicians.

Basically Ron Paul is the wrong kind of libertarian, plus he fails to realise that a stint as PotUS is not enough to change America. And rather than him coming in and doing a whole lot of well-meaning damage, I'd stick with Obama who is more likely to deal with real-world issue using real-world responses. The only really worrying thing about pretty much all the Democratic candidates is their views on globalisation and free trade.

Obama.

Okay here is my quick list of reasons I hate Ron Paul again (I seem to have to bring it up every week):
-Wants states to have the power to deny constitutional rights, like flag burning.
-Wants to build a wall with Mexico and not make any immigration reforms that would make it easier to gain citizenship.
-Thinks the left is having a war on christianity.
-Wants state rights on displaying religious texts on government property.
-Wants to keep the electoral college alive.
-Doesn't support the Civil Rights act.

There, that is why he is completely insane by my standards.

Click Stand;13332606']Okay here is my quick list of reasons I hate Ron Paul again (I seem to have to bring it up every week):
-Wants states to have the power to deny constitutional rights, like flag burning.
"No vote for you!"

-Wants to build a wall with Mexico and not make any immigration reforms that would make it easier to gain citizenship.
Meh.

-Thinks the left is having a war on Christianity.
Proof? (He probably does but I would still like proof; if only to be fair.)

-Wants state rights on displaying religious texts on government property.

So? Does that truly offend you?

-Wants to keep the electoral college alive.

Who does not (of the candidates)? and can any of them really alter it anyway?
-Doesn't support the Civil Rights act.

Eh, what is that?

There, that is why he is completely insane by my standards.

That is a good thing. ;) LG for prez!

Proof? (He probably does but I would still like proof; if only to be fair.)


Be aware this is from the wiki page on his policies, specifically:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_religion. I don't feel like finding a real source right now:

"Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

He even uses the word war himself.

Patriot Act not by liberals


House of Representatives: 145 Democrats for, 62 against
Senate: 1 Democrat against, all the rest for.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313


War in Iraq not by liberals


House of Representatives: 81 Democrats for, 126 against
Senate: 29 Democrats for, 21 against

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Of course, no liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) voted for or otherwise supported any of the above. But we are dealing with American politics, where a "liberal" is a neoconservative who prefers cruise missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) over full out ground invasion.

On a side note, anyone who thinks that the Democrats are "communist" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13331914&postcount=28) deserves the <1% of the vote his candidate will get in the primary, before disappearing into absolute irrelevancy. I don't vote for neoconservatives or communists, but I don't vote for law-of-the-jungle "libertarians" either.

By not voting for Ron Paul, you are voting for:
- Illegal Foreign War
- Illegal Immigration Invasion
- PATRIOT Act
- Federal Control (via burgeoning bureaucracy)
- IRS Control
- Federal Reserve Control

You sure love your freedom, don't you! As long as the government says it's alright for you to do, you're free do it whatever way you please.

Now that's the America I want to live in!

Logical Fallacy Alert! I'm callin' you out, that's a false dichotomy right there.

Patriot Act is a liberal domestic policy.
War in Iraq is a liberal foreign policy.
I wasn't aware of Dubya being a liberal
Illegal Immigration Invasion is a threat to American security, and liberals are doing nothing to secure the border.
Neither are conservatives, no-ones really doing anything
Federal Control, when it becomes too extensive, goes against our right to "limited government" as promised by the constitution. A liberal view of "limited government" would mean it to be larger than most would consider limited, or utterly ignore that promise altogether as it becomes today. Conservatives are for limited government.
In theory, in practice they're for big government under their control
IRS Control in terms of taxes.
explain
Federal Reserve Control in terms of our money, able to set interests, print money we don't have, etc., and continue us down the path of depression and trillions of dollars of debt.
The Federal Reserve doesn't have anything to do with that (the bolded) as far as the other it's what they're there for (the money we don't have qualification is just a matter of opinion)

House of Representatives: 145 Democrats for, 62 against
Senate: 1 Democrat against, all the rest for.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313



House of Representatives: 81 Democrats for, 126 against
Senate: 29 Democrats for, 21 against

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Of course, no liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) voted for or otherwise supported any of the above. But we are dealing with American politics, where a "liberal" is a neoconservative who prefers cruise missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) over full out ground invasion.

On a side note, anyone who thinks that the Democrats are "communist" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13331914&postcount=28) deserves the <1% of the vote his candidate will get in the primary, before disappearing into absolute irrelevancy. I don't vote for neoconservatives or communists, but I don't vote for law-of-the-jungle "libertarians" either.

All those figures show is that said policies were supported by Democrats, Both however were initiated by George W. Bush who is not by any stretch of the imagination a liberal, thusly they are not 'liberal' policies.

All those figures show is that said policies were supported by Democrats

Yep. American Liberals.

More people would vote for some guy who makes sex polls on NSG than for Ron Paul. That speaks volumes about the latter's political idiocy.

or the former's ability to connect with the masses :D

Damn, that would be evil. I can't really decide between the two. They both are my favorites for their party and I like both a lot...

I vote for Lunatic Goofballs.

Ron Paul is not, by any means, mainstream.

Oh, no wonder he's winning all the polls then.

And all the rest of the Republicans are neocon warmongers. The Democrat side is mostly Communists and otherwise uber-liberals that would only keep America down its dark path.

Ron Paul stands for liberty, he stands for America. If you don't like liberty, you don't like America. If you don't like America, you don't have a damn right to be voting in the first place.

....*snorts*......*snorts*..... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*wheeze*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I've never read the communist manifesto, I do watch the news, and I fail to see what looking out the window has to do with being politically aware.

Maybe if you looked out the window, you might notice those goddamn liberals trashing your mailbox.

Oh, no wonder he's winning all the polls then.

Select Internet polls, the Internet being a stronghold of "libertarian" politics. American Libertarianism is an extremely weak political force; it can hardly afford the more traditional media outlets (i.e. television) that the major parties dominate. Websites and blogs, however, are cheap, affordable, and attractive to political movements with essentially no money to spend. Thus, "libertarians" are naturally attracted to, and over represented in, cyberspace. This, however, hardly makes them representative of the overall voting population, were the major party candidates continue to hold the lead.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/selection_bias

Select Internet polls, the Internet being a stronghold of "libertarian" politics. American Libertarianism is an extremely weak political force; it can hardly afford the more traditional media outlets (i.e. television) that the major parties dominate. Websites and blogs, however, are cheap, affordable, and attractive to political movements with essentially no money to spend. Thus, "libertarians" are naturally attracted to, and over represented in, cyberspace. This, however, hardly makes them representative of the overall voting population, were the major party candidates continue to hold the lead.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/selection_bias

You know, I was going to make a long post quoting the leading polls showing how Ron Paul is decidedly not leading, then go into an in-depth explanation on selection bias and how care must be taken to avoid it.

But you've really said pretty much all that needs to be said. :)

Wow, Ron Paul just got ahead of Soviestan by a slim margin...

But don't fret Soviestan... YOU CAN DO IT! Just wait for the Stolen I mean Absentee Ballots!

i'd prefer a homeless, hippie, nonchristian, railfan, choosen by lottory, to anyone in the corporatocracy's pocket, which is all we ever get to choose between.

someone with a background in engineering and art and with a real imagination, instead of the usual bizdroid worshiping law school flunkey.

someone who isn't too retarded to see that THERE REALLY ARE ALTERNATIVES, and that there not all pie in the sky far distant future utopian either.

and sense enough to realize the real future of all humanity depends upon them, and upon NOT kissing the ass of a corporate economic status quo.

=^^=
.../\...

I can't really say that I'm well-informed on either of the two, but from what I hear about and from Ron Paul, I think the other guy HAS to be the lesser of two evils.

Ron Paul or Obama?I was challenged in your poll options for two reasons ...
One, i don't know what your stance is on weasels.
Two, there wasn't a "Bill & Opus" option.

Maybe if you looked out the window, you might notice those goddamn liberals trashing your mailbox.

Yeah, whatever the fuck that means!

Yeah, whatever the fuck that means!

He's probably upset that the postal service hasn't been privatised. Or something.

Someone who won a Nobel Peace Prize, and clearly doesnt want the job, even though he's a shoe-in, if he did run.

Someone who won a Nobel Peace Prize, and clearly doesnt want the job, even though he's a shoe-in, if he did run.

Arafat is dead, dude.

Arafat is dead, dude.

And I think Jimmy Carter is unelectable at this point. Who could he be talking about? Bono?

Maybe if you looked out the window, you might notice those goddamn liberals trashing your mailbox.

LOL

At least I hope you're kidding

Try actually learning your facts before you bash Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul isn't just winning "select internet polls". He's won the majority of state Straw Polls. He's won a good 20-some at least, while apparent "frontrunner" Giuliani has won less than 10. Paul also has the highest amount of fundraising and is clearly recognized by anyone who takes him seriously as a contender and true frontrunner.

Just because you don't like Ron Paul doesn't mean you can fabricate lies to convince yourself he no chance at winning. Right now, Ron Paul would probably win the Presidency whether you want to admit it or not.

edit: I found some information.

As of December 10, 2007:
Paul has come in 1st on 31 Straw Polls.
He has come in in the Top 5 on 19 Straw Polls. That is, discluding the 1st place wins.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/


Wikipedia on Straw Polls in America:
A formal straw poll is common in American political caucuses. Such straw polls can be taken before selecting delegates and voting on resolutions. The results of straw polls are taken by the media to influence delegates in caucus later (as well as delegates to political conventions), and thus serve as important precursors. Straw polls are also scheduled informally by other organizations interested in the U.S. presidential election.

while apparent "frontrunner" Giuliani has one less than 10.

10-1=?

9?

That is Libertarian. The popular association for liberals in America is Devil-worshiping fiends who eat aborted fetuses for brunch. :DYes and no. Libertarianism is a branch of Liberalism, albeit more extreme in pursuing liberal economic goals. I have the feeling they called themselves that because "liberal" was already taken.

Click Stand;13333944']10-1=?

9?

I meant "won" less than ten. Excuse me, and thanks for pointing that out in your clever sort of own way.

Try actually learning your facts before you bash Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul isn't just winning "select internet polls". He's won the majority of state Straw Polls. He's won a good 20-some at least, while apparent "frontrunner" Giuliani has one less than 10. Paul also has the highest amount of fundraising and is clearly recognized by anyone who takes him seriously as a contender and true frontrunner.

Just because you don't like Ron Paul doesn't mean you can fabricate lies to convince yourself he no chance at winning. Right now, Ron Paul would probably win the Presidency whether you want to admit it or not.

edit: I found some information.

As of December 10, 2007:
Paul has come in 1st on 31 Straw Polls.
He has come in in the Top 5 on 19 Straw Polls. That is, discluding the 1st place wins.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

So, being popular doesn't mean he's not a loon.


Also, since you avoided it before
IRS Control in terms of taxes.
explain

So, being popular doesn't mean he's not a loon.
Loon or not, he's probably going to be the next President and no amount of whining or ad hominem will stop that.

Also, since you avoided it before, explain...
The IRS is not government regulated. There is no balance of power there. You owe taxes, they come after you. Tax evaders are guilty until proven innocent - they don't go to normal court, they go to a tax court where you have to prove yourself innocent! A huge percent of the country is in debt right now, and taxes are just going on.

The Income Tax assumes you belong to the state. The IRS enforces that tax. We have a right to our individuality and liberty, and we have the right to keep the sweat on our brow. When the government controls your income, their actions directly effect how much money you make. As the govt. goes down, we all go down. We're literally slaves to the government by having to report financial information that, in a free society, would be our own business.

Try actually learning your facts before you bash Ron Paul.
We know his political views. That is all that is required to bash him. Popularity has nothing to do with it - just like Mussolini's popularity shouldn't prevent anyone from bashing him.

He's won the majority of state Straw Polls.
Who exactly gets polled in Straw Polls? The entire voting population or just a select few?

Right now, Ron Paul would probably win the Presidency whether you want to admit it or not.
Keep dreaming. I'm looking forward to his crushing, humiliating defeat in the Republican primaries. But by all means, keep trying to inflate his profile now so we can laugh at you later.

Of course, you'll just claim that the vote is rigged by the evil liberal-communist-Jewish-immigrant-neocon-worldgovernment conspiracy.

Keep dreaming.
By denying Paul's potential of winning, you're in a dream of your own.

I never said you folks didn't have a right to bash Ron Paul. Some of you aren't even using actual facts about him to attack him. You call him a "loon" with no evidence as to why, and act like he has no chance to win. I don't know if you noticed, but Mussolini was the leader of Italy. He was popular, a loon by your standards, and still was in charge. Ron Paul meets similar standards, apparently, and you still fantasize of a world where he'll meet a crushing defeat.

How small.

Who exactly gets polled in Straw Polls? The entire voting population or just a select few?

General state populations get polled in Straw Polls.

Yes and no. Libertarianism is a branch of Liberalism, albeit more extreme in pursuing liberal economic goals. I have the feeling they called themselves that because "liberal" was already taken.

Are they not also for less gun-control, stuff like that?

Loon or not, he's probably going to be the next President and no amount of whining or ad hominem will stop that.What? You could wait until after the nominations before making that kind of prediction...

Loon or not, he's probably going to be the next President and no amount of whining or ad hominem will stop that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Wait, wait, you... you actually...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

The IRS is not government regulated.
What are you talking about? It's a branch of government.

You owe taxes, they come after you. Tax evaders are guilty until proven innocent - they don't go to normal court, they go to a tax court where you have to prove yourself innocent!
Tax evasion is against the law. Therefore, if you owe taxes you are guilty of breaking the law.

A huge percent of the country is in debt right now, and taxes are just going on.
Debt has nothing to do with taxes.

The Income Tax assumes you belong to the state.
No it doesn't. Read up on the principles of the social contract. Moron.

We're literally slaves to the government by having to report financial information that, in a free society, would be our own business.
You apparently know nothing about slavery.

And all the rest of the Republicans are neocon warmongers. The Democrat side is mostly Communists and otherwise uber-liberals that would only keep America down its dark path.

Ron Paul stands for liberty, he stands for America. If you don't like liberty, you don't like America. If you don't like America, you don't have a damn right to be voting in the first place.

Er...there are no communists or uber-liberals in America, hate to tell ya.

Are they not also for less gun-control, stuff like that?Not a defining issue. That's more of a regional thing, such as in the US or Switzerland.

He was popular, a loon by your standards, and still was in charge. Ron Paul meets similar standards, apparently, and you still fantasize of a world where he'll meet a crushing defeat.

How small.
Ok, do you promise to eat your words if he does actually meet with a crushing defeat? I promise to eat my words if he wins.

General state populations get polled in Straw Polls.
Are they all required to respond or are the polls based on voluntary responses?

If they are based on voluntary responses, that explains the selection bias that led Paul to be overrepresented. His small group of supporters simply responded more than everyone else.

The IRS is not government regulated. There is no balance of power there. You owe taxes, they come after you. Tax evaders are guilty until proven innocent - they don't go to normal court, they go to a tax court where you have to prove yourself innocent! A huge percent of the country is in debt right now, and taxes are just going on.
.

My understanding is that the IRS is subject to the US Tax Code, and Congress, a branch of the government, develops laws that apply to the IRS, and what things can be excluded, deducted, and so forth. I think there is some government regulation of the IRS.

Also, US Tax Court is not your only option for a tax issue. Depending on the strategic elements of your particular case, I think you can be heard also in Federal District Court and US Court of Federal Claims. The latter two hear more than just tax cases and could be considered "normal" courts.

The IRS is also subject to the oversight of the Treasury, a government group.

I would very much like to see reform in taxation (as well as reform in spending, of course), and while the IRS, like any powerful group, definitely has its share of foul violations, there is some government regulation of it.

Not a defining issue. That's more of a regional thing, such as in the US or Switzerland.

Hm.

Someone needs to waterboard Ron Paul and his supporters....:headbang: