I believe this is the second one.

GO RON PAUL!

A bunch of racists and bigots, standing next to a libertarian, being asked questions by rednecks online and snowmen.

I'm taping it.

Snowmen?
Freelancer?

That was pretty lame. It wasn't even a debate. Just a few sound bytes.

yea it was pretty terrible no one answered anything legitimately and they just gave a ton or air time to the leading candidates to speak instead of our god and savior ron paul.

It was pretty funny to watch Fred Thompson fall apart. I wonder if his writers are on strike.

Falling apart presupposes there was something to begin with.

I don't really pay attention until there's only a few candidates to pick from.

Let me recommend that you pay attention to Ron Paul.

THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG

WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE RON PAUL?


Go look at some of the stuff he's proposed. For the love of ****, stop listening to what he is saying NOW and judge by what he has DONE.


You guys would probably vote for Hitler if he came out with a platform for free puppies for everyone.

Maybe they like the things he proposes? Not everyone has the exact same political beliefs as you. Just because it's further than usual from the Status Quo, doesn't mean it's wacko. We have big enough impending problems that we'll have to make some pretty drastic changes by default if we keep ignoring them. If we take steps to fix them now rather than later, the steps won't have to be as drastic.




No one really cared about the states' decline in power. It was just an excuse to fight for slavery. If that wasn't true, the Civil War wouldn't have been divided between states that had an economic foundation on slavery vs. states that didn't.

The things that he proposes are insane.

THERE IS A REASON WHY ALMOST EVERYONE VOTES AGAINST THE THINGS HE OFTEN PROPOSES.

There was: A metric ****ton of hype.

Ron Paul delivered over 4000 babies.

I liked that most of the candidates were not afraid to give substantive answers. What I didn't like were many of the questions that were selected. A Hillary supporter asking republicans to defend her husbands policy regarding homosexuals in the military is both ironic and meaningless for republican primary voters. An Edwards supporter asking a "would you punish a woman for getting an abortion" in a hypothetical situation that certainly won't appear in the next four to eight years is meaningless for republican primary voters. Barrack Obama supporter concerned with the Log Cabin Republicans? Confederate flag? Do you believe EVERY word in the bible? Corn tastes good, what about subsidies? Will you pledge to go to Mars? For crying out loud, I enjoyed watching the debate but I sure bet they could have found more substantive and relevant questions than many they selected.

Then again, it was on CNN.

I'm not sure I completely disagree with this view. The North was right to fight against slavery but the South was right to fight for state rights. The north won and slavery was abolished but look at the gigantic far reaching federal government we have to show for it now.

The was a question in the debate last night where a father/son duo asked what the candidates would do to help fix their little "war zone". A candidate with balls would have suggested they ask their mayor and governor, whose responsibility it is to deal with the problem, the question.

Forgot to mention, McCain ripped Romney to pieces on waterboarding. That was terrific entertainment.

Sometimes I think McCain might get angry over making EPWs sleep on the floor. He has always seemed terribly unstable to me. IMO, waterboarding is the final line between persuasion and torture. The grey area that you don't cross, if you will.

I'm not going to watch the whole thing because I don't care yet.

I appreciate McCain's view on the subject but I agree with Romney that the president really shouldn't be discussing openly, i.e. for the bad guys to hear, what we will and won't do to them.

You think they are insane. That's just all there is to it.

If we say we're not going to torture, and we're serious about it, then the bad guys should be able to infer pretty easily that we're not going to waterboard. Romney's answer is a rather poor dodge.

Well, I agree that that was one of the couple (or more, don't remember them all) answers that he seemed to fumble with. Your view, of course, depends on if someone defines waterboarding as torture. I kind of feel like Spook that it is the line and you go no further than it. I think it certainly is mental torture because it gives the subject the sensation of drowning. But since it is regarded as safe and the toughest dude has apparantly broken within two minutes I don't really have a problem with a terrorist thinking he's going to drown for two minutes before he's allowed to go back to his prayer rug and Quran.

MOST PEOPLE think they are insane. Kind of like how MOST PEOPLE think you're sort of a crybaby mini-mod.

Seriously. I can't believe people are trying to argue for the lunacy.

Funny. Honestly, Rob, you're the one here *****ing and whining. You do it more often than most these days.

Why don't you actually make an effort proving your claim for once. Cause running around saying "omg he's a lunatic" isn't doing **** for you.

Rob, can you be more specific? Or are you saying that every word from his mouth is insane?

I'm not being sarcastic, by the way. I really want to know why you think he is crazy.

Agreed. His current stance gives me the impression that he knows very little about the politics and is really letting the media (and whoever else) decide for him.

Of course, that's how it is for most people these days.

I can't hear you over all that complaining you're doing dude.


WOH

THATS A PARADOX. I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW BIG OF A WAHH WAHH YOU ARE.

Of course, Rob. Forget the fact that you're crying your heart out about people doing their own research and choosing their own political position.

Try again. Your position that Ron Paul is a lunatic is going down the hole. Seriously, I want you to make an effort to prove your claim.

Prepare for copy pasta you likely ignored in the last lets put our mouth on Ron Paul's e-peen thread.


INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
-- He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...ws/912300/ posts
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.01095:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.00777:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1548:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:HZ01003:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d106:HZ0380:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d105:HZ0312:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4984:

-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.02597:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d110:h.r.1094:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.00776:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d097:h.r.392:

-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.00300:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.04379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.05739:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.3893:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1547:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.4922:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.5078:

-- This includes limits on courts' hearing cases related to abortion, and he has introduced bills specific to these kinds of cases. He also uses the deceptive term "partial-birth abortion".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1545:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1546:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.2875:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d106:h.r.03400:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.3691:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.15169:

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...105:h.j.res.80:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...105:h.j.res.82:

LAWS IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING CLASS
-- He has tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2310:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.13264:

-- He would like to make it much easier to decertify labor unions
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d107:h.r.694:

-- He opposes the Minimum Wage.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.2962:

-- He would deny the prevailing wage to employees of federal contractors, and remove prohibition on kickbacks in Federal projects
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:h.r.736:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.2720:

-- He wants to severely weaken Social Security.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.2030:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4604:
Trefayne | 11.08.07 - 4:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTER ISSUES
-- He has come out against attempts to make the United States more democratic, including the idea of eliminating the Electoral College, even *after* the debacle in the 2000 Presidential election.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...7:h.con.res.48:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.con.res.443:

-- He wants to repeal the "Motor Voter" Act, which has made it easier for people to register to vote.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.2139:
CORPORATE POWER
-- He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1247:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1789:

-- He would gut the regulatory power of Federal agencies, forcing Congress to micromanage all decisions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.1204:

DISCRIMINATION
-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.3863:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.5842:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4982:

-- He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.j.res.00046:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/...:h.j.res.00046:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...108:h.j.res.42:

(Ron Paul is not the hippy environmentalist candidate)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-- He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...06:h.j.res.104:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.3735:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.4423:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2504:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.7079:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.7245:

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MILITARY ISSUES
-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1665:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.3769:


-- He would continue U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, despite the usefulness of this body for prosecuting war-crimes that are not challenged domestically.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1154:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d107:HZ0480:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.4169:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...7:h.con.res.23:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d107:h.res.416:


- He would end U.S. participation in the United Nations. Failing that he would prohibit or severely curtail appropriations for U.S. payments to the U.N. or its affiliated agencies. Please note that isolationism is not the same as anti-imperialism.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.01146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.01146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...109:h.amdt.285:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d107:HZ0190:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d107:HZ0191:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d106:HZ0306:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d105:HZ0138:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.3890:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.3891:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.6358:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.14788:

-- Not having any success there, he has worked to block U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/....con.res.00132:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...08:h.con.res.4:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.con.res.443:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.con.res.489:

A GUN FREE-FOR-ALL
-- He would allow more guns in schools and National Parks, repeal requirements for background checks and gun-locks, use Federal authority to nullify state laws regarding concealed weapons (Isn't libertarian for smaller government?), and eliminate many other regulations including prohibitions on gun possession by minors, recent felons, fugitives, addicts, and domestic abusers, and prohibitions relating to semiautomatic weapons.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.02424:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.01897:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/qu...?c110:H.R.1096:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.01703:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.3125:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d108:h.r.153:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1762:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1179:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:h.r.407:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.2721:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d105:h.r.02722:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.1147:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.3892:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2311:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.14768:

TAX POLICY
-- He wants to dramatically reduce the tax obligations of people who make inordinately high incomes and who inherit large fortunes they did not earn. Specifically, this includes attempts to repeal the estate tax, and to apply one tax rate to all income levels.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.j.res.00023:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/...:h.j.res.00014:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...108:h.j.res.15:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...107:h.j.res.45:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...106:h.j.res.81:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...05:h.j.res.116:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.5484:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.2137:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.1664:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...098:h.j.res.23:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d097:h.r.6352:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.4569:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.15619:

-- And short of that he wants us to pay our income taxes every month, and not use withholding.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1364:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d106:h.r.04855:

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


Now thats just stuff I found crazy. I haven't read everything on there, but I've read parts for just about every section. All I have to say is What The ****.

Here is the link to where I got copy pasta from;

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davidneiwert/2437105258191203346/#294637

Dear god.
Best Rob post ever.
(leave the UN? I really suddenly hope he doesn't get elected)

Okay, I've watched some of it. What a bunch of clowns.

-Ron Paul was a huge letdown considering how much the Paulbots have been talking up his debating skills...he came off as a hyperactive old Southern man instead of the poised, masterful debater I was expecting. I can see why he's such a favorite with David Duke and Stormfront, though.

-McCain seemed remarkably human, but also very tired and like he's not really up for a presidency.

-Huckabee was charismatic and great at answering questions, even though I disagree with almost all of his platform.

-Giuliani was mediocre, if I didn't already know about his history of corruption and police scandals I might even like him. Also I always thought he was taller. It was pretty amusing watching him get nailed repeatedly for his liberal beliefs.

-Romney is a waffling slimeball, just looking at him makes me want to punch him in the face. He's so evasive and smug. Gahh. Although I liked his stance on inner-city crime.

-Fred Thompson looks and sounds like a monster that just burst out of some kid's closet. He's hilarious.

-I didn't see much of Tancredo but he put me off for the same reasons Romney did...smirky, smug, and obnoxious.

-And there was what, one other guy? I forget who he was and he wasn't very interesting.

I also loved how the candidates would talk WAY over the allotted time limit, with little Anderson Cooper sort of mumbling "time.......time...........t-........senator......" At one point he said something like "let's move on to the next question?" followed by a tiny, plaintive little "please?" It was great.

Rob, as much as I hate the Paultards, saying he's against all those things is a pretty unfair stance.

He wants state's rights for everything. He's not opposed to a minimum wage, he's just against the federal government setting it. He's not opposed to abortion, he's merely opposed to the federal government deciding the case.

While I pretty much hate everything Paul does stand for, I think some limits in how involved Federal government gets could be an admirable goal.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Let's try to keep it civil between the two of us from here on out.

Firstly, would you mind pointing the particular proposals you consider to be "crazy"? Just so we know what we need to address.

I've read through that website before and will comment more tomorrow.
But for now, here are some clear thoughts. Others will need more detailed discussion:

On the abortion topics (which seems to almost literally be a 3rd or 4th of the links) - Keep in mind that the issue of abortion is really about whether or not unborn babies should be considered human and have rights. Following the Constitution, everyone has a right to life. Obviously, if it were agreed upon that unborn babies should have rights, then abortion would be considered murder and be unacceptable. However, there is no agreement. Ron Paul has delivered thousands of babies which has led him to believe that life begins at conception. This is far from lunacy. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Ron Paul's experience gives him to most reasonable backing for his political stance on this. What do the other candidates have?

Return to gold standard - Are you kidding me? This is not a bad thing. One of the worst things the US did was move away from the gold standard. In fact, it's really kicking our asses right now.

Weakening Federal control - This is really just an effort to shrink the size of the government. In the current state, it is very easy for the court system to exercise an unreasonable amount of power over laws and what they do. Ron Paul's stance - do what the Constitution tells us to do. If the Constitution does not say it, leave it to the states.

UN membership - Questionable as to whether this actually benefits the US. Feel free to offer debate here.

Voter issues (electoral college) - Hot and common topic. Certainly no lunacy here. If there was, then the electoral college would have been abolished by now.


More to come tomorrow.

I would suggest this link be reviewed thoroughly. After reading some of the bills, I doubt the individual that compiled this list made much of an effort in actually reading the proposals. Furthermore, the horrible bias in each comment tells me this guy was out to discredit Ron Paul from the start.

Well, the general idea in the US Constitution was that things that weren't addressed in the Constitution should be left to the states.

Watching a bit of Sean Hannity, eh?

Never have, it was the first thing that came to mind :saddowns:

Hey Rob, I was not aware of much of Paul's voting record you posted. Just wanted to say thanks for posting that because it drastically changes the way I view him.

Thanks for posting rob.

However, IRG SithLord is right in that YOU think they are crazy. Just because you believe in unions, minimum wage, etc, doesn't mean that everyone else is crazy. I think unions are downright evil (I assume you are probably really pro-Union, seeing as how you worked at UPS and probably got paid much more than your marginal productivity of labor), as well as the minimum wage, but it doesn't make me crazy. Maybe you think I am, but that's irrelevant. Not trying to start a fight or argument, I'm just saying that just because someone doesn't want the federal government to have too much control, does not mean he's crazy.

Sorry, but to me, a LOT of those things sound good. But hey, I'm free market, so that's probably why.

Eh, I'm no friend of Stormfront...definitely not leaning toward Paul here