Someone at Youtube has a sense of humor..?

Rick rolls are just about as annoying as Ron Paul*, so I'd say its related.

* Ok, maybe not Ron Paul himself - but his supporters.

i wish political bloggers wouldn't write annoying EXPOSED stuff on the videos they upload

he still gets owned though

You did that wrong. Just tag the number at the end of the url.

In a year, we'll all forget this Ron Paul nonsense. Same with the presidential candidates. Who still talks about Kerry as much too? I guess people like the hype.

Yeah...Ron Paul's 10 earmarks vs the 100s and 100s of earmarks from Hillary and Obama.

Ron Paul makes a valid point, though. 'Earmarks' are taking money away from the government. If they didn't take so much from us in the first place, we wouldn't need them to pay for these things.

'Earmarks' are a state issue vote Ron Paul '08

Ron Paul is a nutbar.

As a Congressman representing his district, his responsibility is first to his district. His constituents pay just as much taxes as anyone else, why should they get less benefit just because the system is bad? It would be unethical and pointless for Ron Paul not to let his district take advantage of benefits that everyone else gets, just because it's a bad system. EVERYONE gets earmarks. If his district didn't, they be unfairly compensated for the taxes they paid. The point is the whole system is bad, and it needs to be stopped for everyone. His comparison to social security is apt. You wouldn't shred your check just because the system sucks. You as an individual get what you can out of the system while campaigning for a reform that will actually fix everything.



The whole deal about Ron Paul isn't progress, it's about averting disaster. Our next president whoever he or she is, will continue to avoid talking about unpleasant things like raising taxes or cutting spending until it's too late, and we have huge problems. Politicians blither about progress and this and that and up spending us away into oblivion. It really doesn't matter who wins this next election, the country is headed for problems.

Massassi, where the jokes become serious, and the serious become jokes.

That's what happens when people like the bat**** ****ing insane.

I really don't care any more. The funniest part is that no one cares to disagree with Paul on an intellectual level. They just laugh him off because he's not mainstream. I'm not sure about him about everything, but he's got a point; if we don't change now, we as a nation are in serious economic trouble. All he's trying to do with his bid for president, is to get that message out there. The thing is, nobody cares. They'd rather sit back, form opinions off of retardedly shallow emotional reactions, and shore them up with a football like fanboyism and scoff at everyone who doesn't agree with the things their side tells them to believe.

On one hand, it worries me, on the other hand, everybody has it coming, so I'm half glad. We'll be hoisted by our own self-righteous lazy pertards.

(The worst part here, is that once Bush is out of office everyone will stop caring about the few real problems that blind partisan politics has allowed them to see.)

No one cares to disagree with him on an intellectual level because most don't know who he is. They sit at home and believe everything the mainstream media feeds them.

Hey, that's how most people would do it, that's how I would do it

It IS unethical though, and some people WOULD shred their checks. It probably would just make them pipe dreamers but this is one of those things where you just have to admit you're out to get yours and not try to dress it up fancy like he did, because there's not much you can say.

I disagree with his ethics. He's racist and extremist. Absolute libertarianism simply wouldn't work, and neither would a pure socialism. A balance must be had, and extremism is not the way to go.

Racist? Where did you dig that up? You mean the articles that a staff member wrote and was fired for?

Also, absolute libertarianism implies anarchy. He favors levels of regulation similar to what the country had when the Constitution was first written.

And if a balance must be had, then why elect other candidates that will continue to expand government control?

Ron Paul basically believes if we ignore everyone else, stick our fingers in our ears and go BLAH BLAH BLAH really loud so we can't hear them everything will be totally copacetic.

Also. He's a nutbar.

Do you even follow politics?

Did you bother to see the kind of whacked out crazy **** this man puts forth to the senate before you jumped on the band wagon?

I was a member of the libertarian party before ever giving Ron Paul my support.

And yes, I'm familiar with the proposals he's made.

I'm also familiar with the severely slanted crap that you read about him (given previous posts by you). You either just hate Ron Paul or let someone else shove their opinion straight down your throat.

Ron Paul ignores the needs of the lower class, claiming charity and good will is what is going to take care of people. He ignores the high cost of many medical procedures, and ignores that many more people would most certainly parish under his presidency simply because the little public healthcare assistance available would be challenged. He ignores the fact that many private health equipment providers charge extreme amounts of money for adaptive equipment simply because they realize that their "patients" need them. Ron Paul assumes that a hands free government is going to help our economy, encouraging competitive pricing and consumer power, despite the fact that an absolutely free market without checks will ruin the consumer's power, making water an industry.

Ron Paul is misguided, greedy, and probably still thinks we're fighting communism.

As far as being racist, you could ask him? He's said similar things about Jews.

Last but not least, he's a fundie, and thinks that the church should rise up and provide for the people. That's scary.

Uhm.

You can't slant what he has himself produced.

Dude is a nutbar.

Yes.

*sigh*

Read my post and at least do a little research. He did not write that. He does not support that. He accepted responsibility for failing to monitor what went out in his name. He has publicly announced his disappointment in some of his supporters favoring extreme ideals such as white supremacy that threaten personal freedoms and rights. Etc. etc. I could go on. Please make an effort to research the topic.

I'm also curious to know where you're drawing your statements about his healthcare stance.

How am I drawing them? I explained it perfectly. How do we ensure a child with a severe disability born to a poor family has a chance to prosper? How can we expect the environment to be a priority to industries that have no regulations? How can we expect to have competitive prices from industries that are dominated by a single company?

Ron Paul cannot answer any of these questions.

Ron Paul can answer the environment question. He has stated that he will enforce property rights. If a company or private citizen is in some way hurting the environment, and that harm is carrying over onto other people's property through a stream or simply by runoff, then the harmed party would have the full justification for seeking compensation/cessation of the offending activity.
He calls for an end to the EPA, but that would not be a loss for the protective principles which it stands for.

See http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

He also wants to reduce federal regulations that discourage health coverage from businesses and wants to drive down medical care costs. He wants HSAs available to all citizens and inreased access to healthcare.

Furthermore, reducing federal regulations != reducing state and local regulations.

Ron Paul still sees environmental issues as property value. That's wrong, and useless. Conservation and regulation are the only answers to ecological problems, not monetary fines for letting your pollution spill onto other people's land.

Oh, so I just have to live in the right state if I get cancer? That's good to know.

Or read.




Wrong and useless? That's absolute nonsense. Some of the worst injustices and unethical behavior derive from a blatant disregard for the property of others.

Also, from the article:



As for other issues, such as potentially less regulation on the use of coal and oil drilling, there is room for these to be addressed through the protection of personal property.

The Iraq War is a state issue vote Ron Paul 08

You're talking about property damage, I'm talking about ecological initiative

And how, pray tell, is my statement about cancer ignorant of what you wrote? You would have to hope your state has voted someone into office that's ballsy enough to tax people for the benefit of "the lazy and the poor."

And that's just what it is. Ron Paul supporters have never been poor, nor do they understand the kind of non-society they support.

Because it appears that (1) your are only reading the last line of the post and (2) have not studied his healthcare proposals.



And I'm sure you'll have no issues providing the appropriate sources. Additionally, the use of the term "non-society" implies that you are completely ignorant of what he supports. Are you implying that following the Constitution is an endorsement of a so-called "non-society" ?

And do excuse any aggressive/rude comments. It is a political thread on Massassi, after all.

This always makes me laugh.

Finding the "balance" is like trying to find a corner on a sphere.

They should take care of their own needs. Any charity they may recieve they should be grateful for.


So has every other contemporary president, which is why health care is so borked up.




and natural selection would be restored to usefulness. Hurrah, I say.



If you don't like that health care providers are exploitave, then you just need to realize that maybe you don't really need what they're selling. 30 years ago you wouldn't be able to find a fraction of the crap we have nowadays, but there was less exploitation. The cure is worse than the disease.



I assume you mean bottled water? It's your choice whether or not to buy it. If you think the government needs to protect the public from being poor consumers then you endorse a nanny state.


Meaningless statment if I've ever seen one


greed is a political prerequisite, but compared to the other candidates? You're dreaming.


hurr



He's said the churches should step up and take the reigns of charity away from government. I see nothing wrong with that. It would be an oppurtunity for church to be of some use.

Good grief! I had the Dead Kennedy's "Kill the poor" running through my head as I read that. Are you seriously advocating that it's just fine that poor people die because they can't afford healthcare? Charity cannot be relied upon to provide for those who can't make ends meet. Especially in cases such as a recession where the better off people would find their incomes below their personal comfort zone and wouldn't donate any more. In a completely deregulated market wages would certainly drop below the current minimum wage (which last I heard hasn't changed since sometime in the 90s?). If there are already a lot of people working 2 or 3 jobs each, what the heck are they going to do when even that isn't enough to survive? They wouldn't have enough hours in the day to earn enough.

Victorian Britain had much the same laissez-faire set up. You had a few arses in top hats and monocles living the life of Reilly while the rest lived in slums and worked incessantly just to be able to feed themselves. When something went wrong: disease, injury, eviction, the inevitable extra child thanks to no protection or education etc, there was no one there to help them, just the black pits that were the flophouses and workhouses. We look back on those times with disgust and are thankful for the reforms that brought an end to that type of society. Strangely you seem to encourage it?
I can't remember who said it but there's a saying I'll paraphrase: "When thinking about rules you'd like the world to live by, act as if you don't know whether you'll be rich or poor".

You are a sad, lonely individual Freelancer. Your lack of human compassion is pitiful, and reflective of your social skills. Hopefully that heaven thing is real, for your sake.

Your political ideals are short sighted and self-serving. You'll have to get a high labor job once your Ron Paul is president, and somewhere in that job you'll fall and hurt your back. Your company has people banging on the door for jobs all day, so you're briskly let go. Now you're out of work without any income to support the physical therapy you need to get back into work. You call Ron Paul and ask him why the Charities in your area can't provide anything more than a hot meal on Fridays.

I'm eagerly awaiting the first use of the word "sheeple" in this thread.

And you still refuse to read anything about his stance on healthcare. Seriously, come on.

Ron Paul is a nutbar.