I Really Like Ron Paul but I'm Enthusiastically Voting for Obama!

[FA_Q2]

So you like Ron Paul but your enthusiastically voting for a man who stands for the exact opposite in all areas both foreign and domestic?

Don't take this the wrong way, but that is one of the dumbest, most illogical things I've ever heard.

Well then let me address your point directly and without insult.

I really like Ron Paul's honesty and willingness to say things that will cost him votes - which he does often. It's refreshing as hell!
I agree VERY strongly with Ron Paul when he says "Look, if we don't trust the cooked politicians in our own country, why the heck are we giving billions away every year, to the crooked politicians of other countries? Do you really think that money goes where it's supposed to? You don't think the leaders in say, Pakistan or Israel use that for something our politicians don't tell us about?"
Now THAT I can get behind 100%. Or this:
"HELLO, we've LOST the war on drugs folks. We're just wasting our money. If they legalized heroin tomorrow, would you start using it? The answer is no."
Well THAT just makes sense!
There are other such examples.
But I disagree with him on the basic political philosophy behind his party: Libertarianism. If it worked, wouldn't some country, somewhere in history have tried it? And I've lived in countries that are pretty close and well, no thanks.
The Market does not eliminate countries that produce harmful products or abuse their employees or kill the environment and those living it.
Eliminating minimum wage does not create a more prosperous country, it kills the Middle Class.
There are bad people out there. There are fanatics. We have a right to sell planes to Saudi Arabia and any other country we dann well please. Sorry Ron, 9/11 was not our fault.
No we shouldn't have helped take down The Shah, armed the Taliban, given ChemWeps to Saddam and so on. But no, Bin Laden didn't attack us about that. The vids are all public. Hell, they published their own little newspaper. They attacked us because they were a bunch of religious fanatics led by the pariah of a rich Arab family who got the boot because his version of Wahabism was just plain Nurse Ratchet material.
Oh and voting NO on eliminating Oil & Gas subsidies?!?!?! (what state is he from again? Oh yeah. Texas). So all that talk about pure capitalism? Liiitle hypocritical there , eh Ronny?

I mean, I understand that a LOT fo Ron Paul followers think it's hypocritical to agree with him on anything if you aren't willing to put on the apostle's cloak and agree with him on everything. I'm not saying that's you but I'm sure you've seen posters who are exactly like that.
Sorry. Hell, I don't even agree with my best friends on everything.
So although I like many things he forwards, the things I disagree with him on (most importantly, the political philosophy of his movement), preclude my vote.

I don't agree on a lot of what Paul wants as well but the balance for me is in congress. Paul will take us in the right direction and congress won't let the most radical things through and, quite frankly, some of the other stuff will be logistically impossible. So, while I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would happily vote for him because Paul does not run the entire government.

OTOH, Obama is almost an exact opposite of Paul. If you truly understand what Paul is running for, freedom, then I fail to see how you can vote for Obama when he is in the exact opposite direction. Sure, some of the things Obama passed is helping you BUT stealing from others and giving it to you would also benefit you. That does not mean it should be done or that it is right. One of the things I hate most is when people vote based on what they are getting out of the deal without looking at the whole picture or where that benefit comes from. It is what has put our country in this mess of pandering to a bunch of whiny special interest groups rather than trying to create the most free and good society that we can.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you like Ron Paul but your enthusiastically voting for a man who stands for the exact opposite in all areas both foreign and domestic?

Don't take this the wrong way, but that is one of the dumbest, most illogical things I've ever heard.

Well then let me address your point directly and without insult.

I really like Ron Paul's honesty and willingness to say things that will cost him votes - which he does often. It's refreshing as hell!
I agree VERY strongly with Ron Paul when he says "Look, if we don't trust the cooked politicians in our own country, why the heck are we giving billions away every year, to the crooked politicians of other countries? Do you really think that money goes where it's supposed to? You don't think the leaders in say, Pakistan or Israel use that for something our politicians don't tell us about?"
Now THAT I can get behind 100%. Or this:
"HELLO, we've LOST the war on drugs folks. We're just wasting our money. If they legalized heroin tomorrow, would you start using it? The answer is no."
Well THAT just makes sense!
There are other such examples.
But I disagree with him on the basic political philosophy behind his party: Libertarianism. If it worked, wouldn't some country, somewhere in history have tried it? And I've lived in countries that are pretty close and well, no thanks.
The Market does not eliminate countries that produce harmful products or abuse their employees or kill the environment and those living it.
Eliminating minimum wage does not create a more prosperous country, it kills the Middle Class.
There are bad people out there. There are fanatics. We have a right to sell planes to Saudi Arabia and any other country we dann well please. Sorry Ron, 9/11 was not our fault.
No we shouldn't have helped take down The Shah, armed the Taliban, given ChemWeps to Saddam and so on. But no, Bin Laden didn't attack us about that. The vids are all public. Hell, they published their own little newspaper. They attacked us because they were a bunch of religious fanatics led by the pariah of a rich Arab family who got the boot because his version of Wahabism was just plain Nurse Ratchet material.
Oh and voting NO on eliminating Oil & Gas subsidies?!?!?! (what state is he from again? Oh yeah. Texas). So all that talk about pure capitalism? Liiitle hypocritical there , eh Ronny?

I mean, I understand that a LOT fo Ron Paul followers think it's hypocritical to agree with him on anything if you aren't willing to put on the apostle's cloak and agree with him on everything. I'm not saying that's you but I'm sure you've seen posters who are exactly like that.
Sorry. Hell, I don't even agree with my best friends on everything.
So although I like many things he forwards, the things I disagree with him on (most importantly, the political philosophy of his movement), preclude my vote.

I don't agree on a lot of what Paul wants as well but the balance for me is in congress. Paul will take us in the right direction and congress won't let the most radical things through and, quite frankly, some of the other stuff will be logistically impossible. So, while I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would happily vote for him because Paul does not run the entire government.

OTOH, Obama is almost an exact opposite of Paul. If you truly understand what Paul is running for, freedom, then I fail to see how you can vote for Obama when he is in the exact opposite direction. Sure, some of the things Obama passed is helping you BUT stealing from others and giving it to you would also benefit you. That does not mean it should be done or that it is right. One of the things I hate most is when people vote based on what they are getting out of the deal without looking at the whole picture or where that benefit comes from. It is what has put our country in this mess of pandering to a bunch of whiny special interest groups rather than trying to create the most free and good society that we can.

That's it. I have no problem with those who support Paul. Applaud his achievements. Promote his platform. Show how his track record is better than anybody else's. But if done honestly, there are some problems in Ron Paul's resume too, and it is only fair that those be noted.

Ditto for anybody else running for President. Each one brings a certain skill set to the campaign and I don't see that anything productive comes oiut of demonizing any of them with speculative motives, intent, ulterior motibves etc. when there is no evidence to back that up. Let their supporters celebrate their achievements and also be willing to note the negatives which are present in all four.

Then let the best man win in the primaries. And once the candidate is the choice of the people, get behind him and make sure that Obama is a one term president. Because any one of the four or any of the GOP hopefuls that have already suspended their campaigns would be head and shoulders more competent and less destructive than Obama has been.

Oh, and also get behind theTea Party that is our best hope to push a stubborn President and Congress pretty much in the direction it should be going.

 

[FA_Q2]

And once the candidate is the choice of the people, get behind him and make sure that Obama is a one term president. Because any one of the four or any of the GOP hopefuls that have already suspended their campaigns would be head and shoulders more competent and less destructive than Obama has been.

I agree with most of your post but this line I am not too sure about. Paul is unlikely to go anwhere but I may not vote for anyone else on the republican ticket. It is not that I am a Paul or nothing guy or that I am a fanatic follower. To be frank, I think that many labeled this way actually are voting in the manner they are because of the same reason and here it is:

The republican party is headed in the wrong direction. Bush was a disaster and many people feel he was such a disaster because many of his policies are the same bullshit that the democrats push. More social welfare, more spending, more war, more more more more government. If Paul does not make it and, say, mitt gets the nomination we may be better or worse off but the real problem is that the republican party is vindicated again in it consistent running of people that are not really conservative and do not believe in freedom. As long as those people are voted for because they are the 'lesser' evil, they will continue to be the nominees and we will continue to slide into destruction all the while wondering what happened. I am no longer going to take that. If we want a real change, simply standing behind a tea party that ends up voting for the same crap is not going to work. It is going to cost a few elections but at the end of the day, it is going to move an entire party back to the ideals that it was supposed to value in the first place. I don't think I can honestly cast a vote that will perpetuate the same establishment republicans and perpetuate the broken ideology they represent. I want real change and I don't think we can get there if we never start in the first place.

 

[Immanuel]

And once the candidate is the choice of the people, get behind him and make sure that Obama is a one term president. Because any one of the four or any of the GOP hopefuls that have already suspended their campaigns would be head and shoulders more competent and less destructive than Obama has been.

I agree with most of your post but this line I am not too sure about. Paul is unlikely to go anwhere but I may not vote for anyone else on the republican ticket. It is not that I am a Paul or nothing guy or that I am a fanatic follower. To be frank, I think that many labeled this way actually are voting in the manner they are because of the same reason and here it is:

The republican party is headed in the wrong direction. Bush was a disaster and many people feel he was such a disaster because many of his policies are the same bullshit that the democrats push. More social welfare, more spending, more war, more more more more government. If Paul does not make it and, say, mitt gets the nomination we may be better or worse off but the real problem is that the republican party is vindicated again in it consistent running of people that are not really conservative and do not believe in freedom. As long as those people are voted for because they are the 'lesser' evil, they will continue to be the nominees and we will continue to slide into destruction all the while wondering what happened. I am no longer going to take that. If we want a real change, simply standing behind a tea party that ends up voting for the same crap is not going to work. It is going to cost a few elections but at the end of the day, it is going to move an entire party back to the ideals that it was supposed to value in the first place. I don't think I can honestly cast a vote that will perpetuate the same establishment republicans and perpetuate the broken ideology they represent. I want real change and I don't think we can get there if we never start in the first place.

Dagnammit! I wish I had put it like that.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

And once the candidate is the choice of the people, get behind him and make sure that Obama is a one term president. Because any one of the four or any of the GOP hopefuls that have already suspended their campaigns would be head and shoulders more competent and less destructive than Obama has been.

I agree with most of your post but this line I am not too sure about. Paul is unlikely to go anwhere but I may not vote for anyone else on the republican ticket. It is not that I am a Paul or nothing guy or that I am a fanatic follower. To be frank, I think that many labeled this way actually are voting in the manner they are because of the same reason and here it is:

The republican party is headed in the wrong direction. Bush was a disaster and many people feel he was such a disaster because many of his policies are the same bullshit that the democrats push. More social welfare, more spending, more war, more more more more government. If Paul does not make it and, say, mitt gets the nomination we may be better or worse off but the real problem is that the republican party is vindicated again in it consistent running of people that are not really conservative and do not believe in freedom. As long as those people are voted for because they are the 'lesser' evil, they will continue to be the nominees and we will continue to slide into destruction all the while wondering what happened. I am no longer going to take that. If we want a real change, simply standing behind a tea party that ends up voting for the same crap is not going to work. It is going to cost a few elections but at the end of the day, it is going to move an entire party back to the ideals that it was supposed to value in the first place. I don't think I can honestly cast a vote that will perpetuate the same establishment republicans and perpetuate the broken ideology they represent. I want real change and I don't think we can get there if we never start in the first place.

I think you might be discounting a new groundswell of conservatism that has been infusing itself into the Republican Party, however. In the past we did not have the Tea Party, 9/12ers, and similar groups activiely monitoring and critiquing the process. The GOP is in danger of not just failing to move with this new populace movement, but in being totally obliterated if we have another too liberal GOP president or if the Congress continues to be marginalized by a rogue President.

Good thing? Bad thing? I honestly wouldn't care if I thought we had time. But we don't. In just a few more elections, a Democratic President can have most of the Supreme Court packed with Gingsbergs, Sotomayors, and Stevens. Young ones that vcould finish the process of socializing America to the point there is no return short of another bloody revolution.

In just a few more elections of trillion dollar deficits, the country will be so hopelessly in debt that we will be at the mercy of whatever our credit holders wish to do for us. There aren't enough combined economies in the world to bail us out of the mega trillions in debt that Obama policies are projected to produce.

In just a few more elections, we may have so many of our individual liberties stripped away and a population so dependent on government largesse that reform is no longer a viable option. Obamacare will be in full force and will have already destroyed the private healthcare industry for instance. Won't a more GOP populated Congress temper the risk? Possibly. But we have a President who is already on record that he does not intend to bow to the will of Congress and will do as he damn well pleases.

In my opiinion, it is too dangerous to allow a Barack Obama another four years just to satisfy our sense of principle and ideology.

 

[IndependntLogic]

So you like Ron Paul but your enthusiastically voting for a man who stands for the exact opposite in all areas both foreign and domestic?

Don't take this the wrong way, but that is one of the dumbest, most illogical things I've ever heard.

Well then let me address your point directly and without insult.

I really like Ron Paul's honesty and willingness to say things that will cost him votes - which he does often. It's refreshing as hell!
I agree VERY strongly with Ron Paul when he says "Look, if we don't trust the cooked politicians in our own country, why the heck are we giving billions away every year, to the crooked politicians of other countries? Do you really think that money goes where it's supposed to? You don't think the leaders in say, Pakistan or Israel use that for something our politicians don't tell us about?"
Now THAT I can get behind 100%. Or this:
"HELLO, we've LOST the war on drugs folks. We're just wasting our money. If they legalized heroin tomorrow, would you start using it? The answer is no."
Well THAT just makes sense!
There are other such examples.
But I disagree with him on the basic political philosophy behind his party: Libertarianism. If it worked, wouldn't some country, somewhere in history have tried it? And I've lived in countries that are pretty close and well, no thanks.
The Market does not eliminate countries that produce harmful products or abuse their employees or kill the environment and those living it.
Eliminating minimum wage does not create a more prosperous country, it kills the Middle Class.
There are bad people out there. There are fanatics. We have a right to sell planes to Saudi Arabia and any other country we dann well please. Sorry Ron, 9/11 was not our fault.
No we shouldn't have helped take down The Shah, armed the Taliban, given ChemWeps to Saddam and so on. But no, Bin Laden didn't attack us about that. The vids are all public. Hell, they published their own little newspaper. They attacked us because they were a bunch of religious fanatics led by the pariah of a rich Arab family who got the boot because his version of Wahabism was just plain Nurse Ratchet material.
Oh and voting NO on eliminating Oil & Gas subsidies?!?!?! (what state is he from again? Oh yeah. Texas). So all that talk about pure capitalism? Liiitle hypocritical there , eh Ronny?

I mean, I understand that a LOT fo Ron Paul followers think it's hypocritical to agree with him on anything if you aren't willing to put on the apostle's cloak and agree with him on everything. I'm not saying that's you but I'm sure you've seen posters who are exactly like that.
Sorry. Hell, I don't even agree with my best friends on everything.
So although I like many things he forwards, the things I disagree with him on (most importantly, the political philosophy of his movement), preclude my vote.

I don't agree on a lot of what Paul wants as well but the balance for me is in congress. Paul will take us in the right direction and congress won't let the most radical things through and, quite frankly, some of the other stuff will be logistically impossible. So, while I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would happily vote for him because Paul does not run the entire government.

OTOH, Obama is almost an exact opposite of Paul. If you truly understand what Paul is running for, freedom, then I fail to see how you can vote for Obama when he is in the exact opposite direction. Sure, some of the things Obama passed is helping you BUT stealing from others and giving it to you would also benefit you. That does not mean it should be done or that it is right. One of the things I hate most is when people vote based on what they are getting out of the deal without looking at the whole picture or where that benefit comes from. It is what has put our country in this mess of pandering to a bunch of whiny special interest groups rather than trying to create the most free and good society that we can.

One of the best posts in this thread - especially the part about him being tempered by our checks and balances.
So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want. And no, it's not because we don't want "freedom" and other general labels that are bandied about so often.
At least in my case, it's because I've lived in countries where that kind of "freedom" existed and would prefer not, tyvm.

 

[Liability]

Well then let me address your point directly and without insult.

I really like Ron Paul's honesty and willingness to say things that will cost him votes - which he does often. It's refreshing as hell!
I agree VERY strongly with Ron Paul when he says "Look, if we don't trust the cooked politicians in our own country, why the heck are we giving billions away every year, to the crooked politicians of other countries? Do you really think that money goes where it's supposed to? You don't think the leaders in say, Pakistan or Israel use that for something our politicians don't tell us about?"
Now THAT I can get behind 100%. Or this:
"HELLO, we've LOST the war on drugs folks. We're just wasting our money. If they legalized heroin tomorrow, would you start using it? The answer is no."
Well THAT just makes sense!
There are other such examples.
But I disagree with him on the basic political philosophy behind his party: Libertarianism. If it worked, wouldn't some country, somewhere in history have tried it? And I've lived in countries that are pretty close and well, no thanks.
The Market does not eliminate countries that produce harmful products or abuse their employees or kill the environment and those living it.
Eliminating minimum wage does not create a more prosperous country, it kills the Middle Class.
There are bad people out there. There are fanatics. We have a right to sell planes to Saudi Arabia and any other country we dann well please. Sorry Ron, 9/11 was not our fault.
No we shouldn't have helped take down The Shah, armed the Taliban, given ChemWeps to Saddam and so on. But no, Bin Laden didn't attack us about that. The vids are all public. Hell, they published their own little newspaper. They attacked us because they were a bunch of religious fanatics led by the pariah of a rich Arab family who got the boot because his version of Wahabism was just plain Nurse Ratchet material.
Oh and voting NO on eliminating Oil & Gas subsidies?!?!?! (what state is he from again? Oh yeah. Texas). So all that talk about pure capitalism? Liiitle hypocritical there , eh Ronny?

I mean, I understand that a LOT fo Ron Paul followers think it's hypocritical to agree with him on anything if you aren't willing to put on the apostle's cloak and agree with him on everything. I'm not saying that's you but I'm sure you've seen posters who are exactly like that.
Sorry. Hell, I don't even agree with my best friends on everything.
So although I like many things he forwards, the things I disagree with him on (most importantly, the political philosophy of his movement), preclude my vote.

I don't agree on a lot of what Paul wants as well but the balance for me is in congress. Paul will take us in the right direction and congress won't let the most radical things through and, quite frankly, some of the other stuff will be logistically impossible. So, while I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would happily vote for him because Paul does not run the entire government.

OTOH, Obama is almost an exact opposite of Paul. If you truly understand what Paul is running for, freedom, then I fail to see how you can vote for Obama when he is in the exact opposite direction. Sure, some of the things Obama passed is helping you BUT stealing from others and giving it to you would also benefit you. That does not mean it should be done or that it is right. One of the things I hate most is when people vote based on what they are getting out of the deal without looking at the whole picture or where that benefit comes from. It is what has put our country in this mess of pandering to a bunch of whiny special interest groups rather than trying to create the most free and good society that we can.

One of the best posts in this thread - especially the part about him being tempered by our checks and balances.
So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want. And no, it's not because we don't want "freedom" and other general labels that are bandied about so often.
At least in my case, it's because I've lived in countries where that kind of "freedom" existed and would prefer not, tyvm.

Ever notice that Independent of Logic keeps ducking the fact that he has been called out as a poseur?

That's not quite the right word for his brand of pussy, though. It's really more that he has been exposed as dishonest.

 

[Contumacious]

So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Are you saying that the majority has the right to ignore - and transgress upon - our rights?

.

 

[Rozman]

How can you look at the enormous list of President Obama's accomplishments and even consider voting for anyone else?

The man has been amazing.

And, having experienced so-called "socialized" medical care and since I already get several benefits from ObamaCare, I couldn't be happier about it.

(No, ObamaCare isn't "socialized medicine". The really stupid (Repub) system we have now IS though. Its time for everyone, even pubs and bags, to have to pay for their own care.)

How can you look at the enormous list of President Obama's accomplishments and even consider voting for anyone else?

Wait a second....I thought the left was bitchin he can't get anything done because the GOP blocks him every time...

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't agree on a lot of what Paul wants as well but the balance for me is in congress. Paul will take us in the right direction and congress won't let the most radical things through and, quite frankly, some of the other stuff will be logistically impossible. So, while I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would happily vote for him because Paul does not run the entire government.

OTOH, Obama is almost an exact opposite of Paul. If you truly understand what Paul is running for, freedom, then I fail to see how you can vote for Obama when he is in the exact opposite direction. Sure, some of the things Obama passed is helping you BUT stealing from others and giving it to you would also benefit you. That does not mean it should be done or that it is right. One of the things I hate most is when people vote based on what they are getting out of the deal without looking at the whole picture or where that benefit comes from. It is what has put our country in this mess of pandering to a bunch of whiny special interest groups rather than trying to create the most free and good society that we can.

One of the best posts in this thread - especially the part about him being tempered by our checks and balances.
So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want. And no, it's not because we don't want "freedom" and other general labels that are bandied about so often.
At least in my case, it's because I've lived in countries where that kind of "freedom" existed and would prefer not, tyvm.

Ever notice that Independent of Logic keeps ducking the fact that he has been called out as a poseur?

That's not quite the right word for his brand of pussy, though. It's really more that he has been exposed as dishonest.

LOL! Ever notice Liability proves my signature correct? Now THAT's Funny!!!

 

[IndependntLogic]

So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Are you saying that the majority has the right to ignore - and transgress upon - our rights?

.

No not at all. So do I have the right to shoot you and your family? Of course not. How about just your dog? No? Of course not.
Rights need to be defined and limitations on those rights (also known as laws) have also always been in place. The absence of these limitations would result in anarchy.
Why

 

[Contumacious]

So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Are you saying that the majority has the right to ignore - and transgress upon - our rights?

.

No not at all. So do I have the right to shoot you and your family? Of course not. How about just your dog? No? Of course not.
Rights need to be defined and limitations on those rights (also known as laws) have also always been in place. The absence of these limitations would result in anarchy.
Why

My confused oponent:

You have a right to life. If I came into your property in order to harm you and yours you would have a right to shoot me.

I do not understand what you mean by limitations of rights?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No not at all. So do I have the right to shoot you and your family? Of course not. How about just your dog? No? Of course not.
Rights need to be defined and limitations on those rights (also known as laws) have also always been in place. The absence of these limitations would result in anarchy.
Why

How old are you, 16?

 

[skookerasbil]

Easily. He passed the NDAA, that alone makes him 100% unworthy of being president in my eyes. And before you ask, yes, I feel the same way about anyone else who voted for it or supports it (like Romney).

Unlike the rest of you party hacks, I don't put party politics above my right to a fair trial.

Abso-fucking-lutely!!! Obama shits on the Constitution with the NDAA, he blows another couple TRILLION dollars and because Nerdly gets some free health care,and because IL gets something good for the vets, they're all good with it.

What the fuck are you guys THINKING?!?

Indeed.....and pooping on the Constitution again today...............

Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays Race Card, Calls on Churches to Support Campaign


And can you imagine ANY GOP candidate going out tomorrow and starting an "All Whites should vote for me!!!" campaign


fucking fraud.........8 more months, Thank God!!

 

[IndependntLogic]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Are you saying that the majority has the right to ignore - and transgress upon - our rights?

.

No not at all. So do I have the right to shoot you and your family? Of course not. How about just your dog? No? Of course not.
Rights need to be defined and limitations on those rights (also known as laws) have also always been in place. The absence of these limitations would result in anarchy.
Why

My confused oponent:

You have a right to life. If I came into your property in order to harm you and yours you would have a right to shoot me.

I do not understand what you mean by limitations of rights?!?!?!?!?

.

I won't return your petty insults.

So if I decide to bury highly enriched uranium on my own private property, is that okay then?
How about Bernie Madoff? All he did was exaggerate a tad about the value of some investments! Yet that darn SEC went in there and said their stupid "regulations" were violated.
So surely you don't think the guys at ENRON should have been told to stop having their fun?
The BP Gulf spill? What BUSINESS is it of the government's how they build and maintain their rigs!

You may now continue calling others confused if you like.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I won't return your petty insults.

So if I decide to bury highly enriched uranium on my own private property, is that okay then?
How about Bernie Madoff? All he did was exaggerate a tad about the value of some investments! Yet that darn SEC went in there and said their stupid "regulations" were violated.
So surely you don't think the guys at ENRON should have been told to stop having their fun?
The BP Gulf spill? What BUSINESS is it of the government's how they build and maintain their rigs!

You may now continue calling others confused if you like.

You don't have the ability to obtain ANY uranium, let alone highly enriched uranium. If you had just said 'Toxic Waste', I would reply that it's a matter for the courts.

The rest of your 'examples' deal with businesses perpetrating fraud, or in BP's case, an ACCIDENT.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about individual rights, and asking what kind of limitations you meant to THOSE rights.

But keep it up, you're pretty entertaining...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I do not understand what you mean by limitations of rights?!?!?!?!?

No right is absolute, yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and the like.

The link below contains examples of First Amendment limitations:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

 

[FA_Q2]

One of the best posts in this thread - especially the part about him being tempered by our checks and balances.
So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want. And no, it's not because we don't want "freedom" and other general labels that are bandied about so often.
At least in my case, it's because I've lived in countries where that kind of "freedom" existed and would prefer not, tyvm.

The beauty of this country is that we can disagree. I would take issue with the statement that you have lived in countries where the freedom I seek exists and I can say with confidence that you certainly have not. That is more than likely because such a country simply does not exist. I assume that you view my brand and libertarianism at large as a belief that no safeguards should exist. That is flat out incorrect. I would like to have many safeguards and regulations. The problem is that, currently, such things simply do not exist. Instead, we have a crony capitalism where 'regulation' means servicing large corporations and 'safeguards' means trapping a consumer in a place where he has no options.

I think you might be discounting a new groundswell of conservatism that has been infusing itself into the Republican Party, however. In the past we did not have the Tea Party, 9/12ers, and similar groups activiely monitoring and critiquing the process. The GOP is in danger of not just failing to move with this new populace movement, but in being totally obliterated if we have another too liberal GOP president or if the Congress continues to be marginalized by a rogue President.

Good thing? Bad thing? I honestly wouldn't care if I thought we had time. But we don't. In just a few more elections, a Democratic President can have most of the Supreme Court packed with Gingsbergs, Sotomayors, and Stevens. Young ones that vcould finish the process of socializing America to the point there is no return short of another bloody revolution.

In just a few more elections of trillion dollar deficits, the country will be so hopelessly in debt that we will be at the mercy of whatever our credit holders wish to do for us. There aren't enough combined economies in the world to bail us out of the mega trillions in debt that Obama policies are projected to produce.

In just a few more elections, we may have so many of our individual liberties stripped away and a population so dependent on government largesse that reform is no longer a viable option. Obamacare will be in full force and will have already destroyed the private healthcare industry for instance. Won't a more GOP populated Congress temper the risk? Possibly. But we have a President who is already on record that he does not intend to bow to the will of Congress and will do as he damn well pleases.

In my opiinion, it is too dangerous to allow a Barack Obama another four years just to satisfy our sense of principle and ideology.

I do not discount the groundswell of conservatism that we are going through today though I have some issues with the small government guys that want to get their moral big government ideas pushed but that is another thread entirely. I was actually incredibly hopeful that the tea party would get some real conservatives through and start the change that we are in need of. Unfortunately, all I see happening is politicians changing the tune that they sing with little to no actual changes. We hear 'talk' of the things that need to happen but I see almost no doing. The new crop of candidates are also lame in this department. The groundswell is powerful but they are not using that power. Instead, they are wasting it on people that do not hold their ideals.


Your point about the Supreme Court is a good one though. I do not believe that any of the conservative Supremes are going to retire if Obama wins another term. I am also hopeful that congress will continue to block the most asinine measures that Obama wants to pass. He may say that he will not bow to congress but he cannot get away with circumventing them. If the republicans make gains in the senate (extremely likely) and they are able to maintain most of the seats they have in the house then I think that we will weather the storm. You believe that allowing Obama another term is to dangerous but I believe that keeping the republican party a democrat institution will doom us all the same and I have seen little to show me that we are going to go in another direction than Obama himself. It is funny that you mention Obamacare when the front runner in the republican party STILL stands by its parent that HE started. How are we going to claim that republicans are any different when they keep pushing the same ideas. Another Bush is not going to save us. Another one will simply do what Obama has been doing all along.

 

[FA_Q2]

I won't return your petty insults.

So if I decide to bury highly enriched uranium on my own private property, is that okay then?
How about Bernie Madoff? All he did was exaggerate a tad about the value of some investments! Yet that darn SEC went in there and said their stupid "regulations" were violated.
So surely you don't think the guys at ENRON should have been told to stop having their fun?
The BP Gulf spill? What BUSINESS is it of the government's how they build and maintain their rigs!

You may now continue calling others confused if you like.

This is rich and illustrates my points 2 posts prev. exactly:

"How about Bernie Madoff? All he did was exaggerate a tad about the value of some investments! Yet that darn SEC went in there and said their stupid "regulations" were violated."

And they arrested that single person for his terrible activity. Goldman Sachs though? Instead, we gave them billions. Yes, those 'regulations' are to keep the big ones in check and protect the consumer, right????



"So surely you don't think the guys at ENRON should have been told to stop having their fun? "

Another example of thousands of people who are protected by regulations getting screwed over and the few on the top getting away with the pie. Excellent point.



"The BP Gulf spill? What BUSINESS is it of the government's how they build and maintain their rigs! "

Except that the government regulated those rigs to the dangerous depths in the first place for no other reason than they were an eyesore AND then waived the regulations that would have prevented the spill. Yup, they were not playing the company crony at all. Those regulations were defiantly protecting the little guy....



As I said before, the problem is that there are no real regulations anymore, just a marriage of government with business that ensures the big boys get to continue to reap the rewards without any risk or competition.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't agree on a lot of what Paul wants as well but the balance for me is in congress. Paul will take us in the right direction and congress won't let the most radical things through and, quite frankly, some of the other stuff will be logistically impossible. So, while I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would happily vote for him because Paul does not run the entire government.

OTOH, Obama is almost an exact opposite of Paul. If you truly understand what Paul is running for, freedom, then I fail to see how you can vote for Obama when he is in the exact opposite direction. Sure, some of the things Obama passed is helping you BUT stealing from others and giving it to you would also benefit you. That does not mean it should be done or that it is right. One of the things I hate most is when people vote based on what they are getting out of the deal without looking at the whole picture or where that benefit comes from. It is what has put our country in this mess of pandering to a bunch of whiny special interest groups rather than trying to create the most free and good society that we can.

One of the best posts in this thread - especially the part about him being tempered by our checks and balances.
So I respect your views and why you like Ron Paul, I simply disagree with you and Ron Paul on a lot. What you want, even though you are absolutely certain is best for America, is not what a lot of other people want. And no, it's not because we don't want "freedom" and other general labels that are bandied about so often.
At least in my case, it's because I've lived in countries where that kind of "freedom" existed and would prefer not, tyvm.

Ever notice that Independent of Logic keeps ducking the fact that he has been called out as a poseur?

That's not quite the right word for his brand of pussy, though. It's really more that he has been exposed as dishonest.

He's Jake Starkey's twin