Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ron Paul is really the only guy worth watching in the debates. He's just so danm honest! I agree with him on a LOT of points too e.g. Why TF are we giving money to foreign politicians when we don't even trust our own; the war on drugs has already been lost etc...
But the stuff I disagree with him on, I disagree with so strongly that I won't vote for him. Plus I find the Libertarian Philosophy very flawed when it comes to The Market correcting itself. I've lived in places that had virturally no corporate regulation. No thanks.
I didn't like Obama at all for about two years. There are two things I'm still pretty furious with him about: ObamaCare and NDAA. Oh well.
But he has kept a LOT of his promises (including ObamaCare, which was one I wish he hadn't).
I didn't blame Bush for high prices and I don't blame Obama (well, maybe just a little but not to the extent the ConservaRepubs would like to believe).
I find this to be the most absurd time in history for the GOP to be so focused on social issues. I am former military and had friends who were Force Recon in Afghanistan. An Army translator listened in on chatter and kept them away from some seriously bad juju. Turned out he was gay. Took weeks to get another guy fluent in Pashtu or whatever TF it was.
So repealing DADT was a seriously big deal to a lot of people.
Also, as the DOO of a charity that helps returning troops and Veterans, I watched them get screwed by the GOP for years. Obama has funded a TON of programs for Vets and the VA that I like a lot. Also, he specifically had language written in that put in place the strongest protective measures of women in the military in history.
When I'm volunteering, the three candidates I hear the most positives things about are #1. Obama #2. Ron Paul and #3. "Anyone but Obama" (from the diehard ConservaRepubs). But there is no denying, this guy is liked a lot more military than any Dem in a long time.
Getting us out of Iraq is a big deal. I know it was already set but gee, have presidents spun things and broken promises before. So okey dokey.
He said he'd take the focus to Afghanistan and go after the people who actually attacked America. He killed more Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in a couple years, than Bush did in eight. He followed the leads from dozens of SOF ops to Pakistan. Then, right in public, he negotiated the release of a US spy from the Pakistan government. A couple months later, He got Bin Laden and yes, I give him credit for that. Now that we finally MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, he's announced the withdraw from Afghanistan. All Bush's wars are over. The most important one, won by Obama.
And waddya know. We're getting out.
Libya. The Republicans (Boehner, Cantor) were screaming we should "Do Something". Then, with an actual NATO led force, we did. Not one American life. Quick withdraw. So of course, the Republicans suddenly became doves and screamed "Hey! He DID something!". WTF??? Hypocrisy much?
Same thing with Aw Lakhi. Suddenly the GOP sounded more like the ACLU! WTF!!!!
So what are the Republicans offering me? Romney seemed worth a look but he has been forced into Romney Version 5.9 by the other two. Now he is so socially Conservative! For now.
After months of talking about the fact that, even if the Dow is going up and UnEmployment is (according to FOX) going down and manufacturing is going up and.... well whatever, ALL is Doom & Gloom! Also it's all about the DEFICIT! That's the key folks!
So they all released their budgets. All of their budgets RAISE THE DEFICIT!!! WTF??? (okay not Ron Paul).
The same low taxes that haven't made a dam bit of difference in the economy or unemployment for years, will suddenly cure all ills if we elect them. Riiiiight.
Gay marriage? Like I care. But I do think they should be able to visit each other in hospitals and get benefits or whatever? Sure why not.
Contraception? Are you outta your dam mind??? Yeah, THAT will get my vote.
All these social issues leave me and pretty much everyone I know, unimpressed. Especially now.
The GOP candidates suck. Really, badly.
Obama isn't great but during the last year he's been pretty dam good.
I'm voting for him.
Thanks . That was funny as hell. Love the avatar. It's exactly what a holier than thou libtard looks like. You really know how to make a farce out of the entire liberal realm. I'm still trying to wipe tears of hillarity from my eyes. That was a beautiful thing to read. LMAO.
"I very firmly believe in pacifism. And if you don't agree, I'll fucking kill you!"
Oh, I don't know about that line being so complicated. Your rights end where mine begin. You have the right to speech but that ends when you shout fire in a theater and put my life in harm. Other than interfering with others rights, there should be no line.Life isnt that bad that you need to fry your brain with drugs. And if you treat them nicely, you dont have to pay women to sleep with you.
One can support both of those things without having to partake in them. It's a simple concept of people being free to do with their own bodies as they please.
I long for the day when government finally gets the hell out of our private personal lives.
Mostly they are...
It's when people do things Publically that the Issue starts...
Like getting behind the Wheel on Drugs or Booze...
The Line of where Government should or shouldn't be is a Difficult one on an Endless List of Issues.
Both Right and Left have their own and Point and each other about Government Intrusion.
peace...
Why can't you? A friend makes booze in his garage. There is nothing wrong with making booze. Now selling it is another matter but you don't have the right to sell whatever you want.I can't make my own Booze either... Am I not Free?
peace...
Well, I like a good debate and insults, though common here and I do partake of the mudslinging sometimes, are not conducive to that endI am not guy but I will respond here with my take.Well Ron Paul and MANY Libertarians have stated they would eliminate the EPA, SEC etc... Do you disagree with them?
As far as personal rights, I'd like to have a nuke! The 2nd amendment guarantees me the right to "arms" or armament. In the FF's day, they did not have nukes but they did not have even semi-automatic weapons either. However they did have guns AND bombs AND rockets! (I hear some had red glare). So unless you're one of those "The Constitution is a Living Document" types who concedes it must be interpreted I should be able to own a nuke! But alas, common sense prevails... I'm glad.
Oh and the toxic waste a matter for the courts? Um yeah. That's how thousands of Americans have been killed. Because they didn't have a team of $800 / hour lawyers working for them.
Yes, I would completely eliminate the EPA ect. Does that mean all regulations and regulators would go away? Of course not. The EPA, FCC and all the other alphabet soup bullshit is a problem because congress has abdicated their authority to these agencies that are not elected and do not follow the correct process. For all intents and purposes THEY WRITE LAW. Write law without the president's signature, going through the process in the houses of congress or doing anything that may remotely considered the process that a law goes through. That is utter bullshit. Congress needs to get off their collective asses and actually do the job they are paid for instead of handing it over to bloated bureaucracies that continue to make failing decision after failing decision. They make rules just to justify their existence. I have a regulation posted on my wall that covers how to wipe a baby's ass. Is that a regulation that is needed? Of course not and if regulations were not simply rubberstamped and actually had to go through the legal process, we would get a lot fewer regulations that were far more effective. Just because we need to get rid of most of these agencies does not mean that all regulation would disappear.
As to your 2nd amendment right, yes, you do have a right to own a nuke. The constitution is not a 'living' document that can mean anything that you want it to. The FF put a process in place to address this exact issue. It is called an amendment. All we need is a simple amendment that refines the definition of arms. It is funny that no one seems to want to take on the challenge. Instead, we would all rather ignore the constitution and make our own damn rules. Then you call that 'common sense!' That is not common sense, it's crazy.
This is actually a well-reasoned post. While we disagree on what we want as rights (e.g. owning a nuke), at least you are solid and present points worth consideration i.e. an amendment to define arms. I also really like what you wrote about Congress vs. bureaucracy. I haven't seen it put quite that way before and will be pondering it for some time, I'm sure. In other words, you may have actually influenced my view (unlike most people here, I try to keep an open mind and even consider opposing viewpoints, when well written as something I can learn from). The first thing that comes to mind, is how we would transition every valid regulation into law? Maybe take one area e.g. EPA and phase it out as we get a few thousand laws on the books? Then the next. But even then, there should be an arm to enfoce those laws, correct? See - you already have me thinking!
Also, not one insult! While I will return fire, I try to never throw the first volley. Well done sir!
Well, I like a good debate and insults, though common here and I do partake of the mudslinging sometimes, are not conducive to that endI am not guy but I will respond here with my take.
Yes, I would completely eliminate the EPA ect. Does that mean all regulations and regulators would go away? Of course not. The EPA, FCC and all the other alphabet soup bullshit is a problem because congress has abdicated their authority to these agencies that are not elected and do not follow the correct process. For all intents and purposes THEY WRITE LAW. Write law without the president's signature, going through the process in the houses of congress or doing anything that may remotely considered the process that a law goes through. That is utter bullshit. Congress needs to get off their collective asses and actually do the job they are paid for instead of handing it over to bloated bureaucracies that continue to make failing decision after failing decision. They make rules just to justify their existence. I have a regulation posted on my wall that covers how to wipe a baby's ass. Is that a regulation that is needed? Of course not and if regulations were not simply rubberstamped and actually had to go through the legal process, we would get a lot fewer regulations that were far more effective. Just because we need to get rid of most of these agencies does not mean that all regulation would disappear.
As to your 2nd amendment right, yes, you do have a right to own a nuke. The constitution is not a 'living' document that can mean anything that you want it to. The FF put a process in place to address this exact issue. It is called an amendment. All we need is a simple amendment that refines the definition of arms. It is funny that no one seems to want to take on the challenge. Instead, we would all rather ignore the constitution and make our own damn rules. Then you call that 'common sense!' That is not common sense, it's crazy.
This is actually a well-reasoned post. While we disagree on what we want as rights (e.g. owning a nuke), at least you are solid and present points worth consideration i.e. an amendment to define arms. I also really like what you wrote about Congress vs. bureaucracy. I haven't seen it put quite that way before and will be pondering it for some time, I'm sure. In other words, you may have actually influenced my view (unlike most people here, I try to keep an open mind and even consider opposing viewpoints, when well written as something I can learn from). The first thing that comes to mind, is how we would transition every valid regulation into law? Maybe take one area e.g. EPA and phase it out as we get a few thousand laws on the books? Then the next. But even then, there should be an arm to enfoce those laws, correct? See - you already have me thinking!
Also, not one insult! While I will return fire, I try to never throw the first volley. Well done sir!
To the bolded portion, that was why I said earlier that the logistics of such endeavors that would prevent Paul from completely making them happen. Just the EPA alone would be monumental task and such things are going to take years to accomplish. Stopping the process now is a start and then transitioning them over will take a lot of time. Honestly, they could keep the EPA and such but they would not look like they are now and would essentially be eliminated and then recreated. Many of the existing regulatory personnel could still be utilized but the majority of the bureaucracy and upper echelons of the agencies would go away as would the vast majority of their powers (other than enforcing the regulations they would have none).
I don't pretend that doing such things is going to be simple or that Ron Paul is going to get in the White House, swipe his pen and then all those agencies are going to vanish without any negative side effects or anything to replace them. I back Paul because I think that he can start us down the road, weather he even wants such an outcome or not to be honest. It was one of the reasons that I kind of liked Herman Cain. His 9 9 9 plan was atrocious BUT he would have started us on tax reform and congress would have never allowed 9 9 9 to pass. I was hoping that he would have come to the middle with a loophole-less solution that congress could get behind. I realize that the president is given the responsibility for everything but I expect that the leaders ideas get tempered and perfected within the Congress so that something coming out the other end and making it into law is more than a sound bite 'end the EPA.' Maybe I hope for too much
Yes, Ron Paul is defiantly NOT your guy, LOL.I think the area in which I differ from Libertarians the most is what I would get rid of and how. I would actually give MORE power to the Fed (gasp!) and eliminate the State agencies (double gasp!).
Yes, Ron Paul is defiantly NOT your guy, LOL.I think the area in which I differ from Libertarians the most is what I would get rid of and how. I would actually give MORE power to the Fed (gasp!) and eliminate the State agencies (double gasp!).
Yes, Ron Paul is defiantly NOT your guy, LOL.I think the area in which I differ from Libertarians the most is what I would get rid of and how. I would actually give MORE power to the Fed (gasp!) and eliminate the State agencies (double gasp!).
Yes, Ron Paul is defiantly NOT your guy, LOL.I think the area in which I differ from Libertarians the most is what I would get rid of and how. I would actually give MORE power to the Fed (gasp!) and eliminate the State agencies (double gasp!).
I am less concerned about those issues--though I oppose them all on principle--than I am about trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If the country goes bankrupt, there are not enough combined nations in the world to bail us out, and the best Constitution in the world can't help us. If we can stay solvent, and manage to elect the right President and Congress, everything else is fixable.
Who is more likely to hurtle us into intentional bankruptcy? Obama? Or any of the GOP candidates?
Again, it is a no brainer.
Again, all the more reason to support Ron Paul.
I am less concerned about those issues--though I oppose them all on principle--than I am about trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If the country goes bankrupt, there are not enough combined nations in the world to bail us out, and the best Constitution in the world can't help us. If we can stay solvent, and manage to elect the right President and Congress, everything else is fixable.
Who is more likely to hurtle us into intentional bankruptcy? Obama? Or any of the GOP candidates?
Again, it is a no brainer.
Again, all the more reason to support Ron Paul.
Except for maybe 4 issues, Ron Paul is even worse for the middle class than Romney or Santorum. He doesn't believe in the Commons. So he would privatize even the Grand Canyon.
How come more middle class Republicans aren't buying into Ron Paul? Why does Santorum, Romney and Newt each get 30% of the votes and Ron Paul gets 8? Don't get mad at liberals for not buying into Ron Pauls bullshit when you can't even get conservatives to agree with you.
