Avorysuds
Gold Member
Ron Paul serves as a good comedy break. Without him we wouldn't have much to laugh at during the debates.
Wel'' be laffing at the GOP when they can't with a GE for many elections to come.
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 serves as a good comedy break. Without him we wouldn't have much to laugh at during the debates.
I rest my case
Did the government test atomic weapons in the atmosphere to see what the fallout would do to the people and livestock downwind? YES.
Did the government infect black soldiers with syphillis? YES.
Did the government force sterilization on thousands of citizens in order to 'cleanse' the gene pool? YES.
Did the government give Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets as a form of biological warfare? YES.
AND YOU TRUST THESE PEOPLE AND CALL ME CRAZY??
So he doubles down on nut job
I love it, lets attack Paul for not being 100% libertarian... Do I get to attack Obama for not being 100% liberal? Omgz! Obama is not 100% like JFK! FAAAAAAAAAAAAKKE!
wack·o
   [wak-oh] Show IPA noun, plural wack·os, adjective Slang .
noun
1.
Also, wack. an eccentric, strange, or odd person.
2.
Ron Paul.
I do agree with the OP that Ron Paul supporters are a lot more whacko than he is. Conspiracy Theorists come out of the woodwork for Paul
God willing you'll live long enough to eat those words, jackass. You know what the problem is with people like you? And I don't just mean liberals, either, the stupendous gullibility spans BOTH sides of the aisle. The government pisses on your leg and tells you it's raining, and you DUMBFUCKS believe them!!
You idiots will watch the Zapruder film and STILL claim Oswald shot Kennedy from behind. You can read military and diplomatic cables from November 1941 and STILL believe that FDR didn't know the Japs were coming. You can watch 3 steel structures collapse into their footprints at freefall speed and STILL believe they weren't 'helped' down, even though NOT ONE had ever collapsed in HISTORY!
I hate to quote Franco, but you fucks are DUPES!
You choke on a gnat, yet swallow a camel WHOLE!
I do agree with the OP that Ron Paul supporters are a lot more whacko than he is. Conspiracy Theorists come out of the woodwork for Paul
God willing you'll live long enough to eat those words, jackass. You know what the problem is with people like you? And I don't just mean liberals, either, the stupendous gullibility spans BOTH sides of the aisle. The government pisses on your leg and tells you it's raining, and you DUMBFUCKS believe them!!
You idiots will watch the Zapruder film and STILL claim Oswald shot Kennedy from behind. You can read military and diplomatic cables from November 1941 and STILL believe that FDR didn't know the Japs were coming. You can watch 3 steel structures collapse into their footprints at freefall speed and STILL believe they weren't 'helped' down, even though NOT ONE had ever collapsed in HISTORY!
I hate to quote Franco, but you fucks are DUPES!
You choke on a gnat, yet swallow a camel WHOLE!
You conspiracy nuts are not wanting for zeal.
So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?
Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.
Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.
First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.
However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas
We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.
Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.
First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.
However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas
We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.
The problem with your analysis is that Obama HASN'T led as an idealogue. Can you give an example where he has done anything major without at a least attempting to go for a compromise?
First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.
However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas
We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.
The problem with your analysis is that Obama HASN'T led as an idealogue. Can you give an example where he has done anything major without at a least attempting to go for a compromise?
you may argue these if you believed the rhetoric about how he tried to compromise....but you will be very hard pressed to PROVE that he tried to compromise...all you will have are words...no proof:
Stimulus....no compromise. Sure, he said he wanted it bigger and he compromised by making it smaller...but when one says 2 and the other says 0, 1 is not a compromise....for in this case, 0 was not a starting point...the GOP, AND I, believed that ANY interference by government would slow the recovery.....as it proved to do.
Healthcare....no compromise. Sure, he said he wanted to compromise. And further, he chaired that "reality TV" style debate. But there was no compromise with the right. The ONLY compromise was with the far left who wanted MORE government control over healthcare.
Keystone....I love this one....no compromise. He said no...lobbied for it to be voted against...and when he saw gas prices rising and his bid for re-election possibly being compromised, he decided to make himslef look like he is "compromising by taking credit for the construction of the lower teir of the pipeline...something that did not even require his involvement. Why do I love this one? Because no one cares that millions will be spent on that lower teir and it may prove to be a complete waste of money if he refuses to approve the most important part...the other 1000 miles that will connect it to the oil supply.
Sorry....I see him as an ideologue, where his ideology gets in the way of reason.
Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.
Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.
His interpretations of the constitution are simply taking the words literally, and not using their vagueness to claim authorization for anything and everything.
You can call it extreme, but then I would call the left's interpretation extreme.
How about erring on the side of caution and minimalism and then go from there?
What's so bad about that? Some people don't get free shit then? Tough.
So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?
He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.
Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.
His interpretations of the constitution are simply taking the words literally, and not using their vagueness to claim authorization for anything and everything.
You can call it extreme, but then I would call the left's interpretation extreme.
How about erring on the side of caution and minimalism and then go from there?
What's so bad about that? Some people don't get free shit then? Tough.
Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.
It could be that a fair amount of the case law ignores the Constitution.Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.
So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?
He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.
I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that if we leave the market alone it will chew us all up and spit us out and only the select wealthy will reign supreme?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's been happening for over a century here, and we've certainly not had an unfettered market. In fact we continue to add regulations everywhere you turn around, and somehow the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
You want to blame it on one or two isolated deregulations like glass steagal, or GLB, or whatever, like somehow our entire economic health hinges on just those few. It's ridiculous.
People call laissez faire econ crazy and say it will never work, yet no one's ever seen it in action. There's ALWAYS been some kind of crippling regulation keeping the little guy out of competition somewhere.
So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?
He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.
I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that if we leave the market alone it will chew us all up and spit us out and only the select wealthy will reign supreme?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's been happening for over a century here, and we've certainly not had an unfettered market. In fact we continue to add regulations everywhere you turn around, and somehow the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
You want to blame it on one or two isolated deregulations like glass steagal, or GLB, or whatever, like somehow our entire economic health hinges on just those few. It's ridiculous.
People call laissez faire econ crazy and say it will never work, yet no one's ever seen it in action. There's ALWAYS been some kind of crippling regulation keeping the little guy out of competition somewhere.