moron, the only reason Paul comes off as "nutty" on those issues is because no one gives him any time to TALK about them before someone throws in a snarky sound bite with no substance *cough*McCain*cough* In a venue where it's just McCain and Paul, Paul would easily be able to trounce the sound bite.

2/7/2008 8:28:48 PM

From what i've read, Paul's views on 9/11 ARE nutty.

But you're right, when talking about other issues, he is very passionate as well as knowledgeable.

Paul has gotten tons of airtime( http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+debate&search_type=&search=Search ), but the problem is that he gets a bit loud and angry, and it sounds like he's ranting, and a bit unstable, like he's yelling at people, rather than talk to them.

If he could keep this under control, he would do better in the public eye.


[Edited on February 7, 2008 at 8:39 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2008 8:37:31 PM

what's nutty about his views on 9/11?

2/7/2008 8:41:06 PM

Hasn't he said he thought the gov. may have been involved in it?

2/7/2008 8:53:57 PM

HELL NO he hasn't said that.

2/7/2008 9:00:43 PM

^no, he's explicitly denied that...some of his supporters are 9/11 truthers, but that doesnt mean that he is a truther. he has said he wanted to investigate for government incompetence, not for a conspiracy

2/7/2008 9:02:24 PM

I could have sworn there's a youtube video of him somewhere blaming the gov. for 9/11.

2/7/2008 9:06:29 PM

I suppose there's a reason why your username is "moron".

Just the facts -- nothing more, nothing less. Not "isn't there..." and "I could have sworn..." -- just say what you KNOW to ABSOLUTELY be true and not what you THINK is true.

Otherwise you're spreading BS.

2/7/2008 9:08:44 PM

I know for a fact I saw a video with him saying that. His denials seem to be a recent thing. There are several articles talking about him not believing the official 9/11 account, one of them linked to a dead video. It's clear from many sources that this was presumed to be his position.

But it's also clear that at the least, he does not believe this any more.

2/7/2008 9:14:29 PM

Huckabee's angling to be a VP candidate if it all falls through for him.

I honestly can't imagine that Romney, who was already pretty much dead in the water dropping out is somehow going to push forward a guy who's even deader in the water.

If you were to take Romney's, Paul's, and Huckabee's delegate count and add them all up, you'd still be barely over 2/3s of the way to McCain's total.

But yeah, Romney dropping out puts Paul right back in the thick of things!

[Edited on February 7, 2008 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2008 9:16:28 PM

you probably saw a video where he blamed the government's foreign policy. he says that our intervention in the middle east is one of the reasons we were attacked, and cites the 9/11 commission report as a source for that claim

when he first mentioned this "blowback" in a debate in may, rudy painted it as blaming america for 9/11. paul responded by saying that just because we gave terrorists a motive, it doesnt mean it's our fault (he compared it to blaming a murder victim for motivating the murderer to kill)

2/7/2008 9:19:07 PM

^ the video I remember seeing was before any of the debates had started.

I also remember reading that he wanted to switch to the gold standard, but I just read a think on wikipedia that this is not his actual position.


[Edited on February 7, 2008 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2008 9:21:37 PM

oh, well then i dunno. i could see his blame of government foreign policy being easily twisted to make him look like a 9/11 truther though

2/7/2008 9:23:59 PM

But stein

Ron Paul has that internet neckbeard vote.

Thats going to count for something?

2/7/2008 9:29:31 PM

Keep using "neckbeard", it cracks me up every time.

2/7/2008 10:19:44 PM

If every bar of gold in the United States voted for him, Ron Paul still wouldn't win.

And how could I have forgotten the intergral 16 year old internet vote?

[Edited on February 7, 2008 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2008 10:22:15 PM

I can't wait until Hillary saves us all with her loving totalitarian grip. That'll show all of us PURESTRAIN internet neckbeards, won't it?

2/7/2008 10:31:28 PM

The YouTube backlash will be golden.

2/7/2008 10:39:17 PM

Maybe Ron Paul should have catered to the fleet-footed vote.

2/7/2008 11:15:06 PM

^yet another great insight.

2/8/2008 8:46:12 AM

Dude

I've hands down shat all over everything you nigs could possibly come up in support of Ron Paul with a link supported manifuckingfesto in another thread. Excuse me if I have no respect for any of you when the best arguments presented in that thread was support for Barry Goldwater and a Noen Gary-the-preacher style rant.

Plus your candidate is going nowhere.

2/8/2008 10:23:22 AM

there are other people in here that could argue, but there is really not a point in arguing much over it when it comes down to personal opinion, perception, and belief.

You can link all you want to support any political idea you have from any side. You can find 'reputable' sources with basically legit data manipulated to support nearly any candidate out there.

you havent 'hands down shat all over everything' in this thread even in the slightest. Any intelligent person with an internet connection could do the same thing for the candidate you support. Its just how it works.

I made a decision to stand behind a candidate who had ideas I supported. And while Im not someone to just pick a party or person etc and support them no matter what, people linking all over the interwebz isnt likely to change my mind that easily.

Does this mean I think youre stupid for not supporting Ron Paul? No. Everyone wants different things. And it sounds like you make an attempt to keep yourself well informed on the things that you look for in a candidate. I just dont happen to agree with you on a lot of things.

[Edited on February 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ]

2/8/2008 10:40:18 AM

Candidates I support dont:

-constantly talk about the (incorrect) merits of the Gold Standard and how it would solve our economic problems.
-Get endorsements from White Supremacist groups.
-Try to pass legislation that defines contraception as the start of an individual with full rights.
-Run on a platform that espouses the disbanding of the Federal Reserve, FDA (lol), TSA, Dept of Education
-Is Homophobic
-Is a creationist
-voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
-voted against giving Rosa Parks a medal

...amongst other things

In fact, you clearly never really bothered reading my links as 40-50% of them is legislation introduced by Ron Paul, and not 'opinion' while the remainder is actually things he's either said or written (also not 'opinion').

All of which is irrelevant.

Why?

Because he said in a nationally televised debate: "Ronald Reagan would support the Gold Standard."






Ronald Reagan would support the Gold Standard.



*shot of Anderson Coopers "what the christ?" face*

[Edited on February 8, 2008 at 1:25 PM. Reason : >yawn<]

2/8/2008 1:24:52 PM

candidates i support

- don't try to enforce their morality onto me
- don't try to rape my paycheck b.c they want to "ensure" the right for every crack whore welfare mom to sit on the couch all day watching ricky lake and pumping out babies
- don't want to go around playing world police unless their is a legitimate imminent threat to us or our allies.
- don't want to give illegals social entitlements programs
- have the american agenda not big corporations best interest in mind when creating policy
- respects the constitution

2/8/2008 1:28:12 PM

Its like RP supporters have a built in mental 10:1 mux: 10 negative facts about Ron Paul come in as input and their mind registers that as 1 nugget of purestrain gold.

2/8/2008 2:04:30 PM

Quote :

"- don't try to rape my paycheck b.c they want to "ensure" the right for every crack whore welfare mom to sit on the couch all day watching ricky lake and pumping out babies - don't want to give illegals social entitlements programs "

This is why I don't like racist/sexist republicans.

Quote :

" - don't want to go around playing world police unless their is a legitimate imminent threat to us or our allies. - have the american agenda not big corporations best interest in mind when creating policy"

And this is why I don't like neocon republicans.

Quote :

"- don't try to enforce their morality onto me"

And this is why I don't like fundamentalist christian republicans.

2/8/2008 2:10:07 PM

im none of those and im a republican...though sadly an old school one. i dont agree with most current republicans. meh.

altho i do not like my salary being destroyed by high income tax for welfare/socialized healthcare etc. That doesnt make me racist/sexist at all.

[Edited on February 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ]

2/8/2008 2:13:19 PM

Quote :

" This is why I don't like racist/sexist republicans."

there was nothing racist about what i said. my comment could be white/black/mexican or martian

2/8/2008 2:29:56 PM

Okay, I believe you. Especially because your party never blames the mexicans or blacks for anything. You can be the exception to the rule even though you spout the same ignorant shit.

2/8/2008 2:35:51 PM

Quote :

" -constantly talk about the (incorrect) merits of the Gold Standard and how it would solve our economic problems. -Get endorsements from White Supremacist groups. -Try to pass legislation that defines contraception as the start of an individual with full rights. -Run on a platform that espouses the disbanding of the Federal Reserve, FDA (lol), TSA, Dept of Education -Is Homophobic -Is a creationist -voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -voted against giving Rosa Parks a medal"

-The current system must not be working very well, or there wouldn't be major economic problems to solve
-A candidate can't control who endorses him, and as off base as they might be, they are entitled to free speech and a vote.
-passing legislation on contraception as the start of life, huh? That's a very intelligent statement right there.
-the federal gov. is entirely too bloated and needs to be slashed...education for example would much better serve the people if it were catered to, and run by individual states and specific socioeconomic niches.
-never heard of the homophobe argument, but even if he is, it speaks wonders to his foresight and restraint that he wants it go be handled at the state level instead trying to outright ban it at the federal level.
-He didn't vote aginst the civil rights act b/c he didn't think everyone deserved equal rights
-likewise he didn't oppose the medal b/c he didn't like what she did

Quote :

"Try to pass legislation that defines contraception as the start of an individual with full rights."

lol.

2/8/2008 2:42:13 PM

SandSanta, get the fuck outta here with your OMFGOLDSTANDARD!!!!! bullshit.

You have yet to even address why it would be horrible. You just go "GOLD STANDARD!!! HA!!! WHAT A FUCKTARD!!!"

I could say "BACKS HAVE RIGHTS? HA!!! WHAT A FUCKTARD!!!" and would just as valid a statement as any you have made regarding RP and gold.

In short, support your "argument" or shut the fuck up, troll.

2/8/2008 2:42:43 PM

I dare you to make less sense.

2/8/2008 2:44:36 PM

he could say he disagreed with contraception being the start of life.

2/8/2008 2:51:50 PM

haha yea that should actually be conception.

2/8/2008 2:54:15 PM

Quote :

"Okay, I believe you. Especially because your party never blames the mexicans or blacks for anything. You can be the exception to the rule even though you spout the same ignorant shit"

I'm definitly no Republican.
With McCain nearly clinched the nomination I see him as the lesser of two evils.
Likewise had Huckabee won the nomination I would be Hillary 08' all the way

2/8/2008 3:05:33 PM

Quote :

"education for example would much better serve the people if it were catered to, and run by individual states and specific socioeconomic niches."

Only a person with a North Carolina education could come to this conclusion.

2/9/2008 1:09:23 PM

You people are kidding yourselves if you think state governments run shit better than the federal government. State government are terrible and easily more corrupt, incompetent, and opaque.

People who keep proposing that state governments take over a bunch of stuff from the federal government dont live in the real world. Real conservatives arent confused about this. Another form of even crappier government is not what they want -- they want more private enterprise.

[Edited on February 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2008 1:25:09 PM

Quote :

"education for example would much better serve the people if it were catered to, and run by individual states and specific socioeconomic niches"

Thats how its already run. Why do you think the curriculum for Wake County School system is different then that for Los Angeles County Schools? Different states with different departments of education.

Of course, don't let my logic and facts fuck up your argument.

2/9/2008 3:11:33 PM

what do you guys call NCLB

I have yet to hear ANY POSITIVE COMMENTS regarding this program by teachers and other professional in education. The only people that speak highly of it are the politicians.

2/9/2008 3:50:51 PM

[Edited on February 9, 2008 at 4:44 PM. Reason : delete]

2/9/2008 4:42:58 PM

This is why we can't have nice things / people take us seriously.

http://www.wral.com/news/strange/story/2415427/

2/10/2008 11:30:46 PM

sounds like a liberal

2/11/2008 12:03:54 AM

He should hop on the Obama bandwagon.

2/11/2008 12:13:35 AM

Quote :

"Thats how its already run. Why do you think the curriculum for Wake County School system is different then that for Los Angeles County Schools? Different states with different departments of education."

and yet they are held to the same rigid standards, regardless of if you're in a rural area or an urban one...where your prospects after school are vastly different.

Quote :

"I have yet to hear ANY POSITIVE COMMENTS regarding this program by teachers and other professional in education. The only people that speak highly of it are the politicians. "

exactly, nearly every major teachers organization is opposed to nclb...but what do they know, right?

2/11/2008 9:36:29 AM

So is Ron Paul going to spend anymore of his money?

the last email i got from him made it sound like he was going to work on his congressional campaign and that he was not going to make an independant bid

2/11/2008 2:18:43 PM

I guess that critical Wookie endorsement wasn't enough .




[Edited on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : gayed>.<]

2/11/2008 3:20:07 PM

That's because the Kashyyyk primary is too late to matter.

2/11/2008 4:52:18 PM

Quote :

"So is Ron Paul going to spend anymore of his money? the last email i got from him made it sound like he was going to work on his congressional campaign and that he was not going to make an independant bid "

Ah, the Constitution's lost chapter:

"How to trick dozens of people on the internet into donating to a congressional campaign"

2/12/2008 8:54:05 AM

actually he's said from day one there was only a minute chance he'd run as an indy.....

if doing exactly what you say is tricking people, he really pulled the wool over our eyes

2/12/2008 9:00:43 AM

In fairness, however, individuals contributed under the belief that he would spend it on a presidential campaign - not funnel it into a Congressional one.

If Paul were to hoard the money from his presidential bid and not spend in a good-faith effort for the nomination, but rather to save it for diverting into his Congressional campaign, this would be an extreme effort of bad faith - again, the money was donated on the pretense that it was to be for a presidential bid. I'm quite sure Rep. Paul would lose quite a bit of esteem in the eyes of his supporters were he to actually pull a bait-and-switch like that.

2/12/2008 10:29:50 AM