CILONE/SK Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Good night cupcake, talk to you tomorrow and unlike you I actually leave when I say I am. Hahaha, you are sooooo mad and I am laughing at you all the way. Have good dreams about me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And this applies to a candidate running for the US Presidency in which way?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 BTW, How many names is this one Frankie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Well your wrong. To imply that the US government is like the nazis just shows how far you will stretch the truth to make a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I really don't understand how this thread keeps going, RP is never going to be President, without the backing of the republicans AND the media he would never ever stand a chance. The Media from what I have seen treat him like the slightly deranged uncle who everyone just nods at and smiles. So everyone is arguing over nothing, whether you agree with him or disagree with him it makes no difference because he has no power to make any changes and never will. I don't mind the guy, some stuff he says makes sense to me other bits seem so far out that they would never work. I think Bazza isn't saying the US is like the Nazis, it is the vilification of people against war that all governments do, get the patroitism flying so everyone backs the war. Doesn't work for me because I am not patriotic in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 props to downsyndrome for this one, seems a perfectly legit assessment of the republican party to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 So, to back up your cheerleading of libertarian ways, you post a interview from a a nazi and say it is relevant? If you seriously want to make people aware of libertarian values, you would not try to make an association between the U.S.Government and the Nazis, especially since Ron Paul has been known to be highly supported by the Neo-Nazi movement in America and also willingly accepts money for his campaign from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownSyndrome Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 lol i though about bringing it here, but...i didn't want to offend anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I guess we have to wait for him to come back with a new name. Down Syndrome, you know I really liked it.:lol: :lol: I am not sure the others would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I thought I would post it but give you the credit Downsyndrome If he comes back with a new name he will just get banned again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I really don't understand how this thread keeps going, RP is never going to be President, without the backing of the republicans AND the media he would never ever stand a chance. The Media from what I have seen treat him like the slightly deranged uncle who everyone just nods at and smiles. So everyone is arguing over nothing, whether you agree with him or disagree with him it makes no difference because he has no power to make any changes and never will. I don't mind the guy, some stuff he says makes sense to me other bits seem so far out that they would never work. I think Bazza isn't saying the US is like the Nazis, it is the vilification of people against war that all governments do, get the patroitism flying so everyone backs the war. Doesn't work for me because I am not patriotic in the slightest. i tend to think of ron paul as currently on a speaking tour of the US. he is responsible for creating more liberty minded people than anyone else i can think of. anything to keep this going is good as far as im concerned. he is responsible for bringing some very important issues to the table. 5 years ago, no one was talking about monetary policy, or any of the many other issues he is making part of the debate these days. i dont really think its an issue of whether he could be elected, its more of an issue of what could the guy do if he was elected. a few things pop right to mind. he could essentially rescind all previous executive orders. he could singlehandedly stop the drug war and could even pardon all nonviolent drug offenders, as well as gun offenders, or whoever else is in federal prison for no good reason. he could close down gitmo, the black sites, and the like and begin reversing the empire. he could essentially declare the patriot act, MCA06, etc null and void by non enforcement. but to me, this is all a moot point. i do not believe voting will ever change anything as far as repealing the leviathan state, as much as i like to wish it could. the only thing that is going to do this is mass non compliance and withdrawal of consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 like i said before I agree with some of what he says, disagree with others. When you say non vilent drug offenders, do you mean people done for possession? What about the gun offenders? sorry Im just not sure what you mean exactly. People with stolen guns? or unregistered guns? Not trying to confuse the situation just trying to get an idea of your point. As always the problem is it all works in an ideal world which we dont live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 like i said before I agree with some of what he says, disagree with others. When you say non vilent drug offenders, do you mean people done for possession? What about the gun offenders? sorry Im just not sure what you mean exactly. People with stolen guns? or unregistered guns? Not trying to confuse the situation just trying to get an idea of your point. As always the problem is it all works in an ideal world which we dont live in. by non violent drug offenders i mean someone who is arrested for selling or possessing a controlled substance and harmed no one. for non violent gun offenders i mean someone who failed to follow an arbitrary firearms law such as the guy who recently had a malfunctioning ar15 that after 3 hours of tampering and modifications and torture by the ATF, they managed to get this weapon to fire 1, full auto burst and was sent to jail for several years. or the guy in NJ who moved back to the state with 2 handguns, who after talking with police on how to lawfully transport them and was told to carry them disassembled in his trunk with ammunition separately, who was sentenced to 7 years when he was caught with those guns in that state. obviously people who stole weapons or are in possession of a stolen weapon have violated someones rights by theft, they are nothing more than a common thief. given the completely arbitrary nature of firearms law, nearly every gun owner has broken a firearm law at least a few times over in their gun owning life. imagine this: you can own a shotgun that has an 18" barrel. if it is 1/32" of a inch less, you are in felony possession of a firearm. completely silly. the only reason it doesnt 'work' in todays world is because people dont want freedom. they'd rather have government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 RP only needs the support of the people to become president. The media is fueling his fire by going after him. Fuck, I was watching CNN during this entire Hurricane fiasco, and Wolf Blitzer was throwing RP under the bus every chance he got with his idea of shutting down things like FEMA and how awesome FEMA is and where the East Coast would be now without it. Pure hysteria. This causes people to check out RP and his views, and to see for themselves how "terrible" and how "unelectable" he is. Of course this just expands his popularity, because most people just on looking at his issue's collect to his fundamental idea's of freedom, that's what he is and always be about, you don't like freedom you don't like RP. We know where certain people on this board fill in with that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I agree with you in that all he needs is the support of the people, however it is hard to get that kind of support when the mainstream media is not on your side, I saw it in the switch in the favour of the press away from the Labour party i the last election over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 It would be more difficult, I'm not even saying he's going to win, but to completely dismiss the guy who is finishing around 3rd or higher in every poll I've seen is pretty much doing what the MSM does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I have to admit I was shocked watching the footage of the straw poll and he can in close second and non of the media were using his name it is crazy, mainstream journalism nowadays is a joke. It is a shame because while I don't agree with a lot he has to say the other republican candidates are a whole different level of scary, to think any of them could potentially take the presidency is quite disturbing to me. edit - I only dismissed him before because of the lack of support from the republicans and the media, just makes it such an uphill struggle that I doubt anyone could make it, Obama wouldn't have won the election without the tide of support from the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 To say that RP is not getting his fair share of media coverage is just bullshit. He is in the news everyday. Those polls do not mean anything statistically. The Ames Straw poll has been shown not to be a indicator of anything. Only 4671 people voted for him out of 16,892 people voting. There are over 3,000,000 people elgible to vote in it. How is that statistically important? To try and say that if you do not like freedom, that you do not like Ron Paul is just a sign of the kind of fact and logic twisting that all his supports are about. Bottom line is that he is getting fair coverage in the media for the caliber of candidate he is. Decy, do not buy into the hype that these guys are spreading on this thread. Here in America, Ron Paul is getting fairly treated, maybe better then he should, for being such a long shot to win the primary. Sure he might be getting some more exposure, which will be bringing in some more brainwashed followers, but I would love to see the stats comparing RP supporters to the amount of people who still think Elvis is alive or who say they have been abducted by aliens. There are always fools who believe in bullshit, no matter how crazy it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 “Power worship blurs political judgement because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. If the Japanese have conquered south Asia, then they will keep south Asia for ever, if the Germans have captured Tobruk, they will infallibly capture Cairo; if the Russians are in Berlin, it will not be long before they are in London: and so on. This habit of mind leads also to the belief that things will happen more quickly, completely, and catastrophically than they ever do in practice. … Such a manner of thinking is bound to lead to mistaken prophecies, because, even when it gauges the direction of events rightly, it will miscalculate their tempo. Within the space of five years Burnham foretold the domination of Russia by Germany and of Germany by Russia. In each case he was obeying the same instinct: the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible.” Welcome to your world. Google that, than just try to spin it on me in your next post. I already know the procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I do not have to google anything, also I am on my phone so I can't, but you post is a typical way that you knobslobbers refuse to discuss facts when it comes to Rom Paul. No statistics, no realistic solutions to real world issues, and changing the subject to arguments that have nothing to do with the current situation in America seems to be the norm with supporters. You provide a great example, you were discussing the lack of media interest in RP and I countered. You then tried to change the subject. Why is it that none of you can honestly discuss your candidate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I refuse to discuss anything with YOU, just YOU. Nobody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Because you can't hold you candidate up to the scrutiny of having realistic solutions to real issues facing this country. As a president, he will have to deal with the problems facing this country and so far, he has not been able to bring anything to the table to support his policies. His recent statement about FEMA is a great example, because even if he is right about FEMA, he still does not state anything to help Americans that will need help from disasters. He just wants to get rid of a agency that helps people, no matter how misguided that might be and not have anything in place to take care of americans in need. Does he just propose to let them fall and fail, because the market needs to correct itself? I do not know, because he never offers any realistic solutions to anything he proposes. So, you might say that you refuse to discuss anything with me, but that does not mean I am going away, and I think it is because your candidate is severely flawed and you are unable to show otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 No, just no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Ok :lol: :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 To say that RP is not getting his fair share of media coverage is just bullshit. He is in the news everyday. Those polls do not mean anything statistically. The Ames Straw poll has been shown not to be a indicator of anything. Only 4671 people voted for him out of 16,892 people voting. There are over 3,000,000 people elgible to vote in it. How is that statistically important? Fair SHARE of media coverage, and FAIR media coverage are two different things. I will admit that this time around Ron Paul has received more attention from the mainstream media, but let's not also dismiss the substantial amount of spin and bias that is thrown Ron Paul's direction. This is for any political candidate though, so it may be the norm when it comes to American mainstream media, but it's very obvious that our media will pay attention to the chosen corporate front-runners rather than politicians with strong legitimate grassroots support. These polls that are also "meaningless" seem to be very meaningful when it's a status-quo corporate agenda politician winning them. When it's Ron Paul or someone of his ilk, the media and people like you claim they don't mean anything at all. Can you explain what the reason is for the hypocrisy in that? To try and say that if you do not like freedom, that you do not like Ron Paul is just a sign of the kind of fact and logic twisting that all his supports are about. Logic twisting is your specialty CILONE, so what are you surprised about? You're the one claiming Ron Paul is a closet racist, that he isn't running for congress again because they changed his district to majority black, that he has domestic policies that cater more to corporations than to the people. This isn't logic twisting? Bottom line is that he is getting fair coverage in the media for the caliber of candidate he is. Decy, do not buy into the hype that these guys are spreading on this thread. Here in America, Ron Paul is getting fairly treated, maybe better then he should, for being such a long shot to win the primary. Sure he might be getting some more exposure, which will be bringing in some more brainwashed followers, but I would love to see the stats comparing RP supporters to the amount of people who still think Elvis is alive or who say they have been abducted by aliens. There are always fools who believe in bullshit, no matter how crazy it is. Decy, do yourself a favor and don't listen to CILONE. Don't listen to any of us though, best to just make up your own mind. You seem to be doing a good job of that so far, so giving you advice isn't really even necessary. I guess CILONE just thinks he's privileged that way to be giving other people advice here on this forum, as if someone needs his advice. As for Ron Paul being "fairly" treated, I would say that he is now getting the same treatment most candidates running for president receive. Most of the coverage on mainstream media though is coming from some sort of angle. Comparing Ron Paul supporters to Elvis being alive supporters, and abducted by aliens, etc. is another way people like you twist around logic. It's crazy how in one post you simultaneously accuse someone of doing something that you actually do right in the same breathe. Amazing. :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Because you can't hold you candidate up to the scrutiny of having realistic solutions to real issues facing this country. As a president, he will have to deal with the problems facing this country and so far, he has not been able to bring anything to the table to support his policies. His recent statement about FEMA is a great example, because even if he is right about FEMA, he still does not state anything to help Americans that will need help from disasters. He just wants to get rid of a agency that helps people, no matter how misguided that might be and not have anything in place to take care of americans in need. Does he just propose to let them fall and fail, because the market needs to correct itself? I do not know, because he never offers any realistic solutions to anything he proposes. So, you might say that you refuse to discuss anything with me, but that does not mean I am going away, and I think it is because your candidate is severely flawed and you are unable to show otherwise. He already discussed and elaborated on his policies concerning FEMA: If you have any actual responses to what he is saying in that video, I'd enjoy hearing it. Otherwise, you should refrain from saying things like "he has not been able to bring anything to the table to support his policies" (pretty much what you say about everyone you disagree with). He has several books out that you should read, and many interviews discussing his philosophy of the role of government that has been consistent for over 30+ years. There is no excuse for your naivety when it comes to understanding him as a candidate. His entire platform is supported with much explanation through many avenues that can be explored. It's your responsibility to figure that out, and clearly you don't have it figured out because you're asking questions like: "Does he just propose to let them fall and fail, because the market needs to correct itself? I do not know, because he never offers any realistic solutions to anything he proposes. " Very naive questions that have been answered in interviews, books, articles, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 This is in support of the fact that the media is blatantly biased and at times deceptively manipulating facts about the Ron Paul campaign. This is only one example: Out of the ~1000 people they interviewed, almost everyone was above 50 years old, there wasn't even enough to fill the boxes here: Total 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Frm Speaker Hse Newt Gingrich 7% N/A N/A 1% 7% Texas Congressman Ron Paul 6% N/A N/A 5% 4% Frm MA Gov Mitt Romney 18% N/A N/A 17% 23% Frm PA Senator Rick Santorum 1% N/A N/A * 4% MN Congr Michele Bachmann 12% N/A N/A 13% 13% Frm UT Governor Jon Huntsman 1% N/A N/A 2% 3% Businessman Herman Cain 3% N/A N/A 5% 3% Frm NM Governor Gary Johnson 2% N/A N/A * 2% MI Congr Thaddeus McCotter 1% N/A N/A * 1% TX Governor Rick Perry 32% N/A N/A 40% 29% Someone else 4% N/A N/A 5% 1% None/No one 6% N/A N/A 4% 6% No opinion 4% N/A N/A 7% 5% Sampling Error +/-4.5 +/-7.5 +/-8.0 What's interesting, is Rick Perry has the largest gap in those who support him earning over $50k, compared to those below (more people about $50k support him) where as Ron Paul is consistent. (1% difference with a greater error margin) CNN did the same a while ago with a Marijuana poll where they failed to ask anyone under 35 years old to show that `most people think marijuana should not be legalized'. Distortion at its finest. These were the results they posted: Favor 41% Oppose 56% No opinion 2% These came from the statistics in the PDF Total 18-34 35- 49 50-64 65+ Favor 41% N/A 45% 41% 21% Oppose 56% N/A 55% 58% 73% No opinion 2% N/A 1% 1% 6% Sampling Error +/-3.5 +/-8.0 +/-5.5 +/-6.0 http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/19/rel6h.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Also, FEMA is running short on funds... since of course the country is bankrupt. How will FEMA pay for Hurricane Irene? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/fema-moving-money-around-to-pay-for-hurricane-irene/2011/08/28/gIQAWwmhkJ_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews Ron Paul's points on FEMA could actually be correct, you don't think so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 This video has been controversial on the internet. "Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." I happen to personally agree with him, and I respect his answer because he is up front and honest about something that is personal to himself and isn't ashamed to share it. I agree that the presidency shouldn't be decided on a scientific matter such as this also, but many people on the internet disagree. This question goes out to atheists or agnostics reading this thread. How did you feel about this response from Ron Paul? Do you feel that his personal beliefs play a role in his political policies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 "theory" means a recursively testable position stated in a fashion which allows for revision over time. Theory is not something that hasn't been proven, because science doesn't work through the function of proving a theory. Rather, it works reductively by using recalcitrant data to undermine theories which are ineffective at producing pragmatic predictions in lab and real world settings. Theories can be true in so much as there is a theory of god which can neither be proven as well. Evolution is a process, it is not a theory which states that MAN CAME FROM MONKEYS. The position which states this is a hackneyed perspective on the totality of what "evolution" is said to be. The reasons it is pitted against the concept of a deity is that it conveys a metaphysics which is often irreconciliable with the metaphysics of christian dogma. However, the question of whether a candidate believes in creationism or "evolution" as it's commonly discussed is something which SHOULD be questioned of candidates. Why would we not wonder whether people understand how science works? Stop using the word incorrectly and most major arguments against long held scientific positions lose all ground. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.