Fist 666 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I gave up at Gravity is just a theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I gave up at Gravity is just a theory Well, here is a video that I am going to use as proof to back up your statement. It seems as legit as all the other videos posted on here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwtCHfbNVG4 :lol: :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I gave up at Gravity is just a theory Perhaps you don't fully understand the meaning of "theory" Theory is scientific knowledge that can't be disproven by experiment See: http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I do not think you fully understand what a theory is. You are about 50% there. "In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard." Copied from Apple references. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Fuck the EPA, fire fighters, public libraries, and traffic signals. Who needs em? RON PAUL TWENNY-TWELVE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Sort of like how he claims to be ignorant of the hate mongering in his old newsletters? The guy is a radical nut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuntflaps Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Sort of like how he claims to be ignorant of the hate mongering in his old newsletters? The guy is a radical nut. Out of the 240 articles in question, only about 9 contain objectionable material. Of those 9, they appeared in sequence, which lends credence to the claim that the racist commentary did indeed come from an editor other than Paul and that Paul didn't keep that author around for any great deal of time. The old race card, almost works every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Yeah, all that shit is just a weak attempt to discredit him. It is important to know who someone is, their character and what they believe in but no one knows anymore than whoever really wrote that. Politicians, parties, pundits will pull anything they can to attack an opponent. I mean when we had our last election for Governor the democrats pulled up a paper our now Governor wrote like 30 years ago in high school where he said he believed in the family unit, dad makes the money, mom raises the kids and they tried to say he was a sexist, patriarch who hated women. Politics is just disgusting, no one attacks where someone stands on issues its all a matter of party bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Sort of like how he claims to be ignorant of the hate mongering in his old newsletters? The guy is a radical nut. He's addressed it several times. He has high level campaign staff that are BLACK. Colleagues have also come out, fuck the leader of a NAACP chapter in Texas has come out and supported him against these accusations. So he's a racist man who employee's black people during his campaign to just mask his racism. And those same people have no problem working for him during this time period. Right. Sounds like reality to me. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Just watch this and learn something about what he talks about when he refers to cutting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhaz-WYl3k&feature=g-u&context=G244ed2cFUAAAAAAAAAA You'll realize that lots of things that you automatically include will be cut aren't. Or perhaps you're getting your information from places that what you to think this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 ^ I never mentioned his military cuts. That aspect of his campaign I do agree with. That clip did not refer to any of the other things he plans to cut/privatize/etc. If he were elected, four years from now there'd be just as much, if not more, grumbling as there currently is about Obama from people who bought into a candidate with a few good ideas and strong rhetoric who didn't come through on half the shit he talked about. Maybe I'm cynical, but thinking that all of these policies of his would work smoothly (or even be enacted in the first place) is foolish. Whatever. No one is going to change anyone else's mind here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 ^ I never mentioned his military cuts. That aspect of his campaign I do agree with. That clip did not refer to any of the other things he plans to cut/privatize/etc. If he were elected, four years from now there'd be just as much, if not more, grumbling as there currently is about Obama from people who bought into a candidate with a few good ideas and strong rhetoric who didn't come through on half the shit he talked about. Maybe I'm cynical, but thinking that all of these policies of his would work smoothly (or even be enacted in the first place) is foolish. Whatever. No one is going to change anyone else's mind here. i think you are slightly off base with what a president can do. a president cant pass laws, but he can do things he has jurisdiction. since RP is only politician to have such consistency and a will to be Dr. No, there is absolutely no reason to assume he wouldnt act on the things he is able to affect. obama said he would shut down gitmo, respect civil liberties, was against the patriot act, bring the troops home, etc etc. these are all things the president has total authority over. he increased government power in all those areas. RP could easily make the patriot act of no force by refusing to enforce it. he WOULD shut down gitmo. he would not be torturing bradley manning or assassinating US citizens. i am definitely not naive enough to think that RP is the savior. the US govt is the biggest most powerful body on earth. and libertarians arent the dictator type. i view his campaign as a huge education effort. its the ron paul speaking tour. anything to get people on the ideas of liberty the better. if RP managed to actually stay alive in office, and even removed executive tyranny, it would be worth him taking office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I wonder if L. Ron Paul will run 3rd party. One of his campaign staff said it wouldn't happen. But who knows. He may do it to make a "statement." L. Ron Paul has done well thus far, but he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. The establishment wouldn't allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jib25 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Someone explain to me the meaning of 'EVOL' picked out of the word Revolution and what that's got to do with anything? Is it like a word search game? If so, I see 'VOL' which can stand for volume in cook books... do I get points for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Look at the word backwards. No points for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blk Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Roo Powl 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Someone explain to me the meaning of 'EVOL' picked out of the word Revolution and what that's got to do with anything? Is it like a word search game? If so, I see 'VOL' which can stand for volume in cook books... do I get points for that? the revolution logo was created by ernest hancock of freedomsphoenix.com. he had previously used the logo for a local campaign in arizona. the idea is the revolution is a revolution with love. google around for ernest hancock and the logo and im sure you'll get a bunch of hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I wonder if L. Ron Paul will run 3rd party. One of his campaign staff said it wouldn't happen. But who knows. He may do it to make a "statement." L. Ron Paul has done well thus far, but he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. The establishment wouldn't allow it. personally, i think its entirely possible. my theory is if he loses the nomination and they dont give him a speaking slot at the republican convention, he'll go third party. he isnt running for congress again. he is 'all in.' to use his words. personally, looking at the history of the sort of conservative based movements....you had goldwater who failed. but those goldwaterites eventually put a not quite as hardcore 'goldwaterite' in the white house (reagan) a few years later. it could even be his son in say 2020 or something. who knows. personally, i dont care. politics offer real no solution to any problems. america wont be saved by electing someone, its just impossible. it would be a step in the right direction though. what ron paul has done has changed the conversation and is bringing more people to the liberty side than anyone else could possibly have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 probably been posted already, good campaign video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balance Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 woah, 105. i have a lot of reading to do. bottom line before i read anything though, libertarianism is fucking stupid. with that said, i like Ron Paul better than everyone else in the mainstream presidental field. after reading some of the pages, i'll elaborate more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 bottom line before i read anything though, libertarianism is fucking stupid. this is why politics are not a viable solution to free people. the very foundation of these united States is the idea of individual liberty. and the majority of americans think it is 'fucking stupid.' they believe in the right to rule others. the rest of the people have this radical notion that other people arent their property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 http://www.vdare.com/articles/more-on-ron-paul More in here, few critics. I just took the part I liked. Go figure. _______ Some readers misunderstood the point of my previous column, “America’s Last Chance.” I am endorsing the U.S. Constitution and making the point that Ron Paul is the only candidate for president in either party who is committed to resurrecting the Constitution. Without the Constitution we cease to be American citizens and become subjects of a tyrannical police state. My complaint is that the only candidate who could bring back the Constitution cannot be elected because of the inflexibility and sectarianism of his base. Possibly there are more worthy third party candidates, but they have no prospect of visibility. Ron Paul is visible, and the opportunity is going to waste. I hope readers will spare me their comments about how important their various single issues are. There are many important things. The question is: what is the over-riding important thing? Civil Liberty, essentially the accountability of government to law that serves to protect the innocent, is the historic achievement of the English over many centuries from its beginnings with the foundation for common law established by Alfred the Great in the 9th century through Magna Carta in the 13th century to the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century. If this human achievement is lost, it is unlikely to be resurrected. If the Constitution that Bush and Obama have murdered stays in its grave one more presidential term, no one will be able to re-establish the Constitution’s authority. And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights.” The only rights we have are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain. And no prattle from left-wingers who denounce the Constitution for not protecting slaves and native Indians. The Constitution did not establish universal justice. The Constitution protected the people covered by it. Over time rights were extended. During the past decade the Constitution lost its power. Today rights depend on the subjective opinion of the executive branch. This is tyranny. We should be unified in our opposition to tyranny. 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.