CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 that are totally baseless and straight propaganda. These articles are about as relevant as me posting an infowars.com article in a 9/11 truth thread. Barrons is propaganda and not relevant? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I liked how you removed that part from your post. And you call me brainwashed:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 So, he does not have a plan for any of things he wants to get rid of??? He is just running around saying that we need to get rid of agencies and not have anything in place to help Americans that are in need. This is what people like you do not get; a majority of Americans deal with reality and in realistic situations you need to have a realistic plan. Ron paul does not. It is that simple. Try telling all those people in Vermont that they are better off not getting any support when they need it. See how far that goes. That's all your opinion, everything you said there. You say it as if it's fact, but really that's just how you feel. The facts are that I'm sure Ron Paul has actual realistic plans for this country. Whether or not you agree with them is your right, but to come in here and act like the candidate is unrealistic and his intentions are deceptive, and he's twisting and deceiving people for his own intentions... it's just dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Nothing I ever say is going to be relevant to you, because you're trolling me and you don't respect any of my responses. Anyone else on here can reply to you, and you will entertain their posts for as long as it lasts until you start trolling them also. You're not accepting anything I'm saying because I've been the only one here who has been putting up with your bullshit for more than 1 or 2 pages. The only reason you feel singled out by me is because I am bringing realistic valid questions to RPs policies and you can not back them up. Keep trying, they are easy to shoot down, because most of his policies are flawed and not realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Barrons is propaganda and not relevant? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I liked how you removed that part from your post. And you call me brainwashed:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I think you read a lot of anti-ron paul trash on the internet. I also don't think you even comprehend what that article is saying... I think you just read the title and jumped to conclusions. That's why I edited my post. Because I actually read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I did too. Ron Paul is betting against the US Economy for his personal gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The only reason you feel singled out by me is because I am bringing realistic valid questions to RPs policies and you can not back them up. Keep trying, they are easy to shoot down, because most of his policies are flawed and not realistic. I admit when I can't back up something, but I've responded to pretty much every single question you've thrown into this thread. Whether you want to accept those answers or not is fine, but anyone else reading can see the effort and decide for themselves. I would suggest reading his books to understand his ideology more for the answers you're specifically looking for. Or watch more of his interviews... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I did too. Ron Paul is betting against the US Economy for his personal gain. So how is that "pushing bullshit for his own greed?" Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why can not you not answer what people in Vermont will do for help if FEMA is not there? Please show us where you answered this with a realistic answer. All you have said is that they will be better off without FEMA. Show us how. Any other politician who invests in companies and then tries to get the government to provide regulation or get rid of regulation to help those companies is breaking ethnical rules and should be censured. Why is what Ron Paul is doing with gold and mining companies different from this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why do you keep asking me about the people in Vermont? I already answered your question about FEMA... wtf is wrong with you rofl. You don't read my posts or something? I answered you already wtf lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Please show us where you said anything realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 So I ask you a question, and you answer me with a question. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You have nothing again. That is the problem with his policies, when reality hits, he has nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Please show us where you said anything realistic. show US? I'll show YOU... AGAIN. is someone with you that I didn't realize? why are you speaking as if there is a CROWD of people here with you supporting your side of the arguments rofl. I'm not looking for those direct answers that you're seeking. I comprehend Ron Paul's domestic and foreign policy philosophy, and his ideology. He does not believe that government is supposed to take care of us, as you've stated, and fight off evil and the evil doers and all that stuff you said in this thread. SO, he does not support any of the welfare state policies because he believes it does more harm than good. It's that simple. What will be replaced with all of those government institutions? I don't know I can't answer that, I'm not afraid to admit it. I remember being very skeptical about Ron Paul's domestic policies concerning social welfare, but I can admit that he is correct when he makes the point that it has more of a negative than positive effect on society. I've seen it first hand... and I do believe we would be a healthier society without these institutions. I don't think we would be completely and utterly unable to recover from natural disasters, or other sorts of disasters without FEMA either. I think that notion is sensationalist. I would imagine that Ron Paul would answer it in some way by stating that the state would be responsible for appropriating funds for disaster relief, and that the local police departments, hospitals, church's etc. would contribute to relief efforts rather than taking federal funds and assistance. That's a random assumption off the top of my head, but I can't speak for Ron Paul so asking me questions like that here is really just stupid. that was my answer to your FEMA shit. your not going to accept it. your going to say its unrealistic to expect local state and community institutions to assist in crises situations when it comes to recovery efforts. i understand. continue as normal CILONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 So, a person whose house is destroyed should rely on nonexistent state and community institutions for help, when almost every single state is on the verge of going bankrupt and even if they are not, they can not afford to pay for the state property, never mind paying to help its residents?? I do not accept it, for one reason, it is not feasible in a realistic situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Do you propose to raise taxes to pay for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 LOL. I'm not even going to continue this tonight man, you are funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You will not continue, because you do not have anything to continue with. they are easy to shoot down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 whatever you say BUDDY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Nothing, almost every single night, you have nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 ^CIL, it occurred to me after reading more on Cyclone Nargis, that's a great example of what tea party peeps/ RP fans want. the govt of burma/myanmar didn't really do anything to prepare for the hurricane. they didn't warn people, they didn't evacuate, nada, zip . zilch. then the hurricane struck, and once again, they did nothing. the hurricane displaced millions and killed over 138,000 people one hundred thirty eight thousand. i love that these fucking nimrods want our government to get down like that guess what ya dumb crackpots gold don't float. HAHAHA the idiocy still amazes me. why is that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It reminds me of christians who think the bible is real and the rule of thumb, they read too literally into it, I always get the impression that the RP crowd etc read the constitution so literally that they don't think about how stuff actually works in the modern world. To me it is just a guideline not a steadfast rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 They only support the parts of the constitution that they agree with. If they truly supported the constitution, they would back up section 4 of the 14th amendment when the debt ceiling bullshit went on. But they did not and actually advocated for the opposite of what the constitution says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 to be honest I dont know all the articles of the constitution because it has no relevance to me, I have read it before but didnt retain it all. In my opinion it always comes off as a selfish appraoch, in that as long as you are fine everyone else can go fuck themselves, companies can do what they want and screw people over (thats the big one for me, people who think that companies aren't like that are mad once you have the monopoly you can do what you want and I would rather that be with government where I have a say, over purely for profit companies) Plus anyone that thinks a country shouldnt have welfare isnt speaking any sense at all to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 ^yeah, they like to call it 'charity' completely missing REALITY which is that if you don't help those people, you pay for it on the back end when they become violent, criminals, or drag the society down by just being destitute. i don't want to live in a place where old people, crazy people, disabled people, are left to fend for themselves. they are truly living in that B&W dream world that exists only in their own minds where the rich work hard and deserve everything they have gotten, the poor are lazy and are in that position bc of their own fault, the convicted are guilty, the medically needy have friends and family, and old people have saved enough to take care of themselves pure idiocy, in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 which is that if you don't help those people, you pay for it on the back end when they become violent, criminals, or drag the society down by just being destitute. actually, it seems that since the government has subsidized the poor, the sick, etc, and declared war on poverty, they have created more violent criminals. by keeping people dependent, it has kept them 'down' therefore an unintended consequence of this action is crime. same goes for the war on drugs. whenever they declare war on something, they get more of it, which has unintended consequences. government has increased the number of 'needy' people. (leaving aside the obvious fudging of the numbers, standards and constant raising of the bar that defines poverty. but to be fair, this is common with nearly all statistics.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Bullshit. Show us one piece of evidence that government involvement has created "more" of the problems of issues they have tried to address. I can easily say that without the government involvement, those issues would have been alot worse then they have gotten. AOD, that is another bullshit theory that you believe because you live in the middle of the woods and are scared to deal with reality. Stick to turning wrenches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 TODAY, 12:52 PM This message is hidden because CILONE/SK is on your ignore list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Stop lying, we all know you read what I wrote and you refuse to have a realistic conversation about anything, except for your narrow view points of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Bullshit. Show us one piece of evidence that government involvement has created "more" of the problems of issues they have tried to address. I can easily say that without the government involvement, those issues would have been alot worse then they have gotten. yup. funny too that people want to get behind some shit that could never happen in reality it's a fucking fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 !@#$%, are you seriously trying to say that when the govt declared war on drugs and war on terror that it did not create more 'terror' and more drug use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.