Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
"... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!"
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible.... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”
“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”
“[T]he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [people with AIDS] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act;" and “[W]e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers [AIDS patients].”
THIS is the guy you want in charge of the States?
All written by Ron Paul's ghostwriter. Just like I assume the decayed corpse of an idiot from a medieval village is writing Dojji's posts.
That's true, when I said I liked his foreign policy I was over simplifying. Obama's foreign policy has been perfect as far as I can tell.
Joke of the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBryanRoleModel
I think his foreign policy is awful and I'm considered a Liberal.
Ron Paul is more of an isolationist, as opposed to the internationalist we saw in George McGovern, who moved the democrats to the left on Foreign Policy.
McGovern believed in foreign aid, Ron Paul does not.
He believes in principles, duh! He doesn't agree in foreign aid because he thinks countries need to look after themselves. Why is that a bad thing? But, he also believes in the rule of law and put to a vote, if they vote for giving foreign aid, he still might sign it. He's said many times, that he might vote 'No' on bills but respects when votes are the democratic method when something gets done. He still might disagree in principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisk-Illusion
As a former Ron Paul supporter who has been rather critical of him in previous posts, here’s my stance on his candidacy/place in American politics.
I think he generally has a positive influence on American politics because he brings a viewpoint which is often lacking in modern political discourse. Even if you disagree with him on most issues, you’ll eventually find something you have in common with him, may it be on economics, foreign policy, civil liberties, drugs, etc. And he’ll defend that position more honestly and courageously than any other politician in Washington. He won’t always be fully coherent, but he’s 76 and has been advocating for drug legalization for most of his adult life, so give him a break.
That being said, I wouldn’t vote for him, or would recommend anyone to ask him to serve in any Administration because that isn’t what he’s good at and what he believes in. Ron Paul is the crazy guy (in a lovable way) who screams when the government does something he doesn’t like (see his speech on TSA pat downs) to get people angry about it. By looking at his record however, one can see that he’s not someone who’s either willing or capable of compromise to get things done. Ron Paul’s entire political career can be summed up in one sentence “Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good”.
Although I'm probably closer to a libertarian than to any other political ideology, I would take Romney or Obama, and almost any other Republican and Democrat over Ron Paul as president because I don't believe that someone who sees things only in black and white can be anything but a total disaster in a very gray world.
LOL. You call yourself a 'libertarian' but agree with supporting Romney or Obama, who are two that would be most likely to be 'anti-liberty' and Obama has already proven to be just that.
Even if someone disagrees with Paul on policy, at least he acts and decides on principle (compared to the rest) so there is more integrity one can expect with him compared to any of the other candidates. If someone who was similar with principles ran, then you could praise such a candidate but with who is running and still left, there really isn't much of a choice.
"... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!"
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible.... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”
“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”
“[T]he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [people with AIDS] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act;" and “[W]e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers [AIDS patients].”
THIS is the guy you want in charge of the States?
Ron Paul is a crazy old kook, no doubt about it ...
in his defense, Ron Paul has been in politics a LONG time and I dare say if most politicians were in the game as long as him, you would be able to make a dubious quote list like this for most of them. You can definitely make one for Romney/Gingrich/Santorum.
I also believe a lot of those quotes are really old like from 20-30 years ago. Culture is much different in America since then. I would hope a smart guy like Paul has changed some of his ideas to fit with the times and just judging by his popularity with young people I'd say he must have.
Quote:
He believes in principles, duh! He doesn't agree in foreign aid because he thinks countries need to look after themselves. Why is that a bad thing? But, he also believes in the rule of law and put to a vote, if they vote for giving foreign aid, he still might sign it. He's said many times, that he might vote 'No' on bills but respects when votes are the democratic method when something gets done. He still might disagree in principle.
There's actually a lot of valid arguments against governmental foreign aid, especially in the case of Africa. Paul is not nearly as out to lunch on this issue as you might think.
So true. I just laugh when people say they like Obama's foreign policy but are massive Bush haters.
It's easy to weed out the morons that way I guess.
Maybe if you ignore their differing circumstances. There's a difference between starting a war, and continuing one you inherited. Bush started two wars, while Obama ended one and continued one (with more success).
As well, he has taken a different approach on a number of other fronts (Iran, Libya, talks with Israel) than Bush or most Republicans would have taken.
Maybe if you ignore their differing circumstances. There's a difference between starting a war, and continuing one you inherited. Bush started two wars, while Obama ended one and continued one (with more success).
Then maybe we should stop criticising Nixon and LBJ for their role in Vietnam, a war that Eisenhower got us into and Kennedy expanded.
Besides, it'd be hard to say that Bush "started" the war in Iraq when the truth is it really just never stopped. Technically under the rules of war Iraq stopped living up to the cease fire, so the US was within its rights based on the original cease fire mandate to resume hostilities. It didn't even need the additional authorization it sought.
Quote:
As well, he has taken a different approach on a number of other fronts (Iran, Libya, talks with Israel) than Bush or most Republicans would have taken.
I think you're wrong there. America hasn't been particularly involved in the Israel peace process since the Clinton Administration -- either Presidency. Frankly that whole mess went on hold when Arafat died and the Palestinian coalition fell apart. America has no special hold on the Palestinians so it has no role in the piece process atm -- until a unified Palestinian authority that actually has control over the militant wing can step forward.
Joke of the thread.
