What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Farnhamia]

Wut? You said he was the only consistent, liberty-driven, moral choice, as backed my statistics. You said this first. I demand you show these statistics.

yes but i did not say he was the only consistent one though, check your own statistics , im waitin on wikki, told you this, moving on. my point is the man is the most consistent one the republicans have and in greater comparison one of the most consistent ones left

Statistics or we must conclude that you're just making things up. "Waiting for Wikki" is not an answer, though I think it was one of Beckett's working titles for "Waiting for Godot."

[Tgirl Isles]

He is a brain-dead idiot.

[Revolutopia]

wrong again, i said hes the only consistent one in terms of liberty and morality,

And what does that even mean?

For example, I find both Sen. Sanders and Rep. Kunicich to be much more consistent in the idea of liberty in that they wish to protect the constitutional rights of women to have abortions and gays to marry all across this land. While, Paul abandons this principle to argue that states should have the right to enforce Christian morality on their populace.

[Ceannairceach]

Notice those words? Yeah, they're yours... You said them first, now back them up. Show me these statistics.

wrong again, i said hes the only consistent one in terms of liberty and morality, there are plenty of others who are consistent in other ways . dont be diversive here, see these words , there mine, i said them, i backed it up, once again moving on, once again waitinf for wikki first, please pay attention thankyou , Ron paul one of last few ppl truly care about americans

Due to your inability and unwillingness to back up your claims with sources, I hereby issue a warrant of blockage. Good day.

[The Black Forrest]

No, it isn't. Global Warming exists no matter your ideology.

again, matter of opinion. theres really not enough evidence on the matter. besides with HARRP an such, idk, but global warming deff still debatable

Really?

So what evidence do you need?

[AiliailiA]

For a guy who "supports" the constitution, he's sure trying to neuter the 1st and 14th amendments. And he wants to fully repeal the 17th.

the 17th is a failure , the 14th has issues , and i have none, no idea in the possible slightest what you mean when you say 1st, that would be antithetical to his entire platform, do u kno wut you are even typing i want the proof

You know that the President can't repeal the 14th and 17th amendments don't you?

You know that there is no way such a repeal will get through both houses of Congress and the State legislatures, inside 8 years of a Paul presidency, don't you?

So what's going to happen when President Paul proposes laws that the Congress can plainly see are counter to the current constitution?

Congress is going to laugh at him, that's what.

[New Sapienta]

I don't know, but my opinion of him just rapidly increased lately.

[The Black Forrest]

Really?

So what evidence do you need?

alot.

lolz , listen all i kno is there is a major political push for global carbon taxation and that in itself is enough for me to debate it, besides there are a wide variety of scientists who have dispute global warming in general as well , this whole belief that its an accepted phenomenon is political propaganda , one way or another

Well? Politics isn't a valid reason to eliminate claims of science.

If you are interested, look into the concern of the sequoia. They need a certain cool temperature (of course I forget) for seeds to take hold. A couple days ago I heard a couple rangers on the radio reporting they have noticed a drop off of new growth. The think we are in a period where we will see them die off due to warming. They hope the old big guys can hold out and they could recover.

There are other indicators but I will not take the thread on a tangent.

[Revolutopia]

No he doesnt, and just because you reject my reasoning doesn not give you right to question its content, for that you lose your own credibility, as such let us refocus on the issues, thankyou . he is a libertarian man . he does not wish to enforce his christian beliefs on anyone, stop leftist genealizing him , just because your against the rights of unborn babies doesnt make paul a bad man, remember we all have right to our beliefs

Yes, he does we have already brought up his "We the People Act" which directly allows state governments to pass laws regarding abortion, gay marriage, religious tests, and flag burning without any federal oversight. Therefore, this would directly allow states to enforce morality on the population while denying people the right to appeal to the federal protection in the constitution.

Ron Pauls foreign policy views alone warrant his credibility ,

You mean his support of the Afghanistan war(he voted for authorization), despite his constant whining about US involvement overseas? That is another are where he fails to be consistent.

[Genivaria]

No he doesnt, and just because you reject my reasoning doesn not give you right to question its content, for that you lose your own credibility, as such let us refocus on the issues, thankyou . he is a libertarian man . he does not wish to enforce his christian beliefs on anyone, stop leftist genealizing him , just because your against the rights of unborn babies doesnt make paul a bad man, remember we all have right to our beliefs

Yes, he does we have already brought up his "We the People Act" which directly allows state governments to pass laws regarding abortion, gay marriage, religious tests, and flag burning without any federal oversight. Therefore, this would directly allow states to enforce morality on the population while denying people the right to appeal to the federal protection in the constitution.

Ron Pauls foreign policy views alone warrant his credibility ,

You mean his support of the Afghanistan war(he voted for authorization), despite his constant whining about US involvement overseas? That is another are where he fails to be consistent.

Wait, WHAT!? I'm gonna need to see a source for that claim.

[AiliailiA]

Really?

So what evidence do you need?

alot.

lolz , listen all i kno is there is a major political push for global carbon taxation and that in itself is enough for me to debate it, besides there are a wide variety of scientists who have dispute global warming in general as well , this whole belief that its an accepted phenomenon is political propaganda , one way or another

Not even Ron Paul is a climate change denier. He think the government shouldn't do a damn thing about it (private property rights will fix it if it needs fixing, or some such balloon-juice) but at least he's not out in that camp of idiots who "dispute global warming".

It would be quite interesting to know what proportion of Ron Paul supporters also think the CIA did 9/11, contrails are an electrical mind-control grid operated by the government, the moon landings were faked, and climate change is a conspiracy of scientists to help governments reverse the industrial revolution.

[Revolutopia]

Wait, WHAT!? I'm gonna need to see a source for that claim.

roll call vote for authorization for the president to go into Afghanistan.

[New Conglomerate]

well cia did do 9/11 along with mossad

No they didn't. Chemtrail-producing chemicals in the planes reacted with burning fuel to eat through the steel support beams.

This is sarcasm.

[Revolutopia]

well cia did do 9/11 along with mossad,

And here you lose all credibility and actually start hurting the cause of Paul.

[Mike the Progressive]

Wait, WHAT!? I'm gonna need to see a source for that claim.

roll call vote for authorization for the president to go into Afghanistan.

So wait, what's wrong with the invasion into Afghanistan, again?

Al Qaeda crashed planes into towers. Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, harbors Al Qaeda and there training camps. So we should have done nothing but stick our thumbs up our bums?

I can see the case made for opposing Iraq (I did, too), but Afghanistan?

[Revolutopia]

roll call vote for authorization for the president to go into Afghanistan.

So wait, what's wrong with the invasion into Afghanistan, again?

Al Qaeda crashed planes into towers. Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, harbors Al Qaeda and there training camps. So we should have done nothing but stick our thumbs up our bums?

I can see the case made for opposing Iraq (I did, too), but Afghanistan?

I am just countering the claim that his supporter repeatedly put out that he is some saint that is opposed to American involvement in foreign nations and drastically opposed to war. By showing that he diverts from this "consistent" stance in regards that he initially supported Afghanistan, thus any opposition to it now is a change of tune.

i.e. that his stance towards Afghanistan now is similar to Kerry's stance to Iraq in 2004.

[Detris]

If this were Forum 7, I would say his head looks like an upside-down bowling pin..oops!

[New Sapienta]

While I disagree with Paul on many points, he is stance agaisnt the S1867 bill is extremelly admirable

[Revolutopia]

And here you lose all credibility and actually start hurting the cause of Paul.

no, you do,. for denying factual act and using diversive delusion to ignore the truth, your problem not mine . is what it is, Ron Paul to his credit however in terms of war has always voted for self defense,just not preemptive strike . very reasonable in my opinion

Sure, I really bet is only going to help Paul if he start going about how 9/11 was an inside job with America and Israel killing 3,000 American citizens.

[AiliailiA]

roll call vote for authorization for the president to go into Afghanistan.

So wait, what's wrong with the invasion into Afghanistan, again?

Al Qaeda crashed planes into towers. Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, harbors Al Qaeda and there training camps. So we should have done nothing but stick our thumbs up our bums?

Bomb the training camps, without asking the Taliban first.

It's what we're doing ten years later. Only now we're doing it in Pakistan.

I can see the case made for opposing Iraq (I did, too), but Afghanistan?

It's a harder case to make yes. Paul deserves some credit for being opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Too few politicians were.

[AiliailiA]

Antizionistia probably won't fall for that trick again. Was funny though.

[Wikkiwallana]

Consistently bad is not a good thing. And his ideas of liberty can go stuff it, for all I care; I want real liberty. Lastly, government has no business legislating morality.

Oh, and as an afterthought, I have no idea what statistics you are referring to.

clearly not do the research on ur own time ... as to your opinions of him as bad , its blatantly clear by your posts and attitudes you simply hate hate his philosophy entire and as such cannot be relied upon as serious. id like to see the stats on where hes been bad .., hah

This pretty much covers it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_le ... y_Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

[Wikkiwallana]

That's not how it works. If you say something, it is on you to back it up.

indeed, and im still waiting for wikki to show me wen where and how ron paul wants to get rid of the 1st amendment...

I can't be everywhere at once. I have other threads to read. Sorry that it took an extra hour or two for me to get back to you on a bulletin board.

[New Sapienta]

This pretty much covers it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_le ... y_Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

whatever those links may contain i do not accept them as credible , they are of wikipidea and wiki can be edited by anyone, as i have stated before , as such making any and all potential of factual credibility, effectively null and void , sry try again.

And the sources that you got sayin 9/11 was an inside job are?

[Revolutopia]

clearly not do the research on ur own time ... as to your opinions of him as bad , its blatantly clear by your posts and attitudes you simply hate hate his philosophy entire and as such cannot be relied upon as serious. id like to see the stats on where hes been bad .., hah

This pretty much covers it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_le ... y_Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

Wikki don't you know it is unfair to use the man's own legislation and positions as proof to demonstrate how he is wrong. Instead, you have to use poorly phrased sentences just going about how you are right, at least that is what Anti-Z tactic has been.