One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Death Metal]

we will be ruled by whatever state you happen to inhabit. bank on it.
this is nothing compared to the government having the power to have the right for indefinite imprisonment of US citizens without trial.

WHICH HE HAD FROM THE MOMENT HE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE, THE LEGISLATION GIVES HIM NO NEW POWERS, AND HE HAD NO WAY TO REPEAL THESE POWERS WITHOUT CONGRESS PUTTING SOMETHING IN FRONT OF HIM THAT ALLOWS HIM TO

In caps, bold, italicized and underlined for emphasis as this is the 40th time I've said it.

[Sibirsky]

see my other point about why gay marriage in the first place is not an issue of relevance at the moment anyway. and did he sign off on the we the people act? no.

Because I'm not arguing for Obama. I'm arguing against Ron Paul. If you want someone other than Obama, I'm fine with that. I'm simply here to explain why it shouldn't be Ron Paul.

There is no better option.

[Wikkiwallana]

At this rate you people sound like you'll elect Ron Paul. Then this country will he well on its way to a living hell. We will never learn from our mistakes. You'll end up abolishing the fed and when the economy sends us into a depression you'll blame someone else. We never learn. From the look of it we will arrive in hell only a few minutes before Satan returns from his trip to earth.

the economy is naturally like this, its called boom and bust.

And it screws people over. We can do better.

[The Aryan Nations]

It's a myth. There was no surplus.

If there was a real, substantial surplus debt would decline not only as a percentage of GDP, but in actual dollar amounts.

What he's saying is that you don't really have a true surplus just because your national expenditures are outweighed by your revenue. You have to be paying down your debt (not even just paying on the interest, but actually reducing the principal) to have a substantive surplus. So all our extra money went to interest, but wasn't sufficient to diminish the principle amount on our debt. Your chart is accurate, but doesn't match with Sibirsky's definition of surplus.

hmmm...

Because you spend more money than you take in you don't have a surplus...

shocking.

[North Calaveras]

Because I'm not arguing for Obama. I'm arguing against Ron Paul. If you want someone other than Obama, I'm fine with that. I'm simply here to explain why it shouldn't be Ron Paul.

There is no better option.

this

plus i don't agree with everything he says(i don't think its possible for him to match everyone 100%) but what he advocates is definatley in the direction of progress as opposed to increased government bloating and bitching.

[The Aryan Nations]

we will be ruled by whatever state you happen to inhabit. bank on it.
this is nothing compared to the government having the power to have the right for indefinite imprisonment of US citizens without trial.

WHICH HE HAD FROM THE MOMENT HE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE, THE LEGISLATION GIVES HIM NO NEW POWERS, AND HE HAD NO WAY TO REPEAL THESE POWERS WITHOUT CONGRESS PUTTING SOMETHING IN FRONT OF HIM THAT ALLOWS HIM TO

In caps, bold, italicized and underlined for emphasis as this is the 40th time I've said it.

VETO if he didnt like it he wouldn't sign it

[Death Metal]

Because I'm not arguing for Obama. I'm arguing against Ron Paul. If you want someone other than Obama, I'm fine with that. I'm simply here to explain why it shouldn't be Ron Paul.

There is no better option.

There are over seven billion people who can do better than Ron Paul.

Granted, most of them are probably morso than Obama.

[Sailsia]

see my other point about why gay marriage in the first place is not an issue of relevance at the moment anyway. and did he sign off on the we the people act? no.

Because I'm not arguing for Obama. I'm arguing against Ron Paul. If you want someone other than Obama, I'm fine with that. I'm simply here to explain why it shouldn't be Ron Paul.

Imagine, we're trapped in a walled off area of land. There are two popular ideas on how to get out. Build a latter, or tunnel under the wall. While others attempt to decide which option will work, since we either use our only resources to build shovels or the latter, you sit there and say why both options are bad, without giving a constructive idea on how to get out. Guess who the other trapped people are going to be least likely to value the opinion of. (hope you guessed yourself)

[The Aryan Nations]

There is no better option.

There are over seven billion people more qualified to be president than Ron Paul.

Granted, most of them are probably morso than Obama.

so you would elect David Duke (an ACTUAL racist) over Ron Paul?

[Sibirsky]

It's a myth. There was no surplus.

If there was a real, substantial surplus debt would decline not only as a percentage of GDP, but in actual dollar amounts.

What he's saying is that you don't really have a true surplus just because your national expenditures are outweighed by your revenue. You have to be paying down your debt (not even just paying on the interest, but actually reducing the principal) to have a substantive surplus. So all our extra money went to interest, but wasn't sufficient to diminish the principle amount on our debt. Your chart is accurate, but doesn't match with Sibirsky's definition of surplus.

No, what I'm saying is, a surplus can be had, while debt can continue to increase due to higher interest costs. I'm further saying that the Clinton era surpluses are bullshit phony government accounting. And theft of social security.

[North Calaveras]

the economy is naturally like this, its called boom and bust.

And it screws people over. We can do better.

When it is corporatist yes

[Death Metal]

WHICH HE HAD FROM THE MOMENT HE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE, THE LEGISLATION GIVES HIM NO NEW POWERS, AND HE HAD NO WAY TO REPEAL THESE POWERS WITHOUT CONGRESS PUTTING SOMETHING IN FRONT OF HIM THAT ALLOWS HIM TO

In caps, bold, italicized and underlined for emphasis as this is the 40th time I've said it.

VETO

HE WOULD HAVE STILL HAD THE POWERS!

[Wikkiwallana]

Shouldn't be a "choice", it is a damn right.

And you are still ignoring the fact that he wants to ban the federal government from treating a gay marriage as legally valid, but not a straight marriage.

you have no real rights, only what your allowed. Nothing is guaranteed only allowed until it is stripped away or held sacred.

Let's not get into semantics here. The laws of the USA recognize things that they are forbidden from taking away, and calls them "rights". Marriage is one of them.

[The Aryan Nations]

VETO

HE WOULD HAVE STILL HAD THE POWERS!

by vetoing the very thing that gave him the powers... he would retain the powers.

i think i have found a troll here, gentlemen.

[Sailsia]

the economy is naturally like this, its called boom and bust.

And it screws people over. We can do better.

Obama has not done any better though. This threads is about Obama vs Paul, not Paul vs SomeMysteriousSuperLeader

[North Calaveras]

you have no real rights, only what your allowed. Nothing is guaranteed only allowed until it is stripped away or held sacred.

Let's not get into semantics here. The laws of the USA recognize things that they are forbidden from taking away, and calls them "rights". Marriage is one of them.

Hey im just stating a fact that's all.

[Sibirsky]

There is no better option.

There are over seven billion people who can do better than Ron Paul.

Granted, most of them are probably morso than Obama.

[Wikkiwallana]

The Supreme Court Disagrees

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

---

If the majority chooses to deny people rights, it does not make the said denial of rights any less wrong.

as to 1) Yes, marriage is a right, but marriage is defined as a man and a woman. I don't agree with that definition, but as I said before, gay marraige is not an important issue in comparison to other ones the United States faces right now.

Where is it defined as such? And why should it be limited to that definition. Also, his position on gay marriage is the same as his position on several other highly important civil rights, ones that affect even more people. It's a useful shorthand if nothing else.

2)Ever heard of State Supreme Courts? Checks and balances exist at the state level too

And sometimes they aren't enough. That's why the system doesn't end there.

[Socialdemokraterne]

What he's saying is that you don't really have a true surplus just because your national expenditures are outweighed by your revenue. You have to be paying down your debt (not even just paying on the interest, but actually reducing the principal) to have a substantive surplus. So all our extra money went to interest, but wasn't sufficient to diminish the principle amount on our debt. Your chart is accurate, but doesn't match with Sibirsky's definition of surplus.

No, what I'm saying is, a surplus can be had, while debt can continue to increase due to higher interest costs. I'm further saying that the Clinton era surpluses are bullshit phony government accounting. And theft of social security.

Isn't that more or less what I said? It's what I meant. Maybe the red portion falsely indicates that all interest was being paid off?

[Death Metal]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

[Galloism]

HE WOULD HAVE STILL HAD THE POWERS!

by vetoing the very thing that gave him the powers... he would retain the powers.

i think i have found a troll here, gentlemen.

I think Cat-Tribe pointed out previously that the powers supposedly given already existed in the form of previous legislation.

IE, the "law" only restated a law that already existed, but in another section of the code.

[The Aryan Nations]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

Patriot Act allowed for Wire taps, not indefinite imprisonment of american citizens.

[Sailsia]

as to 1) Yes, marriage is a right, but marriage is defined as a man and a woman. I don't agree with that definition, but as I said before, gay marraige is not an important issue in comparison to other ones the United States faces right now.

Where is it defined as such? And why should it be limited to that definition. Also, his position on gay marriage is the same as his position on several other highly important civil rights, ones that affect even more people. It's a useful shorthand if nothing else.

2)Ever heard of State Supreme Courts? Checks and balances exist at the state level too

And sometimes they aren't enough. That's why the system doesn't end there.

I never said it didn't or it shouldn't. Ron would decrease the Federal government's role, not dissolve the Federal government entirely.

[Sibirsky]

No, what I'm saying is, a surplus can be had, while debt can continue to increase due to higher interest costs. I'm further saying that the Clinton era surpluses are bullshit phony government accounting. And theft of social security.

Isn't that more or less what I said? It's what I meant. Maybe the red portion falsely indicates that all interest was being paid off?

There was no extra money. That's what I am trying to say.

[Sailsia]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

It would have been symbolic that Obama gives a flying fuck about the constitution.