ron paul appreciation/support thread

**mirin_serratus** · 12-31-2011, 02:42 AM

out of all the candidates he's the most likely one to legalized steroids . but seriously tho the dude is a boss, and easily the best character in the political scene.

**zaggahamma** · 12-31-2011, 03:46 AM

hows his foreign policy

**DanB** · 12-31-2011, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by mirin_serratus

out of all the candidates he's the most likely one to legalized steroids. but seriously tho the dude is a boss, and easily the best character in the political scene.

never happen

**slfmade** · 12-31-2011, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by DanB

never happen

I wouldn't say never. Shit, his view is if the states want to legalize rec drugs and prostitution - let them. If this happens I'm sure liberals will start flocking to the more liberal states meaning if there's a majority that want it - it will happen. If it's up to the state and not the feds, then there is a possibility that this could happen. However, it's unlikely as there's many people that want rec drugs to be legalized, but I think the media has convinced people that steroids are worse than pot. It'll be a while before even the most liberal people create a majority of pro-steroid mentality.

**zaggahamma** · 12-31-2011, 08:20 AM

why that would be....."JUST BAD"....wish i could do ron paul's voice

reminds me of the old man in 8 days of Christmas

i do like the idea of smaller government but one extreme to the other aint the answer

**BrownGirl** · 12-31-2011, 03:46 PM

I'm all for a part time/smaller govt. We're paying those idiots way too much to screw up our country.

**xelnaga** · 12-31-2011, 04:06 PM

He's kicking ass in Iowa at the moment, but at the end of the day primary voters will vote for Romney. Americans cannot risk losing the election with a wildcard against obama.

Oh and speaking of barry- he just had his dog flown out on a private jet to hawaii for a photo op. At our expense of course.

**zaggahamma** · 01-01-2012, 09:37 AM

do ppl call obama barry?

20% i dont think is kicking ass but yes in some polls (not sure how accurate of the actual voting that predicts as they cant/dont poll the whole state or everyone thats voting) he is in 2nd..what i cant figure out is how could bachman win the straw poll and poll so poorly after...its like the pole a neighborhood at a time or something...i never see how many ppl are involved in each poll and its always someone different running the poll...cnn, fox, rasmussen, blah blah...

**thegodfather** · 01-01-2012, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by jpkman

do ppl call obama barry?

20% i dont think is kicking ass but yes in some polls (not sure how accurate of the actual voting that predicts as they cant/dont poll the whole state or everyone thats voting) he is in 2nd..what i cant figure out is how could bachman win the straw poll and poll so poorly after...its like the pole a neighborhood at a time or something...i never see how many ppl are involved in each poll and its always someone different running the poll...cnn, fox, rasmussen, blah blah...

Appearently, from a news report, Bachmann paid for peoples admission to the event, and had them bussed in. So, while it gave her a short bit of momentum, the gig is basically up now.

Finally, have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Conservatism is essentially Libertarianism, as echoed by the great Ronald Raegan. Putting someone like Mitt Romney (or anyone but Paul, to be honest) up against Obama, and having them win, is simply going to be a change of faces in Washington. Just point out to me where flip-flopping conservative when it suits him Romney, differs from Obama on any policy point? We could argue about such trivial matters, like whether Obama wants to cut 2.95% or whether Romney wants to cut 3.00% of the Federal budget, but those arguments are rather pointless in the scheme of things. Foreign policy? Romney and Obama both have no problem using the US military, and US soldiers lives (The large majority, middle to lower-middle class men and women) to run around the world, invading sovereign nations that do nothing to improve the national security interests of the United States. In conclusion, I'm not sure if Romney was asked, but based on every other policy point, I would be willing to bet that Romney, like Obama, agrees with indefinite detention of American citizens, based on secret evidence, absent habeas corpus, and judicial review, as well as the asassination of US citizens abroad, based on ONE MAN's opinion. Better hope you dont piss off the President while you're on vacation.

**zaggahamma** · 01-01-2012, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Appearently, from a news report, Bachmann paid for peoples admission to the event, and had them bussed in. So, while it gave her a short bit of momentum, the gig is basically up now.

Finally, have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Conservatism is essentially Libertarianism, as echoed by the great Ronald Raegan. Putting someone like Mitt Romney (or anyone but Paul, to be honest) up against Obama, and having them win, is simply going to be a change of faces in Washington. Just point out to me where flip-flopping conservative when it suits him Romney, differs from Obama on any policy point? We could argue about such trivial matters, like whether Obama wants to cut 2.95% or whether Romney wants to cut 3.00% of the Federal budget, but those arguments are rather pointless in the scheme of things. Foreign policy? Romney and Obama both have no problem using the US military, and US soldiers lives (The large majority, middle to lower-middle class men and women) to run around the world, invading sovereign nations that do nothing to improve the national security interests of the United States. In conclusion, I'm not sure if Romney was asked, but based on every other policy point, I would be willing to bet that Romney, like Obama, agrees with indefinite detention of American citizens, based on secret evidence, absent habeas corpus, and judicial review, as well as the asassination of US citizens abroad, based on ONE MAN's opinion. Better hope you dont piss off the President while you're on vacation.

great post gf
i knew there is something about romney and keep wondering why the news stations i watch keep kind of making him the nominee
theres something about newt that i trust and believe in and am hoping he will gain the rest of the country's trust as well..sucks how having 3 wives can derail someone...geez
i really think he will do a great job for the country

**xelnaga** · 01-01-2012, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by jpkman

do ppl call obama barry?

20% i dont think is kicking ass but yes in some polls (not sure how accurate of the actual voting that predicts as they cant/dont poll the whole state or everyone thats voting) he is in 2nd..what i cant figure out is how could bachman win the straw poll and poll so poorly after...its like the pole a neighborhood at a time or something...i never see how many ppl are involved in each poll and its always someone different running the poll...cnn, fox, rasmussen, blah blah...

Obama was known as barry his entire life.

**zaggahamma** · 01-01-2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by xelnaga

Obama was known as barry his entire life.

thanks i really didnt know....

**Times Roman** · 01-02-2012, 06:12 AM

if you understood what the Libertarian party is all about, you would realize that his basic principals would be to legalize most shit that currently needs a prescription.

libertarian = small government, small social agenda, small foreign policy

libertarian = people should decide, not government

republicans believe in a proactive social agenda, with huge friggin military and a very proactive foreign policy
democrats believe in a large government, and government knows better than people

**zaggahamma** · 01-02-2012, 06:36 AM

would we have been in trouble after pearl harbor if it werent for our military?

**Times Roman** · 01-02-2012, 08:12 AM

^ if you ever read about pearl harbor, we knew ahead of time about the "sneak attack" but chose to sit on our hands and do nothing. this is called your basic stupidity. if we had reacted, our ships would not have been at port, and the whole sneak attack would have fell on it's face. because of this, had our fleet been 50% larger, the outcome would have still been the same. there was no correlation between the size of our fleet and the overall outcome.

the tipping point in the battle of the pacific had no correlation on the size of our navy either. we dropped one A bomb on hiroshima and demanded the emporer surrender. the emporer said no, and that we could never surprise them like that again. so we droppped another one on nagasaki, and then the emporer finally conceded the war. again, this had no correlation on the size of our military, but in our technology. we won the battle of the pacific with two bombers and two bombs. everything else was irrelevent.

**zaggahamma** · 01-02-2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Times Roman

^ if you ever read about pearl harbor, we knew ahead of time about the "sneak attack" but chose to sit on our hands and do nothing. this is called your basic stupidity. if we had reacted, our ships would not have been at port, and the whole sneak attack would have fell on it's face. because of this, had our fleet been 50% larger, the outcome would have still been the same. there was no correlation between the size of our fleet and the overall outcome.

the tipping point in the battle of the pacific had no correlation on the size of our navy either. we dropped one A bomb on hiroshima and demanded the emporer surrender. the emporer said no, and that we could never surprise them like that again. so we droppped another one on nagasaki, and then the emporer finally conceded the war. again, this had no correlation on the size of our military, but in our technology. we won the battle of the pacific with two bombers and two bombs. everything else was irrelevent.

kinda my point..

do you think we'd be better off saving money on our military..like squeaky does

**lovbyts** · 01-02-2012, 08:24 AM

Now if we would only use the same logic, tactics as we did with Japan.

**domeyeahaigh** · 01-02-2012, 08:47 AM

Yup left v Right doesnt matter anymore. Ron Paul is my only choice. I want to see America prosper again. This image details top campaign contributors for Obama v McCain v Paul ..it is clear that McCain and Obama had similar interests backing them. Which signals to me, that similar interest knew how each candidate would act if elected to office..As you can see Paul had a very different backing..

http://americanbuilt.us/images/Ron-Paul/top-contributors.jpg

**Times Roman** · 01-02-2012, 10:08 AM

i must admit im a registered Libertarian. Doesn't mean i'll vote for paul, doesn't mean i won't either.

i voted for the little squeaky guy with the big ears from texas because i liked his balanced budget plank.

**Times Roman** · 01-02-2012, 11:00 AM

we could easily down size our military, and only concentrate on immediate national threats. let the UN and NATO step up and do their friggin jobs. we can support those organizations, but we do more than both those cheese dik organizations combined.

**zaggahamma** · 01-02-2012, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Times Roman

we could easily down size our military, and only concentrate on immediate national threats. let the UN and NATO step up and do their friggin jobs. we can support those organizations, but we do more than both those cheese dik organizations combined.

what kind of savings would we be talking....and yes of course we could..i'm asking should we

i feel more comfortable not

**Times Roman** · 01-02-2012, 11:26 AM

too tired to google % GDP our military budget is, but it is hundreds of billions per year. cut that by 50%. say that saves 100 billion a year. divide by 300million people. that is a savings of over $1000 per family of four every year. keep the tax rates the same, and we could seriuosly start paying down our national debt.

what's more of a risk? letting the UN/NATO do their jobs, or bankrupting the US economy?

**zaggahamma** · 01-02-2012, 11:34 AM

i dont like to google either....

but...i'd rather cut other spending like stimulus and solyndra than to cut our military

**thegodfather** · 01-02-2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by jpkman

i dont like to google either....

but...i'd rather cut other spending like stimulus and solyndra than to cut our military

Our annual military budget is somewhere around $500 billion a year in PEACETIME, and I'm not sure if this includes the black budget. The black budget is a budget where members on the Armed Services Committee of Congress vote on resolutions&budgets, but do not know what they are voting for, someone from a particular military organization simply says we need this program, and those members vote and decide. It is a blind vote, but the black budget is in the billions of dollars. Not advocating we get rid of that, because thats where crucial R&D money comes from.

Now our war budget in peacetime? I mean the numbers speak for themselves. We could cut military spending to $400 billion/yr as Times New Roman said, and guess what? We would still be spending something in the neighborhood of 5-10x the next closest competitor on the military budget.

People should seriously realize the difference between a strong national DEFENSE, and a strong national OFFENSE. Defense means responding to clear&present dangers to national security, which concern the HOMELAND of the United States and our embassy's, but NOT our 'allies'. This is not a carte blanche for pre-emptive warfare as we saw presented by the neo-cons in 2003, but requires real, actionable intelligence, and a real case to be made that a particular country possess's the weaponry, manpower, and CAPABILITY to conceivably threaten the homeland. Additionally, the emergency war powers act used by the President are grossly distorted, in order to goto actual war, we MUST have a declaration by Congress. The reason that undeclared wars drag out so long, is that there is no effect felt at home, except on the small number of middle to lower-middle class families who sacrafice their sons and daughters so they can get a college education and/or serve their country. How many of the people who vote to send these children to war actually have children of their own in the service?

To understand true conservative principle, you need to readjust and think of Republican politics as they existed 60-100 years ago. Republicans were the non-war party, they were elected to end wars, not start or perpetuate them. That became lost somewhere around the late eighties, with the birth of the neo-conservative ideology. You will hear many of us honor Ronald Raegan as a saint to Republicans, and indeed the things that he espoused were awesome, however his execution left a lot to be desired for. Under Raegan, the size of government grew immensely, the defecit went up, and in general he went back on most of what he said.