Ron Paul in 2008

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
I can understand his wanting to pull out of the middle east, not to sure about the other places. You crazy germans and your world wars!

Two things, Ron Paul doesn't really seem willing to take any stance on things like abortion and when he's asked he just says state's rights. I think if we left it up to the states to vote on most of them will out right ban it.

And the other thing, Ron Paul really looks like an older hitler if you draw a mustache on him, do it you'll be suprised.

Actually I have heard of Ron Paul's stance on abortion, he is personally against abortion but believes the Federal Government of the USA has no right under the US Constitution to intervene in this area and that it is the prerogative of the individual states. As for the mustache I don't know and I'm not good with photo shop so I'll take your word on it. Although Hitler had dark black hair and deeply blue eyes and Ron Paul is much older than he ever lived too and the lines on Ron Paul's face show it.

P.S. sorry to double post but VHB edited his post.

P.P.S As this is a double post I thought I'd add something extra here. I'll add two shortcuts to two youtube videos, these're not the normal video you actually learn things in these rather than just the normal short rather meaningless interview politicans get.

This first is a rather dry video (if you're uninterested or uninformed on economic matters) recording of Ron Paul on a radio station were he discuses economics, mainly monetary policy. This one is the one that really impresses me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USSAEQl0XMM

The second is a more populist appearence at google's headquaters where he took questions on a wide range of topics and answered them quite fully. It's very long but the 1st 5 minutes will give you the idea if you don't want to watch it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Vampire_Hunter_Bob · December 17, 2007

Sanguinius said:
Actually I have heard of Ron Paul's stance on abortion, he is personally against abortion but believes the Federal Government of the USA has no right under the US Constitution to intervene in this area and that it is the prerogative of the individual states.

Things like abortion and civil liberties should be left up to the Federal Government. Only because states in the past have shown they can't deal with it. Then again the fed doesn't do everything right because the person in office is a fucking dumbass. Ex. Federal Fair Housing act doesn't include gays and lesbians, but Maryland's amendment to it [added in 2001] puts gays and lesbians under it.

As for the mustache I don't know and I'm not good with photo shop so I'll take your word on it. Although Hitler had dark black hair and deeply blue eyes and Ron Paul is much older than he ever lived too and the lines on Ron Paul's face show it.

YOU CANNNOT MATCH MY MSPAINT SKLZ.

P.S. sorry to double post but VHB edited his post.

Don't blame me for your short comings! :ganishka:

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Things like abortion and civil liberties should be left up to the Federal Government. Only because states in the past have shown they can't deal with it. Then again the fed doesn't do everything right because the person in office is a fucking dumbass. Ex. Federal Fair Housing act doesn't include gays and lesbians, but Maryland's amendment to it [added in 2001] puts gays and lesbians under it.

Well he looks at it from the point of view of what the US Constituation says rather than what you (not just you any individual including himself) personally think is morally right or not.

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
YOU CANNNOT MATCH MY MSPAINT SKLZ.

You're right.

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Don't blame me for your short comings!

Sorry

Vampire_Hunter_Bob · December 17, 2007

Sanguinius said:
Well he looks at it from the point of view of what the US Constituation says rather than what you (not just you any individual including himself) personally think is morally right or not.

Personally i think the way he uses States Rights is an excuse to avoid taking a stance on most things.

CnC · December 17, 2007

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
And the other thing, Ron Paul really looks like an older hitler if you draw a mustache on him, do it you'll be suprised.

I don't think that smile makes it work. Happy Hitler?

Sanguinius said:
Yes, I can understand that, occasionally you might have to give a logical and thought out response rather than a witty remark as an answer.

We get it, Sanguinius, you like Ron Paul. Be sure to vote for hi... oh, that's right you can't. No need to get snide in a process you already have no say in. Sorry skippy, but the chances of him pulling off the republican nomination are minuscule. It would be nice, but no, it'd be a friggin' miracle.

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Personally i think the way he uses States Rights is an excuse to avoid taking a stance on most things.

Wonder what his stance on segregation would have been?

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Personally i think the way he uses States Rights is an excuse to avoid taking a stance on most things.

I don't know about that, he does take stands, on homosexuality which is as big an issue for "moral" conservatives as abortion, he has said he supports homosexuals going into the armed forces. If you really read the US Constitution it does put a lot of restrictions on the Federal government and it's quite obvious by a simple reading of the document that US politicans and courts have been disregarding parts of it for a long time.

@ CnC

Yes I do like him, he has the most rational and informed stance on economic issues I have ever heard from a politician and it impresses me. As for winning the nomination, I already said in this thread I don't see how that validates bland generic criticisms against the man. As I also said going by the record of elected governments in all countries winning elections in no way proves that the "policies" they stand for, if they stand for any, really solves countries problems and I'd say they often make they worse or make new problems.

As for his position on segregation I know his stance on that too. His stance is that states have no right to implement racist policies such as segregation of transport; housing; schooling or even water fountains. In that context any state that attempted to do so should be brough to the courts and have their policies declared unconstitutional. He doesn't treat the Constitution as a smoke screen he treats it as the document that made America great and as the best way to keep it so.

Vampire_Hunter_Bob · December 17, 2007

CnC said:
I don't think that smile makes it work. Happy Hitler?

Hitler after a german victory in ww2?

Wonder what his stance on segregation would have been?

States rights!

Sanguinius said:
I don't know about that, he does take stands, on homosexuality which is as big an issue for "moral" conservatives as abortion, he has said he supports homosexuals going into the armed forces. If you really read the US Constitution it does put a lot of restrictions on the Federal government and it's quite obvious by a simple reading of the document that US politicans and courts have been disregarding parts of it for a long time.

Well if he takes the constitution literally, then he should also be for supporting their right to marry. Then again he's going to say states rights instead of taking a stance on it.

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
States rights!

I answered that in the edited post above.

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Well if he takes the constitution literally, then he should also be for supporting their right to marry. Then again he's going to say states rights instead of taking a stance on it.

He does support the right of Gays to marry. Not because he believes in gay rights or black rights or white rights, but because he believes in individual rights where all voluntary actions by individuals social or economic are permissible provided they do not harm anyone else.

I added these above but people might miss it as this thread is lengthening so quickly.

This first is a rather dry video (if you're uninterested or uninformed on economic matters) recording of Ron Paul on a radio station were he discuses economics, mainly monetary policy. This one is the one that really impresses me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USSAEQl0XMM

The second is a more populist appearance at google's headquarters where he took questions on a wide range of topics and answered them quite fully. It's very long but the 1st 5 minutes will give you the idea if you don't want to watch it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Here is an audio interview with Ron Paul, he sums up his views in a lot of areas more quickly than the 2 previously posted links but not as much detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Q848P0h8&feature=related

CnC · December 17, 2007

Sanguinius said:
As for his position on segregation I know his stance on that too. His stance is that states have no right to implement racist policies such as segregation of transport; housing; schooling or even water fountains. In that context any state that attempted to do so should be brough to the courts and have their policies declared unconstitutional. He doesn't treat the Constitution as a smoke screen he treats it as the document that made America great and as the best way to keep it so.

They did bring it to the courts. Plessy vs. Ferguson. Segregation (separate but equal) was upheld (or at least not seen as a violation of the 13th amendment). It remained that way until Brown v. Board of Education. But this is getting off topic.

My point is it's not perfect, and while Paul is definitely in the right by deciding to go with the Constitution rather than the bible thumping his associates are fond of doing (my eyes grow tired of rolling when hearing what Huckabee has said recently), I don't find Paul's message to be completely desirable. State controlled abortion rights would be a nightmare, imo.

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

CnC said:
They did bring it to the courts. Plessy vs. Ferguson. Segregation (separate but equal) was upheld (or at least not seen as a violation of the 13th amendment). It remained that way until Brown v. Board of Education. But this is getting off topic.

My point is it's not perfect, and while Paul is definitely in the right by deciding to go with the Constitution rather than the bible thumping his associates are fond of doing (my eyes grow tired of rolling when hearing what Huckabee has said recently), I don't find Paul's message to be completely desirable. State controlled abortion rights would be a nightmare, imo.

So you're saying in the end the courts did start to remove the racist laws of the state. No matter the system if the people who fill the office are racist racist policies will prevail as the problem lies not in the structure of government but in the culture of society.

As for the abortion thing here is another link, Ron Paul talks purely about abortion in this so make of it what you will. But at least you pick an actual policy to disagree on rather than just generally insult him. Also it's not off topic the topic is Ron Paul, so nothing about Ron Paul is off topic here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8&feature=related

CnC · December 17, 2007

Sanguinius said:
So you're saying in the end the courts did start to remove the racist laws of the state. No matter the system if the people who fill the office are racist racist policies will prevail as the problem lies not in the structure of government but in the culture of society.

Yea that summarizes my point perfectly :schierke:

I think I'll resign myself from the Paul love-fest, if you don't mind. You kids have fun and be sure to let me know when you vote for him, Sang. That would be even more miraculous than him getting the ticket.

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

CnC said:
Yea that summarizes my point perfectly

I think I'll resign myself from the Paul love-fest, if you don't mind. You kids have fun and be sure to let me know when you vote for him, Sang. That would be even more miraculous than him getting the ticket.

I realise that wasn't your point, I was mocking you as you made the point that the courts did take action even when your point was the opposite. As for your return to mocking me and presenting me as some kind of brain dead sheep following a docile herd, go ahead from the calibre of your arguments here I'm not too worried about your opinion of me. For the 3rd time in this single thread I'll make the point that I don't expect Ron Paul to win and I don't see how the issue of winning the election even matters in determining if what he proposes is the "best" solution to the problems at hand.

Griffith · December 17, 2007

Good God, this thread is actually still going? Sanguinius was always the last poster so I assumed it was just his first sanctimonious post.

I'm just shocked it all. =)

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

Griffith No More! said:
Good God, this thread is actually still going? Sanguinius was always the last poster so I assumed it was just his first sanctimonious post.

I'm just shocked it all. =)

You're easily shocked. But I'm glad the SK "big members" clique can rally together to give bland insults to anyone who says something anyone of them doesn't like :casca:

Vampire_Hunter_Bob · December 17, 2007

Sanguinius said:
You're easily shocked. But I'm glad the SK "big members" clique can rally together to give bland insults to anyone who says something anyone of them doesn't like

Fuck you.

Sanguinius · December 17, 2007

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Fuck you.

Are you trying to validate my point? If so thanks.

Griffith · December 17, 2007

Neo Ron Paul is about to EXPLODE!

Sanguinius said:
You're easily shocked.

No, genuinely shocked, because I literally didn't know the thread had exploded, that and the number of posts you've had to make in order to accomplish this, 11, well, 13 now, since yesterday. It's also weird because it means you've been camping in here letting nothing go unchallenged. Anyway, I wasn't shocked that you instantly turned on me, I was honestly expecting your indignant reply to my rather benign post to come sooner. =)

Sanguinius said:
But I'm glad the SK "big members" clique can rally together to give bland insults to anyone who says something anyone of them doesn't like

Okay, and I'm glad you can keep aggressively pushing the issue beyond the point of reasonable disagreement, while hypocritically being just as insulting yourself. Anyway, I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't just being insulting, nor did I even take issue with you on Paul. You are being sanctimonious, and surprise surprise, it rubs people the wrong way. So, don't cry foul that you're being picked on when you're the aggressor in the thread, it just goes with the territory if you have to have your way on the all-important Ron Paul issue.

In any case, if you feel the responses you're getting suck, then don't dignify them by responding in kind. You're lowering yourself to the level of discourse rather than the other way around, which I thought was your original intent (unless it's become trolling in the name of Ron Paul).

Bubbles Float High · December 17, 2007

I like Ron Paul, or atleast what he says. :)

And it seemed to me that people were trying to find an issue with Ron Paul and Sang just shot them down. What suprises me is that no matter what is being said in this board someone always has a problem with it. Can't we agree to disagree?

Aazealh · December 17, 2007

Bubbles Float High said:
What suprises me is that no matter what is being said in this board someone always has a problem with it. Can't we agree to disagree?

I'm sorry but I don't think that bubbles float all that high... Next time you post be sure to back up your statements and detail them a little more, Okay? What do you consider high? What kind of bubbles are you referring to? This is serious business here!

Anyway, not that I care at all about it myself but since this thread is starting to get serious, I figured I'd throw in a couple of informative links for everyone to read:

http://brokenlibrarian.org/ronpaul/
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Escalus · December 17, 2007

He raised 6 million on Sunday alone; once validated it sets a new record
(beating John Kerry's 5.7 million one day record set in '04).

On a much smaller note, if anyone has beef in this thread it SHOULD be me, I got dibs. However, it's a grain of salt, dude. I enjoy the so-called 'cliques' or whatever else anyone names the long time posters here. The vast majority of vets here are intelligent people (it shows through their witty, informed, sometimes acerbic prose). Shit, I look forward to Griffith No More's! rants and Aaz's wicked philosophic bite. Don't get me wrong, some guys will always look forward to awful movies, but that's cool too: it makes this Berserk-place really fucking weird and funny.

Griffith · December 17, 2007

I always like it when random members are accused of being part of some SK.net aristocracy with conspiratorial implications. You know, because Bob, CnC, and I are all here in the inner cloister of HQ, typing on the same computer, preparing to get that uppity Sanguinius and his beloved Ron Paul, grrrrrr!

Don't mess with SK.net's secret McCoy Club Society, you might just find your posts... DELETED (or modified)! :isidro:

CnC · December 17, 2007

I'll try and refrain from just puttin' up more photoshop jobs of that Ron Paul pic (it's going to be a challenge) and entertain the possibility that this is super serious thread (don't fuck this up).

Sanguinius said:
As for the abortion thing here is another link, Ron Paul talks purely about abortion in this so make of it what you will. But at least you pick an actual policy to disagree on rather than just generally insult him. Also it's not off topic the topic is Ron Paul, so nothing about Ron Paul is off topic here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8&feature=related

I think it's a huge dodge to pass the buck to the states on this issue. It maintains his position that the Federal government should have no involvement but it does very little to resolve the issue. I remain convinced that removing jurisdiction and making every state responsible for its own set of rules regarding abortion would be a clusterfuck. Every time he's asked to clarify he just diverts the conversation to late term abortions.
Every time he's asked about fixing the economy I've heard him direct it to foreign policy. Actually he does it everything:
On Social Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMt2F3cM_KE
....no real answer. Young people opting out of social security? But how is tha... oh wait we're back to foreign policy
On Health Care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx5xhfdDVt0&feature=related
...nobody's happy. People need choices. What choi... oh wait we're back on foreign policy.

Don't get me wrong, I still like this guy, but HOW is he going to reduce the spending? What tactic will he use to convince congress and all those who profit SO greatly from the military industry, the medical industry, etc. to switch tracks completely?
He chirps on about foreign policy as much as Guliani does about 9/11, but he oversimplifies foreign entanglements and government's role in people's lives to such a juvenile degree that it should be no surprise how big a hit he is with the youth.

The destination sounds nice, but where's the map to get there?

Griffith No More! said:
I always like it when random members are accused of being part of some SK.net aristocracy with conspiratorial implications. You know, because Bob, CnC, and I are all here in the inner cloister of HQ, typing on the same computer, preparing to get that uppity Sanguinius and his beloved Ron Paul, grrrrrr!

We have a HQ??

Vampire_Hunter_Bob · December 17, 2007

CnC said:
We have a HQ??

Yeah, we just opened the place up in the basement of the IHOP of 45th and Philadelphia ave. Next meeting is on Friday guys, don't forget your decoder rings!

Uriel · December 17, 2007

By the Gods, what the frell happened here?

Sanguinius, the heart you're throwing behind this is admirable for someone not connected with the way the pendulum swings (like myself for that matter), but you've got to calm down and pick your battles. Arguing with the colour blind CnC and Marylands #2 citisen Bob is fine, because we all do, and we can still remain chummy. But the blatant attack on GnM for brandishing his trademark witticism was somewhat pointless. You've achieved nothing but lighting a fire under someones arse who can most likely outsmart/outwit you. To debate him without trolling the thread would have worked, but it seems you've been unable to do that in this case.

But keep fighting the good fight if you feel like it, we won't stop you.

CnC · December 17, 2007

Uriel said:
Arguing with the colour blind CnC and Marylands #2 citisen Bob is fine, because we all do, and we can still remain chummy.

I'LL KILL YOU!!!

Ron Paul in 2008

Sanguinius

Guest

Cats are great

Sanguinius

Guest

Cats are great

Ad Oculos

Sanguinius

Guest

Cats are great

Sanguinius

Guest

Ad Oculos

Sanguinius

Guest

Ad Oculos

Sanguinius

Guest

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

Sanguinius

Guest

Cats are great

Sanguinius

Guest

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

God hand, shmod hand..

Administrator

Kiss My Cons

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

Ad Oculos

Cats are great

This journey isn't ov--AARGH!

Ad Oculos