Ron Paul: Champion of The Constitution

[Brian 972]

I just picked up a copy of Revolution by Dr. Paul today

[Fido 14 27]

Cept that's what they've been doing for the past 11 years

Bills have been getting passed. There's too much bipartisanship.

You know, this is such a monumentally incorrect statement that I have to wonder where you get your information.

Which part? Bills getting passed, or the bit about bipartisanship?

The should make the term limit one term eight years

Why stop at eight? Go full dictatorship.

I would have voted for Newt Gingrich in my primary because he is outspoken and Obama is too passive agressive. That, and i thought he was the only person besides Romney that had a chance of winning the primary. Unfortunately, Gingrich didn't get his shit together on time and wasn't allowed on the ballot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlW23ul5uv8

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Which part? Bills getting passed, or the bit about bipartisanship?

Bipartisanship, for me. Maybe bills have been signed, but they've been twindled down to the least common denomitator.

Why stop at eight? Go full dictatorship.

I think you should be one shot at building a legacy, without having to worry about a reelection. I wouldn't go full dictatorship because peoples tastes change over time and you want someone running the country that reflects where the country is out currently.

I would have voted for Newt Gingrich in my primary because he is outspoken and Obama is too passive agressive. That, and i thought he was the only person besides Romney that had a chance of winning the primary. Unfortunately, Gingrich didn't get his shit together on time and wasn't allowed on the ballot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlW23ul5uv8

Every politician as someone some where making a video of there bloopers.

[Fido 14 27]

Bipartisanship, for me. Maybe bills have been signed, but they've been twindled down to the least common denomitator.

Thanks to bipartisanship. If there were no comproming, no bills would be passed.

Every politician as someone some where making a video of there bloopers.

You call that a blooper? That displays content of character for me; he obviously doesn't take the role of president or the crises of the nation seriously. To be honest, none of 'em do, but at least Gingrich was kind enough to be public about it.

[City of Dis 16]

Cept that's what they've been doing for the past 11 years

Bills have been getting passed. There's too much bipartisanship.

You know, this is such a monumentally incorrect statement that I have to wonder where you get your information.

Which part? Bills getting passed, or the bit about bipartisanship?

Both. The 2010-2012 Congress hasn't passed a single jobs bill. Not one, despite Obama offering multiple ones. Considering employment is the most pressing issue in America today (not to mention the very definition of a "bad economy") you would think this would be a priority. But nope, Congress is too busy with reminding the world how inanely stupid we are by focusing all of its attention on contraception and reinstating "In God We Trust" as our national motto when no one, and I mean literally no one, suggested it should be anything different.

Not to mention that it regularly holds the American and/or world economy hostage by threatening not to extend the payroll tax cut or low interest rates for student loans, and at one time even considered defaulting, you know, the very thing a large national debt threatens to do, which conservatives are supposedly so very concerned about. All of this to protect tax cuts on millionaires (also eroding the national debt). Over half of all Congressman are millionaires and virtually all campaign donations come from millionaires. The former two statements are not unrelated.

Bills are not being passed. There is little bipartisanship because of the "ideological purity" that now infests the Republican Party. Compromising is seen as a sign of weakness despite numerous (and what I would call excessive) concessions from Democrats.

Good thing they're fucked come 2012. With social conservatism becoming increasingly unpopular in the US, I doubt the Republican Party will be able to last. Their main appeal these past few years has been to act as a hub to fringe groups, the bigoted theocrats being the most important wing. And their influence is undeniably waning.

[Fido 14 27]

If you hone in on such a specific issue, perhaps bills are not being passed. In totality, though, you cannot deny that there has been comprise from both parties regarding issues, resulting in several bills being passed. Any sort of compromise is not a trait of ideological purism. The U.S. should default on its debt, it's obviously never going to be repaid -- no point in just elevating the debt ceiling every now and then. And congress should be dissolved, and made way for a benevolent dictatorship (or oligarchy) with a solvent, self-sustaining socioeconomic system ready for implementation. I'm surprised the "democratic process" has endured this long. Anyway, that's obviously not happening, especially in a non-unitary state such as the U.S. But who knows, the malevolent dictatorship of Lincoln was an actuality, so perhaps a benevolent dictatorship (or oligarchy) will someday come to fruition, which I seriously doubt. The powers that be have everything well-orchestrated, they don't take risks.

[City of Dis 16]

I honestly can't tell if you're kidding or just really fucking ignorant.

[Brian 972]

I don't know if you guys heard (doubt you had fucking media) Mitt Romney is coming under investigation for two felonies. One is he handed out sub sandwiches in MN, which by Wisconsin state law is a Felony (to hand out goods on voting day, basically considered bribing). Also it is believed him and his son Tagg were involved in a huge ponzi scheme. In June when he is tried his ability to run for GOP will end, leaving Ron Paul a big opening for president.

[City of Dis 16]

I don't know if you guys heard (doubt you had fucking media) Mitt Romney is coming under investigation for two felonies. One is he handed out sub sandwiches in MN, which by Minnesota state law is a Felony (to hand out goods on voting day, basically considered bribing). Also it is believed him and his son Tagg were involved in a huge ponzi scheme. In June when he is tried his ability to run for GOP will end, leaving Ron Paul a big opening for president.

No, he's not being investigated, and even if he were, the Republican Party wouldn't give up on him (investigations take a long time), and even if they did, Ron Paul would lose handily to Obama for becoming the nominee that late in the game.

[Brian 972]

There is a court date June 10...

[Fido 14 27]

I honestly can't tell if you're kidding or just really fucking ignorant.

I'm on the side of Plato, Confucius, Plethon, Hobbes, Friedrich List, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Kevin B. MacDonald, Francis Parker Yockey, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and others of similar mind.  If you still have faith in your bastardization/abasement of democracy, then allow it to devour you harmoniously.

[narcolepsy 581]

There is a court date June 10...

Nothing will come of it. The republicans will stop at nothing to find loop holes.

[City of Dis 16]

I honestly can't tell if you're kidding or just really fucking ignorant.

I'm on the side of Plato, Confucius, Plethon, Hobbes, Friedrich List, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Kevin B. MacDonald, Francis Parker Yockey, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and others of similar mind. If you still have faith in your bastardization/abasement of democracy, then allow it to devour you harmoniously.

Okay, you are serious. Let's start with your first instance of batshit inanity:

The U.S. should default on its debt, it's obviously never going to be repaid -- no point in just elevating the debt ceiling every now and then.

Defaulting would cause interest rates to rise considerably. During a liquidity trap, this would be economic hell. Unemployment would rise sharply. The economy would enter recession. You are an absolute idiot if you think that defaulting would be a good idea. Fuck your name dropping of philosophers (a logical fallacy, by the way), every single economist would be against you in this. The very purpose of fiscal responsibility is to avoid defaulting. I'll avoid going into your not even wrong assertion that the debt will never be repaid, you need to understand this very fundamental and very elementary precept of basic economics first.

And I don't have the slightest faith in American democracy. I wax cynical about it all the time. America stopped resembling a representative democracy a long time ago (1973 to be precise). But moving even further away from democracy is stupid. Your description of Lincoln as a dictator is cute, but just that. Sure he exceeded the powers granted to him to arguably absurd degrees, but he still yielded to periodic elections. Lincoln wasn't the first to do this. Adams (the first one) was quite totalitarian with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I'm not in the mood to convince you that democracy is better than dictatorship. Usually when I argue with right-wingers, they're like a mixture of Ayn Rand and Ken Ham, not D.H. Lawrence. You don't get too many of those anymore, though a strong sense of misanthropy and a superiority complex are usually the motivations behind such an asinine opinion. But take a look around you. Look at countries with at least a semblance of representative democracy (I consider America the lowest common denominator in this regard, with Scandinavia as probably the highest). Those countries invariably have the lowest rates of unemployment, the highest standards of living, the highest GDP per capita, the highest human rights ranking.

I don't care which philosophers of antiquity are on your side. If your best argument is that old white guys from centuries or millenia ago supported the need of a dictator, most of which never actually saw modern democracy. I have empirical evidence on my side. We have enough disenfranchisement as it is. You take away the right to vote to oppress people. (Take note of the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement.) Turning America into a dictatorship would unavoidably take away from what these people fought for. Power would revert back to white men, the disproportionate amount they already control be damned. So not only is your idea of a utopia economically unsound, it's also socially insulting.

[Guest Marney-1]

What the fuck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4MhVtBNPm8&feature=related

[Qdeathstar 1763]

The doushe bag in the end really ruined the movie show...

[Guest Marney-1]

The doushe bag in the end really ruined the movie show...

I didn't even watch the vid first, just picked it because it had the same title as another except wasn't embedded. But still, what the fuck?

[CaPn bOnEs 8527]

he's just looking for a cabinet position... which i don't mind seeing happen... they won't give his father a position, so he's trying to jimmy his way into his cabinet, which also isn't going to happen because romney isn't getting the nomination in the first place...

and that douchebag did ruin the video...

[Brian 972]

Theres a big rumor that Rand is oing for vice president, why do you think Ron or Mitt haven't attacked each other and each campaign treated each other fine?

[Guest Marney-1]

Mitt Romney - 'A Better Amercia'

[Fido 14 27]

I honestly can't tell if you're kidding or just really fucking ignorant.

I'm on the side of Plato, Confucius, Plethon, Hobbes, Friedrich List, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Kevin B. MacDonald, Francis Parker Yockey, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and others of similar mind.  If you still have faith in your bastardization/abasement of democracy, then allow it to devour you harmoniously.

Okay, you are serious. Let's start with your first instance of batshit inanity:

The U.S. should default on its debt, it's obviously never going to be repaid -- no point in just elevating the debt ceiling every now and then.

Defaulting would cause interest rates to rise considerably. During a liquidity trap, this would be economic hell. Unemployment would rise sharply. The economy would enter recession. You are an absolute idiot if you think that defaulting would be a good idea. Fuck your name dropping of philosophers (a logical fallacy, by the way), every single economist would be against you in this. The very purpose of fiscal responsibility is to avoid defaulting. I'll avoid going into your not even wrong assertion that the debt will never be repaid, you need to understand this very fundamental and very elementary precept of basic economics first.

And I don't have the slightest faith in American democracy. I wax cynical about it all the time. America stopped resembling a representative democracy a long time ago (1973 to be precise). But moving even further away from democracy is stupid. Your description of Lincoln as a dictator is cute, but just that. Sure he exceeded the powers granted to him to arguably absurd degrees, but he still yielded to periodic elections. Lincoln wasn't the first to do this. Adams (the first one) was quite totalitarian with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I'm not in the mood to convince you that democracy is better than dictatorship. Usually when I argue with right-wingers, they're like a mixture of Ayn Rand and Ken Ham, not D.H. Lawrence. You don't get too many of those anymore, though a strong sense of misanthropy and a superiority complex are usually the motivations behind such an asinine opinion. But take a look around you. Look at countries with at least a semblance of representative democracy (I consider America the lowest common denominator in this regard, with Scandinavia as probably the highest). Those countries invariably have the lowest rates of unemployment, the highest standards of living, the highest GDP per capita, the highest human rights ranking.

I don't care which philosophers of antiquity are on your side. If your best argument is that old white guys from centuries or millenia ago supported the need of a dictator, most of which never actually saw modern democracy. I have empirical evidence on my side. We have enough disenfranchisement as it is. You take away the right to vote to oppress people. (Take note of the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement.) Turning America into a dictatorship would unavoidably take away from what these people fought for. Power would revert back to white men, the disproportionate amount they already control be damned. So not only is your idea of a utopia economically unsound, it's also socially insulting.

First and foremost, please, don't bring a supposed adherence to logic into this, because most posts here contain logical fallacies, including yours (loaded words and pooh-poohing among others).  Yes, I just committed a tu quoque fallacy.  No one on this forum is formulating posts like a logician.  Second, the economy would suffer temporarily through a default, and that's inevitable, seeing as we've drifted far away from a protectionist, resource-based economy to a neo-liberal, globalized economy.  It is necessary, though, as a nation cannot prosper while indebted and without production.  What do you mean when you say the U.S. would enter a recession if a default were to occur?  As if we're not already living through a recession...  You write highly of fiscal responsibility, yet you seemingly don't have an issue with the continuation of the escalation of the debt.  Third, my characterization of Lincoln as a dictator was appropriate, as you've conceded to his autocratic acts.  Fourth, I don't care for any attempt on your behalf to dissuade me from non-democratic forms of government, especially coming from a person who acknowledges the abasement of representative democracy the U.S. currently possesses, yet would still rather uphold this plutocratic, kleptocratic system.  Fifth, the forefathers of this nation, descending from the gentry of their times, couldn't care less about the fair treatment of the masses.  Africans were considered 3/5th's of a person and let's not forget a telling quote of James Madison: "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."  Lastly, the Scandinavian nations' economies are performing well because their economies are primarily resource-based and have plentiful production -- this economic system does not necessitate a representative democracy.  On a side note, if you think I'm aligned with Ayn Rand and Ken Ham, then you don't know my sociopolitical/socioeconomic views.

[Brian 972]

Paul's Audit the Fed bill is ready to by vote don by the house of representatives this month!

[Brian 972]