Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

12-28-2011 , 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
Do you guys not think the Newsletters are important?
i mean theyve been rehashed a million times. At the end of the day you have to decide whether its enough to DQ Ron Paul from being president, and imo i dont think it does. They just arent a big enough deal, esp since the govt is already racist to begin with, upholding affirmitive action.
12-28-2011 , 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Those who follow the Bible or Koran militantly are a driving force for good, right?
huh dude? Of course not, pretty sure the constitution doesn't tell you to kill people who don't believe in your god. The best government is no government but if I have to have one I'll take the one described in our constitution, and I would prefer a candidate who actually gives a **** about it. really? the bible and koran?
12-28-2011 , 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWorm967
The newsletters mean nothing to me. A. I don't care what his personal views are as long as they don't effect policy. B. I don't think anything said was all that bad.
Case Closed, if you ever want to lol cry about democracy and the human race, there's a bunch of interesting scholarship about how partisans interpret new information in terms of like confirmation bias and whatnot.


To cliff's it together and apply it to this situation, for the vast majority of people who unironically post in a "Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread" there is practically nothing that could change their minds about Ron Paul. Either the bad thing didn't actually happen, the bad thing doesn't matter, and if all else fails we can just pretend like the bad thing isn't bad(like we see in the bold, which is the saddest part of this imo).

That's not something unique to any one group of people, your brain is built specifically to be closed minded about anything you find important.
12-28-2011 , 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Those who follow the Bible or Koran militantly are a driving force for good, right?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Are you really making this comparison?

Do you not see why this is beyond ******ed?
12-28-2011 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWorm967
The newsletters mean nothing to me. A. I don't care what his personal views are as long as they don't effect policy. B. I don't think anything said was all that bad.
Good, because they do. His personal views will effect who he appoints, what bills he signs, his foreign policy, how he interacts with other leaders and plenty of other ****.
12-28-2011 , 12:31 PM
good/interesting post
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost...&postcount=717

Quote:
Doesn't the fact that ALL of the media together are attacking Ron Paul in unison mean ANYTHING to anyone here? The "left/right" media that, between MSNBC, CNN, and FOX, can't agree on anything, but yet suddenly, when the outsider Ron Paul takes the lead, they can all agree to put their differences aside on this one issue and attack this one individual in collusion? And all at the same time? Doesn't that tell you ANYTHING??

Here's what it tells me:

They're playing the people that buy this crap for fools. And if you ARE buying it, you ARE a fool, PERIOD!!!
That "left/right" aspect of the media is for YOUR benefit, to keep you divided and arguing amongst yourselves, instead of working together for real progress, while getting NOTHING done and NOTHING changed.

It also verifies that the Presidency is a figurehead position. A puppet position for the real powers that make the real decisions, and the media is the cheerleader for whoever they want in that position. THEY pick from the pool of candidates that we choose from, and ANY of their guys, whether they call themselves democrat or republican, will play the part of President while secretly doing the bidding of the hidden REAL powers.

But Ron Paul is NOT one of their guys. He is not part of the secret cabal. They didn't pick him to run, he ran of his own accord, and with the ignore treatment he received from their media, he wasn't supposed to become this popular. And he WON'T compromise on his positions, or on his ethics, and he WON'T do their bidding. In fact, one of his former aids said he was the most uncorruptable man he has ever known, and everyone in Washington knows this, which is why they stopped approaching him to try to sway him with under the table offers.

So since ignoring him didn't work, they will all simultaneously attack him, which is where we are now. And I would think that the suddenness, and the coordination of it across all media, and across the whole "political spectrum", would be a dead give away to the real agenda here.

But I guess Lincoln was right when he said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

We have too many fools in our country today, and I'm worried that this "land of the free" is going to be fooled into becoming the "home of the slave" real soon.
12-28-2011 , 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWorm967
I honestly can't believe people think Ron Paul is this really radical candidate
From his website:
Quote:
Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Quote:
Ron Paul has been an advocate of the gold standard and open competition in currencies for many years.
Quote:
If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
Quote:
Ron Paul works towards the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education
Quote:
On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Whether you agree with them or not, these are all radical policies.
12-28-2011 , 12:33 PM
ABC Article: No Ordinary Rival: Piling on Ron Paul (The Note) 12/28/11
Quote:
And, if the field is split in as many ways as it is now, Paul’s low ceiling of 24-25 percent could be enough to win in Iowa.
lol low ceiling
12-28-2011 , 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMcNasty
From his website:








Whether you agree with them or not, these are all radical policies.
or maybe the current policies to begin with are radical and he's taking the country back to mainstream. And I dont see why voting against a bill celebrating the 40th anniversery of the civil rights movement even matters at all.

Last edited by spino1i; 12-28-2011 at 12:40 PM.
12-28-2011 , 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fermion5
See the thing is, if you look at his 2nd choice stats in that recent Iowa PPP poll, they arent really that bad at 9%. Everyone else has low 2nd choice stats too. Romney for instance only has 10% 2nd choice. Also RP has better favorability numbers than Romney right now. I think Paul has a pretty high ceiling in Iowa actually, maybe 35-40% and Romney has the lower ceiling.
12-28-2011 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
Do you guys not think the Newsletters are important?
No they don't. Just like Happy Valley didn't think it was important that Paterno didn't turn in Sandusky when he had the chance. Unfortunately sometimes the real world comes crashing in on Happy Valley.

Last edited by suzzer99; 12-28-2011 at 12:42 PM. Reason: er - fortunately I mean
12-28-2011 , 12:41 PM
CNN to release Iowa and New Hampshire polls TODAY at 4PM ET
12-28-2011 , 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Those who follow the Bible or Koran militantly are a driving force for good, right?
I mean, wow. I don't think seattlelou is the type to VOLDEMORT this thread, so this is surprising to me.

Do you really think this is a reasonable comparison?
12-28-2011 , 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spino1i
or maybe the policies to begin with are radical and he's taking the country back to mainstream.
Yeah he'll take the country back 150 years or so.

Quote:
And I dont see why voting against a bill celebrating the 40th anniversery of the civil rights movement even matters at all.
It doesn't necessarily, I'm just pointing out that he's taking a radical position and is proud of it like most of the positions he takes.
12-28-2011 , 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
LOL like I give a **** about Ron Paul winning Iowa?
DAMMIT! you made me shoot coffee out my nose with that LOL! Good one!
12-28-2011 , 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMcNasty
Yeah he'll take the country back 150 years or so.



It doesn't necessarily, I'm just pointing out that he's taking a radical position and is proud of it like most of the positions he takes.
150 years? que?

Lets see here, looking at the policies you think RP will take away with his radicalism..

Dept of Education founded: 1953
Federal Income Tax enacted: 1916
We got taken off the gold standard: 1972
Medicare founded: 1965
12-28-2011 , 12:55 PM
The people who pop in to call Ron Paul and his policies radical consistently have no idea what they are talking about.
12-28-2011 , 12:58 PM
I'm pretty sure I remember reading income tax started in the 1860s or so, but regardless, you think bringing the country back to the laws before 1916 isn't radical?
12-28-2011 , 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMcNasty
I'm pretty sure I remember reading income tax started in the 1860s or so, but regardless, you think bringing the country back to the laws before 1916 isn't radical?
In this specific case, not particularly. The federal income tax makes sense during war time where we needed massive amounts of tax dollars to finance world war I or world war II, thats why Wilson enacted it to begin with. We certainly dont need it now.

I actually disagree with Ron Paul about eliminating SS and Medicare, in that I believe that we should just allow people to opt-out of those programs instead of outright eliminating them.

Fortunately I think Paul will came around to this idea (he's already mentioned it in interviews) And I dont think Paul has a snowball's chance of actually eliminating SS or Medicare if he was elected.
12-28-2011 , 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASPoker8
The people who pop in to call Ron Paul and his policies radical consistently have no idea what they are talking about.
Republicans are just so used to using the term "radical" w/ negative connotation for the left they can't come to terms with it when it applies to them.

Its ok guys, really.

Last edited by NMcNasty; 12-28-2011 at 01:10 PM.
12-28-2011 , 01:04 PM
@ppppolls: We continue to see Romney dominating in New Hampshire with Paul now clearly in 2nd place...full results tomorrow
12-28-2011 , 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMcNasty
Republicans are just so using the term "radical" w/ negative connotation for the left they can't come to terms with it when it applies to them.

Its ok guys, really.
The people who only endeavor to think within the framework of left/right and have no ability (or desire) to conceptualize objectively have no idea what they are talking about.

Whether or not a policy is considered radical or not has no bearing on rationally discussing politics. Evaluate policy based on merit and effect. Evaluate policy based on the motivation behind it and whether or not it adheres to the rules of our country. Just because something has been the status quo for a number of years does not mean that an alternative to this is automatically radical and therefore should be dismissed.
12-28-2011 , 01:12 PM
The "no idea what your talking about" response again, I can't compete w/ that.
12-28-2011 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle
@ppppolls: We continue to see Romney dominating in New Hampshire with Paul now clearly in 2nd place...full results tomorrow
This concerns me a little bit, he has been putting all of his eggs in one basket (Iowa). But if Ron Paul wins Iowa then this will only help his chances in other states.

      
m