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.

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?

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.

NEW Ron Paul Ad - Washington Machine

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Are you really making this comparison?

Do you not see why this is beyond ******ed?

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 ****.

good/interesting post
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost...&postcount=717

From his website:
Whether you agree with them or not, these are all radical policies.

ABC Article: No Ordinary Rival: Piling on Ron Paul (The Note) 12/28/11 lol low ceiling

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.

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.

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.

CNN to release Iowa and New Hampshire polls TODAY at 4PM ET

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?

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.

DAMMIT! you made me shoot coffee out my nose with that LOL! Good one!

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

The people who pop in to call Ron Paul and his policies radical consistently have no idea what they are talking about.

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.

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.

@ppppolls: We continue to see Romney dominating in New Hampshire with Paul now clearly in 2nd place...full results tomorrow

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.

The "no idea what your talking about" response again, I can't compete w/ that.

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.