Ron Paul Rises

[Demosthenes11]

You guys are pretty asinine sometimes.

oh, did someone here say they have no empathy when someone is killed by a drunk driver because "they knew the risks when they started driving" ?

[Churchill]

Sure did. I also said that while it's completely not their fault, and something they shouldn't have to worry about, it is something they need to worry about and take precautions against. I don't have empathy for a lot of things, that's not something I can force myself to do. It doesn't mean I can't make the right decisions, just decisions, or that I have poor character. It just means I don't shed a tear for every tom, dick, and jane who die in the world. There is a small group of people I care about, and if something happened to them it would be a sad event to me. It doesn't change the fact that there is inherit risk in everything we do, whether there should be or not.

Please, continue to martyr this point home.

[Demosthenes11]

It doesn't mean we have to assume you are not an ignorant cunt

[Churchill]

That's really, really great

[Synbios]

To put it simply I'm fucking sick of tired of people thinking about their impossible ideals and deciding to vote retardedly rather than doing what's best for the people of the U.S.

I have been raging about this shit since you people decided Obama would be better than Hillary because Hillary "would just be more of the same" and Obama wouldn't.

You honestly think that re-electing Barack "More of the same" Obama or any of the repub candidates will be a better choice for the country then Paul? That's just, wow.

Edit: To make it clear. The business as usual shit needs to stop imo. I have a feeling that all the repub candidates will be more of the same shitty government that got us into the trouble we're in now, and Berry has sure as shit shown he wants to run this country into the ground. So yes, I support the only candidate that has a plan to actually turn this country around.

[Talint]

I absolutely agree with what you're saying, I guess the point is that the only time they talk to him is in a hostile manner or very, very limited coverage. That's not the treatment other candidates get, even the off the wall batshit crazy ones for sure no questions asked like Herman Cain. Good journalism is great, but not when it's specifically targeted at someone to make them look poorly compared to someone else while ignoring that someone elses shittiness.

I'm not sure if it's being specifically targeted, as much as it is just an easy target. Obama is a much more difficult target to paint sometimes, since he likes to talk, explain things, and sermonize; whereas Sarah Palin is much more of a... talking points spewing machine riddled with animosity. Easy targets mean less work to do and less of a picture to paint.

For the record, 4 years ago I said Hillary, Obama, McCain would all be more of the same. You know, if it makes you love me more.

I'm a lover, not a hater. Really.

Obama said in 2008 that he called the war in Afghanistan, "the good war". I thought it was bullshit then, I think it's bullshit now; but I completely expected him to continue the war there, and sure enough he did.

[archibaldcrane]

To put it simply I'm fucking sick of tired of people thinking about their impossible ideals and deciding to vote retardedly rather than doing what's best for the people of the U.S.

I have been raging about this shit since you people decided Obama would be better than Hillary because Hillary "would just be more of the same" and Obama wouldn't.

More to the point: Do you think Hilary would've actually passed a bill providing subsidized health care to tens of millions of America's uninsured poor?

[test123]

More Ron Paul propaganda

[Rhinox]

Why do you hate Ron Paul so much testi?

[Waraji]

I think we should vote in Ralph Nader.

[Stumblingdrunk]

the flip side is that we don't have a choice

You all had a choice, could have done the responsible thing and not enlisted.

[Kerberoz]

Spamming his youtube videos constantly while ranting about the Fed make it really difficult to mentally distinguish Paultards from Twoofers. I wonder how many overlap...

[Plow]

You honestly think that re-electing Barack "More of the same" Obama or any of the repub candidates will be a better choice for the country then Paul? That's just, wow.

Edit: To make it clear. The business as usual shit needs to stop imo. I have a feeling that all the repub candidates will be more of the same shitty government that got us into the trouble we're in now, and Berry has sure as shit shown he wants to run this country into the ground. So yes, I support the only candidate that has a plan to actually turn this country around.

Yes, let's turn this country around to the 19th century, shit was so much better (and fair) then.

I mean it's not like Ron Paul's primary goal, and the one he has far and away the best chance of succeeding in, is deregulating business on a scale that would make the shit Bush got us into look like a good time.

[Demosthenes11]

but he won't completely deregulate all at once!!!!!!

[Elrina]

We'd be able to survive it for a 4 year term. It would probably actually help, short term, more than anything one of the other candidates would be capable of achieving, when you consider additional regulation will likely be added come the next term to make up for it. Besides, while a lot of the regulation currently on the books was put there with good intentions in mind, a lot of it is complete bullshit the way it's written. They're a good portion of the problem, because of additional bullshit that got added to them by big business lobbying. Wiping the slate for a few years, then having it re-written and re-analyzed before being put back in place isn't the worst thing that can happen.

Oh yeah, and what was that other big thing he'd be able to do again? Without needing the support or approval of congress? You know, the one Obama won't do, and none of the other Republican candidates? Oh yeah.

Stop the never ending war(s) we're currently mired in. Give us a few years of peace, to show that we don't actually need to remain at war, and return money currently being poured into the military budget back into the national budget where it's currently desperately needed. Prevent additional oppressive legislation from passing through like the NDAA. Prevent blatant censorship like SOPA. Actually make it possible to move on from this, instead of miring us into it further and further as every other candidate wants to do until we're so far gone that liberty and freedom are words our children grow up thinking of as privileges of a past society that was "unsafe", while taught and bombarded with propaganda about how fearful people were when they were free. Make it possible for 2016 candidates to know that it's possible to run a campaign that doesn't depend on them toeing the partisan line.

We can survive 4 years of Ron Paul, with the ending of the wars and a few years of diplomacy. It's arguable, however, how many more presidential terms we'll last unscathed with them continuing and more of our freedoms being considered expendable in the name of hunting down terrorists and protecting us from boogeymen. That's assuming we don't decide to attack the wrong country first, who is actually capable of striking back at us. Then it'll be "their fault" they actually fought back, rather than ours, despite us being the ones starting shit.

And it'll just be more excuse to take away more freedoms, especially when protests progress from the Tea Party and OWS, to actual scattered violent rebellion when shit continues to get worse, and suddenly it's our own country we'll be at war with.

People have valid complaints with Ron Paul, I don't deny that, and the mother fucker is definitely a little crazy. But he's the only one who will do some of what needs to be done, where as his downsides are definitely survivable. That can't be said of the other candidates, including Obama, with complete certainty, as these wars drag on and we see shit like the NDAA, SMISC, SOPA, etc. And it will only get worse as time goes on. The checks and balances will keep Paul in place in the areas that they need to, and he'll be able to do what needs to be done that nobody else will, and a fresh candidate in 2016 will be capable of stepping up in a way that wouldn't be possible should anybody else win.

[Drex]

ron paul is the hipster vote. he's popular on the internet, but no one will actually show up and vote for him because they'll be too busy playing with the new ipad/iphone or trying to break in their latest pair of crotch-crunch jeans.

oh dude, angry birds has a new update!

[kuronosan]

To be very honest, I'm really disappointed that Obama would even let something like the SOPA and NDAA pass. They're essentially bills that should be called Palpetine Bills - they give people the illusion of safety at the cost of their freedom and people cheer that shit.

They basically want to do what they condemned other countries for doing - subverting the will of their people and forbidding communication of disagreement so that people can't protest it.

If voting for Paul meant that shit wouldn't pass because he's not afraid to veto that bullshit, then I would vote for him.

[Shuvo]

ron paul is the hipster vote. he's popular on the internet, but no one will actually show up and vote for him because they'll be too busy playing with the new ipad/iphone or trying to break in their latest pair of crotch-crunch jeans.

oh dude, angry birds has a new update!

Offtopic: I wonder, when did iPhones overtake Starbucks as the symbol of left-wing elitism / pretentiousness / smugness ? I first started hearing remarks like 'Oh these guys complain about wallstreet but they have IPHONES! How dare they!" at the start of OWS, but it must have started before.

It's too bad cause a jailbroken iPhone kicks ASS ; ; They are probably about 1-2 years ahead of Android devices from a technological perspective.

/cough sorry. Back to Ron Paul.

To be very honest, I'm really disappointed that Obama would even let something like the SOPA and NDAA pass. They're essentially bills that should be called Palpetine Bills - they give people the illusion of safety at the cost of their freedom and people cheer that shit.

It's worse then what you think. He's not just 'letting' it happen, he's apparently actively pushing for it to give more power to the executive branch. Even guys like Barney Frank voted on this bill, it is completely bipartisan with the exception of a few people like RP.

[guartz]

When the recession began, in part because of the financial crisis, we were given peacemeal inflationary policy that was in large part tax cuts, which tend to benefit the richest (you hate taxes btw). Right after the recession, public policy is seeking to decrease the deficit with austerity, which largely impacts people who are not rich. None of this is considered political oppression or economic oppression.
So for example,

I'm not sure I'm following you here, are you attempting to suggest that blatant protectionism at the expense of tax payer is not economical oppression? If so, I'm curious how you define a event where the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich. The cynic in me answers my own question by calling it a successful PR campaign. Which strangely leads me into your question:

You said that the same policy tools that can create a fair ground also permit oppression. Another example of first order principle without looking at reality. Do states that have large social democratic policy, like the ones in Western Europe, oppress like say, a state like Syria? Why do states behave differently from one another? Don't try to give me one size fits all pronouncements; be specific.

The simplest answer would be that the form of the government that allows for higher individual freedoms is more successful at maintaining it's political strength. Which is precisely the opposite of what you are trying to suggest, since Syria has been functioning on total control ( state of emergency since like the 1930s?) and United States on it's inception was very limited on how many controls it can impose. Oh, another good example would be comparing USSR to the States.

[Elvis]

ron paul is the hipster vote. he's popular on the internet, but no one will actually show up and vote for him because they'll be too busy playing with the new ipad/iphone or trying to break in their latest pair of crotch-crunch jeans.

oh dude, angry birds has a new update!

hipster is the hip insult as of late