seems kinda stupid to announce such a thing if he considers his father's current presidential run feasible. in theory, they'd be running against each other
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
i don't agree with paul, that's why i'm not voting for him. i'm just not naive enough to think our politics is on the up and up.
and they won't assassinate him. it's ineffective. they'll just make him look silly so people will turn on him the way they've done obama.
But you also dont agree with our fucked up government. So I dont see how you justify voting to continue that fuck up. Even if you don't agree with Paul, you've got to appreciate the message of change electing Paul would provide.
To put this into perspective... I don't support Dennis Kucinich. I dont agree with his policies at all. However Dennis Kucinich is to the democratic party what Ron Paul is to the Republican Party. Even though I disagree with Dennis, I would easily vote for him for president if he had as legit of a shot as Ron Paul. Honestly, I'd love to see them run together for President/ Vice President.
If anyone turned on Obama it is because he failed to follow through with what he promised. And instead of bringing change, he continued passing bush-era legislation.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
I read an article that Rand Paul is possibly preparing a Presidential run in 2016
I would vote for Rand Paul, however the problem Rand has is that he shares a lot of the same beliefs as his father... but doenst have the 25 year track record of always being consistent. If Ron paul can't get elected, why would Rand be any different?
If anyone turned on Obama it is because he failed to follow through with what he promised. And instead of bringing change, he continued passing bush-era legislation.
But you also dont agree with our fucked up government. So I dont see how you justify voting to continue that fuck up. Even if you don't agree with Paul, you've got to appreciate the message of change electing Paul would provide.
it's not really that. i just feel like paul supporters seem to think that electing him will solve all of our problems and i recognize that it's just not that easy. i don't think paul will be able to keep the fickle american public on his side and i don't think people will educate themselves enough to counter.
To put this into perspective... I don't support Dennis Kucinich. I dont agree with his policies at all. However Dennis Kucinich is to the democratic party what Ron Paul is to the Republican Party. Even though I disagree with Dennis, I would easily vote for him for president if he had as legit of a shot as Ron Paul. Honestly, I'd love to see them run together for President/ Vice President.
i'd prolly vote for that ticket. kucinich could help balance paul a little.
If anyone turned on Obama it is because he failed to follow through with what he promised. And instead of bringing change, he continued passing bush-era legislation.
that's not true. the machine had people turning on barack well before he extended the patriot act. at this point, he has no choice but to go along with things because he has so little political traction. he used up his capital with the healthcare act and the way the republicans neutered it has stained him. even you blame him with how foul that bill ended up being, despite the fact that the republicans were the ones that forced the subtraction of the public option. the public option was the main componant of the bill that could've righted the ship, but since it was exorcised, it will take more amendments to make any positive impact.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
But you also dont agree with our fucked up government. So I dont see how you justify voting to continue that fuck up. Even if you don't agree with Paul, you've got to appreciate the message of change electing Paul would provide.
it's not really that. i just feel like paul supporters seem to think that electing him will solve all of our problems and i recognize that it's just not that easy. i don't think paul will be able to keep the fickle american public on his side and i don't think people will educate themselves enough to counter.
Why does what stupid Ron Paul supports think, determine what you think? You and I both know Ron Paul wont solve all of our problems, yet I am still voting for him. If anything it sends a message to washington...
To put this into perspective... I don't support Dennis Kucinich. I dont agree with his policies at all. However Dennis Kucinich is to the democratic party what Ron Paul is to the Republican Party. Even though I disagree with Dennis, I would easily vote for him for president if he had as legit of a shot as Ron Paul. Honestly, I'd love to see them run together for President/ Vice President.
i'd prolly vote for that ticket. kucinich could help balance paul a little.
I dont think that would ever happen because they disagree on Policy too much. Also you realize that Kucinich is basically seen by the democrats as a crackpot. The thing I love about Kucinich, is that even though I disagree with him on specific policy issues, he at least has a well thought out, educated reasoning to support his position on the topic. He also is very consistent. I would absolutely love to see a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. Ron would destroy Obama in debates, and Joe Biden would be destroyed by Dennis Kucinich. Not only that, I think Dennis Kucinich would help win over a lot more independent leaning democrat votes.
If anyone turned on Obama it is because he failed to follow through with what he promised. And instead of bringing change, he continued passing bush-era legislation.
that's not true. the machine had people turning on barack well before he extended the patriot act. at this point, he has no choice but to go along with things because he has so little political traction. he used up his capital with the healthcare act and the way the republicans neutered it has stained him. even you blame him with how foul that bill ended up being, despite the fact that the republicans were the ones that forced the subtraction of the public option. the public option was the main componant of the bill that could've righted the ship, but since it was exorcised, it will take more amendments to make any positive impact.
This sounds like the argument a drunk driver would make for driving drunk. Ultimately Obama was behind the wheel, and he made the poor decisions to pass a neutered medical bill and extend the patriot act. He has no one to blame for that other them himself. What could he have done? Not caved, used the media to turn the American public against the bullshit congress was pulling. Stand your ground, have some backbone. There's a billion things he could have done, but extending the Patriot Act was not one of them.
Let me just say, as a presidential icon, I really love Obama. When he speaks I starting getting this patriotic boner. It's a shame he was all talk, no walk.
Why does what stupid Ron Paul supports think, determine what you think? You and I both know Ron Paul wont solve all of our problems, yet I am still voting for him. If anything it sends a message to washington...
i've just seen how people have been with obama and how fast they turned on him. i can't see how paul would be any different, no matter what his competancy level. tbh, i think paul gets a lot of traction based on his stance on drugs and i know that's a recipe for disaster. people are selfish and when they don't get exactly what they want, they tend to turn on whoever is not giving it to them. that's not very conducive to a ron paul presidency.
I dont think that would ever happen because they disagree on Policy too much. Also you realize that Kucinich is basically seen by the democrats as a crackpot. The thing I love about Kucinich, is that even though I disagree with him on specific policy issues, he at least has a well thought out, educated reasoning to support his position on the topic. He also is very consistent. I would absolutely love to see a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. Ron would destroy Obama in debates, and Joe Biden would be destroyed by Dennis Kucinich. Not only that, I think Dennis Kucinich would help win over a lot more independent leaning democrat votes. .
i think both of them are more logical in their public speaking than their policies reflect.
This sounds like the argument a drunk driver would make for driving drunk. Ultimately Obama was behind the wheel, and he made the poor decisions to pass a neutered medical bill and extend the patriot act. He has no one to blame for that other them himself. What could he have done? Not caved, used the media to turn the American public against the bullshit congress was pulling. Stand your ground, have some backbone. There's a billion things he could have done, but extending the Patriot Act was not one of them.
Let me just say, as a presidential icon, I really love Obama. When he speaks I starting getting this patriotic boner. It's a shame he was all talk, no walk.
i just saw people turn on him way before any of that happened, especially blacks. people thought he was going to wave some magic wand and change everything and it's just not that simple. i also think he got into office and realized how many of his promises just weren't feasible. i don't like to apologize for barack because i have huge problems with what he's doing as well, but i'm realistic about the circumstances he came into power under and the tide of corruption he's against. i don't think anyone could've done a better job, tbh. especially out of the crop of candidates we had that year. could you imagine how fucked up our country would be right now if mccain and palin were in office? barack tries to be the nice guy too much. he wants to bring people together and be the great mediator. problem is, we don't need a hand-shaker right now. we need someone ready to pull the dick out.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Why does what stupid Ron Paul supports think, determine what you think? You and I both know Ron Paul wont solve all of our problems, yet I am still voting for him. If anything it sends a message to washington...
i've just seen how people have been with obama and how fast they turned on him. i can't see how paul would be any different, no matter what his competancy level. tbh, i think paul gets a lot of traction based on his stance on drugs and i know that's a recipe for disaster. people are selfish and when they don't get exactly what they want, they tend to turn on whoever is not giving it to them. that's not very conducive to a ron paul presidency.
What you said here would be the same for anyone running for office. It's not more true for Paul, just true for Paul also...
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
i don't think anyone could've done a better job, tbh. especially out of the crop of candidates we had that year. could you imagine how fucked up our country would be right now if mccain and palin were in office? barack tries to be the nice guy too much. he wants to bring people together and be the great mediator. problem is, we don't need a hand-shaker right now. we need someone ready to pull the dick out.
Yeah... If McCain and Palin were in office they would have extended the Patriot act and laid the ground work to pass SOPA.... That would have been AWEFUL!!!! oh wait.
Look I agree. McCain/Pailin would have been worse then bush, if that is even possible. Paul is nothing Like McCain, Obama, or Romney. And if I am being really honest, Romney is about equal as Obama. They are almost the same person and would run the office similar.... I like Obama more then I do Romney
Sorry. I am very passionate about what our nation was founded upon, and I am a firm believer in the intent of the articles of confederation. Our nation was founded upon the right for any state to leave the union, and it was Lincoln that stole that legal right from them and changed the the direction of our government. Lincoln is the father of a strong central government... It's almost impossible for me to have a pleasant discussion about founding of our country if you want to take the stance that what we have now (strong central gov) was what the founding fathers intended.
Why does what stupid Ron Paul supports think, determine what you think? You and I both know Ron Paul wont solve all of our problems, yet I am still voting for him. If anything it sends a message to washington...
i've just seen how people have been with obama and how fast they turned on him. i can't see how paul would be any different, no matter what his competancy level. tbh, i think paul gets a lot of traction based on his stance on drugs and i know that's a recipe for disaster. people are selfish and when they don't get exactly what they want, they tend to turn on whoever is not giving it to them. that's not very conducive to a ron paul presidency.
What you said here would be the same for anyone running for office. It's not more true for Paul, just true for Paul also...
no. he needs a tremendous amount of continual public support to achieve his agenda because he will not get it from congress. he would have an army of lobbyists putting as much money into disinformation as possible. for someone to put in place such sweeping legislation, he would need an educated, dedicated base of citizens that would have to scare congress into following his lead. i don't see that happening any time soon. if he doesn't have it that way, he'll just end up beating his head against a wall for 4 years.
for the record, i think the constitution and the bill of rights are antiquated and have no relevance anymore. they were written too vague to be binding and the subsequent additions have made the law more convoluted than the spider-man "clone saga". everything needs to be started over from scratch.
Sorry. I am very passionate about what our nation was founded upon, and I am a firm believer in the intent of the articles of confederation. Our nation was founded upon the right for any state to leave the union, and it was Lincoln that stole that legal right from them and changed the the direction of our government. Lincoln is the father of a strong central government... It's almost impossible for me to have a pleasant discussion about founding of our country if you want to take the stance that what we have now (strong central gov) was what the founding fathers intended.
I don't think you realize how unstable it would be for there to be 50 individual powerful governments. Think about the bigger picture. There is a good reason why the articles of confederation failed.
I realize exactly how stable it would be. It would be a lot how Europe was before they started trying to form themselves more like us. There might be a few states here and there that don't know how to properly manage money and might fuck themselves over (I'm Looking at you CALIFORNIA!)... But on the whole it would be a lot more stable, because the governments would be smaller and more manageable
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
edited January 2012
But on the whole it would be a lot more stable, because the governments would be smaller and more manageable
describe
I thought I did. Basically, in general, I support local governments having more power then federal governments because the local government can be more representative of the people. The needs of the people In New Orleans are not equal to the needs of the people In Corvallis Oregon. Our current strong central government is almost exactly how things were prior to 1776 with England ruling over us. We had taxation without representation and England and no clue what were the needs of the people. That is where we are now.
A strong central government is good at protecting the interests of the people in times of war. Having a group of united states making up one entity to fight against England, or Hitler, or the Russians was required. In todays world where we are more controlled by corporations and the media, a strong central government is not needed. All that is needed is a limited federal government whose roles are to oversee interstate commerce, and protect the value of the shared currency. This is basically the same thing you said previously Satan. The Federal Gov should be there to protect one state polluting the waterway that will affect all states down stream, it should maintain the currency, and deal with limited foreign policy.
A local government should have all the power to spend/collect tax dollars that is in line with what it's local citizens want. A local government should have its own power to decide what is legal and what isnt... weither that is drugs, gay marriage, speed limits, whatever... That should be the job of a local government, not the feds which are too far removed to see the needs of the people.
Comments
To put this into perspective... I don't support Dennis Kucinich. I dont agree with his policies at all. However Dennis Kucinich is to the democratic party what Ron Paul is to the Republican Party. Even though I disagree with Dennis, I would easily vote for him for president if he had as legit of a shot as Ron Paul. Honestly, I'd love to see them run together for President/ Vice President.
If anyone turned on Obama it is because he failed to follow through with what he promised. And instead of bringing change, he continued passing bush-era legislation.
YUP
Let me just say, as a presidential icon, I really love Obama. When he speaks I starting getting this patriotic boner. It's a shame he was all talk, no walk.
Look I agree. McCain/Pailin would have been worse then bush, if that is even possible. Paul is nothing Like McCain, Obama, or Romney. And if I am being really honest, Romney is about equal as Obama. They are almost the same person and would run the office similar.... I like Obama more then I do Romney
A strong central government is good at protecting the interests of the people in times of war. Having a group of united states making up one entity to fight against England, or Hitler, or the Russians was required. In todays world where we are more controlled by corporations and the media, a strong central government is not needed. All that is needed is a limited federal government whose roles are to oversee interstate commerce, and protect the value of the shared currency. This is basically the same thing you said previously Satan. The Federal Gov should be there to protect one state polluting the waterway that will affect all states down stream, it should maintain the currency, and deal with limited foreign policy.
A local government should have all the power to spend/collect tax dollars that is in line with what it's local citizens want. A local government should have its own power to decide what is legal and what isnt... weither that is drugs, gay marriage, speed limits, whatever... That should be the job of a local government, not the feds which are too far removed to see the needs of the people.