By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr Khan on 28 April 2011
Kantor said:
evolution_1ne said:

not a fucking chance he'd run the country further into the ground like republicans have been doing for the past 10 years

what we need to elect is non-pussy ass democrats that aint afraid to pass a damn bill, learn that the American public for the most part is fucking retarded and has no idea what's best for them and get shit fucking done, that way when things get better you idiots won't be scratching your heads trying to find some shit to get you re-elected

Obama can do shit by himself even though I wish he could but unfortunately  he NEEDS the Senate and Congress

Obama can't get shit done. He's an idealist. He makes all of these fantastic, magnificent lofty claims about human rights and freedom and equality, but he stopped giving a damn the moment he walked into the Oval Office and realised what a state America had been left in by eight years of Bush (and, to be fair, partly Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan). He tries to strike a balance between his idealism and not bankrupting the country and undermining national security, and he fails in both aims. America can't leave Iraq. Guantanamo can't be closed. Obamacare is not feasible, and significant cuts to American public spending are required.

So, again, he's a hell of a lot better than most Republicans, but a select few (Gary Johnson, that guy from Rent is Too Damn High but only because of his beard, and maybe Fred Karger, but he'll never be chosen for the Republican ticket, being a homosexual non-Christian) would do a much better job than him.

Actually Obama is a pragmatist, he garners a lot of criticism from the American left (and myself included) for not pushing harder on things, but that's largely because he's more results-oriented than ideology oriented, and so is more willing to flex to get points on the board rather than to push strange agendas

As for your commentary about leaving NATO meaning Europe's destruction: by whom? Who in the world could threaten, say, France alone, let alone the combined might of France, Germany, Britain, and to a lesser extent Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands? The only possible candidate is Russia, and they are way too messed up on their own problems right now to really hope to fight anything resembling a first-world country over anything



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Kantor on 29 April 2011
Mr Khan said:
Kantor said:
evolution_1ne said:

not a fucking chance he'd run the country further into the ground like republicans have been doing for the past 10 years

what we need to elect is non-pussy ass democrats that aint afraid to pass a damn bill, learn that the American public for the most part is fucking retarded and has no idea what's best for them and get shit fucking done, that way when things get better you idiots won't be scratching your heads trying to find some shit to get you re-elected

Obama can do shit by himself even though I wish he could but unfortunately  he NEEDS the Senate and Congress

Obama can't get shit done. He's an idealist. He makes all of these fantastic, magnificent lofty claims about human rights and freedom and equality, but he stopped giving a damn the moment he walked into the Oval Office and realised what a state America had been left in by eight years of Bush (and, to be fair, partly Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan). He tries to strike a balance between his idealism and not bankrupting the country and undermining national security, and he fails in both aims. America can't leave Iraq. Guantanamo can't be closed. Obamacare is not feasible, and significant cuts to American public spending are required.

So, again, he's a hell of a lot better than most Republicans, but a select few (Gary Johnson, that guy from Rent is Too Damn High but only because of his beard, and maybe Fred Karger, but he'll never be chosen for the Republican ticket, being a homosexual non-Christian) would do a much better job than him.

Actually Obama is a pragmatist, he garners a lot of criticism from the American left (and myself included) for not pushing harder on things, but that's largely because he's more results-oriented than ideology oriented, and so is more willing to flex to get points on the board rather than to push strange agendas

As for your commentary about leaving NATO meaning Europe's destruction: by whom? Who in the world could threaten, say, France alone, let alone the combined might of France, Germany, Britain, and to a lesser extent Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands? The only possible candidate is Russia, and they are way too messed up on their own problems right now to really hope to fight anything resembling a first-world country over anything

There's an American left?

As for who is able to destroy Western Europe, China, Russia and the Middle East could all do it very easily. Not because we have weak armies. Because we have timid, cowardly governments who are terrified to use them.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Mr Khan on 29 April 2011
Kantor said:
Mr Khan said:

Actually Obama is a pragmatist, he garners a lot of criticism from the American left (and myself included) for not pushing harder on things, but that's largely because he's more results-oriented than ideology oriented, and so is more willing to flex to get points on the board rather than to push strange agendas

As for your commentary about leaving NATO meaning Europe's destruction: by whom? Who in the world could threaten, say, France alone, let alone the combined might of France, Germany, Britain, and to a lesser extent Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands? The only possible candidate is Russia, and they are way too messed up on their own problems right now to really hope to fight anything resembling a first-world country over anything

There's an American left?

As for who is able to destroy Western Europe, China, Russia and the Middle East could all do it very easily. Not because we have weak armies. Because we have timid, cowardly governments who are terrified to use them.

The cowardly governments that are beating Libya to a pulp over what is essentially an internal Libyan affair?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kantor on 29 April 2011
Mr Khan said:
Kantor said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Actually Obama is a pragmatist, he garners a lot of criticism from the American left (and myself included) for not pushing harder on things, but that's largely because he's more results-oriented than ideology oriented, and so is more willing to flex to get points on the board rather than to push strange agendas

As for your commentary about leaving NATO meaning Europe's destruction: by whom? Who in the world could threaten, say, France alone, let alone the combined might of France, Germany, Britain, and to a lesser extent Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands? The only possible candidate is Russia, and they are way too messed up on their own problems right now to really hope to fight anything resembling a first-world country over anything

There's an American left?

As for who is able to destroy Western Europe, China, Russia and the Middle East could all do it very easily. Not because we have weak armies. Because we have timid, cowardly governments who are terrified to use them.

The cowardly governments that are beating Libya to a pulp over what is essentially an internal Libyan affair?

The cowardly governments who were only willing to perpetuate the fight for democracy because America was behind them.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kasz216 on 29 April 2011
Kantor said:
Mr Khan said:
Kantor said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Actually Obama is a pragmatist, he garners a lot of criticism from the American left (and myself included) for not pushing harder on things, but that's largely because he's more results-oriented than ideology oriented, and so is more willing to flex to get points on the board rather than to push strange agendas

As for your commentary about leaving NATO meaning Europe's destruction: by whom? Who in the world could threaten, say, France alone, let alone the combined might of France, Germany, Britain, and to a lesser extent Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands? The only possible candidate is Russia, and they are way too messed up on their own problems right now to really hope to fight anything resembling a first-world country over anything

There's an American left?

As for who is able to destroy Western Europe, China, Russia and the Middle East could all do it very easily. Not because we have weak armies. Because we have timid, cowardly governments who are terrified to use them.

The cowardly governments that are beating Libya to a pulp over what is essentially an internal Libyan affair?

The cowardly governments who were only willing to perpetuate the fight for democracy because America was behind them.

I dunno.  For all I can tell, the US had to be pulled into that one and woulda preffered to not be involved.

Maybe that's just how the US media has been playing it though.  The US having to send in Predator drones very much seemed to play a lot like Germany always having to bail out Italy in WW2 though.



Around the Network
mrstickball on 29 April 2011
Kantor said:

I used to like Ron Paul, but the more I learn about him, the more I think he's completely insane.

  • He wants to leave NATO (leaving Western Europe to be destroyed)
  • He wants to remove troops from every other country in the world
  • He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. Just what the fuck.
  • He also wants to abolish income tax. We all do, but that would pretty much cause economic collapse. The government can spend pretty much nothing if it doesn't collect income tax.
  • He is ridiculously in favour of massive state power. Sure, he likes the idea of liberty, but if states feel otherwise, it's their choice
  • He voted against civil rights. Against civil rights. And he said he would do the same today.
  • And to top it off, he wants to get rid of the Department of Education and leave millions of poorer Americans without schooling (I can only assume)
  • Basically, he has this veneration of the Founding Fathers akin to worship. He sees the Constitution as his Bible, and if anything is even hinted at as being undesirable by the constitution, he will not hear a word about it.

For now, my cross-Atlantic support (if that counts for anything) goes to Gary Johnson as a less sociopathic, more sensible version of Ron Paul. I wouldn't mind Obama being re-elected (sure as hell better than Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin being President), but I would like somebody who will take a stance on debt reduction. Britain is already heading for collapse, and I don't want the USA to do the same.

Few notes about America that may help you understand some things:

  1. Pretty sure the NATO issue with Ron is that most NATO members in Europe aren't adhering to the terms of the treaty. NATO mandates that a certain percentage of GDP is spent on military & defense. America spends well within the margin, while few European nations do.
  2. The US hasn't always had an income tax. I believe his idea (as is most anti-income taxers) is to institute a national sales tax, or other sort of flat tax system.
  3. The DoE is a federal office that does nothing to help students or schools become better. Every state has a very strong education department that do a far more effective job of taking care of the needs of students. The federal level adds undue burden to the system, and costs us hundreds of billions a year.

But then again, you like Gary, so thats cool. Gary is a little bit more moderate Ron Paul, who is smoother around the edges, and has a track record of getting stuff done, which is great.

Oh, and if you or anyone cares: Mike Huckabee, who was #2 in GOP polling behind McCain in the 2008 election has dropped out of the race Horray!



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kantor on 29 April 2011
mrstickball said:
Kantor said:

I used to like Ron Paul, but the more I learn about him, the more I think he's completely insane.

  • He wants to leave NATO (leaving Western Europe to be destroyed)
  • He wants to remove troops from every other country in the world
  • He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. Just what the fuck.
  • He also wants to abolish income tax. We all do, but that would pretty much cause economic collapse. The government can spend pretty much nothing if it doesn't collect income tax.
  • He is ridiculously in favour of massive state power. Sure, he likes the idea of liberty, but if states feel otherwise, it's their choice
  • He voted against civil rights. Against civil rights. And he said he would do the same today.
  • And to top it off, he wants to get rid of the Department of Education and leave millions of poorer Americans without schooling (I can only assume)
  • Basically, he has this veneration of the Founding Fathers akin to worship. He sees the Constitution as his Bible, and if anything is even hinted at as being undesirable by the constitution, he will not hear a word about it.

For now, my cross-Atlantic support (if that counts for anything) goes to Gary Johnson as a less sociopathic, more sensible version of Ron Paul. I wouldn't mind Obama being re-elected (sure as hell better than Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin being President), but I would like somebody who will take a stance on debt reduction. Britain is already heading for collapse, and I don't want the USA to do the same.

Few notes about America that may help you understand some things:

  • Pretty sure the NATO issue with Ron is that most NATO members in Europe aren't adhering to the terms of the treaty. NATO mandates that a certain percentage of GDP is spent on military & defense. America spends well within the margin, while few European nations do.
  • The US hasn't always had an income tax. I believe his idea (as is most anti-income taxers) is to institute a national sales tax, or other sort of flat tax system.
  • The DoE is a federal office that does nothing to help students or schools become better. Every state has a very strong education department that do a far more effective job of taking care of the needs of students. The federal level adds undue burden to the system, and costs us hundreds of billions a year.

    • But then again, you like Gary, so thats cool. Gary is a little bit more moderate Ron Paul, who is smoother around the edges, and has a track record of getting stuff done, which is great.

    Oh, and if you or anyone cares: Mike Huckabee, who was #2 in GOP polling behind McCain in the 2008 election has dropped out of the race Horray!

    Well, on reading further, Johnson (he would be the third Johnson, and it would be funny if he became vice President and the President died in office) also wants to abolish the Department of Education, and since his website actually has a policies page, I understand why.

    National sales tax: Believe me, that brings in very little money. In the UK, we charge 20% sales tax, and if you combine income tax and national insurance (which is just more income tax with a different name), the sales tax brings in one third of the revenue. If we abolished income tax and national insurance, that would be nearly 75% of government income gone. Granted, income tax in the USA is much lower, but it would still obliterate any chance of ever balancing your already red budget.

    America spends far more on its military than it is required to do. Military spending as a percentage of GDP in the USA is 4%, whilst the NATO minimum is 2% (and as you say, you could break that regulation and nobody would really care). And if the USA has a problem with the military expenditure of NATO members, it should find a way to fix that which doesn't involve leaving. Think of how much death could have been averted if America had joined the Second World War earlier, and how many millions more would have died if it never joined (the European front) at all.

    EDIT: Also, it's nice that Huckabee has dropped out. Hopefully, now Romney will drop out as well, and give some of the underdogs a chance.

    EDIT 2: What makes you think he isn't running? I googled him, and found no such news.



    (Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

    mrstickball on 29 April 2011
    Kantor said:

    Well, on reading further, Johnson (he would be the third Johnson, and it would be funny if he became vice President and the President died in office) also wants to abolish the Department of Education, and since his website actually has a policies page, I understand why.

    National sales tax: Believe me, that brings in very little money. In the UK, we charge 20% sales tax, and if you combine income tax and national insurance (which is just more income tax with a different name), the sales tax brings in one third of the revenue. If we abolished income tax and national insurance, that would be nearly 75% of government income gone. Granted, income tax in the USA is much lower, but it would still obliterate any chance of ever balancing your already red budget.

    America spends far more on its military than it is required to do. Military spending as a percentage of GDP in the USA is 4%, whilst the NATO minimum is 2% (and as you say, you could break that regulation and nobody would really care). And if the USA has a problem with the military expenditure of NATO members, it should find a way to fix that which doesn't involve leaving. Think of how much death could have been averted if America had joined the Second World War earlier, and how many millions more would have died if it never joined (the European front) at all.

    EDIT: Also, it's nice that Huckabee has dropped out. Hopefully, now Romney will drop out as well, and give some of the underdogs a chance.

    EDIT 2: What makes you think he isn't running? I googled him, and found no such news.

    Huckabee has told his staffers that they can go work on other campaigns if they want, from my understanding. Meaning, he won't be running.



    Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

    Onibaka on 29 April 2011

    Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....

    U.S. people are funny. It's lamentable that some people can't see what their country has became.



    mrstickball on 29 April 2011
    Onibaka said:

    Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....

    Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...

    Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....

    Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....

    Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....

    Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...

    Republicans....Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....

    Democratics....Republicans....Democratics...Republicans....Democratics....

    U.S. people are funny. It's lamentable that some people can't see what their country has became.

    To be fair, Ron Paul has ran as a 3rd party before. He ran as the Libertarian nominee for president against Ronald Reagan.



    Back from the dead, I'm afraid.