Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[Izor]

lol look someones trying to take my joke way too literally and get smart points for using it against me

[Reaver]

Reaver, yes pulling out of Iraq will help getting us out of debt. I now know the cost of just one deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan with my experience, and knowing how many people are getting deployed I can see how the costs VERY quickly pile up. To put it into perspective, the cost for my personal supplies, being my goretex jacket, leatherman, sleeping bag, flashlight, new uniforms, cold weather clothes, etc is over 1500$ and that doesnt include my food for 6 months and plane ticket. Factor in not being taxed while deployed and getting extra pay (hazard duty for me, family separation for deployed members who are married or have kids) and the cost piles up VERY quickly. Although economically it is good for me. I like tax free pay and making an extra couple hundred bucks a month

EDIT: btw reaver, when I said that you shouldnt believe everything that presidential candidates say just because its what they believe in, ill use your rant about getting out of iraq immediately is a prime example. Do you really think that a president acting alone will just magically whisk away all our troops from that area? do you really think that it will be THAT easy for him? It's not starcraft. He wont just look at a world map and click on the whole middle east and then right click the US...this shit takes time.

I know all too well about the cost of this war. The realistic figure is 3.5 trillion, which equates to costing each person $11,500. Family of four? $46,000.

Realistically, I believe Ron Paul would have us out of Iraq within 3-5 months, compared to many other candidates who couldn't even commit to a time frame.

[MetalHeadz]

Don't make me lure my neighbour to name their noisy new dog after you, or maybe I should just do that, so that every night I would hear the dog barking and my neighbour screaming "ConcreteSchlyrd/Izor, shut the f*ck up, you stupid dog!"

Lol >.< You're so Chinese lol!

[Izor]

I know all too well about the cost of this war. The realistic figure is 3.5 trillion, which equates to costing each person $11,500. Family of four? $46,000.

Realistically, I believe Ron Paul would have us out of Iraq within 3-5 months, compared to many other candidates who couldn't even commit to a time frame.

The whole process would take much longer than that

[T3l Ca7]

Lol >.< You're so Chinese lol!

I am chinese. With that said, I don't eat dogs ... they taste way worse than donkeys. Oh, how I like that ass :fear:

[T3l Ca7]

Conc, you already said my posts have the gravity of TelCat's...why are you replying to me?

Don't get it wrong that was really a compliment. Probably the only decent compliment you have got in months.

[Nickname]

Ok so you feel you live in a better country, thats great. But keep in mind from other threads and this one that there hasnt been a 6+ page thread about Canadian elections. In fact I cant tell you the name of whoevers in charge up there, but you can tell me at least the last 2 us presidents and the people who are trying to be the next us president. This alone is the mark that we are in a better country than you. We dont care about your politics because you arent important enough to us. Meanwhile it seems to me that the rest of the world is hanging on who America elects as its next president.

Whether I could come in and have a better shot at starting a career doesnt matter to me. I could also come in and live off the government with doing much less work. Why would i bother with a career?

America (off the top of my head)

George H W Bush
Clinton
George Bush
Ronald Regan? I think I missed someone between bush and regan
Jimmy Carter ?
Ford
and now i'm really hazy... did ford take over when kennedy was assassinated or was he the next elected? I believe Nixon was before Kennedy but he may have been afterwards

Canada (off the top of my head)
Stephen Harper
Paul Martin
John Chretien
Kim Campbell (or Cambell)
Mulroney
Joe Clark ?? He may have been earlier. Either way, I was born in 84 and this is either about 84 or earlier, so thats still 23 years I did decent on.

So as a Canadian do I know more about the list or order of American president? Yeah, I probably do. I know a lot more of there names, i'm just fuzzy on the order. The reason I know? Because I looked it up once, because I was curious. The reason you know nothing about Canadian Leaders, a mix of ignorance and a lack of curiosity. The simple fact is that America is still the worlds greatest super power, although not for a whole hell of a lot longer. As the most powerful country on the planet it's important to know whos in charge and what he's doing, be that positive or negative. You see, a lot of Canadian goods are bought by America, just as we buy a lot of American goods. Our two countries are tied together, through our mutual trade. If for some reason one of us stopped trading with the other, it would have massive effects on both countries. This is called being informed. For some reason you think being uninformed is cool, which makes me think of the stereotypical uninformed american.

Oh and as far as knowing whos running this time, all I can think of is Obama, Clinton, Guliani and this Ron paul guy, though I know little of Ron Paul. I also believe the guy who ran as Vice President under Kerry is running, but I don't know his name.

[genocidal]

George H W Bush
Clinton
George Bush
Ronald Regan? I think I missed someone between bush and regan
Jimmy Carter ?
Ford
and now i'm really hazy... did ford take over when kennedy was assassinated or was he the next elected? I believe Nixon was before Kennedy but he may have been afterwards

Damn good for a non-American - I bet it's way better than Izor could do. The list is correct but Ford became President when Nixon resigned. Nixon did run against Kennedy so I can see how that can be confused. But, before Nixon was Johnson - who assumed the Presidency once Kennedy was assassinated.

[Izor]

It is better than I can do. I have no need to remember such a useless list of peoples names. It doesnt do me any good to remember, except to use in a penis wagging contest online that 'oh look at me i know the list of us presidents I am therefore smarter and more informed than you'

[Epinephrine]

How can you say that he's not for change. I think getting us out of Iraq, starting towards getting us out of debt, repealing the patriot act and dismantling some government agencies counts for change. Although I'd be interested to see you argue differently

It's also not a misnomer to say Ron Paul supports the constitution. He has never expressed nor implied that he's only in support of the constitution as it was originally proposed. If Ron Paul doesn't support the constitution, give me one member of the U.S. Congress that has voted every time in favor of the constitution and I'll believe you Epi. Just one.

Name me one candidate who is 'against the constituition'? What the hell does it even mean to 'vote against the constitution'? The constitution is a living thing that changes over time. Obviously lots of people have been 'against' the constitution as it was at some point in time, or else the damn thing would have NEVER CHANGED, new laws would have NEVER BEEN ADDED, and new ways of interpreting the constitution would have NEVER EXISTED. I really wasn't aware of any budding dictators in the current slew of candidates who have just waiting to tear that thing up.

That's like saying 'this candidate is for America!'. It's a stupid reason to vote in anyone. It sounds all snazzy and nice to say it out like 'this candidate is for the constitution!' but what the hell does that even mean?

I have no problem with the US pulling out of Iraq, repealing the Patriot Act or trying to get out debt. These admittedly are good things to do, things which a lot of other politicians would probably support, like the democrats.

But I DO have a problem with basically Ron Paul's real platform, and the fact that all you forumers who support him always go for the 'he supports the constitution' line, as if that actually means anything.

[Reaver]

Name me one candidate who is 'against the constituition'? What the hell does it even mean to 'vote against the constitution'? The constitution is a living thing that changes over time. Obviously lots of people have been 'against' the constitution as it was at some point in time, or else the damn thing would have NEVER CHANGED, new laws would have NEVER BEEN ADDED, and new ways of interpreting the constitution would have NEVER EXISTED. I really wasn't aware of any budding dictators in the current slew of candidates who have just waiting to tear that thing up.

But I DO have a problem with basically Ron Paul's real platform, and the fact that all you forumers who support him always go for the 'he supports the constitution' line, as if that actually means anything.

What do you mean, as if that means anything? It's a moral compass he follows. While in power we don't have to worry about any more patriot acts or anything of the sort. We know that each and every time some bill comes up if it's even remotely unconstitutional he won't let it through. Yeah, let's just overlook that one, good idea Epi. Try to keep up here, this great country was started on the Constitution, I'm pretty sure it's important to Americans. To vote against the constitution would mean that you don't value our rights, or you value something else more importantly than our rights.

Where you're wrong with the constitution is this. You're implying that people had to disagree with the constitution in order for it to change. You can agree with the constitution 100% and still believe that it needs to cover more aspects of our lives, and over time it has.

And yes, unless Congress goes the way of Ron Paul as well, it would basically mean 4 years of government standstill as Ron Paul goes for policies that no critical majority would ever vote for. Repeal the Fed? Remove the FDA? God what other moronic ideas will this guy do that no one else would ever support?

He's not planning an executive shutdown of the Fed. He's talking about competing currencies, which will shut down the Fed sooner or later. Having a limit to inflation, oh yeah bad idea! Inflation is a disguised tax, it's politicians favorite way of paying for war. With a gold standard, politicians would have to directly levy the people, I wonder how many more wars on "terrorism" there would be after that? Not that there would be an end to these wars, but it would make it much harder for politicians to sell it to the people. Yeah, this guy sure is a nut job! This is way too radical for me bro, and to think that JFK even had the same idea!

FDA:
"Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural tube defects!"

"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease."

Seems like he's just for the constitution's first amendment really. He wants people to know the truth, he's not about destroying the FDA. But who supports the constitution, as if that means anything, right?

[Vatican Assassin]

It is better than I can do. I have no need to remember such a useless list of peoples names. It doesnt do me any good to remember, except to use in a penis wagging contest online that 'oh look at me i know the list of us presidents I am therefore smarter and more informed than you'

doesn't know our presidents, doesn't know who UN represenative John Bolton is, does know what the best plan for america is. izor was born with a plan for america.

[Epinephrine]

What do you mean, as if that means anything? It's a moral compass he follows. While in power we don't have to worry about any more patriot acts or anything of the sort. We know that each and every time some bill comes up if it's even remotely unconstitutional he won't let it through. Yeah, let's just overlook that one, good idea Epi. Try to keep up here, this great country was started on the Constitution, I'm pretty sure it's important to Americans. To vote against the constitution would mean that you don't value our rights, or you value something else more importantly than our rights.

Where you're wrong with the constitution is this. You're implying that people had to disagree with the constitution in order for it to change. You can agree with the constitution 100% and still believe that it needs to cover more aspects of our lives, and over time it has.

I still don't see why you have to worry that any other politician would be maliciously voting against the constitution. I don't see any politician seriously 'voting against the constitution' who would actually get any laws passed, or get the supreme court (whose job it is to make sure the constitution is followed) to actually allow the law to stay and not strike it down.

Yes, you may not AGREE with their INTERPRETATION of the constitution, but I can assure you, any law that stays on the law books fits with the constitution or else it won't be there.

When you say 'he votes for the constitution' it is akin to people saying we should have more 'judges that respect the constitution' instead of 'activist judges'. It's a complete straw-man argument as it's almost a given that in America no supreme court judge is going to NOT uphold the constitution, just as no serious politician will go against the constitution either. It's a bad reason to specifically vote for any particular candidate when you live in an actual stable democracy like America.

There are plenty of candidates with 'moral compasses', who have just as much conviction and reliability as Ron Paul. Huckabee and Obama for instance. But really, you're using these straw-man reasons as a real argument. It's no different than Izor not voting for any democrat, because they are democrat.

[Vatican Assassin]

Name me one candidate who is 'against the constituition'? What the hell does it even mean to 'vote against the constitution'? The constitution is a living thing that changes over time. Obviously lots of people have been 'against' the constitution as it was at some point in time, or else the damn thing would have NEVER CHANGED, new laws would have NEVER BEEN ADDED, and new ways of interpreting the constitution would have NEVER EXISTED. I really wasn't aware of any budding dictators in the current slew of candidates who have just waiting to tear that thing up.

That's like saying 'this candidate is for America!'. It's a stupid reason to vote in anyone. It sounds all snazzy and nice to say it out like 'this candidate is for the constitution!' but what the hell does that even mean?

I have no problem with the US pulling out of Iraq, repealing the Patriot Act or trying to get out debt. These admittedly are good things to do, things which a lot of other politicians would probably support, like the democrats.

But I DO have a problem with basically Ron Paul's real platform, and the fact that all you forumers who support him always go for the 'he supports the constitution' line, as if that actually means anything.

there is thing thing in the constitution called the bill of rights, its like the most important part of what america is. our current president and other potential nominees think its in our best interest to do away with this dated document in light of how scary terrorists are, some others like paul think its possible to keep it and still be as safe as can be. so when we say he supports the constitution and bush doesn't, we're mostly talking about that. the patriot act eliminates the bill of rights if you are deemed an enemy combatant.

[Reaver]

I still don't see why you have to worry that any other politician would be maliciously voting against the constitution. I don't see any politician seriously 'voting against the constitution' who would actually get any laws passed, or get the supreme court (whose job it is to make sure the constitution is followed) to actually allow the law to stay and not strike it down.

Yes, you may not AGREE with their INTERPRETATION of the constitution, but I can assure you, any law that stays on the law books fits with the constitution or else it won't be there.

When you say 'he votes for the constitution' it is akin to people saying we should have more 'judges that respect the constitution' instead of 'activist judges'. It's a complete straw-man argument as it's almost a given that in America no supreme court judge is going to NOT uphold the constitution, just as no serious politician will go against the constitution either. It's a bad reason to specifically vote for any particular candidate when you live in an actual stable democracy like America.

Hello? What you're implying is that there hasn't been any unconstitutional laws passed and no current politicians have voted against anything constitutional. Patriot act anyone?