Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[T3l Ca7]

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!"

[genocidal]

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!"

God.

[Epinephrine]

You understood the first part right.

As for gay marriage:
John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?
Ron Paul: Sure.

But here's the thing people need to recognize. It's not about whether Ron Paul is for or against gay marriage, he's for the constitution. The constitution, according to Ron Paul, doesn't say that the federal government can legally mandate what constitutes marriage. So whether he supports it or not, it will end up with the same result, the states decide. So some states will allow gay marriage and some states won't, at least that's what I'm predicting.

People need to realize that the constitution is a living thing that changes over time. The 'constitution' originally did not support women's rights or civil rights for blacks. But now it does. So saying Ron Paul 'supports the constitution' is a misnomer, when it should be 'Ron Paul supports not changing anything because he's a hardcore conservative, which by definition means that you keep things the way they are no matter how the world has changed'.

[Chao.]

People need to realize that the constitution is a living thing that changes over time.

Maybe to you.

[Epinephrine]

...

[Chao.]

...

Oh right, sorry. I'm supposed to believe your subtle implications that a conservative would have no problem denying the rights of minorities and women because those amendments came later. I apologize for not falling head over heels for some ridiculous scare-tactic. This whole "hands off" philosophy (conservatism and libertarianism, I suppose) is centered on being a more free society, socially and economically, and not having to be handed mandates from an overreaching and centralized government. You can try to distort a belief in the constitution as the inability to keep up with the changing world, but I can't see anybody buying it.

[Reaver]

People need to realize that the constitution is a living thing that changes over time. The 'constitution' originally did not support women's rights or civil rights for blacks. But now it does. So saying Ron Paul 'supports the constitution' is a misnomer, when it should be 'Ron Paul supports not changing anything because he's a hardcore conservative, which by definition means that you keep things the way they are no matter how the world has changed'.

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.

[Izor]

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

I'm going to play devils advocate here: How many candidates have said they're going to get us out of our national debt and havent done anything about it?

What is the purpose of making it harder on law enforcement personnel to do their jobs? While right now I would vote for Ron Paul I wouldnt like to see the Patriot Act go away, because unless theres a reason for law enforcement to go rooting through your shit, they wont. And if they do have a reason I dont mind having my day inconvenienced to prove my innocence. Maybe they can catch a bad guy or two by having a little more liberty to do their job. It's worth it to me

EDIT: as far as your arguments with this canadian, reaver, I already told you foreigners have no idea how this country works...

[genocidal]

While right now I would vote for Ron Paul I wouldnt like to see the Patriot Act go away, because unless theres a reason for law enforcement to go rooting through your shit, they wont. And if they do have a reason I dont mind having my day inconvenienced to prove my innocence. Maybe they can catch a bad guy or two by having a little more liberty to do their job. It's worth it to me

Your word choice is impeccable.

[Reaver]

I'm going to play devils advocate here: How many candidates have said they're going to get us out of our national debt and havent done anything about it?

What is the purpose of making it harder on law enforcement personnel to do their jobs? While right now I would vote for Ron Paul I wouldnt like to see the Patriot Act go away, because unless theres a reason for law enforcement to go rooting through your shit, they wont. And if they do have a reason I dont mind having my day inconvenienced to prove my innocence. Maybe they can catch a bad guy or two by having a little more liberty to do their job. It's worth it to me

I'm not sure Izor, a few at least. Ron Paul can't get us out of debt. We're too far in, he can put us on the right track. Part of that track is getting us out of Iraq right away. How many of the candidates have said that they would get us out of Iraq right away?

As for the patriot act...check my signature bro. It's how I genuinely feel. Many people died for the freedom's we have, let's not let their deaths be in vain. A sacrifice here for "safety" another one there..where does it end? What about this power being abused. I cringe a little every time I hear someone say something along the lines of "I've got nothing to hide, let them search me" or "If you've got nothing to hide then what's the big deal?"

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I'm going to play devils advocate here: How many candidates have said they're going to get us out of our national debt and havent done anything about it?

Well, let's see, with Clinton there was a budget surplus. Sure, he didn't wipe out trillions of debt in 8 years, but I don't think there's an actual way to do that in that amount of time. But to say "no one's done anything about it" is just someone's shit way of trying to make a point without actually having legs to stand on.

I wouldnt like to see the Patriot Act go away, because unless theres a reason for law enforcement to go rooting through your shit, they wont.

This has been proven wrong, time and time again. Yes, it'd be nice if the government respected the boundaries of civil privacy, but they don't. Especially this administration. It's American Democracy 101, going all the way back to the Founding Fathers, that security and privacy is a tradeoff. I'd personally be happier with a more private society, seeing as how I don't see "terr-rists" as a personal threat. For the most part, I think it's a completely self-sustaining cycle of fear that is (for the most part) absolutely unwarranted. I have a better chance of being hit by a bus on my way to work than I have to ever encounter a "terrorist act." Pre-2001 or post-, it's all the same. The Patriot Act, as it stands, is the worst joke ever sold to the American public.

And if they do have a reason I dont mind having my day inconvenienced to prove my innocence. Maybe they can catch a bad guy or two by having a little more liberty to do their job. It's worth it to me

If the mood strikes you, please feel free to go move to Russia, where you can have the secret police spy on you all the time. It's hilarious to me that you used the word "liberty" in that phrase.

[Chao.]

I'm going to play devils advocate here: How many candidates have said they're going to get us out of our national debt and havent done anything about it?

What is the purpose of making it harder on law enforcement personnel to do their jobs? While right now I would vote for Ron Paul I wouldnt like to see the Patriot Act go away, because unless theres a reason for law enforcement to go rooting through your shit, they wont. And if they do have a reason I dont mind having my day inconvenienced to prove my innocence. Maybe they can catch a bad guy or two by having a little more liberty to do their job. It's worth it to me

EDIT: as far as your arguments with this canadian, reaver, I already told you foreigners have no idea how this country works...

It comes down to the fact that the government is run by (here it comes) people. People aren't perfect, they're going to use power given to them as they see fit, even if it's against the rules, if they think it will get results or help others. When you overlook such abuses it becomes really easy for a not-so-honest sort of person to get some of this power and knowingly and willingly use it to their own benefit. I think it's better to err on the side of caution in these sorts of situations by limiting this power.

Also, you should never have to prove your innocence, isn't that reversing one of our greatest mottos?

[Vatican Assassin]

Your word choice is impeccable.

haha thats funny shit


and really really scary

[Izor]

I understand I opened that can of worms about freedom, and I dont want to continue that argument because it will almost always end in simply agreeing to disagree. I feel that the only reason there isnt terrorist acts is because they know that when there is a high risk of getting caught they wont do it. You feel that it is unnecessary to snoop on people and it is just to invade on our privacy. Nothing we can say to each other will convince each other either way.

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

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

Chao, people running the government is exactly why your rights wont be infringed upon. Being a government employee, I can tell you that most of us wont just walk in your house like we're playing final fantasy pressing the x button repeatedly and rooting through all your shit. We're people. We understand when we're crossing the line. In my experience the governement is not the evil juggernaut people think it to be.

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.

[Vatican Assassin]

oh there's you occasional crazy fbi agent who will sneak into your house and press the x button repeatedly but ya know most of us are right as rain