Ron Paul is about half genius.

[Timshel]

So you think this is all he's had to say on the subject?

It's not possible that if he was asked why he voted against the bill that he would ever say such a thing. "HR 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the federal government over American businesses" .. but no, he would never say "We shouldn't tie the hands of corporations by limiting their business dealings."

Quite possible he would say that, but it would have been removed from it's context.

 

[Timshel]

No criticism of his vote, just criticize the messenger.

Nope. It was the correct vote and his argument in support offers is very strong.

 

[Damocles]

Nope. It was the correct vote and his argument in support offers is very strong.

I like the way that it seems to underline the argument against that others have had for Cuba and other places. You know, those ones that voted for it regardless of the hopelessness of the idea that they could work to do anything but punish the people we had a goal to help.

 

[Litmus]

I like the way that it seems to underline the argument against that others have had for Cuba and other places. You know, those ones that voted for it regardless of the hopelessness of the idea that they could work to do anything but punish the people we had a goal to help.

But we should still use sanctions on china, for using slave labor. I don't care about the chinese people, I care about stopping the cultural infection of slavery from being normalized around the world.

 

[Timshel]

Umm votes count more than words.
If one does not walk their talk....

And...

Apparently another Bush supporter. Sounds much like what they said about Kerry and his votes on troop armaments. Who needs reason or thoughtful consideration when we have emotional demagoguery and knee jerk reactionaryism.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Most sensible people would tell you that in a free society their church does eclipse their government in importance. This is not a statement of whether a church should be more powerful than the government or that it should occupy a government as you suggest.

Obviously, there are serious legal responsibilities in being a citizen or resident of a political entity, but we establish government as a means to preserve these attributes of a free society. That is what we're toiling for in having government to begin with, not to concentrate power and enable the State to be the most important and influential aspect of our lives.

This is what Ron Paul said about the vision of our founders. Limiting and assigning government very specific tasks and prohibiting many others through the Constitution and amendments is intended to give rise to a country where the people are free to engage in private institutions that are more important to their propserity than top-down edicts.

 

[blackascoal]

And I yours. Link me to the supposed other statement. As far as I can tell I used the actual words of his speech, you have nothing but suggestive ranting that seems to be based on how you "feel" he would respond.

Do you know what the best thing is about having a Ron Paul discussion?

After the primaries, we never get to have them again.

In spite of all the Ronbot claims of pseudo-non-existent support .. after all the whining about "he didn't say that", constitution, free market, libertarianism, and the gold standard .. all that bullshit blows away like a bad smell in a hurricane after the primaries are over.

This is just for the fun of it.

 

[Timshel]

Do you know what the best thing is about having a Ron Paul discussion?

After you get your ass handed to you over an over again you get to fall back on he can't win anyway.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Blackascoal continues in his one-man suppression to the mightiest of evils that is ravaging our nation and controlling the minds of our youth: Ron Paul.

I'm just wondering, when are they going to have a steel-cage match?

 

[blackascoal]

Most sensible people would tell you that in a free society their church does eclipse their government in importance. This is not a statement of whether a church should be more powerful than the government or that it should occupy a government as you suggest.

I don't think most sensible people would tell you that at all. Most Americans don't go to church. Church has no responsibility to the American people and we have no responsibility to the church. The governmnet exists because of the American people and both have a responsibility to each other.

Most sensible people know that.

Obviously, there are serious legal responsibilities in being a citizen or resident of a political entity, but we establish government as a means to preserve these attributes of a free society. That is what we're toiling for in having government to begin with, not to concentrate power and enable the State to be the most important and influential aspect of our lives.

Government is a creation of the people, and it is people who get to define what government is and what role it plays. That is a truly free society. If citizens decide it is in their best interest to have gfovernment set national standards for the education of American children, or to centralize power on issues they feel need be addressed and have national oversight, then it is the people's right to do so.

The notion that society and citizenry are static and forever remains the same is foolish. Life is dynamic, society learns.

History has already taught the lesson of the gold standard, which is exactly why no nation on earth uses it anymore.

History has already taught the lesson of "states-rights" and it's unequal application of rights to Americans, including children.

The belief that we must remain chained to failed and rejected ideas because of anyone's interpretation of the Constitution flys in the face of reality.

Ron Paul's ideas come from a small sect of people who scream and make a lot of noise because nobody's buying their warped sense of "freedom".

This is what Ron Paul said about the vision of our founders. Limiting and assigning government very specific tasks and prohibiting many others through the Constitution and amendments is intended to give rise to a country where the people are free to engage in private institutions that are more important to their propserity than top-down edicts.[/QUOTE]

 

[Timshel]

Government is a creation of the people, and it is people who get to define what government is and what role it plays. That is a truly free society. If citizens decide it is in their best interest to have gfovernment set national standards for the education of American children, or to centralize power on issues they feel need be addressed and have national oversight, then it is the people's right to do so.

And if the people want a national church or religion in schools?

The notion that society and citizenry are static and forever remains the same is foolish. Life is dynamic, society learns.

Another strawman. It is centralized power that treats society as static and is unable to adapt. Notions of central standards are writ in stone and difficult to change. The market is extremely dynamic and changes very quickly.

History has already taught the lesson of the gold standard, which is exactly why no nation on earth uses it anymore.

Tell us what this lesson is?

This is what Ron Paul said about the vision of our founders. Limiting and assigning government very specific tasks and prohibiting many others through the Constitution and amendments is intended to give rise to a country where the people are free to engage in private institutions that are more important to their propserity than top-down edicts.

Huh? So what is wrong with that?

 

[blackascoal]

And if the people want a national church or religion in schools?

Then people shall have it. The good news is that nonsense is far from what people want.

Another strawman. It is centralized power that treats society as static and is unable to adapt. Notions of central standards are writ in stone and difficult to change. The market is extremely dynamic and changes very quickly.

No, it's people looking back 200 years in the past for ditrection who don't understand the dynamic nature of life and society. The "market" is large multi-national corporations and if you champion more of that control over American life in the name of "freedom" that's your choice .. but it's obviously one not shared by the American people.

Tell us what this lesson is?

Sure .. chaining your economy to a piece of metal that is limited in supply and fluctuates on the market is a really dumb idea .. which is why no nation on earth uses it.

History is a great teacher.

Huh? So what is wrong with that?

It should be real obvious that I did not put this bullshit in my post.

That's what's wrong with that.

 

[blackascoal]

After you get your ass handed to you over an over again you get to fall back on he can't win anyway.

Sure .. you hold onto that OK.

It's going to make the primaries that much more enjoyable.

Run, Ron, Run

 

[blackascoal]

bac, you've been reduced to making things up. Give it a rest.

Coming from you ..

 

[Litmus]

Coming from you ..

what have I made up? You have confabulated fictitious quotes.

 

[blackascoal]

Blackascoal continues in his one-man suppression to the mightiest of evils that is ravaging our nation and controlling the minds of our youth: Ron Paul.

I'm just wondering, when are they going to have a steel-cage match?

And just think, you have sooo many Americans who agree with you and Paul. His support is skyrocketing. You can tell that by the plethora of Ron Paul threads that keep popping up everyday. One can clearly determine by the thread poll that Ron Paul must be in the lead. I mean who else has as many threads as Paul?

People who are against him and think he's a creepy old man on the verge of Alzeimers just don't know how to calibrate these thread polls and factor them in as a new "metric."

They prove that the only people who know what's good for this country are his supporters. I'd be crazy to deny their immeasurable political prowess and acumen.

 

[Timshel]

Then people shall have it. The good news is that nonsense is far from what people want.

Haha, this is hysterical. We start off with you distorting what Paul said to mean support for a union of church and state and end with you supporting a union of church and state, "if the people want it."

No, it's people looking back 200 years in the past for ditrection who don't understand the dynamic nature of life and society. The "market" is large multi-national corporations and if you champion more of that control over American life in the name of "freedom" that's your choice .. but it's obviously one not shared by the American people.

The market is made up of all individual buyers and sellers, i.e., everyone.

Sure .. chaining your economy to a piece of metal that is limited in supply and fluctuates on the market is a really dumb idea .. which is why no nation on earth uses it.

The limited supply is a good thing. As far as fluctuation in prices, all money fluctuates and if they did not we would be in even worse shape.

History is a great teacher.

Apparently not because you don't know what you are talking about.

It should be real obvious that I did not put this bullshit in my post.

That's what's wrong with that.

Uhh??? It's still there as I reply.

 

[blackascoal]

Haha, this is hysterical. We start off with you distorting what Paul said to mean support for a union of church and state and end with you supporting a union of church and state, "if the people want it."

I'm sure I added The good news is that nonsense is far from what people want.

Perhaps you missed it.

The market is made up of all individual buyers and sellers, i.e., everyone.

Oh, and large multi-national corporations, who have more power than any of them aren't the majjor players in your "free market"?

DUMB

The limited supply is a good thing. As far as fluctuation in prices, all money fluctuates and if they did not we would be in even worse shape.

Oh sure .. that's why you were able to post all the successes of the gold standard and all the nations rushing to adapt it.

Apparently not because you don't know what you are talking about.

Here's your chance to really prove I don't know what I'm talking about .. just post all the nations on the gold standard and how wonderfully they're doing with it. Then really show me up by explaining why most countries NOT on the gold standard avoided the great collapse, and why countries who quickly got rid of the gold standard suffered less damage than countries that stuck to it.

Let's see a demonstration of your historical wisdom.

Uhh??? It's still there as I reply.

Who cares .. I don't put that stupid shit there.

This is normal for this site. Changing and altering the posts of others is normal tactics around here.

More than likely, you put it there .. so feel free to answer your own post.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

I don't think most sensible people would tell you that at all. Most Americans don't go to church. Church has no responsibility to the American people and we have no responsibility to the church. The governmnet exists because of the American people and both have a responsibility to each other.

Most sensible people know that.

Government is a creation of the people, and it is people who get to define what government is and what role it plays. That is a truly free society. If citizens decide it is in their best interest to have gfovernment set national standards for the education of American children, or to centralize power on issues they feel need be addressed and have national oversight, then it is the people's right to do so.

I had already addressed matters of civic responsibility in my previous response. The purpose of the civic responsibility taken in establishing our supreme law, by the people as you further illustrate, was to limit government and protect our rights so that we may contribute to free society.

If you have no church, maybe you still have a religion. Most Americans do. If you don't have a religion, you likely still have a family, or a company, or an occupation or a cause, and these are things that come as a consequence of a society with freedom of choice. To be able to engage in these institutions with no fear of our government is the reason we established a Constitution of the United States.

To expect certain assurances from our government is sensible as well, but the primary concern in that social contract was to minimize intervention into our affairs and give ourselves the most room to thrive.

If you wish to redefine this agreement between the society and the government, you must alter the contract by legal means. Sometimes, even things that are considered legal are truly tyrannical. The very outline for the "free society" you explain is a perfect framework for the rise of "strong national standards" like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act.

So to say there should be so few limits on the purpose and role of government, that the people shall get what they wish by numbers regardless--and that you are only so pleased as to be on the winning side often enough--is a formula for tyranny as we've observed in recent years.

We're beginning to fulfill the kind of government Goldwater warned against: big enough to give you everything you want and to take everything you have.

 

[uscitizen]

Ron Paul supporters call it getting my ass kicked or whatever I don't give a rats ass. In any case I am swearing off of ron paul talk because it is a total waste. Come primary day, ron will still be sitting on his ass, instead of standing to accept a nomination.

Alfred E. Numan would stand a better chance.

Spin you wheels if you want.