big_dave wrote:

Skronk wrote:I'd like to see help that doesn't rely on brackets, and forms, and empty promises. You, like Rand, are full of it.

The only promise I'll make to you is that you will grow out of conspiracy theories eventually.

There's nothing to grow out of, on this end. One day you might grow out of that socialist wet dream you're so fond of.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Antero wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:Try and confine your assessment of the candidates to issues that belong to the Executive branch.

Like war! Oh fuck, wait a minute...

Ron Paul has voted against every military intervention during his time in Congress. He's got more anti-war votes than Hillary has political opponents who met suspicious deaths.

You missed the joke again.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Antero wrote:You missed the joke again.

I got you- you were loading up to criticize Paul on the war, and then you went, "Oh fuck, wait a minute..."

No, that's actively retarded.

Or you were making some joke about Bush taking all the warmaking power into the Executive Branch, where the Constitution says it doesn't belong.

Yes! I'm saying that your insistence on confining discussion to "executive" powers would have been lazy, weak-minded ass-covering even before the strengthening of the executive branch in the past six years. You made your point about Hillary by, as usual, rushing ahead and trying not to look at the weaknesses and incoherencies in your position.

Watch and learn:

-Paul's domestic policy platform includes xenophobic, racist, classist, and fundamentalist components.

-Bobrick insists that these must be disregarded, as they are not areas he would have control of as part of the Executive Branch.

-Bobrick's support for Paul is largely based on his anti-war stance and his opposition to the Federal Reserve.

-Both of these are also congressional matters.

Since the logically inconsistent result would be Bobrick insisting that we must disregard his support for Ron Paul (if we don't already), the conclusion we can draw is that his insistence on the irrelevance of Paul's morally abhorrent and generally impractical domestic policies is nothing more than a smokescreen, either to cover the cognitive dissonance that such policy positions must create in any fair-minded leftist supporter or to distract from the fact that Bobrick is a conspiracy nut who has found a candidate who panders to his demographic.

Well, apparently Antero is just a stupid loser too.
That makes, let's see now...
...yeah, everyone but Bobrick and Skronk, the boy genius.

Good thing there's someone here to point that out, otherwise I would have erroneously thought that Antero, like many others before him, had made (p)Rick look like a hypocrite who just writes his own rules.

-A

Rick Reuben wrote:When you have a substantive argument in favor of allowing a private cartel to keep control of the monetary system, then you'll have something I might find interesting.

IT
HAS
WORKED
GOOD
ENOUGH
THUS
FAR
(EVEN
THOUGH
IT'S
WORSE
NOW
THAN
IT
HAS
EVER
BEEN,
BUT
THAT
CAN
BE
FIXED
WITH
REASONABLY
DISTRIBUTED
TAX
INCREASES
AND
FORCING
AMERICAN
MANUFACTURING
COMPANIES
THAT
HAVE
OUTSOURCED
AMERICAN
JOBS
OVERSEAS
TO
PAY
FINE-LIKE
TAXES/TARIFFS
UNTIL
THEY
RESUME
MANUFACTURING
ON
AMERICAN
SOIL)

big_dave wrote:Do you like raping girls from the front or the back?

You know what Dave?

Up until now I have just thought you were a self-righteous smug little prick, but damn boy, you have proven yourself to be an utter piece of fucking shit with that little comment.

Did I say fuck you?

No, I guess I didn't.

Fuck you.

alex maiolo wrote:Well, apparently Antero is just a stupid loser too.
That makes, let's see now...
...yeah, everyone but Bobrick and Skronk, the boy genius.

Good thing there's someone here to point that out, otherwise I would have erroneously thought that Antero, like many others before him, had made (p)Rick look like a hypocrite who just writes his own rules.

-A

Boy, you're a real shit. You act the poor innocent victim one day, engage in childish name calling the next, and you ooze this stuck up attitude even southern belles couldn't match.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Rick Reuben wrote:Look, here's the flash card version:

IF

You

DO



NOT


examine


THE


MONEY


SYSTEM

and

you


DO


NOT


think



there

is


AN

EFFORT



TO


MAKE



A


global



government


FROM


the


fake


WAR


ON


TERROR


you



are


not


a

LIBERAL.



YOU ARE A COWARDLY JOKE.


Thomas Jefferson would laugh at you.

Worse than that, I laugh at you.


GET IT??


You fake liberals need to take your arrogance and your lies and your careful unthreatening safe ideology and GO AWAY or SHUT UP because you are an embarrassment.


Simmo, do you get it now? I am attacking false liberalism and the phonies who have kidnapped liberalism and ruined it.

I agree with the Middle East becoming the new "13" colonies (I put the 13 is in quotes because I doubt we'll make a play for 13 countries, my guess is about 8 ), but the most logical thing to do is raise taxes as opposed to Ron Paul's idea of eliminating them.
Eliminating taxes could (that's a big italics/stretch) help gain more jobs, but higher taxes would be a much more logical solution because that would be more money to help our country get out of debt.
One of the main concerns I have towards voting next year is what will be done about the huge debt we have.
So far, not a single candidate has a good idea to solve this.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Johnny 13 wrote:I had never thought about it before, but it turns out I would be quite upset if Thomas Jefferson did not like me.

I find this thread depressing. I like Paul's war talk, and I support government reduction, but I deeply distrust anyone who can talk about liberty, and then oppose a woman's right to autonomy. He is off my plate.

Big problem here: the President ( should it be an anti-war candidate ) has ultimate power to change military policy. There is no Commander-in -Chief of abortion in this country. It's a court issue. And using Paul's abortion stance as a make-or-break issue is laughably short-sighted. The President has no unilateral powers to change abortion laws, and the Supreme Court the pro-choice side fears is already in place, 5-4 with Kennedy. If Paul gets to replace Stevens and he gets a pro-lifer past what will be assuredly a Democratic congress ( unlikely ), big deal- going from 5-4 to 6-3 against pro-choice doesn't change the equation.

So throwing out an anti-war and anti-fed candidate over his abortion policy is just a lame cop out for liberals who want a comfortable corporate democrat to vote for instead of real change.

That's the kind of political analysis you won't get from Maiolo or the other grudge-infested crybabies.

I am not sure if you are calling me a liberal. I certainly think of my self as one. Standing to the left of everyone, but the terms are so convoluted that it is hard to categorize. Most people end up calling me a conservative for opposing the conservative desires of politically termed liberals. It does not matter.

Paul has said the only things worth a damn about the war. No argument from me. My problem is that I cannot ignore a flaw that is very important to me. If an anti choice president were no big deal, I would not have the concerns I do today. 8 years ago I assumed abortion rights were safe, and now I see freedom eroding because of the current president. A democratic congress is no comfort to me since they have ridiculously low approval ratings, and could lose their majority in 2 years for all I know. Everybody has worms in their apples, but this one is fundamental, and causes me to mistrust the man's understanding of his own philosophy. I require ethical consistency, cause the alternative is disquieting.

This war has to end, and it will. I might like Paul more than someone else who might end up with the office, but I will like myself less. I find myself is a rare position where I was some tax increases to pay off the current debt, because I won't want to saddle the next generations with the debt we failed to prevent.

Before Bush was first in office, I assumed a massive debt was going to be accrued, cause that has been the cycle. I even figured it would be the largest ever, so as to cripple the Democrat who came next, who would have to raise taxes to pay the debt and cut social spending if they had a brain, which would lead to further dissatisfaction among the taxpayers to believe they received any value for their tax dollars. We have gone way beyond anything I ever imagined. I am not prone to sensation, but I believe the next election is the most important of my lifetime, and I am dismayed that it seems no one up for the job is going to have what it takes to do what the world needs done.