Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I've Changed My Mind About Ron Paul

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 2:33:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

In her wikipedia page I would removing the word peaceful from below:

Stein began participating in the "Occupy" protests at the Occupy Boston peaceful protest

It's emotively loaded and I wouldn't describe them as peaceful. Following is better:

Stein participated in the Occupy Boston protest. (occupy boston protest ended).

Article is locked though.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.
President of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:00:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.

The numbers are irrelevent. But there are those who do believe today, that he was right about a lot of issues. Just like Ross Perot.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:13:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are you trying to say? It really sounds that you are being sarcastic. Do you really want someone who has not a day in the military be our Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces? I don't think so. Vote for Ron Paul.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:14:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:00:52 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.

The numbers are irrelevent. But there are those who do believe today, that he was right about a lot of issues. Just like Ross Perot.

*blink* wait did I read that right? You were for RALPH NADER? The man's insane!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:14:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:00:52 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.

The numbers are irrelevent. But there are those who do believe today, that he was right about a lot of issues. Just like Ross Perot.

*blink* wait did I read that right? You were for RALPH NADER? The man's insane!

He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:17:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

He did do some good work, but that hardly makes him an ideal candidate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:24:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:14:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:00:52 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.

The numbers are irrelevent. But there are those who do believe today, that he was right about a lot of issues. Just like Ross Perot.

*blink* wait did I read that right? You were for RALPH NADER? The man's insane!

He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

Good for him. We should elect the inventor of the hard hat as president next, then maybe the one who came up with cross walks, we'll just make a list.

Just because they did something good doesn't make them presidential material because if the man is anything its not presidential...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:14:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:00:52 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.

The numbers are irrelevent. But there are those who do believe today, that he was right about a lot of issues. Just like Ross Perot.

*blink* wait did I read that right? You were for RALPH NADER? The man's insane!

He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

Actually, I believe the people who made the safe cars with seatbelts are the reason we have safe cars with seatbelts.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:43:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

And you call yourself an anarchist?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:45:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:43:51 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

And you call yourself an anarchist?

communist still has centralized plans, so it isn't really anarchy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 3:58:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:43:51 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

And you call yourself an anarchist?

Anarcho-communism is the ideal society . . .
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 4:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 3:24:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:14:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:00:52 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.

The numbers are irrelevent. But there are those who do believe today, that he was right about a lot of issues. Just like Ross Perot.

*blink* wait did I read that right? You were for RALPH NADER? The man's insane!

He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

Good for him. We should elect the inventor of the hard hat as president next, then maybe the one who came up with cross walks, we'll just make a list.

Just because they did something good doesn't make them presidential material because if the man is anything its not presidential...

Why is he not presidential material? He actually cares about the people of this nation and does not want them to become corporate puppets. Oh, what an evil person he is. Those corporations did not get to kill 100000 people! That filthy Ralph Nader! How dare he save lives!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 4:21:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 4:00:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:24:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:15:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:14:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 3:00:52 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:50:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:15:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:14:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/24/2012 2:11:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've given it a lot of thought, and I was wrong, and I want to join the 70-80% of primary voters who voted against Dr. Ron Paul.  They are 100% right, someone who was married with two children and went when he was drafted would make a terrible Commander and Chief.  What we need is a chicken-hawk who never served a day as our Commander and Chief. 

The logic is clear, a chicken-hawk Commander and Chief would hastily start an undeclared war with Iran, and that would be a good thing. I know, we won't find any nukes in Iran, just like we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but that's a good thing. Going to war, and not finding any WMDs makes us safer, and the blowback ensures that future generations will have plenty of wars to fight too. 

Being lied to about why we went to war is also a good thing. I mean that's why we elect politicians, to make these kind of complex decisions for us, as we the people really shouldn't have any say in these matters as we‘re just not smart enough to understand exactly why we‘re at war.  As an added bonus we'll have tens of thousands of additional wounded, and thousands of additional casualties, and trillions of dollars of additional debt, and these are all good things. 

Don't worry if our troops support Dr. Paul, as it's not important what they think, and we shouldn't actually listen to them.  I mean they signed up, so they should have no say in anything relating to the military. I mean the chicken-hawks own our soldiers. If we just think of our soldiers as numbers and not people, it will make everything easier, as their all expendable that way. I mean the whole purpose of our soldiers is to fight and die in undeclared wars where we find no WMDs, and they'll like it that way.

Listen, if it makes us feel better, we can put yellow ribbons on our cars, and have small welcome home celebrations for the soldiers who do make it back alive, but let's not get carried away and actually start listening to them. I mean they need to be good little soldiers, and we all need to be good little soldiers and do what the chicken-hawks tell us, or we're un-American.

Well, now that I've joined the 80%, I sure feel a lot better. No more having to think about these complex issues, I'll just turn on the TV, and let the status quo politicians handle all of these complex decisions for me. I mean, trusting the status quo  politicians has worked out great for us so far. Oh great, the TV is telling me that going with the 80% was the choice I that was supposed to make, so I‘m feeling a lot better now.



.
.
.

What are your thoughts about Dr. Jill Stein?

Believe it or not. I wanted Ralph Nader to win the 2000 election. But the establishment would not allow him victory.

I'm pretty sure it was the over 99% of people that didn't vote for him that didn't allow him victory.

The numbers are irrelevent. But there are those who do believe today, that he was right about a lot of issues. Just like Ross Perot.

*blink* wait did I read that right? You were for RALPH NADER? The man's insane!

He is the reason that we have safe cars with seatbelts . . .

Good for him. We should elect the inventor of the hard hat as president next, then maybe the one who came up with cross walks, we'll just make a list.

Just because they did something good doesn't make them presidential material because if the man is anything its not presidential...

Why is he not presidential material? He actually cares about the people of this nation and does not want them to become corporate puppets. Oh, what an evil person he is. Those corporations did not get to kill 100000 people! That filthy Ralph Nader! How dare he save lives!

Corporations have saved millions. One just has to look at the rapid improvement in life expectancy, lowered mortality rate, and improvement in quality of life as a result of corporations. Pharmaceutical drugs that save lives are created by corporations. The MRI machines in your hospital, and the surgical tools all made possible through corporations.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 4:23:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 4:00:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Those corporations did not get to kill 100000 people! That filthy Ralph Nader! How dare he save lives!

Ralph Nader made his reputation by publicizing the Chevy Corvair as being an unsafe car built to satisfy corporate greed at the expense of human lives. His charges were completely false. Accident records proved that the Corvair was no less safe than any other car. Still, Nader did successfully raise awareness of potential vehicle safety improvements, and ever since the government has assumed the responsibility of deciding what safety features you should have, and making you pay for them.

Once awareness is raised, is it necessary to have laws mandating the features? I'm not sure. The nanny state princile is so firmly ingrained that no one considers the possibility.

Another way to improve safety is by improving drivers though more through training and testing. That approach is not seriously considered these days.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 4:37:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are you trying to say? It really sounds that you are being sarcastic. Do you really want someone who has not a day in the military be our Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces? I don't think so. Vote for Ron Paul.:

Wasn't the sarcasm obvious? He wants you to vote for Ron Paul, and wants to make the other candidates appear what they really are -- ridiculous.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 4:39:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 4:37:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
What are you trying to say? It really sounds that you are being sarcastic. Do you really want someone who has not a day in the military be our Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces? I don't think so. Vote for Ron Paul.:

Wasn't the sarcasm obvious? He wants you to vote for Ron Paul, and wants to make the other candidates appear what they really are -- ridiculous.

Well he is a Libertarian and changed his mind about Ron Paul. I am guessing he is now against him. And no, the sarcasm wasn't obvious. Do you just post smart alickey stuff?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 4:50:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 4:39:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 4:37:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
What are you trying to say? It really sounds that you are being sarcastic. Do you really want someone who has not a day in the military be our Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces? I don't think so. Vote for Ron Paul.:

Wasn't the sarcasm obvious? He wants you to vote for Ron Paul, and wants to make the other candidates appear what they really are -- ridiculous.

Well he is a Libertarian and changed his mind about Ron Paul. I am guessing he is now against him. And no, the sarcasm wasn't obvious. Do you just post smart alickey stuff?

I have changed my ways. I realize now that enslaving the human race is whats best and thats what Newt Romney will ensures happen. Freedom is overrated, we need a nanny-state to save us from ourselves. We're just sheep and need to be hearded.

We're getting out of control and we need Rockefeller to step in and keep us in line to maintain order. All this freedom stuff is causing chaos. Only wars mandated by elites is the only acceptable chaos.

.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 5:03:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well he is a Libertarian and changed his mind about Ron Paul. I am guessing he is now against him. And no, the sarcasm wasn't obvious. Do you just post smart alickey stuff?:

How was I being a smart @ss?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 5:04:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have changed my ways. I realize now that enslaving the human race is whats best and thats what Newt Romney will ensures happen. Freedom is overrated, we need a nanny-state to save us from ourselves. We're just sheep and need to be hearded.:

Picking up on the sarcasm now, Ron-Paul?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 5:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is why Ralph Nader is insane, I will never forget hearing about this, it has tainted him forever in my mind as a nutter

http://www.moonbattery.com...

http://coloradoindependent.com...

"the event promises to be a bizzarro Nader debate, where the candidate will appear by video conference or be represented by an actor. Nader — or the actor — will then debate with a dummy; he will ask questions about corporate welfare, for instance, and be met with silence on the other end, to signify the silence of the mainstream candidates on such issues."

really? How can anyone support this man for PRESIDENT?
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 5:35:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 4:50:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/24/2012 4:39:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 4:37:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
What are you trying to say? It really sounds that you are being sarcastic. Do you really want someone who has not a day in the military be our Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces? I don't think so. Vote for Ron Paul.:

Wasn't the sarcasm obvious? He wants you to vote for Ron Paul, and wants to make the other candidates appear what they really are -- ridiculous.

Well he is a Libertarian and changed his mind about Ron Paul. I am guessing he is now against him. And no, the sarcasm wasn't obvious. Do you just post smart alickey stuff?

I have changed my ways. I realize now that enslaving the human race is whats best and thats what Newt Romney will ensures happen. Freedom is overrated, we need a nanny-state to save us from ourselves. We're just sheep and need to be hearded.

We're getting out of control and we need Rockefeller to step in and keep us in line to maintain order. All this freedom stuff is causing chaos. Only wars mandated by elites is the only acceptable chaos.


.
.

Ok. Now I know that you are being sarcastic. Again, a Libertarian who hate freedom? Either change your political ideology, or stop being a hypocrit.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 5:37:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:03:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well he is a Libertarian and changed his mind about Ron Paul. I am guessing he is now against him. And no, the sarcasm wasn't obvious. Do you just post smart alickey stuff?:

How was I being a smart @ss?

You are always posting irrelevant junk like, "this is a thread waster", "this is a useless thread", and other stuff that is irrelevant to the forum topic by being a smart aleck.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 11:09:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 4:23:14 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/24/2012 4:00:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Those corporations did not get to kill 100000 people! That filthy Ralph Nader! How dare he save lives!

Ralph Nader made his reputation by publicizing the Chevy Corvair as being an unsafe car built to satisfy corporate greed at the expense of human lives. His charges were completely false. Accident records proved that the Corvair was no less safe than any other car. Still, Nader did successfully raise awareness of potential vehicle safety improvements, and ever since the government has assumed the responsibility of deciding what safety features you should have, and making you pay for them.

Once awareness is raised, is it necessary to have laws mandating the features? I'm not sure. The nanny state princile is so firmly ingrained that no one considers the possibility.

Another way to improve safety is by improving drivers though more through training and testing. That approach is not seriously considered these days.

Good points Roy...If they must have the safety feature on the car is another step for freedom I hadn't considered...Why not let companies put them on the cars if they want to or leave them off if they want to...let consumer demand dictate if they are on the car or not...
But I've been too focused on the immediate enforcement from the nanny state in making me wear them!...
They will let the motorcyclists go without helmets...yeah that's a lot safer (NOT)...that glaring difference in the law makes me think they may not have my best interest at heart in making the law but rather (GASP) are using it as a revenue generator!!???...but I should probably not complain too much because the Nanny state might make all states have mandatory helmet use for motorcycles AND in CARS ALSO...because certainly that would reduce deaths...no???...
anyway I say if they are there for people who WANT to wear them...let them...feel free to exercise your liberty...but don't impose your laws on others... when not wearing them won't affect anyone except the person driving...thats not right!
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 11:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 11:12:22 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
^
Random post is random!!!!

Lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 4:09:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:35:44 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 4:50:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/24/2012 4:39:51 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 4:37:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
What are you trying to say? It really sounds that you are being sarcastic. Do you really want someone who has not a day in the military be our Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces? I don't think so. Vote for Ron Paul.:

Wasn't the sarcasm obvious? He wants you to vote for Ron Paul, and wants to make the other candidates appear what they really are -- ridiculous.

Well he is a Libertarian and changed his mind about Ron Paul. I am guessing he is now against him. And no, the sarcasm wasn't obvious. Do you just post smart alickey stuff?

I have changed my ways. I realize now that enslaving the human race is whats best and thats what Newt Romney will ensures happen. Freedom is overrated, we need a nanny-state to save us from ourselves. We're just sheep and need to be hearded.

We're getting out of control and we need Rockefeller to step in and keep us in line to maintain order. All this freedom stuff is causing chaos. Only wars mandated by elites is the only acceptable chaos.

Ok. Now I know that you are being sarcastic. Again, a Libertarian who hate freedom? Either change your political ideology, or stop being a hypocrit.

^^^^
Acknowledges sarcasm yet still doesnt know what sarcasm is...

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat