Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
left  Fuck Ron Paul   Options  V right
Nedak
post Aug 18 2011, 02:37 PM
Post #1


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FunkBone
post Aug 18 2011, 10:44 PM
Post #2


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,896
Joined: 17-December 06
From: Florida
Member No.: 92



Ron Paul is the shit. Fuck Cody Weber.


--------------------
"If you were supposed to watch your mouth
all of the time, I doubt your eyes would be above it"
- Drive-By Truckers

____________________________________The Earth is Flat____________________________________
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light
post Aug 19 2011, 10:00 AM
Post #3


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 24-November 06
Member No.: 9



Who precisely is Ron Paul? He gets very little airtime in the uk, and all I can glean from the (incredibly biased, both for and against) internet stuff about him is that he's ferociously libertarian.

Anyone?


--------------------
Light's deeply tedious blog

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Aug 19 2011, 11:23 AM
Post #4


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



QUOTE(FunkBone @ Aug 18 2011, 11:44 PM) *

Ron Paul is the shit. Fuck Cody Weber.

You leave Cody out of this FB!

QUOTE(Light @ Aug 19 2011, 11:00 AM) *

Who precisely is Ron Paul? He gets very little airtime in the uk, and all I can glean from the (incredibly biased, both for and against) internet stuff about him is that he's ferociously libertarian.

Anyone?

The truth is he IS ferociously libertarian.

He's very popular because he has very radical beliefs that appeal to people who are sick and tired of pussy politicians. He wants to end the war on drugs, he wants to get us to be completely removed from all wars we are involved with, and he wants to end the Patriot Act.

This is very appealing to Americans who are angry with how things are being run. The problem with this is that Ron Paul has other beliefs that are also extremely fucking scary. He doesn't believe in separation of Chuch and State, he doesn't recognize Evolution, he falsely represents himself as a scientist, he wants to privatize everything (literally), he's hardcore pro-life, he is against hate-laws, he's for "Don't Ask Don't Tell", and against Gay Adoptions.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FunkBone
post Aug 19 2011, 04:10 PM
Post #5


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,896
Joined: 17-December 06
From: Florida
Member No.: 92



QUOTE(Light @ Aug 19 2011, 10:00 AM) *

Who precisely is Ron Paul?

The only US political figure to make the slightest bit of sense. He has been a hero/personal savior to me since my first computer and internet connection. Before the Cow my homepage used to be lewrockwell.com, where RP is a regular contributor. They have archived the stuff by or about him, and ronpaul.com has stuff as well.
IPB Image


--------------------
"If you were supposed to watch your mouth
all of the time, I doubt your eyes would be above it"
- Drive-By Truckers

____________________________________The Earth is Flat____________________________________
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Aug 19 2011, 06:17 PM
Post #6


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



QUOTE(Nedak @ Aug 19 2011, 12:23 PM) *



This is very appealing to Americans who are angry with how things are being run. The problem with this is that Ron Paul has other beliefs that are also extremely fucking scary. He doesn't believe in separation of Chuch and State, he doesn't recognize Evolution, he falsely represents himself as a scientist, he wants to privatize everything (literally), he's hardcore pro-life, he is against hate-laws, he's for "Don't Ask Don't Tell", and against Gay Adoptions.


You are misrepresenting here.

The explanation for most of this is states rights. I think Ron Paul makes that very clear in all of his statements. His responses to questions probably go over the heads of most people who want a straight up "this is right, this wrong" response on platform issues.

If you don't like Ron Paul, I think it is because you are only listening to half of what he is saying. He is very pragmatic. And jumping on him for calling himself a scientist is ridiculous. Most of the scientific method can be attributed to philosophers, not scientists. So really who is a scientist?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Aug 19 2011, 06:50 PM
Post #7


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



QUOTE(Jessica Rabbit @ Aug 19 2011, 07:17 PM) *

You are misrepresenting here.

The explanation for most of this is states rights. I think Ron Paul makes that very clear in all of his statements. His responses to questions probably go over the heads of most people who want a straight up "this is right, this wrong" response on platform issues.

Separation of Church and state and civil rights should have NOTHING to do with the states. Allowing states to decide whether or not they want to enforce civil laws is abhorrently irresponsible.

I know a lot of Libertarians like to believe that states should be treated as countries, but sadly that's unrealistic because they're still a part of the US. Don't get me wrong, I believe in state rights, but when it comes to this shit, hell no. If it weren't for these federal laws slavery and hate segregation would be legal.

QUOTE
If you don't like Ron Paul, I think it is because you are only listening to half of what he is saying. He is very pragmatic. And jumping on him for calling himself a scientist is ridiculous. Most of the scientific method can be attributed to philosophers, not scientists. So really who is a scientist?

I've listened to what he is saying. I've done a decent amount of research on the guy and have given him plenty of chances.

That scientist argument is bullshit and you know it. Do you have any idea how uninformed and ignorant that sounds?

All of the "philosophers" you're talking about were also scientists (scientists of their time). They conducted experiments to test their hypotheses and then from, there created theories. Ron Paul is using the term "scientist" to make himself sound better and give himself more credit than he deserves, and you know it. He's not stupid, he knows that if he says he's a physician AND scientist people are going to believe what he has to say a lot easier.

I'm sorry JR, but he's not a scientist.


I honestly don't understand how any of you can like this man. What good things does he bring besides what I mentioned? I get that he hates the government, but the government isn't just the problem, it's the corporations that are in bed with the government. Yet he doesn't give a shit.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Aug 19 2011, 07:31 PM
Post #8


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



QUOTE(Nedak @ Aug 19 2011, 07:50 PM) *

Separation of Church and state and civil rights should have NOTHING to do with the states. Allowing states to decide whether or not they want to enforce civil laws is abhorrently irresponsible.

I know a lot of Libertarians like to believe that states should be treated as countries, but sadly that's unrealistic because they're still a part of the US. Don't get me wrong, I believe in state rights, but when it comes to this shit, hell no. If it weren't for these federal laws slavery and hate segregation would be legal.
I've listened to what he is saying. I've done a decent amount of research on the guy and have given him plenty of chances.




Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You cannot assume that just because certain issues should be left up to the states that the states then don't have to follow the constitution. Thats a slippery slope argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyfnHOPAhHo

Is this where you are getting the church and state? He didn't say there shouldn't be a separation. He made a philosophical statement that laws are based on morals and values. And then he talks about the first amendment..... Where in that do you get that there should be no separation of church and state?

If things like marriage, abortion, drug control, health care were decided by the states, there would be a better opportunity for the state residence to decide for themselves what the laws should be. Their decisions would be a reflection of their values, would they not? Doesn't matter if they are Athiest, Jew, Hindu, Christian, Muslim.....you still maintain a set of values. To say there would be someone out there who does not obtain to a certain set of values would be like saying "there is no truth".

Laws should be a product of society's values, the further you remove the decision of what is law and what is not law from the individual, the less representation you get across the board.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Aug 19 2011, 07:45 PM
Post #9


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



QUOTE(Nedak @ Aug 19 2011, 07:50 PM) *


All of the "philosophers" you're talking about were also scientists (scientists of their time). They conducted experiments to test their hypotheses and then from, there created theories.


All of the scientist you are forgetting about were FIRST philosophers. That is the point of my question.

Anyone can be a scientist. Try reading up on a little Dewey, Peirce, or James. And I'm not talking about wikipedia. Read their actual work.

Ron Paul is conducting a social revolution. Philosophically, he is a scientist.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Aug 19 2011, 10:07 PM
Post #10


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



QUOTE(Jessica Rabbit @ Aug 19 2011, 08:31 PM) *

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You cannot assume that just because certain issues should be left up to the states that the states then don't have to follow the constitution. Thats a slippery slope argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyfnHOPAhHo

I'm not saying they don't have to follow the constitution. I was saying what Ron Paul supports.

QUOTE
Is this where you are getting the church and state? He didn't say there shouldn't be a separation. He made a philosophical statement that laws are based on morals and values. And then he talks about the first amendment..... Where in that do you get that there should be no separation of church and state?

This is literally what he said:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

QUOTE
If things like marriage, abortion, drug control, health care were decided by the states, there would be a better opportunity for the state residence to decide for themselves what the laws should be. Their decisions would be a reflection of their values, would they not? Doesn't matter if they are Athiest, Jew, Hindu, Christian, Muslim.....you still maintain a set of values. To say there would be someone out there who does not obtain to a certain set of values would be like saying "there is no truth".

Laws should be a product of society's values, the further you remove the decision of what is law and what is not law from the individual, the less representation you get across the board.

The states residence can already do that by voting for a president. However, you want to break it down more and more (states rights). I'm for states deciding on marriage, and abortion, but issues like drug control and health care should remain federal. I say this because these issues affect the country on large scale. One state making the wrong choice could affect all of the other states in large ways.



QUOTE(Jessica Rabbit @ Aug 19 2011, 08:45 PM) *

All of the scientist you are forgetting about were FIRST philosophers. That is the point of my question.

Anyone can be a scientist. Try reading up on a little Dewey, Peirce, or James. And I'm not talking about wikipedia. Read their actual work.

Ron Paul is conducting a social revolution. Philosophically, he is a scientist.

There is no such thing as a first philosopher. Philosophy is literally thinking about things and formulating ideas. We've been doing that since homo sapien sapien first arrived.

Of course anyone can be a scientist, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that society looks at the word "scientist" as meaning a professional in a certain field (gone to college for this field) and conducts experiments to extrapolate on an hypothesis/theory. Ron Paul is using the word "scientist" because it's a hot word that makes him suddenly more credible.

Noun: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.


You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Aug 20 2011, 08:34 AM
Post #11


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



He is referring to the first Amendment in that as well.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."


Separation of religion and state has become an encroachment on the free exercise of religion.

People get upset about nativity scenes and the use of "Merry Christmas" yet when it comes to our courts upholding Sharia Law, people are turning their heads away. people are focussed on the petty shit when the seriousness of the issue is in establishing laws that prohibit or force religion, not keeping idiots from being offended by something they may not like. Allowing public display of religion is one of the main points of the first amendment.

And I think you need to look at how the electoral vote system works before you say that the states elect the president. A candidate can lose the popular vote and still be elected president....like Bush.

You seem to think that states rights will lead to a complete breakdown of our system. While ignoring things we already have now like "super congress",......which is an unconstitutional breakdown of our system already occurring.


And I did not say FIRST philosophers because they were THE first philosophers. First was used in that sentence as in: I was first a baby, then a toddler, then a teenager. Not in: I was the first baby.....I was first a baby...... understand? They were first philosophers, and with their philosophy they defined science. There was no article "the" used in front of "first".



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light
post Aug 20 2011, 09:57 AM
Post #12


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 24-November 06
Member No.: 9



QUOTE(Jessica Rabbit @ Aug 20 2011, 08:34 AM) *

Separation of religion and state has become an encroachment on the free exercise of religion.


...what?


--------------------
Light's deeply tedious blog

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Aug 20 2011, 11:46 AM
Post #13


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



QUOTE(Jessica Rabbit @ Aug 20 2011, 09:34 AM) *

He is referring to the first Amendment in that as well.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."
Separation of religion and state has become an encroachment on the free exercise of religion.

People get upset about nativity scenes and the use of "Merry Christmas" yet when it comes to our courts upholding Sharia Law, people are turning their heads away. people are focussed on the petty shit when the seriousness of the issue is in establishing laws that prohibit or force religion, not keeping idiots from being offended by something they may not like. Allowing public display of religion is one of the main points of the first amendment.

You clearly have no understanding what Separation of Church and State does.

First you defend Ron Paul by saying that he never said that he's against Separation of Church and State, and then when you realize that you were wrong you try to qualify his beliefs.

How can you type that when you god damn well know that our country is one of the most religious countries in the world? We exercise the shit out of our religion! 83% of Americans are religious, we only vote for religious presidents, we have the word God on everything (dollar bill, pledge), people are allowed and in certain states are required to pray in school. We're extremely fucking free as far as religion goes. This is a country where we allow the Westboro Baptist Church and Scientology to exist. Yet because the court does one thing wrong we suddenly have no fucking religious rights? Do you understand what would happen if we abolished Separation of Church and State?

And you fucking said you and Ron Paul don't want to touch the constitution? LOL

QUOTE
And I think you need to look at how the electoral vote system works before you say that the states elect the president. A candidate can lose the popular vote and still be elected president....like Bush.

I know how the electoral system works, I'm for abolishing the electoral college.

However, you realize that the states are still making the decision, right? I mean, some states have very little decision (which is why I'm for abolishing it), but in the end STATES are making the decision. Just not all of them.

QUOTE
You seem to think that states rights will lead to a complete breakdown of our system.

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you actually read what I wrote? I literally said I was for states rights in a lot of cases. However I said that I'm not for just wiping out federal laws because federal laws in a lot of cases are extremely necessary. Even more than state laws/rights.


QUOTE
And I did not say FIRST philosophers because they were THE first philosophers. First was used in that sentence as in: I was first a baby, then a toddler, then a teenager. Not in: I was the first baby.....I was first a baby...... understand? They were first philosophers, and with their philosophy they defined science. There was no article "the" used in front of "first".

I misread that sentence. However that argument has even less weight. What does that have to do with Ron Paul? So he's a physician and a philosopher? Great, but he's still not a scientist.

Here is a great video about Ron Paul.


^^^ WATCH THIS
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Aug 20 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #14


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



QUOTE(Light @ Aug 20 2011, 10:57 AM) *

...what?


I'm talking about how people get offemded by other rwligions. you know how our sociwty is lw suit happy? I kind of feel ike that's what religion has become. We are so afraid of offending, everything is wrong. I feel that's also what ron paul was saying. "Ridged" interpretation of separation of religion and state.



And nedak, I just see what ron pul says completey diffwre
[indent]ntly. I interpret it differenty.

Can't type on my phone well.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Aug 20 2011, 03:08 PM
Post #15


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



It's okay JR I still love you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th September 2017 - 06:47 PM
Skin created by Vanson Studios, © 2006 Sacred Cow Productions