CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Greatest 2min answer of ALL TIME
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greatest 2min answer of ALL TIME

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Sorry to start a new thread on this but this literally blow the place apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mffpkCH-PJw
post #2 of 53
Jesus, Sidious, don't chafe your knees while you're down there.
post #3 of 53
The bell rang before he could say he hates black people.
post #4 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
Jesus, Sidious, don't chafe your knees while you're down there.
My knees are already chafed, throat sore, and ass burning. At least I do it at my own free will. Soon the government will fuck you so bad you won't be able to escape at all.
post #5 of 53
What he's saying is right, but I actually don't think he said it all that well. It won the audience momentarily, but they're going to clap and feel good then go back to one of the 'bigger' guys. I'd rather have Paul just go ahead and be fully 'crazy,' and say 'I will do exactly the opposite of the other candidates on a large amount of issues.' He is actually different and might as well admit it; painting himself as the same ballpark, just more conservative, is only going to get him the same fate as a Kucinich or a Buchanan.

i.e., when you 'have no chance,' why not do something with the opportunity?

ETA: well, it is Fox News: maybe saying 'Republican' and 'conservative' a bunch of times is the way to go.
post #6 of 53
One thing you gotta love about Paul, though, is he's not a phony. He goes up there and speaks his mind and doesn't give two $#!ts about whether it is the right focus group-tested sound bite. Even though I wouldn't vote for him, and he has some scary ideologies, I love watching him.
post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by innsmouthlook81
Let's be honest, he didn't even answer the question though, did he?
He sure didn't. And even though the moderator phrased the question like a dick, it was still a relevant point. Rightly or not, Paul HAS been relegated to the role of a fringe lunatic or a joke candidate by the mainstream media. This was his chance to really argue his case, and instead he started ranting about the Constitution again.
post #8 of 53
It was a stupid question.
post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
Soon the government will fuck you so bad you won't be able to escape at all.
What the fiddling fuck does this nonsense even mean?
post #10 of 53
Thread Starter 
He did answer the question he said why wouldnt he be electable if he's the most conservative guy on stage and has the record to prove it. What he said was "I'm to republican to get elected?" Pretty much calling the mod out for making the suggestion for everyone.

He exposed all of them
post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
One thing you gotta love about Paul, though, is he's not a phony.
He is a bit of fresh air in an extremely fetid swamp; it just sucks that he's batshit crazy.
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by a typical Ron Paul supporter
He did answer the question. He said why wouldn't he be electable if he's the most conservative guy on stage and has the record to prove it? What he said was "I'm too Republican to get elected." Pretty much calling the mod out for making the suggestion for everyone.

He exposed all of them.
...
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
What he said was "I'm to republican to get elected?" Pretty much calling the mod out for making the suggestion for everyone.
Which, regardless of accuracy, is a perfectly reasonable point. There's a reason centrist candidates get the nomination most of the time; those on the fringe are considered "too republican" or "too democratic" to be electable.
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
He is a bit of fresh air in an extremely fetid swamp; it just sucks that he's batshit crazy.
It's awesome that he's batshit crazy. Makes the debates far more entertaining.

I think it's hilarious how mad the supporters of the other Republican candidates get when they talk about Paul and his supporters. The Democrats either don't think he has a chance (they're right, he doesn't) or think he's more interesting than the other Pubbie candidates, but the neocons get so pissy when Paul gets brought up that it's a great laugh.

Hooray for Republican in-fighting!
post #15 of 53
Even he knows he's not electable, he can't be that deluded.
post #16 of 53
Thread Starter 
Why is he crazy??
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
Why is he crazy??
I'm going to say lead poisoning. But congenital chemical imbalance of the brain is certainly possible.
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
Why is he crazy??
I wouldn't say "crazy". Just horribly wrong about everything except some current foreign policy issues.

The privatizing of more than half the Cabinet level departments would be unelectable issue #1 I think.
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Bolivar
So, in all honesty, bullshit aside, I'd very much like you to tell me why he's the best candidate available. Then I'll give you my opinion.
Well, I'm not Sidious, but I think can give the arguments. The thing is, Paul gets different supporters for different reasons:

-He's the only candidate who'll reduce the size of government (Repubs will continue the war and will try to throw out immigrants, Dems will set up a huge healthcare system.) If you think that reducing government is always or almost always a good thing, then Paul is probably your choice.

-He's the only candidate who wants to follow the Constitution with any strictness. If you think that's the most important thing, then you'll go for Paul.

-He's got a unique mix of conservative fiscal ideas with protection of civil liberties. There are a lot of people who agree with this but never saw a candidate like it before; they can't fully get behind the Dems because they have a distaste for socialism and regulation, no matter how mild, and they can't fully get behind neocon Repubs because they have a distaste for the war, the Patriot Act, etc. Paul is exciting and new in this regard, compared to other 'mainstream' candidates.

I'm part of that third group, I guess. I like seeing a 'big' politician who's against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs. Against taxes and against spending. Cares about inflation and actually understands the economic terms he's using. Usually you can vote for somebody about whom one of these things is true, but never all of them. I don't agree with him on every issue (abortion and immigration, mostly), but whattaya gonna do.
post #20 of 53
Thread Starter 
...
post #21 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Bolivar
The reasons have been discussed ad nauseum with little input on your part on why he should be taken seriously. If you legitimately want a detailed answer, I'm more than willing to step up, but first I want you to spell out why he's the answer to America's problems. I don't want to waste my time writing a lengthy response that you retort with "Google Ron Paul."

So, in all honesty, bullshit aside, I'd very much like you to tell me why he's the best candidate available. Then I'll give you my opinion.

Why he's the best candidate?

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.


Here's a guy who's voting record has been rock solid for 20 years in congress. Notice he has NEVER been attacked on his record for flip flopping. He is the ONLY honest, trustworthy guy on either side. I mean for a guy in congress to not opt in for the congressional pension fund AND to give back part of his budget to the treasury every year shows he cares more about America then himself AND he never voted to give himself a raise. That shows the character and selflessness of the man.

On top of it lobbyist dont even approach him. He's not called Dr. No for no reason. We need politicians who can't be bought in DC. Lobbyist and special interest have ruined this country. Everyone talks about standing up to these people (Edwards) Paul is the only one who has done it for 20 years.

So...now that we went a little into his charactor let's talk about knowledge.
Right now the country is headed for economic collapse Paul is the ONLY damn candidate who has knowledge on economics and monetary policy. When he speaks of it the other candidates seem dumbfunded. Perfect example was the SC debates when asked "what economic stimulus package have you prepared" everyone said we need to lower interest rates. Paul is the one who said "Artificial low interest rates IS THE PROBLEM, it devalues the dollar causes inflation, creates bubbles (like the housing bubble) and will only prolong the recession and makes it worse in the end"


Also the biggest reason I like him besides being trustworthy and honest is he follows the constitution. The constitution was written to restrain government and ALL politicians even though it's their oath to uphold it treat it like it's something that gets in the way. Paul will defend it and by defending it he is defending "we the people".

You can't trust anyone else, Paul is clearly the best choice. The other candidates are not straight forward and always seem like they have something up their sleave and have been packaged and groomed by Public Relations specialist to say the right phrases and look good. Ron Paul doesnt have these people, he goes out and speaks his mind and tells it like it is. He is transparent which is how government should be and to be like that we need transparent honest people who we can trust. YES trust a politician, nows your chance to vote for one you can trust.





.
post #22 of 53
All the stuff you mention about Paul I like.

The one thing I don't like and it's a dealbreaker is his interpretation of the Constitution considering so-called entitlements. The Constitution invests in Congress the ability to propose legislation for running the country, and one of the items mentioned under that umbrella is to "promote the general welfare" (since the founding of the country the government funded poorhouses, for instance). I do not believe the libertarian philosophy is practically viable, even though it may seem so in an idealist's head. You take away all federal programs for the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, the disabled, healthcare, veterans, etc. and this country will sink into the 3rd world. Period. The rich will still find a way to strangle every last drop of profit they can and there will be no protection for the middle class or the poor.

That's a big issue. I am also suspicious of his words concerning the separation of church and state. That was a big, big issue with the framers of the Constitution because they could see, and had seen, the corrupting influence of marrying the two.

That said, everything else about him is refreshing, everything you mention in your post is important in terms of how politicians and our system of government have been corrupted by special interests. But you cannot gut social programs. Anyone who proposes that is not going to get into office, but I do hope he hangs on because he does make the rest of the GOP candidates look ridiculous.
post #23 of 53
Thread Starter 
He doesn't want to gut social programs. First let's face the facts, social security and medicare is causing this country to go broke (we are broke already) we can not afford these programs. Paul says he would end the war in Iraq, bring home all troops from around the world and end foreign aid. That money he wants to use for the programs because people are dependent on them BUT he wants to see them phased out slowly so people don't rely so much on government. I agree with him, I'd rather take care of my own retirement.

So he isn't "crazy" enough to become president and just end social programs, he can't do that as president and understands that.

As far as seperation of church and state, he believes that. If you notice he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve like Huckabee and others. He actually speaks out FOR Romney saying it's unfair he's critized and hurt politicaly because he's a morman. Paul wants religious freedom for all.
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
He doesn't want to gut social programs. First let's face the facts, social security and medicare is causing this country to go broke (we are broke already) we can not afford these programs.
That's utter nonsense.
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
As far as seperation of church and state, he believes that.
His position on abortion suggests otherwise.
post #26 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
His position on abortion suggests otherwise.
Why does being pro-life mean he wants to integrate church and state? He looks at it as if a doctor injures a baby in the womb he is liable so the baby has rights. He wants the states to make the laws regarding that. So if every state kept abortion legal thats fiine. He just hates the FEDERAL government dictating to the states.


I myself am pro-choice but I would prefer if no one had abortions after 5-6 weeks. It's your moral choice to make.
post #27 of 53
Social Security and Medicare are not causing the country to go broke. If you take a snapshot of this point in time, a cash-hemorrhaging war, paid for through ballooning debt to China, free trade that siphons profits up to CEOs and shareholders and away from everyday workers, and unregulated financial markets that destabilize the currency are doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of this country's financial viability. That's just false. If you look at our economy historically, the country has enjoyed its greatest economies during times of democratic leadership with equitable taxes and a strong middle class.

In terms of Social Security, I'm not as knowledgeable as others on these things, but social security is a separate tax that everyone pays into up to something like $92,000. Beyond that cap, millionaires and billionaires pay nothing. That money goes into a collective fund for widows, orphans, the disabled, and retirement. If you look at the savings in this country, very few people can even afford a savings account, much less a retirement fund. Also, you put Social Security money directly in mutual funds and you have brokers walking away with billons of dollars in fees, and CEOs getting a huge cut as well. And then you have a swelling mass of people living on the streets with nothing, just like the Depression. You have a humanitarian disaster on your hands. The libertarian philosophy, not unlike communism and pure capitalism, looks good on paper but is not realistic for a country like this one. Is there, or has there ever been, a country that practices libertarian policies successfully?

Also, you can't eliminate the department of education. I agree with some of what he says in terms of the federal government dictating something like No Child Left Behind and tying it to funding that never seems to arrive, which not only creates homogeneous and inherently bad institutions, but eliminates variety and creativity in public education, and benefits people like Bush's brother, who has made millions on idiotic education programs that suck. I'd like to see education run on a much more local level, but funding education is part and parcel of the "general welfare." Most countries producing the top scientists and artists etc. in this world offer free education for all.

ps. I think you also have to consider that when he claims to be for a pure interpretation of the Constitution, how does he justify those articles about promoting the general welfare? You can't just pretend they're not there.
post #28 of 53
Thread Starter 
The dept of edu is a waste. Instead of money going to schools it goes to the dept then they allocate to the schools which causes alot of waste.
post #29 of 53
Look, in general, I want to stay out of this debate. But, as a person who has studied the Constitution in some depth (though not nearly the depth required to have a reasonable understanding of what is a truly ridiculously complicated document), when I hear Ron Paul's supporters talk about how Paul "follows the Constitution", it sounds like a fifth grade science student talking about string theory.
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
The dept of edu is a waste. Instead of money going to schools it goes to the dept then they allocate to the schools which causes alot of waste.
This is true. The feds should just leave a pile of money and have the states come and take exactly what they need, making sure everyone gets the federal funding they need and deserve. Man, this would be easier if we had some sort of..system to do that? But nah, that would cause way more waste than 50 states, with their contained districts, counties, systems, boards, etc., taking care of it themselves.

EDIT in response to yt above: He also takes a pretty liberal reading of the 2nd amendment too. Y'know, leaving out that "militia" part.
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
The dept of edu is a waste. Instead of money going to schools it goes to the dept then they allocate to the schools which causes alot of waste.
Then reform it; don't eliminate it. If you want to eliminate waste, look no further than the defense department. We spend more on defense than all other countries combined.
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
Look, in general, I want to stay out of this debate. But, as a person who has studied the Constitution in some depth (though not nearly the depth required to have a reasonable understanding of what is a truly ridiculously complicated document), when I hear Ron Paul's supporters talk about how Paul "follows the Constitution", it sounds like a fifth grade science student talking about string theory.
One of the things Reagan did while in office was to eliminate all the various civics books being published for schools, and replace them with text books produced solely by two publishers out of Texas. It's probably not coincidental that these new civics curricula virtually eliminated any in depth examination and study of the Constitution. This from the man who famously said, (paraphrasing) "The scariest words ever spoken are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
The dept of edu is a waste.
Irony. Sweet, crunchy irony.
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
Why does being pro-life mean he wants to integrate church and state? He looks at it as if a doctor injures a baby in the womb he is liable so the baby has rights. He wants the states to make the laws regarding that. So if every state kept abortion legal thats fiine. He just hates the FEDERAL government dictating to the states.


I myself am pro-choice but I would prefer if no one had abortions after 5-6 weeks. It's your moral choice to make.
Saying that abortion is a matter of state rights is just passing the buck. Whether pro-life legislation comes from the federal government or the state government, it's still typically a bunch of old men deciding what young women can do with their bodies. Paul, himself, is pro-life, and this extends beyond just being anti-Roe V. Wade:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
"Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty…. A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs…."
That reads an awful lot like "I believe my religious belief is inerrant, but I'm not going to call it religious, so everyone thinks it's somehow universal."

Eliminating Roe V. Wade is essentially legislating religious morality because of the obvious ramifications in some states. Furthermore, it would allow states to deprive women of the very liberty that Paul seems to treasure so much when it comes to guns and money. Sure, he wants to give the states the power to legislate abortion, but one has to wonder how supportive he would be of states enacting strict gun control laws in lieu of federal ones.
post #35 of 53
Libertarianism: Everything would be good if people were just good.
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
If you want to eliminate waste, look no further than the defense department. We spend more on defense than all other countries combined.
Ah yes. The Military Industrial Complex. Forcing it to loosen it's grip on America's balls: if someone mentioned it in a campaign speech, they'd never get elected. The Media would see to that. If they are elected and then mention it, they'll be shot.
post #37 of 53
You don't understand, Ali. If he doesn't mention any of that in his campaign speeches or debate answers, then it's immaterial to his presidential bid. It's only important if he talks about it. Now if he says that he will give high cabinet positions to white supremacists, then we've got him.
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
Libertarianism: Everything would be good if people were just good.

Isn't that also the philosophical basis behind those that support anarchism?
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog
Isn't that also the philosophical basis behind those that support anarchism?
Ding ding ding!
post #40 of 53
My problem with libertarians like Paul supporters is that they tend to be complete fucking hypocrites. They support increasing tax breaks for non-profits to encourage people to give money to non-profits thus eliminating the need for social programs but I have yet to meet one of these dip shits who actually give to an NPO. They horde their money like Scrooge McFuckinDuck and bitch about the homeless on their street.

It all seems to be another example of "I want to keep all my money. Let the lazy homeless/single moms/retirees work for theirs" attitude.
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Mohamed
Other reasons Ron Paul blows dicks aka Ali Mohamed's Official Reasons Why Ron Paul Is Batshit Crazy that He Managed To Find, Copy And Paste In Under A Minute:
* let a racist newsletter be published for twenty years in his name, and still employs the person who published it (one of whom heads his field office in Texas) even after finding out about it, even though he told everyone that he fired the people involved
* gives interviews to white separatist organizations
* describes immigrants as "not looking very American to me"
* voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
* works with anti-psychiatry organizations because he doesn't believe in mental illness (including the CCHR, a Scientology front group)
* describes the Constitution as "replete with references to God" (even though it is demonstrably not)
* thinks that forced smallpox vaccinations are a bad thing even in the case of outbreak due to terrorist attack (which demonstrates a distinct lack of knowledge about how plagues work)
* is a Creationist (jump to 2m 40s)
* uses eliminationist rhetoric in his campaign mailings
* votes against a medal for Rosa Parks but sponsors legislation for medals for soldiers who never saw combat during the Cold War
* And finally, sponsored legislation to "strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life" by "prohibiting the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style", amongst other things
This is a pretty strong case for not supporting Paul in 2008. He needs to address this stuff and either disown it or own up to it, but it's pretty damning. I still love having him in debates though.
post #42 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Mohamed
Other reasons Ron Paul blows dicks aka Ali Mohamed's Official Reasons Why Ron Paul Is Batshit Crazy that He Managed To Find, Copy And Paste In Under A Minute:
* let a racist newsletter be published for twenty years in his name, and still employs the person who published it (one of whom heads his field office in Texas) even after finding out about it, even though he told everyone that he fired the people involved
* gives interviews to white separatist organizations
* describes immigrants as "not looking very American to me"
* voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
* works with anti-psychiatry organizations because he doesn't believe in mental illness (including the CCHR, a Scientology front group)
* describes the Constitution as "replete with references to God" (even though it is demonstrably not)
* thinks that forced smallpox vaccinations are a bad thing even in the case of outbreak due to terrorist attack (which demonstrates a distinct lack of knowledge about how plagues work)
* is a Creationist (jump to 2m 40s)
* uses eliminationist rhetoric in his campaign mailings
* votes against a medal for Rosa Parks but sponsors legislation for medals for soldiers who never saw combat during the Cold War
* And finally, sponsored legislation to "strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life" by "prohibiting the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style", amongst other things


Ron Paul is not a damn racist...he often sites MLK and Rosa Parks as hero's for practicing civil disobedience. He believes everyone should be not seen in terms of groups (blacks, gays, whites,) but as individuals and every individual should be treated the same way. When asked about gays servicing openly in the military he said "we get our rights not as gays or blacks we get ours right as individuals and all should be treated the same. If there is disruptive homosexual behavior it should be dealt with but also if there's disruptive heterosexual behavior it should be dealt with"

How can a black, gay hating person talk about MLK and Rosa Parks as hero's and allowing gays to serve openly and to have civil unions? He talked about these things long before running for president. He did vote against the medal for Rosa Parks, his reason was why is he going to use tax payer money to reward someone with a gold medal. HE DID OFFER AND ASK CONGRESS TO PUT UP $100 EACH TO DO IT BUT EVERYONE BESIDES HIM REFUSED. So people in congress want to do good with my money and when faced with the idea of putting up their own money everyone but Paul backed down. As far as medals to cold war soldiers, I've never heard of that.

Now about doing interviews with white supremists. He gives interviews to EVERYONE regardless if he disagrees with thier viewpoints. He goes on Alex Jones' show, FOX news (Paul is anti-war so should that make him not appear on FOX?) He goes on these shows and does these interviews to PROMOTE FREEDOM and promote his message and also people living in this country have a right to their opinion and a right to participate politically. He even accepted money from The Bunny Ranch, Paul is a christian and doesn't like prostitution but The Bunny Ranch is a legal business in Nevada and the owner has a right to send money to a candidate and they should accept it.

As far as being a creationist, he never talks about his religion unless asked (unlike most politicians seeking office) BUT his own views do not influence his views on everyone's freedom. He isn't going to shove creationism down the throats of American school children unlike Bush. I disagree with some of Paul's personel views BUT I actually trust him to give me the FREEDOM to persue my own views. We need freedom to make our own choices and that's why we need him in office.

.
post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
"ps. I think you also have to consider that when he claims to be for a pure interpretation of the Constitution, how does he justify those articles about promoting the general welfare? You can't just pretend they're not there.
"Removing what's left of the social safety net DOES promote the general welfare. People will be better off!"

And that's what Libertarians claim, too. I don't particularly see why this should be so, but that's what they say.
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
As far as being a creationist, he never talks about his religion unless asked (unlike most politicians seeking office) BUT his own views do not influence his views on everyone's freedom.
Yeah, but they tell us he's either really stupid or a liar. If he doesn't have the critical thinking skills necessary to tell fact from fairytale, then he isn't fit for the presidency. If he does but says otherwise to pander to the godbotherers, then he's a pandering liar.

Then there's the racist publications and the willingness to interfere in the medical decisions of Americans and the attempt to hush up the fags in the name of 'strengthening' the American family (because gays are all foreign orphans, I suppose) and all that fun stuff that points toward his being as odious as the rest of the Republican offerings.

You can have him.
post #45 of 53
You know...if I were racist in a position of power in today's society, and I wanted to strengthen that position of power even further, I'd probably do everything I could to make it look like I wasn't a racist.

Say, by citing Civil Rights leaders and activists as heroes and as an inspiration to me.

Also, it is the job of Congress to manage the spending of American tax dollars...so what if he wanted to pay for the medal himself?! The rest of Congress wasn't going to support that because it sets a retarded precedent. Giving Rosa Parks a medal on tax dollars is a noble and worthy cause...period.

His schtick gets old really fast.
post #46 of 53
Yeah, I love that. Basically, the defense seems to be that Paul obviously isn't a racist, because he says he isn't. We should just believe him, I guess. After all, why would a politician lie about something like that?
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Then there's the racist publications and the willingness to interfere in the medical decisions of Americans and the attempt to hush up the fags in the name of 'strengthening' the American family (because gays are all foreign orphans, I suppose) and all that fun stuff that points toward his being as odious as the rest of the Republican offerings.

You can have him.
Perhaps all the gays are foreign orphans from Iran? As there are no gays there.
post #48 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke
Perhaps all the gays are foreign orphans from Iran? As there are no gays there.
No, my cousin's wife is from Texas. She left because of all the Texans.

I imagine Antarctica has an extremely low gay population as well. Another similarity with Iran is that both subjects are completely irrelevant to Ron Paul's meaningless rhetoric about strong families.

Odd that a libertarian wants to enact social legislation. Strangely though, it's not the least bit odd that a Republican thinks who strangers sleep with is any of his business.
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
Ron Paul is not a damn racist...he often sites MLK and Rosa Parks as hero's for practicing civil disobedience. He believes everyone should be not seen in terms of groups (blacks, gays, whites,) but as individuals and every individual should be treated the same way.
C'mon Sidious, you really can't be that naive. This is a direct quote from him (not some newsletter he clumsily is trying to disavow);

Quote:
In the Speaker's Lobby, Paul describes the federal airline security system as an extra-constitutional affront to civil liberties, and thinks security should be handled by the private sector. Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants. "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked," he says. "Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious ... I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic."
This is how he really feels, basically how do you want me to be convinced by your argument when he probably thinks I personally don't look "very American" to him?

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
This is how he really feels, basically how do you want me to be convinced by your argument when he probably thinks I personally don't look "very American" to him?
Which is stupid, because it's right there in your name!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Greatest 2min answer of ALL TIME