Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[whodare]

Ok, what Disco is saying here helped me realize a nagging concern I have about Paul. For example, Paul's site says: "Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners..."



I find the idea that a private corporation or individual should handle tasks of great common concern illogical and undemocratic. A transfer of control of things like security, education, military, and energy use from government to private, along with a decrease in regulation of the private sector, could lead just as quickly to corporate tyranny in these aspects of our lives, as dangerous if not more than a government tyranny.

1the idea is that the company or person would be liable in court if anything happen under their watch on their property

2 there are plenty of examples of private schools being the best, Ivy league?

3 military privatized, we already do that, Blackwater? id rather have a corp try tyranny than a gov as there will be another competing corp that isnt tyrannical


I don't see where Paul says that, but if its true, doesn't transferring control of some of these departments and projects to so many states sound like a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare?

im not positive which ones would go to the states but in most circumsatnces i think it would be easier for a state to make their own regs as if the fed does it they have to use blanket policies that dont work someplaces, as its too difficult to regulate 50 states independently from one governing body,

if that makes sense?



But why should a private owner be given ownership of something of value to the whole community, sometimes the whole nation? How does any other individual (real person) participate in the caring for and protection of a park or land that is controlled by a private entity with no democratic structures in place?

using that logic i could say that your house has value to the whole community why do you get ownership? you are the supreme ruler or "dictator" of your property arent you?



But what makes sense to one person (who happens to own a land) might not make sense to another. In the case of private ownership of a federal or communal land, the private owner has no obligation to consider the wishes of anyone other than themselves with respect to their property, right?

right, but as soon as anything you do on your land begins to effect your neighbors then you become liable for any damages in the court of law


This seems like a contradiction to me. The federal government shouldn't own land. Why? The American people are the government, in a democratic society. Government ownership of the land then is a way of communal ownership where the property is of concern and value to a whole community of people and not just one individual.

if we are the government than we are the owner your right, but the "public land" should belong to the state not the fed...

Transferring ownership of such things to the state pretends to solve this, and probably does in some cases. But rarely does private ownership make sense to me. I would like to see more details about what Paul proposes for certain federal departments, properties, etc. and whether he advocates state or private ownership. If you can point me to these details, I'd appreciate it.



In general my concern is what concerns me about American libertarians in general. The singular focus on individual freedom and private ownership can be a threat to democratic society where it is supposed that a balance between individual interest and communal interest must always be kept, and the structures for such a balance and for the participation of the individual in the interests of the communal is called democratic government. A government that doesn't govern with democratic structures is a tyranny. But the transfer of ownership of communal interests to private entities easily becomes corporate tyranny, which sounds worse in my mind. A corporation doesn't even pretend to be structured democratically, neither inside within the ranks of employees and decision making, nor outside in its complete lack of transparency to the community. Is it that libertarians have completely lost hope in our ability to maintain democratic structures in government, so they just say, to hell with it, the democratic project failed, only the individual's freedom and self-interest remains?

i guess we should let the majority decide everything....

personal liberties are all that matter if you want to really be free, but the again some people dont comprehend the responsibility of personal freedom.

corporate tyranny might exist in a free society and they should be allowed to exist, competition would wipe them out...

 

[Bluenote]

whoah another coherent post from a critic


i guess no one is fit to run the country and we should just live in anarchy....

if you think the last step to tyranny is Paul you must have drank something...

and this is a thread about Paul what the hell does Perry have to do with anything let alone his corruption...

it would be a logical falacy to say because many texas politicians are corrupt so is Paul...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Blah blah blah , the usual Paulista strawmen , logical fallacies , rabbit trails and assorted dodgeball tactics.

Color me unsurprised

If however the above is all that you can come up with then I'll just "shrug" and move on. Mayhap you should look up the locales I mentioned in Texas and get a clue as to why you're gonna need more than your hyperbole and semantic gyrations above.

And guess what? Right now in this country , at least until someone like Paul gets in we're free to speak our mind as regards political candidates , therefore if I wish to compare Paul to to other Texas politisleazes I will do so.

The fact that you immediately took the ad hominem route of arguement instead of calmly addressing the specific talking point speaks veritable volumes , and the thunder without any lightning is typical of Paulistas utilisng feigned outrage and indignation as support for the inability to actually address the blood and bones of the specifics.

The irony being that in general the Paulista crowd , whilst *claiming* to be about " freedom and liberty" , would deny others the "freedom and liberty" to speak their mind based solely upon the thin criteria of " GGASSSPPP!!!!! He dared to say something negative about GuruPaul.".

In closing if you wish to discuss this in a reasonable manner I'll do so , if however you choose to follow the path you have embarked upon with your answer to me , well I'll just chuckle and pass on by and you can splutter in your KoolAid at the thought that I care little for your candidate either as a candidate or an ethical man.

And see , here's the FACT , the one that disturbs the lemmings rageing along behind O'Bummer , or RipUsOffnHowRomney or PustulentPaul.....the FACT is that it is STILL our RIGHT to choose to " not like" a candidate if we wish , and that RIGHT cannot be removed by fanatics of a particular political stripe or ideology , not yet at any rate. And frankly it's become rather amusing when Paulistas , OR democrats , OR republicans thrash about and descend into ad hominem as you have done.

And you lot will never become cognisant of why you get the reaction you do.


Now I'll move along , I've said what I wanted to say. And of course you and other Paulista's will burn me in effigy for the next umpteen pages , complain to mods , try to get me banned , all sorts of things.....merely for the " crime" of not particularly caring for your candidate and not thinking that he's the next........


CHANGE.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... corporate tyranny might exist in a free society and they should be allowed to exist, competition would wipe them out...

Greenspan thought the market would prevent virtually zero interest rates from perpetuating massive lending fraud. Greenspan was wrong and publicly admitted it.

 

[whodare]

For the record, I don't imagine Ron Paul wanting free markets to govern. "States rights" means "states" may govern as they see fit.

No problem there.

Then you have interstate commerce. States have no interstate arbitrating power. No problem tying up the courts here - states can't arbitrate betwixt themselves. As for tying up courts, intrastate squabbles would more than take care of that, as happened under the AOC.

Then you have what sac beh already mentioned, 50 different entities for every different thing.

Global trade would be a nightmare if navigating 50 different standards of trade. We'd be like 50 third-world countries attempting to compete with nations.

do you say that because you dont belive the states are capable of making trade regulation that is sensible. or do you just believe the fed does a better job?

either way our trade is fucked already might as well let the 50 states go at it independently so they can regulate in a way that doesnt hurt them....

blanket policies only work for those who have the money to lobby them into a favorable shape

 

[whodare]

Greenspan thought the market would prevent virtually zero interest rates from perpetuating massive lending fraud. Greenspan was wrong and publicly admitted it.

just another example of blanket policies and a single fiat currency not working because they only help a few...

we dont have anywhere near a free market on the federal level so its hard to say that i would be any better but isnt it worth a try..

 

[whodare]

Blah blah blah , the usual Paulista strawmen , logical fallacies , rabbit trails and assorted dodgeball tactics.

Color me unsurprised

i dont debate logical falacy i point it out

If however the above is all that you can come up with then I'll just "shrug" and move on. Mayhap you should look up the locales I mentioned in Texas and get a clue as to why you're gonna need more than your hyperbole and semantic gyrations above.


And guess what? Right now in this country , at least until someone like Paul gets in we're free to speak our mind as regards political candidates , therefore if I wish to compare Paul to to other Texas politisleazes I will do so.

i never said you wernt free to say what you please, on the contrary i promote your right to speak your mind

The fact that you immediately took the ad hominem route of arguement instead of calmly addressing the specific talking point speaks veritable volumes , and the thunder without any lightning is typical of Paulistas utilisng feigned outrage and indignation as support for the inability to actually address the blood and bones of the specifics.

i did address your points and also pointed out whay the perry argument was wrong, but go back a page and look at the blood and bones i posted..

The irony being that in general the Paulista crowd , whilst *claiming* to be about " freedom and liberty" , would deny others the "freedom and liberty" to speak their mind based solely upon the thin criteria of " GGASSSPPP!!!!! He dared to say something negative about GuruPaul.".

are you sure you didnt drink something, did you even read the quote in my last response to you

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall

In closing if you wish to discuss this in a reasonable manner I'll do so , if however you choose to follow the path you have embarked upon with your answer to me , well I'll just chuckle and pass on by and you can splutter in your KoolAid at the thought that I care little for your candidate either as a candidate or an ethical man.

so whos a better option as i really am all ears but all these ears have heard is ron paul bashing based on a misunderstanding of his policies

And see , here's the FACT , the one that disturbs the lemmings rageing along behind O'Bummer , or RipUsOffnHowRomney or PustulentPaul.....the FACT is that it is STILL our RIGHT to choose to " not like" a candidate if we wish , and that RIGHT cannot be removed by fanatics of a particular political stripe or ideology , not yet at any rate. And frankly it's become rather amusing when Paulistas , OR democrats , OR republicans thrash about and descend into ad hominem as you have done.

whats more amusing is how people dont understand that if you arent going to debate based on facts but instead logical fallacy there is no point debating

And you lot will never become cognisant of why you get the reaction you do.


Now I'll move along , I've said what I wanted to say. And of course you and other Paulista's will burn me in effigy for the next umpteen pages , complain to mods , try to get me banned , all sorts of things.....merely for the " crime" of not particularly caring for your candidate and not thinking that he's the next........

i dont care if you hate him dont like him whatever i dont bash your opinion nor would i pursue a mod over you sharing you opinion

CHANGE.

and if you do get attacked its because you attacked paul with false and unsubstantiated claims to back up your beliefs

 

[SacredBreh]

^^^^^^No we won't burn you.... Bluenote

^^^^^^No we won't burn you.... Bluenote

By Bluenote--Now I'll move along , I've said what I wanted to say. And of course you and other Paulista's will burn me in effigy for the next umpteen pages , complain to mods , try to get me banned , all sorts of things.....merely for the " crime" of not particularly caring for your candidate and not thinking that he's the next........
CHANGE.

You have not said anything that has not been said... nothing special. The grumblings of another hater who offer no alternatives or answers. Easy to sit back and pick Ron Paul apart but quite another to offer better answers from those on the table.

Could be Paul will continue us on the road we seem to be traveling but he is the only one offering an alternative to the other puppets on the stage.

It would be funny if we as a country were not in such dire straights.

I for one am going to take Ron Paul's 30 years of record and vote.

Peace

 

[Bluenote]

and if you do get attacked its because you attacked paul with false and unsubstantiated claims to back up your beliefs

Bullshit. And I note with quite some amusement that you're *still* not addressing specifics , nope you're still attempting to vilify the individuals.

False claims..................what like Paul has been a feeding at the political hogtrough for 24 years?

Hey , hows about that " false claim" about the average man in Victoria or Galveston? Want to try that one on? Have you ever even * been* to Pauls home district? I ws freaking * born there*.

Yeah , you want to DO this up brown? Keep pushing , I was leaving the thread after just having my say out of respect for the FEW Paul supporters who actually act like adults and discuss things reasonably.

Now of course you * could* keep pushing , until I start tossing things out there such as Pork that came along back to the 14th congressional district , pork that Paul *alegedly* voted " against" , too bad isn't it that he threw the earmarks in there in the first place and then voted "against" the bill knowing full well it would pass.

Hey maybe you;d like to have me address the abortion issue and Pauls " freedom and liberty " stance?

Or should I point out his mangling and twisting of Spooner and Rothbard in order to impress FadBois of Libertarianism who have read nothing but the Cliff's Notes.


In other words if YOU are going to come at ME over this then actually bring something other than useless , juvenile " you're a stupid liar and a big meanie".....rhetoric.


Yeah you lot are so proud " we didn't EAT the pill" , meanwhile you march behind Paul like a buncha somnambulent mindless lemmings.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Greenspan thought the market would prevent virtually zero interest rates from perpetuating massive lending fraud. Greenspan was wrong and publicly admitted it.

Greenspan is learning what all leaders of command economies learn. You can drive and control markets for a while pulling this lever (interest rates) and that lever (money printing), but when you become too irresponsible, too corrupt, and too authoritarian the market will come and take away your printing press and destroy the hubris that led him and his entire Federal Reserve institution to think markets can be controlled by a few decision makers.

I'm all for Glass-Stegall. I don't mind regulations, but they have to be in the understanding that markets are more powerful than men (ie Austrian Business Cycle).

 

[sac beh]

i guess we should let the majority decide everything....

Only in matters that are shared concerned among the majority. That's what is meant by democratic government, right? Matters of shared concerned should be decided politically, that is in a shared forum where individuals come together and govern the commons. Matters that are strictly of concern to the individual should be decided by the individual, of course.

But if we're talking about the issues of greatest shared concern, the question is, democratic decision-making or private decision-making? As I said, in some cases state-level decision-making is a good compromise. But when its not, private is certainly worse than government, as there are no democratic structures built into private entities that allow the individual to have say in matters of shared concern. There are such structures in the government of a democratic society (whether they be implemented well or not).

If you were to build democratic structures into a private entity (individual or corporate) who owns something of common concern, then you've only converted into what democratic government already is (or should be). As defined, private ownership of a common is tyrannical over and against every other individual. The individual has no say, except perhaps in courts, which I can only imagine would have to become so powerful and complicated as to become mini federal governments controlled by a judge or jurors.

corporate tyranny might exist in a free society and they should be allowed to exist, competition would wipe them out...

This sounds like a free market myth to me, something a traditional libertarian like Adam Smith wrote about and believed to be true under the strict conditions of the theoretical free market. Tyrannies sometimes try to wipe each other out, and they sometimes re-enforce each other in their shared goal to maintain goal over the majority. Aren't there corporate tyrannies existing together in some sectors of the US economy now?

using that logic i could say that your house has value to the whole community why do you get ownership? you are the supreme ruler or "dictator" of your property arent you?

There are some edge case examples that make it seem that way, but I think its a false slippery slope. For the most part I don't care about your house and you don't care about mine. We care more about the road that goes past them both and the single water source that feeds them both. Like a true libertarian, I understand the responsibility of personal freedom: I give control of what is yours to you, and I ask that control of those most important issues that concern us both be given over to us both in a democratic structure.

Bringing it back to Ron Paul, I think he's unclear on some of these points like whether state or private ownership is preferred in various areas. And that's a very important distinction. So I can only induce from the libertarian view what could happen under a Paul presidency. And I admit, when I put some of these concerns up against the possibility of national MJ reform, its a tough decision.

 

[SacredBreh]

Wow..... DB that was really big of him..... wasn't it!

Wow..... DB that was really big of him..... wasn't it!

Greenspan thought the market would prevent virtually zero interest rates from perpetuating massive lending fraud. Greenspan was wrong and publicly admitted it.

Whats the point? He and all the Cronies on wall street and the lending market still got their money AND BONESES!

Then, they printed up 15 Trillion (that we know of) for their other cronies across the ocean.

Quote by Greenspan--Ooooppppsssss........ my bad.

Peace

 

[Bluenote]

You have not said anything that has not been said... nothing special. The grumblings of another hater who offer no alternatives or answers. Easy to sit back and pick Ron Paul apart but quite another to offer better answers from those on the table.

Could be Paul will continue us on the road we seem to be traveling but he is the only one offering an alternative to the other puppets on the stage.

It would be funny if we as a country were not in such dire straights.

I for one am going to take Ron Paul's 30 years of record and vote.

Peace

Sighhhh......yeah uh huh , surething.....hater etcetcetc. Talk about things that are nothing special and that have been said before.


I gotta laugh , here y'all sit telling someone that is originally *from* Pauls district all the chapter and verse on Ron Paul; , and puppets................GOLLY gee I spent fifty plus year on this earth and I didn't know that..thanks for informing me.


Here's the problem for YOU , Paul was ***long ago*** bought and paid for ***just like ANY other southeast Texas politician***.


And the old avoidance tactic right after the usual insults i.e. you're stupid and whay woul;d you do??"........that's typical seeing as how we *never* got to my opinion on that , nope y'all started with the insulting , judgemental crap rhetoric and defensive accusations immediately upon my stating that I don't care for Ron Paul..

And maybe you won't " burn " me , but it seems that I kinda lit up your strawmen in the above.

See all *you* see is that ( again( YOU DARED TO SAY SMOETHING AGAINST RON PAUL SO YOU MUST DIE!!!!!

Did you BOTHER to ascertain where i might possibly agree with the man , did you bother to ascertain the SPECIFICS of my objections.


Nope................it's the usual " U be a HaterZ so u less than human" grunting.

We might have found some common ground in discussing his stance on economics , the Austrian versus Keynesian schools of thought etc.........

But hey I'm a " HaterZ..........a stoooopeed haterz drinking haterade".


Here's your closing irony , at one point I considered voting for Paul since I'm a Libertarian , the fanatic thrall in which he holds many of his adherents and their cultlike behavior is part of the reason I won't vote for him , fanatics of any stripe will inevitably be deleterious to the country as a whole entity.

In other words the behavior exhibited by the Paulistas within this thread is one of the reasons I won't vote for Paul.

And it's my *right* to not vote for the man , and quite frankly if the fact that I won't vote for him sticks in someones craw I really don't much care the proverbial obese rodents posterior in the cheese factory about it.

 

[Bluenote]

Ok, what Disco is saying here helped me realize a nagging concern I have about Paul. For example, Paul's site says: "Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners..."

I find the idea that a private corporation or individual should handle tasks of great common concern illogical and undemocratic. A transfer of control of things like security, education, military, and energy use from government to private, along with a decrease in regulation of the private sector, could lead just as quickly to corporate tyranny in these aspects of our lives, as dangerous if not more than a government tyranny.



I don't see where Paul says that, but if its true, doesn't transferring control of some of these departments and projects to so many states sound like a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare?



But why should a private owner be given ownership of something of value to the whole community, sometimes the whole nation? How does any other individual (real person) participate in the caring for and protection of a park or land that is controlled by a private entity with no democratic structures in place?




But what makes sense to one person (who happens to own a land) might not make sense to another. In the case of private ownership of a federal or communal land, the private owner has no obligation to consider the wishes of anyone other than themselves with respect to their property, right?



This seems like a contradiction to me. The federal government shouldn't own land. Why? The American people are the government, in a democratic society. Government ownership of the land then is a way of communal ownership where the property is of concern and value to a whole community of people and not just one individual.

Transferring ownership of such things to the state pretends to solve this, and probably does in some cases. But rarely does private ownership make sense to me. I would like to see more details about what Paul proposes for certain federal departments, properties, etc. and whether he advocates state or private ownership. If you can point me to these details, I'd appreciate it.

In general my concern is what concerns me about American libertarians in general. The singular focus on individual freedom and private ownership can be a threat to democratic society where it is supposed that a balance between individual interest and communal interest must always be kept, and the structures for such a balance and for the participation of the individual in the interests of the communal is called democratic government. A government that doesn't govern with democratic structures is a tyranny. But the transfer of ownership of communal interests to private entities easily becomes corporate tyranny, which sounds worse in my mind. A corporation doesn't even pretend to be structured democratically, neither inside within the ranks of employees and decision making, nor outside in its complete lack of transparency to the community. Is it that libertarians have completely lost hope in our ability to maintain democratic structures in government, so they just say, to hell with it, the democratic project failed, only the individual's freedom and self-interest remains?

REREAD this folks , it's a veritable template of exactly how a complete ***corporatocracy*** will come about under a Paul regime.


And YES I do mean regime.

 

[dagnabit]

cant refute your "points" one by one? lol

cant refute your "points" one by one? lol

Hmmmmm............ I'll probably only post in this thread a single time , what I'm about to say won't be real popular.

not a "point" to refute just nonsense

Firstly , I'm originally from Texas , SE Texas , the 14th Congrssional District of Texas.

not a point

For those of y'all who are such ardent supporters of Paul I invite y'all to walk down the street in Victoria , Galveston etc and ask the average citizen just excactly how they feel about Ron Paul.

why waste the money on a plane ticket to visit?
they obviously like something since they keep electing him.

" I hope they send the bastard to Washington so he'll get the hell out of our hair."

anecdotal and unsourced.

Direct quote. FOR THE RECORD:

direct quote of whom?

I completely despise both sides in all this , Democonartist , Republiconartist , makes no difference. Don't even bother with the " but you're a ---insert political pigionholing here----"........

no point there just preemptive hyperbole

And quite frankly why a bunch of otherwise rational logical folks would throw their weight behind someone with nothing more that rehashed , regurgitated Spooner and Rothbard repeated too often and whom has been ( and this is key) *****shoving his nose in th hogtrough inside the Beltway for 24 years*****..........

more pointless hyperbole.
unless you are referring to his practice of earmarking in bills then voting against them...
it's been dealt with ad nausem just page back.
needless to say if the money is going to get spent anyway might as well have it earmarked rather than give the gov a blank check for $20k hammers.

Why folks would trust him over the rest of the pack of thieves and con artists is beyond me , and don't bother with " Oh but he's better than the rest.".............because at it's most basic analysis that's like looking at a whole slew of hogs and saying " hey that one right there has a bit less mud on it."

consistency and transparency come to mind.
juxtipose the good doc with any other's transparency and draw your own conclusions.
that and EVERY other candidate receives ungodly sums from GS/CB whereas the good doc receives ZERO

TWENTY FOUR years

but they all hate him?
24 FUCKING YEARS ov reelecting the hated doc?
you motherfuckers cant figure out a ballot or what?

Nah he's not just as crooked as Prurient-Pandering-Philandering Perry ( is there a SINGLE resident of Austin who doesn't have a "hookers-n-blow" story about Perry?

dunno?
is hookers and blow a non starter?
what does that have to do with paul?
do you have a paul hookers and blow yarn to spin?

golly he's more " honest" than whatever BushLeague affliction the ghost of Preston Bush has set free upon humanity lately , and gee whiz but we're so lucky to have him instead of the exploitative son-of-a-bitch known as LBJ ( need to dig that bastard up and make sure he's still dead)....

huh?
paul is a bushie?
with the no war and ending the pat act and all i think you are confused?

What Ron Paul IS , is the LAST stop on the way to tyranny

care to quantify?
how are POLICIES of doctor paul a step on the tyrannic blvd?






you see no POLICY or substance to refute in your post.
just bullshit to be shoveled.

hope this helps

 

[whodare]

Does the majority in Maine feel like the majority in Florida and what if the majority goes directly against the intrest of the minority,

What if it's only a 52%majority what then

 

[SacredBreh]

Bluenot... was not refering to you.....

Bluenot... was not refering to you.....

The Puppets I was refering to were the other "candidates" as in bought and paid for...... was not refering to you.

I am going off his voting record while serving and yes would like to hear from people who live in the area he served. Will explore after work tonight.

I was mainly expressing that those that come and present how bad Ron Paul is..... never tell us the ulternatives and why they are better.

Peace

 

[dagnabit]

more fluff and yet to see substance..

more fluff and yet to see substance..

Sighhhh......yeah uh huh , surething.....hater etcetcetc. Talk about things that are nothing special and that have been said before.

great point there!!!

I gotta laugh , here y'all sit telling someone that is originally *from* Pauls district all the chapter and verse on Ron Paul; , and puppets................GOLLY gee I spent fifty plus year on this earth and I didn't know that..thanks for informing me.

so there is a policy you re unhappy with as a constituent.
care to share?

Here's the problem for YOU , Paul was ***long ago*** bought and paid for ***just like ANY other southeast Texas politician***.

by whom?
care to source and spread this insider knowledge?

And the old avoidance tactic right after the usual insults i.e. you're stupid and whay woul;d you do??"........that's typical seeing as how we *never* got to my opinion on that

shouldn't you have offered your opinion in your "first and only" post?

,

nope y'all started with the insulting , judgemental crap rhetoric and defensive accusations immediately upon my stating that I don't care for Ron Paul..

so far you have not touched on policy or substance.why?

And maybe you won't " burn " me , but it seems that I kinda lit up your strawmen in the above.

policy?

See all *you* see is that ( again( YOU DARED TO SAY SMOETHING AGAINST RON PAUL SO YOU MUST DIE!!!!!

policy?

Did you BOTHER to ascertain where i might possibly agree with the man , did you bother to ascertain the SPECIFICS of my objections.

why should we "bother to ascertain"? should you have offered something of substance in any of your posts?

Nope................it's the usual " U be a HaterZ so u less than human" grunting.

if you are getting the same response from multiple individuals in different settings it may not be the individuals.....

We might have found some common ground in discussing his stance on economics , the Austrian versus Keynesian schools of thought etc.........

but instead you post nonsense about bush ghosts and whatnot

But hey I'm a " HaterZ..........a stoooopeed haterz drinking haterade".

because you have yet to offer a single policy or substantiative rejoinder.
just offal about "road to tyranny"

Here's your closing irony , at one point I considered voting for Paul since I'm a Libertarian , the fanatic thrall in which he holds many of his adherents and their cultlike behavior is part of the reason I won't vote for him , fanatics of any stripe will inevitably be deleterious to the country as a whole entity.

In other words the behavior exhibited by the Paulistas within this thread is one of the reasons I won't vote for Paul.

And it's my *right* to not vote for the man , and quite frankly if the fact that I won't vote for him sticks in someones craw I really don't much care the proverbial obese rodents posterior in the cheese factory about it.

no irony..
but i would ask who is your alternative for "our cause" as that is what the thread is about

or please site specific policy differences as opposed to platitudes offered thusfar.

 

[Bluenote]

not a "point" to refute just nonsense


not a point

Blah bl;ah blalalalablah , same old same old. Same " anybody who doesn't see it like we do is stupid".....crap.


Yup " freedom and Liberty" , but only if you follow Paul so close your nose is brown.


Yupppp , I guess I'm stupid , since *you* are of course " blind" enough to have missed the various talking point I opened up then I guess we're quite a pair..............oh WHAt? You're NOT blind?


Golly , I guess you just avoided 'em then.


And of course the usual " well there's no alternative look at the others"..............there's that Hog with just a bit less mud on it again , it is however STILL a Hog.

Get something STRAIGHT here , you're shooting in the freaking dark and MISSING with that crap , because I don't care for a SINGLE damned one of 'em from the current resident of the Oval Office right down to the " Well I might run" fools like BimboRific Palin Donald ' I can't Afford a Decent Toupee' Trump , Hitlerery , Jeb BushLeague or ANY of the rest of the piratical bastards.

My view of DC nowadays can best be summed up as being solved by two truckloads of lamp-post , a truckload of rope and all the available politicians.

Some assembly required.

 

[SacredBreh]

Keep it clean Bluenote..... don't want the thread locked and read my last post.

Peace

 

[dagnabit]

Blah bl;ah blalalalablah , same old same old. Same " anybody who doesn't see it like we do is stupid".....crap.


Yup " freedom and Liberty" , but only if you follow Paul so close your nose is brown.

AWESOME POST!!!!!

now i understand the policies you disagree with of the good Dr's!!
i also now know who "bought and payed for" him!!!

thanks for the info.



no substance