i've been saying that since last year. goldman sachs against goldman sachs... either way goldman sachs wins. that's the way they roll...
greedy fucking bastards
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
i've been saying that since last year. goldman sachs against goldman sachs... either way goldman sachs wins. that's the way they roll...
greedy fucking bastards
Cant believe you ran to mods to get the thread closed over a reference that blew over your head(oh shit he said blew and head must be racism)
WHere do you get anything at all having to do with sexual orientation from those posts?!?!?!
Scrying stones and the practice of reading entrails are both shamanic rituals for seeing the future...
The comments were directed at your prestidigitation..
Sometimes you are FUCKING dense!
Last edited:
Sounds like someone wants to say anything but "yes we would have been much better off"
I think Rand took the middle road.
Doesn't really seem like an endorsement to me(as others have suggested). Just seems like Rand Paul is trying to avoid damaging his father's candidacy by responding politely to the idea. He's a first term senator, of course he'd be honored to be considered as VP by the Republican front-runner.
[Also, note that this recent talk of a Paul/Romney collab is originating from Santorum and his campaign. ]
I read the same thing and gathered there were multiple scenarios, based on strength of economy. Reuters didn't perform the analysis, they reported the outcome.
What would be less slanted, both scenarios showing black? We can compare strong GDP with weak GDP figures. We can't contrast a strong economy vs a strong economy. That might infer that Ron Paul wouldn't see less than strong economies and that would be speculation.
Check out the part you didn't copy.
SacredBreh
Member
^^^^^^^^^
Agreed...... Marquis
I don't think it is the first time certain people have trolled and flamed in an attempt to force the mods to shut the thread down..... It has been asked numerous occassions to keep it civil so there would not be a need. Those requests were in general but those involved know exactly who they are.....
Peace
Agreed...... Marquis
I don't think it is the first time certain people have trolled and flamed in an attempt to force the mods to shut the thread down..... It has been asked numerous occassions to keep it civil so there would not be a need. Those requests were in general but those involved know exactly who they are.....
Peace
You think? Ron Paul would wax SS if the electorate would allow it. W tried to privatize SS and the electorate said no. And this was years before the Wall Street mortgage security bust.
When a conservative tells you they'll shore up SS, they're talking private sector. Whether it's totally private where you're contributions are earned and lost in the stock market, all the way down to private vouchers that are virtually dimes to dollars.
Americans aren't stupid. We know there are more retirees than workers at this point. We also know we pay for Social Security and it doesn't add to the deficit or the national debt. We know that qualified bean counters can manipulate the payout so that SS is solvent for our children and their children.
We know that SS doesn't work for conservatives because conservatives don't likey. It's got little to do with the shortfall. It has everything to do with the idea that government shouldn't be doing this.
So rather than trust a guy who doesn't want SS, I'll trust math and ask folks like Ron Paul to stop raiding the SS trust.
Is it published?
As of Sept 2011, there are more than 1.2 million active troops in the military. Where would we put em?
Not exactly true. One party is philosophical against SS and wants to end it. Maybe you too?
I don't personally feel that media misrepresents the guy. IUn fact, Ron's such a hyper speaker, it takes a virtual slo-mo replay to pick up the gist because Ron covers the gambit of talking points, no matter the question.
For example, last night Paul declared that the pill isn't immoral. Sounds like he's disagreeing with the most chaste candidate ever to take the debate stage - Rick Santorum. But he goes on to best Santorum by declaring it's the sex that's immoral and that's the crux for the pill. We're not talking right to life, we're talking contraception.
And the country's currently most popular libertarian is saying you are immoral if you have sex with no intent of procreation. He's even said he'd like the government to stop all abortions. IMO, conflicts with libertarianism. RP is a Republican.
This was mentioned earlier. Depending on the audience, Ron's right at home discussing the Kennedy conspiracy and or the 911 conspiracy as government plots. Or, he's lambasting Jake Tapper for inquiring on national television.
"Will" is the key word. I'll admit, Ron Paul has THE most dynamic stump. Yet there are no details past "end the fed", "gold standard" and "bring home the troops". The president isn't a dictator. In most cases the president has a congress to drag along, not sure how 1 in 620 will work out.
I'd add I wouldn't assume how he'll do it - because he's never broached that part.
And waiting until terrorists show up on our shores to do anything about it might be too little too late. Might there be a happy medium where we indeed cull our excess military while simultaneously addressing threats? After all, the guy doesn't address what we do when bringing home our troops doesn't end transgressions.
I'm all for weed reform. I'm not for legalizing all drugs to get it. Why do we require bookend solutions? I'm not sure I want my (or your) kids having to broach the subject of whether they'll experiment with legalized hard drugs. I know when I was growing up, being illegal had something to do with not going there. Take that away and I might have reconsidered. I've heard Paul say, "we're adults" but I was a kid then.
The impression I get is that Ron Paul is currently playing surrogate for Mitt Romney. Romney has enough money to buy out Newt and Rick and it's apparent Mitt's not going after Ron. It's apparent Ron's going after the possible frontrunner, so long as the frontrunner is Santorum. If the frontrunner's Mitt, where's Ron's negative ads? His own son said he'd be honored to be considered as VP - for Mitt Romney? I know that was the question but Mitt just happens to be running against his own dad.
you totally prove my point. you are so wrong it's funny. he has very good sensible peaceful plans to deal with foreign nations. everyone knows that all the crap the US has been doing has only encouraged the terrorists and made their recruitment easier. you are the perfect example of what i mean, if you really had spent the hours listening to what he actually says when the msm is trying to trip him up with their bs, you'd know how misinformed you are about his intentions. he said that he knows that we can't cut peoples SS and similar programs, while he is philosophically against that stuff, he knows that too many people are dependent on these programs for them to be abolished just like that. but he also knows that the 60 trillion in promises made to future generations and creditors all over the world can never be paid, because the money for these programs was misused and misspent on other stuff making the programs bankrupt and dependent on perpetually creating more debt to pay for them.
you can not think you know Ron Pauls plans if you are taking someone else's word for it. listen and watch the interviews posted here, specially the longer ones, they even tried to trip him up with 3 people asking him questions together with a harsh glare shining on his head and he talks nothing but common sense, no matter how hard they try and imply the crap you are implying above, he just shuts them up with simple basic common sense. at one point they try to make it seem bad to have principles, it's incredible, they are like don't you think having principles is bad nowadays? he's like how can you want someone without principles, hes astounded at the idiotic implication. like i say, he seems the only straight shooter who means what he says, so all you have to do is listen to what he says to know what he will really work to achieve.
Yeah, I wouldn't consider it an endorsement. I wouldn't balk if Rand came back and said I was wrong. Rand was eloquent and there's no reason to make hay over everything. Just the little aspect that his father's running for president and the interviewer asked about Romney. IMO, that's weird. Rand didn't interject something like, "Well, you know my father is also running for president..." or something to that effect.
Does all this mean Paul's not running for president, he's merely attempting to score more libertarian planks in the Republican platform? I think that would be a reach but the curiosity is still there.
That's a good point but I've been hearing pundits for months speculating that Paul's strategy doesn't appear to lead to a majority of delegates, let alone the necessary amount to secure the nomination. They also added that Paul and Romney negotiated an agreement to not negative ad each other.
IMO, this violates the clause that states candidates and their soft-money pacs can't coordinate. If Ron and Mitt made an agreement that involves their political action committees, I don't see how that escapes coordination.
Mitt may be in a scrape over a 2007 ad that's running right now. The 2007 run of the ad ended with, "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message." The 2012 run of the same ad ends with Romney's pac endorsement. According to a watchdog, this constitutes coordination on the part of Mitt and his pac.
So mitt and Ron decide they're not going after each other. That agreement is only as good as their respective pac's cooperation yet it's illegal to do it. So how did these pacs know not to go after each others' candidate?
no apology?
or even an acknowledgement you were waaaay of the mark?
you have been holding that little grudge nugget this long only to find out you were just being a douche...
This thread isn't just about Ron Paul. It's about the many issues we face as citizens of the United States of America who want the war on drugs, the wars over seas, the war on our economy, and the war on personal freedom to end.
It's your own words, verbatim. I couldn't system quote because the thread's closed.
BTW, you're anonymous rep wasn't from me.
I wouldn't show your work if you didn't keep comparing it to mine. Everybody knows you're not going to act like a ding a ling here, you don't want it closed.
Keep making it personal and I'll keep reminding you who you are. Make it about the topic and we don't go there.
See? You have the power. Whether you exercise it is your call.
BTW, you're anonymous rep wasn't from me.
I wouldn't show your work if you didn't keep comparing it to mine. Everybody knows you're not going to act like a ding a ling here, you don't want it closed.
Keep making it personal and I'll keep reminding you who you are. Make it about the topic and we don't go there.
See? You have the power. Whether you exercise it is your call.
Cojito
Active member
right. Ron Paul has said he's in favor of abolishing social security, just "not overnight." and we the people have said we want to keep social security. this puts Ron out of step with the majority of voters, particularly older Americans (many, if not most, republican) who payed into the system all their lives and have seen how useful it is.
and Ron's notion that sex is sinful unless you're married and making a baby is sure to turn off anyone who still has a pulse.
i know it's my words...
how the hell does it have any thing to do with being gay?!?!?
admit you were wrong or drop it but ffs man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruspex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying
Last edited:
The scenarios were based on all promises, promises without any actual plan and a middle ground, not strength of economy.
I know, slantedly
No, the fact that they did not show how the other candidates worst case scenarios would increase debt is obviously showing some agenda. Unless you chose not to quote those figures in your original post.
I hardly need everybody to kiss rons ass all the time. It would take all the fun out of the debate. Hes not my god, just my president.
I did, and it only showed the middle scenario for the other three.
I didn't quote the rest because I'm on a mobile and it will only let me go so far down in the post box. Thats the only reason. It also won't let me enter rep messages.
It sure makes correcting long posts a pain, but hey what can ya do.
Last edited:
the guy who knows what scrying and reading entrails is?
or
the guy who thinks scrying is a gay slur?
And anyone with a brain will be turned on by the fact he is the only candidate who doesn't try to force his beliefs on others.
The guy doesn't smoke pot but thinks we should be able to if we want, same for sex.
Oh yeah, just to remind you, social security will be broke by the end of the decade, so unless you are 55 or injured, you aren't getting a dime of your own money back.
We might as well have let a junkie hold onto our paychecks and said "hey I'm gonna need this later, so don't spend it"
Where are you getting that from?
"The Social Security and Medicare Trustees project a deficit this year of $46 billion and continuing annual shortfalls until the $2.5 trillion fund is exhausted in 2036. Beyond that point, the program is expected to have sufficient funds from continuing infusions of payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of promised benefit"
(according the SSA themselves, who should know)
Just to clear this up from Rons site:
And If you don't think unprotected sex when you aren't ready or willing to take care of the child is immoral youre part of the problem.
Dr Paul is against abortion not contraceptives
He is against any federal funding for either
- Status
