kamikazi89

__________________
katie west is the best

kitch

__________________

kamikazi89

the herman cain one was at least funny

__________________
katie west is the best

kitch

really I agree with his policy on more layers of LLBean.

__________________

kamikazi89

i like seeing Obama on his knees, i hear he does it every night

__________________
katie west is the best

Cerpin Taxt

__________________
Step Back. Evaluate. Recognize.

"All memory is really a form of regurgitation of undigested experience."
-Alan Watts

Galt

I wanna have a sex change so I can bear his children. Ron is pure stud.

The turn arounds that he pulls on these blithering idiots with their ill conceived "gotcha questions" are the stuff of Master Card commercials... priceless!

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still people left that are willing to try and spar with him. They faze him not. They call him every name they can think of, act as condescending as the biggest ass on the planet, marginalize and attempt to ignore his prescience, and all he does is step up and drive right over them with truth and logic. I'd be proud to have him represent me anywhere as anything, just on the basis of his integrity alone. Sad as hell that more people don't get it though, especially in places like here.

I have never encountered a Paul hater who had the stones or facts to refute or rationally dismantle his positions. They always resort to juvenile school yard taunts, yelled over their shoulder as they walk away, trying to exude confidence in their insecure ignorance. What the fuck is it that scares people so much about reading and learning? There's nothing that he says or stands for that they can't read from any number of non-partisan sources to vet on their own, and yet - they persist in trying to argue things that they don't understand with glib one liners and flawed regurgitation of status quo dogma.

I swear I'm not making this up. Just to further illustrate how immeasurably bankrupt of ideas and desperate the status quo has become... the latest MSM knock on Dr. Paul's supporters is... that they all think they are smarter because they've read stuff that other people haven't. So help me, those words came out of the mouth of a supposed journalist, with what I would presume would be at least a B.A. degree from a degree granting institution. It has become the mobius strip, containing the dumbest thing that I've ever heard, that Lewis Black warned of - playing over and over again in my head - til one day it just explodes. They think they are smarter 'cuz they read more... and that is wrong why??? They should assume that they are automatically dumber, and the more that they read, the worst that it gets? I'm not sure that I could even speak to someone capable of that level of stupid.

Perfect example: someone barfs up "his foreign policy is crazy". Then you ask "what exactly about trade rather than bombs and bribes strikes you as nuts?" Then crickets - or - they start shrieking "Iran's got nukes and we're all gonna die!" Give them the Israeli admission that this is false, give them our own CIA saying this is false, hell even Leon Pinata admits that they're at least three years away AT BEST! No matter... they'll just ignore all of that and persist that he's crazy.
Who's crazy in that scenario?

He has always pointed out that sanctions are acts of war, and if ya wanna start a fight, they work great. So what do we do - well place more sanctions of course. It's fucking history folks. This is even history that you can still read the truth of in spite of the revisionists efforts. Japan was targeted by sanctions. How the fuck did that work out? Hadn't noticed Cuba comin' around all that quick. Just when are they supposed to start actually accomplishing something - other than making us look like the biggest ass holes on the international block? It's all insane when the only sane fucker in the room is the one that they call crazy.

And again, it seems so quickly forgotten here: he is the ONLY candidate who has ever said straight up that the war on drugs is idiocy and not our government's business. Does anybody here not understand that by NOT voting for Ron Pau, itl is like voting to have your very own ass thrown in jail, have all your shit stolen by the government, and have your life completely ruined? WTF!? I can't believe there's even anything to discuss.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

adventure

Oh my the spreading (of) Santorum!

__________________
Coming Full Range

Galt

Spoken like a true connoisseur.
Care to opine, or are you just pinching off your typical anti-pithy antipathy.

Try harder... pretty please.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

Being

just got internet installed at the new house. just wanted to add... I see this thread is failing hard of bullshit still. HES FOR LIBERTY!! LIBERTY I TELL YOU!!

except for women, other races, etc.
oh yeah... having the liberty to have an abortion doesn't count... lull

its so easy. and you can call liberal bias all you want - this site provides links with facts and proof.

8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution | Addicting Info
10 Quotes That Make Ron Paul Sound Racist | Addicting Info
The Difference Between What Liberals Believe, What Libertarians Believe, And What Ron Paul Believes | Addicting Info


i'll be back in a few days when i have some more time

__________________
R.I.P. Gov

Galt

So the first sentence of your quotable authority includes an accusation that the Tea Party has a racial agenda. They then go on to prop up stereotypical hyperbole that their following "claims" do not support in any "factual" way what-so-ever.

"these so-called Constitutional conservatives don’t love the law – they’re trying to distort and rewrite the Constitution to subvert it to their wishes. These 8 facts serve as proof."

Yeah, that's like totally scholarly dude... go smoke a blunt moran.

The more I try to read this and take it seriously, the more I question your intelligence. If you honestly believe that what you offer as "fact" is just that, then you are an idiot... and I don't mean that in the generally insulting fashion that it is commonly used, but rather as a "FACT" based assertion, built upon your expressed lack of comprehension and using your own definition of the word. So let us take a look at your tome of fact. I have chosen to embolden your cited text in order to allow the contained quotes to hopefully be more easily understood in context. My comments follow each parsing.

1. Congress enjoys a Constitutional authority to provide social services.

WTF? Where exactly do you read anything that grants that "authority"? The Preamble states " PROMOTE the general welfare", NOT provide Welfare checks asshole - learn to fucking read. Aside from your reading deficiencies, the word "welfare" had no relevance as it was written in the Constitution to the tern that likely now supports your extended family.
Article One, Section One simply names the parties of Congress that make up the Legislative Branch - hence the title of that Section: "Legislature". It conveys nothing in terms of "POWERS". Have you in fact ever attended school and actually even read an outline, much less the document that you now pretend to understand so thoroughly?

The first and foremost power the Constitution grants Congress

Holy fucking idiot shit. This is actually Game Over retard, right here. No need to read any further, and since you don't actually read the shit that you try to spread as being your own thoughts coalesced by others, allow me to translate a rather important underpinning of Our Constitution that you and you idiot ilk obviously can't grasp - THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DOCUMENT IS TO LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT - THE GREATEST POWERS ARE OURS, NOT THEIRS!

is the right to “collect taxes…to provide for common defense and general welfare” of the nation.
Again - you hold these words and statements up as "fact", so I will continue to judge you as having spake them. The words "right" and "power" and "authority" are not synonyms. Section Eight of Article One grants Congress very specific and LIMITED powers... not unfuckinglimited. Again, the context of the word "welfare" has obviously scrambled your delicate little brain, but I'm not certain that any amount of explanation can ever help you understand that concept. The 16th Amendment clarifies exactly what type of income tax may be imposed, and here's a shocker for your socialist ass - what we have is not mentioned. Any income tax must be equally apportioned. That means for example that you can not impose a sliding scale that forces someone making $200K a year to pay a higher percentage of their income than a person making $50K a year. This would be a basic tenet of what pisses off Tea Party folk. That and the fact that we did just fine without a personal income tax for the first half of our country's existence.

Michele Bachmann and other radical Republicans
I have no love for "Pray the Gay Away", crazy for Christ cult cunt Bachmann and her cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs hubby - but a "fact" based paper has absolutely no business including verbage of this sort. You and I may think she is a complete twat, but citing her as a "radical" is completely out of place. Also simply making a sweeping statement of her and "other"(s) "ignoring the Constitution" is inaccurate at best. Who the fuck are the "others" 'cuz they don't all march in lockstep. Also, them choosing to twist, spindle and mutilate the Constitution is not them ignoring it. They are almost all lawyers, so what they do is try to find insidious ways to mold the law to suit their agendas - hence the importance of maintaining the sanctity of this primal reference document intact.

ignore this Constitutional imperative in their quest to dismantle all federal initiatives that aren’t explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.
More asshole word games. If it supports the Progressive agenda, an unconstitutional waste of our money is labeled an "initiative"... what bullshit.

If the Tea Party gets their way, it would mean:
The Tea Party is a large number of rather disparate parts. Do not presume to speak on, understand, or report on a sliver of that as being an honest representation of the whole dumbass.

The end of Medicare: Bachmann has said she wants to “wean” future retirees off guaranteed health coverage in old age.
Retard News Flash... Michelle Bachmann is not in the race moron.

The end of Social Security: Rick Perry calls our nation’s retirement security, which we fund through payroll taxes, a “Ponzi scheme.”
More News for Retarded fucks... Rick Perry's not in it either.

The end of federal funding for education: Just this week, Bachmann argued to eliminate the Department of Education claiming that federal oversight of education “eviscerates” parents’ Constitutional rights to administer education (see video).
Again - see above.
And for the record - the Tea Party was actually a Ron Paul movement that worthless cunts like Bachmann and Kane came to late in the game once their advisers made it clear that they were a force to be reckoned with in the coming mid-terms (back then). Prior to that they were all just stereotypical warmongering big government clones... which is to say, not really much different from all of the Democrats, except that one wanted to pay off their corporate pimps over the table and the other prefers to do it under the table. As for Perry... well he's a fucking idiot chimp, so let's all just be happy he's gone and leave it at that.

Obviously, the Tea Party’s strict constructionism
Constructionism is a term for a learning process principally, one that does not apply in this context.

doesn’t permit the common-sense, for-the-social-good governance the forefathers intended.
Once again, we have the Progressive cause attempting to be highlighted positively as "common sense" and "for-the-social-good governance", with the completely false remark that this socialist agenda is what the authors of the Constitution intended all along. I guess they just forgot to write it down, huh?

For further illustration, consider the current imperative to create jobs. Republicans are already opposing the bipartisan ideas in Obama’s American Jobs Act. The GOP appears ready to deny jobs to teachers and construction workers and strike down incentives for businesses to hire new workers.
This pablum is straight union bile and hyperbole with no basis in reality. First, government creates no real jobs. Expanding the size of government as a sham jobs program to try and tilt the numbers is as moronic as the asses that support what is KNOWN and PROVED to be an epic fail. There is nothing "bipartisan" about any single thing that this idiot fuck of a President has ever done, least of all his bullshit Jobs Act. If any of its moronic leftist lemmings bothered to read it first, they would realize this. It is primarily a union pay-off to muster support from his base for the coming election and does absolutely dick for the average American. Then it goes on to assume an understanding of the GOP agenda that does not exist. The elemental stupidity of attempting a prima facia case of that sort because they wish to curtail spending is asinine and not supportable. The only "incentive" to hire that any business will see in the near future, would be Obama becoming unemployed.

Nevertheless, Obama’s Sept. 8 jobs speech delivered a compelling defense of the most basic Constitutional principle of general welfare:
Nothing "compelling" or "Constitutionally principled" in anything that he said, unless you are an idiot who does not grasp the words written in the document, which I would suggest the majority of his supporters have never even attempted.

Sorry, but this post is already too long and I've only dealt with the first bullshit "fact" of eight mentioned. If you would begin your objections from some basis of intelligent thought, that reflected at least some modicum of genuine effort to learn and understand the real facts - I might find your opinion valid, but it is not. You are certainly entitled to one, but if you would like to attempt to assert that yours is superior to another in some way, having some honest material to support your claim would go along way toward exposing your ignorance, and by ignorance I am referencing your lack of knowledge.

How about, go back and start by reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I might even suggest getting acquainted with the Federalist Papers, but I would bet money that you and your ilk will simply continue to insist on commenting on things that you have no understanding of beyond what you are told. If that is all that you can muster, then at least be honest about it and admit that you are either too stupid, or too lazy, but please don't try to offer this type of lame tripe as actual scholarship. It's total crap.

Additionally and for future reference, should you decide that you would like to try again to condemn a candidate's policies, it might prove helpful to actually read them first. Every comment included in the supposed fact sheet that you cite is utter shit, and obviates the point that they also are completely unfamiliar with Dr. Paul's written plans. Yes, that's correct junior. You can actually go and read this shit if you were so inclined, but we already know that you won't...'cuz it's just too hard.

Being ignorant is not something that I would suggest you go out of your way to prove, it is already self evident.

Dr. Paul has a plan and rationale for everything that he proposes, and if you would like to debate these points on their relative merits, please, jump in. Otherwise, you just continue to reinforce the stereotype of status quo supporters as lazy morns and idiot lemmings who can only repeat what they are told to say and believe.


Sorry for the personal nature of the insults, but I am reacting in kind, because when you proffer something as blatantly intellectually insulting as your "8 Reasons " along with unfounded assumptions of racial bullshit, you are in "fact" being even more insulting from my perspective. If ya can't use honest facts then just fuck off and vote for more of the same. One day you may get a job by accident and discover you have been voting to support your own torment all along.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

kamikazi89

that kind of reasoning concerning the interstate commerce clause (contained in the addicting info site) is the backbone of federal marijuana prohibition, btw

__________________
katie west is the best

Kompressor

tl;dr, but considering Santorum is equally viable as Romney shows the sad state of affairs that Ron Paul has to deal with either as a Congressman or a President.

And this is still just the primaries.

__________________
Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

Terry

The thought of Santorum being president, even the nominee, is frankly terrifying to me.

If the man was anymore invested in what goes on in American homes he would be camped out in our bedrooms with a pair of binoculars.

All he offers is rage and bullshit morality and lectures on how wayward we have become. I imagine him on his anniversary, turning to his wife and asking "think we could handle another baby so that I could get sex?"

__________________
I don't know but I've been told,
If you never die you'll never grow old

kamikazi89

i find it highly unlikely santorum will be the nominee. unfortunately, if the nominee is someone other then paul the obomba administration won't be held accountable in any meaningful way for it's war policies and attacks on civil liberties

__________________
katie west is the best

Dr. Nick Nasty

Remember too that while all elections have shitty turnout in our elected oligarchy, primaries have the worst. (usually less than 15 percent!)

Santo would be destroyed in any election with over a 30 percent turnout rate. He is a distraction to make the Obama/Romney types look 'reasonable'.

__________________

KaptNemo

I've been away for a while, just wanted to chip this little nugget in here. With the wonderful job that the Secretary of Defense did during his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last Wednesday wherein he told the Senate that the US Military would seek legal grounds for an invasion into Syria not from Congress but from the UN and/or NATO, Congress seems to be highly motivated to press for articles of impeachment for Obama. If this movement gains significant ground, it is likely that he will either be removed from office or will have to stand down and will not be eligible for a second term, I'm curious as to who the Democrats would try to put up in the race, but who ever it would be would be unlikely to be able to mount a campaign quickly enough to really combat a Republican ticket, I myself will never be able to vote for anyone that stands so far away from the Constitution... Ron Paul and nobody else!

__________________
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Qui prodest?

stoneric

Unless obomba is getting a blowjob while ingnoring the constitution he won't have to worry about getting impeached. The bar has been set.

kamikazi89

Democrats are pretty useless and only slightly less dangerous the repulicans

__________________
katie west is the best

Maturin

From the Washington Post, an analysis of Ron Paul's campaign and it's difficulty in attracting votes.

Crowds Don't Vote

__________________
"Creating something is not a democracy. The people have no say. The artist does. It doesn't matter what the people witter on about: they and their response comes after. They're not there for the moment of creation."

--Russell T Davies