Ron Paul.

[Yelsent]

Barack Obama stood proudly before the audience at his inauguration, seemingly in defiance of those who would have held him down. "My fellow Americans. It is with great gladness of spirit that I accept the mantle of the presidency, and announce my first immediate project as POTUS; the implementation of Marxist socialism within the United States of America." The crowd erupted into a startled cacophony of incredulity, from which a single sterling voice cut forth. "Not in my America, you don't." The crowd parted as though rent in twain by the command of Moses, and there in the gap stood the diminutive, stately figure of Ron Paul.

Gritting his pearly whites as he rolled up his sleeve with one meaty hand and switched on his solid gold lightsabre with the other, Ron Paul seemed to burn visibly with the indignity and righteous fury of the founding fathers. "And who are you to stand in the way of my new America?" Obama challenged, the crowd deathly silent as though sensing the tension between the two powerful men. "You will never take America.", Ron growled, to which Obama inquired "And why is that?". Ron spat to one side, rolled up the other sleeve and said simply "Because I am America." At that moment, his collosal golden zeppelin crashed through the far wall of the convention center and gleaming freedom troopers began to spill out...

[Major John Hicks]

Thank God this forums will keep on milking Ron Paul until China takes over the world.

[PFC_Hudson]

Ron Paul WOULD have a golden lightsaber.

Did you write that, Yellow?

[Mishra]

sometimes i think ron paul is a pokemon. ron paul! ron paul! ron paul? aaaiieee roooooon paaaaaul!

[PFC_Hudson]

We have a certain way of saying his name that's really funny. It sounds like an angry Japanese Announcer or something, "RON POWL!"

[Mishra]

Ronuuuuuuuu pauluuuuuuuuu

[PFC_Hudson]

Okay well maybe not Japanese but it sounds very funny.

[Crawdaddy79]

I don't think Ron Paul would have been wearing a long sleeve shirt... He's smart enough to put on a short sleeve shirt well before hand. This whole story is ridiculous.

[Yelsent]

Fat Guy with little Pistol

Close

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

:-), lol

[Renegade 2501]

"I have a NAME. OSWALD. COBBLEPOT."

[J A Eyers]

As if anyone would fight Ron Paul. Isn't he about 75? That wouldn't be a fight. That'd be a murder.

[onecarefulowner]

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

That wouldn't be a fight. That'd be a murder.

More like a massacre.

[Fenriz]

See, without the internet untill very recently, up here in new zealand I'd never heard of this guy untill today. Was he just the token independant candidate for the whitehouse?

[StrangeWill]

Strange, America is still here...

[Damien Stryker]

Originally Posted by Fenriz

See, without the internet untill very recently, up here in new zealand I'd never heard of this guy untill today. Was he just the token independant candidate for the whitehouse?

Not quite token, but he stood out largely because of a) his campaign's use of the Internet and b) his frankly radical ideas for America.

[styx]

i love his shoes.

[Major John Hicks]

Originally Posted by renegade 2501

"i have a name. Oswald. Cobblepot."

penguin for mayor!

[onecarefulowner]

Originally Posted by Yellow_sentinel

Fat Guy with little Pistol

Close

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

:-), lol

LMAO!

[Major John Hicks]

Guess that guy will win a pistol duel anytime.

[J A Eyers]

Originally Posted by Fenriz

See, without the internet untill very recently, up here in new zealand I'd never heard of this guy untill today. Was he just the token independant candidate for the whitehouse?

No, he stood for the Republican candidacy against John McCain (and never officially ended his campaign, nor did he actually endorse McCain). He was still on the ballot in some states. Despite convincing some people round here that he could win 50-60 million votes, in the end he won less votes than the Green Party candidate and various independents for whom the Republican Party has become far too liberal and left-wing under George W Bush.

[PFC_Hudson]

I don't know who he convinced that he could win that many votes, I knew Obama was going to win but I still voted and was optimistic for Paul.

Ron Paul stood for a more basic form of freedom than any other candidate and was the strongest advocate for peace. He talked more about peace and the means to achieve it than any other candidate in the election.

[J A Eyers]

Madbomber made the calculation that Ron Paul could sweep the board based on the fact that 66% of people he polled (two friends plus himself) would vote for Ron Paul, and if that result was reflected across the country, it would mean the biggest victory in US electoral history with the winning candidate getting more votes than anyone else ever. That did happen in the end, but it wasn't Ron Paul who did it. He didn't even get that many votes in the states where he was on the ballot, so people had the choice, but voted against him.

As for "more basic" freedoms, he only stood for one, freedom from taxation. And even then he wasn't offering total freedom. For "more advanced" freedoms, however, Ron Paul was below McCain on the list of candidates offering them, and the right guy won. Ron Paul, for example, believes the government should have the power to overrule individuals in matters of conscience, for example to tell you who you can and can't marry, and the abortion issue. The idea that he is the heir to Jeffersonian thought simply because of the tax issue is a slanderous suggestion. Ron Paul does not believe in natural rights, rights that you have by virtue of being born on this planet, such as freedom of conscience. He is very much of the belief that rights come from and are protected by government, and in as much, given that he wants rights restricted by top-down government decree, is perfectly at home in the modern Republican Party of George W Bush.

I was much dismayed to find the Jefferson fan group on Facebook was crawling with cunts bleating on about Ron Paul.

[madbomber1998]

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

Madbomber made the calculation that Ron Paul could sweep the board based on the fact that 66% of people he polled (two friends plus himself) would vote for Ron Paul, and if that result was reflected across the country, it would mean the biggest victory in US electoral history with the winning candidate getting more votes than anyone else ever. That did happen in the end, but it wasn't Ron Paul who did it. He didn't even get that many votes in the states where he was on the ballot, so people had the choice, but voted against him.

....ummm....when?

I never thought Ron Paul would sweep the board like that. I realized he most probably would never win - and even if he did win, the Republicans would pull some crap out of their ass and never let him actually go past the primaries.

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

As for "more basic" freedoms, he only stood for one, freedom from taxation. And even then he wasn't offering total freedom. For "more advanced" freedoms, however, Ron Paul was below McCain on the list of candidates offering them, and the right guy won. Ron Paul, for example, believes the government should have the power to overrule individuals in matters of conscience, for example to tell you who you can and can't marry, and the abortion issue. The idea that he is the heir to Jeffersonian thought simply because of the tax issue is a slanderous suggestion. Ron Paul does not believe in natural rights, rights that you have by virtue of being born on this planet, such as freedom of conscience. He is very much of the belief that rights come from and are protected by government, and in as much, given that he wants rights restricted by top-down government decree, is perfectly at home in the modern Republican Party of George W Bush.

I was much dismayed to find the Jefferson fan group on Facebook was crawling with cunts bleating on about Ron Paul.

And this is pretty much the opposit of what Ron Paul believes....

[J A Eyers]

Okay, I made up your straw poll, but you predicted Ron Paul could win the largest share of the vote in history based on that one day when he made a lot of money on Facebook.

And whilst 76.8% of statistics are made up, 99.8% of Ron Paul supporters don't seem to know what he stands for. You missed the thread in which PFC spewed shit on someone for accusing Ron Paul of being a fundamentalist Christian and Creationist, only for me to post a video of RP dismissing the theory of evolution out of hand.

At least Huckabee could play bass.

[Crawdaddy79]

A creationist can't be in favor of individual freedom?
-----Auto added double post 12/1/2009 at 04:31:49-----

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

Ron Paul, for example, believes the government should have the power to overrule individuals in matters of conscience, for example to tell you who you can and can't marry

From Wikipedia... maybe they're wrong.

Same-sex unions

Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to judicial activism.[196] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[196][197]

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[198] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[199] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[200] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[201][202] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[201]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[128] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

and the abortion issue.

Considered a right to life by many, religious or not.

[Mishra]

yeah, however they're wrong. it's a right to parasitism. if you have a parasite in you, you should have the option of having that parasite removed.

the thing with ron paul is that he's way too supportive of states rights. states rights are good, however he supports states limiting personal freedoms, thinks it should be up to the states to decide whether gay marriage is legal or not, what drugs are legal, the age of drinking and consent, pretty much everything left to states. if it was up to states, there's be tons of states teaching creationism in science class and barring black people from attending.

[Damien Stryker]

And people call that exaggeration or overreacting, but it's true. It also defeats the purpose of having a national identity (which matters to patriotic types, which I'm not).

[Mishra]

doesnt even have to apply only to patriotic types, i'm not one of those jingoistic types, however if there was any kind of military threat from an outside source, we'd be completely powerless since people would not unite together to save, say, new york from a canadian based invasion when they're in arizona.

and of course when it comes to individual rights and civil liberties, sometimes you have to force the government to force people to accept it, you cant have ignorant inbreds from jackson voting on what civil liberties consist of.

[Damien Stryker]

There's really just too much intolerance in the Deep South for states deciding civil rights to be even viable.

Granted, I don't think Paul said anything about overturning the Civil Rights legislation.

[Mishra]

it'd cause problems for future civil rights issues. if it were up to the states, a lot of the time they'd probably vote for official languages, force mandatory teaching of religion while barring science (creationism vs. evolution) which is already a problem with the laws the way the currently are.