And if he was elected, do you think he would fail due to the overwhelming responsibilities as president, plus other uncontrollable factors.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 6:24
I agree that OP is a faggot
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 8:33
HAHA CRASH AND BURN IN IOWA!
WHAT NOW FAGGOT? YOU GOT BEAT MY SANTORUM HAHAHAHAHAHA!
HE WAS POLLING AT 1% JUST A WEEK AGO, AND IN 48 HOURS JUMPED UP TO 24%!
DAT SURGE!
DAT FOX NEWS BUMP!
DEM AMERICAN SHEEP!
MAIN STREAM MEDIA KICKED YOUR ASS!
WHAT'RE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
OH RIGHT, NOTHING!
GO RIG SOME ONLINE POLL OR SOMETHING, CRAZY PAULBOT!
ISOLATIONIST! RACIST! DISGUSTING! UNELECTABLE!
YOU WANT US TO GO BACK TO THE 1700'S? CRAZY OLD KOOKS!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 11:04
>>3
>DAT FOX NEWS BUMP!
>DEM AMERICAN SHEEP!
That fact that you're pleased about these points sums you up as a person.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 13:16
And if he was elected, do you think he would fail...
Of course he would. The President doesn't have that much power by himself. It's not like Congress would cooperate with him.
>>4
sage for taking that post seriously.
it's blatant satire.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-05 23:38
The poor will only get poorer and the rich will only get richer without Ron Paul. Well... at least the idea of freedom will still live on.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-06 8:08
over half of all the voters for ron paul are age 19-30
so just wait 10-20 years when our generation becomes the majority of voters (and all them baby boomers die),
that's when you'll finally see a shift in politics
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-06 12:13
>>6
>blatant satire
No, it's quite conceivable that someone could be that stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 0:06
I'm a fan of the man.
That's really all I have to say on the matter.
>>12
There hasn't. Do you see the US having an actual multi-party system? No. Just two parties gradually shifting towards the right in an effort to out-do one another. The fundamentals of the current American political system has remained relatively unchanged since the early 20 th century (which is really showing its caprices these days). The new generations aren't going to change much (with exception that they'll at least be more competent in technical matters)
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 21:34
>Just two parties gradually shifting towards the right
Not really. The independents are moving Right, the Left is pretending to be moving to the middle but they never actually move an inch.
>>14 Not really. The independents are moving Right
``Independents'' aren't really a political bloc, and any independents out there mostly caucus with Democrats. the Left is pretending to be moving to the middle but they never actually move an inch.
Actual leftists are not in power at all, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc. are all part of fringe third-parties, and the closest to actual leftism in power are congressman Dennis Kucinich and senator Bernie Sanders.
multi-party system? No. Just two parties
That doesn't mean anything. Those two parties have changed radically. They've even "traded" stances on many issues. That's why there aren't any more Dixie Democrats. And remember that Richard Nixon signed the EPA into existence. It's not like more parties is some magical fix for everything. Some countries have too many parties and can't get anything done because of it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 23:30
>Actual leftists are not in power at all, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc. are all part of fringe third-parties
>>16 Those two parties have changed radically
How? On the surface with silly issues like abortion? Bahfah! The GOP has been conservative even prior to Southern Strategy. Dixie Democrats
The States' Rights Democratic Party was an entirely separate third-party that wanted to revive the reconstruction era policy of the Democratic Party's southern members. Not an example at all. And remember that Richard Nixon signed the EPA into existence.
And George W. Bush signed NCLB into existence. What's your point? It's not like more parties is some magical fix for everything
No, however multiple parties at the Federal level would help get ideas like abolishing shitty free trade agreements into action, rather than just from a few fringe congressmembers as is the case today. Libertarians don't really have a say in congress beyond the aging Ron Paul, and the Libertarian Party remains on the fringes, instead of its members being elected to congress as would be the case if the US had a multi-party system in place. Same thing goes for Green Party members, etc. Some countries have too many parties and can't get anything done because of it.
I wouldn't use Belgium as an example. It doesn't refute the advantages of having a multi-party system, though.
silly issues like abortion?
It's not a silly issue at all to people that take a hard stance on it. In either direction.
The States' Rights Democratic Party..
Ah, fair enough. On the subject of race and minorities though, it's hard to deny that we've gotten collectively much more tolerant recently. A black or female president really was unfuckingthinkable as late as the 90's. And gays in the military. Don't as don't tell used to be the compromise.
And George W. Bush signed NCLB into existence. What's your point?
Isn't it obvious? Most modern Republicans are even distancing themselves from Bush because the party has shifted. Libertarianism is on the rise. And it happened damn quick. You're right in that they still probably don't have a "fair" voice in terms of numbers. But give it another Congressional term or two and see.
I wouldn't use Belgium as an example.
I was thinking Finland. But I admit I'm not that learned on the subject. I was just repeating something I heard from someone else :)
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-09 16:07
>>19 It's not a silly issue at all to people that take a hard stance on it. In either direction.
It's generally used as hand-waving distraction from other much more pressing issues, especially in contemporary media. You'd think that it was an issue that was more or less squared away in 1973, but to some, apparently not. Ah, well, another topic for another tread. Ah, fair enough. On the subject of race and minorities though, it's hard to deny that we've gotten collectively much more tolerant recently. A black or female president really was unfuckingthinkable as late as the 90's. And gays in the military. Don't as don't tell used to be the compromise.
True. Isn't it obvious? Most modern Republicans are even distancing themselves from Bush because the party has shifted.
The neoconservative faction of the Republican Party is the most visible, but in reality isn't too much different from Southern Strategy-era GOP. Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (Central America) and George H.W. Bush (Gulf War) were pretty interventionist in their respective eras, Bush Jr. just had his turn at the helm. Still quite a conservative party and still very, very right-wing. Libertarianism is on the rise.
In some areas, to the point where Paul has more coverage than he did in 2008. You're right in that they still probably don't have a "fair" voice in terms of numbers.
Damn right, and not just libertarians, but also Green Party members, progressives, real, actual socialists (Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc.). But give it another Congressional term or two and see.
From awful pig-headed populist movements like the Tea Party and OWS? At best they'll elect a few congressmembers and introduce bills where most will probably end up not getting past committee (that's true right now, but that's not the point). I was thinking Finland. But I admit I'm not that learned on the subject. I was just repeating something I heard from someone else :)
AFAIK, Finland's multi-party system is quite stable and didn't experience any noticeable hiccups until recently. Belgium, on the other hand, has had a government shutdown for something either close to or over 300 days and was recently solved. I think that comes more from that Belgians historically didn't get along with each other nicely (discrimination based on language happened quite a bit, but not so much these days, or so I've been told).
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 1:49
>The States' Rights Democratic Party
Yeah, Demfags don't care about that now. It's all about the Nanny State and the all powerful police state.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 3:27
>>20
>Damn right, and not just libertarians, but also Green Party members, progressives, real, actual socialists (Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc.).
This is a problem of education. People are only just learning that socially left, economically right generally means libertarian. Before, they had no idea that such a term existed.
>>21 Yeah, Demfags don't care about that now.
They never did. The States' Rights Democratic Party was an entirely separate third-party, like the Libertarians or Greens today.
>>22
Especially prior to the Internet becoming commercially available and popularized.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-13 5:45
How in the blue fuck do you label ows pigheaded.
Enlighten me mister rennaisance people's fucking champion over here, what would a not pigheaded populist movement be?
P.S.- Tea Party was NOT a populist movement, it wasn't even a movement. It was just a bunch of shills paid in place by the Koch brothers, why am I even bothering asking you to justify your spew when you don't even know that much. Christ.
It's not even a true 2-party system. The Democratic and Republican party both follow conservative economic policy historically, other than FDR and about 3 administrations after him. When europe decided to give a fuck about it's citizenry the US watered down any real change.
Dude, you're ignorance is showing. OWS is legitimate but the Tea Party started out as a libertarian movement with real substance. The GOP campaign machine realized how massively out of touch they were and then co-opted the original Tea Party to rebrand their message, and got all of the angry retirees and dyslexic sign makers out in force. Some proto-tea partiers remain but the majority of them have moved on, even to OWS.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 19:11
>OWS
>legitmate
>yeah, legitimately 100% real Astroturf, created out of billionaire Jew banker George Soros's bank account, amirite guise? amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 23:11
I demand Ron Paul penetrate my rectum.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 23:39
The Tea Party turned into a real movement. OWS turned into a bowel movement. OWS had potential until the anti-capitalists and anarchists took over. Then the Obama sheeple showed up with the hippies and the rest is history.
>>34
Losing the argument? Shout "FOX NEWS!", allowing you to silence the opposition and declare victory.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-23 14:35
Ron Paul will be the second Hitler if elected!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-23 23:05
Dr Paul is the man, definitely.
But he doesn't need the Republican party. Dr Paul's ideas and convictions are stronger than this dualism "Republicans/Democrats".
SOPA and PIPA are of this kind of anti-freedom bulls*** Obama is wanting to do, he's saying that he's running for the 99% (etc...) but he's just here for Hollywood and Music labels.
Obama thinks that through these bills he'll root in America the fact that freedom is dead. But freedom is still alive, and you, Dr Paul, represent this freedom, instead of the socialists theories (which, in the facts, are for Hollywood, Wall Street and Cie) Obama's promoting.
But he doesn't need the Republican party. Dr Paul's ideas and convictions are stronger than this dualism "Republicans/Democrats".
SOPA and PIPA are of this kind of anti-freedom bulls*** Obama is wanting to do, he's saying that he's running for the 99% (etc...) but he's just here for Hollywood and Music labels.
Obama thinks that through these bills he'll root in America the fact that freedom is dead. But freedom is still alive, and you, Dr Paul, represent this freedom, instead of the socialists theories (which, in the facts, are for Hollywood, Wall Street and Cie) Obama's promoting.
>>1 And if he was elected, do you think he would fail due to the overwhelming responsibilities as president, plus other uncontrollable factors.
Wikipedia states that he has a very mixed ancestry (German/Irish/French). That is typical for a Jew. And while he doesn't look outright Jewish, it is entirely possible, that he is a 100% Jew by Halakha laws. So if he gets elected, there will be a yet another president of Jewish background. Think Sarkozy.
Name:
dank2012-08-08 0:40
We need someone like Ron Paul to pull us out of this shitheap we call America. Just the sole fact that he is so god damn liberal would benefit America so much.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-08 1:36
>>42
By that reckoning 95% of the world's population are jews.
>>45
Many people have mixed ancestry from countries as close together as Germany, Italy and France. I for example am half German and half Danish, yet I am not a jew but a 6 foot 2 upstanding muscular southern white man who looks out for his own and hates his niggers.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-08 5:24
>>46
How did you parents meet, speaking different languages and carrying different cultural values? The Jews of all countries can easily date and do business, because they speak single language and carry single criminal culture.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-08 7:16
>>47
You know, you can learn another language, right?
>>49
To speak to someone who doesn't speak your language? To read literature not written in your mother language? To better yourself? To broaden your horizon?
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-12 13:49
>>50
I found no point in learning another language personally. The alternate language I did get good at speaking once upon a time ago, I never had an application for it. Consequently, I never had a reason to use it beyond learning it. And, consequently, I'm not even certain if I can string together a partial grammatically-correct sentence in that language anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-12 14:23
Is it better to learn Chinese or Spanish?
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-12 21:27
Is it better to learn Chinese
Only if you plan to move to China.
>>51
Well that's fine if you never go abroad or never try to communicate with people outside of your social comfort zone.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-13 4:51
>>55
Most people, except the Jews, never go abroad and never communicate with other cultures. But the Jews are criminals and they had to learn language of the country, which hides them from prosecutors. That is how the Jews gained such enormous power in the first place.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-13 9:53
>>56
Most people were peasants. It is now the industrial age where free trade, technology, ease of transport and large scale industry that requires resources from all corners of the globe are necessary and create a need for translation services.
I wouldn't describe you are a xenophobe, it is suspicious when someone keeps travelling and absconding without an apparent need for it like a snake oil salesman, however you are maybe slightly off on that one point.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-13 12:50
>>57
Now you may ask yourself, why the Jews weren't peasants and see all settled nations with despise. And no, the destruction of their Israel isnt the reason, but a consequence.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-13 12:52
>>57 it is suspicious when someone keeps travelling and absconding without an apparent need for it like a snake oil salesman
Actually, the Jews frequently sold snake oil and participated in various alchemy and medicine frauds.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-13 12:58
>>56
>Most people, except the Jews, never go abroad and never communicate with other cultures.
Uh, no. Most people do go abroad. Each country has a massive industry called tourism based on that fact. Most people also use the internet, which they inevitably encounter and communicate with different cultures. It's what you're doing RIGHT NOW. Not to mention the whole import/export trade every single country in the world engages in.
>But the Jews are criminals and they had to learn language of the country, which hides them from prosecutors
So is that why you learnt English? To hide from prosecutors? Do tell me more.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-14 23:14
>>59
>Actually, the Jews frequently sold snake oil and participated in various alchemy and medicine frauds.
Like everyone else in the history of man? LOL. You need oil for your butthurt.
>>62
So why did you learn English if learning foreign languages is for criminals? You forgot to answer that one, good thing I'm here to remind you.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-15 13:25
>>63
I had to learn English to play Final Fantasy 7 or other jRPGs.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-15 13:45
>>62
Man, you need to come back with a better response. Are you lazy or stupid?
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-15 18:14
>>64
So you accept that learning another language doesn't make you a criminal, very good.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-15 18:15
Oh and that other cultures have something to offer. We're making progress here. You're almost multicultural.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-15 19:08
>>67
Meh, multicultural hasn't really done much for most cultures in recent years.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-15 21:40
>>66
I'm not interested in invading other cultures, like the Jews do.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-15 22:42
>>69
Yes, I agree. yesterday they invaded Canada with their giant robot army! It was very cool. This is why Jews are superior. They crush all before them.
>>71 Canadian Jews make up a significant percentage of student body of Canada's leading higher education institutions.
I.e. the Jews get disproportionate more higher positions, than the Aryan Canadians. And that is without counting 1/2 and 1/4 Jews.
I remember an essay in Russian by a Jew migrated into Canada to open IT business. Essay was targeted at other Jews, so he bragged that common Canadians are idiots, playing video game, and only the Jews rule there.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-16 13:57
>>72
Welcome to what everyone else already thinks, newfag! :) I'm sure you don't make your facts up at all ;p
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-21 0:25
He was far more qualified than Obama when he took office.