Navyblue Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I like how he addressed everyone's posts but mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 South Carolina's Attorney General detects voter fraud during primaries Already, there has been some question into folks who cast their ballots on Saturday. South Carolina's Attorney General, Alan Wilson has notified the U.S. Justice Department of potential voter fraud. Wilson says an analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters were people who are listed as dead. He has asked the State Law Enforcement Division to investigate. http://www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'm not as much of a conspiracy theorist as you are, but I also think they are being strongly influenced by others. However, I think it's silly to think it would be any different under Ron Paul. Sure, from an outsider's perch, Paul denounces war, etc. So did Obama, and he most certainly didn't ride to power in 2008 on a wave of support from the military, who to a man probably voted for John McCain and funneled a lot more money into his campaign. However, when you get put in that situation, things go a little differently. As much as you want to equate Obama to Bush (which makes no sense to me), Barack has started zero wars and ended one, and aside from ones he inherited, hasn't sent troops any place new, excepting a brief covert incursion into Pakistan, which as others in this thread has pointed out, was a decision that any president would've made under the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I just don't see Ron Paul being elected, because there seems to be too much corruption at the higher level of the government. Obama was elected because he was mainly a yes man to the congress and could be used as a puppet. Ron Paul seems to be running independently so I just don't see him elected with all the elites that are against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeStealth Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Even though Ron Paul won't win the nomination (kudos to the guy, if I was American, I'd vote for him), but he has certainly made a big impact. If he really has as big of a following as some believe, perhaps it will make a lot of those people more involved in politics. Not just simply voting, but through the electoral delegation process. As it seems now, there is a lot of "old guards" preventing any maverick from taking the nomination. The (current) "Tea Party" movement was started on a grassroots level.... perhaps there might be something similar with Ron Paul (or for some other guy who will succeed his ideals)> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think this is the first time I've addressed you regarding Paul. Ganging up on you? Uhhh... yeah... I'm not drunk on the Paul cool-aid, I entirely disagree with vast majority of his policies. I've stated as much in this thread before you graced us with your presence. I support Paul because he's different from every single other candidate - honest. I couldn't care less what Obama says anymore, his words are not worth my time. Obama wins, and it's just going to be more of the same. I'm sick of the same. Paul may not win, and I don't expect him to, but the fact some of his ideas, like bringing all the troops back, are getting national air time is quite important. That is what I support. If I had to vote between the GOP line up sans Paul and Obama, I'd wipe my behind with the ballot, because that's all it's worth. And WTH is with wild west? That's your response to the arguments against prohibition? May I suggest less hyperbole, more substance next time? It'd go a long way to being taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What conspiracy when it is facts. Honestly, you need to open your eyes a little bit more, because you seem to be brainwashed just like all the other average Americans. Everything you post seems to be straight from Fox news and CNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Debate @ 6. Online only in Canada. Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics-politics/t/nbc-politics/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBGh8Xnkn9U Rand Paul’s Pat-Down Standoff With TSA in Nashville Ends Sen. Rand Paul told his communications director this morning he was being detained by TSA at the Nashville airport. The Twitter account associated with Paul staffer Moira Bagley, @moirabagley, tweeted around 10 a.m., ET, “Just got a call from @senrandpaul. He’s currently being detained by TSA in Nashville.” A TSA spokesman disputed that Paul was ever “detained.” But he was not granted access to the secure area of the airport when he tried to board a flight Monday morning. The standoff was short-lived. By late morning, according to TSA, Paul had been booked on another flight and made it through the screening process. The TSA version of events is that Paul triggered an alarm during routine airport screening and refused to complete the screening process (pat-down) in order to resolve the issue. Paul was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement. “When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport,” according to an official statement released by TSA. “Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling.” Paul’s office confirmed he set off an airport security full-body scanner “on a glitch,” according to a spokesman. The Paul staffer said TSA agents would not let Paul walk back through the body scanner and were demanding a full body pat-down. The Paul spokesman said his office called TSA administrator John Pistole about the incident this morning. The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the capital. “The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….” according to Article I, Section 6. The Senate is back in session today at 2 p.m., with votes scheduled at 4:30 p.m. It is not clear if Paul will make it to Washington by 4:30 p.m. on his new flight. The issue of pat-downs has been an important one to Paul, the son of libertarian-leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Sen. Paul brought this issue up at a hearing earlier this year. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rand-paul-in-pat-down-standoff-with-tsa-in-nashville/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Oh so senators are above the law now? Or are we going to go back to letting everyone carry whatever they want on to an airplane? Or maybe we'll just do patdowns on blacks and arabs, I'd bet you'd like that too, eh Ron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 So your first sentence admits you're jumping into the conversation (which you're naturally allowed to), but then you also want to tell me what the tone of it should be? My point about the "Wild West" is that too much of a focus on individual liberty is a bad thing. It was the first example that came to my head of a time and place where individual liberties reigned supreme, but sure it's a little bit of hyperbole and so what. My opinion is that a successful society needs to balance the need for liberty with a strong sense of social justice. Canada, for all the things I don't like about it, is a good example of a country that has such a balance. In France, you have Liberté, but also egalité and fraternité, a nod to the fact that the well-being of society should counterbalance the need for personal liberty. In the United States, this is already trending too far in the liberty direction. Just make everything legal, and the market and the decisions will even everything out. Well, they already have that for guns, I don't need to do any research or video viewing or anything else to know that Ron Paul is an opponent of gun control. Well, I'm a firm believer in gun control personally, and think Canada's policy is a lot better. Does it result in a "War on Guns"? Maybe so. But I'm pretty certain it's also a leading contributor to why Canada's homicide rate is 1/3 that of the United States. So while our liberties are being infringed upon a little, we are better as a result. I feel the same way about heroin. Fighting it is expensive, but I don't believe it's a personal liberty that Canadians or Americans should have. My words were twisted when I was discussing specifically foreign policy decisions, describing Paul as an outsider who has conveniently not been forced to make any difficult decisions about withdrawing troops. I simply was saying I don't like seeing Americans start wars overseas, especially not for largely economic reasons, but I also think that once troops are there, pulling them out is a tough decision because often you leave behind a bigger mess than there was before. Sometimes that outcome is inevitable, but Obama clearly feels he has inherited a responsibility to the Afghan people, and has elected to leave troops in the country at least until it seems somewhat capable of governing itself after Bush and blew it up. He is most definitely not a hawk, and has started no new wars of his own, but did likely stem some of the push for future aggression by surgically taking out Bin Laden, and went along with most of the rest of the world by providing air support to prevent genocide in Libya. In short, I've been quite impressed with his foreign policy considering the difficult hand he was played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 So your first sentence admits you're jumping into the conversation (which you're naturally allowed to), but then you also want to tell me what the tone of it should be? My point about the "Wild West" is that too much of a focus on individual liberty is a bad thing. It was the first example that came to my head of a time and place where individual liberties reigned supreme, but sure it's a little bit of hyperbole and so what. My opinion is that a successful society needs to balance the need for liberty with a strong sense of social justice. Canada, for all the things I don't like about it, is a good example of a country that has such a balance. In France, you have Liberté, but also egalité and fraternité, a nod to the fact that the well-being of society should counterbalance the need for personal liberty. In the United States, this is already trending too far in the liberty direction. Just make everything legal, and the market and the decisions will even everything out. Well, they already have that for guns, I don't need to do any research or video viewing or anything else to know that Ron Paul is an opponent of gun control. Well, I'm a firm believer in gun control personally, and think Canada's policy is a lot better. Does it result in a "War on Guns"? Maybe so. But I'm pretty certain it's also a leading contributor to why Canada's homicide rate is 1/3 that of the United States. So while our liberties are being infringed upon a little, we are better as a result. I feel the same way about heroin. Fighting it is expensive, but I don't believe it's a personal liberty that Canadians or Americans should have. My words were twisted when I was discussing specifically foreign policy decisions, describing Paul as an outsider who has conveniently not been forced to make any difficult decisions about withdrawing troops. I simply was saying I don't like seeing Americans start wars overseas, especially not for largely economic reasons, but I also think that once troops are there, pulling them out is a tough decision because often you leave behind a bigger mess than there was before. Sometimes that outcome is inevitable, but Obama clearly feels he has inherited a responsibility to the Afghan people, and has elected to leave troops in the country at least until it seems somewhat capable of governing itself after Bush and blew it up. He is most definitely not a hawk, and has started no new wars of his own, but did likely stem some of the push for future aggression by surgically taking out Bin Laden, and went along with most of the rest of the world by providing air support to prevent genocide in Libya. In short, I've been quite impressed with his foreign policy considering the difficult hand he was played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Cameras in Florida are supporting Romney. Just watching the NBC feed here and they're making Newt look like he has a female haircut with that angle...or does he just need a trim? lol. Funny the subtleties you notice when you're the less emotionally involved Canadian. and Scorpio, don't get so upset. At least he continues the argument with you. Unbridled ID quit just in the nick of time for G mullet. Synchronicity at its finest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnabyJoe Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Mitt, Newt, Rick,... how are you going to pay for all this military spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm cringing as I watch the debate. Go into Cuba? WTF GOP, 3/4 joke and 1/4 unelectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm cringing as I watch the debate. Go into Cuba? WTF GOP, 3/4 joke and 1/4 unelectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Trending too far in the liberty direction? Is this some kind of a joke? Do you know what the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA are? Sacrifice a "few" liberties and rights for the security of the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What the hell man? I directly addressed the three points you stated in your post, and in response you accuse me of ganging up on you, and somehow I'm involved in whatever petty dispute you imagine yourself having? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Cameras in Florida are supporting Romney. Just watching the NBC feed here and they're making Newt look like he has a female haircut with that angle...or does he just need a trim? lol. Funny the subtleties you notice when you're the less emotionally involved Canadian. and Scorpio, don't get so upset. At least he continues the argument with you. Unbridled ID quit just in the nick of time for G mullet. Synchronicity at its finest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 OK, are we talking about Ron Paul or Obama here? Do I like the PATRIOT Act? No. Is it going to outweigh all my other reasons I have for disliking Paul? No. It's possible for someone to like both gun control and habeas corpus. And for the record he only extended parts of the Act. To say "Obama is against civil liberties" is a gross oversimplification. But there are certain parts of that Act the government felt they needed to extend (apparently, a lot of Republicans wanted permanent extension, which Obama was notably unwilling to grant), and they did. Do I agree with the decision? Not entirely, but it's less of a deal-breaker for me than other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I wasn't talking about Obama. I was talking about how you said that America has become too focused on liberty when in reality, America has been selling its liberties for a false sense of security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.