Republican 2012 Presidential Nominee

[The Situation]

I think it's possible to have a grey area no? Habeas corpus but gun control. Doesn't have to be completely black and white. Obama extended part of the PATRIOT Act temporarily. Didn't make it permanent like the Republicans wanted, didn't let it expire. Don't really agree with the decision to extend any of it at all, but I'm not ready to label him as being against civil liberties. Truth be told I sort of think Obama's in a holding pattern right now. He can't pass anything the least bit liberal or progressive through the House, because it won't pass. He can't build any bipartisan support because the infusion of the Tea Party has made Congress so polarized. And if he can get anything to pass, it's been Republicanized and people say Obama's no different than Romney. So he has really become a lame duck President. Some say the solution us to get a new President, I think the solution is to get rid of the lame duck label by giving him a Congress whose raison d'etre isn't solely to try to make him fail so they can beat him in an election.

[The Situation]

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

[Navyblue]

Thanks, I appreciate that. You're comparing me to a social conservative nincompoop who never actually gave his opinion on anything, when I've been very open about all of my views even as they don't find much of a consensus in this ridiculously slanted thread. You're a real class act. How many times do I have to post that I don't really enjoy having to carry on a whole bunch of arguments at once, especially when I post one response to one person, and then someone decides to cherry-pick a few lines and apply them to a different conversation?

You want me to say Obama's a shill for the banks. How should I know if he is or not. And you don't either, you have a bunch of circumstantial evidence I suppose. I do know he brought in the Dodd-Frank Act (if I recall the name correctly), which clamped a bunch of regulatory measures onto the big Banks. I'm sure they loved him for that.

EDIT: Ron Paul may be a man of his word on some things. But there are always some campaign promises that get made that get broken when the situation changes. It happens in every government, in Canada, USA, etc. Yes it happened to Obama, he hasn't followed through on some of the things he set out to do. But neither would Ron Paul be able to, and we're just fantasizing if we think just because he seems like a nice honest man that he's going to be able to reverse that trend. Obama came in wanting to make "Change". In some places he was successful, in others he wasn't. But you're so willing to chastise him for mistakes, while refusing to admit that as President, Ron Paul would also be faced up to promises he couldn't fulfill, mistakes, etc. Instead, you give him the benefit of the doubt because you like him, while judging Obama in hindsight. I'm saying that's unfair.

[Amish Rake Fighter]

Voting members of this council include the Federal Reserve, the OCC (which is a public agency funded by private entities. I wonder how they vote. Gosh darn!), the CFTC (headed by a man who worked for Goldman Sachs for 18 years, Gary Gensler), the FDIC (who is also funded privately and makes money off of US treasury securities, Geithner), FHFA (you must know of the nationalizing of freddie and fannie) , NCUA, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. This Council was created to indicate threats to the status quo, while consolidating the power to geithner and this council. ...while organizing the power, it also was an addition to government spending by the Obama administration that also gave them something to wave in front of the gullible masses while saying "Look folks, we're doing something!"

[Navyblue]

Why can't we have a Republican establishment hack and an Obama apologist in here at the same time? That would be amusing.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

I'm not sure how many times you have to make excuses for your comments. Would I walk in to a Canucks bar and yell the Sendins are sisters expecting to not have to answer for my words? Unbridled_ID stood up and posted attacks of the same ilk as yours in regards to cherry picking the media bull about supposed stances on drug laws and racism, if not the very same. He was also flustered with the on pouring of reality as you seem to be. I am happy to point out though, that you're at least attempting to continue, as obviously false your beliefs may be.

As a seemingly intelligent human being, you know that when you make statements, people will hold you accountable, and a lack of a response will surly send those very same commends to the trash bin, as if not responded to they would have been struck down by a random 24 year old blue collar worker, over the internet (that's me). I know that your candidate for 2012 isn't one of those people, but I have faith that you can see past his shortcomings, and come up with the goods so to speak. Now as I read your reply, I'm not so sure that has been accomplished.

Your attempt to call my bluff as far as knowledge pertaining to the Dodd-Frank bill was understandable. I will point out however, that the Dodd Frank Bill was nothing short of more of the same, as opposed to "change".

The Dodd-Frank bill created a new entity called the Financial Stability Oversight Council headed by none other than the secretary of the Treasury, you guessed it, Timmothy Geithner!

Voting members of this council include the Federal Reserve, the OCC (which is a public agency funded by private entities. I wonder how they vote. Gosh darn!), the CFTC (headed by a man who worked for Goldman Sachs for 18 years, Gary Gensler), the FDIC (who is also funded privately and makes money off of US treasury securities, Geithner), FHFA (you must know of the nationalizing of freddie and fannie) , NCUA, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. This Council was created to indicate threats to the status quo, while consolidating the power to geithner and this council. ...while organizing the power, it also was an addition to government spending by the Obama administration that also gave them something to wave in front of the gullible masses while saying "Look folks, we're doing something!"

But for whom was this something done for? The People? I think not. This bill was an after the fact PR cleanup job. The damage was already done, and the bailouts were already sent out.

I'm not asking you to condemn Obama, he's already done that on his own. Ron Paul is the only candidate (Obama included) that isn't running with dirty money. The only candidate that has held this squeaky clean, honest, for the people message and voting record for decades.

The only result that disproves my logic is that of the entire thing being a facad, a hollywood production, Paul included. IF that's the case, we're all doomed and this whole conversation is moot. I somehow don't see Ron paul voting this way for so long just to come to a perfect head in 2012 as the mole of the establishment. That sounds pretty ???? out there to me.

I've already said that I'm not ready to assume that, which leads me to the above points.

[Pouria]

I think it's possible to have a grey area no? Habeas corpus but gun control. Doesn't have to be completely black and white. Obama extended part of the PATRIOT Act temporarily. Didn't make it permanent like the Republicans wanted, didn't let it expire. Don't really agree with the decision to extend any of it at all, but I'm not ready to label him as being against civil liberties. Truth be told I sort of think Obama's in a holding pattern right now. He can't pass anything the least bit liberal or progressive through the House, because it won't pass. He can't build any bipartisan support because the infusion of the Tea Party has made Congress so polarized. And if he can get anything to pass, it's been Republicanized and people say Obama's no different than Romney. So he has really become a lame duck President. Some say the solution us to get a new President, I think the solution is to get rid of the lame duck label by giving him a Congress whose raison d'etre isn't solely to try to make him fail so they can beat him in an election.

Don't you think this is more of a "hindsight" thing. The bailouts didn't necessarily produce all the desired effects. But it isn't as though Obama was pushing hard for them against the rest of the House. The prevailing opinion was that it would help to reverse the recession. It didn't work out as planned, but I don't understand why all that gets focused back to Obama.

Canada elects its Prime Ministers now? That's news to me. I don't remember seeing Stephen Harper on the ballot last time.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

You know what I meant about Harper being elected. You are just trying to shift attention away from the national banks. Ben Bernanke and Mark Carney democratically elected are not so they should not have such powers.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[The Situation]

Well actually, I was making a deeper point about how undemocratic our system has become, with Harper having become a de facto head of state. But that's a digression.

But are you blaming the Federal Reserve or Obama for the post-recession fiscal policy? If you're blaming the Reserve, doesn't that absolve Obama? Or conversely, if it was Obama's call, doesn't that mean that someone elected was ultimately responsible?

[Gretzky's Mullet]

Haven't all our prime ministers been de facto heads of states?

[Navyblue]

dp

[Navyblue]

You make some valid points, I won't deny. I believe that Obama has made some mistakes, and I recognize that the sheen has come off him a little bit. I don't know if he's condemned himself so much as been forced into a corner by circumstances out of his control. But that was also the case for Jimmy Carter, and he's remembered as a weak leader rather than someone who tried to build consensus and ended up getting steamrolled for it, so perhaps the same allegation is true of Obama.

But Ron's Paulicies (at the very least, you have to admit I make better puns than id) are fraught with things I disagree with. OK, here goes:

Environmental: free market environmentalism, as I gather his philosophy is called, does not work at all. Without strong environmental protection from the federal level, the disincentive to pollute would be very low. All you have to do is buy up some cheap land somewhere and you can fill it up with toxic waste all you like, and what's to stop you. Left to the states, a good number will take the easy route and leave the cleanup to future generations. That's what "SuperFund" sites are, basically environmental disasters that were unchecked by limpwristed environmental policy at the time and now are a source of untold damage to the environment and neighbouring communities. Similarly, climate change is a fact, and it's due to CO2 emissions. The time for debating this is over. Paul is a dedicated climate change denier. That's already a dealbreaker for me.

Foreign: Ron Paul wants to pull all the troops out now. This appeals to pacifists everywhere (and I am one by the way), though I think Ron's main motivation is to save money. The problem I see is that the Afghans can't run their own country, which will slowly come under the control of extreme Islamists again. That might be an unavoidable outcome at this point, but the reasons to leave troops there are largely compassionate: as long as they're there, Afghan women can go to school, be members of government, etc. Do I think Bush went in to save the women? No. But I also think leaving would condemn them, and that's a big part of the reason they're still there. I guess trying to curb terrorism is another reason, not that occupation is an effective way of accomplishing that. But Obama is probably operating on the premise that if troops leave now, Al Qaeda moves right back in. And you know what, he's probably right about that. Paul seems to think that withdrawing all troops will solve that problem. I've made the point before that he doesn't seem to respect the fact that he's inheriting the problems (ie middle East interventionism) of 50 years of predecessors, and ignoring the region won't make the extreme Islamists go away. I also am of two minds about the Israel situation (as is Obama, clearly), but I think they will be pushed to the brink of war without any American presence there, with potentially disastrous results. That sort of extends to Iran as well. I don't think Obama wants to invade Iran, and I don't think it will come to that. But, Iran has positioned themselves as a threat to Israel, which puts Obama in a very difficult spot. I think the Middle East is a very difficult problem for a lot of reasons, and I think the US is too embroiled in it to pack up and leave, and I think even if Paul became President and wanted to, he wouldn't be able to pull the troops out.

Financial: I don't deny that seeing the big banks get their bailout irked me something fierce. Again, it was under a Bush government, but both presidential candidates went along with it, for reasons that may or may not have been political. However, I also think there are certain ramifications of not bailing out the banks that were unclear. One could try to paint Obama's motives as trying to protect his financial cronies, or as trying to keep things from getting even worse for the millions of working class Americans, whose financial fates are equally tied up with the fortunes of the banks. Of course, as an Obama "apologist", I give more credence to the latter possibility than it seems you do. There's also the question of how much value one places on the fulfillment of foreign commitments. Allowing the banks to bomb and the country to go bankrupt, as far as I can tell, would have longlasting effects on the country's companies to do business internationally. Fact is, I think Ron didn't want to bail the banks out for ideological reasons, but I don't know if all the consequences were fully considered. Frankly, it's easy to decide that Obama's motives were sinister when you don't like him, or noble if you do.

Libertarianism: I am a major proponent of civil liberties. My understanding of the NDAA is that Obama's wish was to prosecute the prisoners at Guantanamo in the United States or to send them abroad, and that this was defeated by Republicans (though I'll concede I may have misinterpreted it). I know I keep saying this, but if one is going to blame Obama for what happened under his first two years, everything since then needs to be treated as Republican-tainted. However, I recognize that Obama has continued to interrogate enemy combatants, etc, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. But the issue with Ron Paul is to do with liberty for Americans (particularly as he projects as so tough on immigrants, which also rubs me the wrong way). But to me his priorities are all backwards. As I see it, the main things are liberty not to pay taxes (paraphrased, but that's the gist), liberty to own guns, nothing should be illegal, property rights strengthened, and I guess, dismantle the TSA. Well let's start with the latter first. No one likes to be patted down at the airport. But I think it'd be pretty ridiculous to go back to pre-9/11 security restrictions. Once upon a time people could bring guns on to airplanes. That's a liberty that I can live without. Not to mention that I think liberty around guns in general should be restricted, not loosened, and this is another major policy divergence I have with Paul. That was more of a Clinton issue I suppose, but the fact is, more guns make the world more dangerous. I don't really think that's too much in dispute, the cross-border comparison seeming particularly valid. Similarly, I don't think heroin should be legal. I addressed this point further up, but to summarize, I think the well-being of society should trump personal liberty in some cases. Not in basic human rights, habeus corpus-type stuff, but in terms of gun ownership I do. And Ron seems to think property rights are more important than civil rights, and wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act because it violates property rights. To me, civil rights are far FAR more important than property rights, because I have respect for the sanctity of human life (also in line with how I feel about protecting civilians in foreign countries). Ron's main premise seems to be that he doesn't want to pay any taxes, because taxes are a restriction of liberty or something. In response, he wants to cut a whole bunch of stuff...

Cuts to Federal agencies: The EPA is something I've already addressed. But I used the example of FEMA a few posts back as something Ron wants to eliminate. To me, FEMA is a symbol that the people of America have a common interest in each other's welfare. It didn't handle Katrina very well because of a massive lack of funding. But the fact is, to me there's something very heartless about telling a person "sorry you lost your house, I guess you shouldn't have built it there in the first place, good bye". This is basically Ron's policy, from his own mouth. In other words, I'll cut back your taxes, but if something bad happens, you're on your own. I don't think I would deserve to be labeled a socialist to say that I think this is an extreme, and very uncompassionate stance. I mostly believe in the free market, but I'm not some kind of objectivist who thinks everyone reaps what they sow. This goes back to my views on liberty being balanced by social justice: some people are going to be rich and some poor, but the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security systems (all of which Ron wants gone) serve to somewhat balance these out a little, having a bit of a core respect for the value of human life over the value of tax dollars. And for me, that balance is key. Paul's policy of "letting the states decide" is not a good one either, because you create a situation where the wealthy migrate to where they can exploit the poor. No state run "EMA" would've had a chance against Katrina either, but it seems to me that Ron would've been perfectly content to let the people of New Orleans starve under that circumstance.

Personal views: I find Ron's views on abortion appalling. I don't see how an obstetrician, whose undoubtedly seen a few suffering rape victims in his time, can honestly universally condemn abortions. Or how his belief in liberty doesn't extend to any degree to a woman's dominion over her own body. I also am a little antsy about his views on African-Americans. As much as he's dismissed his newsletters as having been written by someone else, and that his dislike of the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with a dislike of black people, and that no one seems to care that he's in that photo with a former KKK Grand Wizard, I just can't help but feel like, perhaps there might be a little fire with all that smoke. I've said that I think Ron Paul's not necessarily a bad guy (short of posting a few counterpoints), and mostly give him the benefit of the doubt on his intentions as I do for Obama (save for arguments sakes as I have), but I can't deny that I have some qualms about his true colours too.

OK, I'm tired of typing.

[The Situation]

Again, it's a digression not suited for this thread. But I would argue that Harper is one of the most autocratic in recent memory. The Prime Minister is supposed to represent the will of his party. In recent years, that's not been the case, not to the least extent, as any dissidence from the party line has been punished.

No, it can't be both. Either you think the Federal Reserve is too undemocratic and outside the control of the voters, meaning that you don't blame Obama for its policies, or you blame Obama, who was democratically elected.

However, for the record, I don't think necessarily everyone who's meant to serve the public should be elected. For instance, I very much think Supreme Court justices should be appointed as they are in Canada.

[The Situation]

You make some valid points, I won't deny. I believe that Obama has made some mistakes, and I recognize that the sheen has come off him a little bit. I don't know if he's condemned himself so much as been forced into a corner by circumstances out of his control. But that was also the case for Jimmy Carter, and he's remembered as a weak leader rather than someone who tried to build consensus and ended up getting steamrolled for it, so perhaps the same allegation is true of Obama.

But Ron's Paulicies (at the very least, you have to admit I make better puns than id) are fraught with things I disagree with. OK, here goes:

Environmental: free market environmentalism, as I gather his philosophy is called, does not work at all. Without strong environmental protection from the federal level, the disincentive to pollute would be very low. All you have to do is buy up some cheap land somewhere and you can fill it up with toxic waste all you like, and what's to stop you. Left to the states, a good number will take the easy route and leave the cleanup to future generations. That's what "SuperFund" sites are, basically environmental disasters that were unchecked by limpwristed environmental policy at the time and now are a source of untold damage to the environment and neighbouring communities. Similarly, climate change is a fact, and it's due to CO2 emissions. The time for debating this is over. Paul is a dedicated climate change denier. That's already a dealbreaker for me.

Foreign: Ron Paul wants to pull all the troops out now. This appeals to pacifists everywhere (and I am one by the way), though I think Ron's main motivation is to save money. The problem I see is that the Afghans can't run their own country, which will slowly come under the control of extreme Islamists again. That might be an unavoidable outcome at this point, but the reasons to leave troops there are largely compassionate: as long as they're there, Afghan women can go to school, be members of government, etc. Do I think Bush went in to save the women? No. But I also think leaving would condemn them, and that's a big part of the reason they're still there. I guess trying to curb terrorism is another reason, not that occupation is an effective way of accomplishing that. But Obama is probably operating on the premise that if troops leave now, Al Qaeda moves right back in. And you know what, he's probably right about that. Paul seems to think that withdrawing all troops will solve that problem. I've made the point before that he doesn't seem to respect the fact that he's inheriting the problems (ie middle East interventionism) of 50 years of predecessors, and ignoring the region won't make the extreme Islamists go away. I also am of two minds about the Israel situation (as is Obama, clearly), but I think they will be pushed to the brink of war without any American presence there, with potentially disastrous results. That sort of extends to Iran as well. I don't think Obama wants to invade Iran, and I don't think it will come to that. But, Iran has positioned themselves as a threat to Israel, which puts Obama in a very difficult spot. I think the Middle East is a very difficult problem for a lot of reasons, and I think the US is too embroiled in it to pack up and leave, and I think even if Paul became President and wanted to, he wouldn't be able to pull the troops out.

Financial: I don't deny that seeing the big banks get their bailout irked me something fierce. Again, it was under a Bush government, but both presidential candidates went along with it, for reasons that may or may not have been political. However, I also think there are certain ramifications of not bailing out the banks that were unclear. One could try to paint Obama's motives as trying to protect his financial cronies, or as trying to keep things from getting even worse for the millions of working class Americans, whose financial fates are equally tied up with the fortunes of the banks. Of course, as an Obama "apologist", I give more credence to the latter possibility than it seems you do. There's also the question of how much value one places on the fulfillment of foreign commitments. Allowing the banks to bomb and the country to go bankrupt, as far as I can tell, would have longlasting effects on the country's companies to do business internationally. Fact is, I think Ron didn't want to bail the banks out for ideological reasons, but I don't know if all the consequences were fully considered. Frankly, it's easy to decide that Obama's motives were sinister when you don't like him, or noble if you do.

Libertarianism: I am a major proponent of civil liberties. My understanding of the NDAA is that Obama's wish was to prosecute the prisoners at Guantanamo in the United States or to send them abroad, and that this was defeated by Republicans (though I'll concede I may have misinterpreted it). I know I keep saying this, but if one is going to blame Obama for what happened under his first two years, everything since then needs to be treated as Republican-tainted. However, I recognize that Obama has continued to interrogate enemy combatants, etc, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. But the issue with Ron Paul is to do with liberty for Americans (particularly as he projects as so tough on immigrants, which also rubs me the wrong way). But to me his priorities are all backwards. As I see it, the main things are liberty not to pay taxes (paraphrased, but that's the gist), liberty to own guns, nothing should be illegal, property rights strengthened, and I guess, dismantle the TSA. Well let's start with the latter first. No one likes to be patted down at the airport. But I think it'd be pretty ridiculous to go back to pre-9/11 security restrictions. Once upon a time people could bring guns on to airplanes. That's a liberty that I can live without. Not to mention that I think liberty around guns in general should be restricted, not loosened, and this is another major policy divergence I have with Paul. That was more of a Clinton issue I suppose, but the fact is, more guns make the world more dangerous. I don't really think that's too much in dispute, the cross-border comparison seeming particularly valid. Similarly, I don't think heroin should be legal. I addressed this point further up, but to summarize, I think the well-being of society should trump personal liberty in some cases. Not in basic human rights, habeus corpus-type stuff, but in terms of gun ownership I do. And Ron seems to think property rights are more important than civil rights, and wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act because it violates property rights. To me, civil rights are far FAR more important than property rights, because I have respect for the sanctity of human life (also in line with how I feel about protecting civilians in foreign countries). Ron's main premise seems to be that he doesn't want to pay any taxes, because taxes are a restriction of liberty or something. In response, he wants to cut a whole bunch of stuff...

Cuts to Federal agencies: The EPA is something I've already addressed. But I used the example of FEMA a few posts back as something Ron wants to eliminate. To me, FEMA is a symbol that the people of America have a common interest in each other's welfare. It didn't handle Katrina very well because of a massive lack of funding. But the fact is, to me there's something very heartless about telling a person "sorry you lost your house, I guess you shouldn't have built it there in the first place, good bye". This is basically Ron's policy, from his own mouth. In other words, I'll cut back your taxes, but if something bad happens, you're on your own. I don't think I would deserve to be labeled a socialist to say that I think this is an extreme, and very uncompassionate stance. I mostly believe in the free market, but I'm not some kind of objectivist who thinks everyone reaps what they sow. This goes back to my views on liberty being balanced by social justice: some people are going to be rich and some poor, but the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security systems (all of which Ron wants gone) serve to somewhat balance these out a little, having a bit of a core respect for the value of human life over the value of tax dollars. And for me, that balance is key. Paul's policy of "letting the states decide" is not a good one either, because you create a situation where the wealthy migrate to where they can exploit the poor. No state run "EMA" would've had a chance against Katrina either, but it seems to me that Ron would've been perfectly content to let the people of New Orleans starve under that circumstance.

Personal views: I find Ron's views on abortion appalling. I don't see how an obstetrician, whose undoubtedly seen a few suffering rape victims in his time, can honestly universally condemn abortions. Or how his belief in liberty doesn't extend to any degree to a woman's dominion over her own body. I also am a little antsy about his views on African-Americans. As much as he's dismissed his newsletters as having been written by someone else, and that his dislike of the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with a dislike of black people, and that no one seems to care that he's in that photo with a former KKK Grand Wizard, I just can't help but feel like, perhaps there might be a little fire with all that smoke. I've said that I think Ron Paul's not necessarily a bad guy (short of posting a few counterpoints), and mostly give him the benefit of the doubt on his intentions as I do for Obama (save for arguments sakes as I have), but I can't deny that I have some qualms about his true colours too.

OK, I'm tired of typing.

[Pouria]

So I guess Canada is a prison for you now huh? We have welfare, public medical benefits, etc. Please, don't let me keep you at your computer when you could be breaking out of your oppressive prison of Canada for somewhere you can be free.

[Pouria]

You are truly a troll.

You bring up numerous points, I rebut them, then you completely change the topic and flow of debate.

I see how your tactics defeat conversation and debate and I will not be a part of it. Say what you will about me and claim I just can't defend paul (which I have been doing with ease throughout the thread, alongside many others ) but it's just another line from your little black book. You continue to change the subject back to the media talking points that HAVE ALL PROVEN TO BE BULLSHIP.

I was clearly and concisely arguing the points that you laid out before my last post, and before that one, and if you cannot do the same, you don't deserve my attention or debate and I'm going to accept that as your resignation from this thread. I don't care either from my point of view, but I do feel sorry for the one or two idiots that your game actually influences.

How can you actually try to differentiate yourself from Unbridled_ID when you employ the exact same tactic? You're insulting yourself, while your peers here laugh at you.

The days of your kind are numbered my friend. You may enjoy the benefits of being who you are and pushing what you push, but those days will come to an end soon.

I am the proof. Not so long ago I couldn't argue my way out of a wet paper bag. I watched tv like a zombie, I listened to the people who "seemed to know what they were talking about" .

We're all waking up. Sorry to burst the "bubble"

I don't mind your antics, it's fine. It isn't mine to repay, or avenge.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

You are truly a troll.

You bring up numerous points, I rebut them, then you completely change the topic and flow of debate.

I see how your tactics defeat conversation and debate and I will not be a part of it. Say what you will about me and claim I just can't defend paul (which I have been doing with ease throughout the thread, alongside many others ) but it's just another line from your little black book. You continue to change the subject back to the media talking points that HAVE ALL PROVEN TO BE BULLSHIP.

I was clearly and concisely arguing the points that you laid out before my last post, and before that one, and if you cannot do the same, you don't deserve my attention or debate and I'm going to accept that as your resignation from this thread. I don't care either from my point of view, but I do feel sorry for the one or two idiots that your game actually influences.

How can you actually try to differentiate yourself from Unbridled_ID when you employ the exact same tactic? You're insulting yourself, while your peers here laugh at you.

The days of your kind are numbered my friend. You may enjoy the benefits of being who you are and pushing what you push, but those days will come to an end soon.

I am the proof. Not so long ago I couldn't argue my way out of a wet paper bag. I watched tv like a zombie, I listened to the people who "seemed to know what they were talking about" .

We're all waking up. Sorry to burst the "bubble"

I don't mind your antics, it's fine. It isn't mine to repay, or avenge.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

Mr. Gretzky is just like Bill O'Reilly. He quickly changes the topic and the flow of the debate when met with a proper response with numerous facts and evidence. The elites would definitely love a puppet like Mr. Gretzky if he would've run for president.

[key2thecup]

***

***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbozz_5hBiM

Oliver Stone: Ron Paul is the only one saying anything intelligent

Legendary filmmaker Oliver Stone, known for his controversial movies, told Rock Cellar Magazine in a recent interview that he would vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul if he was running against President Barack Obama. “He’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world,” Mr. Stone told Rock Cellar Magazine’s Ed Rampell.

Mr. Stone, who has directed such films as Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July, posited that “there’s no way that we can continue this spending spree.” Mr. Paul is a big proponent of cutting the federal budget. In fact, the Texas congressman’s “Plan to Restore America” calls for $1 trillion in spending cuts during his first year in the Oval Office. Mr. Paul’s plan also calls for the elimination of the Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education departments and the abolishment of the Transportation Security Administration.

Mr. Stone is not the first celebrity to say something positive about Mr. Paul. American Idol winner Kelly Clarkson endorsed Mr. Paul to the dismay of her many followers.

“I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote. Too bad he probably won’t,” Ms. Clarkson tweeted in December.

Mr. Stone is unlikely to receive the same reaction from his fan base that Ms. Clarkson did after making pro-Ron Paul comments. Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July, two of Mr. Stone’s anti-war movies, are most likely favorites of many of Mr. Paul’s supporters.

Congressman Paul (R-TX) is still in the mix to win the Republican presidential nomination, although he trails former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the delegate count. Unable to secure a top-tier finish in the South Carolina Republican primary, Mr. Paul is looking past Florida in order to pursue delegates in the caucus states of Nevada and Minnesota.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/oliver-stone-ron-paul-is-the-only-one-saying-anything-intelligent/#ixzz1kOnyZnzX