Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Congressman Ron Paul
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > General > Political & World News
Pages: 1, 2
GTA_SA
Hi there

For anyone who knows about Ron paul, the congressman from Texas who is a Republican, well a libertarian.

As anyone who is American, do you like any of Ron's Ideas?

I think some step back in foreign policy is defiantely a good idea, I'm notsure if a lot of what he says may be realistic.

He did mention that if Texas wanted to leave the union as a majority, he would support it.

I personally believe America will be a little smaller at some point in it's future. It makes sense, borders are redrawn eventually, history shows that.
bOnEs
i voted for him last election... his views are pretty close to my own views...

the reason why america is in such a huge hole financially is beceause we keep loaning money we don't even have to foreign countries... i agree in that we need to step back from the world spotlight until we can fix our own issues... even if it means losing our "supposed" top spot in the world... being on top with mammoth problems only highlights our shortcomings anyways...

so that, and various other topics we agree on... he was the voice of the people but, the people decided to choose the idiot that's now in office... seriously, i don't think this country even cares bout the issues anymore... the election plays out like american idol... it's all a show and the people bought into it... ron paul is not a flashy character because, politics should not be flashy anyways...

this may sound strange but, i kind of miss G-dub...
GTA_SA
One of the problems America does face is crude oil decline.

So it's position internationally is an irrational one, and concern is about maintaining dominance over various energy rich areas of the planet.

The saying is, you can't raise a problem in a country that matters, and not have a solution.
Massacre
QUOTE (bOnEs @ Jul 30 2010, 10:18 AM) *
seriously, i don't think this country even cares bout the issues anymore... the election plays out like american idol... it's all a show and the people bought into it...

Exactly. I guarantee that most of the people who voted for Obama only voted for him because he was black.
bOnEs
he's got a way with words too... he might be one of the best speakers i've heard in politics in some time... but, words don't mean shit if there's no value to them...
GTA_SA
Well Barack has failed to stand up for parts of the constitution, after all he is the protector.

Do the young people not care enough to try and do something, or is it a no hope option. mellow.gif

And also I suppose people don't have a lot of time.

Another 1.5 million people are going to be on the streets in the American union of states over the next two years.

Well, the collapsing empire. doh (12).gif
TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE (Massacre @ Jul 30 2010, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE (bOnEs @ Jul 30 2010, 10:18 AM) *
seriously, i don't think this country even cares bout the issues anymore... the election plays out like american idol... it's all a show and the people bought into it...

Exactly. I guarantee that most of the people who voted for Obama only voted for him because he was black.


Exactly. Ive seen far too many "thugs" on facebook on their political views saying "OBAMA"
Not Liberal, not Conservative, Republican or Democrat....OBAMA.

Then there was the T-Shirt "My President is Black"

Guess what? Thanks to you voting solely on race, so is mine.
I absolutely hate it.
Those are the same people who, if you say anything bad about Obama, automatically pull the race card. "Man you racist"

In retrospect, I should have voted Ron Paul, and if he decides to run again, I will vote for him. I voted for McCain, I think I'm done with the whole Republican/Democrat shit.

The only reason those people get voted in is because they tell people what they want to hear, about what they're going to do about certain issues. For example gun control, abortion and the like...how many presidents have said stuff about that and ever done anything?
In respect to gun control as far as I know, seeing as its in the constitution, we as citizens have the right to bear arms. I do not think they would take that away without retaliation from the people...that is, if the people could pull their heads out of their own asses...and the asses of these stupid fucking celebrities.
Don't get me started on that, I went off topic already.
GTA_SA
In theory I like the law of weapon ownership.

But in practice, I don't go for it. wink.gif

If a president fails to stand up for the people's rights, and the federal document he is failing to do his job. Even though the leader is an executive one with power of legislation and domestic and foreign policy related powers. Though the congress is suppose to handle part of that.

Declaration of war is out of date and has been since the last time it would of been considered in 1964. But it some modified way it should be reused.

In the end, if the worst happens in future, some states will have to pressure the Federal gov, or else just consider leaving the union.

TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE (GTA_SA @ Aug 5 2010, 10:32 AM) *
In theory I like the law of weapon ownership.

But in practice, I don't go for it. wink.gif


The way I look at it, you take guns away from the citizens or whatever the scenario, limit them or whatever; criminals will still have guns.

bOnEs
taking guns away from the citizens gives the gov't the ability to control us... period... don't ever believe that no guns means less crime... if all the guns were destroyed today, the bow and arrow would replace it and gangs in compton will be doing drive-by arrowin'...
TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE (bOnEs @ Aug 6 2010, 10:27 AM) *
gangs in compton will be doing drive-by arrowin'...


So much less intimidating...hahaha
GTA_SA
You guys have a point, but since I have grown up culturally with a law like that, it doesn't sit well. Yes, my freedom is denied to be able to protect myself, even if I did like weapons.

But in the end, i don't even have freedom here, at least in the states, each state has a constitution, and then the federal constitution.

I live in a corrupt kingdom, and I can only wait and see when a republic will be established. I would support an independent England. But that is a long way off. It wouldn't practical, since the other countries don't want indepedence. And even to go the full mile for a republican government, the Queen would have to be removed by the four other countries who have the British monarch as their representatives.

TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE (GTA_SA @ Aug 7 2010, 08:01 AM) *
You guys have a point, but since I have grown up culturally with a law like that, it doesn't sit well. Yes, my freedom is denied to be able to protect myself, even if I did like weapons.

But in the end, i don't even have freedom here, at least in the states, each state has a constitution, and then the federal constitution.

I live in a corrupt kingdom, and I can only wait and see when a republic will be established. I would support an independent England. But that is a long way off. It wouldn't practical, since the other countries don't want indepedence. And even to go the full mile for a republican government, the Queen would have to be removed by the four other countries who have the British monarch as their representatives.


What about Northern Ireland?
GTA_SA
What about it? Well I suppose it is two choice, the Ulster nationalists live within their own nation as Six counties, that including the Irish minority. Or the north east of Ulster joins the rest of Ireland.

I don't quite see what else is the solution, the west of Ulster is part of the country, plus some natural gas is located off the coast there.
trathen93
seeing that we're discussing politics and this has managed to sway towards the uk, how about I throw david cameron into the mix.

It seems to me that the only reason people voted for him is because they dont like gordon brown. Now if im honest, brown isnt the best politician ever but he inherited a major shit storm from tony blair. it was just waiting to go off in his face and fuck the whole labour party up.

I know acknowledge that someone is going to mention nick clegg, but the whole lib dem setup doesnt really appeal, I know that people agreed with him after one of the tv debates but its just too central. they've shown this by seriously considering either becoming labours bitch or conservatives bitch after the votes were so close. (i now see hes getting it regularly of cameron)

My views are a bit biased, I dont like david cameron at all, hes a stuck up smarmy prick. but its the fact that he really didnt win the election as such that annoys me.

Just watch him fuck the country up.

Edit: read it over and realised all i done was ramble on, but you get the idea
GTA_SA
Only English independence can bring about a new direction for England itself. Many English MP's need to realise that, they need to restore the parliament, restore the flag, by law if need be.

It can be only be that way a better future. wink.gif One can hope only, though that is a dangerous word too.
Damian
I like Ron Paul but he was too much of an extremist with his views. He didn't stand a chance at winning.
GTA_SA
Yes, but foreign policy it wasn't completely extreme was it?

In the end his Libertarian views only work for those who are exactly like him. Which I suppose generally a lot of us may not be, regardless of our location in the world.
GTA_SA
One interview back in 1988, it is interesting to see him then and now, the contrast with how he thought about various issues of that era and his difference with this one.

Meyer Lansky
who are we kidding? the Elite would assassinate him, if he were to make the changes he says.....he might end up another puppet
demon
QUOTE (bOnEs @ Aug 6 2010, 05:27 PM) *
taking guns away from the citizens gives the gov't the ability to control us...

Like the government aren't controlling the people already? They control the law and thus they do control the people. I don't see how this could change if citizens were without guns.

I don't disagree with you in this debate as a whole, but I don't buy that particular argument.
GTA_SA
Ron Paul is running again.

It will have to be the young people who get him to the whitehouse.

I still think his foreign policy is still a good ticket, though it won't be enough for many out there.

I read about a Marine Jesse Goodell who served in the Mortuary in Taqaddam in Iraq, a base the current Senator John Kerry visited in 2004. That year Mrs Goodell served there having the job to collect and examine and catalogue dead Marines from the battlefield. It was a grisily task, very.

She had to collect dead body parts and place them into body bags and into freezers prior to working out what body part went where and to who.

That was a chilling read, the article I read from Alternet.org Having Read that makes more of a pacifist.

She published her book called "Shade it Black"

I don't intend in purchasing the book as I certainly read enough to make me anti war. I have been for a long time, so it isn't anything new, but it just reinforces that belief I have.
GTA_SA
Will Ron Paul change the race? Iwoa state is the first stop in the Republican primaries.

I think some of his views do need to be taken seriously. He could win and not make a big difference domestically, but his foreign policy attitude seems much more humble than anyone else, and not forgetting his respect for the Veterans of the military has meant he has received the most money from them than any other contestant.

demon
Ron Paul, the name sounds familiar, as does all the other names. But I don't know him. Maybe I have read his program but I'm not sure.
GTA_SA
Well here is a clip from the not to distant past.

You like Ron Paul except on foreign policy
demon
Ron Paul has some good ideas, like reducing the state bureaucracy, but he's too radical for me. I don't see him as a pure republican. I think I like Mitt Romney and that woman, Bachman?

Ron Paul seek to isolate USA and close most of the military bases around the world. I don't like this, those bases helps keep your allies safe. I don't know if I want USA as the world police, but I like the US better than the UN.
GTA_SA
Nations can defend themselves, they can try and work out their own problems.

His views are republican as such as having a better foreign policy. Remember Reagan withdrew the soldiers from lebanon in 1983 because it was a mistake to go.

I would never want US soldiers stationed here in England first and foremost. I would never want another nation to maintain a base here.

Candidates like Romney and Bachman only want to continue the status quo.

America cannot continue spending like it has, Rome collapsed not because it was invaded, but the economics wasn't sound. The traitors were there, in Rome, the senators destroyed their republic.
demon
Is Ron Paul still in the race? I don't know how well (or bad) he did in Iowa, but I do know he's not one of the two who did best. Iowa isn't that important, but if he did terribly bad then maybe he's out of the race.

I'm quite pleased with the result.

GTA_SA
Ron Paul came third in Iowan results. New Hampshire will be another eye opener on him.

Soldier speaks up for Ron Paul

Media people talk about Ron Paul, they'd lose their Jobs. They fear this man!
demon
In his private finances, Ron Paul is betting on full scale economic meltdown lol.


The following is a quote from The Wall Street Journal.




Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul marches to his own drummer in politics – and in his investment portfolio, too.

Here at Total Return, we’ve looked at hundreds of the annual financial-disclosure forms in which the members of Congress reveal their assets and trades – and we’ve never seen a more unorthodox portfolio than Ron Paul’s. (In fact, The Wall Street Journal revealed problematic trading in Congress more than a year and a half before the “60 Minutes” episode that recently raised a ruckus over the same topic, but that’s another matter.)

According to data available through his 2010 “Form A” financial disclosure statement, filed last May, Rep. Paul’s portfolio is valued between $2.44 million and $5.46 million. (Congressional disclosures are given in ranges, not precise amounts.)

Most members of Congress, like many Americans, hold some real estate, a few bonds or bond mutual funds, some individual stocks and a bundle of stock funds. Give or take a few percentage points, a typical Congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds or bond funds, 20% in real estate, and 60% in stocks or stock funds.

But Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks. He owns no Apple, no ExxonMobil, no Procter & Gamble, no General Electric, no Johnson & Johnson, not even a diversified mutual fund that holds a broad basket of stocks. Rep. Paul doesn’t own stock in any major companies at all except big precious-metals stocks like Barrick Gold, Goldcorp and Newmont Mining.

Rep. Paul also owns 23 other miners – many of them smaller, Canadian-based “juniors” whose stocks are highly risky. Ten of these stocks have total market valuations of less than $500 million, a common definition of a “microcap” stock. Mr. Paul has between $100,010 and $326,000 (roughly 5% of his assets) invested in these tiny, extremely volatile stocks.

Rep. Paul appears to be a strict buy-and-hold investor who rarely trades; he has held many of his mining stocks since at least 2002. But, as gold and silver prices have fallen sharply since September, precious-metals equities have also taken a pounding, with many dropping 20% or more. That exposes the risk in making a big bet on one narrow sector.

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.

There are many possible doomsday scenarios for the U.S. economy and financial markets, explains Mr. Bernstein, and Rep. Paul’s portfolio protects against only one of them: unexpected inflation accompanied by a collapse in the value of the dollar. If deflation (to name one other possibility) occurs instead, “this portfolio is at great risk” because of its lack of bonds and high exposure to gold.

Running an investment portfolio that protects against only one bad outcome is like living in California and buying homeowner’s insurance that protects only against earthquakes, says Mr. Bernstein. You also want protection against fire and wind and theft and the full range of risks that houses are prone to. Likewise, he adds, investors should hold a broad mix of assets that will hold up under a variety of good and bad scenarios.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Paul didn’t respond to requests for comment. But you can say this for Ron Paul: In investing, as in politics, he has the courage of his convictions.

-- End of quote --


Paul looks like a funny old geezer on the photo. biggrin.gif I think I like him better than his politics.
GTA_SA
So Mr Paul doesn't seem to interest you?

If you have ever fought in war, you'd know it was pretty nasty. He has a good message and he seems to be the only one with some sort of change.

I'm more socialist leaning, so his ideas don't flow with me, but his honest message and a better foreign policy is what got me interested in him back in 2007. I watched his campaign all the way until I didn't have web access, but by then he wasn't going to be the golden ticket.

If Paul doesn't prove very good within one term, people can always vote for somebody else.

The biggest problem with human nature is calousness, and ignorance. I hope Mr Paul can restore some sense of care, the care to avoid conflicts and set an example as a Union of states with a great political history and experience.
demon
But I want more wars, the fact I was angry about the attack on Libya and Serbia was just because those were wrong wars. I hope the US will be on the right side next time they engage in war. But Ron Paul doesn't seem to be willing to engage in any wars at all. It's better than being at war on the wrong side, though.

I just noticed that this topic was started 1.5 years ago, was it known if Paul would become a candidate then?
GTA_SA
At the time, no, it wasn't for sure if he would campaign again, but he will avoid trying to get elected to Congress this year. So his time will be for the whitehouse.

You want more conflict? Just to be on the winning side of history.

Years ago, when I was a much younger, I was ten years old back in school. There was one kid in my class who came from what we now call the Kosovan republic or nation. Had that conflict been left to continue would his family of remained safe. I don't know.

I knew him all the way up untill Sixteen, times change and people etc

It isn't until you meet sombody from a province ravaged by conflict does these views enter your mind, what if the conflict was never resolved.

A lot of Kosovan women got raped, and as Kosovo was a very conservative society, the women who were assaulted were shunned by their husbands or family. Men are the bastards of the world, they kill and rape, yet they go further in some places and push away those who have been violated in the most disgusting ways.

When I read the book, Lonely Soldier: The private war of women serving In Iraq, it was a book about five women who were all American, and they had faced rape, and racism and sexism. For white women it was rape, well and one of Native American descendency and Mexican.

Eli painted Crow Interview - 2009

Eli Painted Crow spoke back in 2006 - Eli painted Crow 2006 Women for Veterans

There were reports of young women who were meeting with recruiters that they'd get unwanted sexual advances or concessions for sex in return. Some could be lies and rumours, but who knows.

But myself being, 22 years old, I hold a different view on conflict, that my country shouldn't get into conflict unless it is a direct attack.
demon
The Balkans could be a topic of its own, but I don't think I want to debate it. You recognize Kosovo as a nation and I do not recognize it, let's just leave it at that. And I agree that men are the bastards of the world.

Here is a follow-up article on the previous Ron Paul article I posted.
Quoting Jason Zweig in The Wall Street Journal:

Our recent post on Ron Paulís personal investment portfolio drew a torrent of comment from readers. In this post, weíll try to cover the main points they raised.

As a financial journalist (and registered Independent), I donít take sides in political campaigns. But, in more than 20 years as an investing reporter, Iíve never seen a more unorthodox portfolio than Rep. Paulís: no bonds at all, no mainstream stocks or mutual funds (other than three funds that ďshort sell,Ē or bet against, U.S. stocks), and 64% of all assets in the shares of companies that mine silver and gold.

Its distinctiveness alone makes Rep. Paulís portfolio worth writing, and reading, about. But his investing approach is also noteworthy for another reason: because it points toward a profound lesson about diversification.

Many of Rep. Paulís supporters protested, in their comments, that his portfolio has already been vindicated by its performance.

It isnít that simple.

Congressional financial-disclosure forms report holdings only in wide dollar ranges (for example, $15,001 to $50,000). If Rep. Paul owned gold bullion, estimating his investment performance would be fairly easy. But he doesnít; he owns gold-mining stocks instead. And since the size of each stock holding is disclosed only within a broad band of valuation, thereís no way an outside observer can derive a long-term rate of return for Rep. Paulís portfolio (or for any other member of Congress, for that matter). We did ask for comment, but his office didnít respond.

There isnít much doubt that Rep. Paulís portfolio has outperformed the U.S. stock market as a whole. Ten years ago, the NYSE Arca Gold BUGS Index, a basket of stocks in mining companies, was at $65; this week, itís at $522. Thatís roughly a 23% average annual return; over the past decade, by contrast, the Standard & Poorís 500-stock index, counting dividends, has returned some 2.9% annually.

Yet we would argue that performance alone canít tell you whether an investment approach is sensible or not. After all, over the 10 years ended Dec. 31, 1999, Internet stocks far outperformed most other investments. That didnít ensure that they would continue to do so in the years to come, and it certainly didnít mean that it was prudent to put all or most of your money into stocks like Pets.com or eToys Inc.

Likewise, over the decade ended Dec. 31, 1989, Japanese stocks outperformed just about all other financial assets worldwide. But the Land of the Rising Sun very quickly became the Land of the Sinking Stocks, and anyone who kept most of his money in Japanese stocks has spent the last two decades kicking himself.

The same has been true of countless other assets at many other times and places.

In each of those cases, just as those assets were cresting in price, the people who owned them declared that their past performance proved that they were ďrightĒ to make huge bets on them. History proved them wrong.

In short, investing isnít just about maximizing your upside if you turn out to be right. Itís also about minimizing your downside if you turn out to be wrong. Putting two-thirds of all your assets into one concentrated bet is a great idea if the future plays out just as you imagine it will Ė but a rotten idea if the future turns out to be full of surprises.

Thatís why most investors diversify: to get cheap insurance against the two greatest risks we face.

One is the danger of other peopleís ignorance and error: that governments will pursue reckless policies, that corporations will be run into the ground, that speculators will drive valuations of assets to euphoric highs and miserable lows. This is the kind of risk that Rep. Paul has insured against, so far very successfully.

The second risk is the danger of our own ignorance and error: that we will underestimate the resilience of people and markets, that we will mistake likelihoods for certainties, that we ourselves will be swept up in manias and dragged down into depression when markets go mad. Above all, it is the simple risk that we will end up so sure of our own view of the world that the future is certain to catch us by surprise. And this is the risk that Rep. Paulís portfolio doesnít appear to insure against at all.

Rep. Paulís supporters admire him for the consistency of his political views. But if the future happens to unfold in ways he doesnít expect, then his hot investment portfolio is likely to go cold in a hurry.

End of quote.

So he's a little crazy managing his own funds, what about managing the American economy?
GTA_SA
That can't be the only position against him.

The way I see it, is he could end up like Barack, trying to change and not getting any change. Promise change and change can't be delivered the way Barack wants to see change, but many people don't agree with his views.

Paul was talking about the housing bubble collapse back in 2003. Check out Ron Paul classics on youtube.

Btw, the fact that Kosovo or Kosava became a nation doesn't really interest me, it became what it became and that is the reality that has to be dealth with by it's neighbours and the world. There isn't much to be said. A kosovan problem, or it's neighbours problem.
demon
Being liberal is not always bad, but I think Paul is a bit too much. Wasn't he in another party before he became republican? And I think it's important to define marriage as a union between man and woman, Paul seems to think that anything is eligible for marriage. It's not normal for a 76 year old man to have that point of view, I think he's smoked too much?

Paul is 76 years old, no one doubt his health? I remember some talk about McCain being too old for the job four years ago. I guess he too was in his 70s.

Massacre
QUOTE (demon @ Jan 9 2012, 02:05 PM) *
I think it's important to define marriage as a union between man and woman, Paul seems to think that anything is eligible for marriage. It's not normal for a 76 year old man to have that point of view, I think he's smoked too much?

It's normal for anyone who's not a bigoted asshole to have that point of view.
demon
QUOTE (Massacre @ Jan 10 2012, 06:12 AM) *
QUOTE (demon @ Jan 9 2012, 02:05 PM) *
I think it's important to define marriage as a union between man and woman, Paul seems to think that anything is eligible for marriage. It's not normal for a 76 year old man to have that point of view, I think he's smoked too much?

It's normal for anyone who's not a bigoted asshole to have that point of view.

jesus christ.... wacko.gif
Massacre
What a clever counterpoint.
demon
It was an expression of shock, not a counterpoint. Thanks to your language I understood that any counterpoint would be a waste of my time.
GTA_SA
Paul attracts many young people who hold liberal views, they may not agree with his anti abortion view. But people want some sort of change. He came second in New Hampshire.
demon
He is anti-abortion??????? This just gets stranger and stranger. If he is liberal enough to accept same sex marriage then how in the world can he be too conservative for abortion, or anything else for that matter.

I have a question for whoever can answer it. I don't know how the republicans determine the winner at the end of the road. Romney won Iowa with just a handful votes (8?), would his victory have counted more if he had won a huge victory? Do they count how many states a candidate won, or number of total votes or what?
Massacre
QUOTE (demon @ Jan 11 2012, 08:26 AM) *
It was an expression of shock, not a counterpoint. Thanks to your language I understood that any counterpoint would be a waste of my time.

There's no counterpoint to be made, anyway. There is no reason for same-sex marriage to be against the law anywhere in the world.
demon
QUOTE (demon @ Jan 11 2012, 11:06 PM) *
I have a question for whoever can answer it. I don't know how the republicans determine the winner at the end of the road. Romney won Iowa with just a handful votes (8?), would his victory have counted more if he had won a huge victory? Do they count how many states a candidate won, or number of total votes or what?

I found out how they pick the winner, a newspaper explained it. The system is a mess, different rules in different states. Crazy. I'm sure many Americans - even republicans - don't understand the system completely.
GTA_SA
Mr Paul hasn't made front runner yet...people don't seem to moving over to his support. There is still time, but it will have to happen soon enough.
Massacre
People are leaning towards Newt Gingrich. Shit, even Santorum's starting to gain support, which is sickening. Ron Paul isn't going to be president, America is fucked.
demon
QUOTE (GTA_SA @ Feb 20 2012, 03:18 PM) *
Mr Paul hasn't made front runner yet...people don't seem to moving over to his support. There is still time, but it will have to happen soon enough.

Mr Paul isn't mentioned in the news any more so I guess he's done.


QUOTE (Massacre @ Feb 21 2012, 01:54 AM) *
People are leaning towards Newt Gingrich. Shit, even Santorum's starting to gain support, which is sickening. Ron Paul isn't going to be president, America is fucked.

They are all in the same party, it can't be that bad?
Why is Santorum sickening? I don't know anything. I know a little about Paul and Romney, and that Gingrich is into adultery. That last part doesn't sound good, especially in America.
Massacre
QUOTE (demon @ Feb 24 2012, 08:04 PM) *
They are all in the same party, it can't be that bad?

All Republicans share a few basic beliefs, but they all have different stances on other issues, and it's the differing opinions that matter. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and that's what made him such a great candidate. He only joined the Republican Party because a third party candidate is never going to get elected, because Americans are stupid and can only make an A or B choice.

As for Santorum, he's pro-religion, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage, to the point that it's just illogical and offensive. He compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality, for fuck's sake. He's also strictly anti-Libertarian and anti-right-to-privacy. He shouldn't even be a Senator, let alone President, and if he were President, I'd be living in the UK. He is the absolute worst candidate I have ever seen. He is the scum of the earth.
demon
QUOTE (Massacre @ Feb 26 2012, 01:59 AM) *
a third party candidate is never going to get elected, because Americans are stupid and can only make an A or B choice.

That's a bit funny. The problem in many European countries is too many parties making governments weak and unstable. But only two choices is only one more than dictatorship....



QUOTE
As for Santorum, he's pro-religion, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage, to the point that it's just illogical and offensive. He compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality, for fuck's sake. He's also strictly anti-Libertarian and anti-right-to-privacy. He shouldn't even be a Senator, let alone President, and if he were President, I'd be living in the UK. He is the absolute worst candidate I have ever seen. He is the scum of the earth.

That "scum of the earth" isn't so bad. The only bad things there are anti-abortion and anti-right-to-privacy. He maybe supported PIPA and SOPA? That's bad, very bad indeed. But I do like the other stances you mentioned.
Massacre
QUOTE (Massacre @ Feb 25 2012, 07:59 PM) *
He compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.

Your illogical anti-gay marriage stance aside, at least acknowledge how stupid and offensive that is. Do me this courtesy.

Also, to clarify one of my bullet points, by "pro-religion," I didn't mean that I am against religion, I'm actually indifferent to it until an extremist does something stupid, I mean that Santorum is religious to a fault. He bases his political stances on his misguided views of his faith, and one man's religion has no place in the government of a country with many religions. I forget what hateful offshoot of Christianity he follows, but he thinks his faith is the only one that matters, and people with beliefs like that should not have any kind of power.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.