Conquer Club

tzor wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:If we still had the color coded terror alert, would it be red right now?

Due to major changes in the composition of the government at the Federal Level, we are officially on CODE PINK at the moment.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:I think we can all agree to that.

Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

and they "don't like it" because they realize that many of those things, contrary to the Phatt-view really contribute to real freedom for most Americans.

Its pretty hard to worry about freedom when your kids are not getting educated, you have trouble putting food on the table and you know that your kids are going to wind up paying for all these wonderful tax breaks out of THEIR pockets, never mind that they did not reap the benefits....

and, oh yeah... but hey, the fact that the 1% is the ONLY group that has done well, that the middle class has SLID amongst all these wonderful tax breaks is just irrelevant. The right wing "factoids" claim that the middle class will do better with more tax breaks and we should all just go ahead and believe it.

I don't think you read Frigidus's post correctly. He was referring to conservative Republican primary voters (the ones who voted for Mitt Romney) and how those people don't want a reduced military or an end to the war on drugs and the federal reserve. He's not referring to your average Democrat. I'm not sure you truly (to borrow your word) understand libertarianism. It's not just about tax cuts.

I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

and they "don't like it" because they realize that many of those things, contrary to the Phatt-view really contribute to real freedom for most Americans.

Its pretty hard to worry about freedom when your kids are not getting educated, you have trouble putting food on the table and you know that your kids are going to wind up paying for all these wonderful tax breaks out of THEIR pockets, never mind that they did not reap the benefits....

and, oh yeah... but hey, the fact that the 1% is the ONLY group that has done well, that the middle class has SLID amongst all these wonderful tax breaks is just irrelevant. The right wing "factoids" claim that the middle class will do better with more tax breaks and we should all just go ahead and believe it.

I don't think you read Frigidus's post correctly. He was referring to conservative Republican primary voters (the ones who voted for Mitt Romney) and how those people don't want a reduced military or an end to the war on drugs and the federal reserve. He's not referring to your average Democrat. I'm not sure you truly (to borrow your word) understand libertarianism. It's not just about tax cuts.

I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.

Yeah, that's not what it says.

Nola_Lifer wrote:WOW someone miss the boat on this one. I'd say there are plenty who are still asleep. Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail. We have many god-fearing Christians who want to kill any Muslim or bomb their country into oblivion. There is an knowledge issue here. Shit there are even people in my family that I have to fight against because of the bull shit that they say and they call themselves Christians.

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.

I'll agree to that.

Unbelievably, me too.

tzor wrote:In most of the Muslim world, the ideal government is a theocracy.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.

Yeah, that's not what it says.

Really, then let me requote it for you:

Frigidus wrote:
Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:In most of the Muslim world, the ideal government is a theocracy.

Sadly, that seems to be the push of the conservative right wing in this country as well. Just because its Christianity pushing the rules doesn't mean its not pushing rules.

bedub1 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.

I'll agree to that.

Unbelievably, me too.

The terrorist won already. They didn't manage to take away our freedom. We did it to ourselves. Between the NDAA, the TSA, the NSA spying on American's, we no longer have freedom. Who is worse than a terrorist? The person that reacts improperly and causes more damage than the terrorist ever could have imagined. In this instance, the NDAA, TSA, and NSA are all terrorist organizations/implementations.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:I think we can all agree to that.

Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

and they "don't like it" because they realize that many of those things, contrary to the Phatt-view really contribute to real freedom for most Americans.

Nola_Lifer wrote:
WOW someone miss the boat on this one. I'd say there are plenty who are still asleep. Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.

Yeah, that's not what it says.

Really, then let me requote it for you:

Frigidus wrote:
Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.

Yeah, that's not what it says.

Really, then let me requote it for you:

Frigidus wrote:
Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

Fucking-a.

The point is that the only thing most Republicans liked about Ron Paul was the "lower taxes." What they didn't like were his stancces on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve, etc.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Except, the real sum zero bit is when the majority of real wealth is created by trading stocks and holding loans for interest, not selling products or generating real services outside of the financial industry supports. (watering plants in GE offices is a gain... accounting for stockbrockers, not).

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

Or... to follow your brainfart all the way through, are are you saying that if Ron Paul drops out of the race, Ron Paul supports should not vote????? And if they make the intelligent choice to vote for someone who is running for office, then they cannot talk about any other candidate?

Fail is 100% your buddy. Even deeper fail, what the F does this have to do with 9-11??

Phatscotty wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.

I'll agree to that.

Unbelievably, me too.

The terrorist won already. They didn't manage to take away our freedom. We did it to ourselves. Between the NDAA, the TSA, the NSA spying on American's, we no longer have freedom. Who is worse than a terrorist? The person that reacts improperly and causes more damage than the terrorist ever could have imagined. In this instance, the NDAA, TSA, and NSA are all terrorist organizations/implementations.

United we stand, divided (on social issues only?) we fell.

john9blue wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
WOW someone miss the boat on this one. I'd say there are plenty who are still asleep. Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

who are these people?

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

Phatscotty wrote:Or... to follow your brainfart all the way through, are are you saying that if Ron Paul drops out of the race, Ron Paul supports should not vote????? And if they make the intelligent choice to vote for someone who is running for office, then they cannot talk about any other candidate?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul did make it a point to not endorse Romney, but he also said he wouldn't endorse Gary Johnson or anyone else (maybe looking out for his son's future presidential run).

thegreekdog wrote:
You should vote for Gary Johnson who more closely aligns with Ron Paul's political views than Mitt Romney.

Woodruff wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul did make it a point to not endorse Romney, but he also said he wouldn't endorse Gary Johnson or anyone else (maybe looking out for his son's future presidential run).

That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

Phatscotty wrote:I have never heard of this guy until just recently (1st Republican debate), and I have also come to notice that most of the people I know who support him are complete dickheads.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Look at some on these forum who say they are staunch Ron Paul supporters but as soon as he doesn't have a chance it is Mitt this and Mitt that. Talk about fail.

WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?

A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul did make it a point to not endorse Romney, but he also said he wouldn't endorse Gary Johnson or anyone else (maybe looking out for his son's future presidential run).

That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.

I think he didn't endorse Gary Johnson so that his son wouldn't get screwed over by the Republican Party. I'm more disappointed in Rand Paul than Ron. That being said, most Paulites I know (with some exceptions, e.g. Phattraitor) are voting for Gary Johnson. It's not like we're stupid. "Hmmm... who am I going to vote for? It has to be whomever Ron Paul endorsed. Wait, he didn't endorse anyone? Oh no! Whatever shall I do!"

Phatscotty wrote:I have never heard of this guy until just recently (1st Republican debate), and I have also come to notice that most of the people I know who support him are complete dickheads.

Those are horrendous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.

Woodruff wrote:That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.