Moderator: Community Team
So Victoria's Secret is in on the corporate boondoggling now. I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords!tzor wrote:Due to major changes in the composition of the government at the Federal Level, we are officially on CODE PINK at the moment.Phatscotty wrote:If we still had the color coded terror alert, would it be red right now?
Yeah, that's not what it says.PLAYER57832 wrote:I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.thegreekdog wrote: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.PLAYER57832 wrote: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.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.
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.
WOW someone miss the boat on this one.thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, that's not what it says.PLAYER57832 wrote:I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.thegreekdog wrote: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.PLAYER57832 wrote: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.jay_a2j wrote:
Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.
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'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. 
I'm pretty sure Player won't be voting for Romney.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.
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.jay_a2j wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'll agree to that.Woodruff wrote:What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.Phatscotty wrote:Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?
People Jumping from World Trade Center
NEVER forget
Unbelievably, me too.
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.tzor wrote:In most of the Muslim world, the ideal government is a theocracy.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Really, then let me requote it for you:thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, that's not what it says.PLAYER57832 wrote: I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.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.
wait, what? How are Christians pushing for a theocracy and not Muslims? Oh, because 33 states in America burned down the American flag at their capitals and raised the Christian flag???PLAYER57832 wrote: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.tzor wrote:In most of the Muslim world, the ideal government is a theocracy.
United we stand, divided (on social issues only?) we fell.bedub1 wrote: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.jay_a2j wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'll agree to that.Woodruff wrote:What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.Phatscotty wrote:Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?
People Jumping from World Trade Center
NEVER forget
Unbelievably, me too.
Again, what is the Phatt-view?PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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.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.
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.
who are these people?Nola_Lifer wrote:
WOW someone miss the boat on this one.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Fucking-a.PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Really, then let me requote it for you:thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, that's not what it says.PLAYER57832 wrote: I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.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.
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).thegreekdog wrote:Fucking-a.PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Really, then let me requote it for you:thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, that's not what it says.PLAYER57832 wrote: I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.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.
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.
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).
WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?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.
You should vote for Gary Johnson who more closely aligns with Ron Paul's political views than Mitt Romney.Phatscotty wrote:WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?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.
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??
The views you express in these fora are a direct representation of how and why we are divided, so well done on that.Phatscotty wrote:United we stand, divided (on social issues only?) we fell.bedub1 wrote: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.jay_a2j wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'll agree to that.Woodruff wrote:What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.Phatscotty wrote:Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?
People Jumping from World Trade Center
NEVER forget
Unbelievably, me too.
Seriously?john9blue wrote:who are these people?Nola_Lifer wrote:
WOW someone miss the boat on this one.
A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?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.
Do you like to pretend to be stupid, or is it actually not an act?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?
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).Woodruff wrote:A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?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.
That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.AndyDufresne wrote: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).Woodruff wrote:A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?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.
I have been thinking about it for a long time, as he easily best represents my views. There are a couple problems though. 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:
You should vote for Gary Johnson who more closely aligns with Ron Paul's political views than Mitt Romney.
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!"Woodruff wrote:That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.AndyDufresne wrote: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).Woodruff wrote:A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?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.
Those are horrendous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.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.
?...reasons to vote for Romney....thegreekdog wrote: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!"Woodruff wrote:That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.AndyDufresne wrote: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).Woodruff wrote:A Ron Paul supporter should support the candidate that actually holds Ron Paul's views. You know...Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:WOW, so a Ron Paul supporter should continue to support Ron Paul even when he is no longer running for office/seeking support?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.
Those are horrendous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.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.
are you trolling me?!?Woodruff wrote:That really was a pretty sad thing for Paul to do, not endorsing Gary Johnson. I was very disappointed by that.
