Paul Supporters

[AFBlue]

Is it just me, or are Ron Paul supporters insufferable in general? This is not a direct shot at Che and his innumerable articles, though the projected inferiority complex is apparent. I was just watching my new favorite channel (C-Span) and they were taking calls for a conservative guest from supposed Republicans, Democrats, and Indepndents. It was 5/1 insufferable Paul supporters to rational people.

What is it about the supporters? Is it them taking on the personality of their fearless leader, or is it the revolutionary message itself that stirs the overzealous actions and behavior?

[Winehole23]

yeah, they are a little more insufferable than everyone else.

I wouldn't blame that on totally on RP. That would be like blaming the Dead for Deadheads, or JC for the ill behavior of his flock.

[AFBlue]

I pray that God smites you for that last comment.

[Winehole23]

sorry. I'll try not to say anything else derogatory about the Grateful Dead.

[Jacob1983]

What's wrong with small government and limited government? What's wrong with being against nation building and government spending that causes a country to go bankrupt? What's wrong with people being pissed about America spending a billion dollars on an embassy in Iraq? What's wrong with letting people do what they want to do?

[Winehole23]

RP has no chance to win, but he is the candidate bringing youth and enthusiasm -- new voters -- to the Republican party. discouraging the new participation and self-identification is an odd strategy to adopt imho...

[AFBlue]

What's wrong with small government and limited government? What's wrong with being against nation building and government spending that causes a country to go bankrupt? What's wrong with people being pissed about America spending a billion dollars on an embassy in Iraq? What's wrong with letting people do what they want to do?

And if people were able to calmly and concisely illustrate the positions you just laid out, rather than ranting and raving, then maybe there would be less of a stereotype.

[AFBlue]

now thinking it was attempted sarcasm. gotta be.

Shoulda used the blue.

[angrydude]

And if the mainstream media didn't pretend Ron Paul didn't even exist until around 2 months ago maybe his supporters wouldn't have to act out so much to force attention onto their candidate.

[ChumpDumper]

And if the mainstream media didn't pretend Ron Paul didn't even exist until around 2 months ago maybe his supporters wouldn't have to act out so much to force attention onto their candidate.No, they would.

[cheguevara]

What is it about the supporters? Is it them taking on the personality of their fearless leader, or is it the revolutionary message itself that stirs the overzealous actions and behavior?

El Che is happy to oblige and answer your connundrum. Listen to these Ron Paul nutcases :lol

Thb9dsbOQtQ

methinks the "insufferable" part comes with the fact that Ron Paul supporters always win the discussion because they always fall back on a piece of paper called the US Constitution :lol

[cheguevara]

look at those adorable kids. they are barely off diapers and already talking about the constitution. That is our future, if it does not bring a tear to your eye, I feel sorry for you. :lol

Ron Paul might lose the presidency but he will something bigger, immortality.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them"

[CuckingFunt]

Nader Supporters 2.0.

[CuckingFunt]

Or maybe Perot Supporters 3.0.

[Winehole23]

Nader Supporters 2.0.52% of Colbert supporters voted for Obama. Stephen Colbert could actually hurt Obama as a write-in in the general election, if it were held today.

[Winehole23]

Or maybe Perot Supporters 3.0.RP seems to be shunning the third party bid; he'd probably rather have a political legacy to pass to his son.

[cheguevara]

52% of Colbert supporters voted for Obama. Stephen Colbert could actually hurt Obama as a write-in in the general election, if it were held today.

depends how many Colbert supporters there are. I'm willing to bet 1/2 the country doesn't even know who Colbert is

[cheguevara]

Nader Supporters 2.0.


Or maybe Perot Supporters 3.0.

yup. These examples are complete failure given that Paul is running for the GOP and currently in #2 in delegates.

[CuckingFunt]

Shouldn't think it necessary to point out, but I wasn't comparing Ron Paul himself to either Ralph Nader or Ross Perot.

[Winehole23]

his supporters, of course. I was pointing out that Colbert is a possible candidate who could take voters away from Obama, fulfilling the Nader role in 2000.

[cheguevara]

Shouldn't think it necessary to point out, but I wasn't comparing Ron Paul himself to either Ralph Nader or Ross Perot.

"Paul is running for the GOP and currently in 2nd place"

the sheer differnce in number and cross section of the supporters makes your comparison completely invalid

[CuckingFunt]

"Paul is running for the GOP and currently in 2nd place"

the sheer differnce in number and cross section of the supporters makes your comparison completely invalid

Yet the supporters in all three cases share(d) the same level of defensive zealotry. For candidates who, despite their popularity as rule breaking straight shooters, remain(ed) almost entirely unelectable. Realistically.

[cheguevara]

Yet the supporters in all three cases share(d) the same level of defensive zealotry. For candidates who, despite their popularity as rule breaking straight shooters, remain(ed) almost entirely unelectable. Realistically.

The Main Stream Medica calls him unelectable.

The public has him tied with Obama in head to head.

[Winehole23]

RP has momentarily captured young, disaffected progressives. the anxiety among true blue progressives is palpable.

[CuckingFunt]

Sure, but I just don't see him getting the GOP nomination. Which would make his appeal to disaffected progressives and his head-to-head numbers vs. Obama a non-factor.

I make no claims of clairvoyance, but, like I said, I just don't see it.

[Winehole23]

Sure, but I just don't see him getting the GOP nomination. Which would make his appeal to disaffected progressives and his head-to-head numbers vs. Obama a non-factor.
Agree. Hence my diversion to Colbert, who might actually be a write in.

[spursncowboys]

RP seems to be shunning the third party bid; he'd probably rather have a political legacy to pass to his son.

although he is the only one who has not stated he wouldn't run on as a independent. He is doing it smart by staying in all the way to the gop convention.any electorates he gets well ensure that he has a say on the set platform.

[Winehole23]

that's more or less how it looks to me too, SnC

[AFBlue]

I think there are certain segments of Paul's agenda with appeal to the broader Republican base, but it seems the core issue that his supporters most ardently advocate (isolationist foreign policy) is not one the base or their candidate will adopt...which means the "Paul" vote in the general election will be marginalized.

Curious if RP supporters agree or disagree.

[Winehole23]

do you think Paul will run?

[AFBlue]

do you think Paul will run?

At this point, yes I do. His support and funding are at a point where I think he'll be persuaded to enter the race as an independent if/when he loses the nomination.

Given his wide-ranging appeal, I'm not sure it would help the candidacy of either party though.

[Winehole23]

is there anything RP has done or said that makes you think so, or is it more a less a hunch you have that he'll run?

[101A]

The Main Stream Medica calls him unelectable.

The public has him tied with Obama in head to head.

That is a very good point.

[Winehole23]

hmm. RP's irrelevance to the race may vary inversely with the intensity of the aggrieved cries related to it.

the sheer volume of reporting on the supposed irrelevance of RP is already impressive. But RP won't stay ignored, or meekly withdraw.

[boutons_deux]

Even if RP gets "plank(s)" in the Repug platform, they won't be voted into law unless the Repugs would have put them in anyway, so RP remains inconsequential, except to the media drumming up contrived campaign drama to draw viewers for their advertisers.

[ChumpDumper]

Agree. Hence my diversion to Colbert, who might actually be a write in.Doubtful. He's always pretty careful to disqualify himself from actually being on any ballot, and I seriously doubt he would want to enable a Republican victory.

[Winehole23]

has Colbert ruled out running?

[Spurminator]

Yeah, Colbert's whole thing right now is exposing the flaws in the system. I highly doubt he has any real interest in running for President.

[Winehole23]

no no, you don't get me. if he hasn't ruled it out (and I agree it's totally unlikely he won't at some point) it's still technically possible.

Colbert could change his mind for some reason.

Therefore, until he withdraws flamboyantly from a race he never really entered, or expressly says no, it is a real possibility, in addition to being a humorous yardstick in a still crowded field.

the sense of absurdity other posters have expressed wrt Colbert's possible candidacy is proleptic imho. soon, it will be undeniable; but for the moment it is technically possible, just barely, maybe.

[Winehole23]

gotta think Colbert will continue to milk this

[Winehole23]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/colbert-super-pac_n_1210906.html

[spursncowboys]

Pretty good analysis on rp trying to expand government and go against the constitution. Disclaimer: it is by that evil Neo con corporatist Michael medved.
m.townhall.com/tipsheet/michaelmedved/2011/12/27/ron_paul_foreign_policy_and_the_constitution

[spursncowboys]

There is so much red tape to go through, even for a joke, that I don't think Colbert would be able to do. Plus his audience proves election after election to not be reliable. Not to mention him having to find delegates, who would most likely be Obama people our ex Clintonites

[baseline bum]

The Main Stream Medica calls him unelectable.

The public has him tied with Obama in head to head.

Same thing happened with Perot in 92, and the media won.

[cheguevara]

I think there are certain segments of Paul's agenda with appeal to the broader Republican base, but it seems the core issue that his supporters most ardently advocate (isolationist foreign policy) is not one the base or their candidate will adopt...which means the "Paul" vote in the general election will be marginalized.

Curious if RP supporters agree or disagree.

the Main Stream Media has instilled you very erroneous thoughts. Let me help out:

Non-interventionism is primarily concerned with military interventions in foreign countries. It's a policy designed to avoid wars not directly related to national defense and to also avoid expansion of State power. It's best described as military non-intervention, although it can also apply to international efforts to control certain countries' economies, like the IMF has tended toward when they loan money to struggling countries -- this type of intervention usually has negative consequences when there is ignorance of a country's special circumstances, needs, culture and history.

Non-interventionism is not a call for isolationism, tarrifs and other protectionist measures against global trade. A country with a non-interventionist policy can very well be open in all other respects, such as culture exchange, immigration/emigration, peaceful free trade, technology and intelligence cooperation. Some in media know better when they conflate non-interventionism with isolationism -- they use "isolationism" as a smear tactic -- but the sad probability is that many don't know.

http://bonzai.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/2/isolationism-vs-non-interventionism.html

[spursncowboys]

Same thing happened with Perot in 92, and the media won.

Perot got out. That's why he list IMO. Then he got back in but it was too late.

[cheguevara]

Pretty good analysis on rp trying to expand government and go against the constitution. Disclaimer: it is by that evil Neo con corporatist Michael medved.
m.townhall.com/tipsheet/michaelmedved/2011/12/27/ron_paul_foreign_policy_and_the_constitution

I would recommend you read my post above. It describes the real term "non-interventionist" the isolationist term is completely mistaken and it's a term used to smear Paul. It's the same thing as calling Obama a communist.

[spursncowboys]

I like Paul and he would be a vast improvement to Barry. I am aware pod the isolationist term put on him. It might however be getting him votes more so than losing it, although I doubt that was the plan when it was coined.

[angrydude]

Yea, the "conventional wisdom" says that America has to either bomb the world into oblivion or hide in a cave cowering in fear. There is no in-between.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Ron Paul has captured some people who know his economic views are batshit but are interested in any candidate who will end the wars and stop the out of control military spending.

[DMC]

RP people are the gnsfs of politics tbh.

[AFBlue]

the Main Stream Media has instilled you very erroneous thoughts. Let me help out:

Non-interventionism is primarily concerned with military interventions in foreign countries. It's a policy designed to avoid wars not directly related to national defense and to also avoid expansion of State power. It's best described as military non-intervention, although it can also apply to international efforts to control certain countries' economies, like the IMF has tended toward when they loan money to struggling countries -- this type of intervention usually has negative consequences when there is ignorance of a country's special circumstances, needs, culture and history.

Non-interventionism is not a call for isolationism, tarrifs and other protectionist measures against global trade. A country with a non-interventionist policy can very well be open in all other respects, such aKs culture exchange, immigration/emigration, peaceful free trade, technology and intelligence cooperation. Some in media know better when they conflate non-interventionism with isolationism -- they use "isolationism" as a smear tactic -- but the sad probability is that many dBon't know.

http://bonzai.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/2/isolationism-vs-non-interventionism.html

So I may have used the wrong word, but it wasn't intended to mischaracterize his position, which I will still contend is not one any Republican not named Paul will adopt.

Again, if that's the case I don't see RP supporters rallying around the Republican candidate, even though they have similar positions on the size and reach of the federal government.

Agree or disagree?

[Winehole23]

disagree. newt appears to be the number one second choice (http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/SCpolls/SC111204/Republican%20Primary%202012/Second%20Choice%20for%20the%20Republican%20Preside ntial%20Primary_SC%20Likely%20Voters.htm) of RP voters in SC, then Bachmann, then Romney.

[cheguevara]

Some will some won't. It is irrelevant right now because Paul is still in the race, who knows how long he will stay, will he quit? will he endorse someone? will he run 3rd party? All that will affect the answer to your question.

a bit too early to discuss such matters

[AFBlue]

disagree. newt appears to be the number one second choice (http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/SCpolls/SC111204/Republican%20Primary%202012/Second%20Choice%20for%20the%20Republican%20Preside ntial%20Primary_SC%20Likely%20Voters.htm) of RP voters in SC, then Bachmann, then Romney.

The question for me is whether second choice is adequate.

[AFBlue]

is there anything RP has done or said that makes you think so, or is it more a less a hunch you have that he'll run?

Don't think I ever answered this. It's a hunch, but by running in the general he gets to showcase how broad and strong his unique message is for America. I think he's got the money to hang too.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Given his wide-ranging appeal, I'm not sure it would help the candidacy of either party though.
I don't think it would either. He'd be a true 3rd party candidate.

[baseline bum]

At this point, yes I do. His support and funding are at a point where I think he'll be persuaded to enter the race as an independent if/when he loses the nomination.

Given his wide-ranging appeal, I'm not sure it would help the candidacy of either party though.


I don't think it would either. He'd be a true 3rd party candidate.

Good points. I'm no Ron Paul fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he'd probably be the least bad between him, Obama, and Romney in a 3-way race and I wouldn't be scared that a vote for him was really a vote for someone I hate (like Nader was for Bush in 2000).

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Tbh, anyone who voted for Nader or Bush in 2000, or Bush in 2004, has the blood of every dead US soldier in Iraq on his/her hands.

EDIT: I originally phrased it wrong and said Iraqi soldier. People don't care about Iraqis, but voting for Bush means you have the blood of US soldiers on your hands :lol

[spursncowboys]

Our voted for Clinton in 92 and 96. In that retarded way of thinking, so do you since you buy products which are taxed which are used to buy weapons that are put in soldiers like my hands which shed Iraqi blood, proudly might I add.

[spursncowboys]

Iraqis, afghanis, and possibly chechnyans, Saudis, and Iranians among others.

[spursncowboys]

Tbh

[spursncowboys]

Fwiw

[spursncowboys]

Tbh, anyone who voted for Nader or Bush in 2000, or Bush in 2004, has the blood of every dead US soldier in Iraq on his/her hands.

EDIT: I originally phrased it wrong and said Iraqi soldier. People don't care about Iraqis, but voting for Bush means you have the blood of US soldiers on your hands :lol

Coward:lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol being responsible for the people in your sig getting murked :lmao

[spursncowboys]

lol. Your reasoning doesn't make it true. If only I could of spent my life being an internet thug. :lol.
Why don't you go tell a service member how you feel in real life about you're core belief.video tape it for me. You can YouTube nerdy keyboard thug. We couldn't all sit at home milking our mom teet. Glad you picked up the slack for us all.

[spursncowboys]

Lol murked. Hey can I get a numbers crunch?

[cheguevara]

Tbh, anyone who voted for Nader or Bush in 2000, or Bush in 2004, has the blood of every dead US soldier in Iraq on his/her hands.

EDIT: I originally phrased it wrong and said Iraqi soldier. People don't care about Iraqis, but voting for Bush means you have the blood of US soldiers on your hands :lol

El Che disagrees.

If we go by this way of thinking. Every single tax paying american is responsible, because their tax money is what went directly to this war.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

We have no control over where our tax dollars go. We do have control over who we vote for.

[cheguevara]

:lmao gangstas

Ron Paul Supporters Slow I-85 Traffic With Hot Air Balloon Display
http://www2.wspa.com/mgmedia/image/630/394/320798/ron-paul-supporters-slow-i-85-with-hot-a-83356/

[cheguevara]

Black People Love Ron Paul

"we done fell for that Barack Obama shit"
:lmao

ej5_rZof7MA#!

[Borat Sagyidev]

look at those adorable kids. they are barely off diapers and already talking about the constitution. That is our future, if it does not bring a tear to your eye, I feel sorry for you. :lol

Ron Paul might lose the presidency but he will something bigger, immortality.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them"


Yup. It's going to take a lot of work to repair the damage baby boomers have done though.

pR8aFDosQBQ

[SA210]

Yet the supporters in all three cases share(d) the same level of defensive zealotry. For candidates who, despite their popularity as rule breaking straight shooters, remain(ed) almost entirely unelectable. Realistically.

This is our fault, as stupid American voters and citizens, for not voting for the right guy but instead voting for evil just because they are our better kind of evil over the other.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189686

^^^ Again, probably one of the most important topics in this forums history, but I guess it speaks just a bit too much truth for people to handle or discuss.

[ChumpDumper]

This is our fault, as stupid American voters and citizens, for not voting for the right guy but instead voting for evil just because they are our better kind of evil over the other.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189686

^^^ Again, probably one of the most important topics in this forums history, but I guess it speaks just a bit too much truth for people to handle or discuss.I'm going to assume you're young to have this much hubris. Otherwise, I guess you have whatever mania Nbadan has.

[SA210]

I'm going to assume you're young to have this much hubris. Otherwise, I guess you have whatever mania Nbadan has.

Guessing and assuming is what you do best. Thanks for avoiding my point btw. You do that 2nd best. 3rdly you attempt to be funny, and everyone knows how badly you fail at that.

Back to the topic at hand.

[ChumpDumper]

Guessing and assuming is what you do best. Thanks for avoiding my point btw. You do that 2nd best. 3rdly you attempt to be funny, and everyone knows how badly you fail at that.

Back to the topic at hand.So you're old?

[Jacob1983]

Is Ron Paul going to be booed again tonight for talking about the golden rule in the CNN debate?

[SA210]

So you're old?

I'm on your mind too much.

It's ok for you to every once in a while take a break from your computer and have a life, or at least to not sabatoge threads with personal attacks. That ongoing behavior lowers the bar worse than it already is in this forum.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm on your mind too much.

It's ok for you to every once in a while take a break from your computer and have a life, or at least to not sabatoge threads with personal attacks. That ongoing behavior lowers the bar worse than it already is in this forum.Look, all I said is you are quite full of yourself. That's apparent from your continued pimping of your thread. You want everyone to think like you and you despise them when they don't.

Sorry, but it's true from where I'm sitting. If you can't take it, you don't have to respond to me.

[SA210]

Look, all I said is you are quite full of yourself. That's apparent from your continued pimping of your thread. You want everyone to think like you and you despise them when they don't.

Sorry, but it's true from where I'm sitting. If you can't take it, you don't have to respond to me.

No, you despise everyone who doesn't think like YOU. That's very apparent. You can't convince me that a President blowing up innocent babies is a good man, when he knows he's done it and shows no remorse for it. I bump that thread because that's part of the root of the problem, period, we all pretend that this stuff isn't happening, including You. You are right about something though. I don't have to respond to you. I don't like talking to liars anyway. Bye.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you despise everyone who doesn't think like YOU. That's very apparent.I thank God every day people don't think like me.
You can't convince me that a President blowing up innocent babies is a good man, when he knows he's done it and shows no remorse for it.I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
I bump that thread because that's part of the root of the problem, period, we all pretend that this stuff isn't happening, including You. Well, that's simply bullshit. You're making shit up now.
You are right about something though. I don't have to respond to you. I don't like talking to liars anyway. Bye.You just like being a liar.

Go bump your thread again.

[hater]

can't wait to see the debate

oh wait, no Perry :(

[SA210]

Go bump your thread again.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189686

[ChumpDumper]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189686That's a response.

[SA210]

Thanks for re-bumping lol

:lmao

[cheguevara]

just ignore him SA.

he will eventually go find someone else to play his question or strawman games with.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for re-bumping lol

:lmaoAlso a response lol

:lmao

[CuckingFunt]

This is our fault, as stupid American voters and citizens, for not voting for the right guy but instead voting for evil just because they are our better kind of evil over the other.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189686

^^^ Again, probably one of the most important topics in this forums history, but I guess it speaks just a bit too much truth for people to handle or discuss.

"Rule breaking straight shooter" and "the right guy" aren't synonymous. I appreciate Paul's unconventional approach, I genuinely do, but not enough to ignore the fact that there are a number of his policies with which I fundamentally (and in some cases quite vehemently) disagree.

[spursncowboys]

He isn't some white night. He is a politician. He will put pork in a bill he is against and votes against. I think he would be a way better president than Obama. But he is what they all are: politician. I would rather have him as the Speaker of the house, or what Palin is doing by being in the sidelines and weilding power.

[Drachen]

I appreciate that they yelled for him to get time

[SA210]

"Rule breaking straight shooter" and "the right guy" aren't synonymous. I appreciate Paul's unconventional approach, I genuinely do, but not enough to ignore the fact that there are a number of his policies with which I fundamentally (and in some cases quite vehemently) disagree.

I can understand disagreeing with his positions, but damn, doesn't his integrity vs everyone else NOT having any damn integrity stand for something? I guess not. So we only have ourselves to blame.

[boutons_deux]

Ron Paul's EPA-less libertarian USA, foreseen in China (Repugs aim to kill EPA,too)

Chinese 'Cancer Village' Takes Alleged Polluters to Court

Nothing in Wu Wenyong's rural childhood hinted he would end up on a hospital bed aged 15, battling two kinds of cancer.

HIGH EXPOSURE

The chromium-6 levels in the water were 200 times above the permissible limits, Ma Tianjie of Greenpeace in China said after

an independent investigation was conducted.

Enforcement of laws regulating the disposal of chromium is poor. Greenpeace's Ma estimates there are 1 million tonnes of chromium-6 dumped across China that still has not been disposed of, based on environment ministry data.

Virtually every resident of the villages knew of someone who contracted cancer after the industrial park was set up about seven years ago. No epidemiological studies have been conducted.

Studies have shown that exposure to chromium-6 causes leukemia and cancer of the stomach, liver and breast.

"It is one of the worst chemicals to get in drinking water,"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/16/us-china-pollution-lawsuit-idUKTRE80F0RH20120116

[Wild Cobra]

I can understand disagreeing with his positions, but damn, doesn't his integrity vs everyone else NOT having any damn integrity stand for something? I guess not. So we only have ourselves to blame.
I means a great deal to me. Wish integrity meant something to others.

[Wild Cobra]

Ron Paul's EPA-less libertarian USA, foreseen in China (Repugs aim to kill EPA,too)

Chinese 'Cancer Village' Takes Alleged Polluters to Court

Nothing in Wu Wenyong's rural childhood hinted he would end up on a hospital bed aged 15, battling two kinds of cancer.

HIGH EXPOSURE

The chromium-6 levels in the water were 200 times above the permissible limits, Ma Tianjie of Greenpeace in China said after

an independent investigation was conducted.

Enforcement of laws regulating the disposal of chromium is poor. Greenpeace's Ma estimates there are 1 million tonnes of chromium-6 dumped across China that still has not been disposed of, based on environment ministry data.

Virtually every resident of the villages knew of someone who contracted cancer after the industrial park was set up about seven years ago. No epidemiological studies have been conducted.

Studies have shown that exposure to chromium-6 causes leukemia and cancer of the stomach, liver and breast.

"It is one of the worst chemicals to get in drinking water,"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/16/us-china-pollution-lawsuit-idUKTRE80F0RH20120116
Nothing here relevant against Paul. Libertarians do believe in accountability.

[JoeChalupa]

I can understand disagreeing with his positions, but damn, doesn't his integrity vs everyone else NOT having any damn integrity stand for something? I guess not. So we only have ourselves to blame.

It is some of Paul's policies that are too radical for me. Yes, integrity stands for something for if I disagree with too many of your policies then integrity alone is not enough.

[boutons_deux]

"integrity stand for something"

his so-called integrity doesn't excuse his socioopathic, destructive policies.

What "integrity" is used in wanting to kill govt regs that protect Human-Americans health, their lands, water, air, from monopolistic corporate consolidation and its inevitable abuse?

Being wrong over and over, consistently, is "integrity"?

[cheguevara]

"integrity stand for something"

his so-called integrity doesn't excuse his socioopathic, destructive policies.

What "integrity" is used in wanting to kill govt regs that protect Human-Americans health, their lands, water, air, from monopolistic corporate consolidation and its inevitable abuse?

Being wrong over and over, consistently, is "integrity"?

US Constitution 101: Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

[SA210]

"integrity stand for something"

his so-called integrity doesn't excuse his socioopathic, destructive policies.

What "integrity" is used in wanting to kill govt regs that protect Human-Americans health, their lands, water, air, from monopolistic corporate consolidation and its inevitable abuse?

Being wrong over and over, consistently, is "integrity"?

This video is enough for me to know not to vote for the scumbag Dems or the crazy right.

O3e3g-8hHAw

Anyone who is familiar with my posts should know that I'm probably the most vocal in this forum when it comes to defending the poorest of the poor, that's just in my blood. I really disagree with Ron Pauls stances on what to do with the poor, I hate them (Although ending the Fed is frickin AWESOME!!).

But watching these blown up children...come on man, what's worse, trying to get our poor people help with food and things like that (considering Pauls want to end their programs) and stop other kids from being blown up overseas; or keep the programs that will still deteriorate anyway (considering Obama gives the Repugs whatever they want anyway cause he's a corporate bought spineless pussy), and just continue the murder of children and civilians?

[cheguevara]

:lol

Oliver Stone would vote for Ron Paul over Obama


Filmmaker Oliver Stone, known for his liberal political views, said he would vote for GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul over President Obama should Paul win the Republican nomination.

In an interview with Rock Cellar magazine, Stone was asked if an economic collapse would lead to the fall of the American “empire.”

“I think it’s a given,” Stone said. “There’s no way that we can continue this spending spree. In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate — I’d even vote for him if he was running against Obama — is Ron Paul. Because he’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.”

Stone was a vocal supporter of the president in 2008, and wrote an editorial in the Guardian saying that Obama could be the “heir to John F. Kennedy.” :lol I guess that's out the window

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/206057-oliver-stone-would-vote-for-ron-paul-over-president-obama

[ChumpDumper]

You really want to pimp the support of Oliver Stone?

[cheguevara]

and why not? my login name is cheguevara :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

and why not? my login name is cheguevara :lmaoRight, you are hopelessly confused politically.

Carry on.

[cheguevara]

Right, you are hopelessly confused politically.

Carry on.

because you have it all figured out :rolleyes

talk about confused. you can't even prove Ran Paul wants to profile dark foreigners :lol

carry on

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lol

Oliver Stone would vote for Ron Paul over Obama

Oliver Stone would vote Chavez for president of the United States as well. You're not helping yourself, Oliver Stone is a complete fucking dumbass

[cheguevara]

Oliver Stone would vote Chavez for president of the United States as well.

link?

[ChumpDumper]

because you have it all figured out :rolleyesI have figured out the stark difference between Che and Paul, yes. That's an easy one.


talk about confused. you can't even prove Ran Paul wants to profile dark foreigners :lolTalk about confused. You can't even remember we were talking about Rand, not Ron.

[cheguevara]

I have figured out the stark difference between Che and Paul, yes. That's an easy one.

come back when you figure out their similarities



Talk about confused. You can't even remember we were talking about Rand, not Ron.

that's what I said.

BTW, El Che will continue our conversation when/if you find proof of your wild baseless claim.

carry on

[ChumpDumper]

come back when you figure out their similaritiesExplain them to us.




that's what I said.Oh, you said "Ran."

I guess that covers both in case you are confusesd.


BTW, El Che will continue our conversation when/if you find proof of your wild baseless claim. You already provided it, then you ran away when you realized it.

Carry on.

[cheguevara]

You already provided it, then you ran away when you realized it.


burden of proof is on you. Just accept you were talking out of your ass.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

link?

link to what? Stone's love for Chavez?? seriously?

[ChumpDumper]

burden of proof is on you.It was, and you reinforced it for me.
Just accept you were talking out of your ass.I wasn't. Rand Paul wants to profile suspected terrorists that don't look like him or 8 year-old American kids.

[Blake]

Ran Paul.

Funny stuff, tbh.

[cheguevara]

link to what? Stone's love for Chavez?? seriously?

we all know Stone and Chavez are lovers. But...


Oliver Stone would vote Chavez for president of the United States as well.

you have proof of this or were you talking out your ass like Dumpster?

[SA210]

Great American Oliver Stone is. I applaud his great work. Although, I must say every time anyone ever tried comparing Obama to JFK, I seriously :lmao.

Either way, good for Oliver.

[Wild Cobra]

It was, and you reinforced it for me.I wasn't. Rand Paul wants to profile suspected terrorists that don't look like him or 8 year-old American kids.
Or 90 year old grannies.

[Jacob1983]

Oliver Stone supporting Ron Paul just shows how much of an epic failure and joke Obama has been. I give props to Oliver Stone for supporting Ron Paul.

[cheguevara]

Oliver Stone supporting Ron Paul just shows how much of an epic failure and joke Obama has been. I give props to Oliver Stone for supporting Ron Paul.

Bingo. somebody finally gets the point of my post. :tu