Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not think changing your mind is a bad thing: sometimes, people are wrong.However, I think being right the first time is better than changing your mind to the "right" choice. 😄
Except look at all the presidents the united states has had the past 30 years or so.all pathalogial liars who dont know what the word TRUTH means.All members of that corrupt CFR organization.
To think anything will change whatsoever with fellow CFR member Romney in office is being a loyal government stooge falling for the ONE PARTY SYSTEM disguised as a two party system.Just once,I would like to see a president in office who believes in the constituiton and NOT a member of the CFR.Paul is the only one in the running that fits that bill.
Thats why I did what was extremely painful to do,switch from independent to republican and that again is only cause Paul has acknowledged both partys are corrupt and people who refer to them as the demopublicans and reprocrats do rightly so.Paul is a RINO so it was an easy choice to make.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Politicians lie all the time. Just keep your eyes open.
Except Paul is the only one that has ever done what he says and for the millionith time,not evil and part of the establishment like the others are.
why do you think Both Obama and Mittens crowds are lucky if they are in the hundreds and half empty stadiums all the time where Pauls crowds are in the thousands and packed to the maxes? 😆 😆 😆 🤣
you may like this police state we live in and enjoy the constituion being shreaded to pieces by each CFR member president that gets in,but I along with those millions of others dont and care that thats happening and want my country back.that wont happen with CFR member Romney in office. 😆
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Except Paul is the only one that has ever done what he says
Yes, I'm sure he produces enormous amounts of pork behind closed doors in his quest to be fiscally responsible.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
why do you think Both Obama and Mittens crowds are lucky if they are in the hundreds and half empty stadiums all the time where Pauls crowds are in the thousands and packed to the maxes?
Because Paul is a charismatic cult leader who is followed by thousands of idiotic fanatics who drive in from several states distant to inflate the number for him.
I think its pretty ****ing stupid and low for someone to discredit a liberty movement by calling it a cult just to boost whatever weak claim they have against it. The people attending these rallies are more aware than most Americans on the problems this country is facing today and its an overwhelming bunch.
With a country whos balls deep into debt while still engaging in perpetual war, these people sympathize for the men and women whose lives are lose for a war they highly disagree with and for good reasons. They sympathize of the innocent lives caught in the mix which only makes us less safe if you understand the concept of blowback. And with the Fed undergoing another round of Q.E. (3), they're aware of the rise in the hidden taxation called inflation while the special interest groups continue to bleed the country dry.
Originally posted by inimalist
exhibit A?
Nah.
you just implied that people who don't support Paul don't care about dead soldiers...
so, someone who opposes, say, gold backed currency, by that definition, doesn't care about dead soldiers
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Edit: You still think there wont be research, huh? haermm
no, I still think Paul's stated policy is to cut it massively though
did he change this?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Show me
sure:
Originally posted by Mairuzu
With a country whos balls deep into debt while still engaging in perpetual war, these people sympathize for the men and women whose lives are lose for a war they highly disagree with and for good reasons. They sympathize of the innocent lives caught in the mix which only makes us less safe if you understand the concept of blowback.
there are two possible readings of this statement:
a) People who support Paul care about soldiers, and those who don't, do not, because Paul is the only politician who opposes the wars. Therefore, by implication, someone who doesn't support Paul for economic or social reasons would be grouped with those who do not care about the soldiers.
b) People who support any politician, but also oppose the wars, care about soldiers.
answer "a" appears to be what you meant, because answer "b" is sort of redundant, or, at the very least, introduces a level of nuance into the equation that undermines the point you were making.
That was a waste. Anyways.
Like I said, we are 15+ trillion in debt, the cuts are inevitable. Cutting the federal bureaucracies doesnt mean the research will stop and we will have jobless scientists all over. It will stop most of the programs from becoming honey holes like they are. Privatizing the research with no gov, the studies will be done quicker and more efficiently instead of a central bureaucracy.
Look at SpaceX
Of course this goes hand in hand with improving the economy by said spending cuts, most of which being the ridiculous amount we put into military spending.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Like I said, we are 15+ trillion in debt, the cuts are inevitable. Cutting the federal bureaucracies doesnt mean the research will stop and jobless scientists.
dude, you might as well have just said "I have no idea what I'm talking about"
some of the top MRI researchers and technicians in Canada just lost their jobs, and are essentially looking at leaving the country in order to continue their work, because of funding cuts from the government.
no corporations stepping up to pay for research on emotional processing in the spinal cord either.
so, fail?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
It will stop most of the programs from becoming honey holes like they are. Privatizing the research with no gov, the studies will be done quicker and more efficiently instead of a central bureaucracy.
corporations and private investors will not invest in basic and not immediately profitable research, and research paid for by corporations is demonstrably more likely to contain bias.
so, fail?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Look at SpaceX
space X is applied engineering that would have been impossible without decades of massive funding to space agencies from the federal government...
so, fail?