2012 Presidential Election

Started by Robtard36 pages

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Its more about the idea and message rather than the person, which will be carried on even after he's gone. Ron is an alright dude, though. He seems to differ from a lot of your typical politicians.

I still don't understand what you mean by big business politician.

Nah, he's an ******* like the rest of them.

Meaning he's had to rub backs and lick ass like any other politician to get where he's at. If he were to get to the Oval Office, it's because he took the path like the rest of the presidents before him and would owe favors in return.

YouTube video

YouTube video

So racists.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, he's an ******* like the rest of them.

Meaning he's had to rub backs and lick ass like any other politician to get where he's at. If he were to get to the Oval Office, it's because he took the path like the rest of the presidents before him and would owe favors in return.

I'm not going to take this as an educated view. stoned

Doesn't matter anyways. Its about the idea.

Yeah, George Wallace tried to pull the I can change routine too. I'm sure the contributors to his old news letters and his pals at the GOA would claim not to be racists too but "white civil rights advocates" and "racial realists".

Whatever you want to believe my man. stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'm not going to take this as an educated view. stoned

Doesn't matter anyways. Its about the idea.

Take it any way you like, but Paul's no more a savior than Obama is. Once you accept this, you'll be better off.

Now that's just ignorant and foolish.

Yeah ill be better off. Maybe i'll magically gain a lot of gold. 😄

Keep going, its funny.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yeah ill be better off. Maybe i'll magically gain a lot of gold. 😄

Keep going, its funny.

Accepting reality and living in the now is always better off, unless you're stuck in an assrape prison or something depressing like that.

No, the last sentence above I posted summed it up nicely.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol. k

umad?

I was just responding to this. Don't get too offended. stoned

"I dont like your attitude! You havent done anything to gain that permission! Grrrrrr!!!"

You're a joke


That was a serious question. What exactly entitles you to act like you know better about politics?

Especially when most of your debates terminate in posts like this:

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Whatever you want to believe my man. stoned

You're one of those posters who makes a half-hearted attempt at real debate but when that fails you immediately fall back to the "lulz, why so serious, bruh?" strategy--that way you never have to form a real argument and support it against criticism or scrutiny.

Originally posted by Robtard
Accepting reality and living in the now is always better off, unless you're stuck in an assrape prison or something depressing like that.

No, the last sentence above I posted summed it up nicely.

At least you think it does. That's all that matters though right?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That was a serious question. What exactly entitles you to act like you know better about politics?

Lol, I don't care how serious you were or not. I know about my vision and I know when the constitutional liberties get raped. Does it bother you? If so, that sucks man. Smoke one. stoned

Originally posted by Omega Vision

Especially when most of your debates terminate in posts like this:

You're one of those posters who makes a half-hearted attempt at real debate but when that fails you immediately fall back to the "lulz, why so serious, bruh?" strategy--that way you never have to form a real argument and support it against criticism or scrutiny.

....that was a debate? In the end its going to boil down to opinions and I didn't care to explain mine.

I make attempts at worthy debates. You make attempts at trying to call me out and its funny. Keep trying. stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol, I don't care how serious you were or not. I know about my vision and I know when the constitutional liberties get raped. Does it bother you? If so, that sucks man. Smoke one. stoned

This is what I'm talking about. Another "lol, why so serious?" maneuver.


In the end its going to boil down to opinions and I didn't care to explain mine.
[/B]

This is exactly how Fox News came to be what it is today.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
In the end, the rich people are in charge.
Fixed.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Fixed.
Which is why they should be charged a 91% tax on all earned income and dividends over $1 million that isn't reinvested and why we need a uniform deduction on charitable contributions regardless of amount donated etc.

In fact, considering these wonderful unpaid for wars the billionaires wanted so much, how about a 110% tax on all income and dividends over $250,000 for all individuals with a net worth over $100 million as a war tax until we have a surplus.

Extremism FTW.

I want a flat tax.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Have you not read any post Mai has ever made on the subject of politics?

Well, usually I forgive and forget past arguments and start new arguments fresh and new on the interwebz. When I said "earlier" I meant was he being an ass to you (specifically you) in this thread because you replied with such corrosiveness. I read most of his posts in this thread but it is hard to keep up with who is raging at Mai because everyone is constantly on his nuts.

Ron Paul would be a much better president than either Romney or Obama...but he'd be the most impotent president since Andrew Johnson. He'd have very little congressional support because of how different his ideas are to contemporary political philosophies. He'd alienate the judicial system because of how outspoken and critical he is of their "overreaching" powers. Basically, he wouldn't have any friends on Capital Hill or First Street (Supreme Court). We need a massive change in congress, FIRST, before someone like Ron Paul can be effective. The people have to be on board, FIRST, before we can have a massive change in congress. People are stupid and will continue to be stupid unless a fascist voting system is put in place that requires you to actually know politics before you can vote. Until that happens (or another paradigm shift occurs that forces people to pull their heads out of their ass), no meaningful change will ever take place.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, usually I forgive and forget past arguments and start new arguments fresh and new on the interwebz. When I said "earlier" I meant was he being an ass to you (specifically you) in this thread because you replied with such corrosiveness. I read most of his posts in this thread but it is hard to keep up with who is raging at Mai because everyone is constantly on his nuts.

Ron Paul would be a much better president than either Romney or Obama...but he'd be the most impotent president since Andrew Johnson. He'd have very little congressional support because of how different his ideas are to contemporary political philosophies. He'd alienate the judicial system because of how outspoken and critical he is of their "overreaching" powers. Basically, he wouldn't have any friends on Capital Hill or First Street (Supreme Court). We need a massive change in congress, FIRST, before someone like Ron Paul can be effective. The people have to be on board, FIRST, before we can have a massive change in congress. People are stupid and will continue to be stupid unless a fascist voting system is put in place that requires you to actually know politics before you can vote. Until that happens (or another paradigm shift occurs that forces people to pull their heads out of their ass), no meaningful change will ever take place.


I honestly don't see how Ron Paul would make a good President even if he were elected and had support in Congress.

His ideas are out of date. This is a guy who suggests Letters of Marque and Reprisal in response to 9/11.

Back on topic. The debate agreements for today.


Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards

Time's Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing, a copy of the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month's presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening.
They aren't permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a "predesignated area." And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posing questions aren't allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.

Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: "To the best of the Commission's abilities, there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so." The "best of the Commission's abilities" must be rather feeble, seeing as how almost every moment of the two debates so far was televised in split-screen, clearly showing shots of a "candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question."

Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wring any serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach:

"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates."
"The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges."
"At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium."
For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, "the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate...."
"The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."
"[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any...audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review."
"No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate."
For the town-hall debate: "Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway."
Here's the full document:

http://gawker.com/5951977/leaked-debate-agreement-shows-both-obama-and-romney-are-sniveling-cowards

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I honestly don't see how Ron Paul would make a good President even if he were elected and had support in Congress.

His ideas are out of date. This is a guy who suggests Letters of Marque and Reprisal in response to 9/11.

Not back on topic, how was that a bad idea? Not going to war when we clearly see how ****ing terrible it turned out. Saving lives and a whole lot of money. Thats what happens when government agencies prop up a radical group meddling in foreign affairs it shouldnt be meddling in, only to use our lives and money to fix their **** ups.

So you think there was no reasonable military response to 9-11?

America should be a paper tiger?

I believe they should own up to their mistakes but not by using us as cannon fodder. I understand the reason why Paul would suggest such a bill concidering the fact that the years leading up to 9/11 he was trying to warn that our meddling in the middle east will cause another attack and we will be liable to go to war. I believe he has a point.