Someone oughta give all of Paul's Black Friends a ride to one of his rallies sometime

3/12/2012 11:20:01 AM

they are all getting killed by latino gang black honor killings.

3/12/2012 11:28:48 AM

haha

3/12/2012 1:41:30 PM

If Iran got nuclear weapons, all of those military bases would be at risk! Why is Iran provoking us like this?

3/12/2012 2:47:18 PM

they have the same goal you do. the outright destruction of western society

you have a duty to your inner self to join them.

3/12/2012 2:49:53 PM

They probably wouldn't give a shit about "Western Society" if it weren't pointing guns at them from every every border they have.

3/12/2012 3:03:57 PM

Quote :

"they have the same goal you do. the outright destruction of western society"

This is the lie that the GOP has successfully sold to their idiotic base. We fuck with their political process for 60 years, and they're a danger to us.

3/12/2012 3:51:47 PM

Obviously Ron Paul is not very good candydate. No one votes for him.

3/12/2012 4:39:30 PM

^ your statement proves that the voting populace is uneducated, not that he isnt a great candidate

3/12/2012 6:13:27 PM

No, his statement proves that overtly trolling in TSB is now acceptable.

3/12/2012 6:34:45 PM

Trolling? I was just saying that he wasn't a good candidate because he's not winning. I think that is a fair assumption.

[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2012 7:39:03 PM

^

Not only is it a fair assumption, it is the assumption that all Ron Paul opposition attach themselves to when confronted on the issue of why Ron Paul is losing the election but getting a magnitude of a 100 times more people in attendance at his rallies.

3/12/2012 8:41:03 PM

3/12/2012 8:48:47 PM

^^ no I think 90% of pack bryans posts prove you can now troll tsb.

3/12/2012 8:52:34 PM

We're not discussing pack_bryan though, we are discussing a particular sentence made by ROFL that IMStoned420 cried Troll.

3/12/2012 8:57:50 PM

Due to the overhwelming demand for tickets, the Ron Paul Illinois event has been moved to a new venue (see below).

If your original ticket listed Foellinger Auditorium, it is still valid -- you do not need to sign up again. Simply bring your voucher with you any time between 6:00 PM and 6:30 PM, and you can enter Huff Hall before the general public.

Event: Ron at the University of Illinois - Youth for Ron Paul

Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM (CT)

Location:
George Huff Hall
1206 South Fourth St
Champaign, IL 61820

3/12/2012 9:00:37 PM

Quote :

"Trolling? I was just saying that he wasn't a good candidate because he's not winning. I think that is a fair assumption."

Millions of people watch shows like "Toddlers and Tiaras". That doesn't mean it's a good show, it means that people are fucking stupid.

3/12/2012 10:24:01 PM

You people are delirious. Ron Paul asserting that the GOP is committing election fraud is proof enough of why people don't take him seriously.

Quote :

" Due to the overhwelming demand for tickets, the Ron Paul Illinois event has been moved to a new venue (see below). If your original ticket listed Foellinger Auditorium, it is still valid -- you do not need to sign up again. Simply bring your voucher with you any time between 6:00 PM and 6:30 PM, and you can enter Huff Hall before the general public. Event: Ron at the University of Illinois - Youth for Ron Paul "

Just because he brings thousands to an event, doesn't mean you're going to win an election. That event is appealing to a small portion of votes in the first place, and he doesn't even "own" that age group entirely. I will admit there is a hype for Ron Paul in the young community that isn't found among older voters with their preferred candidate, which accounts for his large rallies.

Still the fact remains, his appeal is not to a large enough group of voters, and his ideas and beliefs are only shared with a fraction of younger voters.

Added to that, the idea that his ideas are so revolutionary that only younger voters are catching on to them is completely absurd. If they were genuinely worth anything, more people would back him, along with political analysts and other power players in the GOP. The informed people I have talked to dislike him not because they have no clue who he is, but because they don't agree with his ideas. They admit he has a few good ones, but others are a bit off.

A thousand people at your rally doesn't win an election. You need hundreds of thousands. In my opinion he gets his attendance from the hype that follows him.

3/13/2012 12:09:08 AM

^ simply not true. I was in south beach this week and a 70 year old man on a bar stool at a locals bar was talking about he voted for ron paul in 2008 and will do it again in 2012.

To act as though ron paul is not a stark contrast to every other candidate is very dishonest.

If you think his ideas are extreme I would suggest that you are the one with extreme viewpoints.

To be clear upon being asked most people do support the constitution, oppose the war, and agree that mounting deficits are a problem.

The problem is that most people are indifferent to politics as they see it's a huge waste of time and that the big controlling interest corporations will always get the candidate they want to win elected, period.

3/13/2012 2:02:50 AM

Ron Paul doesn't even really want to win.

3/13/2012 2:07:22 AM

Ron Paul will not sacrifice his values to win, that is correct.

That alone makes him different than almost every other career politician.

3/13/2012 3:07:52 AM

^ He's old school.

Washington
Jefferson
Stark

3/13/2012 8:27:39 AM

more like

LaRouche
Alex Jones
salisburyboy

3/13/2012 9:39:51 AM

Quote :

"If you think his ideas are extreme I would suggest that you are the one with extreme viewpoints."

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

3/13/2012 10:18:16 AM

-We should murder foreigners that pose absolutely zero threat to Americans
-We should create money to avoid dealing with a debt crisis
-We should imprison people that use drugs
-We should do away with constitutional protections and the bill of rights

Those sound like pretty extreme positions to me, and those are positions held by every single candidate except Ron Paul.

You may think that these are extreme or "crazy" positions:

-Money should be backed by assets, not faith in government
-Abortion and gay marriage should be dealt with by the states or not at all because the Constitution does not give any branch of the federal government the authority to do so
-People should be able to keep what they earn

I find all of these positions to be very reasonable. We have laid out easy to understand arguments for all of these positions, probably dozens of times at this point. Ron Paul is only extreme in the context of modern day politics.

Quote :

"“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.” "

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ]

3/13/2012 10:40:49 AM

regardless of how things pan out I will be voting for Ron Paul on May 8th and in November

3/13/2012 11:09:49 AM

so you are inadvertently voting for obama.

cool

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM. Reason : x]

3/13/2012 11:58:54 AM

I'll take Obama over Romney. At least Obama can't get re-elected in 2016.

3/13/2012 12:09:52 PM

exactly. a paul supporter wanting to instantly add 2 trillion dollars to the deficit. great math.

at least you'll have more shit to clean up when u finally get another shot....

3/13/2012 12:16:16 PM

Quote :

"-Abortion and gay marriage should be dealt with by the states or not at all because the Constitution does not give any branch of the federal government the authority to do so"

I personally don't see this as reasonable. It comes down to whether or not you view certain things as discrimination, much like Jim Crow laws. At some point a federal government has to step in to guarantee equal rights to all when some states simply wouldnt do it.

Quote :

"-Money should be backed by assets, not faith in government"

And while this should be what has always been, you and I both know it is simply not a reasonable course of action. It would send our society into utter chaos. You have to have solutions that will work within the framework of society. A start, and one in which a Ron Paul would be able to implement would be to cut down debt spending and to eat into the deficit.

You can't go from A to Z while skipping B through Y.

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 12:23 PM. Reason : X]

3/13/2012 12:16:31 PM

actually ron paul supporters should 100% vote for obama


sure fuck up the budget/deficit even more, but at least you'll finally be 4 years closer to crowning your leader.

3/13/2012 12:21:12 PM

Quote :

"I personally don't see this as reasonable. It comes down to whether or not you view certain things as discrimination, much like Jim Crow laws. At some point a federal government has to step in to guarantee equal rights to all when some states simply wouldnt do it."

Watch out, with guys like these people, you're dealing with people well outside of even today's GOP mainstream who opposed passage of all of the Civil Rights Acts, here. They believe that we would have "evolved" towards the white power structure benevolently granting equal rights because it's in their rational self-interest (as if threatened power structures worldwide don't consolidate their rule rather than relinquishing it).

Then again, some of the teen anarchists on here probably would have also supported the option of armed revolt in the South against Jim Crow. But definitely no imposing of "civil rights" by jerks in Washington.

3/13/2012 12:29:04 PM

Quote :

"I personally don't see this as reasonable. It comes down to whether or not you view certain things as discrimination, much like Jim Crow laws. At some point a federal government has to step in to guarantee equal rights to all when some states simply wouldnt do it."

No, the federal government has to guarantee equal protection. There's a difference. The Jim Crow laws. They weren't the Jim Crow "questionable business practices". They were laws. Enforced by the government.

Quote :

"And while this should be what has always been, you and I both know it is simply not a reasonable course of action. It would send our society into utter chaos. You have to have solutions that will work within the framework of society. A start, and one in which a Ron Paul would be able to implement would be to cut down debt spending and to eat into the deficit."

I don't think endless debt is a reasonable course of action. The fact that we're scraping by now doesn't mean we can sustain it. There could come a time when people aren't willing to take the bank's word for it anymore.

Quote :

"sure fuck up the budget/deficit even more, but at least you'll finally be 4 years closer to crowning your leader."

Ron Paul can't run in 2016. Too old. 2016 will have to be Rand Paul or Gary Johnson.

Quote :

"Watch out, with guys like these people, you're dealing with people well outside of even today's GOP mainstream who opposed passage of all of the Civil Rights Acts, here. They believe that we would have "evolved" towards the white power structure benevolently granting equal rights because it's in their rational self-interest (as if threatened power structures worldwide don't consolidate their rule rather than relinquishing it)."

No one is saying this. You are spreading misinformation here, asshole. You are part of the problem.

Look at Ron Paul interviews were he talks about the Civil Rights Act. He doesn't say he was opposed to all of it. He says he would have done it differently. It's possible to oppose legislation even if you agree with some or most of it.

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2012 12:42:34 PM

Oh that's right. They would have opposed only government entities discriminating. So...I guess all black people could have just worked for the public sector? That's not the best way to accumulate capital.

Or was there really a hidden class of enlightened white business leaders who wanted to empower blacks that was hidden by history due to the obvious bias against true freedom fighters?

Come on, even your Judge Napolitano admits the entirety of the act was right because it was an exceptional circumstance. Stop living in a world of ideological purity and thought experiments (which as a privileged white male, I doubt would truly grasp what it was like then).

Hell, if your stance was true freedom, where were the BLACK proponents of your approach to civil rights in the 50s and 60s?

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 2:34 PM. Reason : x]

3/13/2012 2:29:51 PM

You can tell the difference from the people who have watched a ron paul speech and those that haven't ITT.

3/13/2012 2:38:32 PM

Quote :

"Oh that's right. They would have opposed only government entities discriminating. So...I guess all black people could have just worked for the public sector? That's not the best way to accumulate capital."

So your assertion is that 100% or close to 100% of private sector entities were discriminating in 1964? It's impossible to believe that we'd have "black" Wal-marts and "white" Wal-marts if the Civil Rights act only applied to publicly-funded property/institutions. Racist business owners are generally more than happy to take minority money, just like Chick Fil A is more than happy to take gay people's money.

3/13/2012 2:53:19 PM

Why are we even talking about race? Has nothing to do with Ron Paul.

3/13/2012 2:56:22 PM

"The Black Swan" author Nassim Taleb talks about Ron Paul's Economic Platform on CNBC




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B6s8a6H7Qts#!

3/13/2012 3:04:09 PM

Rick Santorum debunks global warming

Quote :

"Rick Santorum: ‘The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant’"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-dangers-carbon-dioxide-tell-plant-152230291.html

3/13/2012 3:17:16 PM

Rick Santorum Slams ... Fox News

Quote :

" Rick Santorum: Fox Is 'Shilling' For Mitt Romney http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/rick-santorum-fox-mitt-romney_n_1341823.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D143196"

I think Huffington post bought AOL which bought Yahoo!...........

but Rick has made this news conglomerate very angry! These are headline stories!

Turning point for Ron Paul?

3/13/2012 3:38:54 PM

Quote :

"you and I both know it is simply not a reasonable course of action. It would send our society into utter chaos."

You need to study your history. We are going the exact same path France took in the 1700s. If you were familiar with John Law and the Mississippi Company you'd realize why this can't work and WILL end in turmoil.

3/13/2012 3:41:32 PM

Quote :

"so you are inadvertently voting for obama. cool"

no i'm voting for Ron Paul. i understand your strategy and reasoning but it's about time America starts voting on principle, not the best of the worst who they think can win.

3/13/2012 4:14:09 PM

Quote :

"no i'm voting for Ron Paul. i understand your strategy and reasoning but it's about time America starts voting on principle, not the best of the worst who they think can win."

+1

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2012 4:16:09 PM

Quote :

" no i'm voting for Ron Paul. i understand your strategy and reasoning but it's about time America starts voting on principle, not the best of the worst who they think can win. "

i don't vote on strategy. i am actually voting on principle.... my principle being the guy i think can best run our economy out of the fucking dirt that it's been in for 5 years now.

so yeh. the economy is the entire reason i'm voting. because that's what it all boils down to right now. we can deal with these 'civil/socio' issues and idiotic liberal pork barrel social projects and foreign affairs later...

so romney it is for me. and i 100% believe that romney would agree with foreign affairs and wars like ron paul 99 out of 100 times. probably 100 out of 100.

3/13/2012 4:29:38 PM

Quote :

"so you are inadvertently voting for obama. cool"

3/13/2012 4:46:33 PM

Quote :

"It's impossible to believe that we'd have "black" Wal-marts and "white" Wal-marts if the Civil Rights act only applied to publicly-funded property/institutions."

Only such things did exist back then. It was lack of legal status AND lack of capital that made them a lower class. How would you have liked to have been born black in Alabama in the early 20th century?

Quote :

" just like Chick Fil A is more than happy to take gay people's money."

Yeah, the way they see gay people and the way black people were seen by whites in the south is completely different. Gay people are people making bad choices to them. Black people are a class ordained to be subservient by god. You should really read some of the actual writings by white leaders from Reconstruction to the 60s. Now, race relations aren't perfect now, but are they better? Are black people better off on average? Do they have more of an opportunity now to be a CEO than they did then? You can't just say it's education that did this, it's also accumulation of capital.

Too bad there are no thought experiments about this sort of reality over at DailyPaul.

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 5:32 PM. Reason : x]

3/13/2012 5:27:48 PM

Quote :

"Only such things did exist back then. It was lack of legal status AND lack of capital that made them a lower class. How would you have liked to have been born black in Alabama in the early 20th century? "

Compared to whites, they still do have a lack of capital. The Civil Rights act did nothing to change that. Forcing racist restaurant owners to serve black people does not change that. This social progression would have happened regardless as a result of ending the Jim Crow laws (laws son, laws) and state-enforced school segregation.

No one is making the claim that life as a black person in the south was pleasant in the 1960s. Keep bitching about capital. That is a problem, but your proposed solutions don't work. The government cannot make bad people become good people. You think that it can, which puts you in the same camp as guys like Rick Santorum.

3/13/2012 5:50:28 PM

Quote :

". The government cannot make bad people become good people. You think that it can, which puts you in the same camp as guys like Rick Santorum."

Perhaps you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you forgot to look at the younger generation.

Black and whites youths get along a lot better than last generation's youths.


What matters most is that we are trending toward the right direction.

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2012 5:57:43 PM

Quote :

"Black and whites youths get along a lot better than last generation's youths."

Maybe because the government stopped arbitrarily splitting blacks and whites up. Whites went to school with blacks and realized that, wow, they're people too. It was a lot easier to dehumanize people when you never actually had to interact with them.

3/13/2012 6:04:44 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you forgot to look at the younger generation."

bull fucking shit. keep denying evolution. government won't change anything. continue denying science.


***NEWS FLASH: the govt CAN make us better people!!! ***
Look at the saint michelle obama making sure businesses and families change their eating habits.

lol

3/13/2012 6:48:49 PM