Ron Paul Causes Epic Depression

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Integrity is for 20 year old fools man. Didn’t you know that?[/quote]

You’re not a fool just a douche bag who thinks he knows what he’s talking about. There is a big difference.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks man.

I’m not saying you don’t know what you are talking about. You are just a total douchebag.

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks man.[/quote]

Good example. The old adage is “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” not rocks junior, stones. I suppose it’s a small difference but nonetheless let’s be true to these old metaphores they’ve served us well.

Not only are you not up to par when it comes to events of the day, you can’t even come up with your own insults. If I call you a douche bag you do not retort by calling me a douche bag. Sort of sounds like “nuh uh you’re the douch bag.” You know like a kid…OOPS…I forgot YOU ARE A KID!

If you’re going to come after me with these unprovoked attacks (as you did above) you have to do a much better job. If not you’ll look like (ready?) a douche bag. Your other choice? Read more post less.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
And wouldn’t you know it Ron Paul is rising in the poll’s. This saturday is going to be fun at the Iowa straw poll, bet you all can guess who I am voting for.[/quote]

Would you like to bet who is NOT going to win?

Ha…[/quote]

Whether or not a candidate can win is piss poor criteria for whether or not they should receive your vote. Voting in favor of your conscience and beliefs is called integrity.[/quote]

Oh I see then I’m going to write in my Uncle Harry who has an IQ of 178 and is the finest man that I ever met. Good idea?

Think again.[/quote]

Is your uncle Harry running for president?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
And wouldn’t you know it Ron Paul is rising in the poll’s. This saturday is going to be fun at the Iowa straw poll

[/quote]

I’m looking forward to seeing how RP goes at the GOP debate Thursday. I’m not so sure Iowa Christian conservatives will be impressed with his pro-gay marriage stance, his hard drug legalisation stance and his batshit foreign policy.[/quote]

Every group of people have their favorite candidate. And I can see how Paul would appeal to younger more naive males. Utopia to them would be:

1- Make drugs legal.

2- Stay out of all foreign conflicts.

3-And basically a socially liberal stance.

Each of those three effects young males directly as they are the biggest consumer of drugs, fight all the wars and for obvious reasons would love a more socially liberal country. Unfortunately there is some good news and some bad news about Paul’s candidacy.

First the bad news: Paul will lose in Iowa and go on to lose every where else he runs.

Now the good news: I get to be proved right once again as I was back in 08’. And (if that wasn’t enough) I get to poke fun at the Paul supporters for their out right foolish belief that Paul can win.

It’s a good season.

:)[/quote]

Drug legalization affects everyone. The only reason they are illegal is well… I’ll let the architects explain…

Nixon’s White House counsel, John Ehrlichman, verified the intention of the War on Drugs in a 1995 interview with author Dan Baum, author of Smoke and Mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure.

“Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure,” Ehrlichman confessed. “We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue for the Nixon White House that we couldn’t resist it.”

http://metrotimes.com/mmj/joining-the-fight-1.1186597

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
And wouldn’t you know it Ron Paul is rising in the poll’s. This saturday is going to be fun at the Iowa straw poll, bet you all can guess who I am voting for.[/quote]

Would you like to bet who is NOT going to win?

Ha…[/quote]

Whether or not a candidate can win is piss poor criteria for whether or not they should receive your vote. Voting in favor of your conscience and beliefs is called integrity.[/quote]

Oh I see then I’m going to write in my Uncle Harry who has an IQ of 178 and is the finest man that I ever met. Good idea?

Think again.[/quote]

Is your uncle Harry running for president?[/quote]

Is that a qualifier to your limited definition of integrity?

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
And wouldn’t you know it Ron Paul is rising in the poll’s. This saturday is going to be fun at the Iowa straw poll

[/quote]

I’m looking forward to seeing how RP goes at the GOP debate Thursday. I’m not so sure Iowa Christian conservatives will be impressed with his pro-gay marriage stance, his hard drug legalisation stance and his batshit foreign policy.[/quote]

Every group of people have their favorite candidate. And I can see how Paul would appeal to younger more naive males. Utopia to them would be:

1- Make drugs legal.

2- Stay out of all foreign conflicts.

3-And basically a socially liberal stance.

Each of those three effects young males directly as they are the biggest consumer of drugs, fight all the wars and for obvious reasons would love a more socially liberal country. Unfortunately there is some good news and some bad news about Paul’s candidacy.

First the bad news: Paul will lose in Iowa and go on to lose every where else he runs.

Now the good news: I get to be proved right once again as I was back in 08’. And (if that wasn’t enough) I get to poke fun at the Paul supporters for their out right foolish belief that Paul can win.

It’s a good season.

:)[/quote]

Drug legalization affects everyone. The only reason they are illegal is well… I’ll let the architects explain…

Nixon’s White House counsel, John Ehrlichman, verified the intention of the War on Drugs in a 1995 interview with author Dan Baum, author of Smoke and Mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure.

“Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure,” Ehrlichman confessed. “We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue for the Nixon White House that we couldn’t resist it.”

http://metrotimes.com/mmj/joining-the-fight-1.1186597[/quote]

Yeah, there’s that and there’s also that whole screwing up your body and harming others in multiple ways like driving your car into them. All of which ends up being paid for by people who actually work and pay taxes like me. So I guess the 20 something crowd might change their minds when they become the 30, 40 or 50 something crowd.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
And wouldn’t you know it Ron Paul is rising in the poll’s. This saturday is going to be fun at the Iowa straw poll, bet you all can guess who I am voting for.[/quote]

Would you like to bet who is NOT going to win?

Ha…[/quote]

Whether or not a candidate can win is piss poor criteria for whether or not they should receive your vote. Voting in favor of your conscience and beliefs is called integrity.[/quote]

Oh I see then I’m going to write in my Uncle Harry who has an IQ of 178 and is the finest man that I ever met. Good idea?

Think again.[/quote]

Is your uncle Harry running for president?[/quote]

Is that a qualifier to your limited definition of integrity?[/quote]

I fail to see how my definition is limited, it’s simply integrity as defined.

Your Uncle Harry, while probably a swell guy, is nationally insignificant. Throwing your Uncle Harry into the discussion was a very child like reaction and not very well thought out on your part. Disregarding your values and voting for someone simply because you think they’re more electable is is foolish and disingenuous. And yes, in doing so, shows a lack of integrity.

Too many people vote against someone, and not in favor of someone. Too many people view politics as some sort of sporting event where it’s just important to have “won”. I say bullshit to that, and will vote my beliefs and values every time, regardless of party.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
And wouldn’t you know it Ron Paul is rising in the poll’s. This saturday is going to be fun at the Iowa straw poll

[/quote]

I’m looking forward to seeing how RP goes at the GOP debate Thursday. I’m not so sure Iowa Christian conservatives will be impressed with his pro-gay marriage stance, his hard drug legalisation stance and his batshit foreign policy.[/quote]

Every group of people have their favorite candidate. And I can see how Paul would appeal to younger more naive males. Utopia to them would be:

1- Make drugs legal.

2- Stay out of all foreign conflicts.

3-And basically a socially liberal stance.

Each of those three effects young males directly as they are the biggest consumer of drugs, fight all the wars and for obvious reasons would love a more socially liberal country. Unfortunately there is some good news and some bad news about Paul’s candidacy.

First the bad news: Paul will lose in Iowa and go on to lose every where else he runs.

Now the good news: I get to be proved right once again as I was back in 08’. And (if that wasn’t enough) I get to poke fun at the Paul supporters for their out right foolish belief that Paul can win.

It’s a good season.

:)[/quote]

Drug legalization affects everyone. The only reason they are illegal is well… I’ll let the architects explain…

Nixon’s White House counsel, John Ehrlichman, verified the intention of the War on Drugs in a 1995 interview with author Dan Baum, author of Smoke and Mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure.

“Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure,” Ehrlichman confessed. “We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue for the Nixon White House that we couldn’t resist it.”

http://metrotimes.com/mmj/joining-the-fight-1.1186597[/quote]

Yeah, there’s that and there’s also that whole screwing up your body and harming others in multiple ways like driving your car into them. All of which ends up being paid for by people who actually work and pay taxes like me. So I guess the 20 something crowd might change their minds when they become the 30, 40 or 50 something crowd.[/quote]

What a load of shit. This argument could’ve easily come from any nanny state leftist. You gonna support the abolishment of fast foods? Pop and candy? Re institute prohibition? Maybe much tighter government control over the supplement industry too, huh?

For fucks sake…

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

I fail to see how my definition is limited, it’s simply integrity as defined.[/quote]

Nope, you said [quote]Voting in favor of your conscience and beliefs is called integrity.[/quote] But if you want to reshape and expand that definition I would certainly agree with you.

No, actually it was a really good way to slap you back into reality on your hero’s chances of winning. First you said the above (vote in favor of your conscience). Now you say the person has to be significant. So by your new definition someone who is insignificant should not be voted for, as in the case of Uncle Harry. Therefore, Ron Paul should not be voted for because he is absolutely insignificant and will NEVER become President EVER!. Would you like to change definitions once again? Or are you now ready to vote for someone who can actually win? You can’t have it both ways.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

What a load of shit. This argument could’ve easily come from any nanny state leftist.[/quote]

And your black and white view of America is as crazy and scary as Ron Pauls. But that IS the problem with most libertarians isn’t it? They don’t really have a firm grasp on how government should work - they never have. The difference between a conservative and a libertarian is simple. A libertarian thinks that government is bad, once again black and white. A conservative thinks that BIG government is bad, but government and laws etc. are neccesssary in a society. It draws fine lines of distinction between things that further that society and things that cause it to crumble. AND…the founding fathers agreed with this. Do some reading.

[quote]You gonna support the abolishment of fast foods? Pop and candy? Re institute prohibition? Maybe much tighter government control over the supplement industry too, huh?

For fucks sake…
[/quote]

Once again a very limited black and white picture you have there. If someone is against legalizing drugs that means (to you) that they are for abolishing fast foods, soda and candy. I’m kind of surprised how limited you are in your thinking. I think you’re better than this.

It’s all or nothing broad sweeping statements like those that will absolutely prevent a libertarian from rising up to become President, as Ron Paul will find out —AGAIN!

Has anyone else noticed how ZEB constantly throws “compliments” at people to feed their ego and simultaneously try and elevate his own importance in their eyes?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

What a load of shit. This argument could’ve easily come from any nanny state leftist.[/quote]

And your black and white view of America is as crazy and scary as Ron Pauls. But that IS the problem with most libertarians isn’t it? They don’t really have a firm grasp on how government should work - they never have. The difference between a conservative and a libertarian is simple. A libertarian thinks that government is bad, once again black and white. A conservative thinks that BIG government is bad, but government and laws etc. are neccesssary in a society. It draws fine lines of distinction between things that further that society and things that cause it to crumble. AND…the founding fathers agreed with this. Do some reading.

[/quote]

Yeah well, take that up with Washington, that libertarian dreamer.

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Has anyone else noticed how ZEB constantly throws “compliments” at people to feed their ego and simultaneously try and elevate his own importance in their eyes?[/quote]

Has anyone noticed how little 20 year old foreign boys who try to pretend that they know something about American politics always sound like douche bags?

So what do people think about Ron Paul coming in second in the Iowa straw poll (.9% behind Bachmann)? I don’t think he has a chance of winning, but he had a better showing than I would have guessed. Course, he wasn’t competing against Romney and Perry.

[quote]forlife wrote:
So what do people think about Ron Paul coming in second in the Iowa straw poll (.9% behind Bachmann)? I don’t think he has a chance of winning, but he had a better showing than I would have guessed. Course, he wasn’t competing against Romney and Perry.[/quote]

Romney and Perry are competing?

This is essentially a “statistical tie” with Michelle Bachmann. This is no surprise as he and her both rally to the Tea Party movement. I believe he was the original voice of that movement that speaks on behalf of the constitution and liberty while she speaks to the warmongers and gay-bashers and has no real principles whatsoever. Bachmann is also popular in this part of the country which probably also won her some favor.

The fact that Tim Pawlenty (former gov of MN) came in a distant 3rd to them both indicates to me that local politics probably plays a bigger role to some of these voters than national.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Has anyone noticed how little 20 year old foreign boys who try to pretend that they know something about American politics always sound like douche bags?[/quote]

No.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Has anyone noticed how little 20 year old foreign boys who try to pretend that they know something about American politics always sound like douche bags?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

Yeah, but your judgement isn’t very good you even think that Ron Paul has a chance to be President.

:slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Has anyone noticed how little 20 year old foreign boys who try to pretend that they know something about American politics always sound like douche bags?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

Yeah, but your judgement isn’t very good you even think that Ron Paul has a chance to be President.

:)[/quote]

By the definition of the word “chance” he does.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Has anyone noticed how little 20 year old foreign boys who try to pretend that they know something about American politics always sound like douche bags?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

Yeah, but your judgement isn’t very good you even think that Ron Paul has a chance to be President.

:)[/quote]

By the definition of the word “chance” he does.[/quote]

No actually he doesn’t. I can’t even imagine how the US would have to look before the majority voted for Paul. It’s practically an impossibility.

His time would be better spent doing his doctor gig. At least there he knows what he’s talking about as I hear he’s a pretty fair doctor.