Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Ron Paul: The 5 Million Dollar Man
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
3flip



Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 2201
Location: Minneapolis
 Reply with quote  

honestly, you are pointing your finger in the wrong fucking direction to think ron paul is the alternative to a black or woman president. ron paul is the alternative to a fascist or socialist president.
Post Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
bigsole
Bought his character on ebay


Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 720
Location: the o
hmmm  Reply with quote  

there are things i really like about ron paul. i dont like his comments on "protecting the liberty of the unborn child" or gay marriage. his policies could either be disasterous or help america heal itself. i really like his personality, but i dont like how racists and aryan nationalists are rallying behind pauls protectionist policies...

personally, i think obama is a great candidate. the ultra left seems to continually find fault with him. recently he voted against taking action against iran and abstained from a vote for on funding us troops in iraq.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tom inhaler
me too!


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 4398
Location: providence
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
tom inhaler wrote:
you really think no one in this country is reluctant to vote for a woman or black man for president?


These race and gender questions are meant to skew issues. Quit emboldening the racists and sexists by bringing them up. Be proactive and stop dwelling on them. Only YOU can prevent prejudice.


hey, what do you call a black doctor that just saved your child's life?

regardless of what any of us PC, liberal, goody-two-shoes think or do, there are still going to be people that absolutely refuse to vote for a black man, or a woman.

i'll stop emboldening racists and sexists now.

RACISTS AND SEXISTS, YOU ARE EMBOLDENED NO MORE!
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:26 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

HAHA. ^^^ WOILA!

Naw man, I just don't buy people's math on Ron Paul. It's insane to me, the people I hear lauding him, people who have never in their lives voted for someone as socially and fiscally conservative as he is. I think it's an interesting psychological anomaly. It is certainly NOT indicative of a thoughtful decision making process. OBAMA IS NOT COOKIE CUTTER, and it takes having seriously failed to take an honest and objective look at him to see him as if he were. He is possibly the least typical presidential candidate EVER. He's the fucking Invisible Man up there, and it's sad as hell to me. The only way he looks "typical" is if you view him as the Black Candidate. Which I'm sure many, many people do, and that is sad as shit.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Lusid
http://youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0


Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Dr. Pepperland
 Reply with quote  

Obama is pretty cookie cutter, schooled in the how to be a politician 101 class as everyone else, same stick up the ass posture, same
"I uh....yuh.....uh.... well....er....uh, I think *cautiously worded response*"

I think him being a black guy actually helps seperate him for the other white cookie cutters. Plus he's young. If anyone appeals to the youth vote, it's going to be Obama. Too bad they don't vote.

And I think out of the top dogs Obama is the best choice, but I'm not voting so I can be on the winning team, I'm voting because I want real change.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

Lusid wrote:
Obama is pretty cookie cutter, schooled in the how to be a politician 101 class as everyone else, same stick up the ass posture, same
"I uh....yuh.....uh.... well....er....uh, I think *cautiously worded response*"

I think him being a black guy actually helps seperate him for the other white cookie cutters. Plus he's young. If anyone appeals to the youth vote, it's going to be Obama. Too bad they don't vote.

And I think out of the top dogs Obama is the best choice, but I'm not voting so I can be on the winning team, I'm voting because I want real change.


Just as long as you understand that if you don't vote for Obama, Hillary will probably win.

Obama is NOT cut from the same cloth as those cats, at all. He obviously does not listen to the same people. All you have to do is listen to him for 10 minutes. He has different concepts about what government is and should be than everyone else on the stage, doesn't use DC talking points and although answers deliberately (wtf is wrong with that?) doesn't often prevaricate. Again, how many of you actually have paid attention to Obama other than peripherally as part of the election coverage in the media? Read his book, Dreams from my Father, and you'll understand how different he is. It's about his adolescence and young adulthood. He is an American with an atypical experience and therefore an atypically broad understanding of Americans.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

Yeah. Strict Constructionism. The ideology that would have kibashed desegregation, abortion legalization, and anti-censorship. Whooo.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

Lusid wrote:
Obama is pretty cookie cutter, schooled in the how to be a politician 101 class as everyone else, same stick up the ass posture, same
"I uh....yuh.....uh.... well....er....uh, I think *cautiously worded response*"

I think him being a black guy actually helps seperate him for the other white cookie cutters. Plus he's young. If anyone appeals to the youth vote, it's going to be Obama. Too bad they don't vote.

And I think out of the top dogs Obama is the best choice, but I'm not voting so I can be on the winning team, I'm voting because I want real change.


Is this the Obama that admitted to having smoked weed and benefited from it, was against the Iraq war from day one, and tried to de-seat a Black Panther in south Chicago in his first run at state office?
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
Yeah. Strict Constructionism. The ideology that would have kibashed desegregation, abortion legalization, and anti-censorship. Whooo.

The ideology that would regulate the federal government and limit its powers to how they are specified in the constitution.

How do you think strict constructionism would kibash those things? It would just let states decide their own laws (like the constitution permits). If a state makes an unconstitutional law, the appeal process is used and the supreme court can rule a particular law unconstitutional.

I don't think it was only strict constructionists that were baffled by Roe v. Wade.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:45 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

Dude, strict constructionists are against every single court ruling that has come between racists and racism, sexists and sexism, homophobes and hate crimes, anti-semites and Jews. Every single one. Desegregation? Illegal. Affirmative action? Illegal. Hate crime laws? Gone. Gay marriage? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Strict strict constructionists would even enable slavery to return in states that wanted it. The constitution is vague because the founders wanted people to figure out things on a case-by-case basis. There is no protection explicitly written in the constitution for many, many things that you take for granted.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
shambhala wrote:
Yeah. Strict Constructionism. The ideology that would have kibashed desegregation, abortion legalization, and anti-censorship. Whooo.

The ideology that would regulate the federal government and limit its powers to how they are specified in the constitution.

How do you think strict constructionism would kibash those things? It would just let states decide their own laws (like the constitution permits). If a state makes an unconstitutional law, the appeal process is used and the supreme court can rule a particular law unconstitutional.

I don't think it was only strict constructionists that were baffled by Roe v. Wade.


Strict Constructionism is a euphamism for limiting the power of judges to acknowledge social progress in their rulings.

A solid majority of the important milestones in the past 100 years have been because judges, who aren't subject to the whims of populism and actually have educations, have been able to make intelligent judgments about things like school desegregation and free speech.

If you really follow the "strict constructionist" argument, the federal government shouldn't be doing anything to prevent racial discrimination and women shouldn't have the right to vote, because neither of those are outlined in the constitution.

It's a shitty ideology, and it's a mask for social conservativism/ romanticization of a fucked up past where people were sheltered, repressed, and knew how to fall in line.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

PS The constitution is great but I really can't give a flying fuck what a bunch of slave-owning patriarchial sexists would have wanted. The checks and balances system is brilliant, as is many of the early rights outlined in the document, but I don't want to be tied into that witch-burning moment in time any more than I want the ten commandments to be the law of the land either.

Societies progress. Judges are generally very intelligent people who should be given leeway to view people's rights in light of evolving standards of decency and understanding.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:

Societies progress. Judges are generally very intelligent people who should be given leeway to view people's rights in light of evolving standards of decency and understanding.


That or the governor's brother in law.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

You guys need to take a con law class. Your understanding of strict constructionism and textualism is mind numbing.

Women got the right to vote because of an amendment. If you want to change the law of the land (the constitution), you do it through an amendment.

The slippery slope that loose constructionism and judicial activism give way to, is scary as hell.

I dont want a full court of Scalias, but I am glad to have at least one.

Simon Wilder: You asked the question, sir, now let me answer it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. The beauty of the Constitution is that it makes no set law other than faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.

Proffesor Pitkannan: Faith in the wisdom of the people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.

Simon Wilder: Crude? No, sir. Our "founding parents" were pompous, white, middle-aged farmers, but they were also great men. Because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. Sure, they'd make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bigsole
Bought his character on ebay


Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 720
Location: the o
 Reply with quote  

not to be a dick... but it should be forbidden to use terms like "constructionism" or "structuralism" outside of a college classroom. .
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:51 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon