Ron Paul is an internet phenomenon.

.

theyre all douchebags, except ron paul, dennis kucinich and mike gravel.

I went to my caucus to vote and Mike Gravel was not even on the ticket despite Edwards and Kucinich whom had dropped out being on it. I was not able to write him in either. Obama volunteers outnumbered actual democratic party workers at least 3 to 1. And before I had even voted or signed up I had been given a Barack 08 sticker while standing in line...

I was really humored by how pathetic and biased my democratic process was. Granted this was a college campus and 90% of the democrats were going to be voting for Barack anyways so might as well just push them through. I did vote for Barack but only because Hillary was the only other Candidate I could choose other than to nullify my vote.

yea, i don't blame you at all. obama, though somewhat misguided on foreign policy, is a much better choice than clinton. hillary is just a giuliani that can wear a dress without being criticized for it.

Obama, America will never have a good president so they may aswell have a black one (or for short, "civil war".)

RON PAUL /b/

i wish someone could state (in short) what the difference is between them =(

one is black and another one is female :|

just need a random pole and the circle of 'lol' is complete

this good enough?

Hillary Clinton thinks we should bomb Iran.
Barack Obama thinks this would probably be a bad idea.

The republicans are laughing their asses off. Having a black man, and woman as they primary candidates is like shooting yourself in the foot. America simply isn't ready for either.

uhhhh, i think its more the democrats that are laughing their asses off. The republicans nominated McCain.... McCain, who is one of the Senate republicans who has sided with the dems on several occasions..and about whom there were rumours that he was thinking of switching parties...

I think the democrats are actually more afraid of McCain than any other republican candidate.
Cause as always the voters from the middle will decide who wins. Die hard republicanss will vote republican and die hard democrats wil vote democrats. And the voters in the middle are most likely to vote someone who is in the middle.

Just about every poll ever done in the last year says otherwise....

giz0r u cunt, i cud run for president u fucking racist

same shit, different package

John Edwards was the only one I saw that had policies which approached anything close to reasonable in terms of running a country. Now he's dropped out unless the others plan on ending the Iraq war and American imperialist foreign policy I could give two tugs of a dead dog's cock less about any of them.

uhhh, Edwards was just a corporate basher... the US don't want their country run like Venezuela...

They're all douchebags with their own personal agendas...doesn't matter who wins they will all suck

Hopefully, people will learn what to trust. A person can lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, change... but an idea, a principle, an action, a solution... at worst they can be low-quality, incorrect or incomplete. Which is better to trust? Better yet, if we work together, we can almost completely eliminate the bad qualities of the 'non-person'. Why then do we support people rather than 'non-people'?

RP is just too far right to be any good imo, a more moderate version of him (with the same integrity and honesty, you gotta give him that at least) would probably be pretty good.

Obama and Hillary are pretty much the same policy wise, although obama does seem slightly more forward looking which is why the young seem to like him. That and the fact that he markets his good sides aggressively while everybody seems to gloss over his record. Like Tucker Carlson said "who cares if theres a big nothing burger at the center of it[obamas platform]?"

McCain would pretty much be Bush the 3rd, you can expect a big boost in militarism under McCain and even more executive power grabs and marginalization of dissent. He's also the most likely person to plunge the world into nuclear armageddon...

i dont think u understand the economic turmoil the united states is in atm. this "political spectrum" is a bunch of nonsense and a brainwashing tool to make americans think that they're either "liberal " or "conservative" and must vote accordingly, instead of voting for who represents their views, as if you can't be both liberal and conservative. ron paul, for example.

o0

there are pretty separate principals behind liberal and conservative ideology tbh... and to think otherwise would be very naive...

the problem lies more with the fact that a very significant proportion of the population does not know enough to effectively distinguish the two... or to develop their own views independantly.

the US's institutional economic problems do not lie with institutions themselves, but rather with weak government. Central Banks and flexible currency DO work, as long as government is strong enough.

i do admire RP's fiscal responsibility though aswell as his strong principles. His foreign policy is too big a step back imo. The US has been overzealous in its use of influence, but denying that that influence exists is not a solution.

"His foreign policy is too big a step back imo."

we can't afford the current policy and this policy undermines the sovereignty of other nations.

"..but denying that that influence exists is not a solution."

ur comment is a weak strawman, but w/e. i'm pretty sure that "influence" had to be acknowledged in order for people such as ron paul to come forward and say that this policy doesn't work well for anyone except the military industrial complex

the whole of the american way of life is built on top of your empire...

its very profitable for all aspects of your society. Saying the the MIC is the only sector benefiting from global hegemony is simply false. Its just so pervasive that you can no longer spot it out.

just as a side point, military research often yields significant technological breakthroughs that transfer to civilian applications.

the war costs over $1 trillon per year. This money has to be printed. every time a new bill is printed the the value of individual notes decreases. it doesn't help our economy at all. it makes EVERYTHING more expensive, and almost have to have loans and mortgages to be able to afford a home and education etc.(loans and mortgages are VERY BAD for the economy)

theres no doubt that Iraq was a misguided decision, but you cant blame the financial institutions for bad leadership.

How do you suggest working people buy a home unless it be with a mortgage? Or start up a business??? I think you'll find that mortgages and loans are actually a boon to the economy.

"theres no doubt that Iraq was a misguided decision, but you cant blame the financial institutions for bad leadership."

strawman. this is not what i am arguing and you know it.

"How do you suggest working people buy a home unless it be with a mortgage?"

rent until you can buy a home without a loan.

"Or start up a business???"

not impossible without loans.

"I think you'll find that mortgages and loans are actually a boon to the economy."

/palmface
i think you really need to define "boon" for me. my definition doesn't fit what is going on at all right now. several thousands of people have lost their homes in foreclosures, due to the recent housing bubble, that was caused by loans. the price of oil, over the last decade, has gone up 350% in dollar value, but the value of oil has stayed flat against the value of gold for decades, therefore, the value of oil has not changed but, in fact, the falling value of the dollar is what is causing these rising prices.

this is boring as fuck but it explains what i'm talking about:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI

well, i've got this argument aced. my e-prick just grew half an inch.

maybe, i'm a little too honest. x|

i think that renting for 25 years whilst saving your money up so that you can buy a house actually makes you come off worse, financially.

Also, i'd love to see how long it takes you to raise 1million on your own as starting capital, especially when your trying to rent a house and save up to buy one too. I cant honestly believe you are arguing against money lending with the position that its a brake on the economy.

Yes, out of control money lending is bad, but no money lending at all is worse.

"i think that renting for 25 years whilst saving your money up so that you can buy a house actually makes you come off worse, financially."

this isn't exactly relevant because it's only 1 scenario out of many possibilities and doesn't contribute to the argument of whether or not loans are bad for the economy.

"Also, i'd love to see how long it takes you to raise 1million on your own as starting capital, especially when your trying to rent a house and save up to buy one too."

this isn't really an argument or premise, but you use this "reasoning" to come to the conclusion, below.

"I cant honestly believe you are arguing against money lending with the position that its a break on the economy."

then, i suppose, it will be difficult for you to believe that you've lost this argument, matr0x vs krg style.

"..but no money lending at all is worse."

any evidence?

if your arguing that mortgages are bad it is totally relevant. I think people enjoy owning property.

commercial loans make it possible for anyone to become an entrepreneur.

and your against this because???

"if your arguing that mortgages are bad it is totally relevant."

more strawman and equivocation. you know that i'm arguing that loans are BAD FOR THIS ECONOMY, not that they are just bad.

"I think people enjoy owning property."

you don't own property that you've mortgaged until you've entirely payed what you owed to the bank that gave you the loan.

"commercial loans make it possible for anyone to become an entrepreneur."(even if this is true) != evidence for healthy or booming economy

"and your against this because???"

so you're misrepresenting my argument, once again, and coming to the conclusion that i'm against people making money. i've got some links for u.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation

you don't own property that you've mortgaged until you've entirely payed what you owed to the bank that gave you the loan.

hah yeah, the amount of morons that state 'I own my house' really fuck me off.

Mortgages are good for the economy as they "free up" money for circulation however they can also go too far and be bad for it. The problem comes when super low interest rates are given and then economic/market conditions take a turn for the worse. People can no longer afford to pay the mortgage, the mortgage company has to go for damage limitation and takes ownership of the property as payment etc.

Also as a little side in most European countries (No idea about the USA) home ownership is far lower than the UK and people don't see homes in the same way as we do (An investment).

i cant really argue with that :)

one of the reasons why europeans own less homes than americans is that we don't build houses out of wood. Which makes houses here way more expensive.

/Edit
and yeah we (at least Germans) see homes as investments. Very much so. It's just a minimum $100000 investment when its a moderately sized flat.

I was comparing to the British not the USA :D

In the UK a bigger percentage of the population purchase homes rather than renting than say France (which was 20% less or something) and buying a home is seen as being a mecca for making your money grow to astronomical levels!

I can't say anything about the uk really :)

But if I compare my German and American relatives, I'd actually say it's about the same.

I edited!

But uh yeah, I don't really know all that much about the USA in terms of housing except that they can build without the need for large foundations in many areas due to granite :(

that would be Manhattan afair.

For the rest they do have some foundation. But wooden houses don't weigh nearly as much a those out of stone so I guess it's not as neccessary.

rent until you can buy a home without a loan.

Holy God. Are you serious? How old are you and are you financially independent?

It's a far better move to pay mortgage payments and actually build equity/value than to just throw money away on renting a house/apartment if you can afford it. It could be likened to renting a car versus making payments on it. While you're paying more per month (perhaps) on payments on a auto-loan, you end up actually owning the car instead of indefinitely paying for it.

Owning a house is a huge investment for people. For someone to save up $150,000 to buy a house outright would be wasting years and years of money on rent that adds up to absolutely nothing (that is money wasted). But paying a mortgage payment (besides the interest you pay) is directly adding to the value of your investment.

The problem with the subprime mortgage meltdown was half selling mortgages to people who couldn't afford it after the initial intro-rates and half optimism about the real estate market (which had to pop sometime).

If you're in college, it's obvious you haven't taken a lick of economics/business classes.

Exactly :o

It benefits yourself once you become a homeowner. But does it benefit society or the economy that people may eventually own their own houses or land? Keeping in mind what happens when house values plunge like presently or someone cannot afford to pay when the interest rate goes up. No, not for any reason I can see at least.

Many people have more debt than they are worth and so are owned by banks. This eats people's freedom. I'm a college student and I am wealthier than a vast majority of Americans. I don't own very much and I don't have a job, but I also don't have any debt. My dad is a mail carrier and my mom is a secretary so I'm not privileged either. I just learned how to save my money.

Someone has to own the land/building. Would you rather it be the government (a la communism)?

You said you know how to "save" money. Well, owning a house is an investment. Even as you're still making payments, you're building equity (see: Home Equity). If you choose the house wisely (good location ready for growth, accruing in value), then you're not only saving money... you're making it.

The banking industry is absolutely critical to the way the US's economy functions. And since mortgages are the number one asset on most banks balance sheet, it'd be safe to assume that yes, mortgages do benefit society.

"the US's institutional economic problems do not lie with institutions themselves, but rather with weak government. Central Banks and flexible currency DO work, as long as government is strong enough."

1. define what weak/strong government are.
2. central banks are unconstitutional and should not exist in the united states.
3. all fiat currencies collapse due to inflation.

what i meant by that was rather than take a hit where its due , the government will try and insulate everything and everyone.

i also think fiat currency is, historically speaking, rather new, so claiming that they all collapse due to inflation cant be true. Poor economic guidance will collapse any currency.

fiat currencies have been around since, at the very least, over a thousand years(chinese song dynasty). many nations switched to gold standard in the 19th century and the united states came off of the gold standard in 1968, which is unconstitutional because the constitution says only gold and silver are legal tender etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

.

yes, i should have read his comment a little more thoroughly before drafting my response.

there are pretty separate principals behind liberal and conservative ideology tbh... and to think otherwise would be very naive...

You're following the same path he outlined in his post. Someone can be liberal on one issue and conservative on another. The idea you hold the same stance on EVERY issue is ridiculous and most likely means you're a fanatic.

Primitive thinking though. Two-dimensional. Conservatism and liberalism are two sides of the same coin. If you increase authority, you simultaneously decrease liberty. The action of closing borders will open your country to a set of corresponding consequences.

If you are conservative in the number of reasons given, you are liberal in the number of reasons you failed to give. If you favor slow-change, you also favor fast stagnation. By raising taxes, you lower the deficit.

When will governments stop using religion for structure advice? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Isn't science, the study of the structure of the Universe, significantly more suitable for aiding the construction of government? So much of these 'political perspectives' are two-dimensional, or relative, or many other things we would understand better if we studied more science.

Obviously America needs a perceptive change more than anything else.

Mccain = old, Hillary = female, Obama = black

So, a simple calcuation result = Obama > Hillary > Mccain > Bush

all of these people deserve to be tased while being waterboarded for wanting to expand the "war on terror."

War against islam is a good move. Other than that I value RPs stance on the war on drugs & individual liberty.

"War against islam is a good move."

plzplzplzplpzz let me see your rationalization for this.

Islam is crazy and dangerous and very much incompatible with any sort of understanding of human rights and freedom. They should be wiped out. Ez. Sucks they didn't attack north korea before they acquired nukes. They really should push for Iran before the nutjobs manage to manufacture any.

i think giving them some science books would be cheaper then killing them all, tbh.

You really should look into the issue of islam. It IS fucked up big time and no science book can fix it. Nuke them imo. It's worth it.

preemptive genocide is infinitely more fucked up then people believing stupid, barbaric shit.

We'll see about that when the western civilization is but a remnant of the past. :))))))

bedwetter

Don't h8 :(

clone Kemal Ataturk, send to islamist countries.
problem solved!

that man has all my respect

Ataturk has this crazy worship cult around him in turkey at least. It's fucked up. Dunno enough about the man itself to comment, though, but dissing him in turkey equals to denying holocaust in france/germany/austria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemal_Ataturk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk%27s_reforms

he reformed Turkey from what was really a feudal state at the beginning of the 20th century.

he secularized the state, instated equal rights for women and freedom of religion, abolished dress codes, made education mandatory, changed alphabet to latin letters, encouraged westernization and modern culture.

he ruled with a single-party until all the groundwork has been achieved, then he made way for opposition parties.

he made state-owned enterprises, only to be privatized after they proved successful and profitable.

I think people like you should be killed, honest m8 :(

if you think so then Christianity and all of europe should have been destroyed 1000 years ago. Cause the crusaders were more and worse than todays Islam fanatics will ever be.

At least the different sects of christianity are compromising constantly and stripping their faith apart in order to be compatible with the current times. Don't see such option in islam. Hf stoning women who were raped. I rather have it my way.

how about burning women because they have read hair. Or killing people for believing the earth is round.

Look at Northern Ireland and tell me again how well catholics and protestants get along.


Sure nowadays some Christain countries are less fanatic than some islamic countries, but saying the won't ever changed is incredibly shortsighted and dumb.

I hope you're not just trying to argue for the sake of arguing because surely you can see the advance the 'western world' has made when compared to muslim countries. Sure christianity has a bloody past, no doub. However, when it comes to islam, female genital mutilation and the virgin cult is just madness and it's still going rampant even today. :(((((( I'm glad I was never delusional enough to believe in this horrid propaganda called christianity.

Seen Jesus camp yet?

Yes, but I am glad it's a fringe group.

Suicide bombers aren't mainstream either. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against extinction of Islam. Matter of fact I have nothing against extinction of any religion but how do you go about doing it? By killing every Muslim in the world? By banning Islam from any country by force? Talk about giving the fanatics fuel for their fire..

You read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's The Caged Virgin?

Nope. You didn't answer my question tho.

I don't really know. Censorship and suppression of free speech doesn't work BUT the current special treatment muslims get should stop. It is true that they're terrorists, for we're terrified to call this by their real names nowadays. We're so terrified we give them special privileges and let their hatespeech and warmongering slide.

Don't know what special treatment you're talking about, must be another u.s. political correctness thing. As for them all being terrorist, shouldn't your country be in ruins by now? Let's do some calculation: Theres about 1.61 billion muslims. Say we fit every one of them with 2 kilos of regular TNT. That should give us about 3200 megatons of explosive yield +/- a nuke or two. Ought to be enough, don't you think? :)

2 bullets to the chest 1 to the head times 1.61 billion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;js...lam403.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/heal...603966.ece

Yap that's bs I agree. Just flunk the cunts. They try to practice medicine without licence? Lock them up. No need to get all murderous about it.

How many islamic countries have you visited to know they are all terrorists?

and I hope your post are only for trolling. Cause your facts stink.


Female genital mutilation was never a part of Islam. It's part of tribal traditions in certain areas that are mostly in Africa. The main religion can be either Christian or Islamic.

THe early Islam was both a comparibly peaceful religion and in the middle east research such as medicine and peoples rights were more advanced than Europe. Than some barbarians came around started the crusades.

So if Christianity became better after long dark times, why the fuck can't the Islam? Especially if it isn't as bad as the Christian belief was at it's worst times. I would really love to here some good points about this from you.

all i know is as a brit i'm fucking sick of having this shit forced down my throat everytime i want to look at the news. that said i hope obama wins because hillary looks like the wife out of american beauty and thats how i imagine her; false

It's on the news so much because the outcome will affect us more than anything that will happen in British politics.

the primaries wont

indeed. and it's the same bullshit in the german media.

seeing as it is arguable that the Republicans dont have a shot at the white house after this disastrous administration, the election effectively becomes the Democratic primary. This is why its being covered so much, although no news agency would go out on a limb and expressly say so.

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

Based off this, Obama and Clinton are the only who are not complete looneys. Granted Paul makes sense when he talks, his positions on issues are not shared by me.

both of them support death penalty and actions against iran. idk how the fuck you consider theres people "not looneys".

Who among those candidates make more sense then?

paul and gravel.

Against abortions
Against assault weapon ban
Against gun background checks (seriously wtf?)
Against net neutrality
Against universal healthcare

That, sir, makes Ron Paul a looney.

abortion is a state issue not a federal issue, he thinks its unconstitutional to have federal law that prohibits abortion.

both of these gun laws are state issues as well.

we already have net neutrality in the u.s.

we cant afford universal healthcare.

What do you mean, can't afford it? US citizens already pay the most in the world for health care. If you put that into socialized health care it would cover everything no problem.

And frankly, cost isn't a valid excuse. The current state of your country's health care system is fucking tragic and I'm not basing that just on Sicko. Also you need to do something about your college education system. Paying thousands of dollars annually to be able to get a degree? What?

public debt is $9 trillion and will be >$50 trillion dollars when the baby boomers get their social security money. the war is costing > $1 trillion per year. we can hardly purchase homes here. more taxes+universal healthcare thats controlled by the FDA(very corrupt) is simply not worth it and economically idiotic, atm.

Well health care is one of the largest flaws with your country and I think it needs to be fixed. Also, you'd hardly end up with anything more corrupt than privately owned insurance companies (and hospitals for that matter) that only care about profit.

yes, healthcare is a serious issue, but not the most important. but i'd rather be free and without healthcare(with money in my pocket), instead of having healthcare and no freedom and no cash, while the government intrudes into my life in every way imaginable.

But the thing is, it doesn't go into your pocket. It just goes into the pockets of the insurance companies. How does this practically increase your freedom and accountability of the events in any way? How can you afford to lose the productivity of the sick and uninsured?

listen, i'm not disagreeing with you, but you should really take a look at what the war on drugs and the war on terrorism have done to our country and economy. we should first fix these things and then balance the budget(by ending a bunch of programs, so that we can stop a massive amount of spending), then we should need to do something about the FDA. after all of this, we should begin a socialized healthcare program.

lots of courtries who are way poorer the the U.S. can afford a healthcare system. It's expensive, yes but not even close to unaffordable.

Also please remind, what was the last name of the last president who actually did not end up with a budget deficit?

Hint: It wasn't a Republican.

not all republicans have the same policies and just because someone is a democrat doesn't mean they aren't a neoconservative, e.g. hillary clinton.

so you actually believe that Bill will not have any influence if his wife wins?

bill clinton, as the first lady, or not, they both have big government, massive spending, neoconservative policies.

what the fuck do you mean with massive spending?

military intervention

almost all countries do and pay for military intervention, it's more important of how muc you spend in total.
An surprise surprise he was the only president for a long period that at some point did not have a deficit. But I guess you found that out by now.

"almost all countries do and pay for military intervention"

whether or not this is true, doesn't make it ok for the u.s. to be involved in military intervention.

that is correct.

And I never said that military intervention is a good thing. Just that you can't simply say that it neccessarily leads to "massive spending"

ok, sry for twisting your words, but that's what i thought u were trying to say.

The biggest issue is education. If people weren't so stupid, they wouldn't injure themselves. It isn't like we have to dodge lions and tigers. People these days are careless, power-tripping dipshits.

Plus, by relying too much on technology (medical care), we weaken our natural defenses.

And as humans, our strengths are pretty much exclusively in our brains. Most of our short-term (single-life), brain development is a direct result of going through the education system.

I agree with basically what you said but the last sentence.
Our education system at least from how I have experienced it was very much fact feeding, memorization, shallow and focused on testing. Math and Science were not emphasized. There was not much need for critical thinking, challenging the mind and self discovery which would make the brain a source of strength like you describe.

"we already have net neutrality in the u.s."

tell that to comcast.

yea, something tells me the executives at comcast probably don't use comcast and probably spend their money on verizon fios instead.

you don't understand network neutrality.

you don't deal with comcast...

It's true, they are absolutely scum.

What about Individual liberty and repealing the war on drugs? The war on drugs creates far more problems than some retard going on rampage with m16 instead of a uzi.

Legalize!

Too bad the other candidates are hell-bent on being 'tough on crime' and 'tough on drugs'. :(

http://www.leap.cc legalize!

obama is for decriminlization at least...

Decriminalization won't work because it still leaves manufacture to the criminals and supply aswell. The point in legalizing is that you take control of the market ensuring exact amounts of pure material for users to minimize overdose and contamination related deaths/accidents. Also the organized crime can't compete with free market drug prices. GG WP NO RE. But yeah anyway, decriminalizing use is a step forward, although I haven't heard obama is for this, but it's not enough.

i'm only talking about marijuana. i pretty sure legalization simply won't happen, regardless of its positive and negative values

Don't forget he's against the Kyoto agreements and he wants the US to leave the UN. To even consider leaving the UN is such an idiotic idea that I think he has no real understanding of how international relations work.

Also, blaming a strong federal government for America's problems is stupid. It's who is in charge that matters.

"Don't forget he's against the Kyoto agreements and he wants the US to leave the UN. To even consider leaving the UN is such an idiotic idea that I think he has no real understanding of how international relations work."

the u.s. being a part of the UN is unconstitutional.

"Also, blaming a strong federal government for America's problems is stupid."

yea, speaking the truth, especially when there is clear evidence for it, is stupid?

"It's who is in charge that matters."

we don't live in a dictatorship, here. there are hundreds of people who make the law. dumping all of the blame on bush is just a sign of ignorance, even though he is a giant douchebag and needs to be imprisoned for life for the shit he and his cronies have done.

"the u.s. being a part of the UN is unconstitutional"

How is it unconstitutional and how is it a bad thing?

"yea, speaking the truth, especially when there is clear evidence for it, is stupid?"
&
"we don't live in a dictatorship, here. there are hundreds of people who make the law. dumping all of the blame on bush is just a sign of ignorance, even though he is a giant douchebag and needs to be imprisoned for life for the shit he and his cronies have done."

You completely missed the point. Last time I checked some States wanted to keep slavery and racial segregation. If the federal government is to blame for certain things, the answer isn't necessarily to vastly reduce its current powers and give more to the States but to elect better leaders and representatives (and btw I didn't say it was only Bush's fault).

"How is it unconstitutional and how is it a bad thing?"

it undermines u.s. sovereignty. united states involvement in the UN is directly responsible for the massive majority of turmoil caused in the middle east for the last half century.

"Last time I checked some States wanted to keep slavery and racial segregation."

this is a false claim. this kind of guilt by association "logic" isn't going to help your arguments.

"If the federal government is to blame for certain things, the answer isn't necessarily to vastly reduce its current powers and give more to the States but to elect better leaders and representatives (and btw I didn't say it was only Bush's fault)."

we need to 'elect better leaders'(ron paul etc) in order to 'vastly reduce' the governments 'current powers'.

Your constitution isn't infallible you know.

The right to bear arms for example. It may have made sense 200 years ago but today, it's freaking retarded and the reason your people gun each other down on a daily basis.

lose 2nd ammendment=lose all freedoms.

there are 8000 homicides by firearm per year in the u.s.
800,000 people die per year from properly administered medicine.
a pill is 100 times more likely to kill you than a bullet here.

Yeah, that's 22 gunshot deaths per day. My point exactly.

people are going murder each other, whether or not there are guns. especially in a generally undereducated society, like the u.s..

and why don't we just ban medicine and cars? they kill so many more people than guns.

Medicine and cars have actual benefits too

i know i sound like a gun toting fuckface, but i think guns are very bad. i think you just have to understand that in the united states, the 2nd amendment is absolutely essential to preserving freedom. if they take our guns away, we have no say in the matter if they take the rest of our freedoms. i do agree that there needs to be much stricter laws on the purchasing of firearms, though.

The way I see it is guns would not be a threat to deter those who would take away other freedoms and they would not be effective enough to prevent them from doing so either. You'd also need a large percentage of the population to actively take up arms which I just can't see happening.

Therefore I don't see how they are essential to protecting other freedoms especially considering the continued encroaching of freedoms by the US Government through recent years.

So I ask you, what freedoms exactly are guns protecting?

Just my perspective on how things are, I just can't see how they're protecting any freedoms at all

"The way I see it is guns would not be a threat to deter those who would take away other freedoms and they would not be effective enough to prevent them from doing so either. You'd also need a large percentage of the population to actively take up arms which I just can't see happening."

yep, but if we don't have guns, there becomes no possibility of revolution, if we need one.

"Therefore I don't see how they are essential to protecting other freedoms especially considering the continued encroaching of freedoms by the US Government through recent years."

well, we should've already done something about it, tbh. the founding fathers would be shitting their selves in anger if they knew what was going on.

"So I ask you, what freedoms exactly are guns protecting?"

there's no real answer to this question. it'll vary between different people you ask.

yep, but if we don't have guns, there becomes no possibility of revolution, if we need one


There are lots of examples of unbloody revolutions in history, or at least where the common did not have any weapons. For example Eastern Germany.

And lots examples where revolutions with weapons failed and only caused immense bloodshed. Think Africa. (come to think of it, how many weapons did it take to ablolish Arpartheid in South Africa?)


Also holding on to ancient laws only because they are there is incredibly retarded, nothing else. If they are good laws keep them, if they are bad or unfitting to modern times then fucking change them.

For example: A worldwide agreement from the sixties states that drivers most always and at all times be in complete control of their vehicles and or the pulling animals (!).

That is the reason why break assisting programs will not be as effective as they could be.

It's fucking retarded for today. But bakc then noone could even imagine computers that could actually help drive a car. But today it's time to change that.

But that's the point, despite having guns you failed to use them at all in order to start a revolution to protect freedoms, so the prime argument for keeping guns is somewhat weakened considerably.

"yep, but if we don't have guns, there becomes no possibility of revolution, if we need one."

Isn't that a nice argument for a country that boasts itself to be the world leader in democracy? Laff..

the united states was never a democracy.

Slippery Slopes are cool.

If by lose all freedom you mean more difficult for the people to revolt and take over your government by force. Then yes. But it's already next to impossible for US Citizens to defeat the military and unnecessary because this is a representative democracy. Any good progress towards greater American freedom is going to be made peacefully not with force. As for hunting, people could still use bow and arrow. It's more of a sport and is at least fair for the animal.

"it undermines u.s. sovereignty."

Actually that's a false claim and you would know this if you studied international law. And the UN charter precisely defends the member States' sovereignty against military interventions through international law.

"united states involvement in the UN is directly responsible for the massive majority of turmoil caused in the middle east for the last half century"

Simplified and wrong.

"this is a false claim. this kind of guilt by association "logic" isn't going to help your arguments."

It's not a false claim, and my point was that more power to States isn't necessarily a good thing. States aren't inherently better than the federal government.

"we need to 'elect better leaders'(ron paul etc) in order to 'vastly reduce' the governments 'current powers'."

No we don't. We need to elect better leaders that take better decisions and defend the civil liberties of their citizens. I agree that some of the powers the executive has gained thanks to the Patriot Act for example should be removed, but the federal government in itself isn't an evil entity.

"Actually that's a false claim and you would know this if you studied international law."

ad hominem.

"And the UN charter precisely defends the member States' sovereignty against military interventions through international law."

UN claim it has authority over u.s. law in the united states=undermining of sovereignty. for example, we went to war with iraq through UN resolutions, instead of having congress declare war, which is what the constitution says is the only legal way to go to war.

"Simplified and wrong."

israel, shah of iran, iraq wars...list goes on.

"It's not a false claim, and my point was that more power to States isn't necessarily a good thing. States aren't inherently better than the federal government."

you used guilt by association, which made your argument logically invalid.

"No we don't. We need to elect better leaders that take better decisions and defend the civil liberties of their citizens. I agree that some of the powers the executive has gained thanks to the Patriot Act for example should be removed, but the federal government in itself isn't an evil entity."

you're just contradicting yourself here.

"ad hominem"

I'm simply pointing out that you wouldn't have made that error if you were familiar with what you were talking about.

"UN claim it has authority over u.s. law in the united states=undermining of sovereignty."

1. The us took the sovereign decision to join the UN and adhere to its charter. It wasn't imposed.
2. Where exactly does the UN claim to have authority over u.s. law in the united states?

"for example, we went to war with iraq through UN resolutions, instead of having congress declare war, which is what the constitution says is the only legal way to go to war."

Actually the UN never allowed the US to go to war with Iraq. The US intervention in Iraq was illegal in regards to international law.

"israel, shah of iran, iraq wars...list goes on."

The list of what? Certainly not the list of military interventions allowed by the UN. You're confusing US foreign policy and what the UN decides/allows.

"you used guilt by association, which made your argument logically invalid."

No it didn't. It was to point out how States aren't inherently better than the federal government, which can historically be verified.

"you're just contradicting yourself here."

No I'm not.

whats wrong with death penaltys ?

too many innocent people end up on death row.

that doesnt make death penaly bad.

you're right but the death penalty isn't right for the current justice system in the u.s.

the whole justice system is a big joke.

I assume you wouldnt agree with that if you would be on death row because some asshole falsely identified you for some horrible crime.

whats wrong whit gravel? by looking at that chart he seems to be the most decent of them all.

True. Unfortunately he doesn't stand a chance.

I couldn't even vote for him, out of 6 candidates on my ballot at my caucus and no option to write in. Only Hillary and Obama were the only ones I could vote for who had not dropped out. Then again my caucus was practically ran by people from the Obama campaign.

Gravel is a sensible and by far the most honest candidate but the battle is more than uphill for him given his visibility and fundraising this campaign, it's been up the side of a mountain.

Ron Paul's views are too traditional and somewhat extreme for present day US politics. He'd be an ineffectual leader if he was president. No one in the legislative or judicial branches would listen to him. I agree with some of his ideas, but his belief to put the US back on the gold standard is absolutely retarded. Reversing the work of Nixon (a very smart man when it comes to economics) would spell disaster for the US.

I had really hoped Romney would've made it thru super tuesday. He has had a really great record in Massachusetts' economy. Furthermore, I think what has consistently made America a top economic power isn't the social welfare functions that many trot around as being the pinnacle of government, but it is instead the corporations and low/little regulation on corporate America.

But if I was president, I'd reduce the spending on defense/weapons/armaments and welfare programs such as unemployment and medicaid, and take that money and increase the budgets for law enforcement, county judiciaries, and education (with an emphasis on full-life and after school activities and work-study programs).

Huckabee, while I didn't vote for the guy, made a good point in saying that the government's purpose is not to give people free-rides, but instead to remove as many obstacles to their success as possible.

you're quite backwards on this. present u.s. politics are extreme. reading the constitution isn't.

That catch phrase for his campaign is silly. There's nothing in the original constitution baring human slavery or women's suffrage - does that mean these 'progressive' ideas should be eliminated along with the department of education?

Uhhh, you want to talk to me about economics and how fucked up pegged/fixed currencies are?

Well, read up on the Asian Market Crisis and just look at what happened to Argentina in the last decade. Those are CLEAR EXAMPLES of what happens when a country pegs its currency. Present day example: CHINA. Double digit inflation, and basically the government is taking the hit on it because they're backing the artificially valued currency. I'm sure the entire world would love a chance for an arbitrage opportunity against the United States. It'd make many, many people extremely wealthy sucking the life right the fuck out the US with a pegged/fixed currency.

Clearly Ron Paul is not all that wise when it comes to economics. I thought he was BEFORE I heard him talking about putting us back on gold standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_Financial_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999-2002)
http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/07/cz_rm_0707china.html

After hearing his litany on the gold standard, this guy strikes me more of a traditionalist rather than what is most practical. Up until I heard his claims on peg/fix currencies, I was a Ron Paul supporter, actually.

Now when I think of Ron Paul, I envision him eating mouthfuls of sand while he strolls the beach. Completely batshit insane.

"under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." -alan greenspan

A surprisingly Keynesian viewpoint by Greenspan. Now that he's not chair of the Fed he's allowed to spout his diverging opinions instead of actually doing anything about it in his term. But if we learned nothing from those countries economies that collapsed because they couldn't support a fixed/pegged currency, maybe we should get back on the gold standard just because it acts as a pessimistic/bearish protector on what relatively low inflation the US has versus other countries worldwide? If it weren't for the energy crisis right now, there would be NO WEIGHT at all to the argument of a gold standard.

The fact that the US's currency is held across the world is enough of a protector. That so much interest is invested in the value of the dollar at this point, especially by China and their investment in long-term T-bills, the last thing the US needs at this point is to bare the weight of all those outstanding dollars.

Besides, if the value of the US$ was fixed (by a gold standard), the Fed (who Greenspan was chair of for like a thousand fucken years), wouldn't be able to undertake monetary policy as effectively. Because monetary policy (such as Fed Funds manipulation) is dependent on adjustable rates across various capital markets, a fixed currency would be crushing the US's economy right now. How would banks be able to borrow at rates they couldn't afford (i.e., above what the Fed Funds rate is?)?

Bernanke - "Because the dollar is free to adjust, U.S. interest rates can differ from rates abroad, and, consequently, the Fed retains the autonomy to set its federal funds rate target as needed to respond to domestic economic conditions."

Btw, way to go with knowing how to Google "Greenspan" and "gold standard". I'm sure my opinion hold little clout against Greenspan's, but the least you could do is use your own intellect instead of riding someone else's. (This reminds me of the scene in Good Will Hunting were someone vomits up someone else's opinion as their own).

"A surprisingly Keynesian viewpoint by Greenspan. Now that he's not chair of the Fed he's allowed to spout his diverging opinions instead of actually doing anything about it in his term."

he said that in 1966.

"But if we learned nothing from those countries economies that collapsed because they couldn't support a fixed/pegged currency, maybe we should get back on the gold standard just because it acts as a pessimistic/bearish protector on what relatively low inflation the US has versus other countries worldwide?"

all of those currencies are pegged to other fiat currencies, not to gold or any currency backed by gold, afaik. and all of those currencies are doing ok now, even though they are still fixed.

"If it weren't for the energy crisis right now, there would be NO WEIGHT at all to the argument of a gold standard."

idk wtf energy has to do with the gold standard.
1. the constitution says we should be on the gold standard.
2. the usd should either have, or represent value.
3. fiat currencies always fail.

"the last thing the US needs at this point is to bare the weight of all those outstanding dollars."

i think the u.s. needs to avoid the coming depression that will be caused by our current monetary policies.

"a fixed currency would be crushing the US's economy right now."

sure, if he had the same monetary policies.

Bernanke - "Because the dollar is free to adjust, U.S. interest rates can differ from rates abroad, and, consequently, the Fed retains the autonomy to set its federal funds rate target as needed to respond to domestic economic conditions."

"Btw, way to go with knowing how to Google "Greenspan" and "gold standard". I'm sure my opinion hold little clout against Greenspan's, but the least you could do is use your own intellect instead of riding someone else's."

i didn't, i was reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard and saw the quote and was going to make an argument about how greenspan must be batshit crazy, too, according to you. but the least you can do is not be a douchebag who assumes all kinds of shit.

"(This reminds me of the scene in Good Will Hunting were someone vomits up someone else's opinion as their own)."

is there any evidence of plagiarism in my posts? using misinterpreted lines from a movie to argue is either a sign that your argument is weak or you're weak at arguing.

he said that in 1966.

That's sad, then, that he believed that he could actually do his job if the US was on a gold standard.

all of those currencies are pegged to other fiat currencies, not to gold or any currency backed by gold, afaik. and all of those currencies are doing ok now, even though they are still fixed.

No, Argentina dropped their pegging. Same with the Thai baht. :-\ Why make up stuff?

idk wtf energy has to do with the gold standard.
1. the constitution says we should be on the gold standard.
2. the usd should either have, or represent value.
3. fiat currencies always fail.

Well, the quote was in regards to inflation destroying currency value. Inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, is often times caused by energy prices going up [see: oil] (like the US's current inflationary fears are being caused by). And the US$ does have value. Probably it's artificially higher than it should be right now (because China is propping our dollar up), but shit. let the damn thing float. This is called a business cycle. There has been a recession in our economy every 4 years or even less (except for the 90s boom). This is natural and the whole country is getting scared?

i think the u.s. needs to avoid the coming depression that will be caused by our current monetary policies.

I'm sure you mean FISCAL policies, not monetary. Monetary is what the Fed does by either adjust Federal Funds rate (the cost of capital to banks via the fed), changing the reserve requirements of banks, or at the discount window. This is not fiscal spending.

"a fixed currency would be crushing the US's economy right now."

sure, if he had the same monetary policies.

It's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

i didn't, i was reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard and saw the quote and was going to make an argument about how greenspan must be batshit crazy, too, according to you. but the least you can do is not be a douchebag who assumes all kinds of shit.

I never said Greenspan was batshit crazy (that was Ron Paul who is). I don't assume. This is what I've been studying in college and graduate school for the past 5 years.

is there any evidence of plagiarism in my posts? using misinterpreted lines from a movie to argue is either a sign that your argument is weak or you're weak at arguing.

No, your post was just a quote. Like you were trying to make YOUR argument against me with only someone else words. Like I said, have the decency to argue someone with your own words and use someone else's as back up.

"I don't assume." -lolograde

"Btw, way to go with knowing how to Google "Greenspan" and "gold standard". I'm sure my opinion hold little clout against Greenspan's, but the least you could do is use your own intellect instead of riding someone else's." -lolograde

oh noes, i'm using quotes from someone else to form an argument. i'm a plagiarizer, shit!

I'm not using one person's quote as my whole damn argument unlike you. I'm using my own studies, my own words, please stfu and speak for yourself instead of googling/wikipedia and copy+paste, plz.

oh, i am?

Yes, you are. And lolograde obviously knows what he's talking about, unlike you (how anyone with any knowledge of what this is about would want to go back to the gold standard today is beyond me). It's just like when you were randomly attacking the UN with no clue of how it works and what it's done.

no, i wasn't using a quote as the sole of my argument. i just gave him a quote and he started an argument with me. i wasn't "randomly attacking the UN" lol. the united states has absolutely no business being a part of the UN.

oh, and btw, you brought up the UN, not me.

That was because Ron Paul has a ridiculously ignorant position on the UN. And so do you.

i didn't know wanting to follow the law = ignorance.

There are many laws that still exist in every state that have yet to be removed, despite their silliness.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm

While not all of these still exist, they have been in place at some point. Just because it IS the law doesn't mean it should be.

Once again, you're being extremely vague because you have no idea of what you're talking about.

as if your comments, including this recent one, aren't sweeping generalizations.

i'll get specific for u.

"To even consider leaving the UN is such an idiotic idea that I think he has no real understanding of how international relations work."

"Also, blaming a strong federal government for America's problems is stupid. It's who is in charge that matters."

"You completely missed the point. Last time I checked some States wanted to keep slavery and racial segregation. If the federal government is to blame for certain things, the answer isn't necessarily to vastly reduce its current powers and give more to the States but to elect better leaders and representatives"

"Simplified and wrong."

"I'm simply pointing out that you wouldn't have made that error if you were familiar with what you were talking about."

"Once again, you're being extremely vague because you have no idea of what you're talking about."

etc

Yes, and all of those answered the points you made. Funnily enough you haven't replied to my last post in that discussion, maybe because your entire argumentation was based on absolutely nothing factual, like I pointed out?

more generalizations, and that's why i'm avoiding you, because it's pointless wasting my time with someone who's got a grudge against me and will only debate with ad hominems and generalizations. then you're like, "no, my argument isn't logically invalid." even though it clearly is, by definition.

So the following are generalisations?

--- original post ---
"UN claim it has authority over u.s. law in the united states=undermining of sovereignty."

1. The us took the sovereign decision to join the UN and adhere to its charter. It wasn't imposed.
2. Where exactly does the UN claim to have authority over u.s. law in the united states?

"for example, we went to war with iraq through UN resolutions, instead of having congress declare war, which is what the constitution says is the only legal way to go to war."

Actually the UN never allowed the US to go to war with Iraq. The US intervention in Iraq was illegal in regards to international law.

"israel, shah of iran, iraq wars...list goes on."

The list of what? Certainly not the list of military interventions allowed by the UN. You're confusing US foreign policy and what the UN decides/allows.

--- end of original post ---

Interesting. It seems to me like you're the one making generalisations and being extremely vague ("israel, shah of iran, iraq wars...list goes on."), while I'm the one telling you how you're wrong.

ok, i've done a fair bit of reading over the last day, and it seems i was wrong about UN resolution 1441. it seems the u.s. did invade iraq without going back before the UN security counsel, like the resolution says to do. so, i concede the point about the illegality of the u.s. involvement in the UN, but i will still say that the UN is full corrupt, inhumane individuals and that the UN itself hasn't done as much to help poor nations as people claim it has.

I regret having that plussing spree with you last month after reading some of your arguments in this thread.

good for you. no ones going to change my mind on these issues, unless they can put forth a strong, logically valid, argument without resorting to calling my views idiotic, using ad hominems or using strawmans, and that's the way it should be for anyone who is sure the points they're arguing are correct. this 'you're an idiot because i say so' shit isn't going to help anyones argument.

It's not about the validity of the arguments. It's that economics is hardly worth arguing about. It would be like people having an argument about theology and being on different sides arguing things they believe in.

i really don't agree with you. two people can(<-emphasis on this word) have a rational argument over economics, without using logical fallacies, but two people can't have a logical argument over the existence of god/gods. the person making the claim that there is or are gods will not be able to hold up their argument, without using fallacies, unless the opponent isn't familiar with argumentation.

But that doesn't mean they get anywhere. The idea of science is it's empirical, systematic and helps people make predictions about nature. If economics were really worth while studying governments would have learned by now how to prevent depressions. It seems now the same economic problems that naturally happen still happen we just conceal and/or delay their damage better. Then again I should just stop expecting sciences to be more like math and just let economics be unpredictable like it wants to be.

our arguing might be pointless for you, but it's a positive thing, for me at least, to see different perspectives.

Ron Paul 09!

Hillary giving blow jobs, McCain and Obama drinking and spending big on teh war. They put on a face and if they get in office then they are a totally different person. Way to go everyone!

Hell if the new president doesnt work out you can always impeach him.

$40,000,000 for Bill Clinton vs


(A copy and paste)



The 9/11 investigation's budget was later increased, after much complaining from the Commission itself, to $12-million.

By comparison, when the shuttle Columbia disintegrated during its descent in February 2003, $50-million was budgeted for an investigation, which began about an hour and a half after the disaster. Another $305-million was spent by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), searching for shuttle debris. The investigation into the shuttle accident began publicly releasing its findings within several weeks, and concluded its work with an exhaustive report about six months later.

ron paul makes sense? a joke? if not.. wtf is wrong with you?

he never was anything more than a distraction. he never had a shot. I knew that from the start.

the republicans have lost this election I think..and im all glad for it. this country has suffered republican bullshit for way too long.

a failed war that never should have happend that they refuse to end, the leader of the group that actually attacked us is still alive and causing more problems (supposedly hiding in a country thats no bigger than the presidents own state btw), an economy thats falling appart because of the war(even though they wont admit it), international relations have suffered setbacks(to say the least)...etc..etc..etc

our best bet is Hillary winning the election(as far as I know she still has a shot at the nomination anyway..havent checked the numbers today). she knows what shes doing, shes been in the whitehouse in an official capacity before, shes been there longer, and more importantly she keeps the promises she makes. both her and Bill keep their promises. (as often as theyre able to when congress doesnt fight them)

Bill did alot of good for this country when he was president..such as but not limited at all to: balancing the national budget..getting us out of debt(that the previous 12 year reign of republicans got us in to).. and having a 3 trillion dollar surplus left over that was supposed to go to education and medicare that Bush got rid of instead of doing what it was meant for.

I dont know where alot of you get your information but its wrong...

it seems youre just being silly with the comments you make because atleast half of them look like jokes to me("half of them" being the comments I see on the internet in general not just here)...I hope youre just joking because alot of you seem to be intelligent and id hope that intelligent people cant be that gullable.

as for america not being ready for a black or female president...Im pretty sure we are.

if anything this country is sick and tired of republican policy. we'd be better off with either Obama or Hillary but personally im rooting for Hillary and will vote for her if she gets the nomination.

America should be more concerned with getting someone in power who can string a fucking coherent sentence together. A horse would be far better than what you've currently got.

you and clinton should get together sometime and go wash a vagina . you two are perfect for the job, tbh.

Dumbass.

Wow, that was a very clever response O_o

I could go on with further detail, but I'll make it short. Ron Paul seems to be the only honest candidate without corporate backing. Unless Obama will somehow radically change his policies if he gets elected, then there would be hope. But, Ron Paul is the last hope for America to fight back against corruption and regain its former strength. The downfall of the United States is upon us. I should move to Europe or Canada when that happens.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

Can't even practice what he preaches.

Really, this country needs an atheist leader. None of the current candidates are good - you just have to pick the least bad.

he handles this interview well. this guy is a fuckface, tbh, and is trying to use christianity to force this very slanted view of morality onto ron paul. ron paul does practice what he preaches. hes got the best record in congress, by far. he's voted for the least spending and has voted against every bill that reduces our freedoms. <- this, by far, makes him much more trustable than any of these other idiots running for president. yea, it's kind of lame that he's xtian, but wtf can you do? at the very minimum, 85% of americans are christian and any atheist would have absolutely no chance.

he hasn't changed his stance, at all, in 20 years, except death penalty, afaik.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bdx9803IEgE (lol @ the title of this one)

It's not about how he handles it, it's his position on the issue. Sure, the guy is a cunt about it, but he's right. Don't get me wrong, if he weren't a hypocrite about this, I'd support him. He's just doesn't want to push the issues that matter to his faith - he sidesteps them and tries to put it in other hands. It's almost like he's an atheist, but he acts like a christian so he has any chance in politics. If that's the case, then he's just being a coward.

Other than that, I don't disagree with his actions.

at least he's moderate about his christianity. ffs you're sounding a bit bigoted, even though he is irrational as fuck for being christian. you have to realize that he would cause the least damage out of any of the candidates, and this is all that really matters.

I don't support any of them.

we've gotta pick someone, unfortunately. =[

Someone does; not me.

Oh someone will. Someone way more stupid and way more uninformed than yourself. Then you will have another GW Bush on your hands.

The country will go to hell no matter who is driving the bus. It just depends on who drives the fastest.

Guys like you are the reason GW Bushes all over the world win elections, cause you think your vote is somehow less important than the votes of rednecks , thiefs and idiots.

And? What do you want me to do, cry about it like you? Pass. My vote is equally as unimportant as anyone else. Being a spectator is great because I get to yell at someone no matter who gets in office. I'm not to blame for anything!

If nothing else, Bush gave me something to watch on TV.

GL with that. Hope you get drafted and sent to Iran when US runs out of grunts.

Thanks to apathetic people in the U.S. McCain actually has a huge lead in the Republican Party. Let's say hello to a second Bush if McCain wins. It is a great downfall to not do something because one can do so little. Thanks Vedic for not supporting any candidate because they're not perfect or idealistically aligned with you.

Hey, you mother-fuckers, want to help??? Encourage the bastards in this country to correctly participate in DEMOCRACY.

The President is but the Public Servant head of one branch of the United States government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

oh man i was like "wtf this mccain ad is annoying as fuck; 3 voices overlapping eachother etc" then i realized it wasnt a pro mccain vid. =]

=p

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227

Anybody who supports any candidate who supports the Patriot Act is a daft person and deserve to be shot.

I'm glad to see that people like Lo, who are from the U.S posses a lot of intelligence compared to the typical american.

In my opinion, the UN is trash. There's a reason why nobody joined the League of Nations after WW1 - It compromises a country's sovereignty.

Btw, Hillary Clinton will win. And I hope the US has fun with the war against Iran, which is going to be sad tbh. Irans president actually seems like a cool guy.


P.S,

I hope Condelezza Rice gets tortured, raped, molested, butchered and necro'd.

I was at my brothers wedding and his uncle-in-law looks almost exactly like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad except he wears a cow boy hat. His beard, face and appearance are just like the Iranian leader. It's frickin' sweet. I mean he could pass as a body double just by taking his hat off.

.

russ feingold was the only senator to vote against s. 1510. (senate version of the patriot act)

edit

oh lol, obama wasn't even in the senate at that time.

We live in a world full of people who, in possibly the most important way, are completely backwards.

What do you think emotions are? Everything you feel emotionally is a form of pleasure, pain and fear. Pleasure and pain tell you something in your brain is changing. Fear keeps you cautious of what changes are being made.

Let's say, a line in your brain = 7. When you feel pleasure along this line, the number has increased. When you feel pain, it has decreased. Fear helps to keep you from changing the wrong numbers, in the wrong ways.

When I give you emotional pleasure, pain or fear, it is actually your brain giving you emotional pleasure, pain or fear. When I correct false knowledge in your brain, this causes pain because the number is changing in a 'negative' way. Most are mislead by this pain, believing they have been wronged, or victimized, when in fact, they have been helped.

Ya know... you could probably apply the number-line structure to artificial intelligence. All it has to do is be relative to its environment. Like, if it gets hit by a rocket, it results in X amount of negative movement. Or if it kills a creep, it results in X amount of positive movement.

let me ask my chia pet how it feels about the number line structure.

you should all vote for the guy that want to stop the war and abolish the federal reserve, because he is not playing your stupid bankers game, simple as that

If any of you guys have read 1984 by George Orwell. Some of the things that are in Hilary Clintons' agenda has some elements from that book.

Just some things to keep in mind.