0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When I saw that Mitt had a bunch of sons, I thought he would name them all something like Glove, Sock, Scarf, Bandana, and Belt.
Romney comes off of a piece of shit. I can understand if he couldn't talk with the guy for a good amount of time in that video, but at least listen to what he has to say. Don't turn your back to someone and put up the invisible douche-bag wall when the guy is asking a question about his medical needs. Him and all of the other candidates look like robots, it's sickening. Ron on the other hand addressed it in a very good way with actual emotion and made valid points on this hoax of a war on drugs. I'm down for Ron and would definitely vote for him but with the way the country is going and the elites who run it I know he doesn't stand a chance, even though hes the most suitable candidate in the race. I know Obama will somehow pull this election off with these shady deals going on behind closed doors. But IF he doesn't psychopath Newt is right behind him.
^^^I like Ron Paul
If he became president, would he even have the power to get rid of the department of education, let states choose to make marijuana legal, etc?
Quote from: The Poster Formerly Known As Crass on January 14, 2012, 09:33:09 AMExpand Quote^^^I like Ron Paul [close]Not sure if trolling...
^^^I like Ron Paul [close]
I quit skating for a time due to piling out
Quote from: AN8956 on January 13, 2012, 05:13:22 PMExpand QuoteRomney comes off of a piece of shit. I can understand if he couldn't talk with the guy for a good amount of time in that video, but at least listen to what he has to say. Don't turn your back to someone and put up the invisible douche-bag wall when the guy is asking a question about his medical needs. Him and all of the other candidates look like robots, it's sickening. Ron on the other hand addressed it in a very good way with actual emotion and made valid points on this hoax of a war on drugs. I'm down for Ron and would definitely vote for him but with the way the country is going and the elites who run it I know he doesn't stand a chance, even though hes the most suitable candidate in the race. I know Obama will somehow pull this election off with these shady deals going on behind closed doors. But IF he doesn't psychopath Newt is right behind him.[close]mitt romney is a douche but ron paul is not much better. if you listen to how paul frames his answers it's always "i don't think the federal government should be involved with that." the reality is that a majority of state legislatures and a majority of governors are republican and tend to be extremely conservative. the people who vote in these races tend to be elderly and religious. in reality, leaving the issue up to the states would still make marijuana illegal in the vast majority of states and would ensure that dispensaries receive no federal assistance. his health care stance is similiar- but if insurance companies HAD to cover someone's medicine and marijuana was included as part of federal law it would ensure that sick people got the care they needed. while ron paul's principles may be different than the other republican candidates most of them lead to the exact same outcome. for example on abortion- he can say he's pro-choice but repealing roe v wade (which he's in favor of) would effectively make abortion illegal nationwide. the point is we actually don't need less government (i would agree we need more) we need BETTER government. oh, and there's no way newt is getting the nomination. he's trailing jon hunstman after the last primary. it's going to be romney, which i hope will lead the paultards to split the vote like nader did for gore. this election is going to be depressing as fuck.
Romney comes off of a piece of shit. I can understand if he couldn't talk with the guy for a good amount of time in that video, but at least listen to what he has to say. Don't turn your back to someone and put up the invisible douche-bag wall when the guy is asking a question about his medical needs. Him and all of the other candidates look like robots, it's sickening. Ron on the other hand addressed it in a very good way with actual emotion and made valid points on this hoax of a war on drugs. I'm down for Ron and would definitely vote for him but with the way the country is going and the elites who run it I know he doesn't stand a chance, even though hes the most suitable candidate in the race. I know Obama will somehow pull this election off with these shady deals going on behind closed doors. But IF he doesn't psychopath Newt is right behind him.[close]
make your own meat spin!
did you even finish reading that sentence?
Quote from: Beer Keg Peg Leg on January 14, 2012, 10:35:08 PMExpand Quotedid you even finish reading that sentence?[close]Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement. Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more. Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government. If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post. But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.
did you even finish reading that sentence?[close]
Quote from: oyolar on January 15, 2012, 12:24:25 AMExpand QuoteQuote from: Beer Keg Peg Leg on January 14, 2012, 10:35:08 PMExpand Quotedid you even finish reading that sentence?[close]Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement. Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more. Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government. If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post. But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.[close]no, you understand we just disagree. i do think we need more government in certain areas like infrastructure, financial regulation, health care and job stimulation. you're right- more government does not equal better government but where i disagree with people like ron paul (and libertarians in general) is with their belief that more government necessarily means inefficiency and the destruction of jobs. the rail roads are a great example. without massive government assistance we would have never completed the network of rail roads that connects this country and led to so much prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. businesses depended on this network in order to be more efficient and competitive but it never would have happened without a huge government program. food subsidies are another example. while there's a lot wrong with the way we subsidize farmers (mostly by subsidizing corn above all other crops) without these subsidies a significant portion of americans would be unable to afford food and it would be more expensive for everyone. that's what gets me about conservatives south- since the end of the civil war we've spent a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on the south (way more than they pay in taxes) yet they're the ones calling for their safety line to be cut. overall, i think libertarians tend to see a problem with a government program and think the only solution is the to destroy it. imo, that's a pretty fucked up way to go about fixing things.
Quote from: Beer Keg Peg Leg on January 14, 2012, 10:35:08 PMExpand Quotedid you even finish reading that sentence?[close]Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement. Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more. Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government. If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post. But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.[close]
Quote from: CUDDLEMONSTER on January 15, 2012, 09:43:05 AMExpand QuoteQuote from: oyolar on January 15, 2012, 12:24:25 AMExpand QuoteQuote from: Beer Keg Peg Leg on January 14, 2012, 10:35:08 PMExpand Quotedid you even finish reading that sentence?[close]Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement. Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more. Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government. If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post. But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.[close]no, you understand we just disagree. i do think we need more government in certain areas like infrastructure, financial regulation, health care and job stimulation. you're right- more government does not equal better government but where i disagree with people like ron paul (and libertarians in general) is with their belief that more government necessarily means inefficiency and the destruction of jobs. the rail roads are a great example. without massive government assistance we would have never completed the network of rail roads that connects this country and led to so much prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. businesses depended on this network in order to be more efficient and competitive but it never would have happened without a huge government program. food subsidies are another example. while there's a lot wrong with the way we subsidize farmers (mostly by subsidizing corn above all other crops) without these subsidies a significant portion of americans would be unable to afford food and it would be more expensive for everyone. that's what gets me about conservatives south- since the end of the civil war we've spent a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on the south (way more than they pay in taxes) yet they're the ones calling for their safety line to be cut. overall, i think libertarians tend to see a problem with a government program and think the only solution is the to destroy it. imo, that's a pretty fucked up way to go about fixing things. [close]Which also went hand in hand with corruption, bribery and government preference of a few select oligarchs, not unlike what we see today.
Quote from: oyolar on January 15, 2012, 12:24:25 AMExpand QuoteQuote from: Beer Keg Peg Leg on January 14, 2012, 10:35:08 PMExpand Quotedid you even finish reading that sentence?[close]Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement. Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more. Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government. If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post. But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.[close]no, you understand we just disagree. i do think we need more government in certain areas like infrastructure, financial regulation, health care and job stimulation. you're right- more government does not equal better government but where i disagree with people like ron paul (and libertarians in general) is with their belief that more government necessarily means inefficiency and the destruction of jobs. the rail roads are a great example. without massive government assistance we would have never completed the network of rail roads that connects this country and led to so much prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. businesses depended on this network in order to be more efficient and competitive but it never would have happened without a huge government program. food subsidies are another example. while there's a lot wrong with the way we subsidize farmers (mostly by subsidizing corn above all other crops) without these subsidies a significant portion of americans would be unable to afford food and it would be more expensive for everyone. that's what gets me about conservatives south- since the end of the civil war we've spent a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on the south (way more than they pay in taxes) yet they're the ones calling for their safety line to be cut. overall, i think libertarians tend to see a problem with a government program and think the only solution is the to destroy it. imo, that's a pretty fucked up way to go about fixing things. [close]