Well, just because it doesn't affect you directly [yet] doesn't mean it isn't wrong. The man I work for is a brilliant man who has brought - literally - billions of research dollars to the state of New York. However, because he happens to be Lebanese with family in a "terrorist country," his phones could be tapped without warning or notification. That means my conversations could be recorded. Am I doing anything illegal or saying anything that would get me in trouble? Probably not - but I think it's stupid that something I said could come up in court some day because a distant third cousin four times removed that I never met and never knew existed bought an rpg and shot down a chopper.

 

Ron Paul doesn't like the Patriot Act so instead of ammending or just getting rid of it he will disband the NSA. Awesome!

Yeah, not quite what he was saying. His point was that we have numerous organizations within our government that do fundamentally the same thing and do not share intel. That is a major problem and has been a major problem since before the NSA was founded back in 1952. With that said, I would have no problem with consolidating the CIA, FBI, and NSA into one cohesive intelligence force. Get rid of the literal and metaphorical walls between these agencies and do a better job. I think that is totally reasonable.

Well, just because it doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

 

:thumbup

I'm not even discussing/disagreeing with that (although you could use that statement for a lot of things and the logic doesn't make much sense).

The Patriot Act is wrong. Flat out wrong.

 

 

And I'm not even going to argue it out because its so blatantly obvious why it is.

The Patriot Act is wrong. Flat out wrong.

 

 

And I'm not even going to argue it out because its so blatantly obvious why it is.

Exactly. Even worse, it sets a precedent for further erosion of civil liberties in the future.

 

Two points on this, and that's all I will say:

 

-Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." There is really no better way to say it.

-The key to Al Qaeda's plan to the destruction of America, is that we will destroy ourselves from within by eliminating the rights and liberties that make the United States the society that it is. If we allow our liberties to be curbed or restricted, we are 'letting the terrorists win', to quote many recent political figures.

We let the terrorists win by not buying more unnecessary crap and further nullifying gender roles because stay at home moms think it's inappropriate for little Johnny to play cowboys and indians when he can talk out his problems instead.

We let the terrorists win by not buying more unnecessary crap and further nullifying gender roles because stay at home moms think it's inappropriate for little Johnny to play cowboys and indians when he can talk out his problems instead.

Um...did you post in the right thread? I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.

It's interesting how no one even said The Patriot Act is 'right' yet people did the whole Shark to chum in the water bit and posted the same usual rhetoric they always do.

 

At least it's good for a chuckle.

We let the terrorists win by not buying more unnecessary crap and further nullifying gender roles because stay at home moms think it's inappropriate for little Johnny to play cowboys and indians when he can talk out his problems instead.

Um...did you post in the right thread? I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.

Yes.

 

My goal was non sequitur.

It's interesting how no one even said The Patriot Act is 'right' yet people did the whole Shark to chum in the water bit and posted the same usual rhetoric they always do.

 

At least it's good for a chuckle.

 

Again, that's fine. Doesn't mean it affects my life because it doesn't. Like I said, if anything, I'm indifferent and anyone it prevents from attacking us is just a bonus.

 

You left yourself open to it so I don't see why you are complaining. By your indifference you are acknowledging that the government has every right to pry into your most intimate knowledge. Sounds Orwellien to me and I refuse to accept that path without a damn good fight.

I've said it before and it seems to usually hold up the majority of Paul's support is rich pot smokers who don't like their trusts going to foreign countries.

 

Paul despite the unfeasibility of his issues would be a breathe of fresh air to the political process if his supporters were not so holier than thou. This coming btw from one of the most holier than thou people you'll meet.

It's interesting how no one even said The Patriot Act is 'right' yet people did the whole Shark to chum in the water bit and posted the same usual rhetoric they always do.

 

At least it's good for a chuckle.

 

Again, that's fine. Doesn't mean it affects my life because it doesn't. Like I said, if anything, I'm indifferent and anyone it prevents from attacking us is just a bonus.

 

You left yourself open to it so I don't see why you are complaining. By your indifference you are acknowledging that the government has every right to pry into your most intimate knowledge. Sounds Orwellien to me and I refuse to accept that path without a damn good fight.

Keep fighting the good fight, like I said, I don't give a damn.

 

Rune is spot on with his comments. I've said it for months, Paul has the most annoying group of supporters I've ever seen a candidate have.

 

I'm not gonna waste much more time talking about the guy, he is nothing more than a footnote in this race.

I'm a moderate democrat... actually, I am not sure I can be placed anywhere. I am a free market liberal, if that makes any sense. I don't give a damn if gays want to get married, and whores want to get abortions... so i am liberal in that sense. but i prefer market mechanisms for most everything else, and fical austerity.

 

I like Paul.

I've said it before and it seems to usually hold up the majority of Paul's support is rich pot smokers who don't like their trusts going to foreign countries.

Paul has the most annoying group of supporters I've ever seen a candidate have.

Can we please keep this clean and rational? We've been here too long to resort to that and I respect you both enough to think you understand that name calling doesn't prove a point.

 

The fact that I'm a "rich pot smoker" [ ] doesn't change the fact that there has been a shift in the Republican model that many registered Republicans do not like. That is the whole point of this thread. The only reason Paul has an audience is because he brings many [not all] of our concerns to the forefront of mainstream politics.

 

I am not happy with the direction our government is headed in as it pertains to my Civil Liberties. I am aloud to have that opinion and to support an individual who makes that argument for me at a national level.

 

I am not happy with the fiscal irresponsibility of a party that used to be known for their fiduciary restraint. We have gone CRAZY on our spending and, from my perspective, it appears to be out of hand. I am also aloud to have that opinion and to support an individual who makes that argument for me at a national level.

 

I haven't randomly formed these opinions based on something I heard on the Tonight Show or Hannity and Colmes. I think I have made some reasonable points and supported them with legislation that I disagreed with [Patriot Act] or examples of large and respected organizations that tend to support my line of thinking [ACLU, American Bar Association, etc.].

 

I completely understand why certain people wouldn't like a guy like Ron Paul. That is your right. I don't, however, understand how intelligent and informed Americans can dismiss the actions of our current legislative [as well as executive] branch. I don't understand how someone can look at a piece of landmark legislation that allows the arbitrary [in a very literal sense] removal of our Civil Liberties. I don't understand how anyone [at least anyone that owns land] can think that the recent court rulings in regards to eminent domain are a GOOD thing.

 

In short, I don't understand why more people aren't upset about the direction our country is headed. Is it stupidity, lack of information, or apathy? I just don't know.

I've said it once but I will say it again. Ron Paul is a refreshing canidate but the reason I'm disgusted is his supporters are the most holier than thou, "were better than you" group of people in recent memory. They make ACLU members seem quiet and humble. I'm not even joking with that last statement. Their's only so many asinie articles I can take about how Ron Paul is going to save this country. Their's only so many times I can be told I just don't "get it" before I start fighting back. The fact is every one of the Paul supporters I've encountered so far treats me like I'm below them becuase I don't get it. They are the people that get it because they read the Economist, and smoke only the highest potency of weed while losers like me are smoking hedies and reading the Wall Street journal.

 

To put it bluntly, Paul supporters are the people are like the dudes in high school who try to ruin everyone's good time. Their the dudes who were at the pep rallies and football games making fun of anyone who dared show enthusiasm. They are the educated elites who look down upon me and I'm sorry I'm not going to support a guy who has a crowd like that.

 

I'm tired of being told I'm an idiot because I think big goverment is not as bad as they make it out to be and I'm tired of being told I don't understand freedom because I don't think the Patriot act is the devil. It's not Ron Paul I detest, it's his people and I'm a very firm believer in you are the company you keep.

I've said it before and it seems to usually hold up the majority of Paul's support is rich pot smokers who don't like their trusts going to foreign countries.

Paul has the most annoying group of supporters I've ever seen a candidate have.

Can we please keep this clean and rational? We've been here too long to resort to that and I respect you both enough to think you understand that name calling doesn't prove a point.

 

The fact that I'm a "rich pot smoker" [ ]

 

 

Well we did smoke that pot rolled in 50 dollar bills last night....

I've never smoked pot and I wish I was rich.

I've never smoked pot and I wish I was rich.

I've never smoked pot and I wish I was rich.

 

 

I have smoked pot, hate the stuff and I am not rich, but hooray for stereotypes!

I've never smoked pot and I wish I was rich.

 

 

I have smoked pot, hate the stuff and I am not rich, but hooray for stereotypes!

You've got me you clever bastards! Don't give me the anti sterotype bulls*** just look at some of the Paul blogs and tell me you guys don't stereotype. Living in glass houses is FUN FUN FUN!

 

BTW, going back to the discussion brought up two months ago on the guy when all of you were telling me Paul was going to make a big move. Did that big move entail polling now at 2% in Iowa?

I've never smoked pot and I wish I was rich.

 

 

I have smoked pot, hate the stuff and I am not rich, but hooray for stereotypes!

You've got me you clever bastards! Don't give me the anti sterotype bulls*** just look at some of the Paul blogs and tell me you guys don't stereotype. Living in glass houses is FUN FUN FUN!

 

BTW, going back to the discussion brought up two months ago on the guy when all of you were telling me Paul was going to make a big move. Did that big move entail polling now at 2% in Iowa?

He got the 'Colbert Bump' a few months ago after appearing on "The Colbert Report". He went from 1% to 2% the next day. :thumbup

Seeing too that I'm in a very un-PC move and I couldn't give two shits about being eloquent now I'll just throw this out there the dude is all for personal rights and allowing people the power to control their own lives right? Yet he opposes gay adoption? Either A) the more likely choice he's a hypocrite who knows that he can't get elected in Texas without opposing Gay adoption/marriage(which should instantly ruin any credibility you people put on him as a crusader for personal choice) or the very unlikely option but one that still makes me smile, Ron Paul being caught in a shady bathroom like the rest of the anti gay contingent.

 

But being rational, how the hell is a guy who campaigns personal freedom opposed to gay adoption without it being for political reasons? If you can explain this to me it'd be appreciated.

 

OMG OMG, I'm so out of line and an idiot. This is true but so is the bulls*** mystique you put around this guy and how I and the 99.5% of America are a bunch of clueless idiots because we have no interest in this guy.

 

But hey I'll let you have your fun, let the race to 3% continue!

Seeing too that I'm in a very un-PC move and I couldn't give two shits about being eloquent now I'll just throw this out there the dude is all for personal rights and allowing people the power to control their own lives right? Yet he opposes gay adoption? Either A) the more likely choice he's a hypocrite who knows that he can't get elected in Texas without opposing Gay adoption/marriage(which should instantly ruin any credibility you people put on him as a crusader for personal choice) or the very unlikely option but one that still makes me smile, Ron Paul being caught in a shady bathroom like the rest of the anti gay contingent.

 

It's not a personal choice.

 

Maybe he opposes gay adoption because the poor kid who is adopted doesn't have the right to a Normal Family life. I would pity that kid. I am all for "gay rights" and marriage, but I don't want a child to suffer because of his family life that he doesn't get to choose.

I've never smoked pot and I wish I was rich.

 

 

I have smoked pot, hate the stuff and I am not rich, but hooray for stereotypes!

You've got me you clever bastards! Don't give me the anti sterotype bulls*** just look at some of the Paul blogs and tell me you guys don't stereotype. Living in glass houses is FUN FUN FUN!

 

BTW, going back to the discussion brought up two months ago on the guy when all of you were telling me Paul was going to make a big move. Did that big move entail polling now at 2% in Iowa?

 

 

What anti stereotype bulls*** are you talking about?? You pegged Ron Paul supporters as pot smoking rich kids, we simply came out said we are not. Why is that a big deal?

 

Did you get picked on as a little kid by a Ron Paul supporter or something? I have no clue why you keep ranting about this pot smoking rich kid BS. I don't see it at all, but whatever. I could care less about his followers, I only care about his ideas.

It's not a personal choice.

 

Maybe he opposes gay adoption because the poor kid who is adopted doesn't have the right to a Normal Family life. I would pity that kid. I am all for "gay rights" and marriage, but I don't want a child to suffer because of his family life that he doesn't get to choose.

 

What anti stereotype bulls*** are you talking about?? You pegged Ron Paul supporters as pot smoking rich kids, we simply came out said we are not. Why is that a big deal?

 

Did you get picked on as a little kid by a Ron Paul supporter or something? I have no clue why you keep ranting about this pot smoking rich kid BS. I don't see it at all, but whatever. I could care less about his followers, I only care about his ideas.

Thumbs up on the reading comprehension.

 

Don't give me that bulls*** he's looking out for the kid because that's the same BS the GOP has been feeding us for years and you forget Ron Paul is like TOTALLY EDGY AND f*** BUSH. Either he cherry picks his personal freedoms just like every other canidate or he took this stance to get elected in Texas because it's a political liabilty. Either way, he's the same type of politician as every other person in this election. My problem is people like you who can't take a f***ing joke and worship guys like this clown.