Who do I vote for if I want to vote for uncontrollable hateful rage?
Rick Santorum
Topic: Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love - page 5. (Read 7672 times)
Rick Santorum
Who do I vote for if I want to vote for uncontrollable hateful rage?
Also these "libertarians are racist" arguments are just silly. Guilt by association is a commonly used tactic to prevent people from making rational decisions:
Who said anything about Libertarians being racist? We're talking about RON PAUL being racist... Ron Paul does not automatically equate "Libertarian" you know...
Loving the KKK and Stormfront that is...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there
.
You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there
. You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
Why would you give it back? They donated it to his campaign under the false impression that he shared their ideologies. That's their error, why compound it by giving it back to them so that they can use it? Why not use it for the campaign? That's not to mention the sheer complexity of giving back a campaign donation to a federal campaign. That is a rediculous idea from the start. If you were a naive RP supporter, and are no longer naive and not a RP supporter, then I'm 16 and sexy. I'm calling bullshit.
I should go read Roe vs Wade to see how it was justified.
Abortion issue aside, the federal government shouldn't be administering medical care to anyone. What it should do is set a national standard for care available to citizens, regardless of their location within the country. Abolishing state government just means that the national government will need to reach further down and appoint local governments.
Local government is needed, whether it be warlords or governors. You can try and argue with this, but you will be arguing against four billion years of mammalian evolution, not me or any government entity.
Once again, I don't think I should have to drive fifty miles east to score a particular medication or treatment.
How will the government ensure or guarantee this standard of care without funding it?
*edit=fixed typo
If no doctors want to carry it out, so be it. I don't think that they need to ensure the standard of care, merely allow it and let the market decide.
A little side note for you...I am registered as a Libertarian so I can vote in both primaries.
Hmm, I see what you are getting at although I would predict perverse results. I think technically a federal law against states outlawing abortion may require an amendment. Is there an example of medical care we can use other than abortion?
Once again, I don't think I should have to drive fifty miles east to score a particular medication or treatment.
It isn't necessary to federal government to make that possible. It can be possible for each state government to make sure you don't have to drive fifty miles. Instead of directing the effort towards their country to make that a reality, one can direct their effort towards their state.
Unfortunately, I am not a resident of fifty states and am only allowed a vote in one.
Abortion issue aside, the federal government shouldn't be administering medical care to anyone. What it should do is set a national standard for care available to citizens, regardless of their location within the country. Abolishing state government just means that the national government will need to reach further down and appoint local governments.
Local government is needed, whether it be warlords or governors. You can try and argue with this, but you will be arguing against four billion years of mammalian evolution, not me or any government entity.
Once again, I don't think I should have to drive fifty miles east to score a particular medication or treatment.
How will the government ensure or guarantee this standard of care without funding it?
*edit=fixed typo
If no doctors want to carry it out, so be it. I don't think that they need to ensure the standard of care, merely allow it and let the market decide.
A little side note for you...I am registered as a Libertarian so I can vote in both primaries.
Also these "libertarians are racist" arguments are just silly. Guilt by association is a commonly used tactic to prevent people from making rational decisions:
Abortion issue aside, the federal government shouldn't be administering medical care to anyone. What it should do is set a national standard for care available to citizens, regardless of their location within the country. Abolishing state government just means that the national government will need to reach further down and appoint local governments.
Local government is needed, whether it be warlords or governors. You can try and argue with this, but you will be arguing against four billion years of mammalian evolution, not me or any government entity.
Once again, I don't think I should have to drive fifty miles east to score a particular medication or treatment.
How will the government ensure or guarantee this standard of care without funding it?
*edit=fixed typo
Once again, I don't think I should have to drive fifty miles east to score a particular medication or treatment.
It isn't necessary to federal government to make that possible. It can be possible for each state government to make sure you don't have to drive fifty miles. Instead of directing the effort towards their country to make that a reality, one can direct their effort towards their state.
I understand that. I just don't think a woman should have to drive up to New York from Alabama because she wants an abortion. It is a federal issue. I don't want the medical care available to me to vary from state to state.
This is an interesting point, buuuuuuut, it's still difficult to presume that there is only one entity to rule over all of a country. Consider the same as one entity to rule over all of the planet? It may be useful to break down the rule and authority to individual states to allow each state to handle the dispute so that they can receive the same kind of effort that a president would.
Sure it may be inconvenient to have to drive to another state if the state which you reside abolishes abortion.
But what about if abortion is abolished entirely throughout the country? Will you then complain that you must travel to another country? continent? planet? solar system?
I think the evilnesses and goodnesses in which authority exists should be made smaller (e.g. states vs country) as it then allows more direct attention.
Take schools and colleges for example. A class with 200 students vs another class with 20 students. Depending on the size, each student will receive more or less attention.
I don't think religion has any place in government. Yes, I would complain that I needed to travel to another country. Do you really think that because you happen to live in an area full of half-wits who cling to religion that you too should have to abide by their stance, however ignorant it may be? Think about the implications of what you are saying.
How would you feel if Christian Scientists called the shots in the US? No medical care for anyone, anywhere. God will provide. Would that be ok? So why are catholics calling the shots?
If you place more faith in state government than federal, you have obviously not dealt with government in any significant matter. Go to some assembly meetings...some of these fuckwits can barely string a sentence together. State governments are full of simpletons. Michelle Bachmann, anyone? Let's hear it for the United Countries on the American Continent...
Fractured is not better. If you think it is, move to Africa.
Abortion issue aside, the federal government shouldn't be administering medical care to anyone. What it should do is set a national standard for care available to citizens, regardless of their location within the country. Abolishing state government just means that the national government will need to reach further down and appoint local governments.
Local government is needed, whether it be warlords or governors. You can try and argue with this, but you will be arguing against four billion years of mammalian evolution, not me or any government entity.
Once again, I don't think I should have to drive fifty miles east to score a particular medication or treatment.
Loving the KKK and Stormfront that is...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there.
You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there
. You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
Why would you give it back? They donated it to his campaign under the false impression that he shared their ideologies. That's their error, why compound it by giving it back to them so that they can use it? Why not use it for the campaign? That's not to mention the sheer complexity of giving back a campaign donation to a federal campaign. That is a rediculous idea from the start. If you were a naive RP supporter, and are no longer naive and not a RP supporter, then I'm 16 and sexy. I'm calling bullshit.
I understand that. I just don't think a woman should have to drive up to New York from Alabama because she wants an abortion. It is a federal issue. I don't want the medical care available to me to vary from state to state.
This is an interesting point, buuuuuuut, it's still difficult to presume that there is only one entity to rule over all of a country. Consider the same as one entity to rule over all of the planet? It may be useful to break down the rule and authority to individual states to allow each state to handle the dispute so that they can receive the same kind of effort that a president would.
Sure it may be inconvenient to have to drive to another state if the state which you reside abolishes abortion.
But what about if abortion is abolished entirely throughout the country? Will you then complain that you must travel to another country? continent? planet? solar system?
I think the evilnesses and goodnesses in which authority exists should be made smaller (e.g. states vs country) as it then allows more direct attention.
Take schools and colleges for example. A class with 200 students vs another class with 20 students. Depending on the size, each student will receive more or less attention.
I don't think religion has any place in government. Yes, I would complain that I needed to travel to another country. Do you really think that because you happen to live in an area full of half-wits who cling to religion that you too should have to abide by their stance, however ignorant it may be? Think about the implications of what you are saying.
How would you feel if Christian Scientists called the shots in the US? No medical care for anyone, anywhere. God will provide. Would that be ok? So why are catholics calling the shots?
If you place more faith in state government than federal, you have obviously not dealt with government in any significant matter. Go to some assembly meetings...some of these fuckwits can barely string a sentence together. State governments are full of simpletons. Michelle Bachmann, anyone? Let's hear it for the United Countries on the American Continent...
Fractured is not better. If you think it is, move to Africa.
Loving the KKK and Stormfront that is...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there.
You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there
. You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
So not giving money to white supremacists is bad? I can only imagine the shit storm if Ron did give money to whities.
Loving the KKK and Stormfront that is...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there.
You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/
They LOVE him there
. You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?
When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI
Enough said...
I've got bad news for you guys. None of you get to choose. Even if you are a Republican, odds are high that you don't really even get a vote. Mitt took first place in the popular vote in Iowa with 25% and Ron Paul got third place with 21%, but the popular vote is only a proxy. The actual delegates are chosen by the causas process, not the vote. The voting is simply a non-binding straw poll, and there is nothing that binds those delegates to vote for the winner once they get to the state convention. And no one watches the state convention.
It doesn't matter. What is happening now will continue then. People will balk. I and many others will become more active to expose the continued enslavement as well as continuously be ridiculed and disagreed with (until we are deaded or imprisoned), sparking further controversy, but as long as a peaceful nonviolence is preserved, all is well.
A true Gandian, I presume?
If you really want to make a difference, register as a republican in your state as soon as you can, and attend your precinct caucas. Try to get elected as a county delegate, and then as a state delegate at the county convention (which can happen an hour later in some cases). When you get to the state convention, try to get elected as a national delegate or help elect someone who can attend. This is how the true power structure works, the primary elections are a preference poll, and are often not binding upon the delegates. Particularly if their assigned candidate has dropped out and/or no candidate can get a majority of votes on the first round. This is the magic that the Ron Paul campaign pulled off yesterday, capturing a majority of delegates to the state convention all but secures a majority of the delegates sent to the national convention will be favorable to Ron Paul as the nominee should they get released from their assigned candidate. The new national rules within the republican party all but garantees that the convention will be "brokered" without any single candidate capturing an absolute majority of delegates. The last thing that the Ron Paul campaign wants is a two man race.
I've got bad news for you guys. None of you get to choose. Even if you are a Republican, odds are high that you don't really even get a vote. Mitt took first place in the popular vote in Iowa with 25% and Ron Paul got third place with 21%, but the popular vote is only a proxy. The actual delegates are chosen by the causas process, not the vote. The voting is simply a non-binding straw poll, and there is nothing that binds those delegates to vote for the winner once they get to the state convention. And no one watches the state convention.
It doesn't matter. What is happening now will continue then. People will balk. I and many others will become more active to expose the continued enslavement as well as continuously be ridiculed and disagreed with (until we are deaded or imprisoned), sparking further controversy, but as long as a peaceful nonviolence is preserved, all is well.
I agree about that. There should be freedom of choice, even within families allowing the children (that grow to become no longer children) to make their own mind rather than punishing, ridiculing and treating them differently if they express a lack of interest, understanding or agreement. Also, currency should be impartial. I am appreciative that Bitcoin hasn't adopted any religious influence, though I am disappointed that the addictedly religious luke-jr has included religious based influence in his source code contributions to bitcoin and bitcoin-related developments.
So if families should allow that luxury, wouldn't you want it from the president as well?
hence my interest in Ron Paul.
We're not going to get an atheist into the white house. So we need a Christian who believes strongly in freedom and the constitution so that his ridiculous beliefs about an afterlife won't affect all the other things we need him to do as President.
Clearly we need an atheist that is not recognized or affiliated with that reality so as to not be grossly ridiculed in relation to it. It is likely that Ron Paul fits this role by pursuing an active affiliation with the cultist ideals and symbolisms, though clearly it is because human existences of societies are easy to discredit him otherwise. I am already discredited, but I'm still alive.
I've got bad news for you guys. None of you get to choose. Even if you are a Republican, odds are high that you don't really even get a vote. Mitt took first place in the popular vote in Iowa with 25% and Ron Paul got third place with 21%, but the popular vote is only a proxy. The actual delegates are chosen by the causas process, not the vote. The voting is simply a non-binding straw poll, and there is nothing that binds those delegates to vote for the winner once they get to the state convention. And no one watches the state convention.
But if a fetus is a person it already falls under existing laws against murder. Is he going to just let murder happen? Maybe (like nearly everyone) he doesn't think fetuses are -real- people, covered by laws against murder like the rest of us
Jump to: