Featured "Libertarians were the voice of reason" ???

Of course I don't. I don't want war or inflation or any of these things. I also don't want gay marriage, legalized drugs, filthy entertainment aimed at children, legalized abortion, or most of the other socially left issues that the Libertarian Party champions.

 

Yep. I think he's a nut. But I do like his son Rand. Though some describe him as a Libertarian, I think he calls himself a Constitutional Conservative and he's pretty smart. Though I don't agree with every single little thing he does, I like that he's a social conservative and has the guts to stand up to both the progressives in the GOP and the Dems.

:laugh: Yeah but I have too many skeletons in my closet. Plus the Republicans AND the Dems would demonize me. But thank you.

 

Our state, Kentucky, elected Rand Paul Senator. The nut is the other idiot Senator, Mitch McConnell, and he is the RINO.

 

This is all interesting but you're all forgetting one little detail. We cast our votes no matter who they are for on easily hacked electronic voting machines. For the most part elections are just so much political theater to keep us distracted while the banks and corporations take ownership of the country.

Wont be too much longer and we can do away with scam elections all together and just have Goldman Sachs/Monsanto men (Obama and Romney) appointed to office directly.

And it's all been happening under the democrats and republicans while the voices of reason were cheer leading first for side then the other. The only time the voices of reason agree is when someone comes along that threatens the democrat's and republican's hold on power.

And just look at all the good things they have brought us. Unbelievable debt, multiple endless wars, a debt based fiat monetary system, a dollar that has been devalued by 95-97%, a heavily militarized police force, "fusion centers" that merge federal and state power along with private corporations, (if any other country did that we'd call it fascism but because it's happening here we call it public private partnerships), the DHS managed by total control freaks, the TSA manned by sexual predators and pedophiles, the NSA listening to our phone calls and reading our emails, a court system that violates the constitution by protecting the government when ever it violates the constitution, a legal system that will hand down hard time for simple drug possession but won't even blink when a group of private banks steals trillions or when a president claims the authority to murder his fellow citizens with no due process.

Yeah I can see why you guys think Ron Pail is a nut for being against all that.

 

Studies have shown that people who cannot refute the mass of evidence often resort to acting just like you guys.

 

I think about a nine. I would not be surprised to see this man on a national ticket sometime in the future.

 

I've been away for a day or so. So let me say this about Ron Paul.

I like the fact that he pledged to never raise taxes.
I like his idea of abolishing personal income tax. (I prefer a flat tax, but....)
I'm with him on the right to bear arms (to some degree).
I'm with him on the draft.
I agree with him that life begins at conception.
I agree with his pro-life stance.
I like his stance on border control and immigration.

So there are many things that this man stands for that imo are ok. But....

I think he's an isoltationist. Don't get me wrong...I want to get out of all these wars and don't want anything to do with the Islamic states. I don't want to send weapons to Syrian rebels because I figure they'll turn them on us or our allies sooner or later. We cant trust any of those Jihadists over there and will likely get stabbed in the back as soon as its feasible for them. But we simply cannot ignore Iran and their plan to develop Nukes. We just cant! And they wont ignore us. Thinking that they will is just burying our heads in the sand.

Though I side with him rejecting NAFTA, he's a free trader. I'm a fair trader.

If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul supported repealing 'Don't ask Don't tell". I would never do that. He's doing it on grounds that the Fed govt shouldn't interefere with this, but imo, the Fed Govt is in charge of the US military. It is the business of Congress to regulate our Military.

Ron Paul opposed the war on drugs. That's insane! He also opposes Federal involvement in the influenza inoculation programs. That's insane too because many people wouldn't have access to this if the Feds weren't involved. And believe it or not, the flue can kill ya. I don't care in this case if the Constitution says nothing about the flu. Its important. But Ron Paul callously disregards this.

Ron Paul was also against the Civil Rights act of '64. How can any good Christian person be against this?

Ron Paul's positions are typical Libertarian positions. He, and they think that if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then the Feds shouldn't touch it. Problem is, a lot of things that are part of our society and culture today are dependent on the Fed involvement.

The Constitution is important. Really important. I swore to support and defend the Constitution and that didn't end when I finished my military service. But one must have some common sense about the issues facing us today and in some areas, Ron Paul (and imo, Libertarians) don't have that common sense about them.

That's why I say the man is a nut.

 

Isolationists are the people that put sanctions on other nations to isolate them from everyone else. Bush and Obama are the isolators, the "international community" are the isolators, our congress is made up of isolators. Ron Paul doesn't want to isolate anyone. He wants to trade and have dialogs with other countries not isolate them or bomb them if they don't do what Washington and the "international community" commands them to do.

Where's the evidence that Iran is trying acquire a nuke? I can find hype everywhere but I can't find any evidence.

Ron Paul's idea of free trade is a free market. By free market he's talking about a system of trade that isn't dominated by central banks and giant corporations.

The business of congress is to hold us down while the banks and corporations rob and rape us.

Insanity is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's insane to continue spending 80 to 100 billion dollars a year on a policy that was doomed to fail before it even started. We already learned prohibition doesn't work. Along with prohibition comes organized crime, increased violence, bigger more intrusive government, militarized police and rampant corruption. If you step back and look at the results of the "war on drugs" realistically it's made the drug, violence and corruption problems worse not better unless you're happy with organized crime, increased violence, bigger more intrusive government, militarized police, rampant corruption and wasting billions in resources. In that case by all means continue prohibition.

As far as flu shots go, they're pretty much worthless. The CDC even admits that. Big Pharma makes Big Bucks from them and the Fed is only to happy to hold us down while Big Pharma put's the jab to us.

Okay, here to speak on Ron Paul's behalf is Ron Paul . . .

That's true enough but, most of that is the result of the Fed using every crisis and excuse it could think of to grab more power and further centralize it. Now we got the Fed listening in on our phone calls and sticking it's hands down our paints and we don't seem to mind it all that much. I've read a good many libertarian papers and documents along the way but I'd have to say the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are my favorites. I've never met a typical libertarian. As individuals they've all got their little quirks. I suppose that's bad in a collectivist society that demands conformity to whatever the tv talking heads lead us to believe is normal.

Common sense. You mean like continuing to waste resources on a policy of prohibition that we already knew wouldn't work before it even got underway?

Okay. No problem then. If you like things the way they are vote for another democrat or republican. I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Hey Dennis have you heard the voices of reason in this thread yet? If not you can Listen Here, and Here. Evidently that's what conformity hath produced. :wavey:

 

Dennis,

I looked but couldn't find any evidence that Iran was trying to acquire a nuke. I did find quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, HERE.

I expect the "Baptist Board voices of reason" will pop in and make fun of the "source" that put all the documents and mainstream news articles together in one place to make it easy for them to become a little more informed, which evidently they fear more than the US government funded Islamic extremists.

What else can they do? Trying to refute the evidence would be a losing proposition for them.

What does it tell you about the "BBVR" if the best they can do to defend their position and false paradigm is shooting the messenger and posting silly pictures?

 

Why shouldnt they make fun of your source. You may as well posted an article from Huffington Post or Al Jazeera. The Complete idiot's guide? Run by a guy that claimed George Bush stole the election in Ohio? A guy that dug into Bush's past and tried to turn him into a draft-dodger? A guy who claims that launched an invasion in Iraq under false pretenses? I mean this guy isn't what I'd call a committed conservative.

You asked for evidence:

On 12 February 2010 US think tank expert David Albright the head of the Institute for Science and International Security, said in a report that Iran was seeking to "make sufficient weapons-grade uranium". http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/118436.html

In 2008, the then director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, said: "Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."

In November 2011 the IAEA released its latest report on Iran's nuclear program, presenting new evidence suggesting that Iran is secretly working to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed the claims as fictitious.

Drawing on evidence provided by more than 10 member states as well as its own information, the IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb.

The report documents alleged Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponization - the processes by which a device might be adapted and hardened to fit into the nose-section of a missile.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

This took all of 5 minutes to find.

 

I see you learned well Grasshopper. Lesson one, propaganda 101.

Never acknowledge the mass of evidence the messenger has supplied, instead go after the messenger and if possible shoot him dead before your audience discovers that the messenger has supplied a mass of evidence you can't possibly refute.

That's worth one golden star! :thumbs:

Well bravo. But just think if you'd used that five minutes to look at the evidence the messenger you've tried so hard to kill supplied you'd have known your evidence and your argument were debunked before you even started shooting at the messenger.

I'm feeling kind of generous today so I'll give ya an "e" for effort anyway. :smilewinkgrin:

I also noticed you gave lesson two, propaganda 101 a try.

Pick out what you believe to be the weakest point in your opponent's argument and concentrate all your effort onto "debunking" that one small part of the overall argument. Then pretend like you've just "debunked" the whole argument.

You tried but unfortunately for you I've studied propaganda techniques and can spot them a mile off now so I'm just going to remind the audience that you have failed to address all but one point in my overall argument . . . sorry no golden star for propaganda tricks that never make it off the ground.

Daniel (Somers) wrote the following letter to his family before taking his life. Daniel was 30 years old. His wife and family have given permission to publish it. CLICK HERE.

Is this how we support the troops that Bush sent to Iraq under false pretenses?

One thing you'll learn about me Dennis, I put my faith in the evidence, not the lies, the propaganda, the hype and the spin. I don't take sides and I don't care which party a criminal comes from or who is the bigger of two violators. I love this country and it's people and will do my best to protect and defend the constitution from all it's enemies up to and including George Bush and Barack Obama.

I am not stuck in the false left vs right paradigm (see signature below) and I refuse to make my arguments fit neatly into it just so I can be part of some team :1_grouphug: experience.

 

What I've learned is that you are here merely to argue and make smart aleck remarks. I've noticed you do this with a lot of people on this board and in the last day have received no less than 5 msgs from others who think this. You've really established yourself a poor reputation here. But I'm not here to argue, so....Nice meetin ya.

 

Especiall when provided by Alex Jones and other dubious sources.

 

Yep. Speaking of propaganda sources....