Poll 11/17 puts RP in first

Discussion in 'Politics' started by WhereRDaCookies, Nov 17, 2011.


  1. cult implies secretive and exclusive

    so i disagree. Ron Paul's message is for everyone. Like Jesus's!

    Praise Paul! Bow Down or Perish!
     
  2. Haha I like how not many people pointed out how ridiculous the content in my actual post was ^_^.
     

  3. In our state, it doesn't matter what we want or for whom we vote. The Bay and SoCal will go with whoever is the Democrat and therefore so does the state. Put a literal steaming turd up against anybody with an R after their name and Cali will vote for the turd, hands down.


    I mean, hell, look at the Nov 2010 elections. Barbara Boxer stayed in office and Jerry Brown won. And Pelosi is still up there, if you didn't think California was high as balls/dumb as shit the fact that Pelosi is STILL one of our Reps proves it. [​IMG]
     

  4. Yea this isnt the first time AlienBlood has derailed an RP topic. Trolls will be trolls.

    I think RPs strength will continue to grow, but I think his biggest adversary might end up being Newt. RP will do well and will probably snag the nomination if he takes Iowa and does very well in NH, the rest of election will be an electorate shitstorm otherwise I think.
     

  5. Sorry to hear that :confused_2:
     
  6. #26 AlienBlood, Nov 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2011
    I did not say that.....

    Most people don't even know what they believe in or why they believe what they do when it comes to politics and government. I had someone tell me the other day (wasn't talking to him but arguing with a newly found RP supporter and this guy interjected his piece into our conversation. :D) that he doesn't give 2 shits about politics and that was why he has a government. I facepalmed IRL. :rolleyes:

    Anyways, I'm sorry and I wish my lifelong observations had suggested otherwise but democracy is a terrible form of government IMO. What we have, a constitutional republic with democratic traditions, is slightly less tyrannical as pure democracy and is definitely fairer, but still pretty fucking flawed.
     

  7. True. But the percentage of Dr. Paul supporters who are like that is far lower than for any other candidate. Dr. Paul supporters are far more knowledgeable in general than supporters of other people. Plus they have the truth on their side.

    People who support Obama or Romney, etc. are simply media brainwashed drones. Almost none of Ron Paul supporters are like that because the media hates him. We have to do our own research on the candidates and decide on which is best, and when people do that, they usually become Ron Paul supporters for life.
     
  8. #28 AlienBlood, Nov 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2011
     
  9. Don't need science. Everyone knows that Ron Paul supporters stick with him, and I gave the reasons why.
     
  10. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I did not stick with him. The reason for that is I continued questioning many of his positions and realized he is...not my cup of tea. Most RP supporters, after lending their unwavering support for him, effectively shutoff the part of their mind that will scrutinize each of the man's position on the issues from multiple angles. Nope they hear liberty and the constitution and they're sold. Fuck the world if it burns to hell right guys?
     
  11. inb4 ron paul supporters are cultists.

    Oops, AB beat me too it.
     

  12. That's because you were never a real supporter to begin with. His positions become even more solid the more they are scrutinized. There will always be some who are incapable of understanding his positions fully. One example would be economically. Anyone who looks into economics with an unbiased eye will see that Austrian economics is clearly, hands down, the correct teaching on that subject. If one sees that, and then tries to find a candidate to vote for who also knows that Austrian economics is correct, there is no one except Ron Paul to get behind. This is true for pretty much all of his positions.

    From my own experience, those who don't believe Austrian economics is correct are either ignorant, brainwashed, or just stupid. I haven't been proven wrong on that in all of my debates and talks with people who support alternate views.

    "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

    -- Murray Rothbard

    Most people who oppose Ron Paul's and the Austrian's stance on economics fit into the category of having a loud and vociferous opinion while in an ignorant state.
     
  13. #33 AlienBlood, Nov 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2011
    So far we have "you're either a Ron Paul supporter 4 lyfe, B, or you never were one to begin with." and "you're either unintelligent, ignorant, or a Ron Paul supporter". Brilliant! Or not... Now if only you guys can find a way to convince, you know, actual smart and educated people that this stuff isn't merely a theory belonging in the dustbins of history then you'll might be taken more seriously.

    When one's ego is the size of China and they're as stubborn as a mule they can be proven wrong time and time again, and it won't matter, THEY still won't be convinced lest their ego suffer through an abrasion. That and also I've noticed RP supporters oftentimes see the world in black and white, and the more intelligent ones recognize the grey but will NEVER bring light to the reality because they really do have a type of anarchist state of mind.
     
  14. I disagree with some Ron Paul stuff but honestly he's the only candidate I could dream of supporting, except Gary Johnson. and in the case of our disagreements, at least he is on the side of liberty and RELINQUISHING government power, rather than taking freedoms and expanding government.

    but I think you can be smart and not a Ron Paul supporter, some of it just comes down to personal beliefs/ morals
     
  15. A Marxist who supports Libertarians, or just about the exact opposite of Marxists, for president. I guess there really are certain things that one will only encounter in America. Ha!

    No but seriously I understand you think socialist policies are successful in more localized communities but not in governments overseeing a society as large as the USA, right? It's still kind of humorous. Most Marxists would just say fuck it and support the ideology all the way up to the feds. :confused_2:

    I guess what I am saying is I can respect that.
     

  16. Are you talking about Austrian economics? There is nothing imo to convince people of. The evidence and superiority compared to the other economic schools of thought is so much greater that it's not a stance I even think is worthy of debating. The other person has either went through and looked at history and understands the concepts, or they haven't. Those that haven't are the ones who disagree with it. Also you left out brainwashed as one of the reasons that people don't understand Austrian economics (which you misquoted as me referring to Ron Paul supporters, nice straw man), which is ironic, because in your case brainwashed is the correct diagnosis.
     
  17. LOL

    Tom Woods takes every BS "argument" and just destroys them:

    Ron Paul Does Not Have a ‘Cult' Following

     


  18. It actually makes the most sense for a socialist to support a Presidential candidate that believes in state's rights and a limited federal government. That way, it would be much easier to implement certain socialist programs on a state or local level, allowing citizens choices between states. Don't like where you live? Next-door neighbor have "universal" healthcare, etc? Move there. Once the feds stick their nose in anything, they ruin it because we know central planning via DC doesn't work.

    The Socialist Case for Ron Paul « LewRockwell.com Blog
     
  19. thanks man:), but although the Che avatar points to Marxism, i see myself as a libertarian-socialist.
    gotta love freedom, gotta love tearing down aristocracy
    anyways, carry on!
     
  20. Good point, the feds do serve as a sort of balancing act among all states - it doesn't let any fall too far but at the same time doesn't let them rise too high either. I still think there is something to be said about remaining united as a country, but that's probably just the Statist in me talking. :rolleyes:

    In truth though, I support state's rights and limited government as well. In and of themselves the exact meaning can be subjective. For example, I would support fully slashing all of the social safety net funds but leaving the military funding levels at the status quo. That IS limited, IMO. With regards to state's rights, I think the saying "your rights end where mine begin" ought to be repeated about 17,000,000 times (taking a page out of the Ron Paul revolution guidebook here for those who missed it;)) until people realize that they cannot support the creation of little pockets of tyranny, oppression, uncivilized and unjust laws under the guise of still being free since legally you can move to states with governments better serving their interests. Not everyone (in fact probably somewhere around a large minority of people) can leave the county they reside in let alone their state. So yes, state's right where the Feds can't serve all people and federal takeover on issues where the freedom, liberty, and safety of ALL Americans isn't best, or equally, served at state and local governments.
     

Share This Page