On January 13 2012 04:38 Zeburial wrote: Since I'm from Sweden I don't want to say that I understand everything concerning USA's politics and the republicans. But I find this video with Ron Paul very interesting:
He surely have invented the time machine! xD
I'm a Ron Paul supporter , but I think there tons of people in there who "knew" what he said. The only difference between Ron Paul and the rest is that he has the guts to go out and say it, furthermore he actually supports his talks with actions, unlike all the rest until now...Maybe if he gets in office he would get some stuff done for the better of all of us...I hope...
And yet nothing of that has to do with Obama. Sick flamebait though.
Parts do. Obama's stimulus directly caused the debt/deficit to grow. Obama should be judged for the slow recovery, although giving him blame for job losses during the first two months after inauguration is showing a fair amount of ignorance.
But obviously gas prices a) are rising globally due to rapidly growing demand in developing nations and b) are seasonally volatile, and this chart is comparing summer highs against winter lows. (I'd expect proponents of the free market to know such things :/ ) The misery index is a better indicator of the negatives of stagflation; in a deflationary spiral (ie US in 2009) it's not very useful. (I'll allow that this could be an honest mistake that most people who haven't studied any economics could make.)
I never understood why americans place so much faith in the presidency when it comes to solving problems in the economy. The president at best has very, very limited influence over the economy as a whole. To demand that there'll never be a recession in the entire future is asking to be betrayed.
Was reading a quote by David Brooks about Ron Paul supporters earlier this week (it doesn't hold for just his supporters, just the mythical power attributed to the presidency to 'make the economy better!'):
David: I sympathize with their sense that they have lost control of their country. That doesn’t mean that the people who have control are operating in some dark room in the Federal Reserve Building. The fact is nobody really has control. Not even Obama or Bernanke. That’s what’s nice about this place.
And yet nothing of that has to do with Obama. Sick flamebait though.
Parts do. Obama's stimulus directly caused the debt/deficit to grow. Obama should be judged for the slow recovery, although giving him blame for job losses during the first two months after inauguration is showing a fair amount of ignorance.
But obviously gas prices a) are rising globally due to rapidly growing demand in developing nations and b) are seasonally volatile, and this chart is comparing summer highs against winter lows. (I'd expect proponents of the free market to know such things :/ ) The misery index is a better indicator of the negatives of stagflation; in a deflationary spiral (ie US in 2009) it's not very useful. (I'll allow that this could be an honest mistake that most people who haven't studied any economics could make.)
I never understood why americans place so much faith in the presidency when it comes to solving problems in the economy. The president at best has very, very limited influence over the economy as a whole. To demand that there'll never be a recession in the entire future is asking to be betrayed.
Was reading a quote by David Brooks about Ron Paul supporters earlier this week (it doesn't hold for just his supporters, just the mythical power attributed to the presidency to 'make the economy better!'):
David: I sympathize with their sense that they have lost control of their country. That doesn’t mean that the people who have control are operating in some dark room in the Federal Reserve Building. The fact is nobody really has control. Not even Obama or Bernanke. That’s what’s nice about this place.
Same thing that I believe, no1 has complete control over economy, but still they influence it as much as they can to become richer, bankers and what not...I believe that if some smart, responsible and selfless people were in control of the economy, we would've been in a better place right now tbh .
Newt's super pac special on Mitt Romney. It's pretty sick. I'm sure it's pretty one sided, but it's exactly what has happened to American manufacturing over the last 20 years.
Basically, someone comes into your workplace, buys it, screws almost everyone over, and then makes millions while you lose everything.
Obama for 4 more or Ron Paul. The other 3 are going to tear each other so far apart that they will stand no chance in a general election.
Man am I glad to see this thread, I don't know all that much about professional StarCraft yet (I'm learning), but politics is a subject I am highly knowledgable on and love. We really have to get Obama out, but Romney/Perry/Gingrich are all more or less the same as Obama. I'm voting for Ron Paul and if he doesn't get the GOP nomination I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). Some people say voting for a third party or independent candidate is throwing your vote away, but I disagree, if anything voting for the two-party system is throwing your vote away. I'm glad to see that Ron Paul dominated New Hampshire, it's about time we had a real president who will uphold by the Constitution, unlike Obama.
On January 13 2012 11:59 DrTyrant wrote: Man am I glad to see this thread, I don't know all that much about professional StarCraft yet (I'm learning), but politics is a subject I am highly knowledgable on and love. We really have to get Obama out, but Romney/Perry/Gingrich are all more or less the same as Obama. I'm voting for Ron Paul and if he doesn't get the GOP nomination I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). Some people voting for a third party or independent candidate is throwing your vote away, but I disagree, if anything voting for the two-party system is throwing your vote away. I'm glad to see that Ron Paul dominated New Hampshire, it's about time we had a real president who will uphold by the Constitution, unlike Obama.
Bravo, you and I think alike. I'm for Ron Paul... he is a straight shooter. Anyone that wants to toss the Federal Reserve is golden in my book. Realistically it won't happen though.. but at least he understands the problem.
On January 13 2012 11:59 DrTyrant wrote: Man am I glad to see this thread, I don't know all that much about professional StarCraft yet (I'm learning), but politics is a subject I am highly knowledgable on and love. We really have to get Obama out, but Romney/Perry/Gingrich are all more or less the same as Obama. I'm voting for Ron Paul and if he doesn't get the GOP nomination I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). Some people voting for a third party or independent candidate is throwing your vote away, but I disagree, if anything voting for the two-party system is throwing your vote away. I'm glad to see that Ron Paul dominated New Hampshire, it's about time we had a real president who will uphold by the Constitution, unlike Obama.
Bravo, you and I think alike. I'm for Ron Paul... he is a straight shooter. Anyone that wants to toss the Federal Reserve is golden in my book. Realistically it won't happen though.. but at least he understands the problem.
Indeed we need to End the Fed, or at least heavily reform it. If you look at how much gold was worth a hundred years ago, and how much it is worth today, it's astounding, and not because gold is magically worth more, but because our currency has been devalued. He really wins me over on gun rights though, which is a make or break issue for me, he wants to abolish all gun laws and I totally support him 100% on that.
I disagree with him on foreign policy, it just isn't based on reality, I'm not saying we should start random wars or anything, but we really need to continue power projection and protecting our strategic interests. Under Ron Paul we wouldn't have any allies anymore, many of the members here are from South Korea, which would be open to attack by China and North Korea without our protection. At least we will be out of the United Nations and of the evil globalists plot to take away our freedom and subvert American sovreignty by forcing us to join the European Union (something Obama clearly wants).
On January 12 2012 21:05 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @mcc Glad you liked those videos but, as you can see it's from a FOX AFFILIATE. Not the original fox that misinforms people when it comes to REAL journalism.
As can be seen in my post I disliked parts of those videos even before I found out they are from Fox, for reasons mentioned in that post. I did not base my view of the videos on their origin, but in their content, The origin just makes me doubt those videos' credibility somewhat more than before.
So, you still think Ron Paul is a racist? I think it was more negligent IMO.
On January 12 2012 21:05 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @mcc Glad you liked those videos but, as you can see it's from a FOX AFFILIATE. Not the original fox that misinforms people when it comes to REAL journalism.
As can be seen in my post I disliked parts of those videos even before I found out they are from Fox, for reasons mentioned in that post. I did not base my view of the videos on their origin, but in their content, The origin just makes me doubt those videos' credibility somewhat more than before.
So, you still think Ron Paul is a racist? I think it was more negligent IMO.
Ron Paul is the furthest thing from a racist. Obama and other big government lefties like him are the true racists.
He wants to abolish all gun laws? No restrictions at all? Even if that meant all small arms (as opposed to all guns) I don't particularly see why you would want a proliferation of medium machine guns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers. I can see dropping restrictions on long guns for hunters. But when the Second Amendment went through they were still muzzle loading were they not? As opposed to spraying down crowds with machine guns.
On January 13 2012 13:57 Falling wrote: He wants to abolish all gun laws? No restrictions at all? Even if that meant all small arms (as opposed to all guns) I don't particularly see why you would want a proliferation of medium machine guns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers. I can see dropping restrictions on long guns for hunters. But when the Second Amendment went through they were still muzzle loading were they not? As opposed to spraying down crowds with machine guns.
You mean like what happens in countries with gun control (Brevik I'm looking at you)?
On January 13 2012 13:57 Falling wrote: He wants to abolish all gun laws? No restrictions at all? Even if that meant all small arms (as opposed to all guns) I don't particularly see why you would want a proliferation of medium machine guns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers. I can see dropping restrictions on long guns for hunters. But when the Second Amendment went through they were still muzzle loading were they not? As opposed to spraying down crowds with machine guns.
You mean like what happens in countries with gun control (Brevik I'm looking at you)?
This has to be a troll.
If anything, what happened with Brevik should be a strong for gun control, why was a clearly deranged man like him allowed to possess firearms?
By your logic, rape laws should be abolished by countries who has them because there are rapists in these countries.
In fact, what does happen in countries with gun control..
On January 13 2012 11:59 DrTyrant wrote: Man am I glad to see this thread, I don't know all that much about professional StarCraft yet (I'm learning), but politics is a subject I am highly knowledgable on and love. We really have to get Obama out, but Romney/Perry/Gingrich are all more or less the same as Obama. I'm voting for Ron Paul and if he doesn't get the GOP nomination I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). Some people voting for a third party or independent candidate is throwing your vote away, but I disagree, if anything voting for the two-party system is throwing your vote away. I'm glad to see that Ron Paul dominated New Hampshire, it's about time we had a real president who will uphold by the Constitution, unlike Obama.
Bravo, you and I think alike. I'm for Ron Paul... he is a straight shooter. Anyone that wants to toss the Federal Reserve is golden in my book. Realistically it won't happen though.. but at least he understands the problem.
Indeed we need to End the Fed, or at least heavily reform it. If you look at how much gold was worth a hundred years ago, and how much it is worth today, it's astounding, and not because gold is magically worth more, but because our currency has been devalued. He really wins me over on gun rights though, which is a make or break issue for me, he wants to abolish all gun laws and I totally support him 100% on that.
I disagree with him on foreign policy, it just isn't based on reality, I'm not saying we should start random wars or anything, but we really need to continue power projection and protecting our strategic interests. Under Ron Paul we wouldn't have any allies anymore, many of the members here are from South Korea, which would be open to attack by China and North Korea without our protection. At least we will be out of the United Nations and of the evil globalists plot to take away our freedom and subvert American sovreignty by forcing us to join the European Union (something Obama clearly wants).
I'm all for Ron Paul, and his foreign policy. If we could afford to extend ourselves and "spread democracy" then sure, by all means, but we cannot at this current rate. Just look at history, my friend; All great empires will eventually fall. It's not that I wouldn't want to protect South Koreans from their northern neighbors, but it just simply is not our responsibility, and we can. not. afford it.
On January 13 2012 13:57 Falling wrote: He wants to abolish all gun laws? No restrictions at all? Even if that meant all small arms (as opposed to all guns) I don't particularly see why you would want a proliferation of medium machine guns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers. I can see dropping restrictions on long guns for hunters. But when the Second Amendment went through they were still muzzle loading were they not? As opposed to spraying down crowds with machine guns.
You mean like what happens in countries with gun control (Brevik I'm looking at you)?
This has to be a troll.
If anything, what happened with Brevik should be a strong for gun control, why was a clearly deranged man like him allowed to possess firearms?
By your logic, rape laws should be abolished by countries who has them because there are rapists in these countries.
In fact, what does happen in countries with gun control..
On January 13 2012 13:57 Falling wrote: He wants to abolish all gun laws? No restrictions at all? Even if that meant all small arms (as opposed to all guns) I don't particularly see why you would want a proliferation of medium machine guns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers. I can see dropping restrictions on long guns for hunters. But when the Second Amendment went through they were still muzzle loading were they not? As opposed to spraying down crowds with machine guns.
You mean like what happens in countries with gun control (Brevik I'm looking at you)?
This has to be a troll.
If anything, what happened with Brevik should be a strong for gun control, why was a clearly deranged man like him allowed to possess firearms?
By your logic, rape laws should be abolished by countries who has them because there are rapists in these countries.
In fact, what does happen in countries with gun control..
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.'
-Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
there's a lot of external factors when you compare amongst the countries. If you compare between states, and especially cities in the US, the story is quite different.
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
Of course. If firearms did not exist, knives or blunt objects would be directly related to murder and suicide rates. It¡s stupid to asume the contrary.
On January 13 2012 15:29 DrTyrant wrote: Cities where guns are practically banned have the highest crime rates: Chicago and Detroit
If you want to live in a free society, you have to accept the fact that sometimes bad things will happen.
Also the Brevik incident shows that we need more gun rights and less anti-freedom Obama.
Something does seem unfair about strict gun laws that criminals are going to ignore anyways. They can get their drugs illegally, why not their guns? Meanwhile I am unable to defend myself and family because the government has made it criminal to do so.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1201/4-more-years-obama-4th-of-all-time-politics-1325620805.jpg)
