The Ron Paul Thread

[Tachosomoza]

No, Paul doesn't get the most votes from young people, O Delusional and Naive one. When are you guys going to drink the laced Flavor-Aid?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

lol. Age is a non-issue. Unfortunately people such as yourself and the media who just need something to talk about, think it is. It's not.

No, it is an issue. One you still haven't dealt with, and were you've resorted to painting me like "the media" (spoooky!) even though I've made it clear I'm speaking in statistical terms, and not saying that old candidates cannot be good Presidents.

3? Big sample size there. And McCain won the nomination, even though age is supposedly an important factor. I know he lost to Obama, but no one was going to beat the great black hope.

Yeah, if he hadn't won the nomination then he wouldn't be a candidate to begin with. Pay attention. And the sample size is 3 that I got out of the top of my head, out of fairly recent elections.

There wouldn't be a spike, dunce. There would obviously be a couple of 70 year olds if more than a handful ever got the chance to run. If you take the last ten presidents compared to the ten before that, the trend shows that presidents are getting older.

If there wouldn't be a spike then my point would be made. That's the whole issue: The graph is showing the distribution ages for U.S. Presidents, which shows that 70+ has very low probability of winning. The only way you can argue against that if you suggest that had there been more candidates in the 70+ range, there would have been more winners/Presidents in the 70+ range that would show 70+ to have a good probability of winning (i.e. a spike).

Cherry picking the data to conjure up a trend isn't an argument. It's you grasping at straws. You wouldn't defend that in any other context; except to save your shitty argument in favor of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, the oldest candidate gets the most votes from the youngest segment of the voters. Age does not matter. People are basing their voting decisions on what they believe to be much more important criteria. Like war, economics, health care, etc. If a candidate appeals to them on that level, they won't give a fuck about the age of the candidate.

And? Nobody here said that an old candidate could not get votes. He can. He could even win. I'm saying it's a point against him, and the probability of winning is low. He has lost primaries left and right, isn't going to win the nomination, and has lost virtually every single hypothetical match-up against Obama. That supports the idea that his chances of winning are small; just like I said. Age is an issue. It's clearly not the determining factor, but all things being equal, the American public clearly prefer someone younger.

I've made both of those points, and you haven't addressed any of the facts that support them:

"Notably, about half of Americans (48%) say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate in their 70s; just 5% say they would be more likely to vote for someone of that age. By comparison, 8% say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate in their 40s, while 18% say they would be more likely to support such a candidate."

Pew Research Center
http://www.people-press.org/2007/02/...o-high-gear/4/

And yet 25% of the 42 presidents have been over 60. Ideal age doesn't mean shit. Age doesn't mean shit. It's bullshit that is not important.

Yes, 25%, a significant minority. Thank you for making my point. Do you not get that 75% (using your figure), is significantly higher (i.e. twice as much) as 25%?

Nice presupposition of me being desperate. Grasping at straws? Really?

Age doesn't matter. Old people are electable. You will just argue any point.

Argue any point? You're the one arguing against facts and evidence!

[ZappaFan]

Ron Paul Floor Speech on Syria (6-27-12) - YouTube

Ron Paul Floor Speech on Syria (6-27-12) - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

No, it is an issue. One you still haven't dealt with, and were you've resorted to painting me like "the media" (spoooky!) even though I've made it clear I'm speaking in statistical terms, and not saying that old candidates cannot be good Presidents.

You said age is an issue in this election. It isn't. The statistical probability of someone being elected president goes down over time not because of perception of them being old but because of their unlikeness of actually living that long. People may not vote for Ron Paul for a shit load of reasons, but age isn't one of them. He's in perfect health, even challenged the rest of the candidates to a 25 mile bike ride.

Yeah, if he hadn't won the nomination then he wouldn't be a candidate to begin with. Pay attention. And the sample size is 3 that I got out of the top of my head, out of fairly recent elections.

He was old and won, so stfu.

If there wouldn't be a spike then my point would be made. That's the whole issue: The graph is showing the distribution ages for U.S. Presidents, which shows that 70+ has very low probability of winning. The only way you can argue against that if you suggest that had there been more candidates in the 70+ range, there would have been more winners/Presidents in the 70+ range that would show 70+ to have a good probability of winning (i.e. a spike).

Cherry picking the data to conjure up a trend isn't an argument. It's you grasping at straws. You wouldn't defend that in any other context; except to save your shitty argument in favor of Ron Paul.

Your data means nothing because there's no explanation for why people over seventy have not won. Why is there a low probability of winning if your over seventy? Most likely, because most worthy candidates are dead by that point or unhealthy enough to not be able to campaign effectively. Ron Paul is neither and thus age isn't a factor in his elect-ability. It is/was a non-issue in this election. You're the one trying to save a shitty arguement that anyone gave a fuck how old he was, and not the myriad of other issues that people were actually concerned with when voting.

And? Nobody here said that an old candidate could not get votes. He can. He could even win. I'm saying it's a point against him, and the probability of winning is low. He has lost primaries left and right, isn't going to win the nomination, and has lost virtually every single hypothetical match-up against Obama. That supports the idea that his chances of winning are small; just like I said. Age is an issue. It's clearly not the determining factor, but all things being equal, the American public clearly prefer someone younger.

He's lost "virtually" every hypothetical matchup with Obama? wtf does that mean? He's won multiple hypothetical polls against Obama. All you have to do is re-read through this thread to find them. Age isn't an issue for Paul, just like it wasn't an issue with Reagan or any of the other old dudes that ran and won. Age is never a real issue. It's something pea-brain fucks like yourself bring up for something to talk about.

"Oh my god he's so old! No one will vote for an old guy!... well except all the other old dudes that have won.

I've made both of those points, and you haven't addressed any of the facts that support them:

"Notably, about half of Americans (48%) say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate in their 70s; just 5% say they would be more likely to vote for someone of that age. By comparison, 8% say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate in their 40s, while 18% say they would be more likely to support such a candidate."

Pew Research Center
http://www.people-press.org/2007/02/...o-high-gear/4/

That's because the question is based on an unknown candidate. Show me some polling on whether or not people think Ron Paul specifically is too old to be president.

http://www.political.com/Reports/93_...inion_Ron_Paul

This poll was conducted online among 8,662 adults nationwide. After the poll was completed, the data was processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is standard among polling agencies and is necessary because different segments of the population may answer more than others.

Yes, 25%, a significant minority. Thank you for making my point. Do you not get that 75% (using your figure), is significantly higher (i.e. twice as much) as 25%?

75% is twice as much as 25%? This kinda of shit makes me wonder why I continue to bother to respond. Anyways, my point is still valid because if you break down the entire 42 presidents into 4 age brackets, you get roughly 25% for each of the age brackets. There is no real discernible trend from the ages of presidents past. It's been pretty much random up to this point.

Argue any point? You're the one arguing against facts and evidence!

We're arguing a matter of opinion. Whether or not age is an issue in this election. It is not.

Originally Posted by Tacho

No, Paul doesn't get the most votes from young people, O Delusional and Naive one. When are you guys going to drink the laced Flavor-Aid?

Your the delusional one, my nigger. He's won the youth vote in almost every state. At least all the early states when people were still reporting on such things.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

You said age is an issue in this election. It isn't. The statistical probability of someone being elected president goes down over time not because of perception of them being old but because of their unlikeness of actually living that long. People may not vote for Ron Paul for a shit load of reasons, but age isn't one of them. He's in perfect health, even challenged the rest of the candidates to a 25 mile bike ride.

Yes it is an issue. You can go around in circles all you want; it's not going to change the facts. I showed how the distribution of elected U.S. Presidents shows a small probability of being elected for those candidates age. I also showed the electorate saying it's a problem and that they are less likely to vote for a candidate that is 70+ years old, let alone 80+.

Your claim that the probability is low just because it's likely that they would be alive contradicts the evidence:

1. Multiple candidates that were 70+ old have run and lost. You have demonstrated no lack of candidates of that age.

2. There is a similar low probability for candidates that are relatively young (i.e 35-45) which wouldn't suffer from the issue you're talking about (i.e. not living long enough), and suggests, again, that age is an issue (in this case the electorate thinks young age means a lack of experience).

3. The polls of voters already demonstrates that they think age IS in fact an issue, by showing that they are less likely to vote for a candidate that is 70+, and that the ideal age for a president is around 60. That fact - which you haven't refuted - would stand regardless if more people lived to be 70-80.

He was old and won, so stfu.

He won the primary. So? Nobody said he couldn't. He could have even won the election. That doesn't make it a non-issue. You can still win things even if you're old and age is an issue; the point is the probabilities are against you.

Your data means nothing because there's no explanation for why people over seventy have not won. Why is there a low probability of winning if your over seventy? Most likely, because most worthy candidates are dead by that point or unhealthy enough to not be able to campaign effectively. Ron Paul is neither and thus age isn't a factor in his elect-ability. It is/was a non-issue in this election. You're the one trying to save a shitty arguement that anyone gave a fuck how old he was, and not the myriad of other issues that people were actually concerned with when voting.

Huh? No explanation? What the fuck have you been reading all this time? The explanation is clear as day: the public is less likely to vote for older candidates because they believe old age is a problem. That's why there is a low probability if winning if you are over seventy.

Your explanation makes no sense for the reasons stated above. It contradicts the fact that polls of voters show that age is an issue, by saying they are less likely to vote for a candidate that is 70 or older.

He's lost "virtually" every hypothetical matchup with Obama? wtf does that mean? He's won multiple hypothetical polls against Obama. All you have to do is re-read through this thread to find them. Age isn't an issue for Paul, just like it wasn't an issue with Reagan or any of the other old dudes that ran and won. Age is never a real issue. It's something pea-brain fucks like yourself bring up for something to talk about.

"Oh my god he's so old! No one will vote for an old guy!... well except all the other old dudes that have won.

You should read the thread then, because it's clearly he's lost the overwhelming majority of matchups. It's not even a contest:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1750.html

I count 2 out 68 (not counting 2 ties which are a wash). Your whole argument appears to be saying the weasel phrase "multiple ones" to hide that awful trouncing...

That's because the question is based on an unknown candidate. Show me some polling on whether or not people think Ron Paul specifically is too old to be president.

Now we have to bring you statistics specifically tailored for Ron Paul to determine if something is an issue? By your logic Ron Paul is immortal, since nobody has a study on the mortality of Ron Paul

The study applies to any candidate precisely because they were asked to think about any Presidential candidate, and not just one in specific. If you think that Ron Paul is magically immune to the opinions of the public about Presidential candidates, and that suddenly age wouldn't be a point against him (again, note that this doesn't mean he's incapable of getting votes or winning; it means it's less likely), then present the evidence.

75% is twice as much as 25%? This kinda of shit makes me wonder why I continue to bother to respond. Anyways, my point is still valid because if you break down the entire 42 presidents into 4 age brackets, you get roughly 25% for each of the age brackets. There is no real discernible trend from the ages of presidents past. It's been pretty much random up to this point.

You're right, it's three times as much. Thank you for making my point for me.

And no, if you break down the ages in 4 identical age brackets, you do not get roughly 25% for each. You get a small amount for the lowest and highest brackets (i.e. Ron Paul falls in the highest), and a very large amount in the two middle ones. That's almost the very definition of a normal distribution. And that's ignoring that this is just your bullshit trick to twist the fact in your favor.

We're arguing a matter of opinion. Whether or not age is an issue in this election. It is not.

No, that's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. I've already supported that fact with evidence, where as you've established that you're willing to ignore that evidence so long as it supports Ron Paul.

He's won the youth vote in almost every state. At least all the early states when people were still reporting on such things.

So? It's troubling that you still don't get how that is a meaningless point to make. He can win, Nobody said he couldn't. He can get the youth vote. Nobody said he couldn't. The point is that age is working against him, and that's a demonstrable fact.

[Psych]

Ok, you win. Age is an important factor in this election. If Ron Paul were younger, everyone would have voted for him.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

Ok, you win. Age is an important factor in this election. If Ron Paul were younger, everyone would have voted for him.

You can't even admit your point was wrong gracefully. It's pathetic.

No, this isn't about winning, and no, not everyone would have voted for him. Clearly, there are people who disagree with Ron Paul regardless of his age and would not vote for him if he was younger. Just as there are people who would vote for him even if he was 90+.

The point being discussed was whether age is an issue. It is. The majority of the public (i.e. not all) is less likely to vote for a candidate that is 70+, let alone 80 as Paul would be in a hypothetical run in 2016.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

You can't even admit your point was wrong gracefully. It's pathetic.

No, this isn't about winning, and no, not everyone would have voted for him. Clearly, there are people who disagree with Ron Paul regardless of his age and would not vote for him if he was younger. Just as there are people who would vote for him even if he was 90+.

The point being discussed was whether age is an issue. It is. The majority of the public is less likely to vote for a candidate that is 70+, let alone 80 as Paul would be in a hypothetical run in 2016.

That's because I'm just sick of arguing back and forth. Pathetic is continuing to rail on like this even though I gave up.

More people would vote for Ron Paul if he were younger.

There. Does that satisfy your need for graceful conversation. You rusty cunt bucket.

[Rust]

Gave up? You didn't give up, you replied with some snarky bullshit trying to paint me as the bad-guy.

If you don't like a long discussion, then maybe next time you will stop avoiding facts and evidence whenever they refute your claims. This would have been an incredibly short conversation had you said, "Oh wow, 58% of the population says that they are less likely to vote for a Presidential candidate if he was 70 years old or older? Well, I disagree with them but I guess I was wrong it seems age is an issue.".

[dephdiddy]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee.

Do you think it would do the country good if he was? I wonder about what the alternative to the federal reserve would be, i suppose resource based? state handled?

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by dephdiddy

Do you think it would do the country good if he was?

No, it wouldn't be. Imagine Reagan on steroids, that's who Ron Paul is.

[Malice]

Reagan was a progressive:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...301.green.html

You should really read this, it's information you can use against ignorant conservatives.

[ZappaFan]

Corruption: GOP Strips Ron Paul Delegates of Their Credentials - YouTube

Corruption: GOP Strips Ron Paul Delegates of Their Credentials - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

Gave up? You didn't give up, you replied with some snarky bullshit trying to paint me as the bad-guy.

If you don't like a long discussion, then maybe next time you will stop avoiding facts and evidence whenever they refute your claims. This would have been an incredibly short conversation had you said, "Oh wow, 58% of the population says that they are less likely to vote for a Presidential candidate if he was 70 years old or older? Well, I disagree with them but I guess I was wrong it seems age is an issue.".

I'm not "avoiding the facts." Opinion polls are not facts. They're opinions. What people say they will do and what people do are two totally different things. There is no scientific way to know how or why people vote for anyone. Here are some "facts";

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/op...pagewanted=all
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/Renka_papers/polls.htm
http://biasinonlinesurveys.idiary.com/?p=50

And when it comes to the rest of your original opinion poll, Paul is the most desirable candidate. From military service, which apparently is the most important factor to the people polled. All the way down to gender and marital status. Paul's almost the ideal candidate according to that opinion poll. Yet that doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to the election, because people don't vote based on piddly shit like that. They vote on bigger issues. Not age or gender or marital status or whatever.

I put my opinion out that age isn't a factor for Ron Paul. There are a hundred different issues that people are voting on, age ain't one of them. The only people I've heard say that age is an issue is you and media pundits. I've responded to everything you've said. At this point we're just going in circles so I give up. There's nothing left for me to say on the issue.

For some reason though, it's important to you that I say that you were right all along. You have an insanely large ego. That's ok though. I'm pretty much just like you, and you even managed to suck me back in to the argument with your insults. We're two peas in a pod.

No wait. I'm done now. I swear.

Originally Posted by ZappaFan

Corruption: GOP Strips Ron Paul Delegates of Their Credentials - YouTube

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1613763.html

Republican officials are still waking up to the fact that Paul loyalists -- who control the majority of delegates in Maine, Minnesota and Iowa, and have sizable contingents in a number of other states -- could very likely enter Paul's name into nomination for vice president. This would force a roll call vote where each delegate of each state is polled on the floor of the convention.

Such a move would transform a symbolic procedure that has taken mere minutes in the past several conventions into a chaotic and time-consuming spectacle that could eat up the better portion of a day.

Not only would such a floor fight step all over the message of party unity and strength that the Romney campaign hopes to drive through the convention, it would also open the door for alternatives to Romney's choice to gain momentum and further drive the process off the rails.

For example, if Romney chose Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as his vice presidential pick, but the Paul forces leveraged their impressive foothold in several states to nominate Paul from the floor, then someone like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) could emerge as the preferred pick for many delegates as the convention goes into a roll call vote. And Rubio's name could be entered into nomination, in addition to Paul's, if a plurality of five states voted to nominate him.

Where things would go from there is anybody's guess.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

I'm not "avoiding the facts." Opinion polls are not facts. They're opinions. What people say they will do and what people do are two totally different things. There is no scientific way to know how or why people vote for anyone.

No, what they are testing is opinion (i.e. the opinion of the average American voter) but what they report is a factual statement of their results. They report statistics, figures and numbers representing the results, not "opinion".

While you're right that what people say they will do and what people do are different things, that doesn't help your argument. Not only do we have evidence of what they do (i.e. a Gaussian distribution of who they elect for President demonstrating a very small probability of electing anyone who is older than 70+, matching what they say) but you've given absolutely no reason to think that what they do would be so drastically different from what they report will do, that age would suddenly not be an issue.

Even if we throw you a (ridiculous and unfair) bone and say that half of the people were lying, that would still leave a substantial portion of the population that say age is an issue.

Here are some "facts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/op...pagewanted=all
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/Renka_papers/polls.htm
http://biasinonlinesurveys.idiary.com/?p=50

Yeah, too bad those examples don't really apply to the study I linked to or are minor issues that aren't going to magically do away with the fact that voters report age being an issue. Even if you drastically increase the margin of error, my point is still made.

Furthermore, you apparently had no problem accepting opinion polls when it helps Ron Paul, as evidenced by you repeatedly boasting that Ron Paul wins the youth vote and that he won "multiple" hypothetical match-ups against Obama.

And when it comes to the rest of your original opinion poll, Paul is the most desirable candidate. From military service, which apparently is the most important factor to the people polled. All the way down to gender and marital status. Paul's almost the ideal candidate according to that opinion poll. Yet that doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to the election, because people don't vote based on piddly shit like that. They vote on bigger issues. Not age or gender or marital status or whatever.

First of all, nobody is saying that Paul didn't have other qualities that are favorable. He obviously can and does have favorable qualities; however that doesn't make age not an issue. Your point is a red-herring and moot.

Worse of all, it's also not really true. Gender and Marital statuses are the same for the other candidates. And while military service is high on the list of positives (with 48% more likely to vote), being 70+ or older is high on the list of negatives (with 48% less likely to vote for them), and we can only imagine it would be even higher for anyone 80+.

I put my opinion out that age isn't a factor for Ron Paul. There are a hundred different issues that people are voting on, age ain't one of them. The only people I've heard say that age is an issue is you and media pundits. I've responded to everything you've said. At this point we're just going in circles so I give up. There's nothing left for me to say on the issue.

Yeah, again, this isn't a matter of your opinion. I have evidence demonstrating that it is a factor for U.S. Presidential candidates while you have absolute no shred of evidence supporting that it wouldn't be a factor for Paul. You don't get to excuse that by trotting out an "opinion" card.

If the only people you've read saying it's an issue are me and media pundits then clearly you didn't read the study Pew Research Center study I linked to since those are scientists and statisticians behind that study.

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by Psych

Republican officials are still waking up to the fact that Paul loyalists -- who control the majority of delegates in Maine, Minnesota and Iowa, and have sizable contingents in a number of other states -- could very likely enter Paul's name into nomination for vice president. This would force a roll call vote where each delegate of each state is polled on the floor of the convention.

Such a move would transform a symbolic procedure that has taken mere minutes in the past several conventions into a chaotic and time-consuming spectacle that could eat up the better portion of a day.

Not only would such a floor fight step all over the message of party unity and strength that the Romney campaign hopes to drive through the convention, it would also open the door for alternatives to Romney's choice to gain momentum and further drive the process off the rails.

For example, if Romney chose Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as his vice presidential pick, but the Paul forces leveraged their impressive foothold in several states to nominate Paul from the floor, then someone like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) could emerge as the preferred pick for many delegates as the convention goes into a roll call vote. And Rubio's name could be entered into nomination, in addition to Paul's, if a plurality of five states voted to nominate him.

Where things would go from there is anybody's guess.

If the convention is not supposed to actually decide anything, why waste the money on it in the first place?

Many tyrants in history have used "stability" as a pretense for absolute power. Freedom inherently leads to unpredictability in this sense, which is good!

[JeffreyH]

Psych, just add Rust to your ignore list, nobody reads his posts anyway. Talking to him is a waste of time.

[Rust]

[Shrike]

Churchill was like 66 when he became PM in 1940, and he went on to win the 1951 election at the age of 77. It's not completely unheard of.

I'd take Paul any day over Romney or Obama.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Rust

1. Multiple candidates that were 70+ old have run and lost. You have demonstrated no lack of candidates of that age.


.

Mike Gravel, John McCain, and Ron Paul are the 3 oldest candidates to ever run for President...

[Rust]

You point?

I haven't said that old candidates cannot win, or they they haven't run, or that those weren't the oldest candidates

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Rust

You point?

I haven't said that old candidates cannot win, or they they haven't run, or that those weren't the oldest candidates

you said "nobody in the US is going to elect an 80 year old man". Thats because there's only been a couple in history to run for president.. if lifespans continue to increase I bet there will be.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Danger

you said "nobody in the US is going to elect an 80 year old man". Thats because there's only been a couple in history to run for president.. if lifespans continue to increase I bet there will be.

You mentioned the oldest 3, that doesn't mean those are the only old people to have run. Furthermore, I said age would be a problem. I acknowledge there was a small possibility to win even at that age.

You're right though; if life-spans continue to increase then the age issue will shift. Let's not kid ourselves by pretending that's going to happen for Ron Paul, who would be 80+, when it's still an issue for 60+ candidates.

[JeffreyH]

The effect of his age on his performance in this race has been negligible. Not worth discussing.

[Rust]

And you know that how exactly? Barring direct polls asking that question (i.e. "Does Ron Paul's age make you less likely to vote for him"), the only measure of how much it has affected him would be opinion polls of a candidate in general, and they suggest a significant effect as it has already been discussed.

[Shrike]

The thing with Ron Paul is he's pretty much the only honest candidate out there. He says what he believes and doesn't change his tune to suit the occasion. Whereas Romney flip flops from interview to interview, and Obama says one thing and then does the complete opposite.

If I lived in the US, i'd vote for Ron Paul. I think his stance on the military is the only one worth listening to, and he seems the most likely to make actual significant cuts and savings in spending. Sure, I wouldn't be keen on him getting rid of a lot of benefits and whatnot, but you know you have to be honest about these things. Obama would have you believe that you can increase social spending while having a terrible economy and with a ballooning deficit. And Romney wants to make the strongest military in the world while cutting more taxes. They're both incredibly dishonest people, and the general voting public are either too stupid to see that, or don't care enough to think about it for a minute. They'd rather get another credit card or five, and worry about the consequences later.

[Rust]

Being "honest" is moot if you disagree with his policies like I do. He wants to make the constitution define "life" to begin in conception to fit his staunch Christian views. That's frighting. I'd rather have a politician playing a politican's game, than a honest young-earth creationist Christian in charge.

If what you want is a libertarian, then you can easily vote for Gary Johnson (libertarian candidate), who has as much libertarian-chops as Paul does, but isn't fucking batshit insane.

[Cory]

Ron Paul collects Social Security. Just putting that out there. It's just like Malice, what's okay for him isn't okay for others.

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by Cory

Ron Paul collects Social Security. Just putting that out there. It's just like Malice, what's okay for him isn't okay for others.

He had to pay into it, didn't he though?

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Rust

Being "honest" is moot if you disagree with his policies like I do. He wants to make the constitution define "life" to begin in conception to fit his staunch Christian views. That's frighting. I'd rather have a politician playing a politican's game, than a honest young-earth creationist Christian in charge.

If what you want is a libertarian, then you can easily vote for Gary Johnson (libertarian candidate), who has as much libertarian-chops as Paul does, but isn't fucking batshit insane.

Just use birth control when you have sex and shut the fuck up. It's not like any law like that would happen without a lot of supreme court bullshit and taking years and years, if it ever got through.

Meanwhile, apparently nobody disagrees with Obama choosing daily which poor brown person to kill on a set of "terrorist baseball cards" and bombing them and their family and anyone else in the vicinity.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Shrike

Just use birth control when you have sex and shut the fuck up. It's not like any law like that would happen without a lot of supreme court bullshit and taking years and years, if it ever got through.

Yeah, birth control doesn't always work and it isn't without risk. Even if we ignore that, it's still a absurd proposition to define where life beings in the first place. Stop trying to ignore that just because you like Ron Paul.

Oh, and you're thinking regular old legislation. No. This would be a constitutional amendment. Though he has in the past supported Federal legislation on abortion as well (contradicting himself and the role of the Federal government).

[Cory]

Originally Posted by JeffreyH

He had to pay into it, didn't he though?

The same can be said for almost any other form of welfare.

[Malice]

Originally Posted by Cory

Ron Paul collects Social Security. Just putting that out there. It's just like Malice, what's okay for him isn't okay for others.

Ha, reminds me of this: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/201...nd-social.html

Oh no Mr. Government, you just keep everything you forced me to pay, I don't want anything in return. Yeah, that's real libertarian.

[Danger]

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Malice

Oh no Mr. Government, you just keep everything you forced me to pay, I don't want anything in return. Yeah, that's real libertarian.

So I assume this is your justification for receiving welfare?

[Malice]

Yes, I'm likely going to be filthy rich in the future and I expect them to steal far more from me that I received in welfare. I deserve welfare.

Besides, it was the government that ruined the economy and forced me into a life of dependency. Think of all the hard they've done, the recessions, depressions, education system, medical system, cronyism, barriers to entry, regulation (autistic, binary, triangular), wars, imprisoning, it just goes on and on.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Malice

Yes, I'm likely going to be filthy rich in the future and I expect them to steal far more from me that I received in welfare. I deserve welfare.

Is bestiality porn really that lucrative?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Malice

Yes, I'm likely going to be filthy rich in the future.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

Being "honest" is moot if you disagree with his policies like I do. He wants to make the constitution define "life" to begin in conception to fit his staunch Christian views. That's frighting. I'd rather have a politician playing a politican's game, than a honest young-earth creationist Christian in charge.

If what you want is a libertarian, then you can easily vote for Gary Johnson (libertarian candidate), who has as much libertarian-chops as Paul does, but isn't fucking batshit insane.

What the fuck you talking about? Johnson agrees with NAFTA for fucksakes. He wants to keep guantanamo open. He wants to continue to give foriegn aid to israel. How can you even claim that to be libertarian? Libertarian my ass. Johnson just like the moniker libertarian because it gets him votes in new mexico.

Originally Posted by Cory

The same can be said for almost any other form of welfare.

Not true. Social security is given out based on your contribution to the fund, while welfare is given out on a need by need basis. There is nothing un-libertarian about taking from an investment fund of which you are an investor.

[Tachosomoza]

He's on the Libertarian Party ticket.