Implying Obama, or the other GOP are worse than Dr. Paul....

>>348476686
seriously? Ron Paul has a pretty long history of saying the same things, voting the same way, etc.

>implying his religion has anything to do with his policies.

we have freedom of religion in the country.

Ron Paul is crazy, crazy consistent and honest.

>>348476686
Obama may be a war criminal who drops bombs on Muslims, but at least he's not a creationist

>>348477326
>one nation under god
lolokay.jpg

ron paul is teh awesome

>idiots shouldn't vote for idiots

isn't idiots voting for eachother the backbone of democracy?

>>348477750
what was the last religion that existed without a god?
>thatswhatifuckingthought.jpg

>>348477750
yeah, cuz our gubmint death squads march around telling you to say the pledge or else

>>348478063

Not all religions have a deity btw. But "Under God" wasn't added until the 1950s as well anyway.

>>348478063
buddhism?

Your fortune: Godly Luck

> implying 'fag­got' is a proper noun.

Ron is the only adult running for president.
I could see if you had a child's mind that you might think he was crazy.

Ron Paul makes doesn't have the whole being black thing. He won't get a vote for being the first black president. His voters would actually be voting for what he stands for.

>>348478514
if only everyone had big grown-up minds like yours, then they'd vote for who you vote for and eat what you like to eat and watch your favorite TV shows.

Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail

When will these idiots realize that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, no matter what you may think of him or how many threads there are on /b­­/?

Ron Paul is my dude, man.

ron paul wont win because the man doesnt want him to win
if ron paul doesnt win then its over man, its over!

>>348478907
ron paul raped my grandfather's dog

>>348478892
well thats like, your opinion, man

>>348478892
Never doubt that a small minority of people can effect change. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. from shit i saw in nickelback music vids

Your fortune: Better not tell you now

>>348479120

It's going to be a fact in about a 1.2 years.

>>348477417
I don't know. Back in 2007, CNN found copies of "The Ron Paul Report". In it, there were articles that were virulently anti-black. Yeah, I know that newt gingrich doesn't care about roody-poos, but Paul's reaction to the newsletters were telling. Paul denied being the author of the articles, a plausible contention, but Paul also denied any knowledge about the content of the newsletter; he claimed that the editors took care of that. Really? A newsletter goes out in your name for seven years, and you never once take a peek to see what's inside? It's obvious that Paul is lying to cover his ass, just like any politician would. Had he said, 'yeah, I used to be a racist, but I'm not anymore. Judge me as you will," that would have been one thing. But he lies to our faces.

...Sucks to be American.

Don't vote OP, all of the candidates are there because they licked some Illuminati ass, or are half-bloods themselves. Anyone willing to lead people has other ambitions which include you sucking shit in a gutter. The bi-party system is a lie to keep people busy and chattering about the huge joke, while the both of them line their pockets, only fools don't see this and take part in it. Fuck the system, and fuck the reps.

>>348479728
eh...I'm aware of the newsletters, but I really do have a hard time connecting Paul with them...I mean his votes don't match his racism, and his public rhetoric doesn't either...he frequently points out that our foreign policy and drug policy affect minorities far worse than others

well the media doesnt give a fuck about ron paul because hes to fucking hardcore they have a hardon for dick dairy the most candy-ass person to run for president and fucking sarah palin 2.0 michelle cockman

>>348479750
where at least i know i'm free

Your fortune: Bad Luck

>>348480697

I lol'd. You're definitely a moron.

>>348480697
and I won't forget the men who died
for corporate business interest

>>348480859
and they'll make me stand up
next to you
and kill her sometime today
cuz there aint no doubt

ITT: americans who dont realize they are only as free as their government lets them be

>>348480858
i ws being farcickle

>>348481356
cus there aint no doubt we ruined this land
greed fucked the USA

>>348481643
here's a satire i wrote:
o beautiful for smoggy skies
insecticided rain
for striped mined mountains' majesty
upon the asphalt plain
america, america
man sheds his waste on thee
and hides the pines with billboard signs
from sea to oily SEA!!!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul is a dumbass candidate, about as bad as Michelle Bachmann. I honestly think /b/ is so obsessed with voting him in just for the lulz.

>>348481976
lol only dumbasses are against bombing the fuck out of foreigners

>>348477556
actually he is

>>348481825

No. George Carlin wrote that early in his career.

Plagarism is so ugly.

>>348481825
not bad, man

>>348481976
So there was this note some people wrote a while back... called the constitution. Most politicians thinks it's alright to snip away at it, cut corners and legislate loopholes. Paul doesn't think it's a good idea. That's why a lot of politicians are against him.

>>348482304
>>348482304
shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits

>>348480216
Maybe. But Paul's stance on the Civil Rights Act is also worrisome. I know that his rationale against it, that the Federal government using the Commerce Clause to enforce the Civil Rights Act is illegitimate, has the color of respectability, but I seriously don't want to rehash the entire civil rights era if Paul were to be elected president.

>>348481825
lol stealing from Carlin

>>348482958
what's so worrisome? you do realize that the account of civil rights that we're told in school is not entirely accurate, right? I'll explain it real quick: Why did segregation exist in the South? NOT soley because of racism. Remember the Jim Crow LAWS? That's right, laws. Not Jim Crow ATTITUDES or something, Jim Crow LAWS. The government FORCED segregation. If you owned a railroad company and wanted to have whites and black share a car...too bad. It was against the law. Think about it...if government hadn't intervened to pass racist laws, then businesses would have had the freedom to have integration, which would probably have caught on sooner or later. The Civil Rights Act should merely have repealed these laws. Instead, it repealed them, and instead of saying "if you want to discriminate, you still can, but if you don't want to discriminate, that's fine too" it said "you can't discriminate". there was no middle step. we went from government involvement creating a problem of racism to a government "solution".

>>348482999
>steal from one of the most well known comedians
>think it will go unnoticed
>mfw
also nice trips

Average American.

Just sayin.

>>348482958
Basically it's like this. Ron Paul believes every state should be so goddamn individual and customize-able, to a sense that they are almost like individual countries. He stands behind a stts right to do drastic things like allowing businesses to ban service to people of a certain color, to allow or not allow gay marriage, drugs, etc, and other things like this.

But let me make this clear, he supports the states RIGHT to VOTE for these things. As in majority vote. Not just like, someone out of the blue wanting to ban white people from a bar or something, majority vote would hate to allow it first.

He's not a bigot, but he supports the right of the bigot to exist. does that make sense?

>>348483622
er...I pointed out the stealing...I didn't do the stealing...

>>348482304
lol i AM GORGE CARLYNNE

American elections are like voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, i don't know why anyone bothers

I voted for him last time I'll vote for him this time.

>>348484594
mfw when southparked

>>348483848
i support states rights, i think its too hard to have this many people in a country and govern properly. with states rights people have a better selection of places to live that better suites their need/opinions. also i think the concept of being able to ban a certain race from a company or something similar should be legal. obv you are a racist prick for doing it and your company will probably be much less successful because of it, but hey its ur company bro, the fuck i care.

>>348484903
good. I was an idiot and voted for McCain, this time I'll vote for Paul

>>348484903
awesome story bro

>>348485338
right? It's the libertarian idea... I mean I don't support segregation, racism, etc... but I also don't support taking those rights from other people. but say, if people were advocating violence against another person, then by all means the law can be there to protect them.

>>348486514
>but I also don't support taking those rights from other people. but say,
With this you are taking away the most important right of all: the right of the minority to be free from the terrible tyranny of the majority.

>>348487245
let's say alabama votes that they can outlaw business to people of a minority, then a handful of business do it. Say they are bars, outlawing anyone except white people.

I would say, that other bars, would gain more business, no?

>>348487245
you are infering the majority is racist which isnt true
my roomate last year was black and didnt want to hang out with me simply because i was white, words from his mouth. the minority can be racist as well

>>348483531
>>348483848
So, if a state passed a law enforcing segregation, would Paul say that the state has the right to create and enforce such a law, or would Paul say that government enforced segregation is illegal, only private discrimination is legal?

>>348487631
*votes to allow businesses to reject people of a minority

sorry.
my point is, this is where competition comes in.

>>348487631
perhaps they would until Alabama decided to vote everyone but white people out of the state.

>>348487657
I inferred no such thing and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Obama was an idiot from the get go, and I never praised him.

there is no way the state of alabama as a majority votes minorites to be forced to leave, whether it is legal or not

>>348487916
well of course as long as they are american citizens they would be equal to the government. I'm not sure I get what you're asking. If the private sector wanted to ban certain people from their businsness, and the state voted this to be legal, Paul would support the state because like we all know, people in a smaller community usually know how to legislate better than the people who watch over the larger community. right? And the state laws are the next step down.

>>348488445
>forced to leave
no I don't think he would support that... even if they did manage to com up with 51% vote.

>>348488459
>people in a smaller community usually know how to legislate better than the people who watch over the larger community.
No. Why do you hate the republic?

>>348488658
but his support doesn't matter, right?

>>348488043
doyouhaveanyideahowfuckingretardedyouare.jpg

The only ones who think Obama is "as bad as Bush" are those who voted Republican in the last election and the "undecided" (read: they have no fucking clue what's going on) dumb enough to believe them.

>>348488751
because republics fail when dealing with millions of people. especially when those ellected dont give a fuck about their consticuants

>>348489247
but the states deal with millions of people, too. Are you saying the next step should be to favor the rights of the municipality over the rights of the state?

>>348488903
I'm not sure the powers of the president. They seem to have a lot more than we realize. Overturning state law is one of them. But if this is true, and say a state would try to ban a certain kind of people, and the outcome was projected to be close to winning, do you think people would move to Alabama, jut for the sole purpose of fighting against it?

Oh look, another person who cares about Ron Pauls personal views.

Sorry, thought he was running for president, not the Atheist club of roody-poos.

Carry on.

>>348489153
wrong.. I supported Obama all the way until early this year. He promised to being the troops home ASAP, and failed miserably. We now have ~5 wars, and Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to even TALK about bringing them home, and shrinking the size of our military.

All the other candidates want to expand the military. All the other candidates are pro-war.

>>348489517
I do not know what they would do. Would it matter? How long do you have to be a resident of a state before you can vote in state elections? What does this have to do with anything?

ofc crazy fanatic groups would, but obviously they wont have enough leverage to do anything significant. plus you need to worry about residency and stuff to vote in a state, more complicated than just showing up at their polls

honestly, even if you dont like ron pauls ideas, he is the only one who will brg the troops home, this will fix so much of the economy itself. if you dont like what he does then elect someone else after his 4 years, but at least we will no longer be at war and would have had some time to financially recoop

>>348488751
Our republic is at federal level only. Our local state level is a democracy.

>>348489427
This is where county legislation comes in.

>>348489650
exactly. libertarians's believe in liberty before their own views.

>>348489829
well, this is hypothetical, but it's all about competition. if someone in texas, or arizona, or washington, or new york thought the individual liberties of the miority were important to protect, they would move, and support their rights. Not everyone would, but it would happen. also, ron paul support's the individual rights. so no, I don't think he would support that even if it did come up.

>>348489917
exactly. in today's time, do you think majority would vote to segregate so much? That's a lot of people. If every racist in america moved to one state, this would be plausible. but not otherwise

>>348490381
i highly doubt it would come up, the majority of america is not racist enough to get those kinds of laws passed

OK this is good, we're discussing the negative aspects of being able to vote for your own liberties.

Can we name some positive shit to come from this kind of system now?

>>348488459
No, I'm asking this. There are two ways Ron Paul could allow discrimination: he could say, "OK, if the state of Florida wanted to ban Muslims, I might disagree with this personally, but I don't think that the Federal government has any right to get involved with this case." Or he could say, "The state of Florida cannot pass this law because government, whether the United States federal government, the state of Florida, or cities, cannot pass discriminatory laws, nor can they enforce anti-discriminatory laws." Which is it?

>>348490381
> liberty
always I see this word tossed around when people are trying to justify being complete monsters toward each other in this country. It sickens me.
>This is where county legislation comes in.
And should county legislation trump state legislation?

>>348491076
>liberty
but why do you see that as a bad thing?
in this sense, say someone is a racist libertarian. they hate all kinds of people but one kind, but at the same time, they believe in liberty for all. the liberty trumps the racism, and therefore thy wouldn't do anything to harm people thy don't like. you know? it's ok to hte people because it's natural, but when you impose thigns on them is when it bcomes a problem.

no, county legislation doesn't trump state legislation. county legislation is more for, how to handle funds recieved by the state, where to do construction, things like that.

>>348490884
being able to truly choose and be free to do what you want regardless of previous taboos/stereotypes and other peoples perception. in the end you only have your own life so stop trying to control the lives of others, it just makes everyone less happy. i for one love weed and this is one tiny example of a thing that i must conceal out of fear of government interfearence with my life. though obviously ron pauls weed stance is such a minimal part of why im voting for him, its more his stance toward that concept of taboo items like marijuana and true freedom of choice

btw threads like this is why i <3 u guys, for or against logical disscussion is nothing but proactive

>>348490989
Well he would say neither, he would support the first amendment. Cannot pass any law regarding religion.

>>348491558
Maybe don't pick the weed subject when argurin for him. That's why a lot of people don't like him and his supporters. just saying.

but you're right, a lot of our current laws are based on "morality", like gay marriage laws, drugs laws, etc. Paul sees this as being wrong, and believes "you can't protect people from themselves."

>>348491527
>no, county legislation doesn't trump state legislation.
Then why should state legislation trump federal legislation?
>but when you impose thigns on them is when it bcomes a problem.
Why the fuck are we even having a civilization if not to impose on man's wild and violent nature?

>>348491705
wat about soley based on skin color

>>348490989
also this would be taken to court, and would be ratified as soon as it was passed. fist amendment.

>>348491558
>in the end you only have your own life so stop trying to control the lives of others,
I understand the appeal of this, but what happens, say, when a powerful corporation, say a natural gas company, starts dumping mercury into the river? President Paul would simply say, "If that corporation wants to dump mercury into the river, they have the liberty to do so. You can dump mercury into the river too if you want." Obviously, if given perfect liberty, some people will abuse this.

>>348491705
Now you bring in the bill of rights? Where was the bill of rights before when you were talking about the LIBERTY and FREEDOM to vote in any sort of nonsense you wanted?

>>348491998
u have a better example to use? honestly this is my first pres election i can vote for and am just not getting into it. i understand you cant change public perception and the second weed is mentioned people immediatly form a negative opinion which harms my argument

>>348492148
personal liberty without harming others, dumping mercury harms many people and the enviornment. its just like murdering someone, murder isnt ok just because you have a strong stance on personal liberty

>>348492311
btw i ment **now getting into it lol
not not

It's true. It's part of American culture to blame the president for everything and be pissed when they realize he can't do everything they want. "This guy is different."

No matter who they support in an election, they'll end up hating him when they realize that they're idiots for thinking he'll be a god and grant them everything they want.

And if you still support a president well into his tenure, people assume you're a mindless robot supporter. Our politics are a mess.

>>348492502
>personal liberty without harming others
So do you think malls and bars with "WHITES ONLY" signs isn't harmful to anyone?

>>348492062
>>348491705
It only talks about the state not being able to establish a religion. My scenario wouldn't fall under this. I mean, this distinction between the two is incredibly important. does anynewt gingrich know what Paul's stance is?

emotional harm is different from physical harm. if you want to go to a bar that allows all races than buy one. the racist bar owner bought theirs and has a right to serve who he wants

>>348492055
county legislation is also a republic, with high influence from the city counsel, and the people who go to the meetings. we elect those people to make decisions regarding our money. I'm not too familiar with this so bare with me. State legislation *should* trump federal legislation because at state level, we as citizens can vote for our own laws, something we can't do in a federal sense. If all laws we're dictated at federal level, our whole country would have the same laws and we wouldn't have a say in them. but when our laws are dictated at state level, we absolutely have a say in them, and every state, all 50, would have significantly different laws.
>wild nature
Well, slight imposing is where we stand. the difference between libertarian-ism and anarchy is a silver lining. Say, I don't want to impose a persons right to own a gun, or shoot it, but I don't want to impose another person's right to not b shot. which would trump the first person's right to shoot someone.

>>348492062
I'm not sure exactly. like we said, I dno't think there is enough people to vote for this for it to even be plausable, but I'm not ron paul so I wouldn't know what he would do if the situation came up. I'll try and think mroe about it.

>>348492148
no, this would be imposing the life of the people who use the water for other reasons. he would be against it.

>>348492304
huh? well under current legislation, we can't really vote for everything we want. drugs, marriage, etc.

>>348492311
well the big ones are rights of women for abortions, rights of gays to marry, rights of drugs laws of course. it's ok, it's interesting stuff when you hear him speak. he makes so much sense it's eerie. check this video, one of his best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNJmRSTOUNI&playnext=1&list=PL7DECF9FFB27E1697

>>348493413
what if I can't afford to buy my own bar? what is my recourse then?