Treasure Moment 04.01.2008 20:37 |
Everyone in usa vote for RON PAUL as he is the ONLY one who can save us. ALL the other candidates work for the elite and NOT for you! RON PAUL link RON PAUL for PRESIDENT |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 04.01.2008 20:44 |
ive been a fan of his for years,one of the better drag queens,i liked his duet with Elton John ;-] |
DavidRFuller 04.01.2008 20:46 |
Wow I actually agree with you Treasure Moment. |
Music Man 04.01.2008 20:56 |
And suddenly, at that very moment, my absolutely steadfast support for Ron Paul suddenly lost all of its credibility. |
Treasure Moment 04.01.2008 21:18 |
DavidRFuller wrote: Wow I actually agree with you Treasure Moment.i must admit i have respect for you seeing all your queen videos on youtube, you are a true fan. btw how long is the full version of face it alone? |
DavidRFuller 04.01.2008 23:38 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Well thanks, I've only got what has been shared here so I dunno. Hopefully the whole thing will be released some day.DavidRFuller wrote: Wow I actually agree with you Treasure Moment.i must admit i have respect for you seeing all your queen videos on youtube, you are a true fan. btw how long is the full version of face it alone? |
Treasure Moment 05.01.2008 05:20 |
DavidRFuller wrote:Alright, thanks for putting up face it alone, i had never heard it until i saw your video on it.Treasure Moment wrote:Well thanks, I've only got what has been shared here so I dunno. Hopefully the whole thing will be released some day.DavidRFuller wrote: Wow I actually agree with you Treasure Moment.i must admit i have respect for you seeing all your queen videos on youtube, you are a true fan. btw how long is the full version of face it alone? |
thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2008 07:10 |
"Vote RON PAUL or we will suffer!" Two possibilities: One - So I understand that it is part of his policy to get you evicted from planet earth? 'Cause if it isn't, we will suffer anyway, whether we vote for him or not. Two - [old, fat, breathy-voiced Italian-American walks in, accompanied by three heavy-handed thugs] "I take it you will be voting for Ron Paul, won't you?" "Excuse me, voting for WHOM?" "Voting for the guy that'll keep your shop from getting beaten to shreds. Accidents happen, if you know what I mean...so don't forget that vote! Come on boys, fat Tony needs some spaghetti! I'm starving, haven't eaten in 15 minutes!" |
Poo, again 05.01.2008 07:49 |
You're not even American, TM. |
Treasure Moment 05.01.2008 08:04 |
<font color=pink>Poo wrote: You're not even American, TM.yes but it affects us all. |
StoneColdClassicQueen 05.01.2008 11:18 |
Chuck Norris affects us all.. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 05.01.2008 11:40 |
I wonder if Chuck Norris knows that? He may have to go after RON PAUL. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 05.01.2008 11:41 |
Will Treasure Moment be opening for Ron Paul at his campaign stops? If so, God help us. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 05.01.2008 11:41 |
Ears will be bleeding for yards around. |
Music Man 05.01.2008 15:09 |
Certain Ron Paul supporters are the number one reason why Ron Paul's support suffers. |
Treasure Moment 05.01.2008 15:14 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Certain Ron Paul supporters are the number one reason why Ron Paul's support suffers.not my fault im smarter than the rest and can actually THINK logically and not be a sheep like the rest |
Haystacks Calhoun II 05.01.2008 15:38 |
Chuck Norris is no sheep. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 05.01.2008 15:40 |
Chuck Norris once ate three 72 oz. steaks in one hour. He spent the first 45 minutes having sex with his waitress. |
LozlanTheMage 05.01.2008 17:54 |
Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support. |
Treasure Moment 05.01.2008 18:05 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.alright but consider this, he will remove the IRS so you dont have to pay income tax, get usa out of iraq, give back people liberties that is slowly being taken away for "security" check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about |
Legy 05.01.2008 18:26 |
Chuck Norris supports Mike Huckabee. link |
Music Man 05.01.2008 18:44 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.To clarify, there is no intent whatsoever to deprive women of any rights at all. Clearly, you are misinformed. Ron Paul is against the federal government legislating morality - just as he would be against federal legislation concerning homosexual marriage. It is not within the authority of the federal government to do so. Abortion is clearly an issue of morality, as the entire argument of both sides is completely and utterly founded upon the subjective opinion of when life gains value. Conception? Birth? Somewhere in between? Such subjectivism is impossible to objectively approach, and therefore the federal government should have nothing to do with it. Secondly, I can't see how anyone could be against national sovereignty. It is utterly surprising how people support the consolidation of power and government, and then they go on to oppose legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act. After all of history, people still fail to grasp the simple concept of "the government that governs best is that which governs least." In addition, any power granted to the UN is entirely artificial because nations are inherently sovereign. Libertarianism is constantly proven to be the most effective and the most objective political philosophy. The only problem is that it requires education and understanding, whereas most people tend to opt for simplicity and directness, which generally always results in unintended consequences. Libertarianism is, in fact, the art of making sure the actual consequences are that which are intended in the first place. |
LozlanTheMage 05.01.2008 21:27 |
A beautiful and deliciously biased breakdown of my very simple statement. Congradulations. Not only did you enforce the elitism of the libertarian mindset by impugning the intelligence of those either incapable or disinterested of comprehending its lofty ideology (indeed, a scant smattering of sarcasm), but you are expressely ignoring Ron Paul's frequent assertions that he is personally intensely pro-life. This proclivity for 'moral' reasoning is opposed to the national security of a woman's right to cleanse her body of a potential parasite - indeed, he maintains that each individual state should individually sanction a woman's rights. This equates to a breakdown of women's rights, since it is a certainty that numerous states would completely abolish abortion, a practice which is currently a sanctioned choice in this nation. Dress it up in lofty, ideological terminology, Ron Paul will dismiss Roe vs. Wade. I do not care if this dismissal is based in some high falutin' ideological claptrap - it is merely a trap. Also...the term 'generally always' doesn't mean what you think it means. |
LozlanTheMage 05.01.2008 22:13 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.alright but consider this, he will remove the IRS so you dont have to pay income tax, get usa out of iraq, give back people liberties that is slowly being taken away for "security" check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about |
Music Man 06.01.2008 01:01 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: A beautiful and deliciously biased breakdown of my very simple statement. Congradulations. Not only did you enforce the elitism of the libertarian mindset by impugning the intelligence of those either incapable or disinterested of comprehending its lofty ideology (indeed, a scant smattering of sarcasm), but you are expressely ignoring Ron Paul's frequent assertions that he is personally intensely pro-life. This proclivity for 'moral' reasoning is opposed to the national security of a woman's right to cleanse her body of a potential parasite - indeed, he maintains that each individual state should individually sanction a woman's rights. This equates to a breakdown of women's rights, since it is a certainty that numerous states would completely abolish abortion, a practice which is currently a sanctioned choice in this nation. Dress it up in lofty, ideological terminology, Ron Paul will dismiss Roe vs. Wade. I do not care if this dismissal is based in some high falutin' ideological claptrap - it is merely a trap. Also...the term 'generally always' doesn't mean what you think it means.Bias is in itself a useless word. Of course I am biased, just as you and every other person who has an opinion. However, a bias is only as valid as it is objective. Now it is simply completely obvious that you do not understand Ron Paul's views. Yes, he is personally pro-life. In fact, he's also anti-drugs. However, his personal beliefs have nothing to do with his political philosophy at all. He is against the federal government enforcing moral legislation. Legislation concerning gay marriage, abortion, and drugs is 100% outside of the federal government's Constitutionally-granted authority. Perhaps you've taken a look at the document? In the United States, it is the Supreme Law of the Land - far above any branch of government, or all three combined. The abortion debate isn't as simple as you seem to pretend it is. It is impossible to objectively draw the line of when abortion should be acceptable, if at all. Therefore, the issue is 100% subjective, much like deciding what your favorite musician is. Sure, if conception happened at random, then the debate would be easier. However, it is the actions of a person (two, to be exact) that result in the conception. Therefore, there is a duty to rescue - depending on where you believe "life" begins. The objectivism stops here, and your ultimate opinion lies on this one subjective surmisation. |
Music Man 06.01.2008 01:04 |
P.S. "Generally always" means in a vast majority of cases. Study economics. Until you've studied economics, you're diluting the political process. |
LozlanTheMage 06.01.2008 13:23 |
Was I proposing a simplicity concerning abortion? My dear friend, it is far and away the most complicated of concerns. But I shall come to that in a moment. It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks. There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history. In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led to the erection of the 'American Dream' as a means of perpetually oppressing a lower class vainly bent on achieving success by the skin of their teeth. You made broad assertions concerning Libertarianism and offer no proof to back it. I have known several libertarians, and to a man they were selfish, whining black holes, insistent that any gain they achieved in life was based solely in their superiority as human beings. Never mind the obvious boosts supplied by pale skin and vaunted economic status - no. They were veritable supermen, far and away better than the squalling masses. This is where our ideologies separate, and why this argument is quite futile. I believe in the abolishment of capitalist stratification. I believe in the dissolution of oppressive class structure. Libertarianism is a selfish economic policy that allows each rich man to remain rich, whilst clearing his consciousness of any responsibility to those who have failed to become wealthy. Regardless of how effective a policy it may be, it is strictly predatory and, in my view, acbingly sub-human. Oh yes, I am so ill-informed. Your pedantic tone has never ceased to amaze me; compounded with your implied sneer (what of the millions that have never studied economics as a serious persuit? Are we intellectually doomed to sub-standard living and treatment?) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of why he is doing so, Ron Paul will abolish Roe vs. Wade. Even if this is act of pure ideology, utterly untainted by his core personal beliefs, it is still a destructive decision that will lead to widespread suffering. That is why I oppose Ron Paul, laying all personal qualms with Libertarian thinking at the wayside. |
Treasure Moment 06.01.2008 19:39 |
to summon it up RON PAUL is the only choice for the people. if you want to vote for the elite to have an even better life than they already have then vote for any of the other candidates as they all work for the same people. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 06.01.2008 19:55 |
TURRRRNNN AROUND BRIIIIGHT EYES |
Sergei. 06.01.2008 20:58 |
I keep thinking of RuPaul for whatever reason. |
Raf 06.01.2008 21:30 |
LozlanTheMage wrote:Read "Harry Potter and the Prisioner of Azkaban" by J. K. Rowling and both of you will get it.Treasure Moment wrote:Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about |
Vincent. 06.01.2008 21:42 |
<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: TURRRRNNN AROUND BRIIIIGHT EYESEVERY NOW AND THEN I GET A LITTLE BIT LONELY...something...something. xD |
Music Man 06.01.2008 23:29 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: Was I proposing a simplicity concerning abortion? My dear friend, it is far and away the most complicated of concerns. But I shall come to that in a moment. It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.So, what you are trying to say, is that there is no such person capable of performing the duties of the office of President of the United States of America from an objective perspective. Therefore, we should vote for the candidate whose subjective beliefs we are most aligned with, and who will thrust these beliefs upon an entire nation. What you fail to notice is Ron Paul's impeccable track record, where he has consistently and objectively upheld his duties to the Constitution. LozlanTheMage wrote: There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have. LozlanTheMage wrote: In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led to the erection of the 'American Dream' as a means of perpetually oppressing a lower class vainly bent on achieving success by the skin of their teeth.Obviously economics, much like any other science or education, exists to the benefit of mankind. I see we have a difference in opinion, which is understandable. It is the primary decision when one considers socialism or capitalism. Equality or prosperity? What is better, a world where we are unequal, but all prosperous? Or a world where we are all equally destitute? LozlanTheMage wrote: You made broad assertions concerning Libertarianism and offer no proof to back it. I have known several libertarians, and to a man they were selfish, whining black holes, insistent that any gain they achieved in life was based solely in their superiority as human beings. Never mind the obvious boosts supplied by pale skin and vaunted economic status - no. They were veritable supermen, far and away better than the squalling masses.Who's making broad assertions? Under the ideal of Libertarianism, gains achieved in life are due entirely to effort and risk/reward. This only makes sense. It has nothing to do with superiority. Libertarianism is all about freedom. The ability to do as you wish so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. The same thing this country was founded upon. I guess the founding fathers were really evil entities. LozlanTheMage wrote: |
LozlanTheMage 06.01.2008 23:54 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:Alas! Earwax!LozlanTheMage wrote:Read "Harry Potter and the Prisioner of Azkaban" by J. K. Rowling and both of you will get it.Treasure Moment wrote:Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about |
yamaha 07.01.2008 00:00 |
From what I'm seeing from the possible candidates, I won't be voting. It's not that I don't like the choices. Actually, I can't find any major flaws in anyone that is in the running. For some reason, I can't imagine the country going to hell under the direction of the lizard queen or any of the others. I am getting the impression, though, that we will see our first black president elected in 2008. I see no reason to buy into anything unless distinctly compelled. I'm not voting, and won't complain about the results. |
Treasure Moment 07.01.2008 07:39 |
yamaha wrote: From what I'm seeing from the possible candidates, I won't be voting. It's not that I don't like the choices. Actually, I can't find any major flaws in anyone that is in the running. For some reason, I can't imagine the country going to hell under the direction of the lizard queen or any of the others. I am getting the impression, though, that we will see our first black president elected in 2008. I see no reason to buy into anything unless distinctly compelled. I'm not voting, and won't complain about the results.i cant understand why you dont want to someone as good as ron paul |
thomasquinn 32989 07.01.2008 07:59 |
That might be to do with the fact that your parents should've been sterilized at birth. |
thomasquinn 32989 07.01.2008 08:21 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:So, basically, what you are saying is that it is possible for a president to be completely neutral in every issue, putting his personal views aside, and judging right from wrong by applying the constitution to every matter? So, essentially, he is a one-man-supreme-court, over and above the parties? Did you know that this view was proposed in the ideology refered to as "Civic Humanism", deemed impossible and surrendered in the early 19th century, revived in the so-called Gilded Age, proven untenable and yet again reverted from? I'll give you a few quotes you might consider. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton (Historian) "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglas "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams To that I wish to add, that anyone who desires power is by definition not to be trusted with it. You argue that it is possible for someone to withstand the temptations of power. That lobby-groups will not bring him/her down. That he/she is in fact CAPABLE of knowing absolute right and wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above implicit suppositions I find in your response has been proven flawed over the years!LozlanTheMage wrote: Was I proposing a simplicity concerning abortion? My dear friend, it is far and away the most complicated of concerns. But I shall come to that in a moment. It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.So, what you are trying to say, is that there is no such person capable of performing the duties of the office of President of the United States of America from an objective perspective. Therefore, we should vote for the candidate whose subjective beliefs we are most aligned with, and who will thrust these beliefs upon an entire nation. What you fail to notice is Ron Paul's impeccable track record, where he has consistently and objectively upheld his duties to the Constitution.Ah, so he did not in 2001 apologize for racist comments he himself published? LozlanTheMage wrote: There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have. Subjective, unsupported response, avoidance of burden of proof. You have skilfully parried Lozlan rhetorically, yet have done nothing to respond to his credible statement. You should run for office yourself, slippery as you clearly are. LozlanTheMage wrote: |
thomasquinn 32989 07.01.2008 08:34 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: Oh yes, I am so ill-informed. Your pedantic tone has never ceased to amaze me; compounded with your implied sneer (what of the millions that have never studied economics as a serious persuit? Are we intellectually doomed to sub-standard living and treatment?) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of why he is doing so, Ron Paul will abolish Roe vs. Wade. Even if this is act of pure ideology, utterly untainted by his core personal beliefs, it is still a destructive decision that will lead to widespread suffering. That is why I oppose Ron Paul, laying all personal qualms with Libertarian thinking at the wayside.My point is, unless one has studied economics, he should do well to not formulate opinions on the proper way to run the economy. And if he does form any opinions, he should be wise to not debate them with someone who has studied such the science. I've studied economic history. Good enough for ya? Do you have the guts to back up your big mouth? Then let's go! Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.This is again a fallacy. We are talking about theoretic rights here: does a woman have full rights regarding her own body? If you say yes, then abortion is legalized, and ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION is required to place limitations on this freedom, NOT the other way around. If you say no, you are in violation of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: by giving a political or judicial body the right to limit a person's rights in regards to their own body, they violate article 1, because women are not given full control over their own bodies when men are, and article 3, because security of person is violated. However, the most important matter here is that, as you know just as well as I, the rhetoric used is less radical than that opinion which it voices: by not outright permitting abortion, it can be effectively forbidden by using "letter of the law"-type legislation and maintenance thereof, much like the "separate but equal" doctrine for a long time violated the 14th amendment. Perhaps you support this, perhaps you fail to notice it. Perhaps you are even so gullible as to believe your own remarks. The point is, history demonstrates otherwise. |
magicalfreddiemercury 07.01.2008 09:05 |
I'm disgusted with all the candidates. Can't find one I agree with on the issues I deem important. Maybe Bloomberg will run after all. |
Micrówave 07.01.2008 10:41 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights.If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote. |
LozlanTheMage 07.01.2008 12:26 |
An anti-Treasure Moment act? I'll be the John Hancock on that parchment... |
Raf 07.01.2008 12:51 |
Micrówave wrote:xDLozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights.If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote. |
Treasure Moment 07.01.2008 19:13 |
Micrówave wrote:"bon jovi is better than queen" hahahaLozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights.If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote. |
AspiringPhilosophe 08.01.2008 08:57 |
So let me get this straight... This guy that no one has heard of before this, who is not a front runner in the campaign in any way at all, thinks that just because he has more online subscribers to his YouTube videos he is going to win the Republican nomination. Then, he will be elected president and change the attitudes of Americans to government so completely that he will scrap the IRS and bring the US government in line with what the constitution says and what the founding fathers wanted? OK. I see several problems here: 1) Online polls mean shit in the world of politics. The most online savvy age group of people are also the segment of the population that votes the least. Of the people of that age group that do manage to get up and vote, they tend to vote democrat anyway (hence why they all came out for Obama) 2) The attitudes American have for their government have shifted in the slightly less than 3 centuries we have been a country. He's going to undo all of that in one term, or even to be generous, two terms? Pfft...good luck 3) He knows exactly what the founding fathers wanted? That's a bit presumptuous. The founding fathers didn't even know what they wanted when they were creating the government for crying out loud! Why do you think we had all of the amendments added by them later and several failed versions of the constitution, not to mention bitter fighting between them over who should have what power (The Federalists debates for example) 4) Are we sure this guy is a Republican? He sounds more like a Constitutionalist to me, or maybe even swinging into the Libertarian camp. That being said, I think a lot of what he said makes sense, but it's impossible to accomplish any of it. Of course, in the end all of this is a moot point because he will never get the nomination. |
Micrówave 08.01.2008 12:25 |
HistoryGirl wrote: 4) Are we sure this guy is a Republican?Bingo. Just another "third Party" type guy who uses the same old tired argument the others use. "The Dems & Reps just argue and don't get anything done. I will make a difference, because I'm in touch with the people." Remember, this guy was on Jay Leno last month which also included a musical performance by The Sex Pistols. Now either Ron or one of "his people" must be a little out of touch. Or was he correct in referring to the lead singer as the great Sid Vicious? Treasure Moment wrote: "bon jovi is better than queen" hahahaI got better ones: Freddie Mercury is Iranian. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ron Paul is a good choice. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. There's a chip in my head. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. My band is better than all bands but Queen. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. My music skills are 2nd to Fred's. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Paul Rodgers isn't Queen. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Why don't you go vote for Ace Frehley? I just voted for Bon Jovi again. But I will never ever vote for Queen on that site, just so it cancels out your vote. Then Queen will be just like those other shitty bands: Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc. |
thomasquinn 32989 08.01.2008 13:45 |
HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you just to have you available to display that kind of cynical yet accurate analysis at source material when I'm working on an article, I think I won't for the display of cynicism which is both accurate and moderately (I'd say about 4/10) disturbing. Oh, and you're over-stating the relevance of political rhetoric. |
DavidRFuller 08.01.2008 14:15 |
Paul's supporters go far beyond YouTube, he has had more supporters at his rallies than any other (by FAR) he has had more donations from the military than any other, he had 10% at the primaries in Iowa, and have you seen the amount of money he raises in those daily online contributions? He's the only candidate who isn't another run of the mill crook with his head shoved up his ass. His supporters are growing by the hour. |
Mr.Jingles 08.01.2008 14:20 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.Can I be the Best Man? |
Music Man 08.01.2008 14:51 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: So, basically, what you are saying is that it is possible for a president to be completely neutral in every issue, putting his personal views aside, and judging right from wrong by applying the constitution to every matter? So, essentially, he is a one-man-supreme-court, over and above the parties? Did you know that this view was proposed in the ideology refered to as "Civic Humanism", deemed impossible and surrendered in the early 19th century, revived in the so-called Gilded Age, proven untenable and yet again reverted from? I'll give you a few quotes you might consider. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton (Historian) "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglas "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams To that I wish to add, that anyone who desires power is by definition not to be trusted with it. You argue that it is possible for someone to withstand the temptations of power. That lobby-groups will not bring him/her down. That he/she is in fact CAPABLE of knowing absolute right and wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above implicit suppositions I find in your response has been proven flawed over the years!I am well aware of power's ability to inevitably corrupt. It is in that understanding that I have become a staunch supporter of limited government. As of right now, Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports such a view. Once again, I am not saying Ron Paul is this unimaginably impeccable being. All I am saying is he's the best option that we Americans have, understanding the points you have made above. I agree that the notion is somewhat flawed when considering history in its aggregate. However, when you consider Ron Paul's history, you will find that lobbyists do not even visit Ron Paul anymore due to his political convictions. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Ah, so he did not in 2001 apologize for racist comments he himself published?That is clearly a cheap shot, and if it's seriously the best you can come up with, don't you think you could cut me a break here? Those comments (along with several others in that newsletter) were written by a ghost writer and do not reflect his views or anything he has ever said. Yes, he is ultimately responsible. However, I don't think this is a serious aberration to his political convictions. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Yes, that is my opinion, and I stand by it. I do have objective reasons, but they are formulated through many hours of extensive research over his past actions, speeches, etc. and cannot be easily summarized here.Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.Subjective, unsupported response, avoidance of burden of proof. You have skilfully parried Lozlan rhetorically, yet have done nothing to respond to his credible statement. You should run for office yourself, slippery as you clearly are. ==== Will continue later. |
AspiringPhilosophe 08.01.2008 15:18 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:*laughes*<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.Can I be the Best Man? Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks* |
Mr.Jingles 08.01.2008 15:32 |
HistoryGirl wrote:Awesome!Mr.Jingles wrote:*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.Can I be the Best Man? I hope you don't mind me taking Caspar to a wild bachelor party with Dubya's daughters. |
Music Man 08.01.2008 17:57 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:LozlanTheMage wrote: And since when are we all prosperous under capitalism? Fallacious argument yet again.I could write pages on the virtues on capitalism, but there's nothing I could write that the Austrians or the Chicago School (as well as mostly every educated economist) haven't written before. Prosperity is measured by quality of life. Essentially, you could look at the United States, for example. Some of the poorest people in this country have houses with multiple bathrooms and color televisions. Most of them have automobiles as well. You could also compare North and South Korea for a modern example. One is a free market economy that has prospered, and the other is centrally planned and has largely failed. Austrians such as Hayek debunked the virtues of a centrally planned economy over fifty years ago, and it's not exactly a hotly debated topic in the world of economics, so I fail to see what you're getting at.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Not only are you distorting the truth (regarding the 'Founding Fathers', who were not monolithic in views and certainly not libertarian), you also deny any sense of (Christian) morality: you deny responsibility for those who did not have your opportunities, pretending that those are fairly distributed.I am in no way suggesting that opportunities are currently fairly distributed. The idea of Libertarianism is to fairly distribute opportunities as much as possible, which differs from the idea of Socialism, where everything is distributed equally regardless of anything. I think both ideals are fair. However, only one is effective for quality of life and technological improvement.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I am not arguing that this is the truth. I am assuming it is and explaining it is because this argument has already been settled among economists.Alright, once again, this reverts to the capitalism vs. socialism debate. Prosperity vs. equality. Under pure capitalism, everyone would be better off than they would be under pure socialism, but the prosperity would not be equally divulged. I suppose the proper balance is entirely subjective.Unsupported fallacious argument. |
Music Man 08.01.2008 18:06 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I've studied economic history. Good enough for ya? Do you have the guts to back up your big mouth? Then let's go!I really do enjoy battling wits with you, and I don't mean to get personal, despite my tendency to snipe. So yes, en garde. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It is a fallacious assumption to assume the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the absolute be all and end all. Granted, I agree with you, and am very pro-choice myself. However, your proposed method is one way, but to say it is the only way doesn't make sense to me.Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.This is again a fallacy. We are talking about theoretic rights here: does a woman have full rights regarding her own body? If you say yes, then abortion is legalized, and ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION is required to place limitations on this freedom, NOT the other way around. If you say no, you are in violation of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: by giving a political or judicial body the right to limit a person's rights in regards to their own body, they violate article 1, because women are not given full control over their own bodies when men are, and article 3, because security of person is violated. However, the most important matter here is that, as you know just as well as I, the rhetoric used is less radical than that opinion which it voices: by not outright permitting abortion, it can be effectively forbidden by using "letter of the law"-type legislation and maintenance thereof, much like the "separate but equal" doctrine for a long time violated the 14th amendment. Perhaps you support this, perhaps you fail to notice it. Perhaps you are even so gullible as to believe your own remarks. The point is, history demonstrates otherwise. |
thomasquinn 32989 09.01.2008 07:54 |
Ah, but I would take it that international law should be a basis for every debate on what is just or unjust, is it not? I therefore presented you with a simple two-way choice: either pro-choice in compliance with international law, or pro-life, implying that international law has no validity in the USA. Of course, anyone is free to choose the latter (despite not offering someone *else* a choice), but that choice results in the need to reformulate standards of international law, which is why I brought up the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. |
thomasquinn 32989 09.01.2008 07:56 |
HistoryGirl wrote:Now look what kind of trouble a simple bit of rhetoric can get a guy into ;-)Mr.Jingles wrote:*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.Can I be the Best Man? |
thomasquinn 32989 09.01.2008 07:56 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:As above.HistoryGirl wrote:Awesome! I hope you don't mind me taking Caspar to a wild bachelor party with Dubya's daughters.Mr.Jingles wrote:*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.Can I be the Best Man? |
Music Man 09.01.2008 12:53 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Ah, but I would take it that international law should be a basis for every debate on what is just or unjust, is it not? I therefore presented you with a simple two-way choice: either pro-choice in compliance with international law, or pro-life, implying that international law has no validity in the USA. Of course, anyone is free to choose the latter (despite not offering someone *else* a choice), but that choice results in the need to reformulate standards of international law, which is why I brought up the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.Well, it is debatable that international law is ineffective and unfair, as it can only exist with the participation (and under the vast influence) of the most powerful nations. So even if it is in compliance with international law, I still believe there must be reasons above the mere fact that it is international law. 1) It is impossible to enforce. At the very least, abortion should be available in the cases of rape or the endangerment of the mother's life. It is beyond me how any pro-life argument can be rationalized to not include these exceptions. I am not sure how such exceptions would be proven in time, if it is even possible. 2) On such a widely debated issue, it should be left up to individual citizens to decide the morality of it. It should not be left to the states because they do not even have the right to legislate such morality. While I agree that every person has the right to their body, I think that is not as relevant to the issue as it seems. If you force someone to sustain themselves from your body, it is your duty to rescue them from that condition (or at least maintain it). The issue is whether or not an unborn child has rights. This issue may never be resolved. Therefore, it should be up to the individual citizens to decide. Although this may be a conflict of interest, the path of least governmental resistance is best, in my opinion. |
AspiringPhilosophe 09.01.2008 13:33 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Hey, you walked right into this one Caspar! :-PHistoryGirl wrote:Now look what kind of trouble a simple bit of rhetoric can get a guy into ;-)Mr.Jingles wrote:*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.Can I be the Best Man? Besides, we're just picking. Honestly, first people think I have no sense of humor and when I let it out then they think I'm crazy... *winks* |
thomasquinn 32989 09.01.2008 15:39 |
I thought it usually took 7 years to get to this stage ;-) |