Author Topic: ;) (Read 3526 times)

briann · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2008, 03:37:28 PM »

Dont worry about Ron Paul. He has the support of only 2 groups. A: the Libertarians (Which are never EVER more than 10% in any country)

AND The NeoNazi's. (Which are about 1% at the most), and which live in a trailer or a compound somewhere, and no one ever takes seriously.

Brian

White Israelite · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2008, 04:13:49 PM »

Quote from: briann on February 06, 2008, 03:37:28 PM

Dont worry about Ron Paul. He has the support of only 2 groups. A: the Libertarians (Which are never EVER more than 10% in any country)

AND The NeoNazi's. (Which are about 1% at the most), and which live in a trailer or a compound somewhere, and no one ever takes seriously.

Brian

Actually he has the support of Paleoconservatives as well.

Not all Neo Nazis live in trailers, theres a lot here who are successful business men or have a lot of land out in rural areas.

briann · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2008, 04:20:45 PM »

NOT ME!!! Im somewhat paleoconervative!!!! Stop this nonsence about paleo's being Ron Paul Supporters!!!! Its counter-productive.

Paleos are people without a party now. They are nostalgic for the times of Reagan. REAGAN was NOT A LIBERTARIAN like Paul!!!. If he was, he never would have lifted a finger against the spread of Communism!!!

Brian

White Israelite · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2008, 04:24:42 PM »

Quote from: briann on February 06, 2008, 04:20:45 PM

NOT ME!!! Im somewhat paleoconervative!!!! Stop this nonsence about paleo's being Ron Paul Supporters!!!! Its counter-productive.

Paleos are people without a party now. They are nostalgic for the times of Reagan. REAGAN was NOT A LIBERTARIAN like Paul!!!. If he was, he never would have lifted a finger against the spread of Communism!!!

Brian

Might want to read this then if you consider yourself Paleoconservative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative#Israel_and_foreign_policy

JTFFan · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2008, 05:11:44 PM »

Who wants to support the Nazi Ron Paul

briann · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2008, 05:13:57 PM »

Heres what Im trying to say... I guess.

Reagan was VERY active in international affairs, and stopping communisim. He believed that was his main priority.

Ron Paul is a self-described Libertarian. Ron beleives in do-nothing diplomacy.

In my oppinion, other than lower taxes, Ron Paul is OPPOSITE to REAGAN!!!

Ive always considered Reagan what the conservative party should be, but has abandon. So Ive always believed that his ideals were OLD conservatism.

NOT Libertarianism. Not Do Nothingism like Paul.

Brian

Brian

briann · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2008, 06:07:46 PM »

How FUNNY!!!, I was about to talk about Paul's response to that question about similarities between him and Reagan.

Reagan abandon the mercantilist stance in the 70's and he later elected the most supply-sided miltonian Fed chair of all time. Of course Paul failed to mention that.

Most new presidents dont know how the interest rates and the fed work. I know this for a fact. My money and banking professor at the USC MBA program was in charge of TEACHING clinton how interest rates work. He said Clinton was completely clueless.

HAHAHAHA

Brian

Dr. Dan · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2008, 06:56:59 PM »

no becuase he's a mental case that only 5% of republican voters like...he will die out like Ross Perot and Ralph nader died out.

Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:12:33 PM »

What do you say about the Southern redneck "paleos" who voted for another loser (Huckster) just because he waved around a Bible and used to be a pastor (regardless of how Christlike his actual policies and behavior are)?

THEY are a far greater material foe to us than the neo-Nazis.

Dr. Dan · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:39:17 PM »

Quote from: C.F. on February 06, 2008, 07:12:33 PM

What do you say about the Southern redneck "paleos" who voted for another loser (Huckster) just because he waved around a Bible and used to be a pastor (regardless of how Christlike his actual policies and behavior are)?

THEY are a far greater material foe to us than the neo-Nazis.

CF, not all politicians will have your ideology..and if they did, they would be very unpopular.
Choosing someone who is obviously bad will enable them to destory this country faster than someone who isn't as bad..e.ven though both are terrible.

Huckabee is the best of the major choices even though he is still terrible..He isn't anywehre near close to being the best thing since sliced bread. But he is much much much better than Romney, McCain, hitlery and osama.

and if it ends up being a choice between mccain versus the other two, i actually think Mccain will most likely be the lesser of the two evils...however, whomever becomes president, I will be fighting him/her/it all the way to the bank till they get impeached or die of cancer.

White Israelite · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:54:11 PM »

Quote from: C.F. on February 06, 2008, 07:12:33 PM

What do you say about the Southern redneck "paleos" who voted for another loser (Huckster) just because he waved around a Bible and used to be a pastor (regardless of how Christlike his actual policies and behavior are)?

THEY are a far greater material foe to us than the neo-Nazis.

Yeah and you yankees up north and on the west coast are mainly supporting Obama and Clinton (hey just like you!), no surprise.

Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2008, 09:19:03 PM »

Dr. Dan, your candidate does horribly amongst average voters nationwide. Outside of the redneck South, Huckster is in third to fourth place.

--Voters do not want someone whose foreign-policy knowledge is trumped by that of the average twelve-year-old. (Remember the bald-faced lies he made up about Pakistani immigration statistics)?
--Voters do not want a minister, by profession, to lead the nation.
--Voters do not want someone who uses religion to insult them (i.e. "you're not saved if you oppose tuition aid to undocumented children").
--Voters do not want someone who cares more about Gitmo prisoners and Iranian "civilians" than the general public. (Note: McCain won because everybody believes his lies that he will be tough on terror.)
--Voters do not want someone who teaches that the state must "forgive", and release, dangerous predators into society.

RationalThought110 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2008, 01:37:24 AM »

Ron Paul has incorrectly used the term "neo-con" and it would be appreciated if you don't copy that rhetoric.

RationalThought110 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2008, 01:40:46 AM »

Quote from: briann on February 06, 2008, 04:20:45 PM

NOT ME!!! Im somewhat paleoconervative!!!! Stop this nonsence about paleo's being Ron Paul Supporters!!!! Its counter-productive.

Paleos are people without a party now. They are nostalgic for the times of Reagan. REAGAN was NOT A LIBERTARIAN like Paul!!!. If he was, he never would have lifted a finger against the spread of Communism!!!

Brian

Don't use the term paleoconservative either.

RationalThought110 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2008, 01:45:12 AM »

Quote from: C.F. on February 06, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

Dr. Dan, your candidate does horribly amongst average voters nationwide. Outside of the redneck South, Huckster is in third to fourth place.

--Voters do not want someone whose foreign-policy knowledge is trumped by that of the average twelve-year-old. (Remember the bald-faced lies he made up about Pakistani immigration statistics)?
--Voters do not want a minister, by profession, to lead the nation.
--Voters do not want someone who uses religion to insult them (i.e. "you're not saved if you oppose tuition aid to undocumented children").
--Voters do not want someone who cares more about Gitmo prisoners and Iranian "civilians" than the general public. (Note: McCain won because everybody believes his lies that he will be tough on terror.)
--Voters do not want someone who teaches that the state must "forgive", and release, dangerous predators into society.

Your analysis sounds accurate.

briann · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2008, 01:50:00 AM »

Quote from: Cherubim on February 07, 2008, 12:18:38 AM

Quote from: C.F. on February 06, 2008, 07:12:33 PM
What do you say about the Southern redneck "paleos" who voted for another loser (Huckster) just because he waved around a Bible and used to be a pastor (regardless of how Christlike his actual policies and behavior are)?

THEY are a far greater material foe to us than the neo-Nazis.

Most Southerners are not Paleo-Cons. Most southerners political beliefs descend from the "Age of Jackson", soft on immigration, soft money (anti-central bank), war hawks, anti-Native Indian, and free-traders. Southern agrarians were soft-money, pro-income tax populists during the Industrial Revolution. Southerners also supported the Wilson and FDR anti-business administrations of the early twentieth centuries. Many Southerners are recovering socialists because of the "New Deal" Era and are embedded within the Neo-Conservative movement that would become the cornerstone of the GOP "Southern Strategy".
Paleo-Cons are often seen as the Hamiltonian-Clay traditional capitalists of the protectionist era who were adamantly anti-immigrant, pro-gold (central bank), isolationist, and anti-income tax. The paleo-con domination of American politics during the Second Industrial Revolution began to culminate during the late '20s with Crash on Wall Street and the onslaught of New Deal Socialism propaganda.

Wow.. you really know your stuff. I have to say, I agree with pretty much everything you said above. The paleo-con/gold standard/isolationism grouping was definitely a culmination of misunderstanding of the great depression. But I still like paleo-con anti-immgration, anti-taxes.

Also, the south still retained the anti-union/pro-secession sentiment which bolstered their acceptance of more populist anti-concentration-of-financial-power philosophy.

Brian

New Yorker · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2008, 07:28:38 AM »

No he doesn't bother me. No joke, if it was Ron Paul vs Hillary, it'd be no contest, I'd vote for that loon Ron Paul with enthusiasm.

He'd cut aid to Israel, that could only be good for Israel, but then it would also set Israel free, right now Israel is addicted to American aid and therefore beholdent to America's whims of foreign policy, no aid, no more heeding bullsh*t from Washington. Yeah I know Ron Paul isn't doing it out of love, he's doing it out of hate, but the end result is the same.

Also he'd appoint conservative judges, reduce taxes, cut government programs. Compared to Hillary, Ron Paul is great, hell, he's better than McCain as well!!

The Shadow · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2008, 08:35:05 PM »

Ron Paul is so goofy looking, with a big shnozolla too. Bet he sucks up a lot of air

Daniel · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2008, 08:57:23 PM »

Why should Ron Paul concern anyone now? He's not going to win the nomination now or ever. He has no political power in any other way. The only ones he has any influence over are the youtube freaks which mean nothing to our society. So why even bother worrying about him anymore?

Johnson Brown · « **Reply #20 on:** February 09, 2008, 08:05:18 PM »

Ron who?