While Ron Paul sticks as close to the Constitution more than any other candidate, he is a bit loopy on the war and outer outside issues and would turn the US in on itself and withdraw from the rest of the world... all while Islam will begin to conquer it.... and then we'd ahve to fend them off at home...

awwww please, don't give me the giuliani garbage... how do you argue that Islam will "begin" to conquer "it"... is "it" the world?

Explain how Islam can take over the world... is it the same way that christianity "took over" the world? If so, then it's impossible... Islam has been left in the dust (technology-wise especially), there is no plausible scenario where they take over the world, and it's the same old trash that was fed to the population back when Vietnam was going on, they said "we can't end the war! the communists would spread over the world and take over all the free countries!" etc. this was known as the "domino theory". in the end, the US came back from a war that was very similar to Iraq, and what happened?

you must know... you're enough of an expert to know beyond a doubt that they would follow us home, what do you say when I tell you that the same argument, again, was used in Vietnam?

Ron Paul is NOT an "isolationist", as the desperate neo-cons are attempting to portray him. He wishes to trade with and be civil to every single country. That is not isolationism.

Isolationism = A policy of non-participation in international economic and political relations
= A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

sorry if I'm being lenghty about this lol, thanks for the comment

But he is willing to hold the country's economy hostage to get rich quick off his vast investments in gold.

whaaaaat? ROFL!!!! that was an eye-popping statement, care to back it up with an argument that makes sense?

if you're serious and that wasn't an odd joke, that is... can't be sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4QbJ3phEYs

Going back to the gold standard is a really, really bad idea for our economy. It would essentially hold our dollar hostage, as every time we wanted to get more money, we'd have to buy more gold. This was the purpose of Fort Knox-- to hold our gold. Ironically, the free market that Ron Paul and libertarians fight so fervently for, would essentially and arguably inflate our dollar even more than it would if it was only backed by GDP, since people would be trying to buy as much gold as possible, thusly increasing the price of it even more. I mean shit, it's a get-rich quick scheme for anyone with gold investments, after all-- if a government uses it as a standard of a dollar, and anyone can buy it, wouldn't you want to buy as much of it as possible so that you can resell it at a higher price to the United States?

wow... that's a pretty dumb video. what was the point? listen. read the comments right underneath, they'll make a better point that I can if you read enough of them, but the video is completely wrong... not only IS it legal to make and sell your own currency, contradictory to the video which says "the website selling the RP gold dollar was illegally doing so" (total bullshit)

"Ironically", gold is what makes the dollar strong. Not being physically inexistent like today, when the value drops and drops until it's worth (quite literally) less than a penny of it's original value. You are completely misled.... the price of gold is rising mainly because it's RETAINING its value, as the dollar drops like a stone in water. The US is headed for a recession, and the dollar is actually "backed" by nothing but paper. THAT is what makes the dollar fall, and it's not helping that the big stock market figures are dumping the dollar (reducing its value a bunch more) and investing in what? GOLD AND SILVER. (and the euro)

If, as you say, it's a "get rich quick scheme", then it's today's stock market that's making the money. That's not a plan that ends up making Ron Paul rich.

Besides, if you're so convinced that such fabulous wealth is available in gold investment, why haven't you gotten some gold? *perplexed look* shouldn't you be blowing your life savings on this? after all, it's a great "scheme" isn't it?


one more thing... you don't know about the amero, do you?

not trying to be rude, ya know... I just think you've been misled on several topics, and you could learn much... but I'm only angry when people act like assholes like LusoPakak down below... it's not a reasonable conversation when someone flings a link at you with a screaming curse, but it's much less reasonable when the link is irrelevant... lol ^_^

The point of the video was to prove that Ron Paul's touting of the gold standard is a conflict of interest. And I hate reading YouTube comments, because nine times out of ten, they're insanely idiotic. And just to see if I'm wrong about these comments specifically, I read them. I wasn't wrong.

Gold is a limited commodity. What happens when a limited commodity has high demand? Its price rises! What are people doing right now? Buying the hell out of gold as an investment! Thusly, the price of gold rises. It's simple economics.

Besides, if you're so convinced that such fabulous wealth is available in gold investment, why haven't you gotten some gold? *perplexed look* shouldn't you be blowing your life savings on this? after all, it's a great "scheme" isn't it?

This is a pretty sweet red herring you have going on, dude. But I'll address it anyway: if I had reason to believe that the United States was going back to the gold standard, and I had money to blow, you'd be damn right I'd be investing the fuck out of gold. Because if I bought as much gold as I possibly could before the United States did, then I'd be rich, rich, rich! When they had to make more money (because that's what you do with the gold standard-- you buy more gold to back the currency you have), I could probably sell my gold for twice or three times as much as it cost me originally. And that would be awesome.

The dollar is backed by our outstanding debt with other countries, balanced by their debts to us, and our current running deficit of 9 trillion dollars (or is it 10 now?)-- which is the reason why our dollar is so incredibly low. We've borrowed shitloads of money and we've got a ginormous debt and deficit to face. This is how it goes with most countries, including the European Union. Even though their currency isn't backed by something publicly purchasable like gold, their money is worth more than ours.

And I know about the Amero. I'd rather we not absorb an even worse economy when our dollar is already as terrible as it is.

PS: Don't cleverly quote me and then misuse the meaning of what you quoted.

If you had reason to believe? Go look up the odds from the Vegas bookies on Ron Paul... official numbers say he's the only republican who can beat Hillary. I'll take those numbers

Honestly, it her or Dr. Paul...and the guys who make their jobs by understanding this math agree, (though the correct phrase is "I agree with them" rofl ^_^)

lolbertarianism

The man as a congressman is a complete dullard

aaaaaalso there's the whole being up with the white supermacists deal

Aaaaalso explain me this and this

OH NO HE ISN'T BEING A HORRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT, HE'S JUST GIVING PEOPLE A LESSON ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION

WELL DAMN HE'S PREETY DAMN SELECTIVE ABOUT IT HMMMMM

WTF? THOSE ARE JUST TWO VOTING CONGRESS RECORDS!

And so what? he voted "no" on both. (not that it changed the result) OoooooOoOoh. that makes his a horrible piece of shit? well since we're cursing now, FUCK YOU! YOU DIRTY LITTLE FUCKFACE, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE WAY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WORKS AND YOU DON'T READ THE SHIT YOU POST BEFORE YOU START YELLING ABOUT IT.

Also, the second link (Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act) is simply him voting no on prohibiting trade with other countries. THAT is one of his biggest PLATFORMS! You think you're breaking a fucking story? are you retarded, those votes are consistent!

I still think you lost your point when you say "horrible piece of shit" without backing it up with anything... ENOUGH with fuckin links, try actually speaking, it'll be good for you. why do YOU dislike Ron Paul? you know as well as I do he's not against black people, gay people or any minority.

Again: STOP LINKING, you faggly little asshole, stop drawing teddy bears on your homepage. if you don't like Ron Paul, DEBATE me, don't link stupid irrelevant shit.

So come on!

WHY DOES IT NOT SUPRISE ME YOU ARE ALSO A GODDAMN TRUTHER

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAH

okay. first of all, realise that your posts are ENTIRELY contradictory, because even though you clearly have a mental problem I checked that stuff out, and your first link, which is the congressman's record, shows this:

DISCRIMINATION

-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society:

#
A bill to provide that the Internal Revenue Service may not implement certain proposed rules relating to the determination of whether private schools have discriminatory policies.

# A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.

# A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.
(very, VERY small excerpt, you should actually read the record before you send it... I know it's long but you wouldn't seem quite as stupid. It's also worded (the whole document) in a very biased, hateful tone)


HOW IS THAT DISCRIMINATION? The second link says he ATTRACTS radicals, which is true, but you make the jaw-dropping stupidity of adding in a few radicals which DONT MAKE SENSE. Let me sit down and explain a little something to you. The link says:

"But people who track the activities of the far right -- the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Patriots/militiamen, "Freemen"/"constitutionalists", and anti-abortion, anti-tax, and anti-gay radicals -- do pay attention to how they vote: where their money and support goes, and why. It's important to track this because it's about watching who they empower, and who's empowering them, and to what extent this is occurring. "

You must be stupid. neo-Nazism and white supremacy, intolerance to homosexuality, are the complete, polar opposites of Ron Paul's libertarianism. LIMITED GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK FOR THE NAZIS! This also links together pro-hate people like homophobes and racists with what you call "Freemen" and constitutionalists", which are "quotemarked" as if being a "FREE MAN" or obey the very base of law in your country is a BAD THING!
you throw in anti-tax people for no reason, too.... oh, so now people are crazy, dangerous radicals because they've understood the IRS isn't constitutional?

His official stances, you are correct, but he did vote on a lot of things that do make the lifes of such people easier.

do you realize that in that case, you admit that the worst thing about him is that he supposedly made some people lives easier? you know, I'm pretty sure that every other candidate has some (valid) criticisms pointed at them that aren't "[The candidate] made this person's life EASIER! what a shitbag!"... usually (always, lol) it's something slightly worse than that. wouldn't you agree?

I was talking about how he supported a good deal of things that makes the actions taken by whitesupermacists and such folk easier. Not to mention he did wrote (and later on sort of endorsed during the whole "ghost writer" deal) reports that support such ideals, and quite a large number of laws he voted against were for aid of the people that the reports were against. He may not go directly "OH, THEY ARE MONGRELS" these days, but he's certainly not giving them a hand at all.

In fact, his views on states rights and such, if implemented, would make the situation for the rights of the people you state saying that Ron Paul doesn't hate much harder, including eliminating pressure from the government to prevent states from establishing laws that directly or indirectly (but in a very noticable way) discriminate towards minorities.
This includes making it harder for immigrants to legalise their situation, integrate into the market of labour, and benefit from the same rights as a normal citizen, not to mention he has the intention to forcibly deport "every immigrant on an illegal situation" (With an acceptable death rate of around 10%, if I rememeber correctly), which would cause an even worse situation due to the faulty registration of citizens and the increase in violence

Not to mention that his idea of dismantling the FDA will cause an almost unimaginable incease of deaths , with the elimination of regulation of medicine and food standards, not to mention the elimination of mandatory vaccination, which was and still is a way to prevent and stop the outbreak of deceases that have killed millions in the past. His affilitation with Lewis Rockwell (and on a certain way with the Church of Scientology, with similiar views on treating those with ills of the mind) makes matters even worse.

I won't even touch his views on New World Order or the NAU, considering your affiliation with inforwars and the 9-11 truth movement.

I do forgive about my bluntless earlier on.

*sigh*... I'm getting tired.

Let's begin with the FDA assumption. First off, you seem to assume that, given the freedom to do so, no organization made solely by the people in an organized way could match the *good*, specifically (forgetting about all the harm they already do) of the FDA. I would argue that. I think, given true range and a broad enough "canvas", people will create their own regulatory systems according to the specific variables that define the place they live in. that is the concept of a republic over a democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the majority, where 51% of the population controls the rest.

Mandatory is a horrifying idea already, and I'll tell you why. Among live viruses and etc, the government puts mercury in your vaccines. Understand? they *don't* deny that they "used to"., but they say they have removed the mercury, (which btw, causes autism) HOWEVER, if you google the term "thimerosal", *that* is what has replaced the mercury in your vaccines.

guess what.

it's the same damn stuff. aaaand they now are increasing the dosage per inoculation. isn't that fun.

anyways, since you haven't bothered to confirm or deny whether the NWO and NAU exist and are a threat, I don't expect you to look into what your administration is injecting you with.



One last thing, as I am wrapping up this conversation:

"I do forgive about my bluntless earlier on." is not a coherent sentence.

and bluntless is not a word. you probably meant bluntness. (still incoherent)

you cannot forgive yourself, in a conversation, for an offense or a blunder... or as you would put it, bluntlessness.

the phrase would be "I do beg pardon for my bluntness earlier on.".


Go back to school. Learn about the NAU and the NWO. Learn that maybe, maybe, you've been deceived.

ACK >.< left out a word myself *grins* lol

Third text body, "Mandatory *VACCINATION* is a horrifying idea"

that's funny because I am from Portugal, not the United States of America. I'm meerily doing this because I love the american people and do not wish them to elect a president that will harm them to the point of going into Mad Max 2 mode by people like you, ukranian spam bots, Wired and basically every goddamn neonazi piece of shit after him.

I can't wait until you tell me that the Elder Protocols of Zion aren't bullshit and how you yearn so such more for a "Final Solution" or a "Cultural Revolution", so to say.

rofl ^_^ you're such a tool ah well if you're from Portugal then I can end this conversation with a free mind, knowing you have no idea what you're talking about... maybe you should be concerned with your own country. I'm from Canada, at least we're closer... lol

one last, last thing since you seem to be reduced to babbling and throwing lame attacks at me, why don't you define to me what you think the word "neonazi" means.

I'm alsolutely serious. you clearly have no idea. don't look into a dictionary, dont google search it.... just, from the "gut". what does the word mean to you?

I am from portugal too and believe me... he has no idea.. lol, ignorant twat..

RON PAUL 2012!!

He's also against gay marriage and gay adoption!

Very, very much so against gay adoption!

and as someone who was raised by gay parents I gotta say that is pretty not cool

because a true libertarian wouldn't ban gay adoption because it's BIG GOVERNMENT POWER going into the bedroom

what are ya talking about bridgeport, he's for the same rights for every single individual, he said himself he doesnt see people as groups and minorities, and that singling out any group and giving them different rights is against the principle of an equal society. he doesn't say he would ban those things! that's one of the reasons we like him.

One of his biggest stances is that *individual* rights are the only true standard, and they should apply to everyone.

Where would you get that idea?





...and as far as going into the bedroom, not at all! he's the only candidate who goes ahead and says, when asked what he would do about prostitution, that we haven't been able to stop that, and it's always been around, it's the same with drugs, the black market doesn't work, we need control and regulation on it like we've done with alcohol and tobacco.

but again why would you think he's against gay marriage?

Googled a bit...pretty sure that was a vote for ending federal funding for gay adoption, not for banning it. This is perfectly in line with his principles.

I'd like to add that, in line with those same principles, deciding the legality of those issues would fall to the states (as outlined under the recently proposed We the People Act)

Ron Paul is opposed to homosexual unions, adoption and abortion but believes that it should be a states' right to ban one or all of these things

Well he voted against allowing Same sex adoptions in washington DC

Aaaand he voted to keep GOD in the pledge of allegiance

And he believes in the War on Christmas (i.e. that liberals are trying to destroy christmas)

As for the gay marriage thing, I rescind that as I have found out he is just against government being in any marriage, period, which I do not care about

Also he is really, really REALLY really really pro-life and I am also very much pro-choice and do not want the government telling me what I can and can not do with my body. He calls himself pro-life and has voted against allowing partial birth abortions many, many times. To me, that certainly seems like restricting the individual's right to have an abortion!

woops shoulda posted that here, lol... Googled a bit...pretty sure that was a vote for ending federal funding for gay adoption, not for banning it. This is perfectly in line with his principles.

the pro-choice thing is something I can understand, personally, I think his foreign policy is a helllll of a lot more important than abortion, but again, it's personal opinion for that one. it's jsut an ethical thing for him, he's an obgyn who delivered 4000 babies so I think he got kinda attached to em... no big argument there.

"god" is just a word... jfk was christian but he had a whole speech as to why it wouldn't alter his presidency, and he's a christian. what, who's running right now who's an atheist? (is there anyone? not 100% sure but it would be funny)

and about the marriage thing, that the point I'm trying to make though, that's his opinion on almost EVERY issue. adoption and abortion too! he's not completely disagreeing with you, even though he's pro-pro-pro life.

Ron Paul understands and makes a point of that very thing. he understand no single rule can ever apply to everything.

thanks for commenting ;)

but the thing is, if he's for personal liberties why is he for banning abortion? What about the personal liberties of women?

I'm also against rescinding the citizenship of first born generation immigrants! Call me crazy, but I think that revoking the 14th amendment is really wrong! Considering that most libertarians are for open borders, why do you think that Ron Paul isn't for open borders and wishes for the forced deportation of all illegal immigrants/seizure of their assets?

The fact of the matter is that in the issue of abortion there are two indviduals at play here, the woman and the unborn child. As Ron Paul has pointed out that as he worked as a doctor when carrying for a pregnant woman he was legally responsible for the well being of the child. There is a double standard that is very wrong in America where if you were to kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with double homicide for taking the life of the woman and the unborn child but if the pregnant woman decides to have an abortion that is considered a choice. If you want to say that you stand for personel liberties than that includes the unborn because while a pregnant woman may believe she has a choice in matter no one should be allowed to say I choose to murder someone. Whether or not he can change the abortion situation being Pro-life is perfectly consistant with the ideology of personel freedom and liberty

I wish he won...
I heard his son Rand Paul is running in Congress.

Nice picture! By the way rumor has it that Ron Paul is getting ready to run in a few weeks! Keep your paws crossed!

KEEP UP THE FIGHT MY PROFILE ID SAY IT ALL!

Ron paul 2012