watch the video especially what Ron paul says

[jack404]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=515_1345080965

ITS FACT!!!!

[TotheTop83]

And we'll just pass this guy over because he's not one of the big two parties....

sigh....

[carver]

Ron Paul is called an Isolationist because of his policies, and ideas. i·so·la·tion·ism (s-lsh-nzm)n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. And they think that the isolationist idea is a bad one. Personally I agree with R. Paul. If my neighbor is on drugs, and is constantly in trouble with the law, do I really want to be known as one of his good friends? Birds of a feather flock together!! Our politicians tell us that this involvement with other countries is best for our National Defense! Yet they tell us that we should not have the right to defend ourselves??

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by TotheTop83

And we'll just pass this guy over because he's not one of the big two parties....

sigh....

Um, he's a Republican. He was in the Republican primaries. He IS in one of the big two. Yes, he's libertarian (like the founders) in his thinking and voting, but, he's in a main party.

We've missed our opportunity for change. There is NO ONE else.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by jack404

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=515_1345080965

ITS FACT!!!!

Thanks for posting this, Jack! Well done!

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by carver

Ron Paul is called an Isolationist because of his policies, and ideas. i·so·la·tion·ism (s-lsh-nzm)n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. And they think that the isolationist idea is a bad one. Personally I agree with R. Paul. If my neighbor is on drugs, and is constantly in trouble with the law, do I really want to be known as one of his good friends? Birds of a feather flock together!! Our politicians tell us that this involvement with other countries is best for our National Defense! Yet they tell us that we should not have the right to defend ourselves??

Actually, in his books, he calls it non-interventionism. He's not isolationist, he WANTS to have open trade and relations with all who will treat us respectfully and fairly, and we'll do the same. He doesn't think we should be "policing" the world, nor interfering in other countries' affairs. A lot of which is going on due to the dollar losing it's power - we go in and make war.

All the info is out there, documented.

[red14]

Originally Posted by graehaven

Actually, in his books, he calls it non-interventionism. He's not isolationist, he WANTS to have open trade and relations with all who will treat us respectfully and fairly, and we'll do the same. He doesn't think we should be "policing" the world, nor interfering in other countries' affairs. A lot of which is going on due to the dollar losing it's power - we go in and make war.

All the info is out there, documented.

We give money to over 190 countries. Billions and billions of dollars,
he wants us to keep most of that money and give it to countries who
share our interests.

We give money to China!

[carver]

Originally Posted by graehaven

Actually, in his books, he calls it non-interventionism. He's not isolationist, he WANTS to have open trade and relations with all who will treat us respectfully and fairly, and we'll do the same. He doesn't think we should be "policing" the world, nor interfering in other countries' affairs. A lot of which is going on due to the dollar losing it's power - we go in and make war.

All the info is out there, documented.

You know that, and I know that! The other politicians just want to beat him up, and call him names!

[TotheTop83]

Originally Posted by graehaven

Um, he's a Republican. He was in the Republican primaries. He IS in one of the big two. Yes, he's libertarian (like the founders) in his thinking and voting, but, he's in a main party.

We've missed our opportunity for change. There is NO ONE else.

Um, no he's not. If we're speaking technicalities then yes, but I'm not going to debate technicalities on the internet. That takes about two weeks for each side to get their point across at which point they realize they actually agree and all we have is wasted time.

That being said, let's be realistic, he's not a republican. He ran for the republican nomination because he knows as well as anyone that the only way to the white house is through the repubs or the dems.

EDIT: In other words, we (primary voters) passed him over because he, as a self-proclaimed libertarian, didn't fit into the republican mold.

[carver]

Some primary voters passed him over, some of us voted for him!

[TotheTop83]

Originally Posted by carver

Some primary voters passed him over, some of us voted for him!

I did too! Was speaking of "we" as a whole, though...as in, he didn't get the nomination.

[One Shot]

I don't mind the conservative side of Libertarians, it's the liberal side that bothers me.

This is from Wikipedia:

Political scholars such as Noam Chomsky assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism.[9] In the United States people commonly associate the term libertarian with those who have economically conservative and socially liberal views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States).[10]

[Hawg]

I'm glad he didn't get the nomination. We have to have military presence in other countries. To not is foolhardy. He has some good ideas but a lot of his ideas are unworkable and he knows it. He's just playing mind games with them cuz its what people want to hear.

[TotheTop83]

Originally Posted by Hawg

I'm glad he didn't get the nomination. We have to have military presence in other countries. To not is foolhardy. He has some good ideas but a lot of his ideas are unworkable and he knows it. He's just playing mind games with them cuz its what people want to hear.

I certainly don't agree with everything he says but I agree with much more of what he says than any other candidate.

I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal (yep, I said liberal). Translate that into: 1) I hate the government spending and taxing people excessively and 2) I hate the government telling people they can't do things.

I'll assume most people on this forum can relate to fiscal conservatism. However, I don't get why people are opposed to being socially liberal. If someone wants to smoke pot...they should be allowed. If gay people want to get married...they should be allowed. I don't do either but I think people should be allowed to if they so choose. Whether you agree with the morality of those things or not, it is NOT the government's job to legislate morality. That is up to us as citizens. We should have the right to be moral or not.

To me, Ron Paul is the best representation of the idea that a government should be as small a part of peoples' lives as possible. The two party system we have now is a choice between a big government that spends your money or a big government that spends your money. While one might be smaller than the other...they're both entirely too large.

That said, I'm not trying to force my opinion down your throat. You're entitled to you opinion, of course!

[Double D]

Originally Posted by TotheTop83

I certainly don't agree with everything he says but I agree with much more of what he says than any other candidate.

I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal (yep, I said liberal). Translate that into: 1) I hate the government spending and taxing people excessively and 2) I hate the government telling people they can't do things.

I'll assume most people on this forum can relate to fiscal conservatism. However, I don't get why people are opposed to being socially liberal. If someone wants to smoke pot...they should be allowed. If gay people want to get married...they should be allowed. I don't do either but I think people should be allowed to if they so choose. Whether you agree with the morality of those things or not, it is NOT the government's job to legislate morality. That is up to us as citizens. We should have the right to be moral or not.

To me, Ron Paul is the best representation of the idea that a government should be as small a part of peoples' lives as possible. The two party system we have now is a choice between a big government that spends your money or a big government that spends your money. While one might be smaller than the other...they're both entirely too large.

That said, I'm not trying to force my opinion down your throat. You're entitled to you opinion, of course!

Thanks, I will make a note of that.

[TotheTop83]

Originally Posted by Double D

Thanks, I will make a note of that.

???

[One Shot]

TotheTop

I understand your confusion. I was too until I did some research. If you want to see why it doesn't make sense to me to be liberal on social issues you need to understand the worldview behind it.

Conservatism has its roots in the Judaeo Christian worldview while liberalism is very closely tied to the Secular Humanist worldview.

Since these two worldviews are diametrically opposed to each other there is no common ground between them. More and more people are starting to realize this, thus the major gap between the two parties.

If you want to make sense of it you will have to look at the information on these two worldviews and see which one you agree with more. If you can't pick one, be ready for a lot of confusion.

This website gives a fairly thorough comparison of the two worldviews.

http://www.foundationsforliving.org/...orldview1.html

The secular humanist worldview is sometimes also called the Atheistic or Naturalistic worldview.

Take a look at the original Humanist Manifesto and see how close it is to the democratic/liberal platform. It should be eye opening.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Huma...st_Manifesto_I

Those that say the two parties are the same have not done their research.

Hope this helps you. It sure helps me make sense of things.

[gvw3]

This should be a good one.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by Hawg

I'm glad he didn't get the nomination. We have to have military presence in other countries. To not is foolhardy. He has some good ideas but a lot of his ideas are unworkable and he knows it. He's just playing mind games with them cuz its what people want to hear.

Why? We aren't the world police. Screwing with the rest of the world is how wars like Vietnam started too. Tell me, what did we gain from that war?

I thought Congress were the ones who were supposed to declare war and give permission for military involvement in other parts of the world, not the President.

Plus the Obama is arming Syrian rebels -- which includes al Quaida members...

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by TotheTop83

If someone wants to smoke pot...they should be allowed. If gay people want to get married...they should be allowed. I don't do either but I think people should be allowed to if they so choose. Whether you agree with the morality of those things or not, it is NOT the government's job to legislate morality. That is up to us as citizens. We should have the right to be moral or not.

That's where you and I will never agree.

[TotheTop83]

Originally Posted by Hawg

That's where you and I will never agree.

Fair enough.

I just find it interesting that people who are big proponents of individual liberty and keeping the government out of their business find it just to involve the government to curtail others' liberties when they don't agree. It seems contradictory to me. Like I said, I don't agree with some of the activities but that doesn't mean they should be illegal.

If we outlaw something based on morality then by default damn near everything will be illegal since it will be immoral in the eyes of at least someone. Alcohol? Illegal. Sex outside of marriage? Illegal. Cursing? Illegal. Being Christian? Illegal. Eating pork? Illegal.

Abortion must be illegal but it also must be allowed because depending on what side of the aisle you're on, it's immoral to have one performed or immoral to not allow a woman to have one.

I'm just spitballing here, not trying to prove anyone wrong, just debating. Seems we've got some strong opinions and I'm just curious what others think. I'm always exposed to the left wingers so hearing this from someone else would be a nice change.

[jack404]

so might makes right ??

not to be rude but thats flawed

let me explain , i'm a thug , a bully , and i'll crush anyone who dont agree with how i do things .. according to you thats ok , i can stand over you and use your fear of me to get you to demand what i say you will OR ELSE

and who'd stop me ?

that why in the judeo Chriostian world might dont make right and we dont allow nutz like me to rule

we have a set of laws made by the MORAL MAJORITY

otherwise it becomes feudalism with folks like me running thuings and folks like you hung up while the stub of your toungue heals after i've yanked it out by the roots

hope that explains it all

as when you aint under the rule of law , people like me get fed up with wimpy BS and take over

and folks like you dont get a say no more ...

[TotheTop83]

Originally Posted by jack404

so might makes right ??

not to be rude but thats flawed

let me explain , i'm a thug , a bully , and i'll crush anyone who dont agree with how i do things .. according to you thats ok , i can stand over you and use your fear of me to get you to demand what i say you will OR ELSE

and who'd stop me ?

that why in the judeo Chriostian world might dont make right and we dont allow nutz like me to rule

we have a set of laws made by the MORAL MAJORITY

otherwise it becomes feudalism with folks like me running thuings and folks like you hung up while the stub of your toungue heals after i've yanked it out by the roots

hope that explains it all

as when you aint under the rule of law , people like me get fed up with wimpy BS and take over

and folks like you dont get a say no more ...

How did I say being a thug or a bully is ok?

There is a very big difference between impeding another's constitutional right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which would be done by using my "fear of you" to demand I act a certain way) and allowing people to smoke pot.

Laws exist to prevent people from trampling the rights of others. That's why if something isn't stated as illegal, it is inherently legal. How does someone smoking pot in their home infringe on your rights?

You're equating the forceful taking of rights with the practice of those rights. That's an inherent contradiction if I've ever seen one.

And you're implying that I'm wimpy based on a post you read on the internet? lol I love the internet assumption game, it's fantastic.

[Hawg]

We have to have some kind of government intervention or else we'd have no laws or law officers at all and that my friend would really be a screwed up mess. Personally I don't think the illegal drug laws are strict enough and you don't wanna know what I'd do to dealers and faggots and don't even get me started on abortion.

[TotheTop83]

Originally Posted by Hawg

We have to have some kind of government intervention or else we'd have no laws or law officers at all and that my friend would really be a screwed up mess. Personally I don't think the illegal drug laws are strict enough and you don't wanna know what I'd do to dealers and faggots and don't even get me started on abortion.

Well I'm not advocating mayhem, I'd just like to have the government out of my hair. There's certainly room for more than one opinion on the drug laws but pot does nothing that beer and cigarettes don't do. The main difference is that the cartels are in charge of distribution because it's illegal. Therefore people get killed so others can get high. Same thing as prohibition...it caused violence and death on a massive scale because some people thought it was "immoral" to drink.

Now I'll add the caveat that if someone gets pot through a supply line that kills people then I'm totally 100% against that. My point is if someone grows it in their kitchen...who gives a rats ass.