Vote Ron Paul 2012

mccumcumber

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member
No, he said if he had to choose between two evils he'd choose Paul. It was kind of a douche answer considering that Paul isn't even one of the evils, but I guess he considers the two part system to be evil. Nader also coined the phrase "there isn't a dime of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties." So he's got that goin' for him as well.

Nader will probably vote for a Green Party candidate or Abstain. My guess goes to the Green Party considering he's pretty politically active. I could just as easily vote for Paul, but I don't really agree with him on things like: education (I went to a UC and got a great education, why would I want to disband that for my future kids?), the environment and programs to help protect the environment are my two biggest concerns. Plus, his potential SCOTUS picks could either be radically conservative or libertarian leaning conservative. I don't want that either.

I also like the fact that "Obamacare" will allow my future kids to stay on my private health insurance until they're 26. I remember not having insurance while I was in college... that shit sucked. Disband what you want from "Obamacare," but please leave that. Or, better yet, go with someone who's against corporacracy and will alter health care so that the only true beneficiaries aren't the pharma companies.

As far as the whole mj thing is concerned, I grow for myself and a few others, the DEA isn't going after me, nor will they (hopefully), b/c I'm in compliance with state law. I like Ron Paul's views of mj, but that's something that we need a congress to pass. It would be nice to see some awareness on the senate/house of reps front for the mj issue. I think it would be much more beneficial than wishing and praying Ron Paul will solve all of our problems. Even if he got elected, there really isn't much he could do without congress.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
mccumcumber said:
I'm a Nader man. Who, by the way, said that if he had to choose between the lesser of two evils than Ron Paul would be his choice (when asked about Obama and the GOP candidate, at the time it was unknown, all that was known was that it was very unlikely it would be Paul).

I'm not going to insult someone for liking Paul.

All I'm going to say is that this relentless spam is doing nothing to help Paul's case. I think a separate sub forum that embraces Paul, hell you could call it "THE RON PAUL FUCKING RULES FORUM!!!111one!!!1," is in order. All it is really doing in the main forum is taking up bandwidth and starting fights. I doubt the Paul spam will stop in 2014, if you want the fights to stay around, don't worry! I'm willing to bet some of the anti Paul people will gladly troll in the Paul forum. Which will cause infinite banter! Which is why a Ron Paul subforum is a win win.
Click to expand...
As I said, out of the top 10 threads right now, this is the only Ron Paul. Also, its not really about Ron Paul if you read it, its about the two party system. You know, the thing that Nader rails against. If we were to open a Ron Paul sub forum, what would be the criteria? You said that most of the threads mention Ron Paul, would you move any thread that mentions Ron Paul to the Ron Paul sub forum? Would you only allow the paulbots to post in the subforum and not on here since it might turn into a Ron Paul discussion? Would other users be allowed to post non Ron Paul information in the Ron Paul sub forum? Please tell me more about your great ideas. bongsmilie
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I exercise my right to say FUCK RON PAUL....Thank You for supporting me in my right to say this:clap:
Click to expand...
Fuck all president's in the 21'st century, they are all puppets. Spokespeople, idles. They are put there to give you something to blame when something goes wrong, or to admire when something goes right.

Left or right, pick your new puppet.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
Zaehet Strife said:
Fuck all president's in the 21'st century, they are all puppets. Spokespeople, idles. They are put there to give you something to blame when something goes wrong, or to admire when something goes right.

Left or right, pick your new puppet.
Click to expand...
In the 20th century I think JFK was good
and Robert Kennedy was going to be a great president.
 
mccumcumber

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
As I said, out of the top 10 threads right now, this is the only Ron Paul. Also, its not really about Ron Paul if you read it, its about the two party system. You know, the thing that Nader rails against. If we were to open a Ron Paul sub forum, what would be the criteria? You said that most of the threads mention Ron Paul, would you move any thread that mentions Ron Paul to the Ron Paul sub forum? Would you only allow the paulbots to post in the subforum and not on here since it might turn into a Ron Paul discussion? Would other users be allowed to post non Ron Paul information in the Ron Paul sub forum? Please tell me more about your great ideas. bongsmilie
Click to expand...
I don't understand if you really just don't get it, or if you are being facetious. A simple search of Ron Paul returns this:
https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=21528901

Yes this is the only thread with Ron Paul in the title. No it is not the only thread that the conversation gets derailed and starts talking about Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul gets mentioned a whole bunch, and a lot of times in threads where he doesn't really need to be mentioned. He seems to be the ONLY politician that lots of people talk about. Why not have his own subsection? It seems to be the only thing lots of people are interested in. Either that or they are vehemently opposed to him and start attacking the pro Paul people.

Where did I every mention that only "paul bots" could post in the section. You seem to be getting bitter about this, for reasons unbeknownst to me. It's a section dedicated to Ron Paul. Whomever wants to post in there can, and it's news about Ron Paul. You want your daily dosage Paul you go into the subforum. You don't want to see Paul stuff, don't go into the subforum. That simple.

You wouldn't need to move existing threads. Unless requested to do so.

Edit: The main focus of all your arguments seems to be implying that I want to segregate the community. Which is pretty fucking absurd. It would just be more organized. Look at any other section in this forum. Really popular topics, that only encompass a miniscule percentage of the broader spectrum, are given their own subsection. In general mj growing it's nutes, in advanced it's breeding... etc.

I can't imagine this causing any negative impact either. If you still wanted to spam the shit out of the general politics section, you'd be more than welcome to. Your thread just might get moved. Also, if you chose to post Ron Paul related topics in the Ron Paul section, there wouldn't be any people ranting on and on about the cons of Ron Paul. You'd probably get the occasional troll, but that's about it.

If Ron Paul is too specific, why not a Libertarian section. You could mention other Libertarians, amongst Paul, and have a riveting debate amongst those that are genuinely interested in Libertarian politics.

Really this is an attempt to get rid of the ridiculous slander that goes down on this forum every day. If it doesn't work, or just makes matters worse, drop the sub section. But what we got going now is just off topic bickering mainly due to people's political affiliation. Hell, I think a Republican and Democrat subsection would be great as well.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
mccumcumber said:
I don't understand if you really just don't get it, or if you are being facetious. A simple search of Ron Paul returns this:
https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=21528901

Yes this is the only thread with Ron Paul in the title. No it is not the only thread that the conversation gets derailed and starts talking about Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul gets mentioned a whole bunch, and a lot of times in threads where he doesn't really need to be mentioned. He seems to be the ONLY politician that lots of people talk about. Why not have his own subsection? It seems to be the only thing lots of people are interested in. Either that or they are vehemently opposed to him and start attacking the pro Paul people.

Where did I every mention that only "paul bots" could post in the section. You seem to be getting bitter about this, for reasons unbeknownst to me. It's a section dedicated to Ron Paul. Whomever wants to post in there can, and it's news about Ron Paul. You want your daily dosage Paul you go into the subforum. You don't want to see Paul stuff, don't go into the subforum. That simple.

You wouldn't need to move existing threads. Unless requested to do so.

Edit: The main focus of all your arguments seems to be implying that I want to segregate the community. Which is pretty fucking absurd. It would just be more organized. Look at any other section in this forum. Really popular topics, that only encompass a miniscule percentage of the broader spectrum, are given their own subsection. In general mj growing it's nutes, in advanced it's breeding... etc.

I can't imagine this causing any negative impact either. If you still wanted to spam the shit out of the general politics section, you'd be more than welcome to. Your thread just might get moved. Also, if you chose to post Ron Paul related topics in the Ron Paul section, there wouldn't be any people ranting on and on about the cons of Ron Paul. You'd probably get the occasional troll, but that's about it.

If Ron Paul is too specific, why not a Libertarian section. You could mention other Libertarians, amongst Paul, and have a riveting debate amongst those that are genuinely interested in Libertarian politics.

Really this is an attempt to get rid of the ridiculous slander that goes down on this forum every day. If it doesn't work, or just makes matters worse, drop the sub section. But what we got going now is just off topic bickering mainly due to people's political affiliation. Hell, I think a Republican and Democrat subsection would be great as well.
Click to expand...
Okay, I just think it ruins the whole point of political discussion when you start separating groups. The whole point of this forum IMO is to expose each other to each others beliefs based on whatever issue. There is not that much Ron Paul spam, you will survive it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top