Where's the Ron Paul People??

[Machiavelli]

LOL  It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change. 

Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.

[Javier]

What's the difference between having the same extreme politics, and being ideologically similar?

People like Ron Paul should be praised for actually looking to make a change, as opposed to the usual politics of the two big parties. You can be sure the change won't come from Obama; we should be glad there's actually some people out there willing to stick out their necks. Or, to put it in a familiar context: within a few years, you guys will feel either deceived by your candidates who promised change, or you'll stick your heads in the sand like "Real" American. So go ahead, and blame Ron Paul for being different. Yeah, fuck having people who actually express their true visions through democracy, instead of being a bunch of yes-men! Ron Paul should be banned from the campaign!

I praise Ron Paul for what he's done.  Props to him and his followers. 


The polices in the last 8 years have been heavily favored to the neo-conservatives, apart from the last two.  Obama can't bring an extreme change, but you can't deny that he'll have a strong impact in domestic polices.  Why?  Well he's going to be able to work with a Democratic Congress.  Bill Clinton didn't even have that, and that's why it was pretty hard for him to get things done.  He's also going to nominate 2-3 Supreme Court Justices.  We can't let a Republican take office and nominate even more conservatives to the Supreme Court, it will end up being extremely favored to the right.  Roe V Wade can be overturned if McCain gets elected.

McCain wont do shit....but Roe V Wade needs to be overturned. it should be a state issue.

It's not about nominating conservatives or liberals to the supreme court, one just needs to be a strict contistionlist and most progressives and neocons are not

You're taking an ideal approach to the Supreme Court situation.  Do you really want to leave it up each State? 

well I'm pro-life but abortion should be handled at a local level, the federal government shouldn't be the enforcer. Just like many other shit.

It should be handled at the most local level period: the individual.  The Federal government isn't forcing the young woman to have the abortion, it's just giving her the option to do so.  A lot of States will take that right away, not because of Federal vs State but because of Religion. 

[Javier]

LOL  It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change. 

Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.

Times change. 

[jeromechickenbone]

LOL  It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change. 

Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.

Times change. 

It doesn't matter.  If you look at the ideals and the fundamentals of liberty and freedom, those are timeless and the reason that this country was founded.  That can never be outdated.

[Machiavelli]

LOL  It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change. 

Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.

Times change. 

It doesn't matter.  If you look at the ideals and the fundamentals of liberty and freedom, those are timeless and the reason that this country was founded.  That can never be outdated.

yeah exactally, unless you want to become less free and more fascist..

and for abortion, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion and shouldn't be the rule maker. It's not all about religion. its an act of aggression towards a fetus which is alive, cant argue that.

[WestCoasta]

LOL  It's not wise to follow the Constitution in a strict manner. Times change. 

Why is that? This country was founded on that principle, and many politicians say that we should be strict. There the ultimate papers of democracy and freedom. The founders of whom were one of the smartest people advised us to be strict to the document. We have been drifting further away from it ever since its creation, and look at whats happening in this country slowly but surely.

Times change. 

It doesn't matter.  If you look at the ideals and the fundamentals of liberty and freedom, those are timeless and the reason that this country was founded.  That can never be outdated.

exactly.... M Dogg and Javi, do you guys support Bush?   because he sure as hell had tried to change the constitution

M Dogg talking about Ron Paul has an "extreme" following

Huckabee wants to change constitution and is against abortion, you don't think motherfuckers following him are "extremists"?  give me a fuckin break

this is why politics is disgusting, supposedly what's right and wrong will never end... or better yet fact and fiction

we're all being fucked in the end

[M Dogg™]

M Dogg never stated that they are ideologically similar.  He said, "Same extreme following, with the same extreme politics, just different sides of the extreme."  Extreme isn't the right word there, but he's saying it's a similar small following just on the opposite side of the political spectrum. 

Well he keeps saying that Ron Paul is Ralph Nader which is a stupid statement.  He's also saying that Paul has dropped out, that he's a Libertarian, and that he stole people's money with no intent of running for the presidency.  He also admits that nobody pays attention to him unless he mentions Ron Paul. 

Even if you draw that parallel between Paul and Nader, it's still weak as hell and I could list 100 reasons why they aren't even remotely close to similar.  Mdogg is just trying to smear Paul.

I tried to be civil at one time with debates with Ron Paul people. I have respect for him and MOST of his supporters, but when ya'all started saying things about Obama, like his pro-war when his the most anti-war president in the contest, that's when I was like, ok, if they want to distort the truth, let me do the same. You took Obama's words about national security and made it into his campaign platform. OF COURSE his going to say his going after Osama, what you want him to say, we invite him to dinner after he killed 3,000 Americans. Obama is for getting out of Iraq, and joining in on a UN occupation of Afganistan, and the capture of Osama Bin Laden. That's not being a hawk, that's being the man who wants to be commander and chef. But to hear you guys talk, it's as if Obama will bomb every Middle Eastern country outside Israel.

Straight up, you guys are annoying. I post some pro-Obama stuff, the same way you post your pro-Ron Paul stuff, and either it's ignored or you guys start dissing Obama, saying when are you going to wake up. REALIZE, I BEEN UP. I've supported Obama since he started, I have been a liberal for as long as I can remember, and his the first candidate I can honestly say I am not compromising my politics supporting him. You smear Obama, I smear Paul, that's how this works now.

Oh, and how Paul and Nader are simular. Both were ideal candidates, neither had an honest shot at winning the presidency. Pauls main objective is to move the Republican party more to the right, the same as Nader wanted to move the Dems more to the left, or risk having some votes taken (which happened), and honestly, Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies. On a side note, the Reform Party, or the Republican Party of crack with such great politicans as Pat Buchanan and Ross Parol as their nominees in the past, nominated Ralph Nader in 2004, so that shows you how easy Nader's views can fit in the right, just like Paul's anti-war, keep peoples lives private fits the left.

[Javier]

I guess it's getting hard for people to understand, so let me sum it up like this. 


The Constitution is a bit vague to be taken strictly.  That's why the Founding Fathers didn't write the Constitution in stone.  When did Bush try to change the constitution? Oh yeah that's right, he used it as a political stunt to get the Southern idiots to vote for him. 

[J @ M @ L]

Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.

LOL... this guy has lost it

[M Dogg™]

Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.

LOL... this guy has lost it

I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.

[J @ M @ L]

Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.

LOL... this guy has lost it

I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.

They're both isolationist... yeah so many similar policies.. you're right.. lol.. and lol @ you using that last one as an example of a similar policy.
By the way, it's spelled SIMILAR... and there's a difference between  HE'S & HIS... aren't you in fucking college?

[M Dogg™]

Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.

LOL... this guy has lost it

I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.

They're both isolationist... yeah so many similar policies.. you're right.. lol.. and lol @ you using that last one as an example of a similar policy.
By the way, it's spelled SIMILAR... and there's a difference between  HE'S & HIS... aren't you in fucking college?

graduated 

[J @ M @ L]

Paul is so far right, and Nader so far left that they both actually have simular policies.

LOL... this guy has lost it

I pointed out some simularities. I know for the most part they are different, but then again, both are anti-war, both are isolationist, and both don't have many supporters over 30.

They're both isolationist... yeah so many similar policies.. you're right.. lol.. and lol @ you using that last one as an example of a similar policy.
By the way, it's spelled SIMILAR... and there's a difference between  HE'S & HIS... aren't you in fucking college?

graduated 

Well at least you can always use yourself as a good indication/example of our failing education system.

Here you go... enjoy:

[Elevz]

Word, this is exactly what I mean, all of these people who constantly have these ridiculous labels "well i am a centrist leaning but slight leftie" "well i think that you lefties are the cause of the social decline in this country, we need a strong right wing government" "well i think you are all wrong what we need is the liberals" "flaming liberals endanger the stability of this nation with their idiotic poliicies" "

Meanwhile the truth is that these ideologies stopped on having any signifance at the upper echelons of power a long time time ago. Like 123 has said there is no difference in the parties they should just merge, that's not exclusively an opinion on american politics it''s largely the same here, i can't speak on germany or holland but I am sure 123 can speak on that. These labels mean nothing because fundamentally they have shifted the goal posts, they no longer contest or argue about the fundamental principles of constitution, about rights, now it's about giant centralised bureaucracies where the state imposes mass control on all sectors of an individuals life.

I can't speak for Germany, because honestly I wouldn't even know what kind of coalition they have, but as for the Netherlands... The political parties don't differ much, yet the population is torn into two camps: you're either pro (muslim) immigration, or you're against it. That seems to be the only political issue that really counts right now. ALL BUT ONE of the traditional parties in the parliament (there's like 8 of them) are more or less pro immigration and integration, and they reject the gut feelings of the people and the views which say the islam might not be so great a mixture with the progressive nature of the Dutch culture and the huge load of unwritten rules that naturally evolve with our freedom. There's homosexuals getting beaten for walking hand in hand in Amsterdam, and there's ghetto-like practises evolving in the poor areas of all major cities. The one traditional party who's for zero tolerance is the "People's Party of Freedom and Democracy" (the right winged non-conservative liberals), and basically they only do so because in the past few years two of their most important members have left the party to start parties of their own. These two new parties together are now bigger than any other party. Verdonk and Wilders both preach strong conservativeness towards integration and immigration, the latter being especially outspoken and harsh. He basically found a way to trick the media into generating hypes around him, so no matter what kind of stupid remarks he might make, it'll be picked up and it'll become a major issue among the voters and the politicians. The traditional liberals couldn't stay behind (their electorate is now only a third of what it was in 1998), so they're starting to pick up on these issues. It's a battle they can't win though, as long as Wilders keeps making remarks and manages to stay relevant through the media. You may have heard about his plans on making an anti-Qur'an movie... He's looking to write history by instigating something that'll combine the Danish cartoon controversy and the murder of Theo van Gogh. That's how the Dutch political system works: you say some shit, and the people will vote. You stir up bad vibes among the people, and it'll prove to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

Either way, populism is big, and the differences between most parties is only in nuance. With integration being such an important issue, the political parties who take on extreme viewpoints do best. Yet, at the end of the day, it is the less outspoken parties who always get to form the cabinet and govern the country.

It has to be said though; the Dutch people have always been rather united in their viewpoints. There's little debate on how income taxes should be dealt with, there's little debate on the importance of the welfare state, health care, etc. The only things that seem to differ, concern moral issues. How do we deal with the 'pornification', binge drinking, integration and young offenders, etc. How much tax money should be invested in health care, and how should it be put to use? It seems like there is no fundamental debate - either that, or we've been tricked into believing that everyone else agrees.

[virtuoso]

Thanks for clarifying 123 oh and props JML that video clips from George Carlin is so poignant I watched it once before and it perfectly illustrates the point

You can't just get "The Al Quaida" in Pakistan without invading Pakistan! an invasion means a war and yet you are protesting about Obama being seen as a Hawk!.
 
You are protesting about Obama being pro war when he wants to expand the troop presence in Afghanistan.

You can't talk about getting the islamic militants when islamic militants are being used against Iran, funding by the CIA and the Saudis.

I guess they hand out degrees like food stamps these days!