Ron Paul and Jessie Ventura?

[BobCox2]

I didn't realize you were waiting with bated breath for my "psycho" view.

Always Prince!

[SaroDarksbane]

I was expecting his scarily accurate prediction about the housing bubble, but this was good too.

[BobCox2]

[/popcorn]

And now for something completely different:
Presidential Candidates Explained Through Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheets

Came across this the other day and almost fell out of my chair!

I thought I started this thread with something completely different?

I have better AD&D Presidents in a old box in the Garage.

Although I do like Ron Pauls letters of Marque and Reprisal position. Is that the part of his foreign policy they keep forgetting to mention? And that kind of explains the Military support (Prize Money).

Capitalist thinking wins.

[Bowzer]

<****** class="restrain" title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/j5dZt27YTSY?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0">

[jmervyn]

Truther = 9-11 was a conspiracy was perpetuated by the CIA and the US government

Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11.

Paul's Position = 9-11 was our own fault because of our bad foreign policy

Paul's Position = 9/11 was a result of U.S. Gov't policies both external AND INTERNAL (per his own words), possibly or even likely due to the CIA (who conducted a coup against the U.S. Gov't), and requiring far more investigation in order to be considered legitimate. Sorry, but just because you're a fanboy doesn't mean you can dismiss his past claims.

Truther != Paul's Position

False. Truther => Paul's position.

but i don't want more social conservatives on the court, so that's not going to sway me.

You're not at all as intelligent a person as I initially assumed, then. Are you really so ignorant as to assume that the risk of an American "theocracy" poses any degree as much threat as the American oligarchy that the Progressives are already in stage four of completion on? More pointedly, why are you more afraid of prayer in school than of the police kicking down your door on some sort of environmental crime charge?

Are you saying the US is supporting Hamas, or that Iran and others are? No doubt islamo-facists are funding terrorists, I've agreed with you on this before. i'd be surprised if we're funding them directly.

Consider yourself surprised. It's not just tertiary (U.S. funding UNWRA who essentially act as a terrorist relief organization (and a unique one, distinct from the "normal" UN relief processes); it's not just secondary (U.S. funding of a variety of barely disguised front groups). It is PRIMARY funding - whether through USAID or through Obama's $900 Million handout. I crunched the numbers on that a while back; we basically offer several hundred thousand for each dead terrorist, versus only a couple of thousand for every dead Italian. Looks like we value the former many times more than the latter, doesn't it?

That doesn't sound very paul-esque.

Sure it does, even if you <do> dismiss his newsletters without grounds.

isolationist means no money for either side of the fight. let it be their problem....

Sure. However, pulling the covers over one's head is Paul's position, rather than the more intelligent and legitimate concepts.

I'm less isolationist than Paul, I would still want covert intelligence, but far less standing armies.

One would hope so. Paul, however, is for total retreat ala Obama. The American military has come to recognize the stark stupidity in such concepts. First, you can't "project power" 18th-century-style in the 21st century. Wars are no longer fought by emphasizing levied militia grinding each other to bits in trench warfare (aka "Mass"), but by emphasizing use of other principles, primarily "Offensive" and "Speed". For someone not conversant with the Principles of War, think of it as the old "get there fastest with the mostest".
Secondly, and in a similar vein, American military recognized that the traditional, beloved Cincinnatus concept is simply not viable, and the requirement of a standing, professional military cannot be avoided.

we could get by with a lot less military bases.

That goes without saying; they're a political game intended to feather Congresscritters' beds. The BRAC's are such political footballs as to make you lose your lunch.

I'd also like to see europe fund more of their defense.

They won't, and chaos and bloodshed will result.

I actually support obama's method of taking down bin laden

I never imagined you were a Bush supporter?

Paul's position here is because he's trying to be pure.

LOOK pure, more like it. Gingrich handed him his head during one of the last debates, making Paul look the cretin he truly is.

When discussing terrorism, Gingrich eviscerated Ron Paul when Paul equated Osama Bin Laden to a Chinese dissident, calling that analogy “utterly irrational”

“A Chinese dissident who comes in here — a Chinese dissident who comes here seeking freedom is not the same as a terrorist who goes to Pakistan seeking asylum,” Gingrich said, noting that a 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson was sabred by a British officer during the Revolutionary War in South Carolina and wore that scare his whole life.

“Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s enemies: Kill them,” Gingrich said to another round of raucous applause.

in fact, most of his weird positions--his opposition to the civil rights act for instance--that make him unelectable are the very ones that while i don't always agree with, impress me nonetheless because he's attempting to stay a pure libertarian.

Perhaps you should consider if someone who is more devoted to APPEARING to follow principle while betraying it is better than someone who believes in Realpolitik. I vehemently prefer the latter, as the current Executive is a fine example of the former. I agree that a President Paul would be better for the U.S., but then I'm not sure that we could have done much worse than we currently are either.

And i'll admit this is a "scandal" of his and it does need explaining. We'll probably never get much more than we've gotten though, and it would surprise me if he did actually write it.

Since he published the materials under his own name, owns full rights to them, and so forth, don't you think he would have done so by now if he could? I don't buy the "but he's a busy doctor" excuse, considering how much time he's spent on the campaign trail for a number of years.

i don't think it's intolerant to say that superstitious people believe in irrational things. religion/superstition is inherently irrational. Any set of beliefs that require you to set reason aside for faith, are irrational. i know we haven't debated on these boards in some time--but surely you recall at least ONE of my rants?

Considering that your modern concept of "rational" springs from both Christianity and Greek philosophy, the only excuse for using the term "irrational" is that of bias. A Muslim is quite rational - Allah commands him to cut your head off and rape your wife or daughter, so he must obey. Given the insane crap that's come out of Paul, both written and spoken, I wouldn't hang your hat on "rationality".

tin foil hat.

Meh, not much.

but fine, let's say that bachman's husband isn't ***, he really is just a doctor "treating" homosexuality, which we all know is a disease. Is that better?

If you meant it without sarcasm, and you did not, it would be. Homosexuality most certainly can be considered a mental disease if pedophilia and kleptomania can (and are, as I alluded to earlier with Greece funding their treatment on the gov't dime). How you come up with him being a closeted queer is nothing but vicious slander based on projection.

And Cain was less electable than Paul. Even if he didn't do any of the stuff they said he did, he was not ready for prime-time.

I'm not in disagreement, but rather I'm pointing out your clear-minded condemnation of Cain's bloopers and unanswered slurs about his "chasing white wummin", which was an obvious racist attack from the Obama administration allies (and quite possibly cheered on by Romney or other GOP types). You don't want a rotten apple, yet you intend to pick one who's been in the barrel with the rest?

lol. Just cudgel me (is that really a verb?) about everything else.

Okely-dokely.

it's been 2 days and I'm already wondering if I'll be able to keep up all week.

Well, kris tends to declare groundless victory and run like hell; you could always try that.

Neo-cons are post-conservative revolution. post-reagan. Goldwater GOP were basically libertarians, but they didn't use that phrase. when the religious right came up, that changed the party from Goldwater/isolationist/libertarian to neo-con/interventionalist/evangelical. i feel like the GOP should move back to it's Libertarian roots, whether it wants to call it liberal or conservative, or whatever the next phrase should be.

This is true, which is why you slandering me as a neo-con is invalid. My positions are far more in the Goldwater tradition, but you fail to grasp the way he was painted for being a geo-political realist (or probably even recall the "Daisy" ad that ruined his bid). Goldwater fully realized what the USSR was and how to treat it, but instead we got LBJ and the Vietnam debacle, where we did essentially krischan's tactic above while the USSR and China were pouring military resources in against us. It wasn't until Reagan that we defeated the Commie threat from the USSR, and nowadays we're so feeble morally and culturally that we aren't going to win against China (though they seem likely to win against themselves, up to a point).

Oh, don't be mad.

I'm not mad. You've never seen me mad. You wouldn't like me when I'm mad.

can be solved without massive super-ornate buildings and goofy hats.

They can, but aren't. Paul's feverish interpretation of Originalist belief would help, but it wouldn't stop the crumbling already underway. That requires a Reagan-esque religious and social drive which Paul is disinterested in and which you reject.

I would, and have argued that fire and brimstone are not effective motivators.

I'm sure you don't approve of spanking, either, but neither belief is sound. Fact of the matter is, if you don't answer to anyone but yourself, it's a crap shoot whether you turn out as a moral citizen or an immoral criminal, because there's no final judgement to be concerned with. At best, you must fear being caught and risking punishment, which is farcical in the U.S.

Now all they have to do is accept JC in their hearts. That's fine and good for soul saving, but it's not helping society cure any societal ills

This is a common enough complaint, often heard under the smear of "Cafeteria Christianity", but it isn't accurate. Even non-denominational feel-good churches, of which I've attended more than a few, don't use the 'deathbed conversion' excuse as an equivalency for the Atheist-cum-Satanist-cum-Wicca "do as thou wilst", because it is recognized that even if you're not impacted, you can cause others to sin and you degrade the name of Christ in your behavior.

but claiming that religion improves society is sketchy at best.

Good thing that's not the claim I made and that you're putting words in my mouth again, then. I wouldn't claim that hammers or saws improve a house, but you insist that you can build a better one without them?

Okay, i'll stop poking you about the neo-con thing.

Good. "Warmonger" is the acceptable slur, if you weren't around back when Llad12 was sliming me.

[jmervyn]

I wasn't. I just wondered what you thought about the man you're planning on casting a vote essentially declaring that limits on presidential power don't matter.

I think he made a grotesquely stupid statement, and I honestly don't expect more from such a milquetoast Massachusetts Republican.

Are you claiming that our troops are "frothing loons" here, or that they give money to candidates they don't actually support?

It's still attempting to wrap your argument in the flag. Paul gets support from the military because aside from the other garden gnome, he's one of the few who thinks it's stupid to waste their lives wandering around being shot at in backwaters. Think of these as a "protest vote" by people who are forbidden to protest.

I was hoping you'd go back and see who made the comment in question. Wanna double down again?

Not particularly; I already told you I haven't time to re-read the thread. This is 'stream of consciousness' stuff for me, you know.

Can you point out where?

Not easily, for the reason I identified above. Do your own Googling, mmkay?

That's your definition of "truther"? Any argument is winnable if you just change your definitions to match your claim.

I provided the definition to Steve in the previous reply, and it is both sound and accepted. I guess your language barrier extends to not grasping the meaning of the word, "truth"?

I was surprised you managed to get the word Nazi past the word filter though.

He's been quite clear he wants to end ALL foreign aid. The fact that this would end the "far greater" support for the anti-Israel organizations you cite is actually an argument for him being pro-Israel.

Oh, please. The $3B I'm sure you refer to is in no small part because we use Israel as a military test-bed and client state - essentially helping them buy our weaponry.

American funding of Arab states, OTOH, gets us what exactly (aside from aircraft flown into assorted landmarks)?

But by all means, continue to cherry-pick the facts to suit your pre-determined conclusion.

Will do, Mr. Kettle.

Err, how is it?

You need to re-read the facts I posted, or Google them yourself if you don't want to bother. Paul has a tactic of inserting earmarks in bills he's sure will pass, and then voting against them in order to make his spurious claim about not voting for earmarks. I find that grotesquely hypocritical, as if someone routinely makes a pig out of themselves at the buffet table but then denounces the check and refuses to pay when the waiter brings it.

Also, Ron Paul's ideas on government are distinctly Jeffersonian, which is why I called him the Thomas Jefferson of our time. Can you argue against this in a logical fashion, or are you going to make more Katy Perry references?

They are distinctly not, as per the Jefferson quote I provided. Paul is isolationist, and not at all bright in his claims about it, while Jefferson was obviously not.



Feel free to photoshop Ron's head here:

[Bowzer]

Voter fraud confirmed

<****** class="restrain" title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Zyfy-AsAjcA?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0">

Looks like Ron Paul tied for first in Iowa + Main stream media ignoring that fact to talk about rick Sandy Vagina.

[Stevinator]

Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11.
Paul's Position = 9/11 was a result of U.S. Gov't policies both external AND INTERNAL (per his own words), possibly or even likely due to the CIA (who conducted a coup against the U.S. Gov't), and requiring far more investigation in order to be considered legitimate. Sorry, but just because you're a fanboy doesn't mean you can dismiss his past claims.
False. Truther => Paul's position.

I think we're watching different videos...

You're not at all as intelligent a person as I initially assumed, then. Are you really so ignorant as to assume that the risk of an American "theocracy" poses any degree as much threat as the American oligarchy that the Progressives are already in stage four of completion on? More pointedly, why are you more afraid of prayer in school than of the police kicking down your door on some sort of environmental crime charge?

Citizens united. That was the last "win for the oligarchy" that I recall. Was that a liberal or conservative position? Besides the right also likes to kick down doors, I fear government intrusion into my life from several angles. Justice Roberts does not make me sleep better at night.

Consider yourself surprised. It's not just tertiary (U.S. funding UNWRA who essentially act as a terrorist relief organization (and a unique one, distinct from the "normal" UN relief processes); it's not just secondary (U.S. funding of a variety of barely disguised front groups). It is PRIMARY funding - whether through USAID or through Obama's $900 Million handout. I crunched the numbers on that a while back; we basically offer several hundred thousand for each dead terrorist, versus only a couple of thousand for every dead Italian. Looks like we value the former many times more than the latter, doesn't it?

I'll admit I did not get a chance to vet all of those links, but from cursory examination, it looks like you may a point. I don't support funding either side of that war. How's that for consistency?

Sure it does, even if you <do> dismiss his newsletters without grounds.
Sure. However, pulling the covers over one's head is Paul's position, rather than the more intelligent and legitimate concepts.
One would hope so. Paul, however, is for total retreat ala Obama. The American military has come to recognize the stark stupidity in such concepts. First, you can't "project power" 18th-century-style in the 21st century. Wars are no longer fought by emphasizing levied militia grinding each other to bits in trench warfare (aka "Mass"), but by emphasizing use of other principles, primarily "Offensive" and "Speed". For someone not conversant with the Principles of War, think of it as the old "get there fastest with the mostest".

okay, but if we spend half of what we do now, we could still be there fastest with the mostest because we'd still be outspending most of the rest of the world (save maybe china).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/...itary-spending

Secondly, and in a similar vein, American military recognized that the traditional, beloved Cincinnatus concept is simply not viable, and the requirement of a standing, professional military cannot be avoided.
That goes without saying; they're a political game intended to feather Congresscritters' beds. The BRAC's are such political footballs as to make you lose your lunch.
They won't, and chaos and bloodshed will result.

I don't follow. Please explain the cincinnatus concept....(I googled, and wikied, but I feel like I'm missing the allusion.

I never imagined you were a Bush supporter?

LOL, how quickly we forget. You really don't remember me? I'm hurt.

in every election you take the least bad candidate. not unlike what we're talking about here.

LOOK

pure, more like it. Gingrich handed him his head during one of the last debates, making Paul look the cretin he truly is.

Perhaps you should consider if someone who is more devoted to APPEARING to follow principle while betraying it is better than someone who believes in Realpolitik. I vehemently prefer the latter, as the current Executive is a fine example of the former. I agree that a President Paul would be better for the U.S., but then I'm not sure that we could have done much worse than we currently are either.

I'm intrigued as to whom you're supporting. You mentioned Cain a while back, but he's out.

Considering that your modern concept of "rational" springs from both Christianity and Greek philosophy, the only excuse for using the term "irrational" is that of bias. A Muslim is quite rational - Allah commands him to cut your head off and rape your wife or daughter, so he must obey. Given the insane crap that's come out of Paul, both written and spoken, I wouldn't hang your hat on "rationality".

Greek philosophy maybe, but the church, which taught that you should accept things as they are presented is hardly the inventor of science or rational thinking. You should read up on Galileo again. He's not as exciting as the Barbary Pirates, but there's a lesson in there. The Reformation did not go as you see it. The church wasn't the one rising up and learning. The church was fighting people who disagreed with it, both in science and dogma.

If you meant it without sarcasm, and you did not, it would be. Homosexuality most certainly can be considered a mental disease if pedophilia and kleptomania can (and are, as I alluded to earlier with Greece funding their treatment on the gov't dime). How you come up with him being a closeted queer is nothing but vicious slander based on projection.

wow, okay I'm wrong, he's just a regular bigot--trying to find a cure to the scurge of all civilization.

I have *** friends, and their relationships are often healthier and more loving than mine. (the depth of that is probably lost on you since you don't recall my previous posts, but my sad sordid love life is well documented in the bowels of elly's servers...)

I'm not in disagreement, but rather I'm pointing out your clear-minded condemnation of Cain's bloopers and unanswered slurs about his "chasing white wummin", which was an obvious racist attack from the Obama administration allies (and quite possibly cheered on by Romney or other GOP types). You don't want a rotten apple, yet you intend to pick one who's been in the barrel with the rest?

Actually, Cain's grabbiness was not a big deal to me. only one of the cases was their even an accusation that he broke any law, and in my undocumented estimation, he probably did hit on a few women, but defending himself would have been worse than just dropping out of the race. My biggest issue with him was his terrible tax plan that had a sales tax, but left capital gains, dividends and interest all untaxed. regressive. don't like it. Of course gingrich and paul and one of the others have similarly iffy plans, but none as specifically bad as cain's. Romney and perry's plans were basically not changing anything, but instead adding an option to do your taxes another way. that's potentially bad too, because they just make the current system worse.

I've said this before, elections are a lot of nose holding with me because there are few candidates who take the stances I do. Paul is the one that stands out as the longest most consistent history of some level of social freedom, very little bible thumping and the most serious about making real cuts, and with the bonus he seems to be fighting the oligarchy--or at least tilts at the windmills. That was my criteria. After many pages of political talk, i suppose you might know someone who fits my mold closer? i'm open to suggestions. Clearly you've done your homework.

Okely-dokely.

Well I'll be. I'm using that.

Well, kris tends to declare groundless victory and run like hell; you could always try that.

Does it work?

This is true, which is why you slandering me as a neo-con is invalid. My positions are far more in the Goldwater tradition, but you fail to grasp the way he was painted for being a geo-political realist (or probably even recall the "Daisy" ad that ruined his bid). Goldwater fully realized what the USSR was and how to treat it, but instead we got LBJ and the Vietnam debacle, where we did essentially krischan's tactic above while the USSR and China were pouring military resources in against us. It wasn't until Reagan that we defeated the Commie threat from the USSR, and nowadays we're so feeble morally and culturally that we aren't going to win against China (though they seem likely to win against themselves, up to a point).

Interesting.

They can, but aren't. Paul's feverish interpretation of Originalist belief would help, but it wouldn't stop the crumbling already underway. That requires a Reagan-esque religious and social drive which Paul is disinterested in and which you reject.
I'm sure you don't approve of spanking, either, but neither belief is sound. Fact of the matter is, if you don't answer to anyone but yourself, it's a crap shoot whether you turn out as a moral citizen or an immoral criminal, because there's no final judgement to be concerned with. At best, you must fear being caught and risking punishment, which is farcical in the U.S.

You really think that? I'm sure lots of believers have sinned...morality does not require, in fact I wonder if it isn't sometimes hindered by religion's misunderstanding of how to make posititve and negative reinforcements and punishments more effective. Why does god wait until your death to punish you? that's not effective at all, for someone to learn to behave in the way you want them to the reinforcement must be tied to the punishment. this is pretty basic psychology. Religion was more effective when we believed certain behaviors made it rain or not, at least then you only had to wait a few days. If anyone, a god would know best how to affect the behavior of his creations, would he not?

This is a common enough complaint, often heard under the smear of "Cafeteria Christianity", but it isn't accurate. Even non-denominational feel-good churches, of which I've attended more than a few, don't use the 'deathbed conversion' excuse as an equivalency for the Atheist-cum-Satanist-cum-Wicca "do as thou wilst", because it is recognized that even if you're not impacted, you can cause others to sin and you degrade the name of Christ in your behavior.

Well Romans 10:9, John 1:25, John 4:15, and snippets throughout the new testament (especially john) disagree, but that's why the language is so dense, it's easier if you require someone to explain it to you for the bible to say whatever is useful for it to say the time.

EDIT: In fact, in John 10:1 (I had to find the verse, my memory is merely human) JC tells the Pharisee that there's no other way to salvation than "thru the gate" which is in that chapter explained to be JC himself. The ONLY way is to accept JC, and be forgiven. And he always forgives everything except one offense--talking bad about the holy spirit. Matthew 12:32 & Luke 12:10.

Good thing that's not the claim I made and that you're putting words in my mouth again, then. I wouldn't claim that hammers or saws improve a house, but you insist that you can build a better one without them?

So you don't think religion makes society better? you're dancing on the fence here. your analogy leaves me with little wiggle room, but I'm arguing here that we can build a better house with better hammers and saws. maybe some table saws so our cuts are straighter, and not guided magically.

Good. "Warmonger" is the acceptable slur, if you weren't around back when Llad12 was sliming me.

I try not to copy Llad. BTW he's not posting at the other place either (land of the banned). He just mysteriously disappeared one day. Dondrei too mysteriously left the other place. I'm pretty sure I PMed you when everyone left. Do you really not remember me? I suppose there were too many steves back then. it diluted my brand. :(

[SaroDarksbane]

It's still attempting to wrap your argument in the flag.

Republicans are the ones always claiming to "support the troops", but when you point out that the troops want Paul in the Whitehouse, suddenly they claim you're "wrapping yourself in the flag". Funny how that works.

Not particularly; I already told you I haven't time to re-read the thread.

You can't be arsed to verify what you say, but you'll keep saying it anyway?

I guess your language barrier extends to not grasping the meaning of the word, "truth"?

Under your definition, anyone who believes that even one minuscule fact was withheld from them about 9/11 is a "truther". That's an absurd definition, not the common definition of the word, and you know it.

Oh, please.

Nothing you said counters what I said. Cutting all foreign aid cuts more to Israel's enemies than to Israel. Ignoring that fact to take pot shots is disingenuous.

You need to re-read the facts I posted

I understand the facts. The facts are that a certain amount of money will be spent, regardless. An earmark is a request for a portion of those funds. If he doesn't earmark, they spend all the money somewhere else. My analogy holds: No one wants to be robbed, but if you're going to get robbed anyway, you'd want as much of it back as you can get.

Unless you can point out something I'm missing, there's no ideological inconsistency here.

They are distinctly not, as per the Jefferson quote I provided.

The quote about Jefferson's view on religion? How does that prove that Ron Paul is an isolationist? How about some quotes on topic:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." - Thomas Jefferson

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Thomas Jefferson

Sound anything like Ron Paul to you? What if I throw in this one:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson

[Stevinator]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=truther

1.	Truther	1027 up, 608 down
	Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.

The second time I've posted this.