SCope13 wrote:I'm voting for Stewart Alexander on the SPUSA's ticket because a) I hate both the dems and the GOP, b)Obama is too far to the right of me, and c) It is literally impossible for Obama to have a chance in my district anyway. That being said, if you are set on voting for one of the two major parties, you'd have to be fucking retarded to vote for anyone but Barack Obama.
I like how basically you're saying anyone who's on the right is a retard. That's a liberal way of thinking...
Never said I was a liberal. And if you're to the right socially, yes, you are a retard. Fiscal conservatives are a least respectable to a point, but I have absolutely zero respect for social conservatives.
Part of me wants to see Santorum win for the lulz, but then I think about what that would say about our country and I'm like no. And I love Ron Paul's foreign policy and civil liberties stuff. But his economics would only speed up the process of running our country into the ground.
ultraspatial wrote:doing any sort of drug other than smoking crack is 5 panel.
incnic wrote:true headz tread a fine line between bitterness and euphoria - much like the best rave tunes
SCope13 wrote:I'm voting for Stewart Alexander on the SPUSA's ticket because a) I hate both the dems and the GOP, b)Obama is too far to the right of me, and c) It is literally impossible for Obama to have a chance in my district anyway. That being said, if you are set on voting for one of the two major parties, you'd have to be fucking retarded to vote for anyone but Barack Obama.
I like how basically you're saying anyone who's on the right is a retard. That's a liberal way of thinking...
Never said I was a liberal. And if you're to the right socially, yes, you are a retard. Fiscal conservatives are a least respectable to a point, but I have absolutely zero respect for social conservatives.
Part of me wants to see Santorum win for the lulz, but then I think about what that would say about our country and I'm like no. And I love Ron Paul's foreign policy and civil liberties stuff. But his economics would only speed up the process of running our country into the ground.
For the record, I consider myself pretty far to the left. That being said, I don't think they're retarded in the least (well some of them are ignorant, but there's no shortage of that on the left either). While I might disagree with them on just about every social issue, that does NOT mean they're stupid... That means they look at a situation and see it from a different angle than I do. But I guess you're right, we should all share your exact point of view regarding social issues. Maybe you should run and use that as your campaign slogan.
SCope13 wrote:I'm voting for Stewart Alexander on the SPUSA's ticket because a) I hate both the dems and the GOP, b)Obama is too far to the right of me, and c) It is literally impossible for Obama to have a chance in my district anyway. That being said, if you are set on voting for one of the two major parties, you'd have to be fucking retarded to vote for anyone but Barack Obama.
I like how basically you're saying anyone who's on the right is a retard. That's a liberal way of thinking...
Never said I was a liberal. And if you're to the right socially, yes, you are a retard. Fiscal conservatives are a least respectable to a point, but I have absolutely zero respect for social conservatives.
Part of me wants to see Santorum win for the lulz, but then I think about what that would say about our country and I'm like no. And I love Ron Paul's foreign policy and civil liberties stuff. But his economics would only speed up the process of running our country into the ground.
For the record, I consider myself pretty far to the left. That being said, I don't think they're retarded in the least (well some of them are ignorant, but there's no shortage of that on the left either). While I might disagree with them on just about every social issue, that does NOT mean they're stupid... That means they look at a situation and see it from a different angle than I do. But I guess you're right, we should all share your exact point of view regarding social issues. Maybe you should run and use that as your campaign slogan.
They have not looked at a situation and seen a different angle. They've looked at a situation and been told theres only one angle. Arguing with them is pointless because the only way they justify it is "the Bible said so". I cannot see how anyone can possibly be against things like gay marriage and contraception at this point. I see being against either of those two things (and theres others) as being a signs of sociopathy.
ultraspatial wrote:doing any sort of drug other than smoking crack is 5 panel.
incnic wrote:true headz tread a fine line between bitterness and euphoria - much like the best rave tunes
SCope13 wrote:I'm voting for Stewart Alexander on the SPUSA's ticket because a) I hate both the dems and the GOP, b)Obama is too far to the right of me, and c) It is literally impossible for Obama to have a chance in my district anyway. That being said, if you are set on voting for one of the two major parties, you'd have to be fucking retarded to vote for anyone but Barack Obama.
I like how basically you're saying anyone who's on the right is a retard. That's a liberal way of thinking...
Never said I was a liberal. And if you're to the right socially, yes, you are a retard. Fiscal conservatives are a least respectable to a point, but I have absolutely zero respect for social conservatives.
Part of me wants to see Santorum win for the lulz, but then I think about what that would say about our country and I'm like no. And I love Ron Paul's foreign policy and civil liberties stuff. But his economics would only speed up the process of running our country into the ground.
For the record, I consider myself pretty far to the left. That being said, I don't think they're retarded in the least (well some of them are ignorant, but there's no shortage of that on the left either). While I might disagree with them on just about every social issue, that does NOT mean they're stupid... That means they look at a situation and see it from a different angle than I do. But I guess you're right, we should all share your exact point of view regarding social issues. Maybe you should run and use that as your campaign slogan.
They have not looked at a situation and seen a different angle. They've looked at a situation and been told theres only one angle. Arguing with them is pointless because the only way they justify it is "the Bible said so". I cannot see how anyone can possibly be against things like gay marriage and contraception at this point. I see being against either of those two things (and theres others) as being a signs of sociopathy.
A buddy of mine is a staunch republican and NEVER quotes the bible for his reasoning. He couldn't care less about what the bible says in regards to coming up with his political idealogy. There are more right wing people that are different from a lot of the ones below the bible belt. I would call anybody who blindly follows the bible to get their political ideology IGNORANT, meaning they just for whatever reason have a lack of knowledge on the subject. I know plenty of people who are anti-abortion not because of the bible, but because they believe that it's wrong, that it's the taking of a life (I disagree, but that's mine and their right). I will concede that gay marriage and contraception are 2 things that are usually brought back to the bible (which is just not good political policy), but I have no desire to insult them because they think differently than I.
Yeah, I was talking about social issues specifically. There would be no capitalists if people used the Bible as the basis for their economics lol. On the abortion thing, I agree. That's at least debatable. I mean, abortion is a bad thing, but making it illegal would only make it 1000x worse. And the fact of the matter is, there is just situations where it's probably the best option. No need to force a decision on a woman, or anyone for that matter. I always find it odd that the Republicans calling for "smaller government" are often the ones who want to control peoples lives by making decisions for them and forcing them to conform to a certain lifestyle.
ultraspatial wrote:doing any sort of drug other than smoking crack is 5 panel.
incnic wrote:true headz tread a fine line between bitterness and euphoria - much like the best rave tunes
SCope13 wrote:Yeah, I was talking about social issues specifically. There would be no capitalists if people used the Bible as the basis for their economics lol. On the abortion thing, I agree. That's at least debatable. I mean, abortion is a bad thing, but making it illegal would only make it 1000x worse. And the fact of the matter is, there is just situations where it's probably the best option. No need to force a decision on a woman, or anyone for that matter. I always find it odd that the Republicans calling for "smaller government" are often the ones who want to control peoples lives by making decisions for them and forcing them to conform to a certain lifestyle.
I absolutely agree. There's plenty of issues where a lot of politicians seem hypocritical. For example, they want to slash a ton of government spending yet when the military budget gets brought up, then all the sudden that becomes something worth spending MORE money on. But politicians are just that, and you're not going to make it to a position of real power as in idealist in the US. It's a sad fact but it's true.
capo ultra wrote:I think people are reading this as ''who do you want to win?'' not ''who do you think will win?''
There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
He's second in allocated delegate count (which is the REAL vote, the popular vote at the primaries/caucuses are strawpoll votes) and while his financial support is running a little dry compared to earlier, he still has the capability of going to the national convention, that could be brokered. I was wary myself, but the guy actually stands a chance because of this year's delegate rules (that were supposed to be in favor of Romney).
Ron Paul vs Obama would surely go to Ron Paul, because he would get both support from a bunch of occupiers, the tea party and a load of independents. That and the anti-war vote. It's getting the nomination that is actually tricky. Which I still think will go to Romney, but CAN go to Paul. It's not gonna go to Santorum or Gingrich, the polls show it and the GOP is terrified of risking that against Obama.
capo ultra wrote:I think people are reading this as ''who do you want to win?'' not ''who do you think will win?''
There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
Ron Paul vs Obama would surely go to Ron Paul, because he would get both support from a bunch of occupiers, the tea party and a load of independents. That and the anti-war vote. It's getting the nomination that is actually tricky. Which I still think will go to Romney, but CAN go to Paul. It's not gonna go to Santorum or Gingrich, the polls show it and the GOP is terrified of risking that against Obama.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the polls.
ultraspatial wrote:doing any sort of drug other than smoking crack is 5 panel.
incnic wrote:true headz tread a fine line between bitterness and euphoria - much like the best rave tunes
capo ultra wrote:I think people are reading this as ''who do you want to win?'' not ''who do you think will win?''
There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
Ron Paul vs Obama would surely go to Ron Paul, because he would get both support from a bunch of occupiers, the tea party and a load of independents. That and the anti-war vote. It's getting the nomination that is actually tricky. Which I still think will go to Romney, but CAN go to Paul. It's not gonna go to Santorum or Gingrich, the polls show it and the GOP is terrified of risking that against Obama.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the polls.
I don't think you have? Ron Paul consistently does best matched against Obama, even better than Romney (though not that different). And Paul is leading on Gingrich and Santorum with delegates.
capo ultra wrote:There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
Looks like it
If this is true, thats messed up. Get your shit together USA
That video is misleading....
The baffling thing about Ron Paul supporters is they are not Republicans..... most ron paul supporters are democrats or independents. So they can't vote in the Republican Primary because they are not registered republicans.
Ron Paul supporters really do not understand how the USA elects individuals
capo ultra wrote:I think people are reading this as ''who do you want to win?'' not ''who do you think will win?''
There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
Ron Paul vs Obama would surely go to Ron Paul, because he would get both support from a bunch of occupiers, the tea party and a load of independents. That and the anti-war vote. It's getting the nomination that is actually tricky. Which I still think will go to Romney, but CAN go to Paul. It's not gonna go to Santorum or Gingrich, the polls show it and the GOP is terrified of risking that against Obama.
Thing is, if Ron Paul got the nomination, he would instantly lose a bunch of support from the old school GOP faithful over the drugs/anti war/ other social policy stuff.
capo ultra wrote:I think people are reading this as ''who do you want to win?'' not ''who do you think will win?''
There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
Ron Paul vs Obama would surely go to Ron Paul, because he would get both support from a bunch of occupiers, the tea party and a load of independents. That and the anti-war vote. It's getting the nomination that is actually tricky. Which I still think will go to Romney, but CAN go to Paul. It's not gonna go to Santorum or Gingrich, the polls show it and the GOP is terrified of risking that against Obama.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the polls.
I don't think you have? Ron Paul consistently does best matched against Obama, even better than Romney (though not that different). And Paul is leading on Gingrich and Santorum with delegates.
False... either you are misinformed or you are making things up like most Ron Paul supporters
PLEASE DO YOUR CANDIDATE A FAVOR AND STOP MAKING THINGS UP. IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CANDIDATE TO MAKE THINGS UP THAT CAN BE REFUTED BY USING GOOGLE AND 30 SECONDS OF YOUR TIME
capo ultra wrote:I think people are reading this as ''who do you want to win?'' not ''who do you think will win?''
There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
Ron Paul vs Obama would surely go to Ron Paul, because he would get both support from a bunch of occupiers, the tea party and a load of independents. That and the anti-war vote. It's getting the nomination that is actually tricky. Which I still think will go to Romney, but CAN go to Paul. It's not gonna go to Santorum or Gingrich, the polls show it and the GOP is terrified of risking that against Obama.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the polls.
I don't think you have? Ron Paul consistently does best matched against Obama, even better than Romney (though not that different). And Paul is leading on Gingrich and Santorum with delegates.
I thought you were referring to the primary, in which Santorum and Romney are both well ahead. Doesn't matter though, because like pkay showed, what you said is false anyway.
And I really don't understand all the support for Paul from the left. Yeah, his views on foreign policy and civil liberties are awesome, but his economics are just soo terrible. Would make the inevitable collapse of the US economic system come even sooner.
ultraspatial wrote:doing any sort of drug other than smoking crack is 5 panel.
incnic wrote:true headz tread a fine line between bitterness and euphoria - much like the best rave tunes
capo ultra wrote:I think people are reading this as ''who do you want to win?'' not ''who do you think will win?''
There is not a chance in hell of Ron Paul getting elected
Ron Paul vs Obama would surely go to Ron Paul, because he would get both support from a bunch of occupiers, the tea party and a load of independents. That and the anti-war vote. It's getting the nomination that is actually tricky. Which I still think will go to Romney, but CAN go to Paul. It's not gonna go to Santorum or Gingrich, the polls show it and the GOP is terrified of risking that against Obama.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the polls.
I don't think you have? Ron Paul consistently does best matched against Obama, even better than Romney (though not that different). And Paul is leading on Gingrich and Santorum with delegates.
I thought you were referring to the primary, in which Santorum and Romney are both well ahead. Doesn't matter though, because like pkay showed, what you said is false anyway.
And I really don't understand all the support for Paul from the left. Yeah, his views on foreign policy and civil liberties are awesome, but his economics are just soo terrible. Would make the inevitable collapse of the US economic system come even sooner.
because a lot of our youth is hell bent on being contrarian. They see he is socially liberal and supports letting them smoke weed and go for that not realizing how insane his financial views are.
BUT HEY I CAN SMOKE BUD RIGHT BRAH? BETTER ELECT HIM PREZ YO!
im not american but i respect your constitution, ron paul is the only one who stands 100% by the constitution.
your second amendment gives power to the people, if it's lost, all your rights can be taken (and they will take them if the people cant fight back).
you have to be dumb not to see that the left and right are run by the same people. the answer to global problems is not world government but small local government, self sustainment and fair trade. the big bankers need to be bought to justice and their debts to become null and void.
desperate times call for desperate measures. voting for anyone other than ron paul will just prolong the global agony.
romney wont beat obama because he stands for the same things as obama so why would obama voters change their mind?
the GOP need to stop being such morons and stop backing a dead horse.
in my opinion, the only one who can beat obama is ron paul (although he may not due to the amount of cheating that gos on.... i tell ya, its outrageous the amount of voting fraud in the last few months).
so please america, try your best to get ron paul elected, not just for yourselves but for the rest of the world.
el-tel wrote:im not american but i respect your constitution, ron paul is the only one who stands 100% by the constitution.
your second amendment gives power to the people, if it's lost, all your rights can be taken (and they will take them if the people cant fight back).
you have to be dumb not to see that the left and right are run by the same people. the answer to global problems is not world government but small local government, self sustainment and fair trade. the big bankers need to be bought to justice and their debts to become null and void.
desperate times call for desperate measures. voting for anyone other than ron paul will just prolong the global agony.
romney wont beat obama because he stands for the same things as obama so why would obama voters change their mind?
the GOP need to stop being such morons and stop backing a dead horse.
in my opinion, the only one who can beat obama is ron paul (although he may not due to the amount of cheating that gos on.... i tell ya, its outrageous the amount of voting fraud in the last few months).
so please america, try your best to get ron paul elected, not just for yourselves but for the rest of the world.
CUZ RON PAUL LET U SMOKE WEED BRAH!!!!!!!
Ron Paul not being elected has nothing to do with "cheating" it has to do with most americans not agreeing with his ideals.
i hate that stupid fucking argument... its just ron paul fan boys having sour grapes.
