Ron Paul Wins All of Maines delegates to the RNC in Tampa Romney wins ZERO

[The Rabbi]

I'm familiar. What does that have to do with putting defined personal restriction on liberty. In this instance; what someone is allowed to do with their own body?

You mean things like selling ones own organs, or suicide, or adultery, or pedophilia (if a child wants to have sex with an adult), or beastiality, or prostitution, or ....

Well, I think you should get the point by now.

Societies around the world have ALWAYS restricted private personal behavior that only affects consenting individuals.

It is part of something that we call civilization.

If I want to sell a kidney or commit suicide what business is it of yours? Adultery is between me and my wife. Prostitution is not really your business either unless you are the prostitute or patron.

The bestiality and pedophilia arguments are just ridiculous. No one is suggesting that the law allow innocents be harmed regardless of whether they think they want to or not. There should be an established age of consent and if you violate that you should face the consequences. The key phrase to remember is "Consenting Adults".

Bestiality? Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

Lol, OK, now I get it; you have a language comprehension problem.

Let me help you: the phrase 'going to win any primaries' is not equivalent to 'going to steal the nomination'.

Your failure is that you have not been in the loop on the joke.

My post was a play off of the very recent thread entitled 'Ron Paul is Winning!'

But I can see how you made your mistake, and I won't hold it against you.

And your failure was in not understanding the point of that thread which was that he has started a movement which will change the republican party. These beauty contests mean nothing by the way June is going to be huge for Ron Paul. In case you didn't know that is when a lot of state conventions will be held.

He's going to change the gOP by exposing the lie that narco-libtards are somehow conservative.

 

[editec]

People like Ron Paul scare the MASTERS because he actually believes much of the crap they're telling the GOP loyals, and if elected Ron might actually DO SOME OF THE STUFF they've been telling their partisan dupes that they'd like to do for the last fourty years

They don't have any intention, of course, of doing any of those pseudo-conservative things they claim they'd like to do.

AFter all their socialism for the rich government system is making them rich beyond even their wildest dreams.

 

[SniperFire]

Your failure is that you have not been in the loop on the joke.

My post was a play off of the very recent thread entitled 'Ron Paul is Winning!'

But I can see how you made your mistake, and I won't hold it against you.

And your failure was in not understanding the point of that thread which was that he has started a movement which will change the republican party. These beauty contests mean nothing by the way June is going to be huge for Ron Paul. In case you didn't know that is when a lot of state conventions will be held.

He's going to change the gOP by exposing the lie that narco-libtards are somehow conservative.

Seems to me the strategy is to blur the distinction between what could best be described as the Christian Libertarianism of our Founders and today's freaky, immoral narcos.

We didn't vet old Ron Paul on the distinction because, for the purposes of public dialogue, we have only been interested in some of his valid observations on fiscal policy. These Libertine freaks have taken this to mean some sort of defacto Party endorsement of the totality of their extreme liberal agenda.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lest any Republicans ever be duped on this, I for one will keep your checklist handy and trot it out with regularity:

The narco-libertarians are not conservatives. That much is clear. They have much more in common with liberals than you think.
For unilateral nuclear disarmament? Check
For withdrawal of military forces? Check
See the U.S. as imposing its agenda on other countries? Check
See 9/11 as basically the fault of US imperialism? Check
For unrestrained sexuality? Check
For legalized drug use? Check.
And a host of others.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The narco-libertarians are not conservatives. That much is clear. They have much more in common with liberals than you think.
For unilateral nuclear disarmament? Check

Where has a major libertarian leader called for unilateral nuclear disarmament?

For withdrawal of military forces? Check

We need to withdraw forces from many areas of the globe where the conflicts threatening weak allies that once justified them. Western Europe is fully capable of defending itself, as is Japan, and the Cold War that once justified large numbers of troops is long over.

The same goes with Macedonia, Iceland, Turkey and many other locales.

See the U.S. as imposing its agenda on other countries? Check

We DO impose our agenda on other countries. Are you kidding? You think the PAkistani government turned against their puppet Taliban government just because? No, we forced them to do so or we would 'turn Pakistan into a parking lot'. And there are many other cases of said arm-twisting of countries so they will follow the policies demanded of our government by various left-wing ass hat organizations.

See 9/11 as basically the fault of US imperialism? Check

No, it is not our fault, but we have contributed factors in it, kind of like the drunk man who flashes cash in a bar and then gets mugged outside in the alley way. The drunk is not the one responsible for the crime but he did things that made it possible as we have with our policy of basically ignoring OBL and showing no respect for the religious taditions of Muslims by keeping troops in the Muslim Hejaz region which is a holy land for them and kind of desecrated by nonbeliever armed forces living there permanently.

For unrestrained sexuality? Check

Who, Ron Paul called for this?

For legalized drug use? Check.

It is a matter of pragmatism. The 'war on drugs' has been a dismal failure. It is time to cut our losses and let people imbibe legally if they want and then get treatment without fear of criminal punishment if they think they are hooked.

No one wants drugs to remain illegal as much as the criminal syndicates that sell them.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And your failure was in not understanding the point of that thread which was that he has started a movement which will change the republican party. These beauty contests mean nothing by the way June is going to be huge for Ron Paul. In case you didn't know that is when a lot of state conventions will be held.

He's going to change the gOP by exposing the lie that narco-libtards are somehow conservative.

Seems to me the strategy is to blur the distinction between what could best be described as the Christian Libertarianism of our Founders and today's freaky, immoral narcos.

We didn't vet old Ron Paul on the distinction because, for the purposes of public dialogue, we have only been interested in some of his valid observations on fiscal policy. These Libertine freaks have taken this to mean some sort of defacto Party endorsement of the totality of their extreme liberal agenda.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lest any Republicans ever be duped on this, I for one will keep your checklist handy and trot it out with regularity:

The narco-libertarians are not conservatives. That much is clear. They have much more in common with liberals than you think.
For unilateral nuclear disarmament? Check
For withdrawal of military forces? Check
See the U.S. as imposing its agenda on other countries? Check
See 9/11 as basically the fault of US imperialism? Check
For unrestrained sexuality? Check
For legalized drug use? Check.
And a host of others.

The funny thing is, all those questions you listed, you reps and dems have the exact same answers then come on here and pretend you're opposites.

 

[SniperFire]

He's going to change the gOP by exposing the lie that narco-libtards are somehow conservative.

Seems to me the strategy is to blur the distinction between what could best be described as the Christian Libertarianism of our Founders and today's freaky, immoral narcos.

We didn't vet old Ron Paul on the distinction because, for the purposes of public dialogue, we have only been interested in some of his valid observations on fiscal policy. These Libertine freaks have taken this to mean some sort of defacto Party endorsement of the totality of their extreme liberal agenda.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lest any Republicans ever be duped on this, I for one will keep your checklist handy and trot it out with regularity:

The narco-libertarians are not conservatives. That much is clear. They have much more in common with liberals than you think.
For unilateral nuclear disarmament? Check
For withdrawal of military forces? Check
See the U.S. as imposing its agenda on other countries? Check
See 9/11 as basically the fault of US imperialism? Check
For unrestrained sexuality? Check
For legalized drug use? Check.
And a host of others.

The funny thing is, all those questions you listed, you reps and dems have the exact same answers then come on here and pretend you're opposites.

ummmm..... no. Not even close to being close.

Now if you said hardcore Liberal radicals agree with you Libertines 100% on said issues, you would be correct.

You have been exposed.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Seems to me the strategy is to blur the distinction between what could best be described as the Christian Libertarianism of our Founders and today's freaky, immoral narcos.

We didn't vet old Ron Paul on the distinction because, for the purposes of public dialogue, we have only been interested in some of his valid observations on fiscal policy. These Libertine freaks have taken this to mean some sort of defacto Party endorsement of the totality of their extreme liberal agenda.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lest any Republicans ever be duped on this, I for one will keep your checklist handy and trot it out with regularity:

The narco-libertarians are not conservatives. That much is clear. They have much more in common with liberals than you think.
For unilateral nuclear disarmament? Check
For withdrawal of military forces? Check
See the U.S. as imposing its agenda on other countries? Check
See 9/11 as basically the fault of US imperialism? Check
For unrestrained sexuality? Check
For legalized drug use? Check.
And a host of others.

The funny thing is, all those questions you listed, you reps and dems have the exact same answers then come on here and pretend you're opposites.

ummmm..... no. Not even close to being close.

Now if you said hardcore Liberal radicals agree with you Libertines 100% on said issues, you would be correct.

You have been exposed.

Lol yes, a neocon pretending he's exposed someone's lack of conservatism, that's original..

For unilateral nuclear disarmament? Reps and dems want the UN to check some countries nukes and leave others unchecked.

For withdrawal of military forces? Both agree with keeping many U.S. troops all over the world to keep us "safe", including the continuation and expansion of the "War on Terror."

See the U.S. as imposing its agenda on other countries? Reps and dems don't think we are.

See 9/11 as basically the fault of US imperialism? Reps and dems get offended by the term blowback.

For unrestrained sexuality? Reps and dems are both fans of gov't regulated media.

For legalized drug use? Both reps and dems love the War on Drugs.

And a host of others. Both want the welfare program to continue, social security to continue, dept of education to continue, more gov't involvement in healthcare, and dozens of others.

 

[SniperFire]

The funny thing is, all those questions you listed, you reps and dems have the exact same answers then come on here and pretend you're opposites.

ummmm..... no. Not even close to being close.

Now if you said hardcore Liberal radicals agree with you Libertines 100% on said issues, you would be correct.

You have been exposed.

Lol yes, a neocon pretending he's exposed someone's lack of conservatism, that's original..

Why do you call it 'reps and dems' when we both know it is only 'dems' in the above list of questions.


Are you just too cowardly to admit it?

Why do you insist on humping the legs of Republicans when you narcos are really hard leftist liberal radicals?

It makes no sense.

Is it that you don't think you can't convince your Leftist soulmate brethren to be fiscally responsible?

Seems you would have better luck doing that than to try to convince conservatives to condone your freaky liberalism.

Come out of the closet and embrace your inner Pelosi.

You are not a very bright guy.

 

[The Rabbi]

They suffer from delusions of relevance.

 

[Dr.Drock]

ummmm..... no. Not even close to being close.

Now if you said hardcore Liberal radicals agree with you Libertines 100% on said issues, you would be correct.

You have been exposed.

Lol yes, a neocon pretending he's exposed someone's lack of conservatism, that's original..

Why do you call it 'reps and dems' when we both know it is only 'dems' in the above list of questions.


Are you just too cowardly to admit it?

Why do you insist on humping the legs of Republicans when you narcos are really hard leftist liberal radicals?

It makes no sense.

Is it that you don't think you can't convince your Leftist soulmate brethren to be fiscally responsible?

Seems you would have better luck doing that than to try to convince conservatives to condone your freaky liberalism.

Come out of the closet and embrace your inner Pelosi.

You are not a very bright guy.

I'd be happy to read your disagreements with the questions I listed, rather than your SOP of splicing and deleting sections of posts that you're scared of.

 

[SniperFire]

Lol yes, a neocon pretending he's exposed someone's lack of conservatism, that's original..

Why do you call it 'reps and dems' when we both know it is only 'dems' in the above list of questions.


Are you just too cowardly to admit it?

Why do you insist on humping the legs of Republicans when you narcos are really hard leftist liberal radicals?

It makes no sense.

Is it that you don't think you can't convince your Leftist soulmate brethren to be fiscally responsible?

Seems you would have better luck doing that than to try to convince conservatives to condone your freaky liberalism.

Come out of the closet and embrace your inner Pelosi.

You are not a very bright guy.

I'd be happy to read your disagreements with the questions I listed, rather than your SOP of splicing and deleting sections of posts that you're scared of.

Fuck you.

Is The Rabbi's list something you and Liberals agree with to the exclusion of Republicans, or not?

 

[The Rabbi]

Anything but answer that question.
Don't expect anything other than being called a fascist, etc.

I've posted the truth: the Narco's are descendents from the Anarchists, and thus first cousins to Bolsheviks. It has nothing to do with the Founders, who were fine with local governments instituting whatever they wanted.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why do you call it 'reps and dems' when we both know it is only 'dems' in the above list of questions.


Are you just too cowardly to admit it?

Why do you insist on humping the legs of Republicans when you narcos are really hard leftist liberal radicals?

It makes no sense.

Is it that you don't think you can't convince your Leftist soulmate brethren to be fiscally responsible?

Seems you would have better luck doing that than to try to convince conservatives to condone your freaky liberalism.

Come out of the closet and embrace your inner Pelosi.

You are not a very bright guy.

I'd be happy to read your disagreements with the questions I listed, rather than your SOP of splicing and deleting sections of posts that you're scared of.

Fuck you.

Is The Rabbi's list something you and Liberals agree with to the exclusion of Republicans, or not?

Lol damn, such a basic sentence really got under your skin. Settle down son it's just an anonymous message board.

But as I said, I'd be happy to read your disagreements with the similarities on issues I posted about reps and dems.

No it's not something liberals and libertarians agree on if you go by the 2012 definitions of the word. If you label a liberal as someone who supports Obama and supports more and more gov't, then liberals and libertarians have nothing in common. See, that's how you answer questions. Maybe someday you'll learn to at least try to do it, rather than only resorting back to your childish antics and Hannity-programmed talking points.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Anything but answer that question.
Don't expect anything other than being called a fascist, etc.

I've posted the truth: the Narco's are descendents from the Anarchists, and thus first cousins to Bolsheviks. It has nothing to do with the Founders, who were fine with local governments instituting whatever they wanted.

I answered every single question you posted, literally every single one.


I do know of one poster though who's scared to answer questions, most especially about James Early Ray. That poster is probably the biggest coward on the board.

 

[Uncensored2008]

At least you're not claiming to be a conservative anymore. That's one step on the road to self-discovery.

In 1976 I was a big fan of Ronald Reagan. During the convention this asshole pulled a slew of dirty tricks to try and discredit Reagan. That asshole was George Bush. Then in 1980, the asshole was right back to his old trick, screaming "voodoo economics," as if HE had a fucking clue about economics. Sadly Reagan chose the asshole as his VP. Then in 88' the asshole was running, not a chance in HELL I would vote for him, and I sure wasn't going to vote for Mondale. I had already discovered Rothbard, so I switched to the Libertarian party.

Economically, I'm Laissez Faire, this means I'm a whole lot more conservative than you are. I am a strict constructionalist, the Constitution means exactly what the written words say. The 4th amendment means that the government cannot force you to reveal your finances, how many children you have or what your business dealings are. 1040 forms violate the 4th. There is no right to privacy, it isn't there. We blatantly defy what the amendment DOES say, while inventing bullshit that it doesn't say. That I support the constitution makes me VERY conservative in today's climate, not many people do.

I believe that Mason, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, et al, were correct in their assertion that men are created free, that we are not destined to be ruled, but rather imbued with rights by our very existence. That means you have no right to dictate how others are to live their lives, that you want to, makes you a thug. Being a thug puts you squarely in the same camp as Jillian, Obama and the rest of the left, who also seek to use government to dictate how others will live and act.

You are no conservative, not even close.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We need to expose these closet Pelosians and chase them over to the Democrats to deal with.

You've already exposed yourself.

We already know you're a closet dim.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You mean things like selling ones own organs, or suicide, or adultery, or pedophilia (if a child wants to have sex with an adult), or beastiality, or prostitution, or ....

Well, I think you should get the point by now.

Societies around the world have ALWAYS restricted private personal behavior that only affects consenting individuals.

It is part of something that we call civilization.

Well, let's look at these.

Selling ones own organs? Why should this not be allowed? In fact, there is no direct prohibition of it. The issue is that organs can't be sold at all. Why? Well, because we would obviously have problems with the poor being "harvested" for organs. So organs can only be donated. If you want to donate your liver, you are more than welcome to - no restrictions.

Suicide. There is no rational reason to prohibit suicide.

Adultery: It's a breach of contract. Breach ANY contract and you will be liable for civil damages.

Bestiality and Pedophilia: Clearly the other partner cannot give consent.

Prostitution: There is no valid reason to prohibit it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You mean things like selling ones own organs, or suicide, or adultery, or pedophilia (if a child wants to have sex with an adult), or beastiality, or prostitution, or ....

Well, I think you should get the point by now.

Societies around the world have ALWAYS restricted private personal behavior that only affects consenting individuals.

It is part of something that we call civilization.

Well, let's look at these.

Selling ones own organs? Why should this not be allowed? In fact, there is no direct prohibition of it. The issue is that organs can't be sold at all. Why? Well, because we would obviously have problems with the poor being "harvested" for organs. So organs can only be donated. If you want to donate your liver, you are more than welcome to - no restrictions.

Suicide. There is no rational reason to prohibit suicide.

Adultery: It's a breach of contract. Breach ANY contract and you will be liable for civil damages.

Bestiality and Pedophilia: Clearly the other partner cannot give consent.

Prostitution: There is no valid reason to prohibit it.

Freedoms and liberties can be scary things in some instances to some people, but the alternative is far more scary.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You mean things like selling ones own organs, or suicide, or adultery, or pedophilia (if a child wants to have sex with an adult), or beastiality, or prostitution, or ....

Well, I think you should get the point by now.

Societies around the world have ALWAYS restricted private personal behavior that only affects consenting individuals.

It is part of something that we call civilization.

Well, let's look at these.

Selling ones own organs? Why should this not be allowed? In fact, there is no direct prohibition of it. The issue is that organs can't be sold at all. Why? Well, because we would obviously have problems with the poor being "harvested" for organs. So organs can only be donated. If you want to donate your liver, you are more than welcome to - no restrictions.

Suicide. There is no rational reason to prohibit suicide.

Adultery: It's a breach of contract. Breach ANY contract and you will be liable for civil damages.

Bestiality and Pedophilia: Clearly the other partner cannot give consent.

Prostitution: There is no valid reason to prohibit it.

Freedoms and liberties can be scary things in some instances to some people, but the alternative is far more scary.

"The contemporary world has gone astray, in sum, because it has sought freedoms from the dangers and risks of liberty."