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

[Uncensored2008]

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

My first wife always wanted to know what the neighbors were doing and pass judgement on what they had for dinner or what they watched on TV. I never gave a shit, I had plenty of challenge just managing and running my own life, no need to stick my nose in the lives of others.

I think this is how Sniper and Rabbi are, they are busy bodies who always want to know what everyone else is doing, then impose their views on them.

Oh my ex? She became a meth-head and abandoned her children. That too is a busy body trait.

 

[LibertyForAll]

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.

I think its really cute how you and Rabbi are using the same lingo now. It looks like we have a budding Bromance on our hands.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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

My first wife always wanted to know what the neighbors were doing and pass judgement on what they had for dinner or what they watched on TV. I never gave a shit, I had plenty of challenge just managing and running my own life, no need to stick my nose in the lives of others.

I think this is how Sniper and Rabbi are, they are busy bodies who always want to know what everyone else is doing, then impose their views on them.

Oh my ex? She became a meth-head and abandoned her children. That too is a busy body trait.

I wish I were so perfect and everything in my life were so perfect that all I needed to worry about was everyone else.

But that's not usually the case with the nanny staters anyways, typically they're so insecure about themselves and their own flaws they have to look at the flaws of others in order to justify their actions and to give them an excuse from bettering themselves.

There's alllllllll sorts of things that I think are wrong but I don't want gov't forcing my views on everyone. I think it's wrong to hit your dog, doesn't mean I want laws passed and us to enhance the size of law enforcement enough to throw everyone who smacks Fido to be thrown in jail.

And as you saw with your ex, gov't didn't/doesn't have to punish your ex for her drug use. Losing her family, her health and probably her sanity were more than enough punishment I'm sure.

 

[Oddball]

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

My first wife always wanted to know what the neighbors were doing and pass judgement on what they had for dinner or what they watched on TV. I never gave a shit, I had plenty of challenge just managing and running my own life, no need to stick my nose in the lives of others.

I think this is how Sniper and Rabbi are, they are busy bodies who always want to know what everyone else is doing, then impose their views on them.

Oh my ex? She became a meth-head and abandoned her children. That too is a busy body trait.

They're Gladys Kravitz republicans.

AAAAAABNERRRRR!

 

[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.

I think its really cute how you and Rabbi are using the same lingo now. It looks like we have a budding Bromance on our hands.

Yet, you can't refute a word of it, and we are laughing our butts off at your contortions to deny your 100% allegiance to the listed radical Leftwing ideology.

Truth is, you must hide your real beliefs.

You have no choice, because you will never convince us mainstream conservatives that you are anything other than immoral liberals.

But hey. You have succeeded in getting a fake candidate into the Republican primary race to give you a little attention, since nobody will bother to vet the old boy.

Enjoy your return to total obscurity next month, along with your perennial one-half-of-one-percent of the popular vote for your candidates. It is well deserved.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You have serious selective memory issues. Serious ones.

 

[Caractacus]

Cain, humiliated and out.
Greengrinch, bankrupt and out.
Saintly Santorum, out.
Etc.

The Republicans are running low on candidates these days.

Ron Paul is an interesting, quirky political figure. I wonder if he's staying in the race to be able to maneuver himself into some sort of political bargaining position when Romney inevitably gets the nomination?

 

[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.

I think its really cute how you and Rabbi are using the same lingo now. It looks like we have a budding Bromance on our hands.

Yet, you can't refute a word of it, and we are laughing our butts off at your contortions to deny your 100% allegiance to the listed radical Leftwing ideology.

Truth is, you must hide your real beliefs.

You have no choice, because you will never convince us mainstream conservatives that you are anything other than immoral liberals.

But hey. You have succeeded in getting a fake candidate into the Republican primary race to give you a little attention, since nobody will bother to vet the old boy.

Enjoy your return to total obscurity next month, along with your perennial one-half-of-one-percent of the popular vote for your candidates. It is well deserved.

As we see, being popular is way more important than being principled according to Sniper.

 

[SniperFire]

Cain, humiliated and out.
Greengrinch, bankrupt and out.
Saintly Santorum, out.
Etc.

The Republicans are running low on candidates these days.

Ron Paul is an interesting, quirky political figure. I wonder if he's staying in the race to be able to maneuver himself into some sort of political bargaining position when Romney inevitably gets the nomination?

Paul is a charming old dickhead who has some good ideas on fiscal policy, so the Republicans like to hear him in the debates.

That is where it ends, because he hold the bizarre radical leftwing views on defense and social policy as detailed upthread.

So we mainstream conservatives treat him like that crazy old uncle. For amusement only, and not to be taken seriously.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're not a conservative. As most of this thread proves. You're main stream though. You're a parrot. You get your ideas from the republican driven news sources. The same as left wing parrots get theirs from left wing media outlets.

It's kind of sad, really. That you have to resort to using Rubber's posts copy/paste style, trimmed with media outlet talking points to even be coherent. Ah well. This thread is covered in snapperduds jizm.

Going to have to get out now.

 

[Bigfoot]

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.

Heh, that's an opinion alright. Not a real good opinion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Heh, that's an opinion alright. Not a real good opinion.

Great refutation, Floyd.

But you best run along now, Klan meeten's about ta start and you doan wanna be late.

 

[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.

Heh, that's an opinion alright. Not a real good opinion.

Based on.................................

At least try to give us something intelligent, instead of the childish insults and attempts at witty one liners that our other 2 resident neoconservatives have provided throughout the thread.

 

[SniperFire]

Heh, that's an opinion alright. Not a real good opinion.

Great refutation, Floyd.

But you best run along now, Klan meeten's about ta start and you doan wanna be late.

You figure playing the race card is a better rebuttal?

LOL

 

[Caractacus]

Paul is a charming old dickhead who has some good ideas on fiscal policy, so the Republicans like to hear him in the debates.

That is where it ends, because he hold the bizarre radical leftwing views on defense and social policy as detailed upthread.

So we mainstream conservatives treat him like that crazy old uncle. For amusement only, and not to be taken seriously.

This is how I largely view him too. Ron Paul has some interesting and thought-provoking ideas on economic and financial matters and, while he'd make a good finance minister, he'd not make a good President due to being so out-of-touch with the times. Another thing that I like about him is that he's a constitutionalist, although his interpretation of the constitution is rather archaic and libertarian than, say, conservative (i.e. like Antonin Scalia's view of the US Constitution as a strict document). One of the main things that I don't like about him is the sorts of people he tends to attract as followers- nutzis, fringe conspiracy kooks, and the like.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're not a conservative. You're an ignorant whack-job.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're not a conservative. As most of this thread proves. You're main stream though. You're a parrot. You get your ideas from the republican driven news sources. The same as left wing parrots get theirs from left wing media outlets.

It's kind of sad, really. That you have to resort to using Rubber's posts copy/paste style, trimmed with media outlet talking points to even be coherent. Ah well. This thread is covered in snapperduds jizm.

Going to have to get out now.

No, I think we've established who the conservatives are here. And if you have a wookie-suit in your closet you aren't one.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You think so, heh?

That's fine. I have no interest in back tracking an entire thread of your big govt. neoliberal opinions on how they should control peoples lives. it's all in the thread. Your ridiculous attempts at insults instead of intelligent discussion only confirm your neoliberal psuedo-conservative view points.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The way to determine a conservative isn't by principles, it's by supporting whoever the RNC tells you to support.

Right kids?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If I want to sell a kidney or commit suicide what business is it of yours?

It is the business of society to not allow the exploitation of people for their bodily organs.

Keeping it illegal prevents this in larger measure than if it were legal.

Adultery is between me and my wife.

Lol, no it isnt or it wouldnt be adultery.

Prostitution is not really your business either unless you are the prostitute or patron.

What gives you the right to tell me what my business is? The crime and property degredation that comes with areas that have high prositution are good enough excuses why I have a right to demand my congresscritters keep that shit illegal.

The bestiality and pedophilia arguments are just ridiculous.

People said the same thing about arguments regarding homosexual marriage twenty years ago.

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".

Why are our standards today sacrosanct? Throughout history most young adults that have gone through puberty and were capable of bearing children were allowed to marry and have children.

What is so magically different about 17 as opposed to 18 that makes sex wiith the first statutory rape but the latter is OK?

I am glad we have laws keeping older adults from pursuing young teens, but your logic is a tautology of arbitrary standards.