‘He’s a Fake’: Ron Paul on Santorum

WinterBorn said:
And every politician lies, so we should just ignore that?
Click to expand...

Yes! Ignore the lies! That is exactly what I said!!

WinterBorn said:
Every politician takes money from big corporations who expect something in return, so we shouldn't worry?
Click to expand...

Correct! Never worry about big corporations! Those are my exact words!!

WinterBorn said:
If you want to toss the constitution, then do it. But don't pretend it matters and then ignore the leaders who ignore the rules.
Click to expand...

Three for three! You have summarized my beliefs perfectly! No wonder you are right about everything!!
 
sedan said:
Yes! Ignore the lies! That is exactly what I said!!



Correct! Never worry about big corporations! Those are my exact words!!



Three for three! You have summarized my beliefs perfectly! No wonder you are right about everything!!
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see you recognized my genius.
 
WinterBorn said:
I'm glad to see you recognized my genius.
Click to expand...

Ha ha!

Facetiousness aside, all I'm saying is that as a political argument, the whole "he violated the Constitution!" thing means less to me than it once did. That doesn't mean I want to trash the Constitution. That doesn't mean we should ignore lying politicians. That doesn't mean turning a blind eye to corporate influence in the political process. What it does mean is that we've had some pretty good presidents who've clearly violated the Constitution. And some of them I'd vote for again if given the chance.
 
sedan said:
Ha ha!

Facetiousness aside, all I'm saying is that as a political argument, the whole "he violated the Constitution!" thing means less to me than it once did. That doesn't mean I want to trash the Constitution. That doesn't mean we should ignore lying politicians. That doesn't mean turning a blind eye to corporate influence in the political process. What it does mean is that we've had some pretty good presidents who've clearly violated the Constitution. And some of them I'd vote for again if given the chance.
Click to expand...


And I think it would be a terrible thing to have a president that agrees with the NDAA.
 
I also think anyone who takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution should do just that.
 
sedan said:
Ha ha!

Facetiousness aside, all I'm saying is that as a political argument, the whole "he violated the Constitution!" thing means less to me than it once did. That doesn't mean I want to trash the Constitution. That doesn't mean we should ignore lying politicians. That doesn't mean turning a blind eye to corporate influence in the political process. What it does mean is that we've had some pretty good presidents who've clearly violated the Constitution. And some of them I'd vote for again if given the chance.
Click to expand...

Then essentially you don't care. You may pay lip service otherwise, but you're still rewarding violation of our highest law, a DIRECT BREACH OF A SWORN OATH.
 
General Chamberlain said:
What, specificially, are we mad at Obama for doing?
Click to expand...

Signing the NDAA, the individual mandate, continuing extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Act, allowing and authorizing the execution of American citizens, Fast and Furious, Eric Holder.

Just off the top of my head though. Not all are solely Obama, in fact most aren't. But he sure as fuck didn't try to stop any of them.
 
General Sheridan said:
Signing the NDAA, the individual mandate, continuing extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Act, allowing and authorizing the execution of American citizens, Fast and Furious, Eric Holder.

Just off the top of my head though. Not all are solely Obama, in fact most aren't. But he sure as fuck didn't try to stop any of them.
Click to expand...

Another moment of disbelief for me, both parties, and the President!
 
General Sheridan said:
Then essentially you don't care.
Click to expand...

You have reached an erroneous conclusion.

Just because someone doesn't place the same priority on a thing that you do, that doesn't mean they don't value it at all.

General Sheridan said:
You may pay lip service otherwise, but you're still rewarding violation of our highest law, a DIRECT BREACH OF A SWORN OATH.
Click to expand...

I'm not "rewarding" anything.

I'm simply acknowledging an inescapable reality -- many presidents, both good and bad, have violated the Constitution. And that's coming from my point of view. From your point of view it's most likely a different set of presidents committing a different set of violations than what I see. From "someone's" perspective, every president has violated the Constitution in one way or another. We all have to judge for ourselves how starkly we will draw the line. For myself, I'd vote for another FDR in a heartbeat. Other's pine for another Reagan. Most Americans would call one or the other a great president. Yet both of them flagrantly broke the law. We live in a country that by and large forgives these transgressions. You can object to this all you like, but that's the way it is.
 
General Sheridan said:
I missed it, what did he say?
Click to expand...

Paul and Birth Control at the Arizona Debate
During the Republican debate in Arizona Wednesday night, Paul addressed the question of the moderator, John King, about birth control. The question was put to the candidates whether any actually opposed contraceptives. In essence, Paul said that birth control pills do not cause immorality, but rather that immorality causes one to want to use birth control pills, according to the Washington Post.

I thought Libertarians stayed out of others personal choices?
 
Rana said:
Paul and Birth Control at the Arizona Debate
During the Republican debate in Arizona Wednesday night, Paul addressed the question of the moderator, John King, about birth control. The question was put to the candidates whether any actually opposed contraceptives. In essence, Paul said that birth control pills do not cause immorality, but rather that immorality causes one to want to use birth control pills, according to the Washington Post.

I thought Libertarians stayed out of others personal choices?
Click to expand...

Unless he said more than that, he isn't getting into people's choices.

He is simply discussing cause & effect. If one is a christian, then pre-marital sex or extra marital sex is a sin and would be immoral. Very often the bad potential consequences of an action is what stops people from doing it.

I haven't seen him talk about removing or banning contraceptives.
 
Rana said:
Paul and Birth Control at the Arizona Debate
During the Republican debate in Arizona Wednesday night, Paul addressed the question of the moderator, John King, about birth control. The question was put to the candidates whether any actually opposed contraceptives. In essence, Paul said that birth control pills do not cause immorality, but rather that immorality causes one to want to use birth control pills, according to the Washington Post.

I thought Libertarians stayed out of others personal choices?
Click to expand...

They do. Just because Paul finds it personally immoral, doesn't mean that he would object to their legal use/distribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top