| Welcome to Nintendo Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Stephen Colbert | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 17 2007, 09:40 PM (1,028 Views) | |
| Ramen Hood | Oct 20 2007, 05:18 PM Post #16 |
|
Paul's dumb Alex is cool
![]()
|
You still didn't say why the Ron Paul fans were misinformed. And social sites are really popular, and millions go on them. Where else to inform people and talk about someone they're passionate about? And maybe people do enjoy reading about 9/11 conspiracies, but not a whole lot belive in them.. It's like reading The Communist Manifesto. |
Ron Paul in '08![]() <img src='http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/Ramen Hood/0313.png' border='0' alt='user posted image'> | |
![]() |
|
| KatzMotel | Oct 20 2007, 05:29 PM Post #17 |
![]()
:3
![]()
|
Outside. The internet, as great as it is, is still not the major political platform that some try to make it out to be. I sincerely doubt that the key middle-aged and elderly demographic groups give a damn about what some random people on the internet say.
Given that these things come up over and over and over and over again on sites where the member base chooses the content, it seems pretty likely that they do believe it, or at least a significant minority does. But back to my other point. If Ron Paul is such a staunch constitutionalist and has such an allegedly huge following, why does he even need to stick to the party labels anyway? Why not run as an independent? |
![]() |
|
| Ramen Hood | Oct 20 2007, 05:37 PM Post #18 |
|
Paul's dumb Alex is cool
![]()
|
Because Independents aren't known for winning elections. Paul can go against the Republicans in early debates. And there are a ton of conventions such that people go to, to help spread the word. If everyone in the U.S. knew about Ron Paul and what he stands for, he'd win the presidency hands-down. He's still got an entire year to get his message out, and while he stated he wouldn't run as an Indepedent if he doesn't get the nomination, I say that there's a good chance that he will. |
Ron Paul in '08![]() <img src='http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/Ramen Hood/0313.png' border='0' alt='user posted image'> | |
![]() |
|
| KatzMotel | Oct 20 2007, 05:38 PM Post #19 |
![]()
:3
![]()
|
Nor are people who can't even get 5% of their own party's support. |
![]() |
|
| Ramen Hood | Oct 20 2007, 05:39 PM Post #20 |
|
Paul's dumb Alex is cool
![]()
|
Just watch how well he will do.
|
Ron Paul in '08![]() <img src='http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/Ramen Hood/0313.png' border='0' alt='user posted image'> | |
![]() |
|
| AirRaven | Oct 20 2007, 06:37 PM Post #21 |
|
Toadette
|
... :lol: Dick Cheney would have a higher chance of winning than Ron Paul. He's just not plausible. His policies are all but suicidal too to boot. Isolationism might have worked a century ago, but there's no chance in hell of it being a maintainable foreign policy in the 21st century. Just not going to happen. |
![]() |
|
| P=D | Oct 20 2007, 06:48 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Birdo
|
:lol: In general I find smilies annoying and try to avoid using them, but in this case, I just can't help it. ...While I'm at it, I might as well indulge in another:
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Ramen Hood | Oct 20 2007, 10:57 PM Post #23 |
|
Paul's dumb Alex is cool
![]()
|
Isolationism? I wouldn't call his foreign policies that, he just doesn't want to "Police the world." I don't get it, is everyone all of the sudden GLAD we went to war? I love most of what he stands for. If you ask anyone on the streets, usually they will say that they liked Reagan, at least what he stood for, maybe not of what all he did. Paul may be a bit too Libertarian for me, but we need someone like him to offset what the Bush Administration and others have done to this country. Disagree with the war? Vote for Paul. He's the only presidential hopeful that has consistently voted against the war. Even most of the Democrats said they will not pull out if they got into office. Want our economy back on track? Ron Paul. The U.S. owes trillions to other countries because we can just make more money; mostly for the war. Our economy is going down the tubes. Paul wants to get rid of the IRS, and most of the needless departments that are only for show, and set up a more productive means to deal with home defense and the energy crysis. Now he won't be able to get rid of the IRS, rightfully so IMO, but he will lower most of the taxes. Just look where your taxes go, needless things. He also wants to go back to the gold standard; this willmake sure we don't do any needless spending and borrowing from other countries and not paying it back. I think it's a little overboard, but it'll better than what it is now. There's much more but I'm not going to go into detail, at least right now. I don't get what you people want. Besides, most of this you Brits won't care about. You are the reason we had to make our own Constitution; one that has been modeled after by many nations since. And for P=D, you're a troll. |
Ron Paul in '08![]() <img src='http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/Ramen Hood/0313.png' border='0' alt='user posted image'> | |
![]() |
|
| KatzMotel | Oct 21 2007, 08:06 AM Post #24 |
![]()
:3
![]()
|
So you wouldn't call withdrawing from the UN and NATO isolationism? The United States has been interfering in other nations' business since the conclusion of the Second World War, and it simply doesn't seem viable to just turn that around now. This isn't just about the United States going on a rampage in the Middle East recently... not that I'd call invading a stable country like Iraq (however oppressive it might have been) 'policing' anyway. Peacekeeping generally involves keeping the peace, not disrupting it. I can understand the motive behind an immediate Iraq withdrawal, and his opposition to any sort of military action against Iran is certainly positive, but Paul's policies go far beyond that; the United States shouldn't back out of international politics altogether. But the bottom line is whatever he says-- whether you agree with his policies or not-- he's still just a fringe candidate. Politicians nowadays are pragmatists... if they really thought that what he was saying was a vote winner, wouldn't they adopt it themselves? I'm afraid that's just how politics seem to work these days. So in all likelihood, you're going to be left with assholes as the presidential candidates for both the Republican and Democratic party. And you have to ask yourself: why does he not even have 5% of his party's support? |
![]() |
|
| Catscratch | Oct 21 2007, 10:36 AM Post #25 |
![]()
847-BIRDO
![]()
|
I don't care who you're talking about. Don't make an argument like this. If someone stands for something, they also do that same thing. Otherwise they don't really stand for it. Anyone can say they stand for nice stuff. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Ramen Hood | Oct 21 2007, 11:56 AM Post #26 |
|
Paul's dumb Alex is cool
![]()
|
I'm saying people why like him has a lot to deal with what he said, that he liked limited government. He was an actor. Tearing down the Berlin Wall helped a bit too. And if elected, I don't think the U.S. will really pull out of the UN. Congress wouldn't allow it. I think a nice compromise would be just fine.
Not if it's something that the Republican Party, or Democratic party doesn't agree with. Plus, I don't see how the likes of Giuiani and Clinton are doing so well in the polls. Most people I've talked to hates them both.
Probably. Gravel and Paul are the only polititions to speak their mind and be honest, so that's why Gravel's my 3rd fav, even though I don't like a lot of his policies. |
Ron Paul in '08![]() <img src='http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/Ramen Hood/0313.png' border='0' alt='user posted image'> | |
![]() |
|
| P=D | Oct 21 2007, 03:40 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Birdo
|
His hardline "non-interventionism" wouldn't differ in any substantial way from isolationism if he were ever able to implement his nutty policies. Granted, this is far better than the "let's invade every country in the world one by one starting with Iran" mentality of the other Republican candidates, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. Besides, it's not even like Paul opposes war for noble reasons; he does it out of ultranationalism, which tends to be a theme throughout all of his political positions. The man is practically a nativist.
So in order to turn this country around and put it on the right path, we need to replace a neoconservative with a paleoconservative? I think I'll pass.
So did Kucinich and Obama suddenly drop out of the race or am I missing something here?
Uh, that's why you reform them and start using them for different things that are needed, not erase them completely in pursuit of some crackpot Ayn Rand utopia.
The U.S. Bill of Rights borrows heavily from ideas instituted in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, not to mention that much of the governmental structure outlined in the Constitution (e.g., Congress) is based off the English parliamentary system. The U.S. essentially modeled itself after England; the main changes they made were replacing the monarchy with an executive branch and clearly defining a separation between church and state, among other things here and there. Also, I seriously doubt that any of the "Brits" here had any hand in the British colonialism of the 1700s that led to the formation of the U.S., so your second statement is completely idiotic. I think that they have a right to be concerned about who the next U.S. president will be considering that his/her actions will shape the complexion of the entire world, by the way.
Most people figured that out a long time ago.
Hilarious fallacy — almost as funny as the previous few dozen statements you've made. You seem to have overlooked one tiny detail while conducting your scientific study on the popularity of the candidates: the country consists of more than the pseudo-political discussions you have in your sophomore history class. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Ramen Hood | Oct 21 2007, 05:28 PM Post #28 |
|
Paul's dumb Alex is cool
![]()
|
Maybe Kucinich along with Paul, but Obama said in a debate he wouldn't pull out.
Well, yes. The shift would make for a good 4 years, and then maybe another 4. After that, it would be a good idea to elect someone other than a Libertarian. And the part about the Constitution, I was joking. Glad it made you laugh. And no, I've talked to more people than my classmates. Maybe the whole state of New York or something are all for Hillary. And I'm in a Junior history class. PWNED |
Ron Paul in '08![]() <img src='http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/Ramen Hood/0313.png' border='0' alt='user posted image'> | |
![]() |
|
| P=D | Oct 21 2007, 06:26 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Birdo
|
Obama has been against the war since the beginning and is in favor of a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, from what I've gathered.
It would be an even better idea to not elect one in the first place.
Everything you've said in this thread has been a joke, and all of it has made me laugh. I'm hoping that the part where you endorsed Ron Paul was a joke too.
I can't seem to identify any legitimate rebuttal to what I said in your post. You might want to rephrase this section in order to give it a point; otherwise, I'm afraid that you give the impression of conceding the argument.
This part is a perfect illustration of the juvenile mindset you have, which is obviously having a detrimental effect on your ability to form opinions about the world around you. It looks like Katz was right:
You can't vote yet, I hope. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Ramen Hood | Oct 21 2007, 07:00 PM Post #30 |
|
Paul's dumb Alex is cool
![]()
|
Well most of the democrats are for a gradual pull-out, but if he's elected, odds are we're staying for at least another couple of years. PWNED was also a joke, like the only argument I won was you being wrong about my grade level. Even though I was right about everything, I just thought it would be funny to add that. And no, I'm very serious about endorsing Ron Paul. Not everyone wants Tom Brady to be the next president, even though he may have boyish good looks and charm. And I will be able to vote in the '08 Presidential Election, just not in the Primaries. |
Ron Paul in '08![]() <img src='http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/Ramen Hood/0313.png' border='0' alt='user posted image'> | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic Chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 2:03 PM Jul 11 |
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy












