• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

SOPA Violates The First Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
As for the O'reailly thing, i was talking about the money quote that was brought up on his show (I randomly watch videos on youtube, I don't actually watch O'reailly either).

I've personally never seen that link you posted, but it raises some thoughts. Still, as far as his usage of the constitution when he's talking about what it allows and does not expressly says the government can do. I haven't found an inconsistency. While Christian myself, I don't think it has a place in government, and from what I've seen, I don't think Ron Paul would either, though he would doubtlessly use it as a source on which he acts, but everyone will use their beliefs or reasoning for their actions.

As for his communications skills... eh, they aren't great. I mean, if they were he'd probably would've won everyone over by now.
 
Huh... just realized I spelt O'reilly wrong.

Anyway, just wanted to add, that even though, I am planning to vote for Ron Paul. I'm asking purely to find out the accusations against him, that is rarely actually mentioned when people call him crazy, etc. So at least, thanks for that. First time I actually saw a person link to what they are talking about.

And I was going to say something else, but I forgot what...... I think it was the fact that I agree with his plans when and if he gets into office.
 
Daggah said:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Misquote my ass.

And no, I don't listen to O'Reilly. He's an obnoxious right-wing gas-bag.

Funny how often Ron Paul is taken out of context or misquoted. I guess he's never actually a racist, crazy idiot...he's just misquoted a lot!

Like that whole "black thieves are fleet-footed" comment...

Or "homosexuals would be better off when society forced them to stay in the closet."

Or any other number of examples.

Civil Rights Act.

Paranoia about the Federal Reserve.

Maybe his communication skills just suck, I dunno? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Your quotes are bogus, but thanks for at least voicing an opinion other than he is "crazy." All were in a newsletter written by a fired staffer, which RP apologized for. He has never spoken anything like this elsewhere.

Civil Rights Act - Drew attention to something that should have been solved without government intervention. Ron Paul was right. We are reminded of our physical differences every time we have to apply for a job, fill out an application, etc. Now all the Democrats who voted against it use it as a stick to beat people who voice opposition against the idiot in chief. As if all of those conservative Cain supporters were racist...

Federal Reserve can make every dollar you own worthless by tomorrow. You might want to rethink that one.
 
Yea, I read about that black thing, but the only site that really talked about it, made it seem like he was flopping on it or something. But if that link is true, it's what it is...
 
Ack, only site I read that really talked about it.*

Granted I didn't spend a whole lot of tme researching... but I should be reviewing for a test.... ugh.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Your quotes are bogus, but thanks for at least voicing an opinion other than he is "crazy." All were in a newsletter written by a fired staffer, which RP apologized for. He has never spoken anything like this elsewhere.

Civil Rights Act - Drew attention to something that should have been solved without government intervention. Ron Paul was right. We are reminded of our physical differences every time we have to apply for a job, fill out an application, etc. Now all the Democrats who voted against it use it as a stick to beat people who voice opposition against the idiot in chief. As if all of those conservative Cain supporters were racist...

Federal Reserve can make every dollar you own worthless by tomorrow. You might want to rethink that one.
Click to expand...

+1

He doesn't know a word he speaks about.
 
This would be important if the constitution meant something. The banking act of 1933 threw it out the window. The patriot act violates it. Going to war without a declaration by congress violates it. Section 1031 and 1032 of the new defense bill completely destroys it, while taking us to a total authoritarian style government. Say hello to Washington's third reich. Ron Paul is our only hope, but he'll probably get the axe once people stop listen to the mainstream media and wake up. He's the only GOP candidate beating Obama in all the straw polls and beating Romney, but you only here about Newt and Mitt. A poll released today by Public Policy Polling show him only one point behind Newt, yet nothing on the news about him. They'll get support from the American public to pass this bill too.
 
So, to sum up this thread:
How is SOPA still being voted on!?!??!?!
RON PAUL YEAH VOTE FOR RON PAUL
*insert bunch of campaign material here*
*insert bunch of "you're wrong i'm right. no I won't show you proof...*
*insert "We are all removed from popular opinion of people who aren't internet regulars*

Oh wait, wasn't this thread about SOPA and a law professor at Harvard? No? Guess I was wrong. Political circlejerk is a go.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Your quotes are bogus, but thanks for at least voicing an opinion other than he is "crazy." All were in a newsletter written by a fired staffer, which RP apologized for. He has never spoken anything like this elsewhere.
Click to expand...

If by "fired staffer" you mean Ron Paul himself then yea, that statement would be accurate.
 
"professor of constitutional law at Harvard" doesnt really say much
Exhibit A. Barack Obama...
 
Drakan290 said:
So, to sum up this thread:
How is SOPA still being voted on!?!??!?!
RON PAUL YEAH VOTE FOR RON PAUL
*insert bunch of campaign material here*
*insert bunch of "you're wrong i'm right. no I won't show you proof...*
*insert "We are all removed from popular opinion of people who aren't internet regulars*

Oh wait, wasn't this thread about SOPA and a law professor at Harvard? No? Guess I was wrong. Political circlejerk is a go.
Click to expand...

Sad that you dont understand Ron Paul votes everything like this down. Just keep your head in the sand.
 
ssjwes1980 said:
Sad that you dont understand Ron Paul votes everything like this down. Just keep your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you really caught the meat of that post.

Please go back to filtering out everything that you don't agree with/don't want to see.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Your quotes are bogus, but thanks for at least voicing an opinion other than he is "crazy." All were in a newsletter written by a fired staffer, which RP apologized for. He has never spoken anything like this elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The homophobic and racist comments I was referring to were directly from Ron Paul himself.

Civil Rights Act - Drew attention to something that should have been solved without government intervention.
Click to expand...

You are deluded if you think it would have resolved itself without government intervention. As a matter of fact, we're talking about government intervention to protect the rights of its people...one of the very core reasons our government exists in the first place. And Ron Paul would've wanted to stop it. That speaks volumes about his REAL intentions: to get federal government out of states' business so they can go back to legalizing discrimination against "them." (The minorities.)

Federal Reserve can make every dollar you own worthless by tomorrow. You might want to rethink that one.
Click to expand...

And I could come murder you in your sleep tomorrow, but I don't think you have to stay awake at night worrying about that, either. :rolleyes:

I gotta hand it to Paul, he's got a whole internet army of Paultards slurping up every bit of drivel he speaks as if it's gospel. :rolleyes:
 
Phew, now with that out of the way, we can get back to voting for parties with proven track records!

I mean, of course, the Federalists and Whigs
 
Secularism and transparency, mainly the complete disclosure of *all* fiscal activity of a government, is required for further progression, but unfortunately, not many share this realization, and/or do not want it.

As for complete freedom, well, that's a tricky one, and will require a new governmental structure before we start to see it.
 
Daggah said:
The homophobic and racist comments I was referring to were directly from Ron Paul himself.

You are deluded if you think it would have resolved itself without government intervention. As a matter of fact, we're talking about government intervention to protect the rights of its people...one of the very core reasons our government exists in the first place. And Ron Paul would've wanted to stop it. That speaks volumes about his REAL intentions: to get federal government out of states' business so they can go back to legalizing discrimination against "them." (The minorities.)
Click to expand...

Hmm... homophobic? How is that homophobic? I think Gays would probably be better "in the closet" if for nothing else, than to be discriminated against. He doesn't say to kill them all or have them wear badges to identify themselves. It's not something you should parade around in any case... I sure as hell don't parade around saying I'm straight. And before you start saying things out of context, I don't know if it's better one way or another, but it's a difference in opinion, which you are obviously contrasting.

Now, the second part of the quote... that speaks nothing of his "real" intentions, because all you are doing is putting words in his mouth. That's like saying people who hate pork hate meat.
 
Kalabalana said:
Secularism and transparency, mainly the complete disclosure of *all* fiscal activity of a government, is required for further progression, but unfortunately, not many share this realization, and/or do not want it.

As for complete freedom, well, that's a tricky one, and will require a new governmental structure before we start to see it.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you defines as complete freedom... because with no rules, it'll probably anarchy, and that while not inherently bad, will probably end up being like communism, which is not bad in and of itself, but will be abused by one person or another and bam! the rest is screwed...

If there are laws, it's probably not complete freedom.
 
The point of all this is there is absolute certainty that Ron Paul for VETO every single bill like SOPA.
 
Serpent said:
Hmm... homophobic? How is that homophobic? I think Gays would probably be better "in the closet" if for nothing else, than to be discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint, your own position is homophobic. It's the same argument people used to justify Jim crow laws...

"Hmm... racist? How is that racist? I think Blacks would probably be better off "drinking from their own fountains" if for nothing else, than not to be discriminated against."

I get the impression you're a younger person who may not be as abreast in political theory as some others. Paul's ideas at first glance may seem alluring, but an alarm bell should go off when you see other Paul supporters condemning things like the civil rights act. That says volumes about the kind of people getting behind the guy.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Here's a hint, your own position is homophobic. It's the same argument people used to justify Jim crow laws...

"Hmm... racist? How is that racist? I think Blacks would probably be better off "drinking from their own fountains" if for nothing else, than not to be discriminated against."

I get the impression you're a younger person who may not be as abreast in political theory as some others. Paul's ideas at first glance may seem alluring, but an alarm bell should go off when you see other Paul supporters condemning things like the civil rights act. That says volumes about the kind of people getting behind the guy.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the Paultard demographic...a bunch of young libertarian types that haven't read enough to figure out that Paul isn't actually a libertarian.
 
Daggah said:
That's pretty much the Paultard demographic...a bunch of young libertarian types that haven't read enough to figure out that Paul isn't actually a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Then educate them instead of making claims without citation.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Then educate them instead of making claims without citation.
Click to expand...

Here, in the Front Page News section? When I already know from past experience that arguing with Paulites is like arguing with creationists or free market cultists?

I have more entertaining things to occupy my time, like trying to shove push pins underneath my finger nails or punching myself in the testicles.
 
Daggah said:
Here, in the Front Page News section? When I already know from past experience that arguing with Paulites is like arguing with creationists or free market cultists?

I have more entertaining things to occupy my time, like trying to shove push pins underneath my finger nails or punching myself in the testicles.
Click to expand...

So, instead of reasonable debate, you'll stick with jabbing insults from the sidelines. Want to snuggle?
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Here's a hint, your own position is homophobic. It's the same argument people used to justify Jim crow laws...

"Hmm... racist? How is that racist? I think Blacks would probably be better off "drinking from their own fountains" if for nothing else, than not to be discriminated against."

I get the impression you're a younger person who may not be as abreast in political theory as some others. Paul's ideas at first glance may seem alluring, but an alarm bell should go off when you see other Paul supporters condemning things like the civil rights act. That says volumes about the kind of people getting behind the guy.
Click to expand...

Ah, putting words into my mouth now are we? How is my statement homophobic? Please explain, I'm dying to know. I said it's probably better for them if they keep it to themselves. I never said anything else. If you expect to be treated differently because you are something, then you yourself are the problem. Proclaiming you are something, is a step in trying to separate yourself.

I'm not against them doing so, but I think they are better off if they don't, at least if they want to be treated like everyone else. For better or worse.
 
Daggah said:
That's pretty much the Paultard demographic...a bunch of young libertarian types that haven't read enough to figure out that Paul isn't actually a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Paul is the quintessential objectivist leaning libertarian. So really if you want to debate his ideas, what you're asking for is a complete deconstruction of libertarianism. That's not hard. We can reduce libertarian philosophy down to "Fuck you, got mine." and that's the depth of it.
 
ssjwes1980 said:
Sad that you dont understand Ron Paul votes everything like this down. Just keep your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul can DIAF. And before you say anything, I live in his hometown of Lake Jackson, TX so I believe I know all about him.
 
Serpent said:
Ah, putting words into my mouth now are we? How is my statement homophobic? Please explain, I'm dying to know. I said it's probably better for them if they keep it to themselves. I never said anything else. If you expect to be treated differently because you are something, then you yourself are the problem. Proclaiming you are something, is a step in trying to separate yourself.

I'm not against them doing so, but I think they are better off if they don't, at least if they want to be treated like everyone else. For better or worse.
Click to expand...

it's probably better for them if they keep it to themselves.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand why that statement is homophobic then whelp :eek:

Would you ask a black person to just wear white face paint if they wanted to be treated like everyone else? Would you tell a woman she should just go to work everyday dressed as a man if she wanted equal pay?
 
Serpent said:
Ah, putting words into my mouth now are we? How is my statement homophobic? Please explain, I'm dying to know. I said it's probably better for them if they keep it to themselves. I never said anything else. If you expect to be treated differently because you are something, then you yourself are the problem. Proclaiming you are something, is a step in trying to separate yourself.

I'm not against them doing so, but I think they are better off if they don't, at least if they want to be treated like everyone else. For better or worse.
Click to expand...

The US is supposed to be a country where EVERYONE receives equal treatment. It doesn't matter the color of their skin, the religion they practice, or the gender they prefer every single fucking citizen of the country deserves the same equal treatment as everyone else. PERIOD! The problem is people like YOU that believe people should hide who they are to get that treatment.
 
Derangel said:
The US is supposed to be a country where EVERYONE receives equal treatment. It doesn't matter the color of their skin, the religion they practice, or the gender they prefer every single fucking citizen of the country deserves the same equal treatment as everyone else. PERIOD! The problem is people like YOU that believe people should hide who they are to get that treatment.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Communism is supposed to be great. But it doesn't work out that way. Also, I never said hide it. Hiding something and not parading it is entirely different.

Hamish Campbell said:
If you don't understand why that statement is homophobic then whelp :eek:

Would you ask a black person to just wear white face paint if they wanted to be treated like everyone else? Would you tell a woman she should just go to work everyday dressed as a man if she wanted equal pay?
Click to expand...

As said above, not parading is not hiding.

Like I said, in the post you guys quoted. You shouldn't take steps to proclaim yourself anything unless you want people to know, and therefore react to what you proclaimed yourself to be. Obviously, with my signature, it's obvious that I'm a Ron Paul supporter. And see? you guys are plainly treating me like so. With words like "Paulites" and Paultards"
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Paul is the quintessential objectivist leaning libertarian. So really if you want to debate his ideas, what you're asking for is a complete deconstruction of libertarianism. That's not hard. We can reduce libertarian philosophy down to "Fuck you, got mine." and that's the depth of it.
Click to expand...

Objectivists usually have a huge problem with libertarians. They aren't one in the same.
 
Serpent said:
Yes, and Communism is supposed to be great. But it doesn't work out that way. Also, I never said hide it. Hiding something and not parading it is entirely different.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that. Though the way you worded your initial point made it sound much worse than that.
 
Well, I know I'm not the best typist or speech person. As evident by the previous sentence cuz it sounds soooo off.
 
For anyone thinking Ron Paul is a Racist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaSLxCwb0eY

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

This man cured my apathy of politics.

Research him. Bills like SOPA would never stand a chance at his desk. VETO'ed on sight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top