Posted: 9/27/2011 1:09:47 PM EDT
|
Get the fuck in here and stop spamming every other thread in GD. If you fit in the following categories, this thread is for you
-Every chance you get you insert Paul or Perry as a better solution. No, Ron Paul or Rick Perry are not a better solution to pie or no pie. -You think every statement made about Paul or Perry is a direct statement towards you, and take such statements as a personal threat. Me saying Paul has a horrible foreign policy doesn't mean I'm coming to kill your dog. -The second you see a post that disagrees with you, they are labeled as a Paulbot or a Perrybot without ever mentioning Paul or Perry. Grow up -You think anyone that doesn't agree wholeheartedly with every position of Paul or Perry is the antichrist liberal incarnate of the devil himself. You would call me a Paul/Perrybot for starting this thread. That's all I've got for now, leave the threads I have legitimate interest in alone. I don't like reading quote balloons of Paul/Perrybots going at it. Have at it. I'll get popcorn |
|
Here is the line I love: "I'm just waiting for Perry to explain better on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants issue." The person who says that KNOWS what Perry has already said and knows it is wrong; HOWEVER, they are waiting for him to spin it in a way that he/she can be more comfortable with. Just face it, Perry sucks big time and there are better candidates out there. Notice I used the plural of "candidate" showing my acknowledgement that Paul is not the only good candidate.
|
|
Quoted: Get the fuck in here and stop spamming every other thread in GD. If you fit in the following categories, this thread is for you -Every chance you get you insert Paul or Perry as a better solution. No, Ron Paul or Rick Perry are not a better solution to pie or no pie. -You think every statement made about Paul or Perry is a direct statement towards you, and take such statements as a personal threat. Me saying Paul has a horrible foreign policy doesn't mean I'm coming to kill your dog. -The second you see a post that disagrees with you, they are labeled as a Paulbot or a Perrybot without ever mentioning Paul or Perry. Grow up -You think anyone that doesn't agree wholeheartedly with every position of Paul or Perry is the antichrist liberal incarnate of the devil himself. You would call me a Paul/Perrybot for starting this thread. That's all I've got for now, leave the threads I have legitimate interest in alone. I don't like reading quote balloons of Paul/Perrybots going at it. Have at it. I'll get popcorn  |
|
Quoted: I'll take a shot at it.Here is the line I love: "I'm just waiting for Perry to explain better on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants issue." The person who says that KNOWS what Perry has already said and knows it is wrong; HOWEVER, they are waiting for him to spin it in a way that he/she can be more comfortable with. Just face it, Perry sucks big time and there are better candidates out there. Notice I used the plural of "candidate" showing my acknowledgement that Paul is not the only good candidate. It is not up to a state to fund immigration and border control. Perry was confronted with a problem that every border state has to deal with. Millions of illegals many of whom are on the Government dole and draining state resources. He did what he thought was a great idea which was instead of using taxpayer money to take care of these people he gave them an opportunity to become contributing members of society. Counter argument: Illegals can't get a job.  |
|
Quoted: The fact that you put up a counter argument leads me to believe that you are are kind of just playing devil's advocate. But I'm not sure.Quoted: I'll take a shot at it.Here is the line I love: "I'm just waiting for Perry to explain better on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants issue." The person who says that KNOWS what Perry has already said and knows it is wrong; HOWEVER, they are waiting for him to spin it in a way that he/she can be more comfortable with. Just face it, Perry sucks big time and there are better candidates out there. Notice I used the plural of "candidate" showing my acknowledgement that Paul is not the only good candidate. It is not up to a state to fund immigration and border control. Perry was confronted with a problem that every border state has to deal with. Millions of illegals many of whom are on the Government dole and draining state resources. He did what he thought was a great idea which was instead of using taxpayer money to take care of these people he gave them an opportunity to become contributing members of society. Counter argument: Illegals can't get a job. How about the fact that offering cheaper tuition to illegals is a draw for many illegals, thus compounding the problem by bringing in many more illegals. Which in turn puts increase strain on the welfare system.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Here is the line I love: "I'm just waiting for Perry to explain better on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants issue." The person who says that KNOWS what Perry has already said and knows it is wrong; HOWEVER, they are waiting for him to spin it in a way that he/she can be more comfortable with. Just face it, Perry sucks big time and there are better candidates out there. Notice I used the plural of "candidate" showing my acknowledgement that Paul is not the only good candidate. Yeah, that was definitely a deal breaker for me. Talk about playing with the D playbook. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is the line I love: "I'm just waiting for Perry to explain better on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants issue." The person who says that KNOWS what Perry has already said and knows it is wrong; HOWEVER, they are waiting for him to spin it in a way that he/she can be more comfortable with. Just face it, Perry sucks big time and there are better candidates out there. Notice I used the plural of "candidate" showing my acknowledgement that Paul is not the only good candidate. Yeah, that was definitely a deal breaker for me. Talk about playing with the D playbook. Like this gem Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If your side is incapable of winning, then they can neither implement policy nor block policy. Which means they are useless. Ideologues greatest enemies are themselves. All or nothing will get you nothing far more often than it will get you all. If your side is against you, they aren't your side. The GOP upper echelon support the illegal alien invasion just as much as the Democrats do. If either party gets its way on amnesty, we will be outnumbered at the ballot box. That is "all or nothing". Perry supports illegals. He can go to hell. There are some lines you can't expect people to cross, although it's amusing that the moderates always expect the conservatives to hold their noses. That's a pretty strong stench. Keep launching accusations from the always losing side. The things that RINOs support aren't limited government, so the belief in freedom is the real "losing side" here. That sounds all well and good until you see with whom Ron Paul actually is in bed with: John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler,Dennis Kucinich, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Alcee Hastimgs, Jesse Jackson Jr.....................and more. All enemies of freedom and the Constitution and strong proponents of the welfare state. http://www.house.gov/frank/docs/2010/fiscalcommissiondefenseletter.pdf Talk is cheap; Ron Paul is a hypocrite. Please give examples of Ron Paul consistently voting to expand welfare and limit freedoms. I hope that you have more than "pork"... What do you think that the socialists that Ron Paul is in bed with want to do with the money "saved" by decimating our country's defense capabilities? if you're thinking they want to return it to the taxpayers by either paying down the national debt or lowering taxes you would be typically wrong once again; they want that money to expand government handouts in furthering their socialist agenda. Ron Paul votes with the likes of these enemies of The Constitution because he is a hypocrite and a demagogue and no friend of liberty and freedom. Fucking RINO. http://patdollard.com/2011/08/77-of-democrats-and-ron-paul-voted-against-rules-of-engagement-that-protect-our-troops/ I care about why Ron Paul wants to cut certain types of spending, not why random people with no control over Paul's political platform who show up at some political rally may want to cut that spending. Nice job of ignoring this example of Ron Paul voting with the liberal scumbags against the Republican Party regarding the institution of rules of engagement for the protection of American Soldiers. http://patdollard.com/2011/08/77-of-democrats-and-ron-paul-voted-against-rules-of-engagement-that-protect-our-troops/ You guys prattle on with the same damn talking points while ignoring the crux of the matter regardless of the actual topic at hand. Same as the liberals, socialists, and enemies of liberty, freedom and the Constitution that Ron Paul consistently allies himself with in congress. Ron Paul is a fake, phony, and a demagogue who say the right words and has a bunch of cult worshippers in his pocket. And he is consistently in bed with the lowest form of liberal scum in American Politics. http://www.house.gov/frank/docs/2010/fiscalcommissiondefenseletter.pdf http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2009/05/ron-paul-joins-with-democrats-to-vote.html I'd have to hear Paul's explanation for his vote on the rules of engagement bill before I can really have an accurate opinion on it. But it doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul wants to shrink the size of the government and cut spending. He isn't doing it to increase welfare or fight AIDS in Africa, even if some of the libtards riding on his coat-tails might be. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ron Paul has better ideas for threads than this. Except in true Ron Paul fashion he said it in a way that made him sound certifiably insane so nobody paid any attention Except a lot of what people THINK he sounds insane on are actually good points, they just react to emotion and OMG, THAT'S NOT WHAT I THINK!!!! instead of actually listening to what he said and applying a little logic. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ron Paul has better ideas for threads than this. Except in true Ron Paul fashion he said it in a way that made him sound certifiably insane so nobody paid any attention Except a lot of what people THINK he sounds insane on are actually good points, they just react to emotion and OMG, THAT'S NOT WHAT I THINK!!!! instead of actually listening to what he said and applying a little logic.  |
|
Quoted: OH shit you just interjected logic. Quoted: Quoted: Ron Paul has better ideas for threads than this. Except in true Ron Paul fashion he said it in a way that made him sound certifiably insane so nobody paid any attention Except a lot of what people THINK he sounds insane on are actually good points, they just react to emotion and OMG, THAT'S NOT WHAT I THINK!!!! instead of actually listening to what he said and applying a little logic. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'll take a shot at it.Here is the line I love: "I'm just waiting for Perry to explain better on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants issue." The person who says that KNOWS what Perry has already said and knows it is wrong; HOWEVER, they are waiting for him to spin it in a way that he/she can be more comfortable with. Just face it, Perry sucks big time and there are better candidates out there. Notice I used the plural of "candidate" showing my acknowledgement that Paul is not the only good candidate. It is not up to a state to fund immigration and border control. Perry was confronted with a problem that every border state has to deal with. Millions of illegals many of whom are on the Government dole and draining state resources. He did what he thought was a great idea which was instead of using taxpayer money to take care of these people he gave them an opportunity to become contributing members of society. Counter argument: Illegals can't get a job. Wrong. Read the constitution. "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Texas can constitutionally invade and capture Mexico.
|
|
...
-The second you see a post that disagrees with you, they are labeled as a Paulbot or a Perrybot without ever mentioning Paul or Perry. Grow up ... I fucking love those. Paulbot has become a bigger insult than libtard or DU troll. Oh, and where is the shoes pic? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Neither will get the nomination. /thread But, at this point Paul will get my vote, even if it is a write in. (in before people bitch about 4 more years of Obummer, with candidates like Romney/ Perry / Cain, I don't see a difference.) Where do you go about grouping Cain in with the likes of Perry, Romney and Obama??? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ron Paul has better ideas for threads than this. Except in true Ron Paul fashion he said it in a way that made him sound certifiably insane so nobody paid any attention Except a lot of what people THINK he sounds insane on are actually good points, they just react to emotion and OMG, THAT'S NOT WHAT I THINK!!!! instead of actually listening to what he said and applying a little logic. When it comes to domestic issues, you're exactly right. For some, abolishing the IRS is a huge crazy idea. For others, it's an amazing idea. But then you have comments like he made about Iran and nuclear weapons. Crazy statements are crazy, you can't change that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll take a shot at it.
Here is the line I love: "I'm just waiting for Perry to explain better on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants issue." The person who says that KNOWS what Perry has already said and knows it is wrong; HOWEVER, they are waiting for him to spin it in a way that he/she can be more comfortable with. Just face it, Perry sucks big time and there are better candidates out there. Notice I used the plural of "candidate" showing my acknowledgement that Paul is not the only good candidate. It is not up to a state to fund immigration and border control. Perry was confronted with a problem that every border state has to deal with. Millions of illegals many of whom are on the Government dole and draining state resources. He did what he thought was a great idea which was instead of using taxpayer money to take care of these people he gave them an opportunity to become contributing members of society. Counter argument: Illegals can't get a job.
Wrong. Read the constitution. "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Texas can constitutionally invade and capture Mexico. get to work 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ron Paul has better ideas for threads than this. Except in true Ron Paul fashion he said it in a way that made him sound certifiably insane so nobody paid any attention Except a lot of what people THINK he sounds insane on are actually good points, they just react to emotion and OMG, THAT'S NOT WHAT I THINK!!!! instead of actually listening to what he said and applying a little logic. When it comes to domestic issues, you're exactly right. For some, abolishing the IRS is a huge crazy idea. For others, it's an amazing idea. But then you have comments like he made about Iran and nuclear weapons. Crazy statements are crazy, you can't change that. Let me ask you this. If Iran getting nukes was such a danger, why didn't Bush just bomb them when he still could? Now there is nothing we can do to stop Iran from getting a nuke without invading them. They are far too along, have developed too much R&D, and have buried their facilities far do deep for us to bomb them. Atomic weapons are a 1940's era technology. They are going to get them whether we like it or not. |
