RONY 2012

Ron Paul haters and trolls only bash Ron Paul because they believed from the beginning he had no chance.....JUST LIKE THE MSM SPOUTED EVERYDAY since the Republican Primaries kicked off. Congratulations, you have officially become what you claim to despise.

Instead of the Ron Paul Hate Crew trolling threads relentlessly telling us, "He won't win". That we are all "delusional crazies". How about you tell us why you don't support the man. Who do you support if not Obama or Romney at this point? You doubted the man from the start and never looked back.

SO I WANT TO KNOW! WHO DO THE RON PAUL HATERS SUPPORT?! What does the Ron Paul Troll Club stand for? Honestly, if you strongly disagree with his policies that's fine. I have no beef with that. I'm just tired of you saying, "He won't win" for no other reason other then to spite a Ron Paul thread.

You troll Ron Paul threads because you know you will get a disgruntled response. You take pride in the negative attention directed towards you. Then you argue for hours on the internet with someone you don't know across the country. In the end, NO ONES OPINION CHANGED. Congrats on wasting each others valuable time. I don't believe you're "paid shills" either like some members toss around. I just think you're ***holes that have nothing better to accomplish then to troll a Ron Paul thread.

If you're one of those people that claim to support "no one":
Don't give me a BS line like, "I don't support anyone because the whole system is rigged. There is no point. We are all doomed wah wah wah". Your apathetic attitude doesn't help this country or the world for that matter. If you really care you'd do something about it. Although, I assume you do care enough because you use this site. So stop acting like a defeated little *****. Stand up for something.

Ron Paul cured my apathy. Win or lose the nomination.....you know damn well he has won hearts and minds for a long time. This isn't just an election. ITS A MOVEMENT. The people who change the world are the ones crazy enough to try. I believe he still has a chance and I'll find out come August.

What do you stand for? What drives you? What makes you use this website? Why are you interested in politics to begin with?

What side of history are you on? Oppression or Freedom?

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
Ron Paul haters and trolls only bash Ron Paul because they believed from the beginning he had no chance.....

I don't like Ron Paul because of his policies, I think his idea of maximizing states rights even at the expense of individual liberties is outdated, contrary to progress.

As for Ron Paul having no chance? He really doesn't have much of a chance for the nomination, this is just a fact.

How about you tell us why you don't support the man. Who do you support if not Obama or Romney at this point?

My point above should give you a clue as to why I don't support him. Neither do I support Obama these elections, I'm writing in come November. Romney? He is the best person out of what the GOP could offer in the primaries. Ron Paul will be destroyed if he ran, Romney has a better chance of winning against Obama.

I believe he still has a chance and I'll find out come August.

Then keep the faith I guess, reality says otherwise though.

What side of history are you on? Oppression or Freedom?

I prefer more individual freedoms, and this is why I don't support Ron Paul.

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


Why Ron Paul shouldn't and won't win:

- He doesn't have the support of the guys pulling the strings at the GOP...that alone will make sureche can't win.
- He wants to fix corruption in politics and the financial industry exploiting citizens by making them sign VOLUNTARY PLEDGES. That's so nuts, it's hard to take him serious.
- Against gays rights...therefore treating them as second class citizens. Whenever a politician wants to infringe on the rights of a specific group, I'm against it.
- Against equal pay for woman.
- Against contraception, even though a majority is using it and it prevents STDs (even though it saves lives).
- Against companies being forced to not sell lead toys to children, aka against the EPA.
- Against consumer protection...therefore making it super easy for the financial industry to screw us all over again.

He has some good ideas, like getting the US out of all those pointless wars...but the points above pretty much nullify his good ideas. And no, as much as I like a spliff once in a while, the cost of voting for him is too high.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree

 

Why Ron Paul shouldn't and won't win:

- He doesn't have the support of the guys pulling the strings at the GOP...that alone will make sureche can't win.
- He wants to fix corruption in politics and the financial industry exploiting citizens by making them sign VOLUNTARY PLEDGES. That's so nuts, it's hard to take him serious.
- Against gays rights...therefore treating them as second class citizens. Whenever a politician wants to infringe on the rights of a specific group, I'm against it.
- Against equal pay for woman.
- Against contraception, even though a majority is using it and it prevents STDs (even though it saves lives).
- Against companies being forced to not sell lead toys to children, aka against the EPA.
- Against consumer protection...therefore making it super easy for the financial industry to screw us all over again.

He has some good ideas, like getting the US out of all those pointless wars...but the points above pretty much nullify his good ideas. And no, as much as I like a spliff once in a while, the cost of voting for him is too high.

What is the cost of voting for Ron Paul?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


That's a funny reason to not support Ron Paul considering it is the most absurd.

Supporting Ron Paul will land you more individiaul freedoms than Obama or Romney.
I know you were trying to be shocking stating something that is a complete turnaround on what Paul stands for, but the fact is you are just incorrect. He stands for more individual liberties than you could handle. So many that it ends up getting him in trouble because the same people that support Obama try to turn what Paul says into something it isn't.

IE: Not supporting the civil rights act because it stripped freedom from business owners because they could excercise that freedom to ban minorities from their stores. That is outdated now, anyone that would do that would surely go out of business yet store owners still aren't awarded that freedom because of the civil rights act. He never said that A civil rights act wasn't good, just that the one that passed was bad.

He would absolutely return our freedom, we definitely wouldn't be facing the encroachments we have seen under Obama.

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree

 

Why Ron Paul shouldn't and won't win:

- He doesn't have the support of the guys pulling the strings at the GOP...that alone will make sureche can't win.
- He wants to fix corruption in politics and the financial industry exploiting citizens by making them sign VOLUNTARY PLEDGES. That's so nuts, it's hard to take him serious.
- Against gays rights...th erefore treating them as second class citizens. Whenever a politician wants to infringe on the rights of a specific group, I'm against it.
- Against equal pay for woman.
- Against contraception, even though a majority is using it and it prevents STDs (even though it saves lives).
- Against companies being forced to not sell lead toys to children, aka against the EPA.
- Against consumer protection...therefore making it super easy for the financial industry to screw us all over again.

He has some good ideas, like getting the US out of all those pointless wars...but the points above pretty much nullify his good ideas. And no, as much as I like a spliff once in a while, the cost of voting for him is too high.

What is the cost of voting for Ron Paul?

All the horrible points I listed? Did you even read my post?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I think his idea of maximizing states rights even at the expense of individual liberties is outdated

Did you really just say that? The United States of America was founded by people who emphasized the need for decentralizing power among the states instead of letting one central body dictate the rights of all states. Giving power back to the states MAXIMIZES individual liberties because it lets the people of each state have more say. What you're saying is like saying a NWO would maximize the liberties of each country. You are so delusional you have no idea what you are talking about.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I could waste 10 minutes of my life explaining why a multitude of the points you made are completely false and verging on the line of disinformation... but I don't really care anymore. No doubt you're going to say "just tell me where I'm wrong"... why the hell should I when there will just be another 100 people posting the same bullcrap all over the forum when they don't understand ANYTHING about Ron Paul's policies.


OP... I'm sorry that the shills have hit your excellent thread so hard and fast, this is now nothing more than a pit of disgusting nonsense.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


No, you can't refute any of those points because they are HIS WORDS!

Basically all you're doing is saying "no, you are wrong...but I can't show you why". I thought this is a rational discussion, guess I was wrong

Also kinda ironic that the OP asked for specific points against RP, yet when posters comply, all you resort to are ad hominem attacks (probably because you can't refute any of the points made).

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree

 

Why Ron Paul shouldn't and won't win:

- He doesn't have the support of the guys pulling the strings at the GOP...that alone will make sureche can't win.
- He wants to fix corruption in politics and the financial industry exploiting citizens by making them sign VOLUNTARY PLEDGES. That's so nuts, it's hard to take him serious.
- Against gays rights...th erefore treating them as second class citizens. Whenever a politician wants to infringe on the rights of a specific group, I'm against it.
- Against equal pay for woman.
- Against contraception, even though a majority is using it and it prevents STDs (even though it saves lives).
- Against companies being forced to not sell lead toys to children, aka against the EPA.
- Against consumer protection...therefore making it super easy for the financial industry to screw us all over again.

He has some good ideas, like getting the US out of all those pointless wars...but the points above pretty much nullify his good ideas. And no, as much as I like a spliff once in a while, the cost of voting for him is too high.

What is the cost of voting for Ron Paul?

All the horrible points I listed? Did you even read my post?

I don't agree with everything he wants, but compared to the other choices? Costs are cut. Doubt he would accidently have you killed by a drone attack!

Anyways, I don't think you're points are correct.

Huffington Post

As for equal pay, pay should be determined by skill, not sex.

As for being against gay rights, could you provide something to substantiate that claim?

As for the pledges, I'd like to hear more about this, I may or may not agree with it, but I do think politicians and business should be held more accountable for the messes they make. People are expected to put up with increasing bullying by these entities so we are "improved" but we can't expect the same out of them?

reply to post by MrXYZ

No, you can't refute any of those points because they are HIS WORDS!

No, they are misinterpretations of his words.

Basically all you're doing is saying "no, you are wrong...but I can't show you why".

How obvious can you be? I'm not going to waste my time explaining why several of your points are wrong.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You are mislead. Please emancipate yourself with knowledge.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Supporting Ron Paul will land you more individiaul freedoms than Obama or Romney.

So Paul supporters say, but this is false. Though if you are a Ron Paul supporter, I would assume that you see things in a totally different way.

He stands for more individual liberties than you could handle.

And again he doesn't.

Brown vs the board of education, Lawrence vs Texas, Roe v Wade, prayer in public schools, you name it. Paul's positions on these matters says alot to me. Paul supporters have this twisted idea, for example, that allowing state governments to regulate the bodies of women is A-ok, to me it's not, it's an invasion of individual rights. Now I know, most Paul supporters believe fertilized eggs are human beings, and this is a good example on my point concerning how Paul supporters see things in a different way, away from reality.

Not supporting the civil rights act because it stripped freedom from business owners because they could excercise that freedom to ban minorities from their stores.

You don't have to explain the civil rights act for me, what you can do is explain away Paul's position on the Brown V board of education case, which only concerned government mandated racial segregation.
votesmart.org...

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
The United States of America was founded by people who emphasized the need for decentralizing power among the states

At the expense of individual freedoms. I am also well aware that the founders believed slavery was a legitimate states issue. Times were different back then, it's not good idea to use the decisions of the past as gospel.

Giving power back to the states MAXIMIZES individual liberties

No it doesn't. Kansas for example can go back to policing the wombs of women, creating 'special' laws for pregnant women. Lousiana can, technically, go back to banning interracial marriages. And don't tell me these things are 'unlikely' to happen, I don't give a damn. I want my individual liberties protected. Clearly people like you don't.

But that's the great thing about state laws. If disagree...you can move out of that state.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

At the expense of individual freedoms. I am also well aware that the founders believed slavery was a legitimate states issue.

I was not referring to the issue of slavery... slavery has nothing to do with state powers, it's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT that no individual should be treated as the property of another person. You seem to take everything to the extreme by arguing the states will have all power or no power. All Ron Paul is saying, is that they should have MORE power... just as the founding fathers intended it, even those early Presidents who abolished slavery believed in similar things, but they were also smart enough to see how slavery contradicted the CONSTITUTION and the concept of Human rights. You are twisting the facts to make them seem like everything should be governed by one central authority, when that's completely FALSE and delusional.

No it doesn't. Kansas for example can go back to policing the wombs of women, creating 'special' laws for pregnant women. Lousiana can, technically, go back to banning interracial marriages. And don't tell me these things are 'unlikely' to happen, I don't give a damn. I want my individual liberties protected. Clearly people like you don't.

If some states want to make those decisions for themselves it is their RIGHT to choose those things... however, again you are choosing the most extreme examples to push your point, when in fact those things also breach human rights as they are discriminatory and unethical. Your logic would indicate you believe that the federal Government is ALWAYS going to make the right decisions and will never create laws which breach individual freedoms and liberty... but that is SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH it's not even worth discussing. They create absolutely absurd crap all the time and every single state is bound by those laws whether they like it or not. That is why decentralization is always supreme, it's just a simple fact.

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
But that's the great thing about state laws. You can move out of that state.

Well that's the great thing about countries, you can move to other countries.

Well that's the great thing about continents, we can move to other continents.

Is this your excuse? Really? You A-ok with individual liberties being stripped I take it? I guess that's the case.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

At the expense of individual freedoms. I am also well aware that the founders believed slavery was a legitimate states issue.

I was not referring to the issue of slavery... slavery has nothing to do with state powers, it's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT that no individual should be treated as the property of another person. You seem to take everything to the extreme by arguing the states will have all power or no power. All Ron Paul is saying, is that they should have MORE power... just as the founding fathers intended it, even those early Presidents who abolished slavery believed in similar things, but they were also smart enough to see how slavery contradicted the CONSTITUTION and the concept of Human rights. You are twisting the facts to make them seem like everything should be governed by one central authority, when that's completely FALSE and delusional.

No it doesn't. Kansas for example can go back to policing the wombs of women, creating 'special' laws for pregnant women. Lousiana can, technically, go back to banning interracial marriages. And don't tell me these things are 'unlikely' to happen, I don't give a damn. I want my individual liberties protected. Clearly people like you don't.

If some states want to make those decisions for themselves it is their RIGHT to choose those things... however, again you are choosing the most extreme examples to push your point, when in fact those things also breach human rights as they are discriminatory and unethical. Your logic would indicate you believe that the federal Government is ALWAYS going to make the right decisions and will never create laws which breach individual freedoms and liberty... but that is SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH it's not even worth discussing. They create absolutely absurd crap all the time and every single state is bound by those laws whether they like it or not. That is why decentralization is always supreme, it's just a simple fact.

Well said.

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
Ron Paul haters and trolls only bash Ron Paul because they believed from the beginning he had no chance.....JUST LIKE THE MSM SPOUTED EVERYDAY since the Republican Primaries kicked off. Congratulations, you have officially become what you claim to despise.

Do you have a source for that?
It sounds like something you made up.
I have always had a problem with Ron Paul based solely on the things Ron Paul does and says in his own words and actions. None of it had to do with him having no chance. I also think many of his supporters are simple minded and ignorant.

Which reminds me, I clicked on this thread just to see what the hell a RONY was. I wonder if your friend Ronny would know?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


Supporting Ron Paul will land you more individiaul freedoms than Obama or Romney.

Ron Paul is the only one of the three to threaten my right to vote in this country. What freedoms is going to give me?
LIST THEM.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
But that's the great thing about state laws. You can move out of that state.

Well that's the great thing about countries, you can move to other countries.

Well that's the great thing about continents, we can move to other continents.

Is this your excuse? Really? You A-ok with individual liberties being stripped I take it? I guess that's the case.

Yea except when you move to another STATE in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.....they still have to abide by the same Constitution. I see The United States as the last sovereign country in the world. I have no plans of moving out of the country. I also have no plans of being slowly oppressed over time by the Federal Government. That seems to be the situation we have at the moment.