Go wave your fucking flags in someone elses face you mindless patriotic retard.

The more of your posts that I read I also get the feeling that you have a lot of pent up anger. You mad bro? lol

Ron Paul is next president, other can fuck off :)

You serious with this post? lol.. really? lmfao. I suggest you take a look at your own post history bro.

That's right. I'm trembling with furious anger right now. I could barely type this post.

Look how furrowed my brows are. I could not possibly furrow them any deeper

That's a good argument, fucking retard.

I need some indica. The sativa is shit, imho.

:1orglaugh Yes, counting blacks as 3/5 of a person was really spot on for them. Keeping their slaves till they died was also righteous.

No he won't.

Dont let it get to you bro, Coup has some serious mental health issues and I dont mean that to flame him. He is either some paid poster or literally a complete whack job with definite anger issues, his mama did not breast feed him or something. Take your pick. There really is no middle ground with him, it is one or the other. LOL

You are aware that the President has a running mate in the general election, right? Who do you think Ron Paul should pick top be him running mate should he get the nomination? Keep in mind, this person would have to be able to carry on the ideals of your philosophical revolution AND be enough to beat Obama.

Does he have you bamboozled too? And you are always talking about the sheep. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I dont think he is a registered Republican but Jesse Ventura has expressed interest in running with Dr. Paul, whether Republican or not he certainly fits the bill ideologically and brings a degree of star power to the ticket.

Jesse Ventura? Okay, that figures. And you think Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura can beat Obama?

Guess not.

i think the two party system is a scam. vote ron paul for the republican nomination.

he has a valid point and you're attacking him with a.. straw man argument?

hahaha

sorry, but keep throwing up these softies..

Wtf are you talking about "bamboozled?" Donald Trump is a piece of shit establishment shill like the rest. You actually thought that me simply stating that he might run as an independent means that I would support him? lol, get real.

Really? Are you serious? Ron Paul's policy would allow the rich to get richer while fucking over everyone else... Take off the blinders... Look at how humanity actually seeks to destroy itself, only look out for themselves, fucks over everyone they can in order to get to the top.. Then have a good look at what his policies would do, how they would free up humanity to do exactly that.

It's called freedom to live your life how you want. Laws are necessary to protect people from being hurt by others, laws which we already have in place. It is illegal to steal from someone, to hurt someone, etc.

You're against people getting rich? lol

That is part of what makes America great. Ever heard of "rags to riches?"

Trump is NEVER RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Yes, you have been bamboozled again. There is far too much disclosure involved for him to run. :2 cents:

Why do you speak in such absolutes? I used the word "might" run as an independent because he has said so, I'm just going off what he said.

But I guess your magic crystal ball told you he is NEVER RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. lol

Can I have the mega millions numbers for tonight while you're at it?

It's called anarchy and chaos... I'm against the "rich" setting things up so no one else can get rich and that's exactly what's happening now and Ron Paul will make worse. I'm for a fair playing field with balanced regulations and laws that allow for "anyone" to make it.

Doesn't matter though.. When the "Elite" decided to move the US from a manufacturing economy to a services and financial economy a couple decades ago, the die was cast and the US will continue it's slide to a 3rd world economy because no one, not Ron Paul or anyone else can or will fix things.

Anarchy?

Either you know nothing about Ron Paul's philosophy or you don't know what anarchy means. lol

I'm glad you said philosophy as that's exactly what it is.. pie in the sky theory that doesn't take into account the realities of humanity, the dog eat dog mentality.. Oh sure he has some things that make sense but for the most part, he would create a country that is more divisive than it is now.

He is never running and you are suggesting anarchy.

Where am I suggesting anarchy? Even a few posts back I explained how we have laws in place to protect people from things like theft and injury. How can you have laws in a system of anarchy? I seriously don't think you guys understand what anarchy is. Anarchy would mean that we wouldn't even follow our constitution. lol

an·ar·chy [an-er-kee]
noun
1. a state of society without government or law.

lol, that has nothing to do with Ron Paul's constitutional view of how government is supposed to work.

"It's called freedom to live your life how you want." = Anarchy

That is obviously a vague statement...

We have LAWS when it comes to important things.

You should be allowed to live your life how you want AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HURT OTHERS OR INFRINGE ON THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE HOW THEY WANT. Get it? It's a pretty simple concept, one which is not "anarchy."

I bet you think it's okay for the federal government to tell you which substances you are allowed to put inside of your own body don't you? Nothing to worry about, the government will protect you from yourself!

So, do what you want to do only applies to drugs. I get it now. You don't seem to understand that if you get to do what you want to do, I get to do what I want to do and if you do not like it, there is not a lot you can do about it.

"Be careful of what you wish for" comes to mind.

The fundamental problem with Ron Paul's view of the constitution is that it's a flawed document meant for a different time. A time when every state was like it's own country and so "states rights" made more sense.. A time when getting the states into a union would have been a balancing act meant to make them comfortable with joining and so give them more rights and less to the federal government. The US is not a loose union of states anymore.. It's economy and interests are one and in a global world, it's even more critical that everyone work together for the benefit of the entire country. Ron Paul's stance is to abdicate his responsibility one "one country" and kick the can for so many policies to the states which would lead to an even greater disparity between them than there is now.

It doesn't "only" apply to drugs, that just happens to be the one example that I gave you.

And why would I not like you being able to do what you want as long as you're not hurting me or infringing on my rights?

I completely disagree that the constitution is a "flawed document" and is "meant for a different time."

Things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right to bear arms to protect yourself from tyranny and enslavement, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, etc, are timeless. These are rights that everyone should have regardless if it's 1776 or 2389.

It also lays out what I believe to be a great form of government, which has to do with CHECKS AND BALANCES. The constitution is why we have three branches of government.

Can you give me an example how a person doing that does not effect anyone else in some detrimental way or another? People stuff themselves with crap food, blow up in weight, which causes health issues, which causes a ripple effect thru society. It would be nice if everyone acted responsibly but it's never going to happen. Unless you live in a bubble, what you do with your "freedom" has an effect on others in the society that the government is supposed to protect.

If you actually think that government should get involved with every aspect of people's lives and tell them how to live, then you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum and could argue for days. We should just agree to disagree.

I did not say that the entire constitution is flawed. I agree with Ron Paul's policies on freedoms from "tyranny" etc. But Ron Paul is a strict constructionist and that's where I have a problem with him because it's not in the best interest in the country as a whole.

Freedom comes with costs in one form or another and if you want those freedoms then you and everyone else has to be prepared to pay for them... You have to look around you and ask yourself what your neighbors would do with those freedoms, how what they do will effect you and whether you're willing to pay the price. A price in money, lives and the degeneration of the society you're a part of.