Congressman Ron Paul

[YSSMAN]

* Sigh *

If anything, this is an exact demonstration of what Ron Paul is talking about; Your rights, my rights, our rights are being taken away...

Of course, when it happens to you, don't be surprised when we say "told ya so!"

 

[Solid Fro]

You cannot rally on private property.

 

[Keef]

Sure you can. But the owner is also allowed to complain like a pansy and kick you out.

 

[Solid Fro]

If a Neo Nazi group started a rally on your front yard, only because you are on a corner of the street, would you be a pansy if you kicked them out?

 

[Keef]

Nope. Hypocrisy rules, dude. It's always been here and it's never going to go away. Problems are problems, and everyone deals with them, and nothing is ever going to be perfect, and Ron Paul for president in 2008!

 

[FoolKiller]

I saw something rather weird today. I was in a turning lane at a local medical center on a major intersection and saw four Ron Paul supporters with a rather large sign and REVOlution signs. Then, all of a sudden, they start to scatter with their signs and run away. I'm thinking to myself: "what's going on?" Then, I see two police cruisers coming up from the other side.

They must have been on private property.

Well, were they or weren't they? Don't make an assumption based on must haves. Weer they on a sidewalk, in a yard/parking lot?

And of course, people breaking up a rally as police cruisers are driving around must make a cause and effect. You have made an assumption. It may be correct, in which case they shouldn't have been there to start with or they were within their rights and the cops were attempting to violate them. If that was the case the RP supporters could have stood up for their righst and been arrested, but instead they chose to avoid trouble. So, it is just as likely, since you did not confirm that they were on private property, that they were taking the peaceful route and avoiding creating an issue.

Nice one, Ron Paul supporters. I don't know what is worse, these guys or the ten anti-war protesters at the military veterans memorial.

Break the law and support Ron Paul! Break the law and support Ron Paul!

I have no clue what you are on about now. Anti-war protesters upsetting people trying to mourn their losses is not equal to people holding up election signs on possibly private property without permission.

And even if it were I challenge you to show how any of us Ron Paul supporters are breaking the law by doing so.

You cannot rally on private property.

Sure you can. But the owner is also allowed to complain like a pansy and kick you out.

No you cannot, by law, rally on private property without permission from the owner. The fact that Solid Fro doesn't seem to know for sure is what makes his argument invalid.

 

[YSSMAN]

Good news everyone!

The Ron Paul signs are all over town, I've seen more today than I have of Romney and Huckabee combined!

Tomorrow should be very interesting indeed....

 

[Omnis]

You cannot rally on private property.

Yes you can, unless the owner tells you to leave or unless there is a notice enforceable by law. If people assembled on my property, I could either ask them to leave or have the police do it for me. Failure to leave = trespassing.

Good news everyone!

The Ron Paul signs are all over town, I've seen more today than I have of Romney and Huckabee combined!

Tomorrow should be very interesting indeed....

Tell everyone you know not to waste their vote on a democrat because Michigan Democrats were penalized all their delegates for bumping their primary.

 

[Omnis]

DP, sorry.

 

[Solid Fro]

No you cannot, by law, rally on private property without permission from the owner. The fact that Solid Fro doesn't seem to know for sure is what makes his argument invalid.

Of course I don't know. However, I think my assumption is pretty safe. It wasn't like they just packed up as if it was time to have a Starbucks caffeine break, they ran off.

 

[Azuremen]

Of course I don't know. However, I think my assumption is pretty safe. It wasn't like they just packed up as if it was time to have a Starbucks caffeine break, they ran off.

You are assuming an assumption is correct.

Laughable. Please stop posting your non-sense in here; we know you like to troll and case trouble, but you are getting desperate and it is showing.

In other news, I am seeing big Ron Paul sings around as well. Puts a smile on my face.

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course I don't know. However, I think my assumption is pretty safe. It wasn't like they just packed up as if it was time to have a Starbucks caffeine break, they ran off.

Not seeing it myself I can't argue any facts. I can just say that assuming you didn't miss any details it did seem odd. Fact is, it wouldn't be the first candidate with over zealous supporters nor does it mean that all supporters, or the candidates, are like that.

The point is I don't see what four people possibly breaking the law says about Ron Paul, especially when they would be going against the grassroots guidelines on Ron Paul's Web site which repeatedly mentions adhering to the law.

 

[Solid Fro]

It did seem odd, that's why I posted, I was quite humored.

Not all supporters are like that, but it's a growing trend.

 

[YSSMAN]

Tell everyone you know not to waste their vote on a democrat because Michigan Democrats were penalized all their delegates for bumping their primary.

Done and done... We had a lengthy discussion about it today in my "Presidency and Congress" class. I was informed by a friend of mine (who is working on the Michigan McCain campaign) that there was a movement afoot by the Democrats to vote for Romney because he "is a weak candidate."

While completely true, I made my case for the Dems to just vote (preferably for Paul, of course) for who they deem to be the best Republican candidate. Although, there are too many "proud" Dems who want to vote "uncommitted" just to prove their point.

My whole house is voting for Ron Paul *today* and I believe that I've convinced my Aunt, her boss, and a few of my co-workers to do so as well. Every little bit counts...

 

[Omnis]

Hey guys, say hello to the RON PAUL LIMO!



I hope they come down to south Florida.

 

[FoolKiller]

Although, there are too many "proud" Dems who want to vote "uncommitted" just to prove their point.

Is that on option on the ballet in Michigan? Wish I had that option in Kentucky. Any election you are undecided on you have to leave blank and the vote just doesn't count.

However, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky (unofficial-as in I can't register) wants to see a None of the Above option on the ballet. If None of the Above wins then there has to be a second election and none of the original candidates can run until the next election cycle. I like it!

 

[YSSMAN]

You can vote "uncommitted" on either ballot if you don't like the candidates (or a write-in), but for the Democrats, its really their only option. The Dems have to choose between Clinton, Kucinich, and several candidates that have dropped out... Or "uncommitted."

It was really weird doing the primary today. You go in, hand them your ID, they hand you a small piece of paper where you have to "declare your party" (despite the fact that we do not have party membership like other states in Michigan), and then you get handed the ballot for your given party.

So then you sit down at your desk with your "privacy shield" (a piece of cardboard, really) and proceed to open the envelope, expecting rainbows and unicorns to shoot out of it. Disappointed, you look at the names, fill in your bubble, stick it in the machine, and go home. The good news is that Ron Paul's name was second on the ballot, which sticks him up there for people to identify early...

 

[FoolKiller]

You can vote "uncommitted" on either ballot if you don't like the candidates (or a write-in), but for the Democrats, its really their only option. The Dems have to choose between Clinton, Kucinich, and several candidates that have dropped out... Or "uncommitted."

Not that it matters.

It was really weird doing the primary today. You go in, hand them your ID, they hand you a small piece of paper where you have to "declare your party" (despite the fact that we do not have party membership like other states in Michigan), and then you get handed the ballot for your given party.

Indiana is the same way about just declaring at the primary.

Michigan has other states?

So then you sit down at your desk with your "privacy shield" (a piece of cardboard, really) and proceed to open the envelope, expecting rainbows and unicorns to shoot out of it. Disappointed, you look at the names, fill in your bubble, stick it in the machine, and go home. The good news is that Ron Paul's name was second on the ballot, which sticks him up there for people to identify early...

What is the deal with bubble sheets? I have been pushing buttons on a machine, that puts a light directly under my chosen candidate's name, since I can remember. My dad took me in when I was a kid once and it was the same.

Heck, now we are working on these new electronic machines with LCD screens where you are given a four digit code that you have to enter to be allowed to vote and before your final vote it asks you to confirm your votes, and you can go back if you think you made a mistake. I'm not sure but I believe you can request a print off.


Oh and did anyone see that Kucinich won his lawsuit against NBC about being withheld from the Nevada debate?

To reiterate: keeping a candidate from a debate is illegal and may be equal to disenfranchising voters.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/14/judge-rules-kucinich-must-be-included-in-nevada-debate/

I wonder what Fox's opinion on this is.

 

[YSSMAN]

Michigan has other states?

Major confusion in my words (that I don't feel like fixing). I think there are several other states that hold "open primaries" like Michigan, however, I can't name one off the top of my head...

What is the deal with bubble sheets? I have been pushing buttons on a machine, that puts a light directly under my chosen candidate's name, since I can remember. My dad took me in when I was a kid once and it was the same.

I'm not sure what the deal is, but they've been bubbles for as long as Mom can recall. The last election I voted in (2006 congress/gubernatorial) had the bubbles as well. The only "technology" you have to use is the machine you feed your vote into that tells you what vote number you had...

Oh and did anyone see that Kucinich won his lawsuit against NBC about being withheld from the Nevada debate?

I saw that it was on Digg earlier, but I didn't read the full story... Either way, good for him! He deserves to have his voice heard just like any other candidate, and I see no reason why he shouldn't have been included. However, it is truly unfortunate that the courts would have had to be involved.

 

[Solid Fro]

I saw that it was on Digg earlier, but I didn't read the full story... Either way, good for him! He deserves to have his voice heard just like any other candidate, and I see no reason why he shouldn't have been included. However, it is truly unfortunate that the courts would have had to be involved.

Agreed.

I, for one, want to hear about his UFO stories. Quite fascinating.

 

[YSSMAN]

Personally speaking, I find him to be an interesting and rather genuine person. Hes a bit off the cuff, certainly, but he believes in what he says and doesn't change his positions... Impossible to find under most circumstances in Congress.

He won't win the nomination, but he is always plenty good at making a point.

Oh, and his wife is pretty good-looking:

How that Elf scored that, I don't know...

 

[Omnis]

How that Elf scored that, I don't know...

It's easy to fall in love when you're a bleeding heart.

 

[Joey D]

You can vote "uncommitted" on either ballot if you don't like the candidates (or a write-in), but for the Democrats, its really their only option. The Dems have to choose between Clinton, Kucinich, and several candidates that have dropped out... Or "uncommitted."

It was really weird doing the primary today. You go in, hand them your ID, they hand you a small piece of paper where you have to "declare your party" (despite the fact that we do not have party membership like other states in Michigan), and then you get handed the ballot for your given party.

So then you sit down at your desk with your "privacy shield" (a piece of cardboard, really) and proceed to open the envelope, expecting rainbows and unicorns to shoot out of it. Disappointed, you look at the names, fill in your bubble, stick it in the machine, and go home. The good news is that Ron Paul's name was second on the ballot, which sticks him up there for people to identify early...

Yes this primary election was a bit weird in terms of voting, I had to show my ID four times...guess they really wanted to know it was me.

And on my ballot we had the bubble thing as well and Ron Paul was right there at the top. Took me all of 10 seconds to fill in the bubble for him and be on my way.

Oh and his wife...what a fox, I say good on Mr. Paul 👍

 

[Omnis]

Yes this primary election was a bit weird in terms of voting, I had to show my ID four times...guess they really wanted to know it was me.

And on my ballot we had the bubble thing as well and Ron Paul was right there at the top. Took me all of 10 seconds to fill in the bubble for him and be on my way.

Oh and his wife...what a fox, I say good on Mr. Paul 👍

Good job.

And, btw, that's Kucinich's wife, not Paul's.

vs.

 

[FoolKiller]

Does anyone ever read some of the commentaries of Father Jonathan on FoxNews.com?

Usually he comments on religious themed topics in the news from the standpoint of the church or he'll give a Christian view on world events. HE also acts as Fox's religion expert on the air. His last two commentaries have been about the elections, and no religious mentions were made.


From Monday: Primary Elections: No Superheroes Please
From Today: Candidates Should Put Their Political Philosophies on the Table

Here are some quotes that stuck out to me (all emphasis is added by him):

My suggestion to voters at this point in the race is to forget about all of this — including what other states have done, or are about to do — and instead, to choose the candidate who, according to Constitutional criterion, has the best PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNMENT and whose RECORD coincides with this philosophy.

I mean to say, let’s choose a candidate who understands the true purpose of government and the way it’s supposed to work in the United States of America as described in our founding documents, in particular, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

We are not electing a national mayor, a local pastor, a motivational speaker, a civil rights activist or even a CEO.

The federal government — including the executive branch — is primarily responsible for defending the nation and its citizens from attack and subversion, maintaining public order (including commerce) and protecting people‘s fundamental rights and liberties.

In other areas, its role is secondary, or more precisely “subsidiary,” first of all to the work of families, community, charitable, religious, and other civic organizations, and then to local and state governments.

When candidates make promises to end poverty, boost the economy, restore hope, and provide health care and education for all, the questions we should ask are HOW and WHO. If they plan to use their presidential powers (including the appointment of judges) to run our states and to raise our families, they are out of line.

In fact, the more “efficient” they are, the more dangerous they would be as president.

With perhaps one exception, the viable Republican candidates (Thompson, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee) have thrown philosophy to the wind and have focused instead on their sometimes decent plans for fixing local realities, or on a particular stellar quality of their own personality, record, or creed. If these men were running for the job of mayor, state legislator, U.S. senator, or even governor they might be on message. Local jobs need elbow grease.

But the White House needs more than that.

An EFFECTIVE president, Democratic or Republican, is not necessarily a policy wonk. He is a visionary who inspires positive action from the bottom up and all around him. He is a political philosopher who outlines a framework of ideas for the country, knows how to apply those ideas to our varied national interests and sell them to open-minded people everywhere.

An EFFECTIVE and GOOD president does all of that and more. He not only moves people, he moves them in the right direction, toward personal responsibility and initiative. He empowers OTHERS to rectify social inequality, not by beating down the most successful, but rather by creating opportunities for the disadvantaged to help themselves. To do this, he respects and encourages the primordial role of good families and good neighbors who are always best at lending a helping hand. A good and effective president also promotes a culture of morality, charity, justice and self-regulated moderation as rudiments of a healthy society.

Unless this Saturday South Carolinians give someone else a chance to go to bat — a man with a philosophy — or force one of the previous batters to try, try again, come November you can bet the Democratic philosophy will triumph, because at least it is philosophy and not campaign gook.

And he closes with this:

P.S. A challenge to the candidates: can you produce a 15 minute video that outlines your political philosophy for the American people? It would be fascinating and you could put it on the Internet.

Is it just me or does he sound like he is promoting Ron Paul without saying his name?

 

[Solid Fro]

No.

He states that the only viable candidates are: Thompson, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee.

When did everyone start trusting Fox News again? I thought it wasn't fair and balanced and they reported and they decided? Is Fox News not the fascist propaganda wing of the GOP, serving for the greater good of the American Empire?

 

[Keef]

Yes, they're all "the" viable candidates. What you missed is the statement and fact that, well, they're all RETARDED.

The "viable" candidates are the most illogical choices.

vi·a·ble /ˈvaɪəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vahy-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology.
a. physically fitted to live.
b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
3. Botany. able to live and grow.
4. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses: a period of history that few teachers can make viable for students.
5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
6. having the ability to grow, expand, develop, etc.: a new and viable country.

EDIT: And Foolkiller is not "trusting" FOX news. What he's doing is posting the words written by Father Jonathan. The words are factual.

I never understood what anyone has been saying about your trolling, but seeing you blatantly skip obvious points like this is mind boggling. It seems purposeful.

EDIT 2: FOX News isn't "fair" and "balanced". They report the truth...but not the whole truth. You don't have to report the whole truth. But then again, I don't trust anyone who only reports what they want to report. Does anyone in this thread like attorneys?

 

[Solid Fro]

Yes, they're all "the" viable candidates. What you missed is the statement and fact that, well, they're all RETARDED.

Where are the facts that each candidate is retarded? I don't see them drooling on each other.

Just because you do not like the Republican candidates doesn't mean they are retarded and state it as fact.

EDIT: And Foolkiller is not "trusting" FOX news. What he's doing is posting the words written by Father Jonathan. The words are factual.

I see, only some people at Fox are truthful. At least, the people who you agree with.

 

[Keef]

I didn't mention anything about truth. Facts have nothing to do with truth or not. Words written don't have to be facts, but they sure as hell are words.

 

[Solid Fro]

Facts are not the truth and the truth is not a fact...

GOT IT! 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👎