Per Newsweek, Ron is the most fiscally conservative potential GOP candidate

[sailingaway]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/20/let-s-make-a-match.html

Of course, that and a dollar will buy their entire company....and while they are right on his fiscal rating, if you click on his dot, you'll see why they were priced so cheaply in the description they give of his issues....

[RileyE104]

riiiiiiiight, the "mythical" NAFTA superhighway... :rolleyes:

[Vessol]

Lol, mythical?

If the NAFTA highway is a myth, we need a new word for unicorns.

[jct74]

same as 2008 :cool:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/3887/clipboard1ep1.jpg

[cswake]

If Paul is a 5 on the economic scale, how can the following be a 4?!

Mitch Daniels - raising taxes is an option to balance the budget
Rick Santorum - keep the Department of Education around so that we can teach our kids intelligent design

They are out of their minds...

[agar]

Ron really hurt himself with his support for open sodomites in the military.

If Ron begins to gain traction in 2012, the neo-cons will sink him in the pro-military Christian south with this ridiculous vote. It was a wrong thing for Ron to do....both morally as well as poltically. I'm really upset over this.

[Havax]

Ron really hurt himself with his support for open sodomites in the military.

If Ron begins to gain traction in 2012, the neo-cons will sink him in the pro-military Christian south with this ridiculous vote. It was a wrong thing for Ron to do....both morally as well as poltically. I'm really upset over this.

What about having anal sex is inherently wrong? Get your religious bullshit out of here.

[silverhandorder]

Then you are a dumb ass. It is a wedge issue and even if christian south can not understand you should be able to and help Ron in any way you can.

[cswake]

What about having anal sex is inherently wrong? Get your religious bullshit out of here.

You'd make Free Republic proud... agar can't express his own personal beliefs without being told to leave???

[agar]

Dude, certain things in life are self evident. Male and female are meant for each other. Whether you look at it from a religious point-of-view, or strictly from a natural point-of-view.

A guy who looks at a naked Eva Longoria, or a naked Meghan Fox, and then prefers to "have sex" with, say, Brad Pitt....well, there is something seriously ...seriously wrong with that individual. No different than a schizo or a manic depressive.

We should be trying to help cure these people (as many indeed have been cured) and preventing our society from breeding so many of them.

[cswake]

Ron really hurt himself with his support for open sodomites in the military.

If Ron begins to gain traction in 2012, the neo-cons will sink him in the pro-military Christian south with this ridiculous vote. It was a wrong thing for Ron to do....both morally as well as poltically. I'm really upset over this.

Ron wasn't going to win the hardcore social conservatives anyways. I doubt DADT would be the final straw after his support for state's right on legalizing drugs, refusing an amendment defining marriage, and removing all foreign aid.

[silverhandorder]

Not at the point of a gun.

[chudrockz]

Dude, certain things in life are self evident. Male and female are meant for each other. Whether you look at it from a religious point-of-view, or strictly from a natural point-of-view.

A guy who looks at a naked Eva Longoria, or a naked Meghan Fox, and then prefers to "have sex" with, say, Brad Pitt....well, there is something seriously ...seriously wrong with that individual. No different than a schizo or a manic depressive.

We should be trying to help cure these people (as many indeed have been cured) and preventing our society from breeding so many of them.

Sigh. SERIOUSLY?

[wormyguy]

Newsweek once again demonstrates their vapidity and ignorance.


"If Ron Paul represents the old Barry Goldwater branch of libertarianism, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is the younger, more socially libertine iteration."

Sooo many things wrong with that sentence . . .

[silentshout]

Dude, certain things in life are self evident. Male and female are meant for each other. Whether you look at it from a religious point-of-view, or strictly from a natural point-of-view.

A guy who looks at a naked Eva Longoria, or a naked Meghan Fox, and then prefers to "have sex" with, say, Brad Pitt....well, there is something seriously ...seriously wrong with that individual. No different than a schizo or a manic depressive.

We should be trying to help cure these people (as many indeed have been cured) and preventing our society from breeding so many of them.

/facepalm. Maybe try minding your own business? Why do you care if some men prefer other men?

[Tinnuhana]

Libertine? I didn't know he was another Edwards :rolleyes:
Social expression of sexuality isn't that easy to explain or judge. If there are gay individuals "in the closet" that are pretty clueless about it, there are probably straight people living the gay lifestyle who don't have the DNA for that. It's back to nature vs nurture. Studies have shown that 80% of cross-dressers are heterosexual...just have an interesting way of relating to the opposite sex. "Lola" by the kinks comes to mind.
Only if we value and see others as individuals can we work together for the common good.
Anyway, yeah, Ron's probably the most fiscal conservative of possible candidates.
BTW, anyone hear his interview on the Alan Colmes (sp?) radio show?

[HOLLYWOOD]

If Paul is a 5 on the economic scale, how can the following be a 4?!


Mitch Daniels - raising taxes is an option to balance the budget
Rick Santorum - keep the Department of Education around so that we can teach our kids intelligent design


They are out of their minds...

It's NEWSWEEK... the offspring of the Liberal Progressive slant Washington Post... but they sold it to the Harman Dynasty of Democrats. You Know Democratic representative Jane Harman (D-CA) that lined up the great deals for the AIPAC spies charges dropped for committee appointment.

NEWSWEEK... Socialism in Gloss

[cswake]

BTW, anyone hear his interview on the Alan Colmes (sp?) radio show?He was on talking about the Fed?: http://www.alan.com/2010/12/21/on-tuesdays-radio-show-150/

[jmdrake]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/20/let-s-make-a-match.html

Of course, that and a dollar will buy their entire company....and while they are right on his fiscal rating, if you click on his dot, you'll see why they were priced so cheaply in the description they give of his issues....

Thanks for the find. Use the source for what it's worth and discard the crap. It's funny how some moron can set up a site called "FactCheck.org" and people think it's...well...factual. They are basically debating terminology. Because they don't call the trans Texas corridor with its inland ports (http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/north_american_union/trans_texas_corridor_racing_ahead_20100322157/) a "NAFTA superhighway" then it's supposedly a "myth". :rolleyes:

[Slutter McGee]

You'd make Free Republic proud... agar can't express his own personal beliefs without being told to leave???

Sure he can express it. And we can ask him or her to leave. The difference is that being asked by forum members and being banned for personal viewpoints are two different things. I think agar's comments are idiotic. Notice I said "comments" and not the "person". I don't want to read bigoted bullshit, completely lacking in any scientific understanding. Curing "homosexuality"? Almost as stupid as their comment about the prevention of breading homosexualities...Yay for eugenics and liberty.

Honestly, their comments are ignorant and stupid, on par with Pat Robertson blaming Katrina on abortion. They may be entitled to them, but it does not change the fact that they are pure crap, most likely the result of religious brainwashing at a young age.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Chieppa1]

Dude, certain things in life are self evident. Male and female are meant for each other. Whether you look at it from a religious point-of-view, or strictly from a natural point-of-view.

A guy who looks at a naked Eva Longoria, or a naked Meghan Fox, and then prefers to "have sex" with, say, Brad Pitt....well, there is something seriously ...seriously wrong with that individual. No different than a schizo or a manic depressive.

We should be trying to help cure these people (as many indeed have been cured) and preventing our society from breeding so many of them.

Damn I hope someday I can be as much of a friend of Liberty as you are.

[sratiug]

Dude, certain things in life are self evident. Male and female are meant for each other. Whether you look at it from a religious point-of-view, or strictly from a natural point-of-view.

A guy who looks at a naked Eva Longoria, or a naked Meghan Fox, and then prefers to "have sex" with, say, Brad Pitt....well, there is something seriously ...seriously wrong with that individual. No different than a schizo or a manic depressive.

We should be trying to help cure these people (as many indeed have been cured) and preventing our society from breeding so many of them.
I know when I look at Pamela Anderson I don't think "Hey, I wanna fuck that pretty whore!".

Is it ok to fuck your wife in the ass? Or am I, oops, I mean, does that mean you'd be sick?

[specsaregood]

Ron really hurt himself with his support for open sodomites in the military.

I think what you mean to say is his support for americans in the military. That's right, americans that want to serve their country.



If Ron begins to gain traction in 2012, the neo-cons will sink him in the pro-military Christian south with this ridiculous vote. It was a wrong thing for Ron to do....both morally as well as poltically. I'm really upset over this.
Please, the only people that are upset about this enough to not vote for him because of it weren't gonna vote for him anyways. Has Dr. Paul ever voted or advocated for taking any freedom from you?

[ChaosControl]

What about having anal sex is inherently wrong? Get your religious bullshit out of here.

Well it is pretty disgusting and not really what those parts are meant for, not that it should be illegal though. People do lots of sick things, as long as no one is harmed though it doesn't matter.

As for military, well I don't think ANYONE should openly talk about their sex life, however if somehow it is known that X person is gay, they shouldn't be thrown out. So DADT should be repealed.

[sailingaway]

logarithmic progression?

[driller80545]

Dude, certain things in life are self evident. Male and female are meant for each other. Whether you look at it from a religious point-of-view, or strictly from a natural point-of-view.

A guy who looks at a naked Eva Longoria, or a naked Meghan Fox, and then prefers to "have sex" with, say, Brad Pitt....well, there is something seriously ...seriously wrong with that individual. No different than a schizo or a manic depressive.

We should be trying to help cure these people (as many indeed have been cured) and preventing our society from breeding so many of them.

I think that homosexuality is a perfectly natural reaction to an unnatural environment. Of course, I could be wrong. Bottom line, let it be.

[sailingaway]

Ron really hurt himself with his support for open sodomites in the military.

If Ron begins to gain traction in 2012, the neo-cons will sink him in the pro-military Christian south with this ridiculous vote. It was a wrong thing for Ron to do....both morally as well as poltically. I'm really upset over this.

There is going to be a nonfraternization rule that just says no one can hit on others [define circumstances] which will be applied regardless of orientation. Isn't that the real issue?

I am sure you are right that those to whom this is a 'single issue' will be against Ron, and I'm sorry, politically speaking, for the timing of the vote.

BUT Ron is going to speak up for civil liberties wherever he sees the need, and vote for them. He doesn't sway in the political winds. On this point, he found out more about the issue a year ago or so, and it changed his mind. He found that people were simply 'found out' to be gay and dismissed, in large numbers, when they hadn't acted in a disruptive fashion, and he felt that was unfair, so he changed his position. That is the only kind of flip flopping he does.

There are all sorts of ways to undermine Ron with strident groups who don't look to consistency but look to 'litmus test votes' that people have hopped up as litmus tests, ignoring prior and subsequent record. Ron is an adult, and he doesn't play games with his vote like the rest in DC often do. We have to deal with that, across the board, because so many people who hear that one vote is some horrible big deal just don't engage their brains.

[Seraphim]

Once you factor in just about every other mamilian species...**** and bi-sexuality are actually normal in nature- particularly bisexuality in many enviroments.

Is the process of bearing and raising a family BEST left to nuclear families? Sure, I can't really argue against that...but is homosexuality unatural? Every piece of objective evidence shows, that it is in fact, the norm accross many species. Thus, homosexuality is NORMAL.




I think that homosexuality is a perfectly natural reaction to an unnatural environment. Of course, I could be wrong. Bottom line, let it be.

[sailingaway]

Sure he can express it. And we can ask him or her to leave. The difference is that being asked by forum members and being banned for personal viewpoints are two different things. I think agar's comments are idiotic. Notice I said "comments" and not the "person". I don't want to read bigoted bullshit, completely lacking in any scientific understanding. Curing "homosexuality"? Almost as stupid as their comment about the prevention of breading homosexualities...Yay for eugenics and liberty.



I don't want people to leave unless they are trolls (just here to cause trouble.) I think we here are all perfectly capable of saying when we think an idea is pure crap (as you just did) and are able to defend other ideas. A LOT of people who are with us on many issues have to except out one or two that just rub them wrong. If we can't even except that, how do we build coalitions? Ron and Rand themselves are fragmented on this issue, because of where it hits up against their religious definition of a religious sacrament: marriage. (To me, govt should stay out of what marriage is and use some other criteria for EVERYONE to determine benefits, taxes, whatever, and I know Ron feels that way. On the other hand, I am not sure if they would have voted against Prop 8 as it was worded, as I did, because it defined marriage a certain way.) People view the religious freedom of that side of the argument differently depending on how strict their religious views are, and what those views are.

The best arguments win out when all arguments are aired. I am firmly convinced that a big reason the group-think single party system has run out of ideas is because they won't listen to different points of view, make them 'un-PC' and poisonous to discuss.

[driller80545]

Once you factor in just about every other mamilian species...**** and bi-sexuality are actually normal in nature- particularly bisexuality in many enviroments.

Is the process of bearing and raising a family BEST left to nuclear families? Sure, I can't really argue against that...but is homosexuality unatural? Every piece of objective evidence shows, that it is in fact, the norm accross many species. Thus, homosexuality is NORMAL.

I was referring to a book we studied in college many years ago that proposed that homosexuality was a symptom common to any species that is overpopulated. Seemed logical to me. Are humans overpopulated? Seriously!
Bottom line with me: I don't give a shit what gets you off!

[Daamien]

Dude, certain things in life are self evident. Male and female are meant for each other. Whether you look at it from a religious point-of-view, or strictly from a natural point-of-view.

A guy who looks at a naked Eva Longoria, or a naked Meghan Fox, and then prefers to "have sex" with, say, Brad Pitt....well, there is something seriously ...seriously wrong with that individual. No different than a schizo or a manic depressive.

We should be trying to help cure these people (as many indeed have been cured) and preventing our society from breeding so many of them.

This is probably the most hateful "viewpoint" I've read here in a while, and that's saying something. Why do you care how other people live consensually if they have no impact on how you live your life?

Also, not only are claims of "curing" homosexuality extremely dubious, one would also have to want to be "cured".

[Ekrub]

please delete

[Seraphim]

Not only are we not overpopulated but that assertion of the cause of homosexuality is entirely wrong.

Studies are showing that there are in fact many biological and genetic reasons behind homosexuality- the reasons for which are becoming more clearn, particularly for male homosexuality.

For instance, the fraternal birth order effect. Each son a woman has, the next son is 20% (or so) more likely to be gay. This is a biological phenomena, not genetic. Each son she produces, the woman's body produces anti bodies that, believe or not, view male chromosones as foreign invaders. Each son she has, she accrues more antibodies. These influence (and in some cases totally change) the sexualization of the male's brain. It could be something as simple as: testosterone is normally distributed to the males body (hence why gays have normal Test levels) but during the sexualization of the male fetuses' brain, there is a lack of Test to that certain area of the brain regarding sexualization. The biological phenemena is very real, the exact reasons are still to be proven/disproven/ironed out.

Additionally...and what I find to be the most interesting...is that there is a very real correlation between the number of sexual partners a woman (mother) has, and the likelyhood of homosexuality in her sons. The higher the number of sexual partners a woman has, the more likely she is to birth a gay son. Perhaps there is a "man loving" gene that she passes on to her son. Correlation is real, the reason is logical speculation to be proven or disproven.





I was referring to a book we studied in college many years ago that proposed that homosexuality was a symptom common to any species that is overpopulated. Seemed logical to me. Are humans overpopulated? Seriously!
Bottom line with me: I don't give a shit what gets you off!

[driller80545]

Not only are we not overpopulated but that assertion of the cause of homosexuality is entirely wrong.

Studies are showing that there are in fact many biological and genetic reasons behind homosexuality- the reasons for which are becoming more clearn, particularly for male homosexuality.

For instance, the fraternal birth order effect. Each son a woman has, the next son is 20% (or so) more likely to be gay. This is a biological phenomena, not genetic. Each son she produces, the woman's body produces anti bodies that, believe or not, view male chromosones as foreign invaders. Each son she has, she accrues more antibodies. These influence (and in some cases totally change) the sexualization of the male's brain. It could be something as simple as: testosterone is normally distributed to the males body (hence why gays have normal Test levels) but during the sexualization of the male fetuses' brain, there is a lack of Test to that certain area of the brain regarding sexualization. The biological phenemena is very real, the exact reasons are still to be proven/disproven/ironed out.

Additionally...and what I find to be the most interesting...is that there is a very real correlation between the number of sexual partners a woman (mother) has, and the likelyhood of homosexuality in her sons. The higher the number of sexual partners a woman has, the more likely she is to birth a gay son. Perhaps there is a "man loving" gene that she passes on to her son. Correlation is real, the reason is logical speculation to be proven or disproven.

It occurs to me in passing that in an overpopulated environment there would be a lot of what you explain - happening! lol

[fisharmor]

If there are gay individuals "in the closet" that are pretty clueless about it, there are probably straight people living the gay lifestyle who don't have the DNA for that.

To use the colloquialism, get your junk science bullshit out of here.
Until someone can point out the gene or combination thereof which is 100% guaranteed to cause homosexuality, that's all it is. It's a theory based on self-selection bias, which never takes into account the forehead-slappingly obvious conclusion, which is that people with a family history of acceptance of homosexuality might be more likely to experiment and/or identify with it.
Some families keep their garbage can under the sink, others don't. But for some reason nobody claims that this is genetic.

The point about DADT that everyone seems to forget is that we don't need the force levels we're maintaining and haven't for 60 years.
If it makes straight people quit, good!
If it decreases "readiness" and makes the pentagon gangsters think twice about their latest foreign invasion plan, good!

And for those who won't vote for Paul because of this, they need to be told that conservatism and liberty are a package deal. You don't get one without the other. If they want someone to keep the military straight and cut the budget, they're not going to get it. There's nobody on the playing field who is offering to do that.
I can guarantee that if Paul got the presidency he'd go for the throat with the military - if McCain's threat that 250,000 would leave the service, then Dr. Paul would probably consider that a good start on the budget.

The giant hasn't been to bed since December 7th, 1941. What made him a giant in the first place was his slumber. The sooner we figure this out, the sooner we'll all realize that this DADT shit is nothing but a distraction from the real issue.

[Heimdallr]

Can mods please lock until people are willing to return to the topic at hand?