Ron Paul signbomb is a success!

We did it, but we've got to continue the Ron Paul signs and promotions.


Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney will receive votes in the VA Republican primary, The Newt, Bachmann and the rest failed to get the 10,000 signatures required to be on the ballot.

GO RON PAUL!!!! Let's take VA!!
Attachments:

Congrats to all the volunteers who worked to collect signatures.

Ron Paul is a batshit crazy racist nazi, read his newsletter

RonPaul2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney will receive votes
> in the VA Republican primary, The Newt, Bachmann
> and the rest failed to get the 10,000 signatures
> required to be on the ballot.



Why are you celebrating this? If indeed that's the tone you're taking? It assumes that those who would have voted for Newt and the rest prefer Ron over Romney. I'm not so sure that's the case. The more candidates in the field, generally the better these oddball characters do in the polls, relative to everyone else. It splits the electorate over the mainstream candidates, while the fringe candidates can still count on the same number of diehard supporters.

that's the thing-GOP has no mainstream candidates this cycle- you have, I don't know, six absolute mental patients and Romney, who is absolutely a member of the world's craziest cult (read about Mormonism). No hope for Pres. Obama 2012!!!

There's no real differentiation between Obama and Romney. Most of the policies seem to have been set in motion long ago.

expansive military foreign policy
universal health insurance mandate
lax government regulatory policy
lax immigration policy
easy monetary policy

Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no real differentiation between Obama and
> Romney. Most of the policies seem to have been
> set in motion long ago.
>
> expansive military foreign policy
> universal health insurance mandate
> lax government regulatory policy
> lax immigration policy
> easy monetary policy

Thus it is better to keep on course with the same Captain.

Go Ron Paul! Take back America!

DA FUCK?? OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!

Lets imagine a parallel universe where Ron Paul gets elected president of the United States, and he gets carte Blanche from the other branches of govt.

How many US citizens would die from Ron Paul's policy changes. I bet he'd kill way more Americans then Bin Laden and Bush Jr combined.

I'll mark the over under at 100,000 deaths. Place your bets.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets imagine a parallel universe where Ron Paul
> gets elected president of the United States, and
> he gets carte Blanche from the other branches of
> govt.
>
> How many US citizens would die from Ron Paul's
> policy changes. I bet he'd kill way more
> Americans then Bin Laden and Bush Jr combined.
>
> I'll mark the over under at 100,000 deaths. Place
> your bets.

There are two classes of GOP candidates at the moment

1) The crazies - no moderates would vote for Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Paul or Trump. In addition, they would all ensure a massive democratic and poor republican turnouts. Outcome - Obama wins substantially

2) The moderates - Obama emasculated Huntsman for this cycle by appointing him to China, he's a dark horse but I don't see him as appealing to the anti-Romney-brigade. Which leaves Romney as the moderate candidate - leading to a poor republican turnout (perhaps split by an independent run) and even a poor democratic turnout. Outcome - Obama wins by a narrow margin

So my prediction...
2012
- The crazies eat each other and poison Romney
- Romney wins the nomination but fails to ignite the GOP core
- Generally low-turn out
- Obama wins

2016
- Huntsman gains the nomination
- democrats struggle to find a good candidate because of the lack of democratic governors

I can see a slightly different course, not a prediction, but a possibility:

2012
Third party candidate comes in and splits the republican vote, then the republican party.

2016
Hilary wins 2 terms after Obama.

I think a Mayan hieroglyph depicted "the newt eating the elephant in the end days of the Republican party as Regan knew it.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see a slightly different course, not a
> prediction, but a possibility:
>
> 2012
> Third party candidate comes in and splits the
> republican vote, then the republican party.
>
> 2016
> Hilary wins 2 terms after Obama.
>
> I think a Mayan hieroglyph depicted "the newt
> eating the elephant in the end days of the
> Republican party as Regan knew it.


Keep dreaming Hilary isnt winning the presidency and certainly not two terms. Plus 2016 will see the best GOP candidates who sat out this one since they didnt want to run against an incumbent for their first time if Obama does win 2012.

Your boy could get lucky though and Paul could split off enough votes to let him win just like how Clinton won his first term.

Throw the election to the Democrats.
Another bigger financial crisis in 2015: US government debt and 700 trillion dollars in interest rate derivatives.
Jeb Bush in 2016.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see a slightly different course, not a
> prediction, but a possibility:
>
> 2012
> Third party candidate comes in and splits the
> republican vote, then the republican party.
>
> 2016
> Hilary wins 2 terms after Obama.
>
> I think a Mayan hieroglyph depicted "the newt
> eating the elephant in the end days of the
> Republican party as Regan knew it.

I suspect Hilary's window has passed - if there had been a serious GOP contender then you would have seen Biden step down and Hilary as VP for 2012, but I don't think that's as likely now. Obama+Clinton would have been a winning ticket, but would enliven the GOP base - which is why they won't do it unless they have to

If she ran in 2016, she'd be 69 - or 77 at the end of a two year term. I'm not sure the US public wants a president in their 70's these days - although I might be wrong on that.

Its a shame really - sadly neither party has come up with another credible female candidate (Bachman and Palin have always been fundamentally unelectable).

I can see a 3rd candidate splitting the GOP vote next year, but it's hard to see the party splitting - there's no precedent to go on, which suggests that the forces which keep the parties together are pretty strong. The UK conservatives struggled in the same way post thatcher/major but managed to keep their party together - although even after a decade they still weren't able to get back into power without a coalition with the centrist liberal party.

No-one is going to elect another Bush after the mess the last one left.

^ it wasn't bush's fault. idiot. it was the liberals and the democrats!!

Romney is so fake. Newt fucked up by not getting on the ballet. He's from VA for Christ sake.

Romney is so a fraud.

Republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ it wasn't bush's fault. idiot. it was the
> liberals and the democrats!!


mmmmm.... riiiiiight

WMD, abu ghraib, waterboarding, patriot act, VP who discovers a new unaccountable arm of government (strangely hidden for 200+ years), $800B, 4500 fatalities and 32,000 injured poured into a hole in the Iraqi sand, a healthy surplus turned into financial collapse, Roberts appointed to the supreme court, subprime mortgage crisis, lehmans bankruptcy...

yup it was Pres Gore wot dunnit ... oh wait...

Don't fuck this up, Republicans. Obama's approval numbers are shit right now and the election is yours for the taking. Don't put up some crackpot that can't even beat the incumbent while he's down.

While I'm convinced that anybody going for the nomination has something that will come out during the election, those that choose this life must have a screw loose.

If you doubt for a moment that this can happen, remember how Bush won his second term because Kerry was such a lacking candidate.

I've given up on having a good candidate. Here's to voting for the "least worst" candidate.

wnrsm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've given up on having a good candidate. Here's
> to voting for the "least worst" candidate.

Wow - that's the standard that the GOP has fallen to?

You leave the economy in tatters, 2 wars in disarray, spend 3 years on complete obstructionism - and you can't even rustle up anyone better than 'the least worst'?

I guess the year end farce between the senate and house GOPs said it all - so many crazy-eyed tea-partiers got elected during during the mid-terms that the caucus doesn't even know if it believes in government anymore. I don't even like Boehner, and even i feel sorry for him.

And the candidates - Trump or Perry as front-runner even for a minute? Bachman as a 'serious contender'? What are you people smoking?

The "least worst candidate" term was aimed at all political contests, including both parties' candidates in the 2012 presidential election. Maybe it is difficult to get excited about a candidate if you didn't buy him/her yourself.


The parties are separated and within them are extremes. Pick the one with the fewest warts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2011 10:03PM by wnrsm.

GOP reality TV Wrote:

> Wow - that's the standard that the GOP has fallen
> to?
>
> You leave the economy in tatters, 2 wars in
> disarray, spend 3 years on complete obstructionism
> - and you can't even rustle up anyone better than
> 'the least worst'?
>


Seriously how many drugs are you on? Please honestly answer that question. NO ONE can be that stupid. I refuse to believe its possible for someone to be as brainwashed as you are.

3 years of complete obstructionism? Are you kidding me? You have to be trolling. Obama for the first two years HAD BOTH HOUSES AND A SUPER MAJORITY IN THE SENATE.

Please keep trying to rewrite history though to defend how hes managed to make everything worse over the last 3 years.

bluedog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ron Paul is a batshit crazy racist nazi, read his
> newsletter


Please provide proof or STFU

the domcrats was incharge of the congrees when bush was in the presidecny. bush is just 1/3.

I have heard a few of Ron Pauls positions and I agree with them.

The war on drugs is a joke.

Gambling should be legalized and people should make up their own mind how they spend their money. Agree.

The Federal government has grown too big and too powerful.

He fully supports the second amendment.

Is not in favor of obamacare or the federal govenrnment running your health care.

End forced paid dues to unions.

Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.


I will choose my own candidate and not listen to my selections hand picked by the media or some fatass lobbyist in Washington.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V36MT5lAMrc&feature=share

What if we never revolted against the British?
What if we never abolished slavery?
What if we kept women in the kitchen?
What if we never built the interstates?
What if we didn't have an FBI?
What if we let the nazis win WWII?

It's tough to take this guy (or his supporters) seriously. It's a great discussion in a ludicrous venue.

barry o Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bluedog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ron Paul is a batshit crazy racist nazi, read
> his
> > newsletter
>
>
> Please provide proof or STFU


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/

tl;dr: Ron Paul didn't write the racist content, but the fact that it went out in a newsletter bearing his name calls his judgment into question.

I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!!

The limited ballot issue is a gift from our governor to Mitt Romney. It appears our governor wants to be VP so badly that he has worked with our LT guvnur, the head of the Virginia Romney campaign, to limit access to all but two candidates-Romney and Paul.

It is amazing how Newt is ahead in a lot of VA polls but he is not allowed on the ballot. I, for one, was hoping to vote for batsh7t crazy Bachmann, but I can't. There are at least 10 people running in the Republican primary, but only two are on the ballot in Virginia? How can anyone defend a system that has produced this result?

I say, since VA is an open primary state, we all go out and vote for Ron Paul. All Democrats in Virginia, since there is no Democratic primary in our commonwealth, should all go and voter for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. We can turn the table on this Republican ballot tampering trick, and hopefully cause our governor's head to explode in the process.

It all for nothing because Mitt Romney or Ron Paul won't have a snowball chance in hell of beating Obama.

Romney has his Bain and crazy Mormon background, Ron Paul also has baggage from his past. Unless a new candidate enters the race Obama will win re-election.

Ron Paul defends the constitution and America!

Strict constitutionalist!

As someone who's collected numerous signatures for previous candidates I can only laugh at the crybabies who cry about stuff like this. If you care that much, get off your butt and stand in front of a supermarket on the weekends and collect signatures.

If you haven't done that you can't complain.

WarMonger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It all for nothing because Mitt Romney or Ron Paul
> won't have a snowball chance in hell of beating
> Obama.
>
> Romney has his Bain and crazy Mormon background,
> Ron Paul also has baggage from his past. Unless a
> new candidate enters the race Obama will win
> re-election.


The thing is though, if Romney moved to the center, he could probably win a general election. The last few months he spent pandering to the far right sect of the GOP has ruined any chance of that though. The guy basically disavows anything he did as Gov. of MA, and that guy could beat Obama by winning the moderates who are unhappy with Obama and the conservatives who wouldn't vote for Obama no matter who the candidate is.

Keep talking about religion, gay marriage, "personhood", and acting like the health care plan you implemented in MA wasn't really close to "Obamacare" (it was), and draconian austerity measures and you will lose those votes and be left with the die hard anti-Obama voters.

None of these candidates have any redeeming qualities and I really am not impressed Obama, but the lesser of two evils will win again I guess.

Observing Wrote:

>
> The thing is though, if Romney moved to the
> center, he could probably win a general election.
> The last few months he spent pandering to the far
> right sect of the GOP has ruined any chance of
> that though. The guy basically disavows anything
> he did as Gov. of MA, and that guy could beat
> Obama by winning the moderates who are unhappy
> with Obama and the conservatives who wouldn't vote
> for Obama no matter who the candidate is.
>
> Keep talking about religion, gay marriage,
> "personhood", and acting like the health care plan
> you implemented in MA wasn't really close to
> "Obamacare" (it was), and draconian austerity
> measures and you will lose those votes and be left
> with the die hard anti-Obama voters.
>
> None of these candidates have any redeeming
> qualities and I really am not impressed Obama, but
> the lesser of two evils will win again I guess.


Not really. As with EVERY primary for both parties during the primary candidates always move to the left or right to win the nomination and then move back to the center (if thats where they were at the start) during the actual election.

Lets also be serious, he hasnt lost any votes on the left. Anyone on the left is going to vote for Obama and anyone that still supports him is going to vote for him no matter who is put up against him.

wnrsm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here's to voting for the "least worst" candidate.

I think I've given that guy more votes than all good candidates combined. Strangely he seems to run sometimes as a Republican and sometimes as a Democrat.

I've voted in every VA republican primary since I was able to vote.

I'm certainly NOT voting for Romney and his socialized health care programs. Ron Paul is a little overboard about the constitution but I guess he'll get my vote.

Had Newt been on the ballot he would of got my vote.

Why do you ignore all of the facts that have proven that he did not write the letters and has disavowed them? Stop being forcefed lies through FOX and other mainstream outlets and do the research yourself next time.

Rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've voted in every VA republican primary since I
> was able to vote.
>
> I'm certainly NOT voting for Romney and his
> socialized health care programs. Ron Paul is a
> little overboard about the constitution but I
> guess he'll get my vote.
>
> Had Newt been on the ballot he would of got my
> vote.


While not a fan of everything Romney has done hes is a much better choice then Paul. I will never vote for someone who thinks its fine for Iran to get the bomb and wants to legalize all drugs

The blank ballot will win, we can still go in and cast a blank ballot and I believe it would have too count. That way we don't have too vote for someone none of us want nor give them our state in the real election.

Piper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The blank ballot will win, we can still go in and
> cast a blank ballot and I believe it would have
> too count. That way we don't have too vote for
> someone none of us want nor give them our state in
> the real election.

No it doesnt

It is what is is

hes better than paul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rights Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've voted in every VA republican primary since
> I
> > was able to vote.
> >
> > I'm certainly NOT voting for Romney and his
> > socialized health care programs. Ron Paul is a
> > little overboard about the constitution but I
> > guess he'll get my vote.
> >
> > Had Newt been on the ballot he would of got my
> > vote.
>
>
> While not a fan of everything Romney has done hes
> is a much better choice then Paul. I will never
> vote for someone who thinks its fine for Iran to
> get the bomb and wants to legalize all drugs

Right because legalizing pot would be a tragedy. NOT! There are already pot growing stores in DC and half the states are now allowing medical pot.

SarahPalin2012 Wrote:

> Right because legalizing pot would be a tragedy.
> NOT! There are already pot growing stores in DC
> and half the states are now allowing medical pot.


Can you read? He doesnt want to legalize pot he wants to legalize ALL drugs. Crack heroin meth ect

learn to read Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SarahPalin2012 Wrote:
>
> > Right because legalizing pot would be a tragedy.
>
> > NOT! There are already pot growing stores in
> DC
> > and half the states are now allowing medical
> pot.
>
>
> Can you read? He doesnt want to legalize pot he
> wants to legalize ALL drugs. Crack heroin meth
> ect

Learn to actually know what you're talking about.

He wants to get rid of the federal law that says they're all illegal and wants the states to decide. Just because the states get to decide if drugs should be legal/illegal doesn't mean he legalized anything!

learn to read Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SarahPalin2012 Wrote:
>
> > Right because legalizing pot would be a tragedy.
>
> > NOT! There are already pot growing stores in
> DC
> > and half the states are now allowing medical
> pot.
>
>
> Can you read? He doesnt want to legalize pot he
> wants to legalize ALL drugs. Crack heroin meth
> ect

Awesome, Ron Paul has my vote!~ Make it legal and tax it!

Hey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> learn to read Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SarahPalin2012 Wrote:
> >
> > > Right because legalizing pot would be a
> tragedy.
> >
> > > NOT! There are already pot growing stores in
> > DC
> > > and half the states are now allowing medical
> > pot.
> >
> >
> > Can you read? He doesnt want to legalize pot
> he
> > wants to legalize ALL drugs. Crack heroin meth
> > ect
>
> Learn to actually know what you're talking about.
>
> He wants to get rid of the federal law that says
> they're all illegal and wants the states to
> decide. Just because the states get to decide if
> drugs should be legal/illegal doesn't mean he
> legalized anything!


You should actually learn what youre talking about. Hes been specifically asked if he would be fine with heroin being legal and said yes. Hes also said we shouldnt have been involved in WW2, Iran can get a nuke if they want, Israel shouldnt exit, the list goes on and on. Hes got some good ideas but takes the ideas WAY to far and have some very extreme ideas as well.

He cant win a general election and even makes some conservatives such as my self strongly question whether or not they could vote for him

Well Romney doesn't have chance against Obama so this topic is mute.

l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Romney doesn't have chance against Obama so
> this topic is mute.


Only delusional liberals will tell you that. Everyone else knows it will be a tough race no matter who wins. Especially with Johnson running as an independent he could steal a lot of the gay vote from Obama.

The only way its not close is if Paul runs as an independent too and splits the vote with romney.

Koolaid must taste good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> l Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well Romney doesn't have chance against Obama
> so
> > this topic is mute.
>
>
> Only delusional liberals will tell you that.
> Everyone else knows it will be a tough race no
> matter who wins. Especially with Johnson running
> as an independent he could steal a lot of the gay
> vote from Obama.
>
> The only way its not close is if Paul runs as an
> independent too and splits the vote with romney.

You might want to actually check the current polls that say Obama is still winning and surging for re-election. That's why you hear republicans say "MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE to beat Obama."

obama....pfffft. Trained demopuke chimp. Here, have a bananna...

Nuff said...

Rasmussen Reports 12/20 - 12/21 1000 LV 44 41 Obama +3
CNN/Opinion Research 12/16 - 12/18 928 RV 52 45 Obama +7
PPP (D) 12/16 - 12/18 700 RV 45 47 Romney +2
ABC News/Wash Post 12/15 - 12/18 RV 47 47 Tie
USA Today/Gallup 12/15 - 12/18 898 RV 50 48 Obama +2
Reuters/Ipsos 12/8 - 12/12 900 RV 48 40 Obama +8
Associated Press/GfK 12/8 - 12/12 1000 A 47 46 Obama +1
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 12/7 - 12/11 RV 47 45 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 12/8 - 12/9 1000 LV 42 45 Romney +3
USA Today/Gallup 12/6 - 12/7 883 RV 47 46 Obama +1
FOX News 12/5 - 12/7 911 RV 44 42 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 11/30 - 12/1 1000 LV 42 40 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 1000 LV 44 38 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 11/14 - 11/20 2552 RV 45 44 Obama +1
FOX News 11/13 - 11/15 914 RV 42 44 Romney +2
CNN/Opinion Research 11/11 - 11/13 925 RV 47 51 Romney +4
Pew Research 11/9 - 11/14 1576 RV 49 47 Obama +2
PPP (D) 11/10 - 11/13 800 RV 46 43 Obama +3
Rasmussen Reports 11/9 - 11/10 1000 LV 43 42 Obama +1
McClatchy/Marist 11/8 - 11/10 872 RV 48 44 Obama +4
Politico/GWU/Battleground 11/6 - 11/9 1000 LV 49 43 Obama +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/2 - 11/5 RV 49 43 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 10/31 - 11/3 RV 46 47 Romney +1
Reuters/Ipsos 10/31 - 11/3 937 RV 43 44 Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/2 1000 LV 42 41 Obama +1
Quinnipiac 10/25 - 10/31 2294 RV 47 42 Obama +5
USA Today/Gallup 10/26 - 10/27 908 RV 47 47 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/25 1000 LV 42 44 Romney +2
Democracy Corps (D) 10/15 - 10/18 1000 LV 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 10/16 - 10/17 1000 LV 43 42 Obama +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/13 - 10/17 1000 A 48 45 Obama +3
Time 10/9 - 10/10 838 LV 48 44 Obama +4
PPP (D) 10/7 - 10/10 700 RV 45 45 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/6 - 10/10 RV 46 44 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 10/8 - 10/9 1000 LV 43 41 Obama +2
Quinnipiac 9/27 - 10/3 2118 RV 42 46 Romney +4
Pew Research 9/22 - 10/4 1901 RV 48 48 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 9/28 - 9/29 1000 LV 42 44 Romney +2
FOX News 9/25 - 9/27 925 RV 45 42 Obama +3
CNN/Opinion Research 9/23 - 9/25 917 RV 49 48 Obama +1
Rasmussen Reports 9/18 - 9/19 1000 LV 44 41 Obama +3
McClatchy/Marist 9/13 - 9/14 825 RV 46 44 Obama +2
Bloomberg 9/9 - 9/12 997 A 48 43 Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos 9/8 - 9/12 932 RV 49 43 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 9/10 - 9/11 1000 LV 40 43 Romney +3
PPP (D) 9/8 - 9/11 665 RV 49 45 Obama +4
ABC News/Wash Post 8/29 - 9/1 RV 45 49 Romney +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 8/27 - 8/31 RV 46 45 Obama +1
Rasmussen Reports 8/25 - 8/26 1000 LV 43 39 Obama +4
Quinnipiac 8/16 - 8/27 2730 RV 45 45 Tie
PPP (D) 8/18 - 8/21 700 RV 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 8/17 - 8/21 1000 LV 46 38 Obama +8
Gallup 8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 46 48 Romney +2
Democracy Corps (D) 8/6 - 8/10 1000 LV 48 46 Obama +2
CNN/Opinion Research 8/5 - 8/7 930 RV 49 48 Obama +1
McClatchy/Marist 8/2 - 8/4 807 RV 46 41 Obama +5
FOX News 7/17 - 7/19 904 RV 47 41 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 7/14 - 7/17 RV 49 47 Obama +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/14 - 7/17 RV 48 41 Obama +7
PPP (D) 7/15 - 7/17 928 RV 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 7/14 - 7/15 1000 LV 42 43 Romney +1
Quinnipiac 7/5 - 7/11 2311 RV 47 41 Obama +6
McClatchy/Marist 6/15 - 6/23 390 RV 46 42 Obama +4
Democracy Corps (D) 6/18 - 6/21 1000 RV 47 45 Obama +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/9 - 6/13 RV 49 43 Obama +6
PPP (D) 6/9 - 6/12 520 RV 47 45 Obama +2
FOX News 6/5 - 6/7 912 RV 48 41 Obama +7
Reuters/Ipsos 6/3 - 6/6 1132 A 51 38 Obama +13
ABC News/Wash Post 6/2 - 6/5 RV 46 49 Romney +3
Quinnipiac 5/31 - 6/6 1946 RV 47 41 Obama +6
PPP (D) 5/23 - 5/25 600 RV 49 42 Obama +7
Democracy Corps (D) 5/21 - 5/25 1000 LV 48 44 Obama +4
Politico/GWU/Battleground 5/8 - 5/12 1000 LV 52 40 Obama +12
Reuters/Ipsos 5/5 - 5/9 600 A 51 38 Obama +13
PPP (D) 5/5 - 5/8 814 RV 47 42 Obama +5
Newsweek/Daily Beast 5/2 - 5/3 600 A 42 36 Obama +6
Newsweek/Daily Beast 4/30 - 5/1 600 A 44 44 Tie
CNN/Opinion Research 4/29 - 5/1 964 RV 54 43 Obama +11
ABC News/Wash Post 4/14 - 4/17 1001 A 49 45 Obama +4
McClatchy/Marist 4/10 - 4/14 532 RV 46 45 Obama +1
Democracy Corps (D) 4/10 - 4/12 1000 LV 46 48 Romney +2
PPP (D) 4/7 - 4/10 532 RV 47 41 Obama +6
PPP (D) 3/10 - 3/13 642 RV 47 42 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 3/6 - 3/9 2000 LV 45 40 Obama +5
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 2/24 - 2/28 RV 49 40 Obama +9
Newsweek/Daily Beast 2/12 - 2/15 918 LV 49 47 Obama +2
PPP (D) 2/11 - 2/14 600 RV 46 41 Obama +5
FOX News 2/7 - 2/9 911 RV 48 41 Obama +7
PPP (D) 1/14 - 1/16 632 RV 48 43 Obama +5
Democracy Corps (D) 1/9 - 1/12 1000 LV 48 46 Obama +2
McClatchy/Marist 1/6 - 1/10 827 RV 51 38 Obama +13
Rasmussen Reports 1/3 - 1/6 2000 LV 42 44 Romney +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 12/9 - 12/13 1000 A 47 40 Obama +7
McClatchy/Marist 12/2 - 12/8 873 RV 44 46 Romney +2
PPP (D) 11/19 - 11/21 707 RV 47 46 Obama +1
Quinnipiac 11/8 - 11/15 2424 RV 44 45 Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research 10/27 - 10/30 921 RV 45 50 Romney +5
FOX News 9/28 - 9/29 900 RV 41 40 Obama +1
PPP (D) 9/10 - 9/13 590 RV 46 43 Obama +3
PPP (D) 8/6 - 8/9 606 RV 45 42 Obama +3
PPP (D) 7/9 - 7/12 667 RV 43 46 Romney +3
PPP (D) 6/4 - 6/7 650 RV 45 42 Obama +3
PPP (D) 5/7 - 5/9 707 RV 46 44 Obama +2
PPP (D) 4/9 - 4/11 622 RV 44 45 Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research 4/9 - 4/11 907 RV 53 45 Obama +8
PPP (D) 3/12 - 3/14 1403 RV 44 44 Tie
PPP (D) 2/13 - 2/15 743 RV 45 43 Obama +2
PPP (D) 1/18 - 1/19 1151 RV 44 42 Obama +2
FOX News 1/12 - 1/14 900 RV 47 35 Obama +12
PPP (D) 12/4 - 12/7 1253 RV 47 42 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 11/24 - 11/24 800 LV 44 44 Tie
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 1066 RV 48 43 Obama +5
PPP (D) 10/16 - 10/19 766 RV 48 40 Obama +8
PPP (D) 9/18 - 9/21 621 RV 48 39 Obama +9
PPP (D) 8/14 - 8/17 909 RV 47 40 Obama +7
Rasmussen Reports 7/16 - 7/17 1000 LV 45 45 Tie
PPP (D) 7/15 - 7/16 577 RV 49 40 Obama +9
PPP (D) 6/12 - 6/16 638 RV 48 40 Obama +8
PPP (D) 5/14 - 5/18 1000 RV 53 35 Obama +18
PPP (D) 4/17 - 4/19 686 RV 50 39 Obama +11

Agreed. The chimp is on the way out.

Dieter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed. The chimp is on the way out.


Wow, such an obvious attempt to make republicans look like drunken racist idiots. FAIL!

There are plenty of republicans that are educated and can see thru this farce.

Repuke-icans Wrote:

> You might want to actually check the current polls
> that say Obama is still winning and surging for
> re-election. That's why you hear republicans say
> "MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE to beat Obama."


Oh no a poll right now before Romney has even started his national campaign has an incumbent in the lead lets just go ahead and cancel the election then since its not necessary even though the poll doesnt include Johnson who will win the 1 issue gay voter for his support of gay marriage.

Its one thing to say in a poll you would vote for him its another to go out and do it.

You also might want to check the polls gallups poll is 48 50 which is within the margin of error.

Rasmussen had Romney ahead 45 39.

Abc/washington post has a tie.

NBC wall st journal has it 47 45 obama

The AP has it 47 46 obama.

Everything is within the margin of error

Also rasmussen is the most recent one done. The newer the poll the more it has favored Romney

The chimp is finished.

It'll be funny if Romney and Ron Paul drop out before the VA primary and there's nobody to vote for. There's is no way in hell I'm voting that plastic flip=floping Ken doll Romney.

Flip Flop Mitt. I can see why the White House is smiling about running against Mitt.

Cain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It'll be funny if Romney and Ron Paul drop out
> before the VA primary and there's nobody to vote
> for. There's is no way in hell I'm voting that
> plastic flip=floping Ken doll Romney.


Theres a 0 percent chance romney drops out. Paul could depending how he shows elsewhere.

Im guessing there was no way in hell you were voting for anyone but Obama but just want to make it seem like youre some sort of independent

Well you're in luck because true to Virginia partisan politics, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is filing for emergency legislation to allow Gingrich and Perry on the ballot.

TruBlue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well you're in luck because true to Virginia
> partisan politics, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
> is filing for emergency legislation to allow
> Gingrich and Perry on the ballot.


Your a day late. He changed his mind since it wouldnt be fair to Romeny and Paul to do it this late when they met the requirements.

And once again you are wrong as MANY dems also supported him doing so as their laws do need to be revamped

TruBlue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well you're in luck because true to Virginia
> partisan politics, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
> is filing for emergency legislation to allow
> Gingrich and Perry on the ballot.

Romney has more supporters and backing in VA. Now way will that legislation pass.

It is a a certainty.

You think Mormons are crazier than Scientologists?

bomble Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You think Mormons are crazier than Scientologists?

Thinking John Smith was a God, allowing multiple wives, marriages to 13 year olds and the garden of Eden is in Missouri is just as crazy as Scientology.

MormonBiker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bomble Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You think Mormons are crazier than
> Scientologists?
>
> Thinking John Smith was a God, allowing multiple
> wives, marriages to 13 year olds and the garden of
> Eden is in Missouri is just as crazy as
> Scientology.

Not even close have you ever looked up scientology. L ron hubbard the founder is even quoted as saying "I need to start a religion thats where the real money is"

Any religion like the Mormon religion that condones marrying 13 year olds is just fucked up. Plus, talking about the Mormon money machine. As a Mormon you must give 15% of your earning to the church, plus additional moneys for weddings etc..-

It's the World's Perfect Business Scheme and you can do it too. Just start your own "Afterlife Insurance Company" then make the greatest promise humanly imaginable -- promise your clients that if they totally obey you and pay their premiums, after death they'll become Gods! In fact, polygamous Gods who'll have eternal sex with innumerable partners! Until then, they'll enjoy moral supremacy over all humanity. You do need to claim that you're a prophet of God however, but this is the easiest claim on earth to make and no one can prove you're lying.

HERE'S YOUR BIG PAYOFF

Using the power of your "Afterlife Insurance Company":


You demand a whopping ten percent of each client's income for their policy premiums and...

You publicly humiliate anyone who questions you or fails to pay. This power is so great that...

You can even ban clients from attending things like family weddings! And yet, the absurd irony is...

You don't have to prove to anyone that your Afterlife Insurance Company actually works, so...

You are worry free because, in this business, all your disillusioned customers are dead. Therefore...

You never pay off a single claim (although you literally promised the Universe). Then, incredibly...

You reverse the Burden of Proof--If others don't magically know you're right--they're wrong! Now...

You destroy rational thought with the delusion that deeply feeling it's true is all that matters. Soon...

incorrect Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TruBlue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well you're in luck because true to Virginia
> > partisan politics, Attorney General Ken
> Cuccinelli
> > is filing for emergency legislation to allow
> > Gingrich and Perry on the ballot.
>
>
> Your a day late. He changed his mind since it
> wouldnt be fair to Romeny and Paul to do it this
> late when they met the requirements.
>
> And once again you are wrong as MANY dems also
> supported him doing so as their laws do need to be
> revamped

Oh Good. Indeed, it would ot be fair.

MormonMitt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any religion like the Mormon religion that
> condones marrying 13 year olds is just fucked up.
> Plus, talking about the Mormon money machine. As
> a Mormon you must give 15% of your earning to the
> church, plus additional moneys for weddings etc..-
>
>
Tithing is a stated principal of a lot of churches - not just the LDS.

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

MormonMitt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any religion like the Mormon religion that
> condones marrying 13 year olds is just fucked up.
> Plus, talking about the Mormon money machine. As
> a Mormon you must give 15% of your earning to the
> church, plus additional moneys for weddings etc..-
>
>
> It's the World's Perfect Business Scheme and you
> can do it too. Just start your own "Afterlife
> Insurance Company" then make the greatest promise
> humanly imaginable -- promise your clients that if
> they totally obey you and pay their premiums,
> after death they'll become Gods! In fact,
> polygamous Gods who'll have eternal sex with
> innumerable partners! Until then, they'll enjoy
> moral supremacy over all humanity. You do need to
> claim that you're a prophet of God however, but
> this is the easiest claim on earth to make and no
> one can prove you're lying.
>
> HERE'S YOUR BIG PAYOFF
>
> Using the power of your "Afterlife Insurance
> Company":
>
>
> You demand a whopping ten percent of each client's
> income for their policy premiums and...
>
> You publicly humiliate anyone who questions you or
> fails to pay. This power is so great that...
>
> You can even ban clients from attending things
> like family weddings! And yet, the absurd irony
> is...
>
> You don't have to prove to anyone that your
> Afterlife Insurance Company actually works, so...
>
> You are worry free because, in this business, all
> your disillusioned customers are dead.
> Therefore...
>
> You never pay off a single claim (although you
> literally promised the Universe). Then,
> incredibly...
>
> You reverse the Burden of Proof--If others don't
> magically know you're right--they're wrong!
> Now...
>
> You destroy rational thought with the delusion
> that deeply feeling it's true is all that matters.
> Soon...


Wow. The anti-Mormon bigotry is out in full force. Kudos to the Obama campaign and other Democrats for stoking these flames well in advance of the election. Looks like they are afraid of Gov. Romney.

Yeah, save the Mormon shit until after Romney is the nominee. The last thing the dems need right now is to get some Christian as the nominee. Keep pumping up Romney for an Obama win!

Rede Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, save the Mormon shit until after Romney is
> the nominee. The last thing the dems need right
> now is to get some Christian as the nominee. Keep
> pumping up Romney for an Obama win!


Why would Americans fear a Mormon after we elected a Muslim?

Get Real Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rede Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, save the Mormon shit until after Romney
> is
> > the nominee. The last thing the dems need
> right
> > now is to get some Christian as the nominee.
> Keep
> > pumping up Romney for an Obama win!
>
>
> Why would Americans fear a Mormon after we elected
> a Muslim?

Ok, that one did make laugh. Worse there are still people who think that's true and his birth certificate is fake.

Get Real Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rede Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, save the Mormon shit until after Romney
> is
> > the nominee. The last thing the dems need
> right
> > now is to get some Christian as the nominee.
> Keep
> > pumping up Romney for an Obama win!
>
>
> Why would Americans fear a Mormon after we elected
> a Muslim?

Yeah, at least the Mormons don't blow anything up.

Simone Wrote:

> Wow. The anti-Mormon bigotry is out in full
> force. Kudos to the Obama campaign and other
> Democrats for stoking these flames well in advance
> of the election. Looks like they are afraid of
> Gov. Romney.


Dont forget though the left is the party of tolerance and acceptance.........as long as you agree with everything they say and do

The Ghost of Justin Wolfe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get Real Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rede Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yeah, save the Mormon shit until after Romney
> > is
> > > the nominee. The last thing the dems need
> > right
> > > now is to get some Christian as the nominee.
> > Keep
> > > pumping up Romney for an Obama win!
> >
> >
> > Why would Americans fear a Mormon after we
> elected
> > a Muslim?
>
> Yeah, at least the Mormons don't blow anything up.

Wow, first republicans believe Obama is a Muslim and then republicans believe the Muslim religion is about blowing stuff up.

Intelligence at its finest. I tip my hat to republicans, you can't fool them.

Who the hell cares about this crap. Just more politicians blowing smoke!!! Doesn't matter who runs or wins. They will inherit the current country's problems!!! GUESS WHAT, THEY WON'T FIX IT EITHER!!!!

Deter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, first republicans believe Obama is a Muslim
> and then republicans believe the Muslim religion
> is about blowing stuff up.

Done in the name of Allah:

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Well it looks like the only real candidate now on the ballet now is Romney. Obama must being doing cartwheels in the White House right now.

4 More years! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well it looks like the only real candidate now on
> the ballet now is Romney...

Romney is probably the LEAST real candidate - Hollywood could NOT have come up with a better caricature of a candidate than him if they were trying to write a political drama.

Good lord the guy is plastic!

I think the backroom guys have or are lining up the REAL candidate that'll take the convention.

Obama AND his campaigners and half the country are indeed doing cartwheels, though.

Deter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Wow, first republicans believe Obama is a Muslim
> and then republicans believe the Muslim religion
> is about blowing stuff up.
>
> Intelligence at its finest. I tip my hat to
> republicans, you can't fool them.


So you're claiming that Muslims AREN'T blowing things up in the name of Islam? Give me a break. I don't think you're in a position to question anyone else's intelligence. Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating the PC bullshit the media feeds you.

It's all well and good that a majority of Muslims claim to be non-violent, but actions speak much louder than words. Every freakin' day there are people killing in the name of Islam. Its probably happening right now as I'm typing this. These are not isolated incidents, Muslim extremists and their sympathizers/supporters number in the millions.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Romney is probably the LEAST real candidate -
> Hollywood could NOT have come up with a better
> caricature of a candidate than him if they were
> trying to write a political drama.
>
> Good lord the guy is plastic!
>
> I think the backroom guys have or are lining up
> the REAL candidate that'll take the convention.
>
> Obama AND his campaigners and half the country are
> indeed doing cartwheels, though.

The polls still show that a "generic Republican candidate" is leading Obama by 4-6 points.

And it doesn't get any more generic than Mitt Romney.

The Ghost of Justin Wolfe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Deter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Wow, first republicans believe Obama is a
> Muslim
> > and then republicans believe the Muslim
> religion
> > is about blowing stuff up.
> >
> > Intelligence at its finest. I tip my hat to
> > republicans, you can't fool them.
>
>
> So you're claiming that Muslims AREN'T blowing
> things up in the name of Islam? Give me a break.
> I don't think you're in a position to question
> anyone else's intelligence. Try thinking for
> yourself instead of regurgitating the PC bullshit
> the media feeds you.
>
> It's all well and good that a majority of Muslims
> claim to be non-violent, but actions speak much
> louder than words. Every freakin' day there are
> people killing in the name of Islam. Its probably
> happening right now as I'm typing this. These are
> not isolated incidents, Muslim extremists and
> their sympathizers/supporters number in the
> millions.


By no means am I a supporter of Islam - having studied the religion quite extensively, I can say with no doubt that Islam is not a religion of peace.

However, Judaism and Christianity only look slightely better in comparison. I don't mind people criticizing Islam, just so long as they aren't defending Christianity or Judaism at the same time.
I mean, genocide, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-intellectualism...Islam may have spread these concepts throughout the Middle East, but it was Christianity that spread them throughout the Western world. And anyone that thinks the Christian takeover of Europe was peaceful needs to review their history.


But returning to the ORIGINAL topic: I'm glad it's down to Romney and Paul. I was uncertain as to who I should vote for, but with the most reasonable candidate (Hunstman) and the most intelligent candidate (Gingrich) both out of the picture, choosing Ron Paul over Romney is an easy choice to make.

Rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've voted in every VA republican primary since I
> was able to vote.
>
> I'm certainly NOT voting for Romney and his
> socialized health care programs. Ron Paul is a
> little overboard about the constitution but I
> guess he'll get my vote.
>
> Had Newt been on the ballot he would of got my
> vote.


I agree completely, although at this stage, Ron Paul gets more votes than Newt.

Angry White Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rights Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've voted in every VA republican primary since
> I
> > was able to vote.
> >
> > I'm certainly NOT voting for Romney and his
> > socialized health care programs. Ron Paul is a
> > little overboard about the constitution but I
> > guess he'll get my vote.
> >
> > Had Newt been on the ballot he would of got my
> > vote.
>
>
> I agree completely, although at this stage, Ron
> Paul gets more votes than Newt.


Except Romney doesnt want a nationalized one he wants the states to chose and his plan was cheaper than Obamas anyway.

Ron Paul doesnt care if Iran gets nukes, he doesnt believe we should have been in ww2, he doesnt think israel should exist.........enough said

rethink that Wrote:
>
> Ron Paul doesnt care if Iran gets nukes, he doesnt
> believe we should have been in ww2, he doesnt
> think israel should exist.........enough said

We shouldn't have been in the First World War - had we not, the second war wouldn't have even taken place.

Israel shouldn't exist. That land was stolen by the British, and gifted by the UN (which, laughably enough, is hated by most Israelis).
I don't want another Zionist scumbag president. I'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than have some piece of shit sending more money to those barbarians.

Übermensch Wrote:

> We shouldn't have been in the First World War -
> had we not, the second war wouldn't have even
> taken place.

Right because Europe would be known as just Germany today and Jews wouldnt exist in that part of the world anymore. Yea who cares about the holocaust.

> Israel shouldn't exist. That land was stolen by
> the British, and gifted by the UN (which,
> laughably enough, is hated by most Israelis).
> I don't want another Zionist scumbag president.
> I'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than have
> some piece of shit sending more money to those
> barbarians.

Hate jews much?

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
>
> > We shouldn't have been in the First World War -
> > had we not, the second war wouldn't have even
> > taken place.
>
> Right because Europe would be known as just
> Germany today and Jews wouldnt exist in that part
> of the world anymore. Yea who cares about the
> holocaust.
CLEARLY you are quite unfamiliar with the history of the wars.
Precisely how the fuck do you figure the Holocaust and Jews have anything to do with the First World War? Is the American educational system THAT fucked up that you can't even keep your history straight?


> > Israel shouldn't exist. That land was stolen by
> > the British, and gifted by the UN (which,
> > laughably enough, is hated by most Israelis).
> > I don't want another Zionist scumbag president.
> > I'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than have
> > some piece of shit sending more money to those
> > barbarians.
>
> Hate jews much?
Nope.
But those Israelis...

Übermensch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> CLEARLY you are quite unfamiliar with the history
> of the wars.
> Precisely how the fuck do you figure the Holocaust
> and Jews have anything to do with the First World
> War? Is the American educational system THAT
> fucked up that you can't even keep your history
> straight?

Clearly you are quite unable to think logically. If Germany controls all of Europe after the first world war your logical assumption is that theyll never try to exterminate them? Or exterminate some other race of people in their place at some point? At the very least in the future you would have a bunch of smaller wars of countries trying to get their independence back which very likely could lead to WW2 happening again anyway only at a later date where everyone has more powerful weapons.

> > Hate jews much?
> Nope.
> But those Israelis...

Ill take that as a yes. Still havent herd a defense for him saying whatever countries what to get a nuke can, and that all drugs should be legal. Paul would be a disaster and he wont win, he doesnt even think he can win

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > CLEARLY you are quite unfamiliar with the
> history
> > of the wars.
> > Precisely how the fuck do you figure the
> Holocaust
> > and Jews have anything to do with the First
> World
> > War? Is the American educational system THAT
> > fucked up that you can't even keep your history
> > straight?
>
> Clearly you are quite unable to think logically.
> If Germany controls all of Europe after the first
> world war your logical assumption is that theyll
> never try to exterminate them? Or exterminate
> some other race of people in their place at some
> point? At the very least in the future you would
> have a bunch of smaller wars of countries trying
> to get their independence back which very likely
> could lead to WW2 happening again anyway only at a
> later date where everyone has more powerful
> weapons.

You are only further proving my point that you don't know your history. Take over Europe? Do you know ANYTHING about WWI? And exterminate the Jews? There were Jews FIGHTING in the both the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian armies. My god, man, open up a fucking book. Fascism didn't exist during WWI, and Hitler didn't come to power until 1933. How can someone so clueless speak so boldly?
Seriously, kid, go to the library, get yourself some books. Learn something.

> > > Hate jews much?
> > Nope.
> > But those Israelis...
>
> Ill take that as a yes. Still havent herd a
> defense for him saying whatever countries what to
> get a nuke can, and that all drugs should be
> legal. Paul would be a disaster and he wont win,
> he doesnt even think he can win

You can 'take' it however you wish.

I didn't know you were waiting to 'her' an explaination of anything, but if you wish...

No country should have nuclear weapons. As far as how we as a planet reach that goal - quite frankly, I don't know. But I never claimed to, just as I never claimed to be a Ron Paul supporter.

Of course all drugs should be legal. We're talking about personal freedom here. No one has the right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their own body.
And then there are always the idiots that bring up things like 'oh, but what if someone becomes addicted to cocaine and ends up stealing to support their habbit' and other such scenarios. But the fact of the matter is, as things currently stand people become addicted anyway, and the only way to reduce that is through education and regulation - NOT prohibition. And legalizing the use of a drug does not mean that crimes commited as a result of said drug use are now excusable. Should be obvious, yet so many simple minded people seem to be unable to grasp this.
You legalize and regulate a drug, and as a result:
-quality/purity of the drug is regulated/maintained
-power/profit is taken out of the hands of the criminals
-money is no longer wasted enforcing arbitrary laws and imprisoning undeserving 'criminals'
-taxable revenue

We all know the republicans are the party of personal freedoms. Just look at their views on abortion, drugs, the FCC, separating church and state. Etc.

The only freedom republicans are for is the wealthy pulling trillions of dollars out of our economy ( and many times of our shores.) tax free. ( see Mitt Romney method for tuning around companies.)

Ron Paul is a joke. His ethos makes his congressional job very easy. In congress, he doesn't have to talk to anyone, do anything, write any serious legislation because his views are so extreme he couldnt see common ground with the Hubble telescope. He is the biggest do nothing in a do nothing congress and that's just the way he likes it. He uses rhetoric to cover his laziness. Talk about a lump of flem, and we pay this jerks salary. Ron Paul has no buisness drawing a public paycheck. His opinions belong in a private think tank.

I don't understand what the big deal is, as getting that few of signatures in a congressional district, should be easy, for even someone with "no name", ie. no reputation. For someone like Gingrich or Sanatorum, or anyone else, its even funnier. They should have known the rules, and should have done what needed to be done. Their "bad."

Atom Wrote:

I disagree. I'd rather pay a politician to try to stop all the B.S. legislation that gets pushed down onto the people than to pay them to complicate both the legal system and the tax code by writing in loopholes for their donors and political base.

That's 99% of what you're getting 'for your' money: More loopholes for the rich and powerful.

> Ron Paul is a joke. His ethos makes his
> congressional job very easy. In congress, he
> doesn't have to talk to anyone, do anything, write
> any serious legislation because his views are so
> extreme he couldnt see common ground with the
> Hubble telescope. He is the biggest do nothing in
> a do nothing congress and that's just the way he
> likes it. He uses rhetoric to cover his laziness.
> Talk about a lump of flem, and we pay this jerks
> salary. Ron Paul has no buisness drawing a public
> paycheck. His opinions belong in a private think
> tank.

Übermensch Wrote:


> You are only further proving my point that you
> don't know your history. Take over Europe? Do you
> know ANYTHING about WWI? And exterminate the Jews?
> There were Jews FIGHTING in the both the Prussian
> and Austro-Hungarian armies. My god, man, open up
> a fucking book. Fascism didn't exist during WWI,
> and Hitler didn't come to power until 1933. How
> can someone so clueless speak so boldly?
> Seriously, kid, go to the library, get yourself
> some books. Learn something.

Are you really that dense. No I wasnt referring to Hitler. Yes the war started in the balkins and quickly spread which then became empire expanding by the axis powers. What happens when an empire expands and takes over territory, they cleanse opposition much like the USSR and their forced labor camps. Had we not gotten into the war Europe wouldnt be Europe it would be three major countries that may or may not eventually turn on each other and would eventually get resistance from the smaller countries it absorbed.

Thanks for the attempted history lesson but you should know what youre talking about first. Your the one who made the jump to hitler. Even if you want to talk about him nothing says he still couldnt have risen to power anyway.


> You can 'take' it however you wish.
>
> No country should have nuclear weapons. As far as
> how we as a planet reach that goal - quite
> frankly, I don't know. But I never claimed to,
> just as I never claimed to be a Ron Paul
> supporter.

Wont ever happen. Once they are made they are there forever barring a major world wide disaster that destroys all technology it wont happen. For all the bad they do in the wrong hands they do also prevent wars from happening. USA and USSR never went to war because of them. China and the USA will not go to war because of them. They are a great deterrent to other world powers.

> Of course all drugs should be legal. We're talking
> about personal freedom here. No one has the right
> to tell someone what they can and can't do with
> their own body.
> And then there are always the idiots that bring up
> things like 'oh, but what if someone becomes
> addicted to cocaine and ends up stealing to
> support their habbit' and other such scenarios.
> But the fact of the matter is, as things currently
> stand people become addicted anyway, and the only
> way to reduce that is through education and
> regulation - NOT prohibition. And legalizing the
> use of a drug does not mean that crimes commited
> as a result of said drug use are now excusable.
> Should be obvious, yet so many simple minded
> people seem to be unable to grasp this.
> You legalize and regulate a drug, and as a
> result:
> -quality/purity of the drug is
> regulated/maintained
> -power/profit is taken out of the hands of the
> criminals
> -money is no longer wasted enforcing arbitrary
> laws and imprisoning undeserving 'criminals'
> -taxable revenue

And you have more people using said drugs and more lives ruined. A lot of people dont ever try them because they are illegal. Trying pot is one thing, you dont just try heroin, your hooked for like.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all know the republicans are the party of
> personal freedoms. Just look at their views on
> abortion, drugs, the FCC, separating church and
> state. Etc.


Killing babies isnt a personal freedom.

Wrong wrong. You just demonstrated the height of republican Hipocracy.

There is nothing more personal than family planning. Nothing.

The government has no right to a woman's body.

If the government did anything they should subsidize and give tax credits for abortions. No successful society has banned family planings. The Romans gave the father life and death control over all the children in his house.

Neo natal Life has no value. Experience gives life value (at a certain point that experience becomes counterproductive.)

Ever notice that a majority of prolifers would have been aborted in a eugenics based society? I guess that makes sense.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong wrong. You just demonstrated the height of
> republican Hipocracy.
>
> There is nothing more personal than family
> planning. Nothing.
>
> The government has no right to a woman's body.
>
> If the government did anything they should
> subsidize and give tax credits for abortions. No
> successful society has banned family planings.
> The Romans gave the father life and death control
> over all the children in his house.
>
> Neo natal Life has no value. Experience gives
> life value (at a certain point that experience
> becomes counterproductive.)
>
> Ever notice that a majority of prolifers would
> have been aborted in a eugenics based society? I
> guess that makes sense.


Thats not family planning its killing a baby. If she didnt want the baby dont get pregnant. Its 100 percent preventable. Abortions especially at the 6 month point which is still legal is murder. We arent the romans. We dont have slaves. You cant beat your wife. You cant murder people. Saying its a womans right to kill her kid is the dumbest argument that can possibly be made. Why cant you kill your kid when its 2 then and you change your mind, after all its family planning

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
>
>
> > You are only further proving my point that you
> > don't know your history. Take over Europe? Do
> you
> > know ANYTHING about WWI? And exterminate the
> Jews?
> > There were Jews FIGHTING in the both the
> Prussian
> > and Austro-Hungarian armies. My god, man, open
> up
> > a fucking book. Fascism didn't exist during
> WWI,
> > and Hitler didn't come to power until 1933. How
> > can someone so clueless speak so boldly?
> > Seriously, kid, go to the library, get yourself
> > some books. Learn something.
>
> Are you really that dense. No I wasnt referring
> to Hitler. Yes the war started in the balkins and
> quickly spread which then became empire expanding
> by the axis powers. What happens when an empire
> expands and takes over territory, they cleanse
> opposition much like the USSR and their forced
> labor camps. Had we not gotten into the war
> Europe wouldnt be Europe it would be three major
> countries that may or may not eventually turn on
> each other and would eventually get resistance
> from the smaller countries it absorbed.
>
> Thanks for the attempted history lesson but you
> should know what youre talking about first. Your
> the one who made the jump to hitler. Even if you
> want to talk about him nothing says he still
> couldnt have risen to power anyway.

No, YOU'RE the one that dense here. The Axis powers did not exist during the First World War, you're thinking of the Central Powers. The war did NOT start in the Balkans - I pressume you are confusing the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb with the war itself.
Yes, I realize you never refered to Hitler by name, though your accusation of state-sponsored antisemitism on the part of the Central Powers nonetheless implied a lack of knowledge of WWI. If you were not mistakenly suggesting that National Socialism existed during the Great War, then precisely what did you mean when you claimed the Jews would have been wiped out had America not partaken in the war?

> > You can 'take' it however you wish.
> >
> > No country should have nuclear weapons. As far
> as
> > how we as a planet reach that goal - quite
> > frankly, I don't know. But I never claimed to,
> > just as I never claimed to be a Ron Paul
> > supporter.
>
> Wont ever happen. Once they are made they are
> there forever barring a major world wide disaster
> that destroys all technology it wont happen. For
> all the bad they do in the wrong hands they do
> also prevent wars from happening. USA and USSR
> never went to war because of them. China and the
> USA will not go to war because of them. They are
> a great deterrent to other world powers.
I never said it WOULD happen (though, likewise, I would never be so naive as to insist that it never will happen). You questioned me on my view regarding nuclear armaments, and I gave you them.

> > Of course all drugs should be legal. We're
> talking
> > about personal freedom here. No one has the
> right
> > to tell someone what they can and can't do with
> > their own body.
> > And then there are always the idiots that bring
> up
> > things like 'oh, but what if someone becomes
> > addicted to cocaine and ends up stealing to
> > support their habbit' and other such scenarios.
> > But the fact of the matter is, as things
> currently
> > stand people become addicted anyway, and the
> only
> > way to reduce that is through education and
> > regulation - NOT prohibition. And legalizing
> the
> > use of a drug does not mean that crimes
> commited
> > as a result of said drug use are now excusable.
> > Should be obvious, yet so many simple minded
> > people seem to be unable to grasp this.
> > You legalize and regulate a drug, and as a
> > result:
> > -quality/purity of the drug is
> > regulated/maintained
> > -power/profit is taken out of the hands of the
> > criminals
> > -money is no longer wasted enforcing arbitrary
> > laws and imprisoning undeserving 'criminals'
> > -taxable revenue
>
> And you have more people using said drugs and more
> lives ruined. A lot of people dont ever try them
> because they are illegal. Trying pot is one
> thing, you dont just try heroin, your hooked for
> like.

'hooked for like'?
Clearly you know next to NOTHING about drugs. Cigarettes are more adictive than most 'hard drugs'. Other countries have experimented with legalization and decriminalization of drugs, and statistics have PROVEN that in such cases, use of hard drugs does not increase.
Regardless, even were this not the case, who the fuck are you to tell someone whether or not they can become addicted to something? Do you also intend to moniter television watching? What about fat and carbohydrate consumption? IT'S NOT YOUR FUCKING PLACE. This is supposed to be a free society - clearly you are anti-fascism, so why the fuck don't you recognize that the very laws you attempt to defend are fascist?
Oh, right - I guess that goes back to the same shitty education that failed to properly teach you the history of Germany and Europe in general.

Übermensch Wrote:


> No, YOU'RE the one that dense here. The Axis
> powers did not exist during the First World War,
> you're thinking of the Central Powers. The war did
> NOT start in the Balkans - I pressume you are
> confusing the assassination of the Archduke Franz
> Ferdinand by a Serb with the war itself.
> Yes, I realize you never refered to Hitler by
> name, though your accusation of state-sponsored
> antisemitism on the part of the Central Powers
> nonetheless implied a lack of knowledge of WWI. If
> you were not mistakenly suggesting that National
> Socialism existed during the Great War, then
> precisely what did you mean when you claimed the
> Jews would have been wiped out had America not
> partaken in the war?


Sorry central powers not axis. Yes the that murder was one of the things that started the war. No I am not confusing that event with the entire war. Hatred of the Jews in Europe didnt start in the 1930s. Both world wars were land grabs, if it wasnt the Jews it would have been someone else which i already said.

Also my initial post was referring to Paul saying we shouldnt have been in WW2

> I never said it WOULD happen (though, likewise, I
> would never be so naive as to insist that it never
> will happen). You questioned me on my view
> regarding nuclear armaments, and I gave you them.

And I pointed out that their view is not a practical solution to it. Again Paul is fine with anyone who wants to get them having them.


> Clearly you know next to NOTHING about drugs.
> Cigarettes are more adictive than most 'hard
> drugs'. Other countries have experimented with
> legalization and decriminalization of drugs, and
> statistics have PROVEN that in such cases, use of
> hard drugs does not increase.
> Regardless, even were this not the case, who the
> fuck are you to tell someone whether or not they
> can become addicted to something? Do you also
> intend to moniter television watching? What about
> fat and carbohydrate consumption? IT'S NOT YOUR
> FUCKING PLACE. This is supposed to be a free
> society - clearly you are anti-fascism, so why the
> fuck don't you recognize that the very laws you
> attempt to defend are fascist?
> Oh, right - I guess that goes back to the same
> shitty education that failed to properly teach you
> the history of Germany and Europe in general.

Im glad a small country is Europe is what your going to use to compare to the USA which demographically has no equals. Its clearly you who knows nothing about hard drugs. You dont use heroin socially or crack. Their rehab rates have something like an 8 percent success rate.

And its societies place to tell people they cant be addicted to heroin. Those same junkies will be the ones in the ER getting free health care and applying for welfare. When you take from others and expect government help they get the right to tell you you cant do heroin.

All this goes back to is your hatred of people and YOUR desire to defend your own personal drug use.

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
>
>
> > No, YOU'RE the one that dense here. The Axis
> > powers did not exist during the First World
> War,
> > you're thinking of the Central Powers. The war
> did
> > NOT start in the Balkans - I pressume you are
> > confusing the assassination of the Archduke
> Franz
> > Ferdinand by a Serb with the war itself.
> > Yes, I realize you never refered to Hitler by
> > name, though your accusation of state-sponsored
> > antisemitism on the part of the Central Powers
> > nonetheless implied a lack of knowledge of WWI.
> If
> > you were not mistakenly suggesting that
> National
> > Socialism existed during the Great War, then
> > precisely what did you mean when you claimed
> the
> > Jews would have been wiped out had America not
> > partaken in the war?
>
>
> Sorry central powers not axis. Yes the that
> murder was one of the things that started the war.
> No I am not confusing that event with the entire
> war. Hatred of the Jews in Europe didnt start in
> the 1930s. Both world wars were land grabs, if it
> wasnt the Jews it would have been someone else
> which i already said.

Triggered the war, yes. Part of the war, no.

No, you're absolutely correct - antisemitism was widespread prior to WWII. America and Britain, France and Germany...all the way to Romania and Russia. No, antisemitism was definitely not a uniquely German phenomenon, nor was it a new ideology at the time.

But, this STILL has nothing to do with the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian states. You implied that antisemitism was state-sponsored at the time, and that it was the goal of these states to wipe out the Jewish people.
Both of which are quite incorrect.

> Also my initial post was referring to Paul saying
> we shouldnt have been in WW2
>
> > I never said it WOULD happen (though, likewise,
> I
> > would never be so naive as to insist that it
> never
> > will happen). You questioned me on my view
> > regarding nuclear armaments, and I gave you
> them.
>
> And I pointed out that their view is not a
> practical solution to it. Again Paul is fine with
> anyone who wants to get them having them.

That 'VIEW' is a fucking VIEW. A 'view' is in no way synonymous with a 'solution'. Get a fucking dictionary.

> > Clearly you know next to NOTHING about drugs.
> > Cigarettes are more adictive than most 'hard
> > drugs'. Other countries have experimented with
> > legalization and decriminalization of drugs,
> and
> > statistics have PROVEN that in such cases, use
> of
> > hard drugs does not increase.
> > Regardless, even were this not the case, who
> the
> > fuck are you to tell someone whether or not
> they
> > can become addicted to something? Do you also
> > intend to moniter television watching? What
> about
> > fat and carbohydrate consumption? IT'S NOT YOUR
> > FUCKING PLACE. This is supposed to be a free
> > society - clearly you are anti-fascism, so why
> the
> > fuck don't you recognize that the very laws you
> > attempt to defend are fascist?
> > Oh, right - I guess that goes back to the same
> > shitty education that failed to properly teach
> you
> > the history of Germany and Europe in general.
>
> Im glad a small country is Europe is what your
> going to use to compare to the USA which
> demographically has no equals. Its clearly you
> who knows nothing about hard drugs. You dont use
> heroin socially or crack. Their rehab rates have
> something like an 8 percent success rate.

Actually, I am very experienced with hard drugs, as well as the people that use them, and have previously used them.
I have no idea what 'small country' you are speaking of, but it doesn't matter, as at this point, your argument has already lost all cohesion.
Any drug can be used 'socially', not that this is relevant. I'm sure as hell not dropping my hard earned money on something as expensive as cocaine.
Doesn't mean I won't take a line if offered one.

> And its societies place to tell people they cant
> be addicted to heroin. Those same junkies will be
> the ones in the ER getting free health care and
> applying for welfare. When you take from others
> and expect government help they get the right to
> tell you you cant do heroin.

No...it is not. You're probably one of those people that also thinks homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve in the military, simply because much of 'society' is too ignorant to approve. If you're worried about addicts 'in the ER getting free health care and applying for welfare' then go bitch about health care and welfare laws. Neither of those are the issue at hand.
Do you wish to ban tobacco? Should we re-implement alcohol prohibition?
After reading everything you've written, I almost wish you'd been forced to pay attention in your English classes (work on your fucking writing), but in the end, it's really not my place to force people to know what I believe they should know.

> All this goes back to is your hatred of people and
> YOUR desire to defend your own personal drug use.
How do you figure? What is 'all this'? And 'goes back' to when?
It's never too late to go back to school, my friend. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some English and logic courses.

Übermensch Wrote:



> Triggered the war, yes. Part of the war, no.

Triggering a war is being part of the start of a war.

> No, you're absolutely correct - antisemitism was
> widespread prior to WWII. America and Britain,
> France and Germany...all the way to Romania and
> Russia. No, antisemitism was definitely not a
> uniquely German phenomenon, nor was it a new
> ideology at the time.
>
> But, this STILL has nothing to do with the
> Prussian and Austro-Hungarian states. You implied
> that antisemitism was state-sponsored at the time,
> and that it was the goal of these states to wipe
> out the Jewish people.
> Both of which are quite incorrect.

It wasnt at the time but if these same places were willing to start a 2nd WW 20ish years later with one of the goals being to eliminate the jews, theres nothing that says they wouldnt do it when they already had control of the areas.


> Actually, I am very experienced with hard drugs,
> as well as the people that use them, and have
> previously used them.
> I have no idea what 'small country' you are
> speaking of, but it doesn't matter, as at this
> point, your argument has already lost all
> cohesion.
> Any drug can be used 'socially', not that this is
> relevant. I'm sure as hell not dropping my hard
> earned money on something as expensive as cocaine.
>
> Doesn't mean I won't take a line if offered one.

Its no shock to me that youve used hard drugs with the views you have. You can google the small pro drug countries on your own and figure it out. No you cant socially use highly addictive substances. Maybe a few people can the vast majority cannot.

Again its not a shock to find out you are a criminal.
>
> No...it is not. You're probably one of those
> people that also thinks homosexuals shouldn't be
> able to serve in the military, simply because much
> of 'society' is too ignorant to approve. If you're
> worried about addicts 'in the ER getting free
> health care and applying for welfare' then go
> bitch about health care and welfare laws. Neither
> of those are the issue at hand.
> Do you wish to ban tobacco? Should we re-implement
> alcohol prohibition?
> After reading everything you've written, I almost
> wish you'd been forced to pay attention in your
> English classes (work on your fucking writing),
> but in the end, it's really not my place to force
> people to know what I believe they should know.

No tobacco and booze shouldnt be illegal. Once somethings legal you cant unlegalize it and booze are only bad if you abuse them. In small quantities they are actually good for you, heroin is not in any quantity.

Healthcare and welfare is part of the drug legalization discussion because they same people like you who bitch it isnt legal will be the same ones who bitch if someone tries to say you have to take drug tests for welfare ect.


> How do you figure? What is 'all this'? And 'goes
> back' to when?
> It's never too late to go back to school, my
> friend. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some
> English and logic courses.

You should lay off the drugs, they have clearly destroyed your brain

I'd be okay for the at two year abortion idea if most of the population thought it a good idea.

Children are the world and they deserve the proper considerations. Sometimes there just isn't room, and you should mind your buisness.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd be okay for the at two year abortion idea if
> most of the population thought it a good idea.
>
> Children are the world and they deserve the proper
> considerations. Sometimes there just isn't room,
> and you should mind your buisness.

Im glad you have no consideration what so ever for human life. Explains a lot about what you think like you do. Saying that something is okay just because most people think its okay is just asinine. The Germans thought it was okay to kill Jews so that made it okay? The Soviets thought it was okay to have forced labor camps so that makes it right? The North Korean military thinks its fine to let their people starve to death while they enjoy the riches of the country so thats fine?

Killing people is societies business, we dont live in a lawless land where its okay to go out and kill who ever you want. Children should be no different, and should be even more protected since they cant even defend themselves.

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
>
>
>
> > Triggered the war, yes. Part of the war, no.
>
> Triggering a war is being part of the start of a
> war.
>
> > No, you're absolutely correct - antisemitism
> was
> > widespread prior to WWII. America and Britain,
> > France and Germany...all the way to Romania and
> > Russia. No, antisemitism was definitely not a
> > uniquely German phenomenon, nor was it a new
> > ideology at the time.
> >
> > But, this STILL has nothing to do with the
> > Prussian and Austro-Hungarian states. You
> implied
> > that antisemitism was state-sponsored at the
> time,
> > and that it was the goal of these states to
> wipe
> > out the Jewish people.
> > Both of which are quite incorrect.
>
> It wasnt at the time but if these same places were
> willing to start a 2nd WW 20ish years later with
> one of the goals being to eliminate the jews,
> theres nothing that says they wouldnt do it when
> they already had control of the areas.

Seriously, GO PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK. You need to study the inter-war period, because you clearly know nothing of what happened between the two wars.

> > Actually, I am very experienced with hard
> drugs,
> > as well as the people that use them, and have
> > previously used them.
> > I have no idea what 'small country' you are
> > speaking of, but it doesn't matter, as at this
> > point, your argument has already lost all
> > cohesion.
> > Any drug can be used 'socially', not that this
> is
> > relevant. I'm sure as hell not dropping my hard
> > earned money on something as expensive as
> cocaine.
> >
> > Doesn't mean I won't take a line if offered
> one.
>
> Its no shock to me that youve used hard drugs with
> the views you have. You can google the small pro
> drug countries on your own and figure it out.

What 'pro-drug countries' are you talking about? 'Pro-drug'? Now you're just making shit up.

> No
> you cant socially use highly addictive substances.
> Maybe a few people can the vast majority cannot.

And you base this claim on what?

> Again its not a shock to find out you are a
> criminal.
> >
> > No...it is not. You're probably one of those
> > people that also thinks homosexuals shouldn't
> be
> > able to serve in the military, simply because
> much
> > of 'society' is too ignorant to approve. If
> you're
> > worried about addicts 'in the ER getting free
> > health care and applying for welfare' then go
> > bitch about health care and welfare laws.
> Neither
> > of those are the issue at hand.
> > Do you wish to ban tobacco? Should we
> re-implement
> > alcohol prohibition?
> > After reading everything you've written, I
> almost
> > wish you'd been forced to pay attention in your
> > English classes (work on your fucking writing),
> > but in the end, it's really not my place to
> force
> > people to know what I believe they should know.
>
> No tobacco and booze shouldnt be illegal. Once
> somethings legal you cant unlegalize it and booze
> are only bad if you abuse them. In small
> quantities they are actually good for you, heroin
> is not in any quantity.

Alright, you REALLY need to stop now. EVERYTHING you say only serves to further clarify just how clueless you are. Do you not realize that heroin was originally used exclusively for medicine, and to this day, is STILL used for medicinal purposes? SERIOUSLY, kid, stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

> Healthcare and welfare is part of the drug
> legalization discussion because they same people
> like you who bitch it isnt legal will be the same
> ones who bitch if someone tries to say you have to
> take drug tests for welfare ect.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I'll repeat myself again, GO TO SCHOOL. LEARN THE FUCKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.

> > How do you figure? What is 'all this'? And
> 'goes
> > back' to when?
> > It's never too late to go back to school, my
> > friend. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some
> > English and logic courses.
>
> You should lay off the drugs, they have clearly
> destroyed your brain

This is clearly not the case, though even if it were, my brain is functioning better than yours ever could.

Next time you reply, fucking read over what you've typed, because I'm sick of having to decipher your shitty English.

Übermensch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Seriously, GO PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK. You need to
> study the inter-war period, because you clearly
> know nothing of what happened between the two
> wars.

Obviously logic is above your intelligence level.


> What 'pro-drug countries' are you talking about?
> 'Pro-drug'? Now you're just making shit up.

Look up information and not just base it off your own life you will learn a lot.


> And you base this claim on what?

Facts and research, something you should use once in a while.



> Alright, you REALLY need to stop now. EVERYTHING
> you say only serves to further clarify just how
> clueless you are. Do you not realize that heroin
> was originally used exclusively for medicine, and
> to this day, is STILL used for medicinal purposes?
> SERIOUSLY, kid, stop talking about shit you know
> nothing about.

What truth? Heroin is rarely used for medicine except in EXTREME cases for pain relief in a hospital. It has no benefit other than pain relief in extreme cases, its not a take home medicine and stop trying to imply that it is. Should I list all the other things that used to be used for medical purposes to show how dumb this argument is.


> I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
> I'll repeat myself again, GO TO SCHOOL. LEARN THE
> FUCKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.

I forgot youd destroyed your brain ill break it down as simply as I can for you.

Health care and welfare is relevant to the discussion of whether or not drugs should be legalized because they will have drug addicts on them. Drug users like you will be the first people that will complain when other people want there to be drug tests in order to get welfare and try and make it so that drug users can get free money. Its not hard to understand.


> This is clearly not the case, though even if it
> were, my brain is functioning better than yours
> ever could.
>
> Next time you reply, fucking read over what you've
> typed, because I'm sick of having to decipher your
> shitty English.

It is the case. You think you are a lot smarter than you are and get off on trying to insult people to defend your own shortcomings.

Just for future reference if you are going to try and act like you are so much smarter than people you shouldnt use curse words in your response. All they do is show a lack of intelligence and in ability to express your self, but that shouldnt be surprising considering the source

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> > Seriously, GO PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK. You need
> to
> > study the inter-war period, because you clearly
> > know nothing of what happened between the two
> > wars.
>
> Obviously logic is above your intelligence level.


Non sequitur...how terribly ironic.


>
> > What 'pro-drug countries' are you talking
> about?
> > 'Pro-drug'? Now you're just making shit up.
>
> Look up information and not just base it off your
> own life you will learn a lot.

I am quite well educated and have done, and continue to do, much research.
So explain to me, what the fuck is a 'pro-drug country'? I have never heard of such a thing. Is this something you learned about from Glenn Beck?


> > And you base this claim on what?
>
> Facts and research, something you should use once
> in a while.

Work on your comprehension (or, as I've suggested, GO BACK TO SCHOOL).
You did not answer my question. I asked what you're basing your outrageous claims on. If you believe they are based on 'facts', then present the fucking facts. It's as simple as that.


>
> > Alright, you REALLY need to stop now.
> EVERYTHING
> > you say only serves to further clarify just how
> > clueless you are. Do you not realize that
> heroin
> > was originally used exclusively for medicine,
> and
> > to this day, is STILL used for medicinal
> purposes?
> > SERIOUSLY, kid, stop talking about shit you
> know
> > nothing about.
>
> What truth? Heroin is rarely used for medicine
> except in EXTREME cases for pain relief in a
> hospital. It has no benefit other than pain
> relief in extreme cases, its not a take home
> medicine and stop trying to imply that it is.
> Should I list all the other things that used to be
> used for medical purposes to show how dumb this
> argument is.

I never implied anything, I stated precisely what I intended to. You claimed heroin had no practical medicinal value. I responded.
You were incorrect. Get over it.


> > I don't even know what you're trying to say
> here.
> > I'll repeat myself again, GO TO SCHOOL. LEARN
> THE
> > FUCKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.
>
> I forgot youd destroyed your brain ill break it
> down as simply as I can for you.

It's unfortunate that you can't appreciate the irony of your insults.


> Health care and welfare is relevant to the
> discussion of whether or not drugs should be
> legalized because they will have drug addicts on
> them. Drug users like you will be the first
> people that will complain when other people want
> there to be drug tests in order to get welfare and
> try and make it so that drug users can get free
> money. Its not hard to understand.

This has nothing to do with welfare - welfare is a separate issue. If you wish to debate what qualifies someone for welfare, go ahead, but that is not what we have been discussing.


> > This is clearly not the case, though even if it
> > were, my brain is functioning better than yours
> > ever could.
> >
> > Next time you reply, fucking read over what
> you've
> > typed, because I'm sick of having to decipher
> your
> > shitty English.
>
> It is the case. You think you are a lot smarter
> than you are and get off on trying to insult
> people to defend your own shortcomings.
>
> Just for future reference if you are going to try
> and act like you are so much smarter than people
> you shouldnt use curse words in your response.
> All they do is show a lack of intelligence and in
> ability to express your self, but that shouldnt be
> surprising considering the source


I'm not 'acting' like anything, I'm simply responding to the terrible English you've been subjecting me to.
I will swear as much as I fucking like. This is the internet, get used to it. If you honestly believe that one's use of vulgarity is indicative of lesser intelligence, then you REALLY shouldn't be criticizing anyone's logic (let alone mine).

So you think killing a fetus is equivalent to Ethnic cleansing?

That is asinine.

How many children have you adopted?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you think killing a fetus is equivalent to
> Ethnic cleansing?
>
> That is asinine.
>
> How many children have you adopted?

You're not talking to me, right?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you think killing a fetus is equivalent to
> Ethnic cleansing?
>
> That is asinine.
>
> How many children have you adopted?

You made the statement if enough people feel its okay then it is when referring to killing 2 year olds. How is that any different? Or are you only against the killing of minorities?

Saying its okay to kill a 2 year old if enough people are for it is asinine.

You dont have to adopt children to have a stance on the issue, im not out there creating babies before im ready to have one. Others should do the same. If you dont want a kid dont get pregnant its 100 percent preventable.

If you get raped and want to take the morning after pill thats a different story than people getting abortions months into the pregnancy

how do you address the needs of unwanted children if you aren't adopting them.

You assume it's a perfect world and it isn't. You assume people will make the right decisions when they don't. You deliver ultimatums but you have no solutions. Grow up and mind your buisness.

Controlling abortions is impossible. All you accomplish is heightening the danger for women who are going to abort regardless of your attempts to control them. Again, mind your buisness.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how do you address the needs of unwanted children
> if you aren't adopting them.
>
> You assume it's a perfect world and it isn't. You
> assume people will make the right decisions when
> they don't. You deliver ultimatums but you have
> no solutions. Grow up and mind your buisness.
>
> Controlling abortions is impossible. All you
> accomplish is heightening the danger for women who
> are going to abort regardless of your attempts to
> control them. Again, mind your buisness.

Killing them isnt addressing their needs.

I dont assume its a perfect world but two wrongs dont make a right. Theres really not an excuse for an unwanted pregnancy its just people being stupid. That said yes abortions will probably never be illegal, but the fact that people want 0 restrictions on them is insane. You shouldnt be able to get one at 6 months, you should be made aware of what it really is, if your 15 you should have your parents notified. It shouldnt be viewed as a form of birth control.

If those woman took care of their own business and didnt get pregnant they wouldnt have to worry about other people getting in their business. Stop acting like theres some fundamental right to kill your child. At least own up to it for what it is.

Theres also a difference between speaking about it morally and then practically what could actually be done since so few people have no regard for human life

Do you live in the real world? Maybe you should stick to the practical.

Your "moral ideal" is a fantasy so youre just wasting your time. It has nothing to do with two wrongs. It has to do with very difficult, life changing decisions. The only wrong is you trying to force your moral authority on people's situation you have no idea about. Talk about a lack of understanding and compassion (wasn't Jesus for those things?)

You can't be pro-life unless you have a solution for unwanted children. Growing up unwanted is a horrid curse, and you are certainly not willing to take care of these kids.

Bill Cosby said it best:
I brought you in this world and I can take you out of this world, and it won't bother me and your momma one bit, cause we can make a whole bunch more, look just like you.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your "moral ideal" is a fantasy so youre just
> wasting your time. It has nothing to do with two
> wrongs. It has to do with very difficult, life
> changing decisions. The only wrong is you trying
> to force your moral authority on people's
> situation you have no idea about.

Yeah, just like all those people in prison. Why are we forcing our moral authority on them? Sometimes you just have to kill, steal, or rape. Depending on your situation. Who are we to pass judgement?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You can't be pro-life unless you have a solution
> for unwanted children. Growing up unwanted is a
> horrid curse, and you are certainly not willing to
> take care of these kids.
>


Right now abortion is used as a get out of jail free card for by stupid/lazy people who make poor decisions. The ease and availability of abortion is what enables their irresponsible behavior. If that option were limited or taken away completely things would change.

Behavior would shift over time and there would be less unwanted pregnancies. And most adoption agencies currently have long waiting lists.

Why should "stupid/lazy people who make poor decisions" be the only ones giving birth? Believe me, those "stupid/lazy people who make poor decisions" are not going to change their behavior if abortion becomes unavailable.

I'm just glad Republicans like Rick Santorum are finally instituting laws to out birth control and condoms.

Sex is for creation only! I also support republican efforts to get rid of pornography that poisons minds!

We need more legislation on these matters!

So, you've compared women seeking abortion to war criminals, rapists and murderers. You think you're gonna win em over with that?

You can sling insults but you have yet to come up with anything close to a solution.

I think you better crack that bible open again; Maybe learn some empathy.

Getting an abortion is not easy, physically or mentally.

At least it's not deadly and extremly dangerous like the situation you and your ilk would like to see.

Adoption agency have not solved the unwanted child problem. You're either ignorant or you play fast and loose with the truth. I think Jesus is against that.

History negates your argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 12:14PM by Atom.

So the Republican party that stands for less government intervention and American freedoms is now trying to pass laws based on religious views.

Hypocrisy at it's finest. Keep up the good work GOPtards!

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theres really not an excuse for an unwanted
> pregnancy its just people being stupid.

I’d guess that you’re a virgin.

> You shouldnt be able to get [an abortion] at 6 months.

Just how many abortions are performed @ 6 Months?

> [Abortion] shouldnt be viewed as a form of birth control.

Who says that it is?

> If those woman took care of their own business and
> didnt get pregnant they wouldnt have to worry
> about other people getting in their business.

Yep, a virgin.

> Stop acting like theres some fundamental right to
> kill your child.

A fetus is not a child.

> Theres also a difference between speaking about it
> morally and then practically what could actually
> be done since so few people have no regard for
> human life

How is impractical morality useful?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you live in the real world? Maybe you should
> stick to the practical.
>
> Your "moral ideal" is a fantasy so youre just
> wasting your time. It has nothing to do with two
> wrongs. It has to do with very difficult, life
> changing decisions. The only wrong is you trying
> to force your moral authority on people's
> situation you have no idea about. Talk about a
> lack of understanding and compassion (wasn't Jesus
> for those things?)


You reach new levels of stupidity with every response. You really just tried to use a Jesus was compassionate argument to defend murdering babies.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I’d guess that you’re a virgin.

No and I dont have any kids either. Use a condom, have her on the pill too. Hell still pull out with all of that, no baby. Its almost like if you are responsible about it you can avoid unwanted pregnancies.

> > You shouldnt be able to get at 6 months.
>
> Just how many abortions are performed @ 6 Months?

WAY to many. Some people even want partial birth abortion to be legal where they cut the babies spin as its being born. You shouldnt be able to get abortions at 5 months or 4 months or 3 or 2 months either. You know if you were an idiot and had unprotected sex thats why theres a plan b pill.


> Who says that it is?

It absolutely is. The amount of them that are performed each year show that. The fact that NO regulations what so ever can be put on it without people going crazy shows that.


> Yep, a virgin.

I guess you are unaware of contraceptives.


> A fetus is not a child.

A fetus is a child. If you kill a pregnant mother you get charged with 2 counts of murder as well.


> How is impractical morality useful?

The bottom line is its murder but it will never be made illegal. Theres to many people in the pro abortion crowd for the time being so the hope of it being outlawed is miniscule. There is hope that some regulations could be put on it.

Let me ask this is the pro abortion crowd is so convinced that it is a hard choice ect, then why are they so against the women actually being made aware of what they are doing, or meeting with someone to talk about it, or being made aware of what their options are if they did want to keep it. Why do they just want it to be like stopping at the store to get your baby killed and be on the way

PartyofNo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the Republican party that stands for less
> government intervention and American freedoms is
> now trying to pass laws based on religious views.
>
> Hypocrisy at it's finest. Keep up the good work
> GOPtards!

Its got nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, Koran, etc. And there are plenty of pro-life people who are not the least bit religious.

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Just how many abortions are performed @ 6 Months?
>
> WAY [too] many.

You have no idea how many abortions are performed @ 6 months.
As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

> > Who says that [abortion is used as birth control]?
>
> It absolutely is. The amount of them that are
> performed each year show that.

Well, how many abortions are performed each year? Of course, you
have no idea. How would the number indicate their reason/purpose.
Again, you don’t know because you are uneducated about the subjects
on which you pontificate.

> > A fetus is not a child.
>
> A fetus is a child.

Yet another unsupported, unsubstantiated statement.

> > How is impractical morality useful?
>
> The bottom line is its murder but it will never be made illegal.

So shut the fuck up already.

Thanks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 03:01PM by sleepy.

Rent a clue... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the
> Bible, Koran, etc. And there are plenty of
> pro-life people who are not the least bit
> religious.

Then why is abortion wrong?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, you've compared women seeking abortion to war
> criminals, rapists and murderers. You think
> you're gonna win em over with that?
>
> You can sling insults but you have yet to come up
> with anything close to a solution.
>
> I think you better crack that bible open again;
> Maybe learn some empathy.

Nice job refuting the argument...oh wait, you didn't.

Very few of these posts even mention the bible or religion. Except for yours. And none of the pro-life posters on here have cited a religious argument. I wonder why you keep bringing it up.

I don't see any reason to empathize with criminals. Unless you are one.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You have no idea how many abortions are performed
> @ 6 months.
> As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking
> about.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. About 2 million abortions happen every year and probably more since CA wont give CDC their information people have to just guess on it and its the state with the most in the country. 1 percent are performed at 6 months. Thats 20,000 WAY TO MANY. 1 is to many at 6 months.



> Well, how many abortions are performed each year?
> Of course, you
> have no idea. How would the number indicate their
> reason/purpose.
> Again, you don’t know because you are uneducated
> about the subjects
> on which you pontificate.

Says the person that has brought 0 facts, information, or even logical arguments to the table. Its you that lives in your pro baby killing box that has no idea how many happen a year. About 40 percent of women will have an abortion at some point in their life. In the younger generations that number is much higher. Either bring something meaningful to the conversation or stop wasting everyones time just trying to make personal attacks since the facts are against you but then again there would be no liberals if everyone dealt in facts.

> Yet another unsupported, unsubstantiated
> statement.

No its not. How is a baby not a child? Get an ultrasound you see a baby. Kill a pregnant woman you get charged with 2 murders. Tell me how its not a baby. Oh right you dont deal in fact you just say whatever you want and people are supposed to accept that it is true.


> So shut the fuck up already.

Take your own advice and let the adults talk since you have nothing to add to this what so ever

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rent a clue... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the
> > Bible, Koran, etc. And there are plenty of
> > pro-life people who are not the least bit
> > religious.
>
> Then why is abortion wrong?

Because some people believe its murder, which is considered wrong in every civilized society.

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> About 2 million abortions happen every
> year and probably more since CA wont give CDC
> their information people have to just guess on it
> and its the state with the most in the country.

From the CDC: In 2008, 825,564 abortions were
reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion
ratio was 234 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2008.
We can guessimate the number of abortion in California
thusly: There were 551,567 live births in California in 2008.
Using the 49 state abortion rate (234/1,000 live births),
we can calculate that 129,067 abortions were performed in
California in 2008. The grand total of abortions performed
in the US in 2008 was 954,631.

Since you’re not very good w/numbers, I’ll tell you that
954,631 is less than half of 2 million.

> 1 percent are performed at 6 months. Thats 20,000 WAY TO
> MANY. 1 is to many at 6 months..

According again to the CDC, in 2008 1.38% of all abortions occured
after 21 weeks gestation. Using our 954,631 total above, that
means 13,129 abortions were performed after 21 weeks (which,
since you’re bad a math, is 5 weeks short of six months). Again,
what you think/feel/believe is wrong.

> Says the person that has brought 0 facts,
> information, or even logical arguments to the
> table.

Okay, I brought facts. They prove that you’re wrong.

> How is a baby not a child?

A baby is a child. A fetus is neither a baby nor a child.
Up until the 10th week of gestation, its not even a fetus.
It’s called a zygote. Fetuses are not capable of feeling
pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and may not
be able to feel pain until the third trimester. Before 21
weeks, fetuses are not viable (they cannot exist independently
of their host) and therefore are not babies/children/people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 03:57PM by sleepy.

1 million abortions in a single year is not people using it from tragic circumstances thats people using it as birth control.

Nice try trying to spin the numbers you forgot to mention 16 abortions per every 1000 women aged 20-24 and 21.6 for every 1000 women aged 25-29. You also didnt mention that kids aged 15-19 accounted for 16.9 percent of ALL abortions.

1 in 200,000 is absolutely not the rate in California who does not report to the CDC.

All of these numbers are before the economy really tanked and you can bet that even more people are doing it now than before.

A fetus is absolutely a child.

YOU GET CHARGED FOR TWO COUNTS OF MURDER WHEN YOU MURDER A PREGNANT WOMAN.

Keep ignoring things yous dont like and spinning numbers though

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 million abortions in a single year is not people
> using it from tragic circumstances thats people
> using it as birth control.

What are "tragic circumstances"? What do you mean
when you say, 'use abortion as birth control'?

> Nice try trying to spin the numbers you forgot to
> mention 16 abortions per every 1000 women aged
> 20-24 and 21.6 for every 1000 women aged 25-29.
> You also didnt mention that kids aged 15-19
> accounted for 16.9 percent of ALL abortions.

I didn't 'forget' those stats, they're just not
germane to the conversation.

> 1 in 200,000 is absolutely not the rate in
> California who does not report to the CDC.

The abortion rate I ascribed to CA is 234
per 1,000 live births. Can you not read?

> A fetus is absolutely a child.
>
> YOU GET CHARGED FOR TWO COUNTS OF MURDER WHEN YOU
> MURDER A PREGNANT WOMAN.

That the law considers a fetus to be a child does
not make it so.

> Keep ignoring things yous dont like and spinning
> numbers though

I've proven my point and you wrong, so I'm done.

Thanks for playing.

I'd bet you Jesus would agree with me.

Your whole ethos is the afterbirth of clergy calculation to increase their flock and their fleecing.

Less abortions and less contraception mean more parishioners.

You're the one whO comes off as dull and narrow minded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2012 04:43PM by Atom.

I'd say Ron Paul has excellent chance to take Virginia. It will be interesting to see what happening today and if Romney can win.

Hey, you fuckers wanna start a new thread about abortion or something? 'Cause you've sure done a great job derailing this thread from its stated topic.


Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd bet you Jesus would agree with me.

lol.
Jesus...