Ron Paul FACTS, that can be verified!

[Technosoul]

[QUOTE=Technosoul;430861]I saw that interview when they gave him that Moore question about nuclear weapons. He started laughing and then dissmissed it as not a serious question. Everyone knows that such a weapon would be very expensive, even Saddam could not buy one. And it is not a handy the kind of thing to use for your personal protecton as not much would be left of your house if you used it on someone breaking in your back door. Do not be silly... we all know he is talking about any kind of weapon that people currently wish to market to the average gun buyer who might shop at Sears ( if they still sold them ). In the philosophy some interpret from the Consitution we must be able to defend our self from an army supported by our government if the Feds went wacco. To do that you would need weapons equal to what our mitlitary can employ on us if so commanded - right? It seems Ron Paul would be for that. But no one would take serious that revolutionists would want a nuclear civil war.

I did not say that drugs were good or bad, I simply said he would allow such activity to remian legal if a state vote said "okay to getting high".
If someone is seriously an anti-drug person the Ron Paul might not be his best choice, that is all to that.

About Natonal Parks and the environment. Did you EVER concider that the Consitution does not contain words about every single problem that might confront people as a nation, or state? It is not an "answer all document". If the Consitution said nothing about a topic then we must use our own noodle inside out heads to deal with the new problems that become self-evident as the country grows and progresses. Do you think the Constitution was writen to replace the human brain? Well, think again if you still have one.

Why would they have something in the Consitution about National Parks? Why would York Town need a park if within a 10 mins you could just walk right out of town into a vast wilderness. Be rereasonable.

Polution is no longer just a local problem to be delt with on a local bases, it has become an international problem of much larger proportion and concern. He might be knowledgable about American history but he seems to ignore science books.

You are right, he wants to avoid dealing with the important threat of global warming. I can accept no excuse for that kind of behavior from a President.

Right - if people want a Federal government that sets an example of not wanting to be responisble then Ron Paul is their guy. He will set a good example of irresponsibilty for one and all.

This spin is not to muddy the waters, this spin gives us a clearer look at his politics.

So don't be a smart ass... Ha... well at least did not call you a stupid ass.. so guess I was politically correct.

[Milton Bradley]

I think all of us with a common goal here should just stop replying to Technosoul.


Clearly, the line between fantasy, and reality has become quite blurred for our friend here, and I fear we are just acting as enablers for these Tourettes like outbursts.


Take this crap to a blog Techno.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think all of us with a common goal here should just stop replying to Technosoul. Clearly, the line between fantasy, and reality has become quite blurred for our friend here, and I fear we are just acting as enablers for these Tourettes like outbursts. Take this crap to a blog Techno.

I think I will hang out here instead of going to a blog.

Hey, I know, you could start a blog. The "bullies for Ron Paul" blog.

I am kidding around in this one message. I am not interested in getting into a person-to-person war with you or anyone else.. no matter what personal insults you come up with I prefer to talk about the canidates and thier politcal viewpoints. Not about your personal opinons about me as a person.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul I am kidding around in this one message. I am not interested in getting into a person-to-person war with you or anyone else.. no matter what personal insults you come up with I prefer to talk about the canidates and thier politcal viewpoints. Not about your personal opinons about me as a person.

See, there is the problem right there.


You say "I prefer to talk about the canidates and thier politcal viewpoints", but in reality you are doing an Bill O'Reilly on Ron Paul by cramming all of his ideas through your polarized filter, and then sprinkling a little personal nightmare over the top.


Thus it seems to you that you are opening the door for debate, but in reality you just polarizing us against you, and your spin.


Haven't you noticed the hostility of late?


I know you want to launch a Hate Campaign against Ron Paul in the same manor of the ones we are able to use agianst you, and your candidates, but in fact WE AREN'T MAKING SHIT UP!

[Matt W]

That's enough, please. Techno, this is really better in a blog - none of this is really debatable material. Milton, leave off - take it to PM rather than in-thread. :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Osborn F Enready]

Finally.....

Now maybe the thread can serve as intended, as a source of VERIFIABLE Ron Paul facts.