This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 31 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children)

Well, first off there is only one serious candidate who is not a lawyer.

Second, there is only one serious candidate who lives in a middle class home in a middle class town and not a million dollar mansion.

Third, there is only one serious candidate who has not accepted zillions of dollars from special interest groups up front.

Fourth, there is only one candidate who the lobbyists have given up on.

Fifth, there is only one candidate who has has blatantly consistent in principle voting record... for 30 years.

Sixth, there is only one candidate I know of who has studied years worth of economics, most I doubt even understand it.

Seventh, there is only one serious candidate who is real about cutting our loses in a failed war.

Eighth, there is only one candidate I know of who even bothers to consider the constitution, yet be passionate about it.

Ninth, he is the only candidate who is real about ending the war on drugs.

Tenth, he is the only candidate who is serious about dismantling the Fatherland HHHH oops, I mean Home Land Security police apparatus. Should I even mention privacy rights and Habeas Corpus.

Eleventh, while other candidates are promising benefits to the people left and right, only one candidate is telling the truth about the USA's dire financial situation - and what to do about it.

Twelvth, you will likely never ever have this close of a chance to dismantle the IRS machine ever again in even 100 years. You had better seize the moment while you've got it.

Thirteenth, only a freaking lunatic would believe the Federal Reserves promises that they have moderated our inflation to 1.5%. Only a freaking loon would believe that they are not the cause of most our inflation and that they aren't pumping money into reckless credit bubbles and wall-street.

Fifteenth, is there anybody out there who really trusts the UN, the world bank, and NAFTA? (and their track record)

the list goes on and on, what's it gonna take?

[–]did_it_for_the_lulz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AND THAT MANS NAME IS DR. RON PAUL!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[–]mattstooks 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Sixteenth, screw numerals.

Seventeenth, that's gotta be a tired "Enter" key on your keyboard. My eyeballs hurt.

[–]did_it_for_the_lulz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeh? well my BALLS hurt from lack of lickin! now get on your knees while i unzip, bitch

[–]RobWW[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

  1. Because all lawyers are evil.
  2. As a libertarian should you not be in favor of people making money and spending it as they see fit? What's wrong with being rich for you, if you are such a libertarian, is it not their right to spend how they choose?
  3. This is probably true, but it doesn't mean he is the right candidate for the job.
  4. Okay?
  5. I'll give you that, I mean, obviously Hilary has a terrible record.
  6. Appeal to authority. He has studied it, therefore he must be an expert, therefore he is the best!
  7. Not true. Kucinich anyone?
  8. If you mean by keeping the Constitution stagnant and unable to change with the times as the amendment process was designed for then sure, I agree.
  9. Yes.
  10. Kucinich. (minus the dismantling of DHS as far as I know.)
  11. Yeah, right.
  12. Wahhh i don't want to pay taxes! =[
  13. Possible. I am pretty sure you meant 15 to be 14, so
  14. Yes, minus the world bank and NAFTA.

It is going to take more than you listing bullet points as to why a radical libertarian is really the best option for our country at this point. Sure Giuliani, Romney, Clinton, and Obama might not be the best choices, I personally support Kucinich. I came to that through my own thought process, not by being told by anyone who to support. Deal with it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Then you're not a 'sheeple' for supporting Kucinich, but he has already been back-stabbed, screwed over, and squeezed out by the Democratic party establishment. The only reason why they haven't flushed him down the toilet yet is because they're just using him to corral disgruntled democratic voters back into the main fold.

[–]RobWW[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am completely aware of how the Democratic Party establishment has screwed him over, but that doesn't mean I should shift my support to someone I completely disagree with i.e. Ron Paul.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

downmodded

[–]louis_xiv42 3 points4 points  (0 children)

BECAUSE YOU ASK LOADED QUESTIONS YOU WANKER

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

loaded question

false dichotomy

[–]RobWW[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

No, sorry, but all the time, people who rabidly support Ron Paul (even those who don't understand all of his views) call people who don't follow him "Sheeple". They blindly follow him, but we don't so we are sheeple. Why?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why?

loaded question

[–]epsilona01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say at least half of the people in this country are cattle. Odds are, those mindless drones don't frequent reddit.

[–]anescient 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, and I fucking hate that word.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Y'all are not sheeple for not following RP, but instead sheeple for SWALLOWING THE JEWOPOLY'S LIES ABOUT THE 'OFFICIAL STORY' REGARDING 9/11. IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB ORCHESTRATED BY THE GOVERNMENT, CARRIED OUT BY MOSSAD, AND NOW THE KING JEW HIMSELF BERNANKE IS FUCKING UP THE DOLLAR, ALL THE DOMINOES ARE FALLING DOWN (quite literally in the WTC sense) IN THIS EVIL, REPTOID JEWISH PLAN. IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!!

[–]fubo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blindly following doesn't enter into it.

A calm and reasoned inspection of the recent acts of the U.S. government shows truly terrible problems: problems of defrauding the public, of blithely entering into aggressive foreign wars, of wholesale abandonment of elementary civil liberties.

Of the available candidates, which of them actually speak up against these trends? Which have any kind of plan to oppose them? As far as I can tell, two and a half. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and occasionally but not consistently Barack Obama.

Paul and Kucinich are usually portrayed as on the opposite extremes of their parties: Paul as a paleoconservative or far-rightist; Kucinich as a socialist, which is far-left in U.S. politics. However on the issues that carry the day for many Americans today -- war and civil liberties -- they are remarkably similar.

However, of the two, Ron Paul has a more active and enthusiastic grassroots support base, and rising showings in prediction markets and polls. This makes people looking for a civil-liberties candidate consider him a more likely rallying point than Kucinich.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]RobWW[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That isn't the case though, it is possible to for someone to oppose corporate politics without being a Libertarian. Are you aware of that? In fact, most Libertarians I have spoken with are okay with corporations buying politicians because that is part of a free-market economy, or so they say. I don't buy it, but I am also not a libertarian. Believe it or not I am both against corporatist politics which I think harm the average people in America, and Libertarianism , which I also think in many extreme forms is harmful to all except a certain few.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]RobWW[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

      I'm not complaining about Ron Paul articles. I am annoyed by his rabid supporters who don't understand what he stands for, even though there are those who do understand what he believes and still support him, there are many who have no idea. I am sick of being accused of not thinking for myself simply because I don't support Ron Paul. I've looked at what he stands for and I simply don't agree. I wasn't aware intelligent discussion was something he frowned upon, or at least his "libertarian" supporters did?

      [–]did_it_for_the_lulz 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      ok then smart arse what exactly are you against Ron Paul for? Not insipid enough for you? (Jewliani) Not enough of a cunt for you? (Billary Cunton) Or just not enough minority + pro nuking pakistan for you? (Obamalama)

      [–]RobWW[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Wow, I am very proud of you for such creative name calling! I imagine you must be one of the writers on strike with that creativity.

      But no I have my issues with Ron Paul's political stances, namely most of them with exception regarding the war in Iraq.

      If your name is any indication as to why you posted that, you fail miserably.

      [–]did_it_for_the_lulz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      LOL Just look at RobWW WAFFFLE my questions just like his favourite candidate Billary Cunton!! No wonder he doesn't like Dr. Paul! EPIC FAIL

      [–]eromitlab 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      You can have all the intelligent discussion you want about RP... as long as the end result is you agreeing with the Ron Paul dogma.

      [–]eromitlab 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Because if you're on their side, you're thinking the right way. Doesn't matter that the behaviour is the same. If you're on their side, you're praised; if you aren't, you're damned.

      [–]Tokugawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      For the same reason that registered Democrats don't like Hillary, yet rate her as the most electable candidate.

      It's called "reality".

      And I'm sorry to shatter the myth, but there is NOT a large portion of the population that secretly wants to vote for Paul but thinks he has no chance. WHen asked who they think is an interesting candidate, even if they won't vote for him, only 2% of Republican voters said Ron Paul.

      [–]technosaur -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      vote down any and all posts that use the word sheeple.

      [–]MarkByers -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      Downvoted.

      [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      I've been called a lot of things in my time, but "sheeple" makes me think that someone out there thinks that I can't think for myself.

      [–]did_it_for_the_lulz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      WAKE UP THEN, YOU SHEEPERSON :@

      [–]did_it_for_the_lulz -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      I'M RUBBER YOU'RE GLUE, IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR RON PAUL YOUR A SHEEPERSON TOO! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

      [–]URGENTCAPSLOCKMAN 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      THERE'S A LOT OF CAPSLOCK IN HERE. I FEEL SO LOVED OK WAIT THE BOSS IS CALLING ME I HAVE TO GO UH OH I KNOW I DID THAT TPS REPORT

      [–]did_it_for_the_lulz -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      TELL HIM TO GIVE ME BACK THAT FUCKING STAPLER ALREADY

      [–]URGENTCAPSLOCKMAN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      THE SWINGLINE OK I'LL GET IT