[$tinkle]

1. Scooter violated the law and committed treason. This isn't because he has a different political opinion, it is because what he did was treason and he did obstruct justice. Quite a weak argument.

speaking of weak: "treason"?
outstanding. you complete me. perhaps you meant perjury?

a better answer would have been "no, b/c a pardon cannot be deserved. it is an act of grace". see how simple that was? just another example of how he cannot speak in simple terms. he's always hedging & triangulating. what up?

3. How do you know he is not serious? He has seriously said he will do such things and it will be glooorious. You can't eliminate the IRS without cutting some expenses. Massive federal agencies seem like a good start.

good point; dr paul is very much serious. which is what makes his run so troublesome (to me & even a few canadians here)

4. Ron Paul is bad because of his supporters? Come on now. It is wrong for a candidate who gets little mainstream attention to seek press wherever he can get it? Who is crazy now?

do you know the definition of a supporter? if they support him, they influence him. you mind that he's being influenced by extremists? i do.

 

[Transcend]

He is never going to see reason $tinkle. Some people are just crackpots.

 

[RenegadeRick]

speaking of weak: "treason"?
outstanding. you complete me. perhaps you meant perjury?

Nope. I meant treason.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192237

of course why should we believe Scott anyhow? He was nothing more than a Presidential Tool.

 

[discombob]

If you like the idea of less taxes, less foreign involvement, and defense against a North American Union, then you support the ideas that Ron Paul supports. Why then, would you not vote for him?

Just because he doesn't have much chance of winning, does that mean we should just cast our freedoms into the wind and vote for Hillary?

Or perhaps it means that you truly don't care about your country anymore? Maybe you need to attempt to not look stupid in front of your non-extremist friends? Yeah, "freedom" - what an extreme concept these days!

So maybe we live in a dictatorship that's going to get us lynched in a Global Economic jam-up... does that mean we shouldn't TRY to get out? Really, what do we have to lose?

Some of you might already be dead - you'd better check your pulse!

 

[Transcend]

Maybe because Ron Paul is a stark racing lunatic, or a liar. Your choice.

No one can get rid of the IRS, end of story. He claims he will, as it worked before 1932. Anyone with a small piece of common sense would see that that is not possible, and it is no longer 1932.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Maybe because Ron Paul is a stark racing lunatic, or a liar. Your choice.

No one can get rid of the IRS, end of story. He claims he will, as it worked before 1932. Anyone with a small piece of common sense would see that that is not possible, and it is no longer 1932.

Look, I hear what you are saying, but the Infernal Revenue Service is not the only income model possibility. The US tax code is cumbersome and complicated. It unfairly puts the burden on the working people instead of those who hold the nation's wealth.

Why do you believe that the IRS is the only possibility? Why do you hate freedom?

 

[discombob]

Maybe it's a social stigma to ask who is the "lesser evil" that we're taking votes from, but why is everyone trying so hard to smokescreen the guy who is most willing to help not only America, but defend Canada's sovereignty as well? Rick has told you who he thinks is a good pick, but you have nothing to constructive to say. Where's your solution?

Transcend: As you've said several times in this thread, the IRS abolition is pretty intense and maybe unrealistic, but please don't trash our "hope for america". You seem spiteful of our predicament because you make so much more money than most dirtbags and have been unjustly forced into a higher tax bracket. You say that this wasn't the case, but Rick eventually got the truth out of you, didn't he? Yeah, he played it cool while out of the abundance of the heart your mouth spoke.

Don't worry, we'll forgive you; just tell us what to do quick before we make the impossible mistake of voting Ron Paul!

 

[Transcend]

What? You are confused man.

It isn't "maybe unrealistic". It is absolutely impossible. End of story. He isn't a hope for America, he is a crackpot making promises that are impossible to hold him to.

Ron Paul is either lying through his teeth or completely out of touch with America and socio-economics in general. Either way, I wouldn't want him running my country. Seeing as he has gotten this far, i am pretty sure it's the former and not the latter.

Also, you make no sense at all. The only thing rick has gotten out of me is a series of laughing outbursts from the insanity of his posts. He also ignored the numbers in front of him time and time again. I made them clear enough for most 6th graders to grasp.

You can vote for him all you want, he doesn't stand a chance in hell of even wining the Republican nomination, let alone a Presidency. Remember, 2%.

 

[discombob]

Alright then - who do we vote for? Start the change you want to see in the world, since it is obviously not freedom.

You have imposed a limitation on yourself regarding this election and now you're telling us we're insane for trying to stand for Ron's compaign, which goes against your hugely evident personal rule of "give up hope - submit and pay taxes".

Let's have a conversation about what we're going to do about it!

 

[RenegadeRick]

Transcend:

Your reply is about as on topic as a Giuliani CNN/YouTube debate response.

Seriously. Why is the income tax the only revenue system you think is possible? Why couldn't a flat tax or a use tax or something else be implemented? And how would a dose of real fiscal restraint hurt?

You say that Paul must be a liar, but his record of voting against government expenditures speaks for itself. And he has been saying he wants to eliminate the IRS for over 10 years now.

 

[Transcend]

Alright then - who do we vote for? Start the change you want to see in the world, since it is obviously not freedom.

You have imposed a limitation on yourself regarding this election and now you're telling us we're insane for trying to stand for Ron's compaign, which goes against your hugely evident personal rule of "give up hope - submit and pay taxes".

Let's have a conversation about what we're going to do about it!

If you think the United States, as a sovereign nation, can continue to function without taxes, you are as insane as Ron Paul.

And shut u p about freedom already will you? You sound like a fox newsdesk anchor.
edit: forgot a comma.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Remember, 2%.

Latest Iowa polls show him leading McCain.

Rasmussen Reports
11/27/2007
Iowa
w/o Newt Gingrich
Margin of Error = 3.0% [?]

Mike Huckabee 28%
Mitt Romney 25%
Rudy Giuliani 12%
Fred Thompson 11%
Ron Paul 5%
John McCain 4%
Tom Tancredo 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Unsure 10%
Source

 

[Transcend]

You say that Paul must be a liar, but his record of voting against government expenditures speaks for itself.

I don't doubt that at all. That isn't in question. He isn't a liar for this. He is a liar for PROMISING to do something that is impossible to do. Lots of politicians (all?) make promises they don't intend to keep, but most aren't as ugh, outlandish, as this.

Voting against expenditures and promising in an election campaign that you will get rid of the IRS, are 2 very different things that you don't seem to understand.

Look at the numbers I posted, and the % of revenue based on income taxes. You need an income tax system of some sort to pay the bills. You need an organization to collect and keep track of said monies. Therefore, the IRS isn't going anywhere.

 

[Transcend]

Latest Iowa polls show him leading McCain.

Rasmussen Reports
11/27/2007
Iowa
w/o Newt Gingrich
Margin of Error = 3.0% [?]

Mike Huckabee 28%
Mitt Romney 25%
Rudy Giuliani 12%
Fred Thompson 11%
Ron Paul 5%
John McCain 4%
Tom Tancredo 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Unsure 10%
Source

Sweet, 2-5%. Huge progress. Now he has about 60 days to go from 5% to 28% to win a nomination.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Voting against expenditures and promising in an election campaign that you will get rid of the IRs, are 2 very different things that you don't seem to understand.

I think we may be splitting hairs here. Paul has said he would like to eliminate the IRS, but does the President really have the power to do so? It is within the President's power to guide us toward a different revenue system, but to eliminate the IRS at the stroke of a pen? I am not sure.

Look at the numbers I posted, and the % of revenue based on income taxes. You need an income tax system of some sort to pay the bills. You need an organization to collect and keep track of said monies. Therefore, the IRS isn't going anywhere.

Of course you need a revenue stream, I just don't think it has to exist as it does today.

Anyhow, I am not backing Paul for his position on the IRS. I am backing him for his position on the war. I suppose I am a single issue voter and there is no other Republican candidate who is anti-war. The savings in ending the war alone would do much to reduce the deficit.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Sweet, 2-5%. Huge progress. Now he has about 60 days to go from 5% to 28% to win a nomination.

Yep. And that is 5% with the phone poll bias. I would call that a huge success.

And why do the polling figures matter anyhow? You should support the candidate that most closely matches your values and funk what anyone else thinks.

 

[discombob]

Yeah, man, what *are* your values besides spreading discouragement?

Rick gives solutions. Transcend says "no". This seems to be a one-sided argument, but maybe we should just focus in a little more on this whole "US government can't survive without the IRS" thing, because I don't think I quite get it yet

 

[Transcend]

Yeah, man, what *are* your values besides spreading discouragement?

Rick gives solutions. Transcend says "no". This seems to be a one-sided argument, but maybe we should just focus in a little more on this whole "US government can't survive without the IRS" thing, because I don't think I quite get it yet

Rick has offerred no solutions. By his own admission, getting rid of the IRS is probably impossible. You still, clearly, do not get it.

Are you 14 by any chance? I ask simply because even a 14 year old should be able to grasp the simple mathematics presented.

 

[ohio]

his record of voting against government expenditures speaks for itself. And he has been saying he wants to eliminate the IRS for over 10 years now.

Wow. Are you really equating fiscal responsibility to ability to eliminate our largest source of tax revenue? The implicit chain of logic there looks like this:

A + insanity = 12

 

[stevew]

Sweet, 2-5%. Huge progress. Now he has about 60 days to go from 5% to 28% to win a nomination.

You are RenegadeRick's kryptonite.

Crusher of souls.

 

[H8R]

I thought I'd read through this thread and see what was going on in this discussion.

Nevermind.

It's like listening to camp counselors talk to crack heads.

 

[$tinkle]

i think it's high time for this:

 

[discombob]

Obviously, I get the simple math of the whole point of income tax being to supply our government with the ammo it needs to get caught up in all kinds of tough scenarios. Canadians will be enjoying it too once they get sucked up in the North American Union.

It's amazing how different our world views are - this planet is doomed because of the lack of compassion of its peoples. Are you afraid?

 

[Transcend]

There you go again, with the dreaming happy thought about things that will never happen. Seems like a common thread between Ron Paul supporters.

 

[discombob]

OK, well I hope it doesn't, but we'll see...

I'm just going to back off now. We really shouldn't be wasting our time arguing like this.

In the meantime, I'll just think happy thoughts of riding my bike again, even though it's snowing outside at the moment

 

[blue]

Are any of you cultists aware that during the debate he acted like a stark raving lunatic?

 

[Transcend]

Are any of you cultists aware that during the debate he acted like a stark raving lunatic?

Rick must, he transcribed it??

 

[blue]

Rick must, he transcribed it??

I'd never seen any real length of video before the debate. Before I thought "Eh, just a dude with some out-in-space ideas that will never get elected".

Now I think "WACO WACO WACO".

 

[RenegadeRick]

Are any of you cultists aware that during the debate he acted like a stark raving lunatic?

In which part? (i know, you are gonna say "in the entirety")

Here is a RP summary:

• RP states that he has more campaign contributions from military service members than any other candidate.
• Abortion laws should decided by the states.
• There are plans for a North American superhighway that will only increase illegal immigration and make it easier for people who want to do bad things to get into the country.
• Ron Paul said we should use peace to create allies in the middle east.
• Paul said that they hate us for meddling in the middle east.

What's crazy about any of that?

And you didn't get the same vibe from any of the other candidates? What about when Duncan Hunter was talking so longingly about daddy's gun?

What about when they all talked about how we should be very afraid of some losers hiding in caves on the other side of the planet. Now that's crazy.

 

[blue]

In which part? (i know, you are gonna say "in the entirety")

And you didn't get the same vibe from any of the other candidates? What about when Duncan Hunter was talking so longingly about daddy's gun?

What about when they all talked about how we should be very afraid of some losers hiding in caves on the other side of the planet. Now that's crazy.

You guessed correctly! It wasn't so much what he said, but his demeanor and the way he came across. He definitely has the act to backup his whacko policies.

Regarding the other candidates: No one here takes them seriously already, and the general consensus is they're all tools.

 

[RenegadeRick]

You guessed correctly! It wasn't so much what he said, but his demeanor and the way he came across. He definitely has the act to backup his whacko policies.

I agree. His presentation at the debate was very poor. Unfortunately, his passion for many of the issues did not present well. Even though he was right, he seemed overly agitated about it.

Regarding the other candidates: No one here takes them seriously already, and the general consensus is they're all tools.

So there have been some suggestions here that we should be offering solutions. What's yours?

 

[blue]

I
So there have been some suggestions here that we should be offering solutions. What's yours?

Uhhh...NOT electing anyone from the Republican field? I'd favor Obama or *snort* Kucinich as a "solution".

 

[RenegadeRick]

Uhhh...NOT electing anyone from the Republican field? I'd favor Obama or *snort* Kucinich as a "solution".

hmmm... Kucinich wants to end the war, but he has poor poll numbers, so Transcend would say that he isn't viable. Then there is that whole kooky UFO thing.

Obama offers to consider bringing the troops home in 2013. This is not an end to the huge cash hemorrhage America is experiencing. Since Obama is from IL, my home state, I want to support him, but he has taken way too much money from AIPAC and as a result I find it difficult to believe that he would put America first.

 

[$tinkle]

I agree. His presentation at the debate was very poor. Unfortunately, his passion for many of the issues did not present well. Even though he was right, he seemed overly agitated about it.

you've misplaced you affections for bush?

 

[N8 v2.0]

whats not to like?

 

[Transcend]

Is it just me, or does that chick have a MASSIVE mouth??

 

[Dartman]

Is it just me, or does that chick have a MASSIVE mouth??

Normal mouth. Small head.

 

[RenegadeRick]

I liked it. When is the last time someone wrote a (complimentary) song about any of the other candidates?

 

[nh dude]

one hundred years ago if you wanted to kill someone and take something from them you had two choices. stab or shoot. maxiumum range 1 or 2 miles tops im not familair with ww1 tech. today we can kill a person from anywhere anytime

thats why we need the federal government. and to keep the king of england off my back, hate that guy

 

[RenegadeRick]

Here is video of Ron Paul's interview with John Stossel.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3971133&affil=wls
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3970744&affil=wls

In short, Ron explains why the FedGov should provide defense, enforce contracts and otherwise leave us the funk alone.