Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Y'all WISH your candidates were as cool as ours.....

Fuckin BLIMP mother fuckers!

Don't forget the Party people! I can't give $100, but I'll be donating that day anyways.

His support grows
And his stance is sweet.

wait and see. The name spreads, and all of a sudden his numbers are in the millions, then the tens of millions. Then the hundreds of millions.

I hope for his own safety that ron paul doesnt get elected, he would be assassinated within a year.

At 12/13/07 11:13 AM, Harry-Feltersnach wrote: I hope for his own safety that ron paul doesnt get elected, he would be assassinated within a year.

What a great year it would be though.

you guys really need to vote in Ron Paul, just this once

fuck any of your concerns, it is essential that the USA gets at least one libertarian president at one point

At 12/13/07 01:31 PM, Earfetish wrote: fuck any of your concerns, it is essential that the USA gets at least one libertarian president at one point

But that doesn't have to be now.

At 12/13/07 01:31 PM, Earfetish wrote: you guys really need to vote in Ron Paul, just this once

fuck any of your concerns, it is essential that the USA gets at least one libertarian president at one point

if ron paul were elected he would be assassinated, for the same reason JFK was assassinated.

jfk wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the irs, return to the gold standard and the traditional U.S. greenback currency that was used before 1913. a week before his assassination kennedy adressed the country on the dangers of fascist secret societys within the united states gov't , a week later, he was assassinated. if ron paul were elected to office he would be assassinated for the same reasons kennedy was, he (paul) wants to abolish the IRS, the CIA, and the Federal Reserve, which is infact a great idea, but in reality, the people that own this country and the federal reserve would have him taken out just like keneddy was taken out, except in this case, instead of blaming a rougue individual for the assassination like they did with kennedy, they would probobly blame his death on the Iranian Gov't and use it as grounds for a military invasion and occupation. but with all that said, ron paul is one of my personal heroes and I wish him the best of luck in his quest to save our once great republic.

At 12/13/07 02:46 PM, Harry-Feltersnach wrote:

ron paul is one of my personal heroes and I wish him the best of luck in his quest to save our once great republic.

....but your not gonna vote for him??

We know he's anti Iraq and anti U.S military presence anywhere. My question is; does that extend into Afghanistan?

At 12/13/07 06:17 PM, animehater wrote: We know he's anti Iraq and anti U.S military presence anywhere. My question is; does that extend into Afghanistan?

that extends to the middle east, the far east, and the arabian peninsula

At 12/13/07 06:24 PM, 6re9 wrote: that extends to the middle east, the far east, and the arabian peninsula

The Arabian peninsula is considered a part of the middle east. So is that a yes or a no considering the multiple definitions of the middle east. All of whom that I know include Arabia.

At 12/13/07 06:17 PM, animehater wrote: We know he's anti Iraq and anti U.S military presence anywhere. My question is; does that extend into Afghanistan?

Actually I don't believe it is. If I remember correctly, he was in favor (ie, voted for) sending troops into Afghanistan to go get Osama.

At 12/13/07 11:13 AM, Harry-Feltersnach wrote: I hope for his own safety that ron paul doesnt get elected, he would be assassinated within a year.

The human race has an amazing ability to kill all the people who promote peace.
Ghandi, JFK, MLK......

At 12/13/07 01:37 PM, animehater wrote:

At 12/13/07 01:31 PM, Earfetish wrote: fuck any of your concerns, it is essential that the USA gets at least one libertarian president at one point

But that doesn't have to be now.

After Clinton and Bush its the perfect time for Paul. If hes voted in, here comes the next progressive era.

At 12/13/07 09:19 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: After Clinton and Bush its the perfect time for Paul. If hes voted in, here comes the next progressive era.

Libertarianism in the USA would alter the world drastically and for the better.

Just because the world hate's y'all at the moment doesn't mean you need burgeoning state power and interventionist policies. And screw these political blocks, if you left the UN it wouldn't make you any less of a superpower, so long as you maintain trade and diplomacy.

pff he wont make it. anyways I donated $500 to Rudy

At 12/13/07 11:31 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: pff he wont make it. anyways I donated $500 to Rudy

You donated 500 to Mr. Terror? Mr. 911?

Dear god why!?!?

And this isn't the fucking racetrack. We're not voting on who's gonna win the race, we're voting on the candidates we SUPPORT.

So enough with the "he won't make it" "he's got no chance" "he'll never win" comments. If this was Vegas those comments would be fine.....but it isn't. So shove it kindly please and thank you.

fuck you Im gonna do it on my next paycheck to and he has my vote Im even part of his TeamRudy plus I have odds of Ron paul winning let me go to EWF to go get them

At 12/13/07 11:49 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: fuck you Im gonna do it on my next paycheck to and he has my vote Im even part of his TeamRudy plus I have odds of Ron paul winning let me go to EWF to go get them

No no. Support who you wanna support. I'm not gonna tell you you can't do that, or you shouldn't. That'd be counter-productive to supporting democracy.

I was just making a joke on your expense, because (as I'm sure you're at least slightly aware) Ron Paul supporters are absolutely fanatic about hating Rudy.

I like a lot about Ron Paul, I really do. However is absolute Isolationist views is something I just can not mesh with. I mean I am all for decreasing foreign aid and decreasing our troop presence in the world and letting them deal with their own fucking problems, but there is a limit, and Paul doesn't seem to think there is.

At 12/13/07 11:53 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/13/07 11:49 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

No no. Support who you wanna support. I'm not gonna tell you you can't do that, or you shouldn't. That'd be counter-productive to supporting democracy.

I was just making a joke on your expense, because (as I'm sure you're at least slightly aware) Ron Paul supporters are absolutely fanatic about hating Rudy.

did you hear that some hacker was paid to spam CNN MSNBC polls blogs and support ron paul I will try to find it

At 12/13/07 11:54 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I like a lot about Ron Paul, I really do. However is absolute Isolationist views is something I just can not mesh with. I mean I am all for decreasing foreign aid and decreasing our troop presence in the world and letting them deal with their own fucking problems, but there is a limit, and Paul doesn't seem to think there is.

Yeah he do. He has no problem trading and talking. In other words, we'd still be sharing, we just wouldn't be fighting their wars.

The most common misconception I hear is that he's an isolationist. He isn't. The term in non-inverventionalist.

At 12/13/07 11:57 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:
did you hear that some hacker was paid to spam CNN MSNBC polls blogs and support ron paul I will try to find it

Yeah but I heard it was some computer spam thing they found out in fuckin......lithuania or some shit like that.......

At 12/13/07 10:04 AM, Imperator wrote: Y'all WISH your candidates were as cool as ours.....

Fuckin BLIMP mother fuckers!

blimpin aint easy

At 12/13/07 11:54 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I like a lot about Ron Paul, I really do. However is absolute Isolationist views is something I just can not mesh with. I mean I am all for decreasing foreign aid and decreasing our troop presence in the world and letting them deal with their own fucking problems, but there is a limit, and Paul doesn't seem to think there is.

It is not isolationist to advocate peace and non intervention.

Isolationism is closing of ones borders to trade as well as abstaining from foreign conflicts

At 11/28/07 04:14 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: Actually Keynsian economics is much more 'real world' orientated. Classical economics consist of what would happen in a perfect world.

You obviously know jack crap about Keynesian economics. It was pretty much debunked by Mises and Hayek long ago. The Austrian school predicted the outcome of Keynesian policies and they were absolutely correct.

Umm.. State lovers want less central government (less government in general). Retard.

umm... wrong. People who love the state want ever mroe centralizatoin and action ont he federal or global level. What planet do you live on?

At 12/14/07 01:44 AM, iiREDii wrote:

At 11/28/07 04:14 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: Actually Keynsian economics is much more 'real world' orientated. Classical economics consist of what would happen in a perfect world.

You obviously know jack crap about Keynesian economics. It was pretty much debunked by Mises and Hayek long ago. The Austrian school predicted the outcome of Keynesian policies and they were absolutely correct.

Debunked by two people. IT MUST BE WRONG. Or its actually still an acceptable economic theory.

Which is entirely beside the point. I think what I said was that Keynsian economics was geared towards the real world. For example, in classical economics, wages change instantly along with the economy, whereas in keynsian economics 'sticky wages' take place and, like the real world, there is a delayed reaction to economic chages.

Umm.. State lovers want less central government (less government in general). Retard.

umm... wrong. People who love the state want ever mroe centralizatoin and action ont he federal or global level. What planet do you live on?

That makes absolutely no sense. As the American government formed the Anti-Federalists (what later became todays republicans, pro-state rights people) it was pretty clear that they wanted a confederacy over a federal, centralized government. Thus the STATE lovers over the federal government.

At 12/13/07 11:58 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/13/07 11:57 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:
did you hear that some hacker was paid to spam CNN MSNBC polls blogs and support ron paul I will try to find it

Yeah but I heard it was some computer spam thing they found out in fuckin......lithuania or some shit like that.......

yeah man like in europe somewhere no one gives a shit about

Teaparty07! Tomorrow peeps!

"Be the change you wish to see in the world"
~Mahatma Ghandi

Uh... I don't know whos who here so I'm jus gonna say my lil thing, I thin Ron Paul would be good, but I think Dennis Kucinich would be better, but Ron Paul would make an excellent vice president, either way, they're both good n I'll be happy if one of them makes it, but Dennis has my vote 8)

At 12/13/07 10:04 AM, Imperator wrote: His support grows
And his stance is sweet.

His support is unchanged. There is little, if any, evidence to suggest he's becoming more popular.

wait and see. The name spreads, and all of a sudden his numbers are in the millions, then the tens of millions. Then the hundreds of millions.

Ron Paul is a non-entity. He won't garner 3 million of the vote (1%) let alone tens of millions. And he has no chance in hell of garnering hundreds of millions.

At 12/13/07 11:13 AM, Harry-Feltersnach wrote: I hope for his own safety that ron paul doesnt get elected, he would be assassinated within a year.

No ineffectual President has ever been assassinated. Since Paul isnt even remotely controversial, he'd be fine in office.

At 12/13/07 09:10 PM, Imperator wrote: Actually I don't believe it is. If I remember correctly, he was in favor (ie, voted for) sending troops into Afghanistan to go get Osama.

This is one of his bullshit positions. "Iraq is illegal, because I said so! But afghanistan is ok...also because I said so!"

The human race has an amazing ability to kill all the people who promote peace.
Ghandi, JFK, MLK......

Paul doesn't promote peace. He promotes whatever is of his fancy at the moment. Comparing him to Ghandi or MLK is an insult to Ghandi and MLK.

At 12/13/07 11:57 PM, Imperator wrote: Yeah he do. He has no problem trading and talking. In other words, we'd still be sharing, we just wouldn't be fighting their wars.

The most common misconception I hear is that he's an isolationist. He isn't. The term in non-inverventionalist.

Ron Paul has repeatedly voted against free trade agreements.
From: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron _pauls_record_on_economic_i.php

Ron Paul has opposed many free trade agreements during his time in Congress:

Voted against Fast Track Authority[36]
Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37]
Voted against free trade with Singapore[38]
Voted against free trade with Australia[39]
Voted against CAFTA[40]
Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41]
Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42]
Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam[43]

While he supports free trade in theory, Rep. Paul chafes at the government's role in the process, arguing that "We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do."[44] His philosophical support for free trade is evidenced by his support for legislation lifting government-imposed trade barriers, such as the Cuba embargo,[45] and legislation allowing for the reimportation of prescription drugs.[46]

Unlike protectionists who deny the economic benefits of free-trade policies, Ron Paul embraces the importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that "tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,"[47] but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul's rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress's worst protectionists.

If we merely look at his rhetoric, Paul is the best candidate the US has ever had. If we look at reality, Ron Paul would fall to any run of teh mill liberal, who at least vote the way they believe.