Election of 2012....Who ya got?

Page 21 of 49 First ... 1920212223 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    I love the support for Paul. The good Dr. who in 2007 said he doesnt support evolution. Boy, thats who I want leading the US in the 21st century.
    please show me where in any way shape or form evolution accounts for going from the state of non-life to life. Even with accepting that a single cell organism evolved into humans, how did lumps of volcanic rock and swirling water become not just a single one celled organism, but enough of them of enough different types that they actually survived the conditions.

    Its hard to accept evolution as the whole solution when it can't answer that part. You can see even yourself that selective breeding can create and change traits. But it can't turn a rock into a turtle, or water into a fish.


  2. Tell me how Obama is not socialist? "Corporatist" is nothing but a sugar-coated word for a socialist. It's a term that is not straight-forward. Between him and Bush they together have brought this country to a socialist state altogether. But you can't see it if you don't really understand the agenda of a socialist in the first place.

    Socialist = Central power. No religion, no morale..only laws. Laws laws laws and regulations regulations regulations. Complete government takeover. Doesn't sound too free if you ask me. Kinda sounds like China, really. Which, without our consumer base China would suck again anyways. The only success they've had as a communist country is by being the largest parasite that America has. Anyways, socialism and communism gives vast amounts of power to the select few governmental officials to make decisions for everyone else in the public. A socialist at his core believes that it's best for a select few powerful and "educated" men to govern or control everyone else. This type of philosophy has been taught in our ivy league schools and in our court rooms for decades now. Oh, and the biggest indicator of a socialist is this: redistribution of wealth. Which I must say has been part of Obama's relentless efforts as president. You see the redistribution of wealth in a few things really: one is the tax system, another is the liberated court system - where the offenders can someone manage to sue the victims, where the have not's can sue the haves ( even without good reason ) and where the common law that this country lived by for 2 centuries is now thrown out the window.

    Marxism is a broad word the wholistically represents it's sub-categories of socialism, communism and corporatism and supports all that bullcrap I just spouted off in the above paragraph.

    Ron Paul on the other hand is a bonified natural-rights advocate. Basically, natural rights is the most free form of governmental philosophy which was the core inspiration of the birth of America. When the founding fathers particularly outlined what the federal government's purpose was and what they were allowed to do, they were attempting to preserve the natural rights of the people in the form of the document you might be familiar with - the Constitution.

    Bottom line, we don't need corporatism. We need freedom to live by our religion, morale and to allow the states to form the laws to fill the gap, NOT the federal government. This way, California can continue to be filled with fruits and nuts and be happy with themselves as a liberal, law-defined society while here in Tennesee I can continue to live the Tennessee way which is by allowing social forms of morale and religion to dominate my lifestyle and to have laws fill the gaps on the grey areas. So when the fed's go away and actually do what they were designed to do (which is regulate interstate commerce by mediation between states regarding issues and national protection) we as individual states can create what each of us prefer. And if I don't like the way my state does things then guess what? I can move to a state that does do it the way I like. Thats the whole freggin point of having '50' states. Why else would we have so much variety!?!?
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    please show me where in any way shape or form evolution accounts for going from the state of non-life to life. Even with accepting that a single cell organism evolved into humans, how did lumps of volcanic rock and swirling water become not just a single one celled organism, but enough of them of enough different types that they actually survived the conditions.

    Its hard to accept evolution as the whole solution when it can't answer that part. You can see even yourself that selective breeding can create and change traits. But it can't turn a rock into a turtle, or water into a fish.
    So I assume that bacterial life certainly cannot evolve
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  4. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Tell me how Obama is not socialist? "Corporatist" is nothing but a sugar-coated word for a socialist. It's a term that is not straight-forward. Between him and Bush they together have brought this country to a socialist state altogether. But you can't see it if you don't really understand the agenda of a socialist in the first place.

    Socialist = Central power. No religion, no morale..only laws. Laws laws laws and regulations regulations regulations. Complete government takeover. Doesn't sound too free if you ask me. Kinda sounds like China, really. Which, without our consumer base China would suck again anyways. The only success they've had as a communist country is by being the largest parasite that America has. Anyways, socialism and communism gives vast amounts of power to the select few governmental officials to make decisions for everyone else in the public. A socialist at his core believes that it's best for a select few powerful and "educated" men to govern or control everyone else. This type of philosophy has been taught in our ivy league schools and in our court rooms for decades now. Oh, and the biggest indicator of a socialist is this: redistribution of wealth. Which I must say has been part of Obama's relentless efforts as president. You see the redistribution of wealth in a few things really: one is the tax system, another is the liberated court system - where the offenders can someone manage to sue the victims, where the have not's can sue the haves ( even without good reason ) and where the common law that this country lived by for 2 centuries is now thrown out the window.

    Marxism is a broad word the wholistically represents it's sub-categories of socialism, communism and corporatism and supports all that bullcrap I just spouted off in the above paragraph.

    Ron Paul on the other hand is a bonified natural-rights advocate. Basically, natural rights is the most free form of governmental philosophy which was the core inspiration of the birth of America. When the founding fathers particularly outlined what the federal government's purpose was and what they were allowed to do, they were attempting to preserve the natural rights of the people in the form of the document you might be familiar with - the Constitution.

    Bottom line, we don't need corporatism. We need freedom to live by our religion, morale and to allow the states to form the laws to fill the gap, NOT the federal government. This way, California can continue to be filled with fruits and nuts and be happy with themselves as a liberal, law-defined society while here in Tennesee I can continue to live the Tennessee way which is by allowing social forms of morale and religion to dominate my lifestyle and to have laws fill the gaps on the grey areas. So when the fed's go away and actually do what they were designed to do (which is regulate interstate commerce by mediation between states regarding issues and national protection) we as individual states can create what each of us prefer. And if I don't like the way my state does things then guess what? I can move to a state that does do it the way I like. Thats the whole freggin point of having '50' states. Why else would we have so much variety!?!?
    based on your definition every single politician is a socialist if you make the argument that corporatists are socialists.
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  5. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    please show me where in any way shape or form evolution accounts for going from the state of non-life to life. Even with accepting that a single cell organism evolved into humans, how did lumps of volcanic rock and swirling water become not just a single one celled organism, but enough of them of enough different types that they actually survived the conditions.

    Its hard to accept evolution as the whole solution when it can't answer that part. You can see even yourself that selective breeding can create and change traits. But it can't turn a rock into a turtle, or water into a fish.
    Good point. Who gives a crap about evolution. Knowing or not knowing how things came to be doesn't change anything about the cluster bomb of a situation our country is in right now.

    Besides, our leader doesn't have to have all the answers to be a good leader. So what if he doesn't buy into the theory of evolution. After all, it's still just a theory AE. It isn't fact. And it won't be otherwise it would have been proven so by now.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    based on your definition every single politician is a socialist if you make the argument that corporatists are socialists.
    So all of the candidates that want to reduce central government down to bare minimumm, repeal a few amendments favoring central power, reduce their spending power, and give power back to the people and freedoms back to the people are also corporatist? yeah right. Denial.

    Santorum does not favor Marxism or the passive version of corporatism.
    Ron Paul does not favor " " " " "
    Gingrich and Romney favor limited corporatism mainly because they think it's too much too ask our government to reverse course at this point. They see that its too late to go backwards without a revolutionary minset so they are taking a more moderate approach to things.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Good point. Who gives a crap about evolution. Knowing or not knowing how things came to be doesn't change anything about the cluster bomb of a situation our country is in right now.

    Besides, our leader doesn't have to have all the answers to be a good leader. So what if he doesn't buy into the theory of evolution. After all, it's still just a theory AE. It isn't fact. And it won't be otherwise it would have been proven so by now.
    If the last statement is true, we need to get the religious nuts away from office, as that is just a theory as well and cant be proven
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  8. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    So all of the candidates that want to reduce central government down to bare minimumm, repeal a few amendments favoring central power, reduce their spending power, and give power back to the people and freedoms back to the people are also corporatist? yeah right. Denial.

    Santorum does not favor Marxism or the passive version of corporatism.
    Ron Paul does not favor " " " " "
    Gingrich and Romney favor limited corporatism mainly because they think it's too much too ask our government to reverse course at this point. They see that its too late to go backwards without a revolutionary minset so they are taking a more moderate approach to things.
    1. Santorum? Look at his record of corruption in Pa, then rethink
    2. Paul...agreed
    3. Romney and Gingrich are no better than what is in office now. Again look at their records.
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  9. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    based on your definition every single politician is a socialist if you make the argument that corporatists are socialists.
    And I will also say that a majority of congress is socialist. Why wouldn't they be? Socialism favors those already in power so of course congress as a whole would want socialism. It will eventually lead to another dictatorship. Only difference is that it will be a group of people dictating the lives of the people rather than just one sole dictator. That's whats at the end of this road if you ask me.

  10. 1. Santorum? Look at his record of corruption in Pa, then rethink Perhaps I will rethink. He's not my first or second choice anyways.
    2. Paul...agreed
    3. Romney and Gingrich are no better than what is in office now. Again look at their records. I agree

  11. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    If the last statement is true, we need to get the religious nuts away from office, as that is just a theory as well and cant be proven
    Well no, I don't mind a president that believes in the Theory of Evolution. At the same time I think atheist should be ok with a president that believes in God. Period. What I'm saying it by believing or not believing one particular issue would not make him a good or bad leader.

    I just want a president that leads by allowing us as individuals to decide for ourselves. That way it doesn't matter if he's atheist or a Catholic or a Protestant or if he's gay or wahtever. Because a good government gets out of the way and lets each man decide for himself what is believable and what is not.

    Laws are there to define consequences for crossing those certain lines that cause injury to others. They shouldn't be there to define our religion, morale or lifestyle in any sense. And we need a radical, natural rights advocate for that type of governing and thats why I am for Ron Paul.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    And I will also say that a majority of congress is socialist. Why wouldn't they be? Socialism favors those already in power so of course congress as a whole would want socialism. It will eventually lead to another dictatorship. Only difference is that it will be a group of people dictating the lives of the people rather than just one sole dictator. That's whats at the end of this road if you ask me.
    I would be interested to see how long that would take to accomplish, and if it truly went that way, how quickly people would revolt (if at all)
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  13. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    I would be interested to see how long that would take to accomplish, and if it truly went that way, how quickly people would revolt (if at all)
    I'd give it 30 years if nothing revolutionary takes place in this country before then.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    So I assume that bacterial life certainly cannot evolve
    where do you get that from? Bacteria are living cells. But life doesn't exist in the vaccuum of space, or in the heat of the big bang. Life had to start from non-life somehow. Evolution doesn't cover that.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    I would be interested to see how long that would take to accomplish, and if it truly went that way, how quickly people would revolt (if at all)
    don't we already have that? we just pretend to elect them

  16. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    don't we already have that? we just pretend to elect them
    You wearing tinfoil?
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  17. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    where do you get that from? Bacteria are living cells. But life doesn't exist in the vaccuum of space, or in the heat of the big bang. Life had to start from non-life somehow. Evolution doesn't cover that.
    1. This is an assumption about the beginning of time.
    2. Even if this was true of the beginning, nothing answers it. Not religion or evolution.
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  18. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    1. This is an assumption about the beginning of time.
    2. Even if this was true of the beginning, nothing answers it. Not religion or evolution.
    I can cleanly say that I totally disbelieve in religion's story of how we came to be, but I can't entirely buy evolutionary theory without that being a part of it .

  19. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    where do you get that from? Bacteria are living cells. But life doesn't exist in the vaccuum of space, or in the heat of the big bang. Life had to start from non-life somehow. Evolution doesn't cover that.
    Life has possibly infinitely have been evolved. It doesnt make sense to me that all the sudden life came from a rock or a stick, life had to come from life and its always been around is some shape or form. Its just laws of cause and effect and life may have been in forms beyond our knowledge (no Im not talking about god or anything like that.)
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  20. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    1. This is an assumption about the beginning of time.
    2. Even if this was true of the beginning, nothing answers it. Not religion or evolution.
    How can there be a beginning, isnt that mathematically impossible? Its like extracting numbers from 0.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  21. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Tell me how Obama is not socialist? "Corporatist" is nothing but a sugar-coated word for a socialist. It's a term that is not straight-forward. Between him and Bush they together have brought this country to a socialist state altogether. But you can't see it if you don't really understand the agenda of a socialist in the first place.

    Socialist = Central power. No religion, no morale..only laws. Laws laws laws and regulations regulations regulations. Complete government takeover.
    All political philosophies are subject to hijacking, and infiltration by the mega-corporations and banks. You can easily debate that Democracy and "freedom" is a complete corporatist and police state system run by the banking cartels. All you have to do is look at America the way it is since 1913 for example.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  22. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    All political philosophies are subject to hijacking, and infiltration by the mega-corporations and banks. You can easily debate that Democracy and "freedom" is a complete corporatist and police state system run by the banking cartels. All you have to do is use America the way it is since 1913 for example.
    I actually agree with you AX, lol. That's also why I am for the repealing of those two nasty amendments of 1913 (16th and 17th) which I think we've visited earlier in this thread lol.

    And of course the Federal Reserve Bank has alot of sway now since we've been in debt to them for quite some time now.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    I actually agree with you AX, lol. That's also why I am for the repealing of those two nasty amendments of 1913 (16th and 17th) which I think we've visited earlier in this thread lol.

    And of course the Federal Reserve Bank has alot of sway now since we've been in debt to them for quite some time now.
    That was the purpose, permanent debt and permanent control.

    Thomas Jefferson warned us about this, he was here earlier in the thread as well Ill quote what he said;

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  24. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    At this point Paul needs to go Independent and completely dominate the young voters at the polls.
    That would be a disaster as it would split the Republican vote and President Obama would be re-elected. Rick Santorum is who I like the best but I realize he probably won't win. Having said that, I am willing to get behind whoever the nominee ends up being. I won't be calling for my favorite to run as a third party candidate.

    Ron Paul would lose as a third party candidate too.
    I'm Back...

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Clickster View Post
    That would be a disaster as it would split the Republican vote and President Obama would be re-elected. Rick Santorum is who I like the best but I realize he probably won't win. Having said that, I am willing to get behind whoever the nominee ends up being. I won't be calling for my favorite to run as a third party candidate.

    Ron Paul would lose as a third party candidate too.
    Many people feel there is no difference between Obama and any other republican, the fact that Obama's 4 year term has been nothing but a carbon copy of George Bush's (except for the teleprompter reading, lol) there is no evidence that putting a Republican back in there will be any different.

    To some of us Ron Paul supporters what's important is not joining the winning team, but winning by delivering the message.
    This message was paid for by the Russians
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Mdrol 53426 Oct.2012
    By Nova1723 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 10:49 AM
  2. M-DROL batch 52707 MAY 2012.
    By supra888 in forum Cycle Logs
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 07:08 AM
  3. Ordering A Pizza In 2012
    By purebred in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 09:08 AM
  4. Letter from 2012 in Obama's America
    By David Dunn in forum Politics
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 01:50 PM
Log in
Log in