Republican Party candidate?

[mantas]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1334417182.394374.jpg

Sorry guys tapatalk is tripping out

[TougeSR20Kid]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

The government providing services to you is socialism. Roads, schools, water treatment, mail, dams, medicare, social security, national parks/forests/monuments, arts and sciences grants, etc. Clearly there are varying degrees of socialism from bare bones all the way to communism. As such stating that socialism is inherently bad is just wrong.

Dude like 90% of the stuff u mentioned weren't offered up until the 20th century. For example ever wonder why they're called "free"ways. Cus u use to have to pay for em. National parks weren't initiated as government protected land till late 1800s early 1900s. Medicare is also recent and social security was started in the 1950s I believe... Again I'm not trying to attack rather inform. A lot of the socialist institutions we have today have been enacted within the 100 or so years

[TougeSR20Kid]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

I would disagree with a needing a three party system. We need an open system. All comers run in a primary. The top 5 or so run in the main election. Fuck the electoral college. One voter, one vote.

Oh I completely agree with this 100% but I think itd be hard to change It to this at least for some time 3party offers temp "mid ground" if you will

[lewisfk]

This shit is funny, being a person born a raised in Texas I know a lot about R. Paul. The guy has some great qualities but he screws it up with his Civil Rights Views and his trickle down economics. R.P. comes from the long line of Texas billionaires who use their money to push there views on everybody. He is not as dumb as Rick Perry, so you R. Paul fans have something to cheer for.

[jamg]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

I think RP would murder them both in open debates but that requires OPEN debates. He would show that in actuality Obama and Romney are on the same side of issues they shouldn't be.

there's no thinking, Paul would DESTROY both of them in debates. Paul is also a great speaker, but he needs to dumb down his words for the general public to understand.

Originally Posted by lewisfk

This shit is funny, being a person born a raised in Texas I know a lot about R. Paul. The guy has some great qualities but he screws it up with his Civil Rights Views and his trickle down economics. R.P. comes from the long line of Texas billionaires who use their money to push there views on everybody. He is not as dumb as Rick Perry, so you R. Paul fans have something to cheer for.

lol billionaires? do you have a source? he's only found to have a net worth of around 3 million dollars. Ron isn't a billionaire.

compare the house that he lives in with the other candidates.

also, compare where he gets his campaign donations from other candidates.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by TougeSR20Kid

Dude like 90% of the stuff u mentioned weren't offered up until the 20th century. For example ever wonder why they're called "free"ways. Cus u use to have to pay for em. National parks weren't initiated as government protected land till late 1800s early 1900s. Medicare is also recent and social security was started in the 1950s I believe... Again I'm not trying to attack rather inform. A lot of the socialist institutions we have today have been enacted within the 100 or so years

Freeways are called freeways because there are no stops.

National parks were formed to stop BLM from cutting down all the trees and killing all the wild life.





Clearly in 1790 there weren't many services to be rendered but as society advances so does government.

[Walperstyle]

Fix the world guys, keep on posting.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by TougeSR20Kid

Oh I completely agree with this 100% but I think itd be hard to change It to this at least for some time 3party offers temp "mid ground" if you will

Third parties have always been disastrous in America. They only serve to divide one party or the other. We need an army of independent representatives that serve the best interests of those they represent. Tow the constituency line not a party line.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by Walperstyle

Fix the world guys, keep on posting.

[lewisfk]

^^ Your correct his net worth is around 3 million! He has been known to have well pass that! He is an oil tycoon(1970's-80's). That is not counting his wealth overseas! Do u think an independent like himself before the citizens united case can fund his on Presidential Companies with just a net work of 3 mill. He has the same problem as Romney if they half to disclose there overseas accounts. The American people would be pissed, how can u have millions in unpaid taxes in a foreign country and run for President!

[kingkilburn]

Who gets to tax the foreign held money? Why does the US get claim to it and not the country it's in? If the country it's held in IS taxing it why should they be double taxed?


I'm not disagreeing with you but people rarely have answers for these questions.

[TougeSR20Kid]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Freeways are called freeways because there are no stops.

National parks were formed to stop BLM from cutting down all the trees and killing all the wild life.





Clearly in 1790 there weren't many services to be rendered but as society advances so does government.

No, controlled access highways, which originated on the east coast as a faster means of transit over long distances, are what became freeways in the latter part of the 20th they originated around the time o the automotive boom and u use to have to pay a toll to use them, then once they became so heavily used the gov stepped in and made them free to the public, hence freeways... I'm sorry but where do you get this shit, because there are no stops? No that's just incorrect sir.

As far as state parks the first was Yellowstone in the 1870s and the only and wasnt fully recognized by the federal government until the 1910s when Woodrow Wilson proposed a law that made a little less than 400 separate areas of land (Yellowstone included) federally sanctioned and protected national parks. The BLM or bureau of land management wasn't formed until 1946... Fail

[kingkilburn]

BLM was a consolidation of cabinets into one organization.

Where do you get your shit?

[kingkilburn]

A controlled-access highway provides an unhindered flow of traffic, with no traffic signals, intersections or property access. They are free of any at-grade crossings with other roads, railways, or pedestrian paths, which are instead carried by overpasses and underpasses across the highway.

Eat it.

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the War of Independence.
...

In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior.

Eat it some more.

[lewisfk]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Who gets to tax the foreign held money? Why does the US get claim to it and not the country it's in? If the country it's held in IS taxing it why should they be double taxed?


I'm not disagreeing with you but people rarely have answers for these questions.

If the money is made in a foreign country than it should be taxed by that country and allowed to come over. Their problem is that its American made money sent overseas to mature and not be taxed. Romney says he lives on the income made by public speeches and revenue made from prev. stocks. The problem is the money he made with Bain and other companies were sent overseas and was never taxed. Not all his money along with Paul is overseas, but enough for them to want to hide it is.

[kingkilburn]

I fail to see the problem. If it was made here the government knows about it. If it was transferred out of country they know about that too.

What I see is a system with tax rates too low and bs definitions of income. I don't care if you busted rocks or made investments, income is income.

[kingkilburn]

Maybe they should stop taxation all together and make bonds a worth while investment. The rich would be lining up from all over the world for that.

[jamg]

Originally Posted by lewisfk

^^ Your correct his net worth is around 3 million! He has been known to have well pass that! He is an oil tycoon(1970's-80's). That is not counting his wealth overseas! Do u think an independent like himself before the citizens united case can fund his on Presidential Companies with just a net work of 3 mill. He has the same problem as Romney if they half to disclose there overseas accounts. The American people would be pissed, how can u have millions in unpaid taxes in a foreign country and run for President!

Wealth oversea is unheard of. You still need to report it in your taxes. He funds his campaing front ONLY donations given by the American people. If you have followed some of his money bombs, you will see that he has raised over a million dollars everytime he has one.

Your accusations need to be backed up with sources. They seem to be big enough to ruin his campaign yet not one person has been able to find the dirt except for you.

He's one of the few non corrupt politicians in office.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by lewisfk

This shit is funny, being a person born a raised in Texas I know a lot about R. Paul. The guy has some great qualities but he screws it up with his Civil Rights Views and his trickle down economics. R.P. comes from the long line of Texas billionaires who use their money to push there views on everybody. He is not as dumb as Rick Perry, so you R. Paul fans have something to cheer for.

I see what you did there.


This "king" guy is such a fool. Haha. Liberals are fantastic at turning arguments around, especially when an intelligent answer actually pops-up (my first comment).

In before narcissist.

[kingkilburn]

Still not a liberal.
Sling some more mud.
Stick some more labels.

Change the subject again.

[mantas]

Originally Posted by Origin

I see what you did there.


This "king" guy is such a fool. Haha. Liberals are fantastic at turning arguments around, especially when an intelligent answer actually pops-up (my first comment).

In before narcissist.

Thats the fastest way to spot a liberal - they shift the conversation to something else. Haha. Never answers the questions but comes up with new questions or statements.....what does this remind me of????? Hmmmm....oh yeah!!! A typical politician.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

I would disagree with a needing a three party system. We need an open system. All comers run in a primary. The top 5 or so run in the main election. Fuck the electoral college. One voter, one vote.

Yes, because that would not be fucking retarded.

So essentially the only voting blocks that would then matter are Texas, California, New York, Florida and fuck the rest of the country?

Top Five run... ok, so assuming they are all viable, does that mean the winner wins with 21% of the Vote?

People fucking shit bricks at Bush 47.9% (50,456,002) vs Gore 48.4% (50,999,897), I'm sure they would fucking LOVE... President Kanye West with 22% (20,000.000).

This why other countries constantly have votes of no-confidence and "government collapses" because of a multi-party system. All it take is for the other 4 parties to gang up and say "Fuck him and his stupid shit" and now you have a congress with only a 20% majority and it needs to buy votes from the other 4-30 parties.

Either nothing ever gets done, or they all eventually boil down to into 2 parties.

[kingkilburn]

Why should South Carolina matter so heavily compared to California and Texas? Where does every one live? California is massively under represented in the federal government.

The primaries are setup to force you to pick sides in their game. They give you the candidates they want(this year is for from ordinary) and you pick from the party's approved choices.



It would be great if the republican party would splinter and tell the neocons and tea party to take a hike. Most of them seem far more reasonable and willing to compromise with the centrist democratic party of today.

[TougeSR20Kid]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Eat it.



Eat it some more.

Ughhh man this is seriously the most retarded argument, you arent even supporting ur original argument just finding what you believe to be flaws in my EXAMPLES...

But if you really wanna play that game You did say that nat parks were enacted To stop the BLM from cutting down trees and killin wildlife... BLM didn't exist when when nat parks were enacted, not to mention do you even know what the BLM does lol, they don't chop down trees or kill wildlife guy.

Whatever I was wrong about where the term freeway came from, at least I can admit when I'm wrong, but that still doesn't change the fact that government funded roads hardly existed up until the last hundred years. Most of the roads that existed before them were built to serve the needs of the government thusly not a social institution. And if they didn't serve the needs of the govnmt they didn't spend money on building it for the general public most ppl had to build their own roads much of how it still is today in rural enough areas.

Fact of the matter is those institutions were not available till the 1900s as a matter of fact none of those examples you gave of socialist institutions have been around for more than 100 or so years except for the mail and maybe the grants cus I don't know for sure but either way ur original statement of socialist from birth is still not supported.

Plus it can be argued that the mail is still not socialist institution because you have to pay to use it although now a days part of the cost is subsidized by the government making it somewhat of a socialist institution.

[lewisfk]

Originally Posted by jamg

Wealth oversea is unheard of. You still need to report it in your taxes. He funds his campaing front ONLY donations given by the American people. If you have followed some of his money bombs, you will see that he has raised over a million dollars everytime he has one.

Your accusations need to be backed up with sources. They seem to be big enough to ruin his campaign yet not one person has serien able to find the dirt except for you.

He's one of the few non corrupt politicians in office.

So why hasnt he released all of his Tax returns? Not just last years but the last ten or so. Maybe yet he can follow his dads path and release 15 plus, but i seriouslyt doubt it! His past years taxes were change multiple times before they were released, one year of taxes released while runing for president that shows nothing!

[jamg]

Originally Posted by lewisfk

So why hasnt he released all of his Tax returns? Not just last years but the last ten or so. Maybe yet he can follow his dads path and release 15 plus, but i seriouslyt doubt it! His past years taxes were change multiple times before they were released, one year of taxes released while runing for president that shows nothing!

he has said in numerous debates that he would show them to the public with no question.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Still not a liberal.
Sling some more mud.
Stick some more labels.

Change the subject again.

Change the argument? YOUR changing the argument. I'm trying to find something you won't bitch about. If you weren't a liberal you wouldn't be sticking up for them.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by Origin

While it is easy to believe what you see in front of you, I was once told to "believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see". (You believe the segment before the comma)

The U.S. constitution is set in place so that the U.S. never gets a Hitler of it's own. It has been documented that Obama has indeed ignored this doctrine for the governing of the country. Some examples, trying to force citizens to buy health care (no official can force anything), bypassing Congress about implicating sorties over near Egypt and what not, amongst other things we do not know about.


...what else can they mandate? Anything with enough time. They can make you not drive gas driven cars anymore because it hurts the ozone, or not use the phone during certain hours because it uses to much energy and pollutes more. Seemingly innocent ideas but covertly government control.

It seems to me, as the one that speaks alone and ridiculed is the one that is correct. Why? Because they can see the truth through the lies.

Of course anyone who says "he's trying to take the country over" will sound like a fool and anyone with him as well.

Obama recently welcomed leaders of the Egyptian Brotherhood into the White House which you didn't hear on ABC.

The facts are all "there" and here a like. All you have to do is see them for what they are.

I am lead by what is right after painstakingly long deliberation. And this is not right.

You are proving everything I'm saying. Now how will you turn this argument around? You see, because liberals are like Atheists 99% of them have no argument to be made and try and find false common sense to get their point across. All you are saying is, "No it's not MAN THAT AIN'T TRUE! YOU ARE GIVING ME A LABEL I LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY WHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVEN WHEN IT'S TRUE! YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE I say so."

I am arguing what is really happening and you can't just see that. It doesn't take a psychic to be able "see" what's going on here. I gave you all the facts in my first post. They are not false. They can not be proven false. Liberal arguments are false and can not prove truth to be such. Liberals argue lies and I am simply arguing the truth here. The truth can not be made into a lie. Which is what you are trying to do by saying, "YOU'RE WRONG MAN".

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

It would be great if the republican party would splinter and tell the neocons and tea party to take a hike. Most of them seem far more reasonable and willing to compromise with the centrist democratic party of today.

Yes, Democrats are centralists. * sarcasm*

57% of America are against Gay Marriage

Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

66% of America Disapproves of Obama.

Obama Averages 44% Approval in 3rd Year

67% of Americans are concerned about illegal immigration.
Americans' Immigration Concerns Linger


Most Americans describe themselves as Conservative.
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by Origin

Change the argument? YOUR changing the argument. I'm trying to find something you won't bitch about. If you weren't a liberal you wouldn't be sticking up for them.

Its funny how they never describe themselves as "liberals".

I can only imagine what he would describe himself as - Independent? Well thats not an ideology. Progressive? That is just another word for Liberal.