Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
Today's Market crash is a good reason to discuss Dr. Paul's
nutty philosophy of sticking to the constitution and saving
your Tax-Money, which indeed is pretty nutty since many
Americans don't care much about their money as long "Front-
runners" promise the blue out of the sky.
While Romney wastes his time on dreaming about spending
your Tax-Money to the Jihadist-threat of the century, pretty
much ignoring terrorism originating in Saudi-Arabia,
McCain babbling about a hundred years being in Iraq if
necessary, pretty much keeping his mouth shut about the
reasons being there,
Huckabee, pretty much keeping his mouth shut about every-
thing about economic solutions and also sticking to the war,
and Obama and Hillary supporting their health-care plans while
not mentioning the costs of their plans - besides not presenting
any solution to the financial problems America faces.
Now even if Dr. Paul was a "second tier dark horse"-Candidate
from the beginning - and he still is called this way for some
very "American democratic" reasons, what would be wrong
with someone who sticks to his view about the world - and
his views about the economic problems?
Now I know that Nuts like Penn Jillette&democratic Howard Stern,
Bill Maher, Barry Goldwater, Jr., Judge Napolitano, David Letterman,
Tucker Carlson, Chuck Baldwin, Jim Cramer, Jack Cafferty and others
speak very positive about Dr. Paul or even endorse him - which makes
them all Nuts in contrast to the wise people in here.
And I also know about Ron Paul flip-flopping on pretty much
all his issues:
And we all know what a racist newsletters he didn't write what
doesn't is relevant at all for anyone who thinks that facts are
just annoying:
So besides changing his mind about the death penalty and the
current extend of the immigration problem, what else could be
held against him, pretty much saying the same things he always
believed in - and voting against every Tax-increase, every
liberty-reducing bill, everything that isn't conform with his
interpretation of the constitution?
I know that many Americans don't give a **** about the
constitution anyway - and probably don't even have any Idea
about what freedom and the declaration of independence was
all about - growing up in the most laughing stock-like democracy
of all.
So? What's your case against him - sum it up as plausible
and factual as possible. And ignore the Trolls who add nothing
but "Meh" to the discussion.
nutty philosophy of sticking to the constitution and saving
your Tax-Money, which indeed is pretty nutty since many
Americans don't care much about their money as long "Front-
runners" promise the blue out of the sky.
While Romney wastes his time on dreaming about spending
your Tax-Money to the Jihadist-threat of the century, pretty
much ignoring terrorism originating in Saudi-Arabia,
McCain babbling about a hundred years being in Iraq if
necessary, pretty much keeping his mouth shut about the
reasons being there,
Huckabee, pretty much keeping his mouth shut about every-
thing about economic solutions and also sticking to the war,
and Obama and Hillary supporting their health-care plans while
not mentioning the costs of their plans - besides not presenting
any solution to the financial problems America faces.
Now even if Dr. Paul was a "second tier dark horse"-Candidate
from the beginning - and he still is called this way for some
very "American democratic" reasons, what would be wrong
with someone who sticks to his view about the world - and
his views about the economic problems?
Now I know that Nuts like Penn Jillette&democratic Howard Stern,
Bill Maher,
Barry Goldwater, Jr., Judge Napolitano, David Letterman,Tucker Carlson,
Chuck Baldwin, Jim Cramer, Jack Cafferty and others speak very positive about Dr. Paul or even endorse him - which makes
them all Nuts in contrast to the wise people in here.
And I also know about Ron Paul flip-flopping on pretty much
all his issues:
And we all know what a racist newsletters he didn't write what
doesn't is relevant at all for anyone who thinks that facts are
just annoying:
So besides changing his mind about the death penalty and the
current extend of the immigration problem, what else could be
held against him, pretty much saying the same things he always
believed in - and voting against every Tax-increase, every
liberty-reducing bill, everything that isn't conform with his
interpretation of the constitution?
I know that many Americans don't give a **** about the
constitution anyway - and probably don't even have any Idea
about what freedom and the declaration of independence was
all about - growing up in the most laughing stock-like democracy
of all.
So? What's your case against him - sum it up as plausible
and factual as possible. And ignore the Trolls who add nothing
but "Meh" to the discussion.
