Really? Are you serious? Ron Paul's policy would allow the rich to get richer while fucking over everyone else... Take off the blinders... Look at how humanity actually seeks to destroy itself, only look out for themselves, fucks over everyone they can in order to get to the top.. Then have a good look at what his policies would do, how they would free up humanity to do exactly that.

It's called freedom to live your life how you want. Laws are necessary to protect people from being hurt by others, laws which we already have in place. It is illegal to steal from someone, to hurt someone, etc.

You're against people getting rich? lol

That is part of what makes America great. Ever heard of "rags to riches?"

Trump is NEVER RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Yes, you have been bamboozled again. There is far too much disclosure involved for him to run. :2 cents:

Why do you speak in such absolutes? I used the word "might" run as an independent because he has said so, I'm just going off what he said.

But I guess your magic crystal ball told you he is NEVER RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. lol

Can I have the mega millions numbers for tonight while you're at it?

It's called anarchy and chaos... I'm against the "rich" setting things up so no one else can get rich and that's exactly what's happening now and Ron Paul will make worse. I'm for a fair playing field with balanced regulations and laws that allow for "anyone" to make it.

Doesn't matter though.. When the "Elite" decided to move the US from a manufacturing economy to a services and financial economy a couple decades ago, the die was cast and the US will continue it's slide to a 3rd world economy because no one, not Ron Paul or anyone else can or will fix things.

Anarchy?

Either you know nothing about Ron Paul's philosophy or you don't know what anarchy means. lol

I'm glad you said philosophy as that's exactly what it is.. pie in the sky theory that doesn't take into account the realities of humanity, the dog eat dog mentality.. Oh sure he has some things that make sense but for the most part, he would create a country that is more divisive than it is now.

He is never running and you are suggesting anarchy.

Where am I suggesting anarchy? Even a few posts back I explained how we have laws in place to protect people from things like theft and injury. How can you have laws in a system of anarchy? I seriously don't think you guys understand what anarchy is. Anarchy would mean that we wouldn't even follow our constitution. lol

an·ar·chy [an-er-kee]
noun
1. a state of society without government or law.

lol, that has nothing to do with Ron Paul's constitutional view of how government is supposed to work.

"It's called freedom to live your life how you want." = Anarchy

That is obviously a vague statement...

We have LAWS when it comes to important things.

You should be allowed to live your life how you want AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HURT OTHERS OR INFRINGE ON THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE HOW THEY WANT. Get it? It's a pretty simple concept, one which is not "anarchy."

I bet you think it's okay for the federal government to tell you which substances you are allowed to put inside of your own body don't you? Nothing to worry about, the government will protect you from yourself!

So, do what you want to do only applies to drugs. I get it now. You don't seem to understand that if you get to do what you want to do, I get to do what I want to do and if you do not like it, there is not a lot you can do about it.

"Be careful of what you wish for" comes to mind.

The fundamental problem with Ron Paul's view of the constitution is that it's a flawed document meant for a different time. A time when every state was like it's own country and so "states rights" made more sense.. A time when getting the states into a union would have been a balancing act meant to make them comfortable with joining and so give them more rights and less to the federal government. The US is not a loose union of states anymore.. It's economy and interests are one and in a global world, it's even more critical that everyone work together for the benefit of the entire country. Ron Paul's stance is to abdicate his responsibility one "one country" and kick the can for so many policies to the states which would lead to an even greater disparity between them than there is now.

It doesn't "only" apply to drugs, that just happens to be the one example that I gave you.

And why would I not like you being able to do what you want as long as you're not hurting me or infringing on my rights?

I completely disagree that the constitution is a "flawed document" and is "meant for a different time."

Things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right to bear arms to protect yourself from tyranny and enslavement, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, etc, are timeless. These are rights that everyone should have regardless if it's 1776 or 2389.

It also lays out what I believe to be a great form of government, which has to do with CHECKS AND BALANCES. The constitution is why we have three branches of government.

Can you give me an example how a person doing that does not effect anyone else in some detrimental way or another? People stuff themselves with crap food, blow up in weight, which causes health issues, which causes a ripple effect thru society. It would be nice if everyone acted responsibly but it's never going to happen. Unless you live in a bubble, what you do with your "freedom" has an effect on others in the society that the government is supposed to protect.

If you actually think that government should get involved with every aspect of people's lives and tell them how to live, then you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum and could argue for days. We should just agree to disagree.

I did not say that the entire constitution is flawed. I agree with Ron Paul's policies on freedoms from "tyranny" etc. But Ron Paul is a strict constructionist and that's where I have a problem with him because it's not in the best interest in the country as a whole.

Freedom comes with costs in one form or another and if you want those freedoms then you and everyone else has to be prepared to pay for them... You have to look around you and ask yourself what your neighbors would do with those freedoms, how what they do will effect you and whether you're willing to pay the price. A price in money, lives and the degeneration of the society you're a part of.

Let me reiterate BD's point. Donald Trump will never run.

I think you have the constitution and the bill of rights confused. Unless i'm drunk.

Wtf?

The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments in the constitution.

:error

Turns out i am drunk. Mea culpa.

Just in case no one has noticed, these numbers change daily. Numbers go up, numbers go down. And when someone's favorite candidate goes up, they feel the need to beat the drums as loud as they can.

It's really comical.

While I agree no poll is the final word and is a snapshot in time from a select representative of people, he is still the candidate polling the best in Iowa in several polls or is tied, and at worst a close second so him being the front runner/and or a leading candidate is within the parameters of the +/- and as for needing to beat the drums, I dont feel any need to beat any drum, I simply dont like idiots (not you) saying that bs that "he cant win"- it's simply not true and I am merely pointing out the fact that it's a lie and a tactic to discredit him and dissuade people from considering him when the evidence clearly shows otherwise, that's all.

Especially considering Ron Paul can't win.

that looks like it hurts

Nah, they don't even feel a thing...

unfortunately, I think you are right, their brains are so numbed they cant distinguish reality from manufactured consent-

hmmm, the gallup poll of 8 hours ago doesn't show any sort of paul "surge"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Certainly you are aware that there are more pollsters than just Gallup.

Yup. Please show me a national poll where Paul is anywhere near the top

Those numbers aren't too bad. Now, if Ron Paul can carry SC, he'd be unstoppable.

Bachmann ahead of Huntsman is just fucking sad, and a great sign of how stupid most Americans really are. Huntsman, who may not be the most "CHARASMATIC" candidate, is about 100 IQ points more intelligent than Michele.

Pretty much!:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:thumbsup:thumbsup