Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

More fox lols

Recommended Posts

lol........seriously? is this even legal?

 

wouldn't this be defamation or something?

 

Completely legal, just bad news reporting.

 

What's more interesting, in my opinion, is that Ron Paul got less % this time. But that is likely because of the size of the selections.

 

Also, quite frequently, the news caster doesn't even see the video clip, so blame the editor's not the fox guy. There were a *few* boos for Ron Paul, but they were heavily drowned out by the cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ron paul is my dream president.

 

I wish he'd run after obama finishes his second term though.

 

Why wait? Obama has done a terrible job (if you like Ron Paul's fiscal ideas) and is pretty much the dead opposite to Obama, fiscally speaking. If you want Ron Paul, you'd want to get rid of Obama asap, otherwise Ron Paul would have to spend that much more time reversing Obama's fiscal policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is as unelectable as Sarah Palin... unfortunately. Thank the leftstream media for that. However, Fox would favor Palin for some godawful reason while throwing RP (not RuPaul) under the bus.

 

 

It's like a real life twilight zone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is as unelectable as Sarah Palin... unfortunately. Thank the leftstream media for that. However, Fox would favor Palin for some godawful reason while throwing RP (not RuPaul) under the bus.

 

 

It's like a real life twilight zone

 

sarah palin makes for funner news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is as unelectable as Sarah Palin... unfortunately. Thank the leftstream media for that. However, Fox would favor Palin for some godawful reason while throwing RP (not RuPaul) under the bus.

 

 

It's like a real life twilight zone

 

Republican AND Democrat news stations don't want Ron Paul, likely because he'd actually cut into their profit by getting rid of too much bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't value RP's fiscal/social ideas (Seriously, no federal education plan? None?), but I love his foreign policy stance.

 

Funny that Link would support RP even though he's completely against government building a large infrastructure, and getting involved in education.

 

RP's foreign policy ideas pre pretty much perfect. Stop supporting Israel, withdraw troops from Japan/Europe/Yemen, and cut most foreign aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RP is an advocate for America circa 1900, and not much more. As with conq I like his foreign policy stances, but his domestic policies would be terrible. Also I have a hard time trusting someone who named their son after a terrible Russian author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conq and Nate:

 

I think both obama and ron paul have a lot to offer:

 

Obama for instance wants consumer protection, transparency, infrastructure - all important things. The only terrible thing obama did was cut nasa funding (FUUUUU leave nasa alone ><) and maybe make an overly aggressive healthcare plan but otherwise a good president. Of course they are making more cuts to Nasa now: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657704576150291098288406.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

Ron Paul wants fiscal responsibilities and to "get rid of the bullshit" as nate put it.

 

So it's not like one is better or worse I like them both as they both offer things the country needs.

 

I also trust Ron Paul because he seems honest - which is important. (I doubt he'd get rid of public education, maybe reform it)

 

Our education system does need to be reformed. (Just like our healthcare needed to be reformed) I'm not a big fame of the current lack of meritocracy in our educational system and it's ineffectiveness.

 

 

If you guys play civ - you sometimes have to invest in infrastructure for huge late game benefits and you sometimes have to be frugal and save. So ideally obama will build up some nice infrastructure and rp will come in and clean up the fiscal mess the u.s. is becoming.

 

p.s.

 

don't even put ron paul and sarah palin in the same sentence, that dumb bitch should die along with justin bieber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I dunno ><

 

jealousy? he makes shitty music and is popular for it? plus makes money of his shitty music?

 

and it just pains me to see to many young girls liking his shitty music ...

 

and sarah palin = bitch making money of dumbasses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I dunno ><

 

jealousy? he makes shitty music and is popular for it? plus makes money of his shitty music?

 

and it just pains me to see to many young girls liking his shitty music ...

 

and sarah palin = bitch making money of dumbasses

My comment was more based around you using them in the same sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conq and Nate:

 

I think both obama and ron paul have a lot to offer:

 

Obama for instance wants consumer protection, transparency, infrastructure - all important things. The only terrible thing obama did was cut nasa funding (FUUUUU leave nasa alone ><) and maybe make an overly aggressive healthcare plan but otherwise a good president. Of course they are making more cuts to Nasa now: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657704576150291098288406.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

Ron Paul wants fiscal responsibilities and to "get rid of the bullshit" as nate put it.

 

So it's not like one is better or worse I like them both as they both offer things the country needs.

 

I also trust Ron Paul because he seems honest - which is important. (I doubt he'd get rid of public education, maybe reform it)

 

Our education system does need to be reformed. (Just like our healthcare needed to be reformed) I'm not a big fame of the current lack of meritocracy in our educational system and it's ineffectiveness.

 

 

If you guys play civ - you sometimes have to invest in infrastructure for huge late game benefits and you sometimes have to be frugal and save. So ideally obama will build up some nice infrastructure and rp will come in and clean up the fiscal mess the u.s. is becoming.

 

p.s.

 

don't even put ron paul and sarah palin in the same sentence, that dumb bitch should die along with justin bieber.

 

 

If Ron Paul got in, he'd do everything in his power to completely repeal the health care bill. Your confidence in Ron Paul being "good" because he looks honest... I don't know what to say, blind support is a terrible idea.

 

I don't know what you know of Ron Paul and Obama, but I think you should probably read more about the two. Obama has expanded the role of the government the largest in history, easily competing with Reagan.

 

Obama is what is in Ron Paul's nightmares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No politician is advocating for the abolishment of public education; there are some, however, who are advocating for the abolishment of the national department of education.

 

Since money spend on the DoE doesn't actually do anything to educate children, I think it's a reasonable place to cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No politician is advocating for the abolishment of public education; there are some, however, who are advocating for the abolishment of the national department of education.

 

Since money spend on the DoE doesn't actually do anything to educate children, I think it's a reasonable place to cut.

 

I think the biggest thing Ron Paul is advocating is not having to pay tax *and* private school fees. Aka education vouchers. I see a pro and a con to this argument, but mostly I can understand why we want to...

 

A) Encourage private education

B) Keep public education good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, the kids don't need federal dollars to learn. Sink or swim, I say. Scott Walker 2012!

 

You are conflating two different issues. AFAIK, Walker has not advocated abolishing the DOE or removing federal funds from public education. And looking through the rest of the thread, no one else is talking about what is going on in Wisconsin, but just a generalized discussion about government spending and the merits of Ron Paul. So, you're leaking troll juice all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trolling. The hilarious state of Wisconsin at present is unrelated to Paul, other than the fact that tea party people love both Walker and Paul. I have yet to hear an actual reason to de-fund the DoE, other than unspecified federal overstepping on liberties and that kind of inane crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why more people don't love Walker, at least on principle. He's one of the first politicians in recent memory to run on a specific platform, get elected on that platform, and then actually attempt to enact that platform. Sure, you might disagree with that platform, but at least he's had the courage to do what he said he was going to do and represent the people that elected him, versus the entire Democratic State Senate that left the city and refused to represent the people that elected them, even if they were going to lose the vote.

 

So, whether or not you think what he's attempting to do sucks, at least he's doing exactly what he said he would do, even in the face of incredible opposition. Which has been pretty much not-heard-of in politics for a long while. I wish we had more people with that kind of fortitude in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except he's an idiot. Having strength of beliefs and / or convictions doesn't mean he's a good person. Paul would be an excellent example, too. He stands up and martyrs himself all the time, but often for idiotic ideas. Ambition is nothing without the discernment to decide that one's course is worthwhile.

 

Besides, the dude managed to create a 70,000 person rally demanding his recall within a month of his being sworn in, and got elected partially on a platform of refusing federal dollars (which were already allocated by the federal budget, and therefore beyond his control) for a high-speed rail line, claiming he would take it and make it a tax break - which he can't do, because its not his state's money.

 

I think he's an idiot. I don't care how determined he is at being truthful to his idiotic ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's an idiot because you disagree with him. Your credibility in this department is pretty slim. He was elected to do exactly what he's trying to do. And he's doing it. Or attempting to. At least he didn't leave town.

 

I'm not saying I like the guy. I'm just saying I like that he's at least standing on principle, which is far more than mostly any politician I've ever seen. Including the entire Democratic party in that state. I'd rather have someone stand for something I disagree with in the face of opposition than have someone who is supposed to represent me turn tail and run away when they are supposedly so well supported by that same opposition. Sad thing is, those Democrats will probably get re-elected anyway, when they should be thrown out and a group of politicians that will actually stand up for the people in the face of adversity be put into office. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to have some kind of Tea Party-like movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×