You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
You don't really get to see it in this video, but Rick Santorum makes the nastiest face to Ron Paul as he's justifying the real reason to why America was attacked. It's scary to think that so many American's still believe they were attacked because of their values
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,648
Thanked 10,380 Times in 3,906 Posts
i missed the part of the debate where he got some boos
but i read an article going 'OMG RON PAUL GOT BOOED OUT OF THE DEBATES PPL HATE HIM HAHAHA' and i was like "oh no really?"
then i watched the debate today and i was like not a lot of ppl booed and they booed before he explained himself
anyway as has been said before whenever we bring up Ron Paul this time around im shocked @ how the Impartial Media has joined forces in blacklisting him
Ron Paul can get a gallon of gas for a dime.
a silver dime.
The guy's an idiot.
America has always had its fundamentals in the market economy. Seeing as how previously currency was decided by the faith people had in each nation's economy, why not offer an alternative market-based resource standard?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Does it look like it ain't broke to you? The guy is not an idiot, the stuff that he says is actually very well thought out and interesting. He is a Republican only because what he says fits mostly into what they say they stand for. If Ron Paul were running here, I would vote for him.
America has always had its fundamentals in the market economy. Seeing as how previously currency was decided by the faith people had in each nation's economy, why not offer an alternative market-based resource standard?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Does it look like it ain't broke to you? The guy is not an idiot, the stuff that he says is actually very well thought out and interesting. He is a Republican only because what he says fits mostly into what they say they stand for. If Ron Paul were running here, I would vote for him.
And you would lose your health care and if you had a a pre existing health condition you would be screwed. One of Ron Pauls good friend and a person that worked for him died of cancer leaving behind a 400k medical bill because he could not get health insurance because of a pre existing medical condition.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,648
Thanked 10,380 Times in 3,906 Posts
^^ yes fireworks are on the same level of importance as guns and abortion etc etc and the state government is filled with morons so they can't make proper decisions lol
the "amazing" atheist is good for entertainment but that's as far as it goes
^^ yes fireworks are on the same level of importance as guns and abortion etc etc and the state government is filled with morons so they can't make proper decisions lol
the "amazing" atheist is good for entertainment but that's as far as it goes
And fireworks laws are stupid in BC because it's left up to the city. In Nanaimo Fireworks are banned but 5 to 10 minutes outside of the city people can sell them on the side of the road. People bring them back and use them in town. The police and fire department don't have the man power to deal with it.
American states are full of morons. Look at George Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Body Jesse Ventura all elected state Governor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guardian
Mississippi voters will be allowed to vote on an initiative that seeks to reverse abortion rights by redefining the term "person" to apply at the moment of conception.
The state's supreme court refused to block the amendment, which will now appear on the general election ballot on 8 November. A majority of the justices said they could not rule on whether measures were constitutional until voters of the legislature had had a chance to pass them.
Civil rights campaigners criticised the court ruling and described the measure as "harmful to women".
Nsombi Lambright, executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi said: "We're disappointed with the ruling. A measure will be on the ballot that will allow the government to dictate what is a private matter that's best decided by a woman and her family, within the context of her faith. Mississippi voters should reject this intrusive and dangerous measure."
Bear Atwood, legal director of the ACLU of Mississippi, said: "This initiative is extreme and could severely undermine women's access to birth control, in vitro fertilization and life-saving medical procedures."
Measure 26 seeks to alter the term person or persons to include "every human being from the moment of fertilisation, cloning or functional equivalent thereof".
It is part of a swing across conservative states, particularly in the south, towards legislating for life to begin at conception, thus undermining piecemeal Roe V Wade, the landmark US supreme court ruling that set out the right to abortion.
The initiative was challenged by a Mississippi citizen because it failed to comply with the state's official ballot initiative process which forbids making modifications to the Bill of Rights.
Cristen Hemmins, the plaintiff, said: "As a lifelong Mississippian, I am disappointed that this broad and intrusive measure has been allowed on the ballot. I call on all voters to vote 'no' on #26. The government should not be interfering with the personal and private health care decisions of Mississippi families."
But anti-abortion groups such as the American Family Association and Pro-Life Mississippi welcomed the judge's decision.
"Today we rejoice and celebrate this hard-won victory, but tomorrow we roll up our sleeves and return to work," Stephen Crampton, the attorney for the proponents told the Associated Press. "Our opponents are discouraged, but not yet ultimately defeated. They will be back, spreading fear, confusion, and dire 'sky-is-falling' warnings about this simple Amendment, and we must be ready to rebut their baseless charges and set the record straight."
The ruling follows that three months ago, when Rennie Gibbs, of Mississippi, because the first woman to be charged with murder following the stillbirth of her baby. Across the US, more and more prosecutions are being brought that seek to turn pregnant women into criminals.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
I think I posted this here already, or at least on my Facebook. But the thing I like about Ron Paul is that even though we disagree on some things (he is religious and anti-abortion), he does the right thing by letting THE CONSTITUTION rule the law. States are able to have their own laws, so if you don't like the laws where you live, you are free to pack up and move to a state better suited to your values. For instance, he is against the outright banning of things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc. Even though his church tells him it's wrong, he has a line of thinking that is more like mine - if it doesn't negatively affect other people, why should it be against the law?
I read through his platform on Wikipedia, and he absolutely seems like the right choice to run the US. I hope he is able to use teh intarnets to gather a lot of support, because old school media isn't going to be on his side.
I think I posted this here already, or at least on my Facebook. But the thing I like about Ron Paul is that even though we disagree on some things (he is religious and anti-abortion), he does the right thing by letting THE CONSTITUTION rule the law. States are able to have their own laws, so if you don't like the laws where you live, you are free to pack up and move to a state better suited to your values. For instance, he is against the outright banning of things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc. Even though his church tells him it's wrong, he has a line of thinking that is more like mine - if it doesn't negatively affect other people, why should it be against the law?
I read through his platform on Wikipedia, and he absolutely seems like the right choice to run the US. I hope he is able to use teh intarnets to gather a lot of support, because old school media isn't going to be on his side.
Have you not heard of the Ron Paul army. Say anything bad about him and they will attack.
International organizations
Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.[263]
Voting Rights Act
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[262] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[263] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[264] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[264] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, New York.[265]
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
Obama will pull it off. Republican field is weak and even though Obama's job approval is just under 50%, he's still a very likeable guy which is always important when running for President. Factor in his jobs bill which for his sake better create jobs and I think he has a good chance of getting re-elected.
Edit:
On the topic of Republicans....have you guys watched any of the debates? No candidate has wow'd me, it's like a circus show with a bunch of clowns that will say the most ludicrous thing just to get their poll numbers higher for the primary but out of all the clown it's basically down to Perry vs. Romney. Perry is prefect for the tea party crowd but he will never win the general election because his views on climate change, entitlement programs and immigration are way too out there for most independent voters. And Mitt isn't "conservative" enough for most Republicans to support him but I think in a general election he would do better with independent voters compared to Obama and I think Mitt would give Obama a run for his money.
Overall though, the Republican field is weak because most are waiting to get in for 2016 but I will say that out of all the candidates I don't really mind Huntsman. He's a pretty intelligent guy who's pretty liberal on social issues, he's dealt with the Chinese and has a grasp on dealing with foreign issues but I don't see him going far under the Republican party banner.
Last edited by Harvey Specter; 09-15-2011 at 03:28 AM.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,648
Thanked 10,380 Times in 3,906 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
Spoiler!
Have you not heard of the Ron Paul army. Say anything bad about him and they will attack.
International organizations
Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.[263]
Voting Rights Act
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[262] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[263] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[264] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[264] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, New York.[265]
there was nothing wrong with Pauls reasoning in anything you posted there.
I don't agree with Ron Paul's specific reasoning in all cases, but as a general rule I like his attitude and stance. He's one of the few people who will fight to the death for his opinion, and will give it whenever he's asked; BUT when things go against him, he doesn't keep bitching and whining about how he could have made it better and how wrong it is that it's gone that way. He sucks it up, says "that's the law we chose and that's the law we get. If things change in the future, let's see how it goes." He is at times the most extreme and also the most reasonable and moderate.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
not a lot of ppl booed and they booed before he explained himself 
