No, I do not watch Fox News. Why does everyone think that I am here advocating the republican party?

__________________________________

<The Original BeastMastery Hunter>

I don't have the time tonight. Can you honestly not see it?

Edit: I'll throw in 1 quick example of each:

Biased: "alarming words like 'socialism'" - Socialism is not necessarily an alarming word unless you are already scared of it. The way he describes it is entirely and OBVIOUSLY biased. In fact, he admits it: "I am clearly an opponent of socialism, so certainly my version of the truth is going to be biased." Although he says this with a sarcastic tone, it is true nonetheless.

Skewed: "the terrors of socialism; it is a flawed and failed system that bases itself upon the restrictions of freedoms of the individual" Denmark is HIGHLY socialist has been measured as being the "happiest nation on earth", not to mention its incredible economic performance relative to 95%+ of the world. To make a blanket statement that socialism is a failed system is OBVIOSULY skewed if not flat out wrong. (See also his quote, "It is also, and has been everywhere it has been tried, an abject failure." Which as stated above is just plain uninformed and wrong.)

Poorly Formed Argument: "Lest you think that no one you know supports such a shift in America, I again ask that you check your ignorance at the door." Argumentum Ad Hominem - an informal logic fallacy. Also: "Socialism is ultimately the precursor to communism." Not only is this not true, as explained in earlier posts, but even if one case was demonstrated properly it would still be Hasty Generalization - another fallacy. Add in the other counts of Ad Populum, Ad Novitatem, Ad Misericordiam, Strawman, and other generally non sequiter arguments.

And those examples were just from the first four paragraphs of ONE of the articles.

Skewed ,biased, and in many cases poorly formed arguments of some random guy vs. the calm collected thoughts of arguably the greatest minds produced by the human race over the last several decades. I can't decide which one carries more weight with me.

I feel like jesse jackson preaching at a KKK meeting posting my oppinions here LoL. (not implying that you guys are racist; merely that our views are vastly different.) but here are some things I found today that I thought were interesting.
  http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/robsoapbox.html
http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/bushnixonobamacarter.html

__________________________________

<The Original BeastMastery Hunter>

Fair enough.  As far as the government goes, if the Federal government was much smaller, we would need far less tax dollars to support it.  The Federal Government was created with the intention of keeping the states united; not to lord over them as some kind of "Big Brother."  America should not have to fear its government.

__________________________________

<The Original BeastMastery Hunter>

(No sarcasm intended) Are there any other amendments that directly contradict the words of the constitution?  I was under the impression that amendments were to adapt the constitution to changing times, not contradict its very meaning.  Otherwise could we not just put in an amendment to take away our freedom of speech or any other freedoms?

__________________________________

<The Original BeastMastery Hunter>

The specific purpose of an AMENDMENT to the constitution is to AMEND the  constitution. Hence, the tax language in Amendment 16 overrules that found in Article 1.

Amend:

1.
to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure: Congress may amend the proposed tax bill.

2.
to change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways.

3.
to remove or correct faults in; rectify.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Oh, no, you're right.  It's perfectly OK to spit in the face of ARTICLE 1 of the constitution.

__________________________________

<The Original BeastMastery Hunter>

Have you ever gone to purchase a high-value item, and the salesman seems to have too quick of an answer to everything?  And all the answers seem to fit so perfectly with what you thought you wanted to hear that you just knew there had to be a catch?  Well, Ron Paul is that salesman, he has studied enough to know what the impressionable, easily convinced demographics of America want to hear.

Here's the catch:  He probably would not be able to implement most of his proposals due to the checks and balances in the constitution (THANK GOODNESS).  Even if he did manage to do so with his Economic policies, you wouldn't actually want him to.  They are effectively the stone age of economics and would probably, if fully implemented, root us and most of the world into a horrendous depression the likes of which we haven't seen even a fraction of for the better part of a century.

That does not change the fact that if "no one carries" the only people who will own firearms are the criminals.

__________________________________

<The Original BeastMastery Hunter>

__________________________________

<The Original BeastMastery Hunter>

Amazing video Ewiges.

I'd vote for him.. he should have been the Rep. Candidate.

But, my vote is going for Obama. 

I -hope- it works out for all of us in the end. 

I probably know the worst of everything. 

I am in a wheelchair, I get Social Security, Our household only makes about 26k a year, I only have medicaide, I don't have a job, but am trying to get one, etc.  

So I really need to hope for change.  

I need it.  

Oh I've seen it.  And other Ron Paul propoganda.  As I said, I'd just like to see a list of specific policies and ideas from Ron Paul that are "exactly what I want from a politician."