While I loathe the average ronbot, I picture Ron Paul as being more of a goofy sitcom fuck-up character, something on the level of That's My Bush. "What?? My Supreme Court appointment is a former KKK grand wizard?! Oh jeez I'm really gonna get it now!"

He combines the competence of Mr. Magoo with the ideology of Mr. Bean.

He's actually fairly intelligent, which makes him a lot scarier.

also, i'm guessing her beast needs a little warming up, and i think i should be the one to do it.

+2 for this comment alone.

Yeah, I was kind of pulling for the beast there at the end. Fuck this lady.

VOTE BEAST 2008! ONLY HE CAN DEFEAT RON PAUL!

He's certainly a better prospect than the Smil- OH GOD, NECKBEARD SO THICK (& LUXURIANT)

Not that I agree with all of her characterizations, but we had civilization when we didn't have a standing army and we did have a smaller government.

We had a smaller government because we had a smaller country, dingus. We've had a standing army since 1794. Things have changed a bit since then.

We had a smaller government because the government didn't involve itself in the economy as much as it has since FDR. We have a standing army because we are an empire and the last 7 years have proved that that is poison to the republic.

Not to mention all I was saying was that civilization doesn't require the current construct to survive. I know it means something else now, but I'm turned off by the origin of the term which came from Europeans' desire to differentiate themselves from all the colored people they were conquering in the 19th century.

Roachbud, those things you said were not historically accurate.

All civilization requires is a couple bouncers at the door and some free party hats for everybody. Also, no health care.

hahaha you like ron paul

It's more complicated than that. I'm a moderate libertarian, and generally agree that a smaller government and more freedom is a good thing. My general inclination is to vote for a democrat in the next election, since the republicans have spent the last seven years moving the country in a direction I don't care for. However, if the democrats choose a candidate I really don't like (like Clinton) then I'll either choose the republican candidate (provided they're only a little insane), or take Ron Paul if he chooses to go third party.

And corporations will take care off all our health care needs...it...it really is a fairy tale come true!

It may or may not be necessary for the government to deal with the rising cost of modern health care. If it turns out that it is necessary, I'd like the support to remain as minimal as possible, so that we're not burdened with the hospital bills of people who set themselves on fire while wearing banana suits, or wrestling renactors who jump off of rooftops.

Or gun owners who shoot their own kids coming home late, or people who don't look both ways, or fatties, or smokers, or drinkers, or drug addicts, or men over 50 who can't get it up anymore. Hell, only perfect people who never do anything stupid should get healthcare, the other 100% of the population can go fuck themselves.

What exactly do you mean when you say "more freedom"? What freedoms are you being denied? What CAN'T you do that you really wanna?

>>>It's more complicated than that. I'm a moderate libertarian, and generally agree that a smaller government and more freedom is a good thing.

Interesting because personally I support unnecessarily large government and less freedom

libertarians are such dork morons

Libertarians are people who want to be exactly like their dads except also smoke pot.

This is part of the reason why you guys lost the last presidential election. The general reaction of a lot of democrats to someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal is to engage in insults instead of seeking common ground or engaging in rational discussion. It doesn't bother me on a personal level, but I would like to point out that, as far as everyday conversation goes, the republicans are a lot better at not alienating people who could potentially vote for their candidate.

sounds to me that you should just vote republican like every other "fiscal liberal social conservative" mealy-mouthed antisocial nerd eventually does and save us the fucking drama

Mr Robinson- what if I want to be exactly like my dad, only without the pot?

Baldr - If you are looking for a reasoned discussion of moderate libertarianism, there are many places to go. I don't think the comments section of a 'crazy-eyed lady' video is one of them.

Also we lost the last election because Kerry has the charisma of a plank, the party leaders had the balls of a eunuch, and the President promised the terrorists will kill us all if we voted Democratic.

In 2004 the Democrats ran a log with the words, "I'm not Bush" carved in it and lost the election by 130,000 votes in Ohio. Not quite a resounding refutation of Democratic policies.

Again, what do you mean by 'More Freedom'?

So Baldy is saying, stroke my ego or I'll vote for the other guy! And then he's saying, you guys weren't nice enough so I voted for Bush just to piss you off! And then he wants some mature, reasoned debate. This place would be boring as hell with no comments.

I specifically said that their comments didn't "bother me on a personal level" so that no one would come to that conclusion. What I am saying is that the republican party contains a lot of people with conflicting political philosophies and goals. I think that a fraction of those people would be willing to vote democrat, or at least independent; if less of the everyday political discourse of the left worked on the assumption that people who only agree with liberals on half the issues are either retarded or pricks. I'm mentioning this as a general trend, since I've seen friends and family members make the same assumption.

I also maintain that this assumption is part of the reason why the democrats lost the last election. If you reflexively assume that not sharing the same political philosophy is indicative of a moral or intellectual failure, then you'll never be able to convince someone else that your candidate is the one to vote for. And yes, I understand that there were many other factors resulting in the defeat. However, after Bush's first performance, convincing the country to vote for anyone else should have been simple.

As I said before, I'm not mentioning this because I'm personally offended, and no I didn't vote for Bush either time. After the last eight years, I think you guys deserve to win the next election. I just think your chances would be better if you alter your strategy a bit. As IrishWhisky pointed out, this is a horrible place for this discussion. However, I'd be willing to continue it in one of the forums if someone wants to make a thread.

But the "general trend" for the political discourse on the right is to view the Dummycrats and Liebrals as either retards or Communists. Immorality is a given. Yet this "general trend" doesn't seem to have prevented the noble, square-jawed, American right from snagging swing votes and trouncing the slimy leftards!

Personally, I say that reflexive assumptions are the KEY to winning elections. Sure, they might be "wrong" in a strictly factual sense, and they might even be a hindrance to a true democratic process, but as long as you make your brand of instinctual pigeonholing feel natural to a voter (either by repeating it enough times or by getting your opponent to over-repeat his) then you ensure that people will vote for you. So maybe the real factor is that the Demoncrats didn't call rightwingers dumb-dumb heads ENOUGH? I think if progressive America wants to win this time around, the best strategy would be for them to nominate the Wicked Witch of the Left, and have her spend the entire campaign going "Duuuur, lookit me gais, I'm a right winger, duuurrr daaaa Hitler NASCAR 9/11 dummm daaaarrr where's mah brain"

But what do you mean when you say "more freedom"?

More freedom= Fuck the IRS + fuck the ATF + legalize it + return to a REAL conservative foreign policy (GTFO the biz of world-policing) + fuck gun laws (why shouldn't I get to own a SAM? It's for... uh, plinking?) + put an end to corporate welfare, farm subsidies and most of the other giveaway programs that keep most people alive these days.

maybe if you added a UH HUH, OH DEFINITELY track underneath this entire thing, I could relate, but no way, not as it stands.