Author Topic: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.  (Read 21274 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7833
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2012, 06:32:12 PM »
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.

Ron Paul is way out there when it comes to railing against things like the Fed, going back to a gold standard, etc.

He pushes the envelope a little too far there.  Most other stuff is somewhat okay, but he's too much of a minimalist.

It's a lot like Obama in 2008 claiming all sorts of idealistic stuff, only to get a slap of reality when he got in office. 75% of what RP preaches could never be accomplished. Not realistic.

Offline kstatefreak42

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
EMAW

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2012, 06:49:52 PM »
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.

Ron Paul is way out there when it comes to railing against things like the Fed, going back to a gold standard, etc.

He pushes the envelope a little too far there.  Most other stuff is somewhat okay, but he's too much of a minimalist.

It's a lot like Obama in 2008 claiming all sorts of idealistic stuff, only to get a slap of reality when he got in office. 99% of what RP preaches could never be accomplished. Not realistic.

Fixed that. He might have some success with his pro-life stuff though.

There's a big difference between Paul and Obama though in that Republicans could have similar majorities in Congress as what Obama had in 08-09 and not even have much if any of his agenda brought up.

Obama actually "got" some of his stuff through. But you're right that even his wins were mostly in name only because his idealism ran into a brick wall. He and Clinton are very much the same in that respect, which is odd considering the differences between the two.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #53 on: March 13, 2012, 08:15:31 PM »
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #54 on: March 13, 2012, 08:18:01 PM »
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.

Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38010
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #55 on: March 13, 2012, 08:50:30 PM »
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.

Ron Paul is way out there when it comes to railing against things like the Fed, going back to a gold standard, etc.

He pushes the envelope a little too far there.  Most other stuff is somewhat okay, but he's too much of a minimalist.

It's a lot like Obama in 2008 claiming all sorts of idealistic stuff, only to get a slap of reality when he got in office. 99% of what RP preaches could never be accomplished. Not realistic.

Fixed that. He might have some success with his pro-life stuff though.

There's a big difference between Paul and Obama though in that Republicans could have similar majorities in Congress as what Obama had in 08-09 and not even have much if any of his agenda brought up.

Obama actually "got" some of his stuff through. But you're right that even his wins were mostly in name only because his idealism ran into a brick wall. He and Clinton are very much the same in that respect, which is odd considering the differences between the two.

He absolutely would be able to accomplish his foreign policy goals. Congress hasn't even declared war. President Paul could get all of the troops home and drastically reduce defense spending and foreign aid.

Offline kstatefreak42

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2012, 09:42:50 PM »
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.

Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand
EMAW

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2012, 12:58:38 AM »
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.

Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand

JFC.  Rand is a Goddamn Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Just stop.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #58 on: March 14, 2012, 09:25:24 AM »
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.

Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand

JFC.  Rand is a Goddamn respect.

Just stop.

lol Panj, why do you love the establishment so much? They dont care about you.

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #59 on: March 14, 2012, 10:12:36 AM »
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.

Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand

JFC.  Rand is a Goddamn respect.

Just stop.

lol Panj, why do you love the establishment so much? They dont care about you.

It has nothing to do with the establishment.  Have you ever listened to Rand Paul?  Like really listened to him?

My God.

Offline AbeFroman

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8330
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #60 on: March 14, 2012, 12:23:41 PM »
my problem with you, not ron paul.

you're dumb.

ron paul is real, and out there (which is the only way things will get changed).  he's also a little bit batshit.

a radio host i listened to put it this way, and pretty much perfectly describes how i feel about ron paul:

ron paul is like a great big delicious bowl of ice cream, with one little chunk of dog crap on the top.  do you still really want to eat the ice cream?

I'd rather eat that then the giant bowl of dogshit that is every other Republican candidate and Obama

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #61 on: March 14, 2012, 01:07:58 PM »
I don't think Obama ever intended to get anything done.  The sad honest truth is there is little difference between Dem's & Rep's.  It's all big gov.  They're either going to be stuffing tax dollars into their buddies pockets through welfare or through war campaigns.  B.O. Is especially good at combining the efforts.  The way I see it now, a vote for one of the leading GOP members really isn't much different than a vote for Obama.  In the long run, I don't see how anyone could argue that from a fiscal standpoint.  What I'm growing tired of is people complaining about the lies politicians sell while campaigning, but when someone stands on a podium and says the unpopular thing, he's labeled a Kook.  I guess if what you're looking for is for someone to tell you everything is going to be okay, then yeah, he is a kook. If people cared about integrity as much as they say they do, they wouldn't care about what would be possible to do as a president - they would be satisfied that at least they weren't lied to by someone they bought into.  Can any of you honestly say you don't think any of these candidates are honest, other than Paul?  Paul may be a lot of things, but he's not dumb enough to run a campaign on things he's been booed for saying for the last ten years.  You can't argue that he doesn't have integrity and none of us has seen a president or a candidate as honest as Dr. Ron Paul. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 04:44:41 PM by HeinBallz »
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline kstatefreak42

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #62 on: March 14, 2012, 01:51:26 PM »
I don't think Obama ever intended to get anything done.  The sad honest truth is there is little difference between Dem's & Rep's.  It's all big gov.  Their either going to be stuffing tax dollars into their buddies pockets through welfare or through war campaigns.  B.O. Is especially good at combining the efforts.  The way I see it now, a vote for one of the leading GOP members really isn't much different than a vote for Obama.  In the long run, I don't see how anyone could argue that from a fiscal standpoint.  What I'm growing tired of is people complaining about the lies politicians sell while campaigning, but when someone stands on a podium and says the unpopular thing, he's labeled a Kook.  I guess if what you're looking for is for someone to tell you everything is going to be okay, then yeah, he is a kook. If people cared about integrity as much as they say they do, they wouldn't care about what would be possible to do as a president - they would be satisfied that at least they weren't lied to by someone they bought into.  Can any of you honestly say you don't think any of these candidates are honest, other than Paul?  Paul may be a lot of things, but he's not dumb enough to run a campaign on things he's been booed for saying for the last ten years.  You can't argue that he doesn't have integrity and none of us has seen a president or a candidate as honest as Dr. Ron Paul. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well said. Freedom is popular
EMAW

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #63 on: March 14, 2012, 03:39:07 PM »
I don't think Obama ever intended to get anything done.  The sad honest truth is there is little difference between Dem's & Rep's.  It's all big gov.  Their either going to be stuffing tax dollars into their buddies pockets through welfare or through war campaigns.  B.O. Is especially good at combining the efforts.  The way I see it now, a vote for one of the leading GOP members really isn't much different than a vote for Obama.  In the long run, I don't see how anyone could argue that from a fiscal standpoint.  What I'm growing tired of is people complaining about the lies politicians sell while campaigning, but when someone stands on a podium and says the unpopular thing, he's labeled a Kook.  I guess if what you're looking for is for someone to tell you everything is going to be okay, then yeah, he is a kook. If people cared about integrity as much as they say they do, they wouldn't care about what would be possible to do as a president - they would be satisfied that at least they weren't lied to by someone they bought into.  Can any of you honestly say you don't think any of these candidates are honest, other than Paul?  Paul may be a lot of things, but he's not dumb enough to run a campaign on things he's been booed for saying for the last ten years.  You can't argue that he doesn't have integrity and none of us has seen a president or a candidate as honest as Dr. Ron Paul. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one said Ron Paul is not a genuine person. He's the most honest candidate out there.  I completely agree with his thoughts on personal freedom (and the role of government in that regard) and foreign policy.  I 110% agree with it.  However, his ideas on economic policy simply isn't based in reality.  It just isn't.  It's way too extreme.  You can't go back to a gold standard.  The world ditched that nearly 70 years ago.

Paul is a good dude, and I like him.  I like a lot of what he says about a lot of things.  However, his economic policies aren't even remotely feasible in today's world.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #64 on: March 14, 2012, 04:33:47 PM »
Thanks for responding and simultaneously illustrating my point.   Why would people rather have a president in office that is willing and able to spend! spend! spend! on all sorts of wasteful crap while lying to our fat faces about why we need it and where we need it and how urgently we need it; as opposed to someone that is explaining why we're in this mess and educating people on why these policies are bad.   The American people would rather have a liar in office than someone with best intentions....   Because maybe his best intentions won't be successful.   Does anyone see the problem in this?   You'd rather have someone destroy our economy, because well.... at least they'll be successful in their plans? 

Regardless, I don't think you understand what the message Ron and his supporters are in love with. Going back to the gold standard would absolutely stop inflation. while also doing nothing else but...  stop inflation.   Do you know what's magical about this?  There are other ways of stopping inflation.  Auditing the fed & creating legislature that prevents our government from printing $$ at will and fiddling with interest rates will also - Stop Inflation.  I know there is no way he can get the gold standard back.   It's not feasible.  It's not likely.  It's not possible.  But you know what? Understanding the gold standard & educating people on Why the gold standard would fix this - is more the point.  As president, Ron Paul will NOT allow our government to do the things we're currently doing that is crippling our dollar.   There is not another candidate that is taking this issue seriously.  And because people think that "going back to the gold standard is not possible" that he can't fix this problem.  Which is simply not true.   When Ron Paul Talks about the Gold standard, He's pin pointing the exact moment in which we got into this mess.  The next logical question is how can we fix it?   To which any person that understands the problem knows is to permanently stop the government from hyper inflating the economy and tie the dollar back to a slowly growing commodity - like gold.   Keep in mind, I just said PERMANENTLY solve this problem.   A point Ron Paul has illustrated over and over is you never allow a precedents to be set where someone could eventually take advantage of. You never grant power to the president that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to take advantage of.   Does that make sense?   When war is declared without the consent of congress, it becomes a precedent allowing every president in the future to declare war because he has a personal grudge against this country or that.  Or has a vested interest in keeping oil prices at a premium.  But anyway, I'm getting off topic here.  Alot of the issues with our economy can be fixed if the government would permanently stay out of the market.   That's all that needs to be done.   Going back to the gold standard is not necessary to address this issue.  But it makes it permanent... until some other president - with the best intentions - goes back off of it; paving the way for future abuse.

I guess the more important question is now, When this ends up as an open convention within the next couple of months and Ron Paul switch parties from Republican to Independent.   Will his supporters still vote for him because they know that a vote for Romney/Santorum/Gengrich really isn't much different than a vote for Obama?   Or will they be fear mongered by the Republican GOP into believing that a vote for an independent is a vote taken away from the republican party. 

Love the Man, Embrace the Man, Vote with YOUR heart and DO NOT let the liberal OR the Conservative media change your mind with FEAR.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 04:37:40 PM by HeinBallz »
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline kstatefreak42

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2911
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #65 on: March 14, 2012, 10:19:49 PM »
Thanks for responding and simultaneously illustrating my point.   Why would people rather have a president in office that is willing and able to spend! spend! spend! on all sorts of wasteful crap while lying to our fat faces about why we need it and where we need it and how urgently we need it; as opposed to someone that is explaining why we're in this mess and educating people on why these policies are bad.   The American people would rather have a liar in office than someone with best intentions....   Because maybe his best intentions won't be successful.   Does anyone see the problem in this?   You'd rather have someone destroy our economy, because well.... at least they'll be successful in their plans? 

Regardless, I don't think you understand what the message Ron and his supporters are in love with. Going back to the gold standard would absolutely stop inflation. while also doing nothing else but...  stop inflation.   Do you know what's magical about this?  There are other ways of stopping inflation.  Auditing the fed & creating legislature that prevents our government from printing $$ at will and fiddling with interest rates will also - Stop Inflation.  I know there is no way he can get the gold standard back.   It's not feasible.  It's not likely.  It's not possible.  But you know what? Understanding the gold standard & educating people on Why the gold standard would fix this - is more the point.  As president, Ron Paul will NOT allow our government to do the things we're currently doing that is crippling our dollar.   There is not another candidate that is taking this issue seriously.  And because people think that "going back to the gold standard is not possible" that he can't fix this problem.  Which is simply not true.   When Ron Paul Talks about the Gold standard, He's pin pointing the exact moment in which we got into this mess.  The next logical question is how can we fix it?   To which any person that understands the problem knows is to permanently stop the government from hyper inflating the economy and tie the dollar back to a slowly growing commodity - like gold.   Keep in mind, I just said PERMANENTLY solve this problem.   A point Ron Paul has illustrated over and over is you never allow a precedents to be set where someone could eventually take advantage of. You never grant power to the president that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to take advantage of.   Does that make sense?   When war is declared without the consent of congress, it becomes a precedent allowing every president in the future to declare war because he has a personal grudge against this country or that.  Or has a vested interest in keeping oil prices at a premium.  But anyway, I'm getting off topic here.  Alot of the issues with our economy can be fixed if the government would permanently stay out of the market.   That's all that needs to be done.   Going back to the gold standard is not necessary to address this issue.  But it makes it permanent... until some other president - with the best intentions - goes back off of it; paving the way for future abuse.

I guess the more important question is now, When this ends up as an open convention within the next couple of months and Ron Paul switch parties from Republican to Independent.   Will his supporters still vote for him because they know that a vote for Romney/Santorum/Gengrich really isn't much different than a vote for Obama?   Or will they be fear mongered by the Republican GOP into believing that a vote for an independent is a vote taken away from the republican party. 

Love the Man, Embrace the Man, Vote with YOUR heart and DO NOT let the liberal OR the Conservative media change your mind with FEAR.

I love you. I love freedom. Greatest post of all time.
EMAW

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #66 on: March 14, 2012, 10:49:11 PM »
Thanks for responding and simultaneously illustrating my point.   Why would people rather have a president in office that is willing and able to spend! spend! spend! on all sorts of wasteful crap while lying to our fat faces about why we need it and where we need it and how urgently we need it; as opposed to someone that is explaining why we're in this mess and educating people on why these policies are bad.   The American people would rather have a liar in office than someone with best intentions....   Because maybe his best intentions won't be successful.   Does anyone see the problem in this?   You'd rather have someone destroy our economy, because well.... at least they'll be successful in their plans? 

Regardless, I don't think you understand what the message Ron and his supporters are in love with. Going back to the gold standard would absolutely stop inflation. while also doing nothing else but...  stop inflation.   Do you know what's magical about this?  There are other ways of stopping inflation.  Auditing the fed & creating legislature that prevents our government from printing $$ at will and fiddling with interest rates will also - Stop Inflation.  I know there is no way he can get the gold standard back.   It's not feasible.  It's not likely.  It's not possible.  But you know what? Understanding the gold standard & educating people on Why the gold standard would fix this - is more the point.  As president, Ron Paul will NOT allow our government to do the things we're currently doing that is crippling our dollar.   There is not another candidate that is taking this issue seriously.  And because people think that "going back to the gold standard is not possible" that he can't fix this problem.  Which is simply not true.   When Ron Paul Talks about the Gold standard, He's pin pointing the exact moment in which we got into this mess.  The next logical question is how can we fix it?   To which any person that understands the problem knows is to permanently stop the government from hyper inflating the economy and tie the dollar back to a slowly growing commodity - like gold.   Keep in mind, I just said PERMANENTLY solve this problem.   A point Ron Paul has illustrated over and over is you never allow a precedents to be set where someone could eventually take advantage of. You never grant power to the president that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to take advantage of.   Does that make sense?   When war is declared without the consent of congress, it becomes a precedent allowing every president in the future to declare war because he has a personal grudge against this country or that.  Or has a vested interest in keeping oil prices at a premium.  But anyway, I'm getting off topic here.  Alot of the issues with our economy can be fixed if the government would permanently stay out of the market.   That's all that needs to be done.   Going back to the gold standard is not necessary to address this issue.  But it makes it permanent... until some other president - with the best intentions - goes back off of it; paving the way for future abuse.

I guess the more important question is now, When this ends up as an open convention within the next couple of months and Ron Paul switch parties from Republican to Independent.   Will his supporters still vote for him because they know that a vote for Romney/Santorum/Gengrich really isn't much different than a vote for Obama?   Or will they be fear mongered by the Republican GOP into believing that a vote for an independent is a vote taken away from the republican party. 

Love the Man, Embrace the Man, Vote with YOUR heart and DO NOT let the liberal OR the Conservative media change your mind with FEAR.


I stopped reading after this.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40815
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #67 on: March 14, 2012, 10:58:59 PM »
I stopped reading after this.

yeah, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
"a garden city man wondered in april if the theologians had not made a mistake in locating the garden of eden in asia rather than in the arkansas river valley."

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #68 on: March 14, 2012, 11:10:47 PM »
Yeah its Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to think that a system drawn up on an island by a group of mitt romnies in order to permenantly enslave the world is inherently wrong. Today the privately owned company is stacked with ass holes that have no clue what theyre doing. I mean, why would anyone be against that?

"it is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the
century of central banking."
- Ron Paul


Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #69 on: March 14, 2012, 11:19:15 PM »
Explain please.  You stopped reading because of bad grammar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #70 on: March 14, 2012, 11:32:39 PM »
Explain please.  You stopped reading because of bad grammar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?

Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?

Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?

Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.

And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.

Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.

Online nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17055
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #71 on: March 14, 2012, 11:58:04 PM »
Explain please.  You stopped reading because of bad grammar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?

Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?

Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?

Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.

And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.

Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.

It's pretty ridiculous to pinpoint one flaw that you have with a candidate and dismiss them because of that.  It's really absurd, especially when like Hein said, Ron Paul won't get the country back on the Gold Standard.  Even still, are you seriously weighing that one area of difference so heavily that it puts him behind the other candidates? Seriously?  Gimme a break pan. 
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38010
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #72 on: March 15, 2012, 12:00:45 AM »
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #73 on: March 15, 2012, 12:01:17 AM »
Obviously we wouldnt have created as much wealth over the last century with out the Fed, but my god we are in a lot of debt. Doubt we see it paid off in any of our life times too. So when someone brings up an alternative to a system that has enslaved us for the rest of our lives, i say that man is not crazy.

Also, agree Santorum is a dip crap.

Online nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17055
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Re: Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.
« Reply #74 on: March 15, 2012, 12:01:33 AM »
Also, enjoy this video of your local GOP at work sabotaging the election process.

If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.