Ron Paul on the Issues:

Honest Money, Budget, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Immigration, Audit the Fed, End the Fed, Gold Standard, Taxes, Israel, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Civil Liberties, Education, Abortion, Global Warming, War on Drugs, TSA, National ID


  • Patriot Dave

    End the Fed blah, blah, blah” ?

    The Federal Reserve system is at the heart of all our financial woes. Inflationary dollars has made the cost of everything go up. I can’t even begin to worry about global anything until it’s no longer a burden to pay my bills and put food on the table. If my income is owned by the feds, let the world burn, life would be easier that way.

  • ParrotPatriot

    After reading and participating in debates on different Ron Paul forums I’ve concluded that this old man is not fit for the job, at all.
    He is clearly not up to date when it comes to global politics and him being 77 when he would be able to take office means he is very unlikely to ever get up to date either.

    After reading deeper into Paul’s politics, it’s clear that he is infact borderline insane.
    Everytime he claims someone does something unconstitutional he turns around and does it, but when HE does it, its no problem.
    He is a hypocritical retard with an IQ that’s below average.

    Anyone who votes for Ron Paul is either: a dumb redneck fox news praising hill billy, or just votes for him because of the hype.

    Luckily he wont win.

    • TruthSeeker

      “global politics?”

      We need to mind our own business and rebuild our nation right here. End the empire, the military complex industrial. end foreign aid, the bailouts, the tax cuts to the wealthy, the corporate rule of our government, the dependence on foreign oil, and the fossil fuel energy except for natural gas and coal mining. Preemptive war is a joke and brings more hostility than security!

      • TruthSeeker

        Sorry for the typo:

        military industrial complex!

      • ParrotPatriot

        Yes, global politics.
        You may not have noticed but this isn’t the 1950s.
        The world isn’t as seperated into “parts” as it was back then, now the world is globalized, everything the US does affects EU, Asia and so on and the other way around, everything that happens in EU affects US etc.

        It’s easy to state: “Mind our own business, not get involved in this or that”, but as a part of the UN / NATO we have to in certain situations.
        Now obviously sometimes these wars are completely fuckedup and a waste of tax payers money, sometimes they are even outright the result of corrupt lobbying from private companies, but you don’t solve this by a “unless someone drops a nuke in our head we wont intervene” policy!

        Also the fact that he is actually willing to ignore global warming, the number one priority in the history of the world, is pretty alarming.
        The fact that he is so anti-science is depressing and indicates that he infact considers people’s opinions as more valid than reason and truth.

        He is also clearly influenced by his religion.
        His religion is a fairytale, a fucking fairytale for kids and he lets it control his opinions and actions just like Bush, just like Osama bin Laden etc.

        He has also reached the “average death age”, so he could from a probabilistic view die soon, which then leaves all the responsibilities to his vice-president…

        I dare you to look deeper into some of his politics and all the times that he has actually been a part of going against the constitution.

  • Nancarrow

    Lets all drop the global warming debate for a minute… It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is clean air, clean water, and clean soil right now. Period.
    Ron Paul seems committed to pursuing traditional energy (oil, coal, nuclear) from within our country. He appears to support energy production at the expense of the environment. I am a big supporter of open spaces, untouched wilderness, and unspoiled natural habitats. I do not like unnecessary sprawl industrial or otherwise, and I am opposed to unnecessary pollution, whether it contributes to global warming or not… I value clean air, soil, and water as a general rule. The traditional oil/ coal energy extraction and utilization methods are diametrically opposed to the things I value (clean air, water, soil, and unspoiled widerness).

    I think that while it is on one hand very sensible policy to support a strong, viable domestic energy policy, it is also very shortsighted and irresponsible to do so at the jeopardy of the environment. I think it is very close minded to simply vilify and insult those interested in environmental stewardship in favor of dirty, non-renewable, and frankly archaic energy production.

    We as a world need to step into the 21st century to meet our energy needs, and the US can pave the way, as we have with so many other technological advances. There are plenty of clean, renewable, low impact technologies that are being developed daily, and we need to make a concerted effort to move forward and embrace them. By shunning and devaluing environmentalists concerns, and giving an unfettered, unrestricted green light to the dirty energy industry to essentially ravage our wilderness areas as they see fit to squeeze every drop of oil and coal out of our lands is extremely shallow, short-sighted, and irresponsible in my view.

    Since Ron Paul is all for tax breaks wherever he can give them, why not propose tax breaks on research, development, and delivery of clean renewable energy? The renewable energy sector simply can not compete with the entrenched status quo of the subsidized oil industry.

    But according to Ron Paul’s site, he doesn’t appear to see this as an option, and would rather give oil and coal free reign to do as they wish with no accountability to the environment and the people that value and cherish it. Rather than revamp the EPA to be more effective, he’d rather eliminate it altogether. How is that a good solution?
    I want to support Ron Paul for many reasons, but this is a big sticking point for me.

    • TruthSeeker


      There is so much fraud within the environmentalist movement. The carbon credit for instance is just another rip-off on a large scale unprecedented! I agree with you that we need to get rid of fossil fuel altogether and erect our houses on big flat land that we can farm and take advantage of in many ways. But remember that anything the government does is going to serve the interest of the Capitalists in the first place who monopolize the energy industry even if they decide to go solar and alternative fuel. Why do NOT people take their money out of their bank accounts and pool it together for such projects? We have been so naive to give our money to the banking parasites so that they could lend it at interest without any reward to us! Think about that if you never did!

      Our presidents can do so much for us. I think Ron Paul have enough good things to be elected. It is enough that he is against defense spending, the bailouts, and the FED fraud although I disagree with him on the gold standard as the solution. We need to issue our own money and get rid of private central banks. There is no need for borrowing something we can create ourselves. The problem with our system is that it has been catering for the super wealthy on the expense of the hardworking people. This must end in every way while citizens must get more active on the local level and implement better energy, education, healthcare, and local agricultural programs. There are so many successful models that are in place and all we have to do is duplicate them. We have electric cars that go 110 miles per hour and we have 3 acres of land capable of producing one million pounds of food. We have geothermic energy that is 5 times more powerful than nuclear energy which is free and requires no fossil fuel burning. We have millions of acres of vacant land all over the country even inside the cities that can be used to produce alternative fuel vegetation. We can grow mushrooms which can eliminate oil contamination from our soil and produce enough protein that could eliminate our dependence on animal protein. We are simply uneducated, dependent, exploited, and consumerists. We need to change more than our government but our government must be reformed first.

      • Nancarrow

        Set aside your opinions about fraud within the Environmentalist movement for a moment.

        What I am talking about is pollution, dirty water, and spoiled earth, all in the name of a finite non-renewable energy supply.

        Go suck on an exhaust pipe of a gas burning car. You will die. That is not debatable. Pollution is bad for people, bad for animals, bad for earth.

        I am talking about moving into the 21st century with ideas on energy. Sure, the utility companies are part of the problem, whether they try to sell us dirty or clean energy.

        I am simply critiquing Ron Paul’s energy proposal of basically eliminating all restrictions on domestic coal and oil exploration in order to tap into our domestic supply of these archaic forms of energy.

        Dr. Paul needs to be more forward thinking in his approach to energy to garner my full support. EVEN IF we ended all regulations as he perscribes, and basically ravaged our nation’s countryside to extract every bit of fossil fuel we could find, it is still only a temporary solution. It is finite. It is not renewable. It is a poor solution to a pending crisis, AND it ruins the Earth and the wilderness in the process.

        You have many forward thinking ideas about energy, food, etc… but the problem is that it appears Dr. Paul does not.

        Sure, end the Fed, blah blah blah… thats only one issue.

        • TruthSeeker

          I agree but what is a better option? Backmann? Perry? Or Romney? Some suggest that no one should vote for any, but even if only ten citizens vote, some one will be a president. Our entire system of politics is corrupt and fraud. This bi-partisan system is a deadlock and by limiting your choices, all the roads after that leads to Rome! We need a revolution…a total overhaul of our system of government. Many people are still lost in the maze of little minor issues. Many naive will vote only based on abortion and homosexuality stands. Not that I undermine the moral values of our culture, but when millions are losing their jobs, homes, health, prosperity, and hope, we can defer the debate on those less urgent issues for some other time and gang on the major ones.

          I agree with you. I am allergic and asthmatic and there is nothing I hate more than getting sick due to high pollution day. Regulations are NOT enough to create a major change. We need a total new wave of thinking about our lifestyle and I do NOT think that Paul or any other candidate will do that. It is the power of citizens that must be harvested and organized into small model communities that can be duplicated after on the national level.

  • Nancarrow

    Another issue I have with Ron Paul’s proposals is his homeschooling plan. While I am totally for homeschooling (we supplementally homeschool our children to a great degree since public or even private schools can’t give them as individualized attention as they need and deserve). However his tax credits for homeschooling, I feel, will not necessarily result in a more educated populace. What I see happening, is the already vastly undereducated populace will take advantage of the tax break scheme, pull their kids out of public school to get their tax rebate, and not bother to do anything about actually educating their children. It is essentially no different than food stamps program. Lazy, undereducated people will take advantage of the system, and our country will grow more and more ignorant.

    To look at how good schools work, look at Finland or South Korea. State run systems that are also surprisingly efficient, not bogged in bureaucracy, give intense autonomy to teachers, yet uphold the highest of standards. They pay far LESS per student than we do, yet their teacher’s pay is on par with their doctors and engineers! Teaching is a solid and viable career path in those nations, unlike our country which has teachers on par with a Wal-mart employee. It CAN work at a state level. In fact, do any research on schooling and you will find ALL the best school systems of the world are state run.

    The problem is in our states execution of it. Our systems is bogged down with an ineffective methodology, and needs a total revamp from the ground up… Not an elimination.

    If there is one thing any society should collectively be responsible for and committed to is a solid education of our youth. And although parents need to be an integral part of every child’s education, most parents in our nation, I dare say, are clearly NOT qualified to be the SOLE source.

    This would be a dreadful disservice to the future of our nation.

  • Patriot Dave

    I have a couple of ideas I’d like to throw around and see what you all think about them.

    I watched the documentary about the Ron Paul Revolution, the origin of the Tea Party in 2007, and the 2007 campaign. I didn’t even know about Ron Paul back then; I wish I had and I wish I was a part of the movement back then. But, I see how all the grassroots support was pretty independent, and all fun.

    Idea one: I wouldn’t want to take away from the creativity, the individualism, or the fun away, but I wonder, since Ron Paul is a lot more well known these days, if we who support Ron Paul and this revolution, can reform and deploy a lot more seriously this time around. I wonder if we could somehow organize nationwide boycotts of Fox News, and all companies that advertise on the Fox Network. Maybe even boycott everything that has to do with fox, even their movies. If they aren’t going to take our candidate seriously, and black him out, then maybe it’s time to fight fire with fire, and become a more serious revolution, a political force to be reckoned with. I’m thinking we can write a letter, and have as many as we can petition it, send it to Fox, and send a copy to every company that advertises on Fox that we intend to boycott, until our candidate gets fair and equal air time, and interviews, and we’re going to be keeping track.

    Idea two: Do you guys think we can start up another Tea Party, and call something along the lines as; “The Original Ron Paul Tea Party” founded 2007.

    Idea three: Does anyone think that it could be feasible to begin a nationwide 3RD Party Alliance, with all third party groups and fringe groups? Not that we are going to agree with each other on everything, but create a movement for the sole purpose of challenging the statist quo, and to bring a political fight to the establishment? Do you think that it could be possible to unite the Constitutionalist, the Libertarian Party, Green Peace, Peace and Freedom, ACLU, Free Church Movement, and others, not to embrace each others’ ideologies, but just to support a fringe candidate just for the sake of finally dethroning the establishment? I wonder if there are any people out there who would be willing to engage other grass roots, third party, and fringe politic leaders and organizers in conversations to form a coalition, a Third Party Alliance.

    What do you guys think?

    -Patriot Dave

  • PeoplePower

    Isn’t Obama on vacation? quick sneak into his office & repeal the Federal Reserve Act hahaha.

    Go Ron Paul 🙂

  • MAC

    Since the parrot likes to parrot websites about climate change here are a few to mull over.
    Falsified climate data from the UN. Source of the documents that 97% of climate scientists agree with. False information gives you false premises.

    Then there is Hien Tran a policy maker for the California Air Resources Board debunked for lying about his qualifications yet his policies still were implemented with out peer review and he is still employed.

    6 billion years of planet. 150 years of data. The hubris of the human mind that thinks he can affect a planet is staggering.

    Do some research of actual data parrot and see if man made global warming is real. Don’t just quote what people think based on data they weren’t given.

    • ParrotPatriot

      Yeah, that guy is a well known hyper, he hypes up and over estimates everything.
      That is one guy out of tens of thousands and has nothing to do with the 97% of the climate scientists who all know that the globe is warming due to humans.
      So consider yourself, once again, debunked, refuted and intellectually raped with a fork.

      As for the emails:

      Damn it must suck being you, the planet is 4,7billion years old, not 6.
      The fact that you miss that number exposes everything about your knowledge of reality.

      Now you are going to read that book on logic, then you are going to realize how dumb you have been all your life and you will come back and we will agree.
      Or you will not read the book and you will come back and spew more retarded shit and noone will respond to you.
      It’s your choice.

      • MAC

        So my estimate of the age of the earth does not match the estimated age of geologists and since your a stickler on accuracy (ironic laughter in background) it is actually ESTIMATED at 4.54 billion by the USGS. Your ignorant ranting doesn’t do much for your argument.

        Did you even read that wikipedia post you put up? Damn your stupid. That is your entire argument? Holy Crap I’ve had better discussions about poop from a 2 year old.

        I wish you well in your blind idiocy. Liberal ideologues everywhere are grateful for your blind acceptance of the party line. Since civility is not your forte I won’t be addressing you again. So good day and piss off.

        • ParrotPatriot

          Another victory.

    • Crys

      Have to agree with you on that. One look at the fossil record could tell any preschooler that the world goes through warm and cold like a person putting on and tossing off a blacket at night while asleep. It is a balance that is far more amazing and wonderful than we will ever understand. It’s part of living on this planet.
      Sure, dumping sludge into the sea and toxins in the air is bad (nobody likes swimming in it or breathing it in), however it is arrogant as a human to believe that we’re making a HUGE impact on the planet. As George Carlin once said, this planet could sluff us off like a bad case of fleas if the mood struck her.
      Still, I do believe in being greener in logical methods. Recycling is nice, less garbage strewn about the planet. Alternative energies are nice, I don’t like the gas prices. Glass instead of plastic would be nice too.

    • Nancarrow

      Lets drop the global warmiong debate for a minute… It doesnt really matter. What does matter is clean air, clean water, and clean soil right now. Period.
      Ron Paul seems committed to pursuing traditional energy (oil, coal, nuclear) from within our country. He appears to support energy production at the expense of the environment. I am a big supporter of open spaces, untouched wilderness, and unspoiled natural habitats. I do not like unnecessary sprawl industrial or otherwise, and I am opposed to unnecessary pollution, whether it contributes to global warming or not… I value clean air, soil, and water as a general rule. The traditional oil/ coal energy extraction and utilization methods are diametrically opposed to the things I value (clean air, water, soil, and unspoiled widerness).

      I think that while it is on one hand very sensible policy to support a strong, viable domestic energy policy, it is also very shortsighted and irresponsible to do so at the jeopardy of the environment. I think it is very close minded to simply vilify and insult those interested in environmental stewardship in favor of dirty, non-renewable, and frankly archaic energy production.

      We as a world need to step into the 21st century to meet our energy needs, and the US can pave the way, as we have with so many other technological advances. There are plenty of clean, renewable, low impact technologies that are being developed daily, and we need to make a concerted effort to move forward and embrace them. By shunning and devaluing environmentalists concerns, and giving an unfettered, unrestricted green light to the dirty energy industry to essentially ravage our wilderness areas as they see fit to squeeze every drop of oil and coal out of our lands is extremely shallow, short-sighted, and irresponsible in my view.

      Since Ron Paul is all for tax breaks wherever he can give them, why not propose tax breaks on research, development, and delivery of clean renewable energy? The renewable energy sector simply can not compete with the entrenched status quo of the subsidized oil industry.

      But according to Ron Paul’s site, he doesn’t appear to see this as an option, and would rather give oil and coal free reign to do as they wish with no accountability to the environment and the people that value and cherish it. Rather than revamp the EPA to be more effective, he’d rather eliminate it altogether. How is that a good solution?

  • Dan

    Parrot patriot,

    You have to come up with personal attacks and insults because you are losing the debate. Insults do nothing but prove you are acting childish and have no good answer to the absolutes issue at hand. I have never attacked you paersonally, only your worldview. Once again, if all is relative, then truth is only a matter of personal persective, you have yours and I have mine; if it is relative, you may disagree, but you can’t say I am universally wrong. What about the majority? Do they decide right from wrong? What if the majority decided to bring genocide on another race of people? Does your worldview have absoloutes to condemn such attrocites? I think not, all is relative in athiesm; you may not like it, but it in an athiestic universe, nothing is right or wrong.

    • ParrotPatriot

      No and no.
      Truth is NOT relative.
      Only in the social world is everything relative, in the Universe we have absolutes.
      Such as: global warming, proven fact. Evolution, proven fact. A fetus not having any human life in the first 3 months, proven fact. etc. etc.
      These are not things we are even allowed by reality to discuss, because they are what the are and you have to ignore reality to believe otherwise.

      Nothing is objectively right or wrong in the Universe, that’s true.
      Which is why everyone cherry picks from the Bible and ignores the parts where it tells you to kill kids and eat foreskins etc. the God of the Bible is worse than Hitler, Stalin and supposed Satan combined.

      If say 99% of the world decided for fun “hey, let’s kill these 1% of people we just met” would the universe suddenly stop and intervene? Ofcourse not, the Universe doesn’t care.
      Could we still philosophically conclude that it was wrong? Yes.
      This is how reality works, you see it every day!

      We have morals built in by nature, if I kick a innocent puppy I will feel horrible inside. This is how the neural networks in our brain work. This is why I never ever do these things, because it instinctively feels wrong.
      And the vast majority who do not have a brain defect such as sociopathy shares the same view. So if they saw me kick a dog, they would feel the same horrible feeling inside and disgust for me.
      This would obviously lead them to take some sort of action against me, and so rules and laws came to be.
      They are human constructs, but we can’t escape them because they are instrinc in the very fabric of our being.

      I gave you a link to perhaps the greatest short video on morality in the history of internet, and you have not watched it or you would have understood all of this by now.
      Watch that clip and you will understand all of these things.

      • MAC

        Gotta jump in on this one.

        Relativism does not work. You say that things are relative in the social world yet your second argument precludes your first. Everything whether it is social, political or scientific has an absolute truth contained within it.

        Right or wrong. Kicking the innocent puppy. Right or wrong?
        There is no relativism there because every thing in the universe boils down to this question. Right or wrong? If you do not have the answer you cannot claim relativism to say that your view is just as good as the next guys. You just simply do not have the answer. Is there a God? Right or wrong? Is there no God? Right or wrong. These questions are absolute and have an answer. If you cannot prove them you simply lack the knowledge of the answer but claiming that it is relative is a cop out to avoid true inquiry.

        Global warming proven fact? Yes today it is under the criteria used to measure average daily temperature. Man made global warming? Not Proven. (See my post below). Evolution, good theory (maybe even the most likely theory) but we do not have the creatures that fill in the gaps in our museums yet. Fetus being human, when did the human race acquire the ability to measure conciousness at a predevelopmental stage? I obviously missed that issue of the journal Nature.

        God was created by men who were afraid of the dark, adamant atheism was created by men who were afraid of God.
        I do not have the answers but I despise those who “feel” they do and while having no proof wish to push an agenda upon my life based solely on feelings.

        If you think something is a proven fact then you better have the exact criteria upon which this “fact” is based in hand before jumping aboard. Example: earlier you said
        “So we have 97%+ that are sure the planet is warming because of us, geeeeee I wonder who’s most likely to be right?”

        First I don’t care what they are “sure” of, what can they prove? Second why does 97% make this a fact when 90% (gallup international) of the world population thinking there is a God not make God a fact? Relativism at work there. 97% agreement is no more proof of man made global warming than it is proof of unicorns.

        Right or wrong? Everything has an absolute answer. Everything. I have yet to see the situation, scenario, or scientific fact that did not boil down to that question. If you cannot prove right or wrong without emotion or feeling then you do not have the answer.

        Thanks for your time.

        • ParrotPatriot

          The real problem here lies with your inability to comprehend textbook logic.
          Here is a free textbook formal logic for you:

          Read that entire book and then you can answer to this post, ok? Thanks.

          The only question I will answer is regarding why 97% means something and why not 90% means anything when it comes to God.

          The difference….
          Are you ready?



          The secret truth: they are scientists in different fields ALL studying climate WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
          They are not just 97% of the general population, they are specialists in the field OMGGGGG WHAT A SHOOOOOCK

          But what about the 90% who believe there is some sort of God?
          In the national academy of sciences:
          72.2% disbelieve in God
          20.8% have doubt or agnosticism


          seriously man, fuck you for being this stupid, you make intelligent people lose all hope in human kind and only intelligent people will be the ones that can save people like you

          • MAC

            Hey fuckwad maybe you should check that 97% figure again. They agreed with a paper presented using flawed and ESTIMATED data dipshit. You’re too fucking brainwashed and ignorant to realize that. Do the world a favor and don’t fucking procreate. Pieces of shit like you are the reason people like me don’t believe in god. How could something be perfect and create something as flawed as you?

            As for your little fucking book obviously you never got past the first chapter. You think a book that covers an issue such as logic is new? Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Nietzche, have all covered it there is nothing new in there. Try reading one of those, oh thats right your too fucking lazy and stupid. Its easier to worship at the alter of Al Gore, who by the way, has gotten filthy rich off this same bullshit.

            Logic-the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
            Won’t fucking work for you as you insist on spouting drivel spoon fed to you by people with a self-serving agenda.

            97%, 97%, 97%, agree that climate change is man-made. Well 97% of scientists in the climate field did not do independent research to come to the same conclusion shit for brains. They all specialize in various areas that can be pulled in under the collective heading of Climate.
            THEY AGREED WITH THE ASSESSMENT published by the IPCC which uses a MODEL based on INCOMPLETE and INACCURATE data to create an ESTIMATE.

            Are you really that fucking stupid. It is not fucking possible to be that horrendously incompetent and be considered human. Learn to fucking craft a damn argument based on real facts and not the OPINION of 97% about someone elses incomplete work. And I’ll bet the honest ones agreed to save themselves from intolerant pricks such as yourself and the administration of UCLA that tried to fire a professor for questioning the falsified science by CARB.

            Fucking amazing. People should be required to fucking take an IQ test before having children because obviously your parents have failed you. Maybe it was mental molestation that you have come to need.

            Hopefully using the same language as you will help you understand. Good day.

  • MAC

    He’s sounding better all the time. But he is still a crooked politician working for personal gain. But then again, aren’t we all?

    Manmade global warming. Bunk. The earth has been warmer in the past. 150 years of sketchy temperature readings will not give you the overall climate picture of a 6 billion year old planet Mr. Evolution. Get me 6 billion years worth of ambient air temperature data and overlay it with the industrial revolution, if it then shows that we have a warming trend outside the norm I’ll believe it. Does that mean we should do away with environmental protection laws? No. You don’t shit where you sleep. Simple enough.

    War. Sometimes worth the effort as long as evolution or God keeps producing psychopathic despots and fanatical tyrants. Nation Building. Not our problem outside our borders. You stick your middle finger in the air to us we are obliged to slap it down. We have no responsibility to repair your broken finger.

    Taxes, Debt, Deficit, Government in general. All things that are for the most part bad. Never run a perennial deficit and you will never have a growing debt. Make government the last resort for anything and you lower taxes. Smaller government equals less taxes and more personal responsibility which equals smaller government and less taxes. Maybe you see the trend. You think we need higher taxes then write a damn check and quit stealing food from my kids plate.

    Federal Drug Laws. Ludicrous. Survival of the fittest. Darwinism at its finest. 2 Corinthians 5:10. Decriminalize all of it. Tax the sale of it. Let those who choose the hardest of it bear responsibility for their actions. You make a bad choice multiple times then you and you alone get to pay for it.

    Abortion. Not my family, not my concern. Not your family, not your concern. ‘Nuff said.

    Gay Marriage. The government only recognizes marriage as a tax status. No other reason. I will believe in the sanctity of marriage when we get to a zero divorce and out of wedlock childbirth rate. Until then all consenting adults need to be afforded equal treatment by the federal government. For futher discussion see “Abortion” above.

    The Bill of Rights, The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution. They apply everywhere in this country and to every level of government. If you think I am wrong because some say “Congress shall make no law” and that only applys to the Federal Level then you should check the congressional record. The 13 original colonies all ratified the Constitution therefore agreeing to all that was in it. ALL of the rest were admitted to the United States by ……wait for it……. Congressional Law. You got it, if Congress passed a law allowing the territory to become a State then all the laws of that state must not exceed those granted to Congress otherwise Congress will have “Made a law” that was in conflict with the Constitution.

    etc. etc. etc. One more for the road.

    “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
    James Madison
    The Code of Federal Regulations runs around 150,000 pages, the Acts passed by Congress (that midlevel bureaucrats turned into the CFR) probably run about the same number (I couldn’t find accurate up to date data on either), the Congressional record (floor debate that may give an idea of the intentions of the lawmakers) has run an average of 272 pages a day since 1789, committee meetings (where the actual law is written and really debated) are not required to keep a public record.

    Tell me how I’m supposed to be an informed citizen when my government is this big?

    • ParrotPatriot

      Ignorance at it’s finest.
      97% of all climate scientists agree that global warming is man made.
      Fuck your paranoid-schizophrenia induced conspiracy thinking.

      The rest of your post was regular fox news induced randomness, so fuck even answering

      • MAC

        Typical. Please step to the left and pick up your daily Kool-aid.

        Obviously you haven’t actually studied any of this independently yourself or you would be more astute in your arguments. As you seem wholly dependent on left wing smear websites and childish expletives to make your point I can only presume you have been an underachiever your whole life. Obviously you did not watch the video you so proudly posted earlier or you would be more inclined to use reason as the basis for your arguments. As it stands you show yourself to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for a radical self-serving faction manipulating a scientific topic you clearly do not understand.

        Since you didn’t bother reading the rest of the post please review it and point to even one item in there of which any media outlet (left or right) has made comment. I don’t even think your primary source of news (The Daily Show, I’ll bet) would have covered these topics in the way I see them.

        Either bring reason and intelligence to this debate or return to the sandbox with the other ignorant children. You are clearly intellectually inept and can only spew forth inane banalities when confronted with your failing as a reasoning person. Follow those who lead you because they need your ignorance to prove their worth.


  • Dan


    I gave you enough rope so you finally hung yourself; you admit that all is relative, so, why even debate? You also admit that there are no absolutes, but in saying so, you are using an ABSOLUTE statement. You are contridicting yourself from the get go, and don’t know it.

    • ParrotPatriot

      What a pseudo-intellectual statement.

      It’s like “The only thing I know is that I know nothing” OH MY GOD ITS A OXYMORON.

      U seriously think that retarded shit u just came up with in any shape way or form invalidate anything that I have said ?
      Yes everything is indeed relative, like you are a complete retard relative to me, but you are normal relative to a chimpanzee…

      Either try to refute any of my statements or admit that you are inferior intellectually and that you need to re-think your whole view on life.
      Then come back and thank me as a more enlightened person.

  • Regarding Global Warming/Climate Change. Read about how
    our SUN has been warming up several OTHER PLANETS and
    that this is the likely cause of OUR WARMING TREND over
    the past 150 YEARS:
    March 12, 2007

    Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

    Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
    By Lorne Gunter
    National Post

    For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

    Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world’s leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

    Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun’s activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, “a near-perfect match.”

    Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made “a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.”

    Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age — the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years — corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.

    Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.

    Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?


    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics
    May 15, 2007

    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L’EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.


    • ParrotPatriot

      It must really suck having all that false knowledge giving rise to the illusion of being well-informed…

      First regarding the planets, it has already been debunked so many times that it only earns a simple link:

      Now as for appealing to authority, you fail.
      I can give you an entire list of every scientist on record that opposes man-caused global warming:

      Conclusion: About 1% of climate scientists publishing in the scientific literature believes humans are not warming the planet, and about 2% are unsure.

      So we have 97%+ that are sure the planet is warming because of us, geeeeee I wonder who’s most likely to be right?

      • TheBigPicture

        Eugene’s information > ParrotPatriot’s information

        Parrot, grow up.

        • ParrotPatriot

          Haha so, “my information” which is 97% of ALL scientistst on planet Earth is worth less than the information of 1% that has been proven to be supported by Exxon Mobile?

          Haha, damn

  • dan


    As a bag of walking chemicals, you still haven’t got a worldview that offers any absolutes; therefore, I have no reason to throw in the towel and just adopt your beliefs. I don’t think you understand the athiestic worldview. Everyone has presuppositions and interprets issues and evidences based on presuppositions.

    • ParrotPatriot

      How can you be this stupid and still remember to breathe?
      I hope you wear a helmet 24/7 for protection… then again if you were to slip, fall and acquire further brain damage I’m not sure if it would be recognizable given the state you are already in.

      No absolutes? Of course not, everything is relative…
      You always have to evaluate situations individually as every instance is unique.
      If I drive down a street and just figure “hell im bored, let’s run over some pedestrians” I would obviously pose a huge threat to society and have to be dealt with accordingly.
      However if I drive down the street and have a seizure, causing me to drive down the very same amount of people, I can’t be “charged” by some idiotic “universal law” that says just because the end result was the same everything else was the same too.

      I have no “belief system” like that you accuse me of, I simply recognize reality for what it is.
      I don’t let my emotions control my world view as it does no good, reality do not care about my emotions, so as a rational human being I recognize this and adjust my life accordingly.
      This goes back to the “survival of the fittest”, it’s only when you adapt to your environment that you can truly make any progress and this goes for the whole of society, only when we recognize reality can we make progress, NOT by closing our eyes to the ugly truth and trust that wishful thinking will solve anything.

      “Atheistic world view” – the only view that can be attributed to an atheist is that he/she sees no evidence of any god, that is the only thing “atheism” means.

  • dan


    In your worldview, the only thing that would make you right over me is survival of the fittest, i.e. what mammal is stronger; sort of like hitler vs Poland. If Poland was stronger than Germany and crushed them, them Poland’s might would have made right. Since you do not dominate me, or rule me, your philosophy does not prevail.

    • ParrotPatriot

      No, it’s “survival of the fittest” not the “strongest”.
      You really think human beings are the strongest animal on the planet? Have you ever tried fighting a lion? or an elephant?
      It’s those who ADAPTS to their environment that succeeds.
      This is just one of the many blatant errors you show in regards to knowledge of anything of importance…

      Any person in the world can take a knife and kill another man, does it make it right? No.
      Is it universally wrong in the eyes of the universe? No.
      Is it wrong in the eyes of our fellow humans? Yes, definitely.
      Where do we exist? amongst our fellow humans, so it is wrong.
      Get it?

      This isn’t even high level philosophy, you should really be able to comprehend this…

  • Pingback: Can Ron Paul get the nomination? - HawkeyeNation Forum()

  • Dan

    Did anyone listen to rush limbaugh today? He mentioned that Santorum, Cain, Romney, Bachman, and Huntsman was still in the race, but somehow forgot to mention that Ron Paul is still running.

    • h8 Rush

      that’s because he’s a celebrity not a politician. And half the time he leaves out many facts.

    • ParrotPatriot

      hahaha couldnt answer my superior posts, no? haha go back to kindergarden man


      Why would anyone listen to an oxy junkie- gas bag like limbaugh?
      He’s a corporate mouthpiece and you expect him to actually mention Ron Paul?
      And more than anything else facts don’t register with limbaugh.He might as well work full-time at Faux.

  • Bob

    I heard Perry and Micheel Bachman refer to them selves as social conservitives?
    That is what we have now. A socialist conservitive.

    It is interesting that no one is realy paying attention, once again. In an election. To what the canidates stand for. OR, Who?? Is realy going to hire them to run this country. The people? The parties? The press? or the lobbies?

    This is more of the same garbage being shoved down the throats of the American Citizen.

    Vote For Ron Paul.

  • Dan

    I do believe life is sacred.

    • ParrotPatriot

      How could life be sacred if you believe in God?
      Then this life is nothing but a little game God made because he was too bored and needed something to do.
      Why didn’t he just make heaven right away and put us up there where everything is great?
      Why make this imperfect Earth and then punish us for his incompetance?
      Is that really the God you want to worship? SAD.
      I’m not impressed at all, your God sucks…

      For an atheist life becomes “sacred” because we recognize that we are all results of “against all odds” and that this life is the only one we get, once we are dead it’s THE END.
      There is no “life after death” where your sins will be forgiven, no to an atheist who hurts someone etc. he has to work to get that forgiveness and make things right in this life, because this is all we have.

  • Dan

    My question for you is, if we evolved and are just bags of biological matter, then who are you to tell me that life should be sacred as if you have the right to force your morality on me. If all we are is chemicals, then why is your standard of morality any better then mine. I can make up my own standard of reality and your atheism can’t condemn me.

    • ParrotPatriot

      Sure you can make up whatever sets of delusions you want, this will not stop people from holding you accountable for those actions.
      There is no universal rule that will strike you dead if you kill someones child, but if you do some “programmed” instincts in the vast, vast majority of the population will kick in and want to kill you instantly.
      Because that is how we have always survived through co-operation.
      Look at ants, do they have a Bible? No, yet they sacriefiece themselves for “great good”. Altruism arise in nature because we are social animals not “individualists to the core”.
      Why do you think morals are more or less the same all over the globe? The only place where morals are very different are in places where religion has forced people to act a certain way…

      If you hit me, I feel pain, since I know that you are built almost identical to me I know that if I hit you, you will feel pain.
      So once you grow up as a child you learn these things and subconscious programming from 3.7billion years of evolution tells you that it’s not socially acceptable to do such things.

      If you cannot even grasp this concept, you should probably consider a mental hospital…

  • Dan

    That is a strawman response to my argument. If truth comes and arises from man or nature, then truth is what I say it is, or what you say it is, even though we differ. It is random and not absolute; so given your athiestic worldview, you are a contridiction to say anybody is wrong about anything philosphically or morally. You say “my reality filter” as if I am stupid, but in your atheistic world view, you cannot account for what true reality is because so many different brains may have evolved differently from yours, so how do you know your aspect on morality or truth is better then someone else’s. All is random and different, you may disagree, but you can’t say anyone is wrong because thats the way their brain evolved. We just dance to the electro-chemical processes in our head.

    • ParrotPatriot

      I can’t believe it….. Did you watch the video, or didn’t you? It shows exactly why morallity has nothing to do with the bible or any other religion. Infact it also shows that if you are religious you are automatically less moral than an atheist (if you follow the scripture).
      Truth is nature, thus man cannot say what is and what isn’t true, reality is objective it do not give a fuck about you or your opinions. “So many brains has evolved differently from yours” Are you even aware of small the changes are between you and another person? less than 0.5% difference.
      So no we do infact have a universal moral system built into us from evolution, this is why atheists aren’t immoral assholes. We represent the most law abiding, least violent, least likely to get a divorce, most educated, highest IQ population (do the research for yourself if you don’t believe me). If you watch the video I gave you on morality you will understand exactly why you are wrong and I am right. So don’t say another word until you have watched that video.

  • Dan

    If evolution is true, then all we are is stacks of minerals and chemicals and other stuff. How can right and wrong and good or evil arise from minerals, chemicals, and other organic material. Also, if that is the case, then our thought, attitudes, and movements are just electrochemical processes in our brain; therefore, we are not free nor have free will, we just dance to our brains. For you to condemn ron paul, (given your evolutionist belief) then it is just two brains that evolved differently; none is right, none is wrong, just doing what the brain says to do.

    • ParrotPatriot

      Do you really want to know or are you just saying some random stuff as part of your subconscious protection from reality filter?

      I can tell you exactly why we have morals and altruism arise naturally in nature from evolution.

      Yes we are just chemicals, that’s all there is to the entire Universe, does that take away from life?
      NO, it makes life “sacred”, we know we only got one life so we have to live it to the fullest. You can’t have liberty with a fantasy sky daddy giving you delusional rules either!

      There is no such thing as “evolutionist belief”, evolution is a fact, I merely recognize this inescapable fact as anyone in the western world with an IQ of 85+ should do without difficulty.

      If you REALLY want to understand what morality is from a non-biased viewpoint check out this video:

      After watching that, come back as a more educated person worthy of living in the developed world and apologize.