Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on November 20, 2012, 01:59:50 PM
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84086.html
I'm sure the hardcore communist leftist parasites and vultures and tax sponges will try to accuse him of being a felon and murderer too.
-
HOPE!!!
-
I think Rand can appeal to Christian extremists, and war mongers way better than his dad could.
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84086.html
I'm sure the hardcore communist leftist parasites and vultures and tax sponges will try to accuse him of being a felon and murderer too.
And im sure the GOP will accuse him for being retarded like his father and find a way to keep him powerless.
-
Very good news. Rand hasn't fallen too far from the tree. I just hope he can stick to his principals and not pander for votes. I think he will be the best thing for the GOP.
-
maybe a pundit hero like mark levin will call his followers 'ru paul' fans.
maybe 'repubs' on getbig will excuse him getting fccked in the convention like his dad did, so that 'electable' candidates like mitt can lose by 4 mil to a POS POTUS.
-
Very good news. Rand hasn't fallen too far from the tree. I just hope he can stick to his principals and not pander for votes. I think he will be the best thing for the GOP.
He seems very awkward in interviews
-
Countdown until he's labeled a crazy nutjob racist homophobe (by both parties).
-
Countdown until he's labeled a crazy nutjob racist homophobe (by both parties).
Yup thats probably the one thing both parties can agree on.
-
Countdown until he's labeled a crazy nutjob racist homophobe (by both parties).
yeah, he was a bad choice for VP and i don't think he's a good choice in 2016 if the GOP actually wants to win this time.
-
yeah, he was a bad choice for VP and i don't think he's a good choice in 2016 if the GOP actually wants to win this time.
The GOP will never nominate him see what happened with his father.
-
I doubt he can win, if he's going to try and be more of a libertarian. Libertarians are way outside of mainstream American. I don't think that kind of ideology can win a presidential election.
-
I doubt he can win, if he's going to try and be more of a libertarian. Libertarians are way outside of mainstream American. I don't think that kind of ideology can win a presidential election.
well, we know RINO doesn't win elections either (2008 and 2012).
Why not swing libertarian? We know the tea party can't win the nomination, we know the moderates can't win national elections.
Why not try libertarian + fiscally conservative?
-
well, we know RINO doesn't win elections either (2008 and 2012).
Why not swing libertarian? We know the tea party can't win the nomination, we know the moderates can't win national elections.
Why not try libertarian + fiscally conservative?
He will never get the GOP nomination.
The donors dont like him.
-
He will never get the GOP nomination.
The donors dont like him
other than a handful of racists and morons (you know who you are) the country doesn't like him either
-
maybe a pundit hero like mark levin will call his followers 'ru paul' fans.
maybe 'repubs' on getbig will excuse him getting fccked in the convention like his dad did, so that 'electable' candidates like mitt can lose by 4 mil to a POS POTUS.
Sad but true
-
well, we know RINO doesn't win elections either (2008 and 2012).
Why not swing libertarian? We know the tea party can't win the nomination, we know the moderates can't win national elections.
Why not try libertarian + fiscally conservative?
Because libertarians are far outside of mainstream America. That's why they are irrelevant when it comes to national politics. Gary Johnson got 1.2 million votes. Romney got 59 million, Obama 64 million. Libertarians are irrelevant.
A true fiscal and social conservative can win in 2016.
-
other than a handful of racists and morons (you know who you are) the country doesn't like him either
::)
-
Because libertarians are far outside of mainstream America. That's why they are irrelevant when it comes to national politics. Gary Johnson got 1.2 million votes. Romney got 59 million, Obama 64 million. Libertarians are irrelevant.
A true fiscal and social conservative can win in 2016.
Run someone like Santorum and see what happens.
-
Run someone like Santorum and see what happens.
Someone like Rubio, Jindal, Christie (if he loses weight), Nikki Haley, etc. could win. All fiscal and social conservatives. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all ran as fiscal and social conservatives. Didn't always govern that way, but fiscal and social conservatives win presidential elections. Libertarians do not.
-
2016 will probably be another choice between two bums
-
Someone like Rubio, Jindal, Christie (if he loses weight), Nikki Haley, etc. could win. All fiscal and social conservatives. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all ran as fiscal and social conservatives. Didn't always govern that way, but fiscal and social conservatives win presidential elections. Libertarians do not.
Times are changing. People are becoming more socially liberal. Hell, they're becoming more liberal, period. I don't see a great influx of youth voters going to the Republicans, which they'll need to win the election. Kids are becoming more liberal.
Society is becoming more liberal.
I may not agree with it 100% (as I tend to be fiscally conservative), but thats the direction we're heading. :-\
-
Times are changing. People are becoming more socially liberal. Hell, they're becoming more liberal, period. I don't see a great influx of youth voters going to the Republicans, which they'll need to win the election. Kids are becoming more liberal.
Society is becoming more liberal.
I may not agree with it 100% (as I tend to be fiscally conservative), but thats the direction we're heading. :-\
The fact is that there are more single white women than in the past and people like Saint Rick , Akin, et al are poison for that vote.
The repubs will never ever get more that 10% pf tjhe black vote but can peel off some hispanics.
WTF is so hard about a message of out of the wallet, out of the bedroom, out of the cubbard, leave me the F alone" ??
-
WTF is so hard about a message of out of the wallet, out of the bedroom, out of the cubbard, leave me the F alone" ??
Because then you're a racist, sexist, nutjob, homophobe. :D
-
The fact is that there are more single white women than in the past and people like Saint Rick , Akin, et al are poison for that vote.
The repubs will never ever get more that 10% pf tjhe black vote but can peel off some hispanics.
WTF is so hard about a message of out of the wallet, out of the bedroom, out of the cubbard, leave me the F alone" ??
I think people in general aren't fond of a party that makes it their business to tell you how to live. Especially young people. The answer isn't to run someone FARTHER to the right (which polarize things even more, and the numbers simply aren't in the Republicans favor IMHO), it's to run someone closer to center, while still maintaining most of the ideals that the Republican party stands for.
And don't give me that crap that Mitt was closer to center, Mitt was all over the fucking place.
-
The fact is that there are more single white women than in the past and people like Saint Rick , Akin, et al are poison for that vote.
The repubs will never ever get more that 10% pf tjhe black vote but can peel off some hispanics.
WTF is so hard about a message of out of the wallet, out of the bedroom, out of the cubbard, leave me the F alone" ??
Thats the libertarian message the GOP is the opposite.
And you took the side of the GOP.
-
Thats the libertarian message the GOP is the opposite.
And you took the side of the GOP.
The clear and present danger was obama. only one person had a possibility of ousting him.
-
Because libertarians are far outside of mainstream America. That's why they are irrelevant when it comes to national politics. Gary Johnson got 1.2 million votes. Romney got 59 million, Obama 64 million. Libertarians are irrelevant.
A true fiscal and social conservative can win in 2016.
Can you list what Rnad paul libertarian positions wouldn't play well with voters? I woudlnt think the pot legalization, but seeing the results of the 2012 election, I dunno.
I don't konw that a social con can win in 2016.
-
Can you list what Rnad paul libertarian positions wouldn't play well with voters? I woudlnt think the pot legalization, but seeing the results of the 2012 election, I dunno.
I don't konw that a social con can win in 2016.
I don't think they can. Simply too many socially liberal people in the country now.
-
I don't think they can. Simply too many socially liberal people in the country now.
props for admitting that.
I agree with you. WHile the 'base' may be solidified in talk, they sure don't bother voting. And like it or not, the moral fabric of America is shifting left.
-
Can you list what Rnad paul libertarian positions wouldn't play well with voters? I woudlnt think the pot legalization, but seeing the results of the 2012 election, I dunno.
I don't konw that a social con can win in 2016.
I dont smoke crack or pot like obama does, but i am 100% against the war on drugs so i would have voted to legalize obama's addiction too.
-
I dont smoke crack or pot like obama does, but i am 100% against the war on drugs so i would have voted to legalize obama's addiction too.
slow down there cheech. Crack and meth too? Or just weed?
-
I dont smoke crack or pot like obama does, but i am 100% against the war on drugs so i would have voted to legalize obama's addiction too.
+1
-
slow down there cheech. Crack and meth too? Or just weed?
Crack and Meth are very socially destructive drugs with an extremely high rate of addiction.
Weed is comparable to Alcohol.
I don't think you can legalize everything. But I think we should end the war on drugs, as it doesn't do shit but make people feel good.
-
I think people in general aren't fond of a party that makes it their business to tell you how to live. Especially young people. The answer isn't to run someone FARTHER to the right (which polarize things even more, and the numbers simply aren't in the Republicans favor IMHO), it's to run someone closer to center, while still maintaining most of the ideals that the Republican party stands for.
And don't give me that crap that Mitt was closer to center, Mitt was all over the fucking place.
at least one poster on this board thinks that is the exact solution to the pummeling the Repubs received this year
-
::)
sorry dude, I'm sure he probably has a few supporters who aren't racist morons
-
sorry dude, I'm sure he probably has a few supporters who aren't racist morons
Right - because liberals are never racist.
-
The fact is that there are more single white women than in the past and people like Saint Rick , Akin, et al are poison for that vote.
The repubs will never ever get more that 10% pf tjhe black vote but can peel off some hispanics.
WTF is so hard about a message of out of the wallet, out of the bedroom, out of the cubbard, leave me the F alone" ??
-
Someone like Rubio, Jindal, Christie (if he loses weight), Nikki Haley, etc. could win. All fiscal and social conservatives. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all ran as fiscal and social conservatives. Didn't always govern that way, but fiscal and social conservatives win presidential elections. Libertarians do not.
People like you are a dying breed thankfully.
-
sorry dude, I'm sure he probably has a few supporters who aren't racist morons
I still don't understand how racism has become synonymous with the Paul's.
-
-
I still don't understand how racism has become synonymous with the Paul's.
Its BS from the left to discredit him.
Just like the right calls him weak on foreign policy to discredit him.
-
Its BS from the left to discredit him.
Just like the right calls him weak on foreign policy to discredit him.
They call him racist because he wants to end the gravy train and cradle to grave welfare, pot, booze, food stamps, section 8, etc
-
Times are changing. People are becoming more socially liberal. Hell, they're becoming more liberal, period. I don't see a great influx of youth voters going to the Republicans, which they'll need to win the election. Kids are becoming more liberal.
Society is becoming more liberal.
I may not agree with it 100% (as I tend to be fiscally conservative), but thats the direction we're heading. :-\
Not necessarily. We have 29 Republican governors. Republicans control the House and numerous state legislatures. I don't really see a complete trend. Maybe some movement on an issue or two.
-
People like you are a dying breed thankfully.
Thankfully, people like you have zero influence on national public policy.
-
LOL...she got owned.
2016 Campaign ad:
"While (insert Name here) has worked countless hours working towards a better America, Rand Paul thinks it is important that his toilets work."
The sad thing is people will believe these ads and miss the actual theme.
-
They call him racist because he wants to end the gravy train and cradle to grave welfare, pot, booze, food stamps, section 8, etc
wrong again
it's because he's on the record as saying individuals and businesses should have the right to discriminate
-
wrong again
it's because he's on the record as saying individuals and businesses should have the right to discriminate
They should, so should landlords, private individuals, etc...
This isn't a racism issue, it's a government over stepping this bounds issue.
-
They should, so should landlords, private individuals, etc...
This isn't a racism issue, it's a government over stepping this bounds issue.
ok, so how about the government say if you want to have access to public utilities, police, fire service etc... then you follow the laws against discrimination of sex, race, religion, etc..
-
Thankfully, people like you have zero influence on national public policy.
social cons had no influence on the presidential elections in 2008 and 2012.
However, "people like him" did.
-
ok, so how about the government say if you want to have access to public utilities, police, fire service etc... then you follow the laws against discrimination of sex, race, religion, etc..
I don't think that's a very good idea.
-
social cons had no influence on the presidential elections in 2008 and 2012.
However, "people like him" did.
All my county/state candidates won. 8)
I probably made a mistake in voting for Romney. You were right in that this election should hopefully send a message to the GOP.
-
I don't think that's a very good idea.
why should the government provide services to your business or apartment building when you don't want to follow the laws designed to give all people equal access to your business
-
why should the government provide services to your business or apartment building when you don't want to follow the laws designed to give all people equal access to your business
Because those government services are designed for the benefit of all citizens (not to mention payed for by all the tax paying citizens). Privately owned business' are not.
-
why should the government provide services to your business or apartment building when you don't want to follow the laws designed to give all people equal access to your business
Because you're an American, and a tax payer.
People shouldn't discriminate, but it's no ones place to tell you the individual that you can't.
The civil rights act, although wrong may have been warranted. The fair housing act was definitely a near sighted, frivolous, knee jerk reaction though IMO.
-
Because you're an American, and a tax payer.
People shouldn't discriminate, but it's no ones place to tell you the individual that you can't.
The civil rights act, although wrong may have been warranted. The fair housing act was definitely a near sighted, frivolous, knee jerk reaction though IMO.
So you would like all the benefits,services and protection offered by the government yet you'd also like to deny that to others...at your disecretion
-
So you would like all the benefits,services and protection offered by the government yet you'd also like to deny that to others...at your disecretion
Your argument makes no sense. The government is funded by the people for the people. Private business is not.
-
Your argument makes no sense. The government is funded by the people for the people. Private business is not.
Private business utilize public services such as utilities, fire, police etc
-
So you would like all the benefits,services and protection offered by the government yet you'd also like to deny that to others...at your disecretion
I don't think government should ever discriminate, that should be criminal.
-
Private business utilize public services such as utilities, fire, police etc
And this has to do with what? Those business' pay taxes into the system. Those systems are designed for everyone. Private business' are not. Again, your argument makes no sense.
-
And this has to do with what? Those business' pay taxes into the system. Those systems are designed for everyone. Private business' are not. Again, your argument makes no sense.
Why should those businesses be allowed to deny the rights of other citizens
-
Why should those businesses be allowed to deny the rights of other citizens
Because they're private business', and it's their choice on who to employ and who to do business with. The federal government, on the other hand, is paid for by ALL citizens and should be available to all citizens.
How are you not understanding this?
A better question, is why shouldn't these companies be able to decide who they want to work with? And who's rights are they denying by not hiring them, or not doing business with them? That makes no sense, no one is being denied any rights.
-
Because they're private business', and it's their choice on who to employ and who to do business with. The federal government, on the other hand, is paid for by ALL citizens and should be available to all citizens.
How are you not understanding this?
A better question, is why shouldn't these companies be able to decide who they want to work with? And who's rights are they denying by not hiring them, or not doing business with them? That makes no sense, no one is being denied any rights.
I understand it just fine.
What if all the restaurants in a town decided to only serve white people
Arent taxes paid by blacks, asians, latinos, etc used to pay for services for which those businesses enjoy the benefits of?
-
I understand it just fine.
What if all the restaurants in a town decided to only serve white people
Arent taxes paid by blacks, asians, latinos, etc used to pay for services for which those businesses enjoy the benefits of?
You're stretching now. How are they being denied the services that their taxes paid for? They aren't. Conversely, the restaurants paid into those services, so therefore they enjoy the benefits like everyone else.
You pay taxes into the same services I do, does that mean that Im somehow in the wrong for telling you that you can't drive my car? Or fuck my wife? Or have a key to my house?
Of course it doesn't. Those are privately owned items, and I don't have to let anyone do anything with them that I don't want to.
Now, if your money helped pay for that same car, helped keep it operating and keep the maintenance up, then It would be a different story.
-
You're stretching now. How are they being denied the services that their taxes paid for? They aren't. Conversely, the restaurants paid into those services, so therefore they enjoy the benefits like everyone else.
You pay taxes into the same services I do, does that mean that Im somehow in the wrong for telling you that you can't drive my car? Or fuck my wife? Or have a key to my house?
Of course it doesn't. Those are privately owned items, and I don't have to let anyone do anything with them that I don't want to.
Now, if your money helped pay for that same car, helped keep it operating and keep the maintenance up, then It would be a different story.
this is really not that complicated
the government creates a stable environment for a business to exist, provides utilities, protection via fire and police etc.. and those services are paid for by everyone. That business does not have the right to turn around and deny access to certain citizens based on their personal discrimination. The country has an interest in their citizens having equal access to a business (restaurant, store, housing) for which everyone pays the basic services which create the environment which allow that business to exist. This hasn't really been an issue in for about the last 40 years and isn't a controversy or anything that anyone (except a few kooks like Rand Paul) even talks about
BTW - Rand has since walked back his comments so apparently (if we take him at his word) doesn't even believe his own point of view anymore
-
this is really not that complicated
the government creates a stable environment for a business to exist, provides utilities, protection via fire and police etc.. and those services are paid for by everyone. That business does not have the right to turn around and deny access to certain citizens based on their personal discrimination. The country has an interest in their citizens having equal access to a business (restaurant, store, housing) for which everyone pays the basic services which create the environment which allow that business to exist. This hasn't really been an issue in for about the last 40 years and isn't a controversy or anything that anyone (except a few kooks like Rand Paul) even talks about
BTW - Rand has since walked back his comments so apparently (if we take him at his word) doesn't even believe his own point of view anymore
Clearly this argument isn't going to go anywhere. I don't believe that any private business should be required to do business with someone that they do not want to. They have no obligation, they aren't trampling anyone's rights. Those people are free to go do business elsewhere.
The government part is irrelevent and stupid IMHO - those services that you are commenting on are paid for by everyone, including the business owners and operators, so everyone gets access to them. That does not mean that everyone is entitled to access of a privately owned and operated business, just because they pay into the same system.
No one is being denied access to any rights or systems by not being allowed to engage in commerce with a privately owned company. You seem to think that because people pay for fire, police, etc, that somehow these business are indebted to the people. They are not, as said business' also pay into the system. Those people have no more entitlement to the companies business than those business' have right to the citizens homes.