x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #396 - tehweave (01/12/2012) [-]
You ************ !

THAT'S BRILLIANT.
User avatar #348 - justinitforthecorn (01/12/2012) [-]
Well is anyone really a Ron Paul hater?
User avatar #372 to #348 - sublimettt (01/12/2012) [-]
i see what you did there
#250 - elitezombiee (01/12/2012) [-]
sneaky white guy lvl: over 9000!
#228 - VivaLaAnon (01/12/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

User avatar #68 - cheekymilkshake (01/11/2012) [-]
**cheekymilkshake rolls 6** size of obama's dick, also in OP's mouth.
#88 to #68 - uristits (01/11/2012) [-]
**uristits rolls 963** That isn't Obama's dick, this is. You forgot that he is black...
+1
#511 - crimsoneva **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#451 - qworta (01/12/2012) [-]
**qworta rolled a random image posted in comment #1 at How to get reblogs on Tumblr **
walk into random thread
roll random picture
#464 to #451 - kaycie (01/12/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

#486 to #464 - shackalacka (01/12/2012) [-]
insert Science!!! in there if you can. plz and thank ya.
insert Science!!! in there if you can. plz and thank ya.
#338 - buffalogals (01/12/2012) [-]
Can't wait to vote right next election. Get it.
#334 - ewr (01/12/2012) [-]
+1
#115 - aryzona **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #504 - drunkasaurus (01/12/2012) [-]
As cool as Ron Paul may be he's very conservative about gay rights, and I don't like it.
#514 to #504 - penetratedjew (01/12/2012) [-]
The great thing about Ron Paul is that regardless of how he feels personally about something like that, he still wouldn't stop you from making your own choices.
User avatar #516 to #514 - drunkasaurus (01/12/2012) [-]
except we would, he's opposed to gay marriage...
#517 to #516 - penetratedjew (01/12/2012) [-]
But he is also opposed to the government being over involved in peoples lives. Even if he is against it himself, he wouldn't ban it legally.
User avatar #520 to #517 - drunkasaurus (01/12/2012) [-]
Yeah, that's probably true. Other than that I still really like him, so I'll still probably vote for him this coming election. (I also don't know why I'm getting red pinkies for my perfectly reasonable concerns but ok...)
#523 to #520 - penetratedjew (01/12/2012) [-]
I agree with you about the pinkies. That was one of the main things that drove me far, far, away from Rick Perry.

I'm defiantly voting for Ron Paul because anyone else would just be trading one quasi-dictator for another.
#357 - myownparasite (01/12/2012) [-]
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.”

He's an uneducated, gay hating prick who knows nothing about running the country. **** Ron Paul.
User avatar #370 to #357 - sublimettt (01/12/2012) [-]
hmmmm, tell me more, i thought i liked ron paul but this may have swayed me a tad, do you have sauce?
User avatar #378 to #370 - myownparasite (01/12/2012) [-]
I don't have any sources right now, most of what I found out was on Reddit (inb4 hate). The Ron Paul supporters try to glorify Ron Paul but when you see through the ******** you see that he's nearly as crazy as every other Republican. Just google "Why you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul" and while you may find some biased websites, I'm sure you'll find at least a few with good sources. Also, if you're anti-Obama, you might want to check out this site: whatthefuckhasobamadonesofa...
User avatar #380 to #378 - sublimettt (01/12/2012) [-]
well i mean he is a republican politician, so of course hes nowhere near perfect, but i have the feeling he is the lesser of the evil options we are presented with. If not Ron Paul then who?
User avatar #383 to #380 - myownparasite (01/12/2012) [-]
Obama. A lot of his publicity is badly phrased or lacks any reliable sources to back up the claims. He's done a hell of a lot better than Bush.
User avatar #386 to #383 - sublimettt (01/12/2012) [-]
cant trust the media, and yes i agree he is doing a **** ton better than bush. But do you really think in another two years he's gonna change anything? or is it all the same ********
User avatar #388 to #386 - myownparasite (01/12/2012) [-]
Well you have to realize that the president doesn't have complete control over everything. We, the people need to stand up and fix our government. I personally think the idea of old, weary, biased congress trying to lead a new generation who has completely different views on everything is just wrong. Our country is **** and it's not going to be fixed for a while. Obama sure as hell can't fix it, but I'd rather vote for the least worst candidate.
#400 to #388 - Rascal (01/12/2012) [-]
dude, you are delusional, Obama has spent more money than bush in 3 years and the only reason bush is worse is because he started 2 illegal wars while Obama only started one.. if you want the status quo and failure than good vote for Obama or Romney.. if you want real change vote for Ron Paul, and he supports gay rights just fyi
User avatar #439 to #400 - myownparasite (01/12/2012) [-]
He supports states deciding to allow gay marriage or not, and I'm still against him taking that stance. Stop being a sheep and stop worshiping that old twat.
User avatar #537 to #439 - starvaggi (01/14/2012) [-]
I ******* love you. I have searched far and wide for someone saying these things, and you are my hero.
User avatar #390 to #388 - sublimettt (01/12/2012) [-]
oh i know that the president does not control the government, he is more the face for the public to blame when **** goes wrong. i agree, the people must fix it, grassroots bro. But as far as voting on which face to blame.....i am still undecided
User avatar #394 to #390 - myownparasite (01/12/2012) [-]
I say we should get a green party candidate. The green party has really good priorities, but the ****** democrats and republicans overshadow that. There was this one democratic candidate, I forgot whom, that seemed really good, but unfortunately he's out.
User avatar #395 to #394 - sublimettt (01/12/2012) [-]
green party is the way to go, if only they could get 5 million dollar endorsement deals like gingrich or alll the other talking heads
#371 to #357 - Rascal (01/12/2012) [-]
that is ever republican you twitt please stop complaining you dumbo head

#374 to #371 - necromonger (01/12/2012) [-]
Oh, the lack of punctuation.
#416 to #357 - Rascal (01/12/2012) [-]
" Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded 'I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.' " Opposed?
User avatar #440 to #416 - myownparasite (01/12/2012) [-]
In 2004, Paul said on the House floor, “I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” In August, Paul repeated, “I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman.”
#47 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
fixed
-2
#366 to #47 - mybloodynips has deleted their comment [-]
#379 to #366 - Rascal (01/12/2012) [-]
#21 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
I am intensely liberal and socialist, but I hate the Democratic party as well and I think that Ron Paul would be a way better president than Obama.
His one flaw, though, is that while he claims to be a libertarian, he still supports giving corporate institutions more power, even though they too are governing institutions and would be considered illegitimate authoritarian systems by any true libertarian, just as the government would.
When we're talking about economic liberty, we shouldn't be concerned with the rights of corporate executives; that wouldn't make any since, since they're already the ones with all the power. Rather, we should be concerned with the rights and liberties of the actual workers. All enterprises should be run democratically by those who work in them, rather than autocratically by managers and CEOs.
That, my fellow FJers, is the purest form of socialism, an that is what we need in this country.
-4
#29 to #21 - awesomesandwhich has deleted their comment [-]
#44 to #29 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
I guess a little explanation is in order on my part.
The traditional definition of "socialism" is workers' control of production, and it has nothing to do with the government. In fact, most socialists during the nineteenth century hated government and wanted it to be reduced along with corporate power. Unfortunately, that definition was not espoused by any "socialist" nation-state. The Soviet Union, for example, was the complete opposite of a socialist society, since workers had no control of production and were virtually slaves. It is my opinion, as well as that of most libertarian socialists, that "state socialism" is a contradiction in terms, since there can't be any workers' control if everything is run by the state.
The word "libertarian" was originally coined in Europe to refer to socialists, especially anarchists, who were opposed to all forms of illegitimate authority, which includes both government and corporate power. Since then, capitalists have taken the word to mean free reign for the even worst corporate tyrants, while employees' freedoms are not really considered, and they are subjected to that tyrannical system.
So what I'm basically saying is that in order to have true liberty and true democracy, we need economic democracy as well as political, which would mean democracy in the workplace, or socialism. Personally, I think the best way to achieve that is through anarchist social organization. (Don't just look at the word "anarchist" and dismiss it as nonsense; anarchism just means replacing authoritarian systems with mutually cooperative ones wherever possible, and it was done with tremendous success in eastern Spain in 1936-7. That system only came to an end when it was conquered by fascists, and that happened to a lot of capitalist countries too.)
Democrats obviously don't support this concept any more than Republicans do, and the only reason I really like Ron Paul is because of his anti-imperialist foreign policy.
Hope that explains some things.
#75 to #67 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
lol, i love that gif. If you don't want to read it, that's fine with me, just click "Hide" and enjoy your day.
User avatar #56 to #44 - cienbur ONLINE (01/11/2012) [-]
someone who did their homework? o.o...i love you. i myself am not socialist/communist, but i understand where the views of the true purpose of such groups come from, the issue is that political leaders are often corrupted and go power hungry, leading most socialist/communist ideas to become a dictatorship. i can't believe i've found someone who actually knows this though o.o
#69 to #56 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
lol, yeah, it's hard to get other people to listen to you when you say things like this since they just sound so ridiculous unless you know what the words actually mean and what the historical facts really are.
Personally, I think the reason that most political leaders are so power hungry is because the system is basically designed so that they need to already be that way in order to get into their leadership positions in the first place. That's basically why I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, since it's really the only form of social organization that makes it impossible for people to take advantage of imbalances of power.
Good to see another FJer who's genuinely well-informed about world. I wish you the best of luck, sir.
#79 to #44 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
right, i just wanted to say that ron paul is definitely not socialist. and as far as the soviet union goes they had a different theory on socialism, the theory was a group of revolutionaries speaking for the working class. because the majority of the working class in russia in the 1920s was uneducated, a country literally ruled by the workers would have been impossible. So a group of elite revolutionaries who knew the theories made the rules. Im not saying its right, im saying that was the theory. personally i think socialism is the right way to go and it can exist under a democratic government. It doesnt have to be a crazy dictatorship/oligarchy.
#90 to #79 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
I'm sorry if I implied that I thought that Ron Paul was a socialist. My point in my original comment was that he was too capitalist to really be libertarian.
But anyway, I personally don't believe that the people of a country really need to be educated to be able to govern themselves. In a truly democratic system, people would discuss issues thoroughly before deciding on them, and they would learn things that way.
I'm well aware of what the Bolsheviks' theory of socialism was, what I meant was that by attempting to bring about "socialism" in this manner, they actually produced the effect of something that was the opposite of socialism, as did all of the other dictatorships that they were allied with. For example, when Lenin came to power, he immediately worked to destroy the Soviets (the democratic community/workers councils for which the country was named), which were until then extremely successful in bringing about socialist democracy in even the rural parts of Russia.
In fact, before Marx's death, he spent a some time in the rural parts of the Russian Empire, examining the people and societies there, and concluded that they would be perfectly capable of organizing themselves democratically in a socialist manner, contrary to beliefs held by Lenin and Trotsky.
#492 to #90 - Rascal (01/12/2012) [-]
i slightly disagree, because I believe that people to be educated to make informed decisions. Also, if what u say is true, i am surprised that marx said that as the rural russian population at that time were very illiterate and uneducated, tho i guess he that means he thought that wasnt necessary. either way I respect your opinion and am glad you exist. :)
#24 to #21 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
sense*
#35 to #21 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
Um, libertarian does not equal socialism. Do some homework. Ron Paul is a tool.
The closest thing that I can think of to a socialist in our current govt is Bernie Sanders and I love that man!
#49 to #35 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
The use of political terminology is all ****** up in this country, really. I don't mean the kind of libertarianism that Glenn Be and Penn Jilette advocate. I'm talking about libertarianism in its originally conceived sense, which was applied to socialists and anarchists in Europe during the Industrial Revolution.
It's kind of ironic how the terms libertarian are socialist are used today as compared to what they really mean; in today's terms, they're polar opposites, but 150 years ago you couldn't be one without being the other.
#51 to #49 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
Glenn Beck*
sorry, my keyboard's been acting up lately
#78 to #21 - Rascal (01/11/2012) [-]
No angry or condescending tones intended, if that's what you guys are offended about. Just giving my opinion.
-4
#249 - cootiequeen has deleted their comment [-]
-5
#251 to #249 - cootiequeen has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #253 to #249 - bobbya (01/12/2012) [-]
There's only over 40,400 views.
SO PROBABLY NOT
-2
#255 to #253 - cootiequeen has deleted their comment [-]
#260 to #255 - Rascal (01/12/2012) [-]
........a very bad one
User avatar #63 - epaone (01/11/2012) [-]
funny as hell, but i still prefer Mitt Romney
#105 to #63 - Tweettwatshat (01/11/2012) [-]
because, ..........you're a Mormon
 Friends (0)