sobo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Just here to claim my second all-important on this all-important thread. Edited January 12, 2012 by sobo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) shit, I thought I'd catch you. Edited January 12, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) faster than ewe... Edited January 12, 2012 by sobo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 faster than ewe... Â Poor sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) faster than ewe... Poor sheep. They seem to enjoy it... Edited January 12, 2012 by sobo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/why-ron-paul-may-cut-deal-mitt-romney-092118733.html  What the dangerous nutcase wants now that he's out of the running for sure - from link above, negotiating with Romney, the current leader for the nomination. ""Romney wants the ring of power. He wants it so bad," says Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser. "Negotiating with Ron Paul is very difficult because he doesn't want anything. If he got the ring, he would throw it into Mount Doom." Maybe so, but at 76, Paul is understandably concerned about the future of his movement. Aides say if Paul can't win the nomination, four legislative priorities would top the Texas Representative's wish list: deep spending cuts that lead to a balanced budget; the restoration of civil liberties; a commitment to reclaim the legislative branch's right to declare war, which it abdicated to the executive branch in recent decades; and reforms that shore up the U.S. monetary system, such an audit of the Federal Reserve or competing-currency legislation. ..... He hasn't even gotten people discussing those ideas and when he brings them up he's called a nutcase. God help us all.  hmmmm   Homie the Clown says that we should check in with the debt clock lil childrens! Hmm,says that it's $136,980, up $2000 from quote below, which means your share, assuming you are a taxpayer, is only ... wait, nevermind - that is exactly what YOU owe. $136,980 IS YOUR SHARE. We'll, it's even higher now by the time you are reading this, with no end in sight. Does any rational thinking citizen (of course you are excluded here Rob) really believe that they will not have to pay that money or incure any pain to turn that around?  BTW, Looks like it's shaping up to be the classic borrow and spend Repub (Romeny -crazy tax ideas including no estate tax and even more tax cuts) vs a Borrow and spend run us into hell just as fast Dem(Obama). Either way,we're still heading towards hell faster and faster. Enjoy the ride brobhams!    From 12-12-11 You guys may be right and we need to accelerate our countries borrowing and get into debt even deeper. Barack is doing quite well at that, so I can see that he'd be your guy. I checked the debt clock this am and assuming you are both taxpayers it read that YOU, Rob: and You, Pat, each owed $134,345 for your portion to pay off the federal debt.  It's now almost lunch and your share is at $134.348.  http://www.usdebtclock.org/  Since this appears all but unstoppable, I can understand why you want to give up, let it keep rolling and just let the Fed and the big bankers pound sand up your ass. I suppose that later, you can figure out what you will tell your children about this. About why all the things you now profess to want to support will not be able to be supported due to lack of money. Maybe you have that speech prepared already, can you share it?  Enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Starvation diets are not the right way to lose weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Starvation diets are not the right way to lose weight. HELLO YANKEE Â BUY $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 CANADIAN DOLLARS AT PAR DEVALUE US DOLLAR so 1 USD = 1/1000 CANADIAN DOLLARS CANADIAN DOLLARS ARE NOW WORTH $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 US DOLLARS PAY OFF US DOLLAR DEBT WITH CANADIAN DOLLARS ????? PROFIT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Starvation diets are not the right way to lose weight. Â No one is even talking about tapering off. It's speeding up. OK, it doesn't matter: lets just keep noshing away then - heading the wrong direction....can stay heading in this direction forever! NOT Â Â Bring on some more debt and a side of fried chicken! Woot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Starvation diets are not the right way to lose weight. Â No one is even talking about tapering off. It's speeding up. Â Yes, it's really unfortunate. The republicans want to spend money on tax breaks for the rich and the democrats want to spend money on subsidies for the poor and the only guy who says any different wants to throw the economy into Mt. Doom or whatever. Â I'm sorry, anybody that thinks Ron Paul's solution is the answer is a fucking retard of the highest caliber of retards. I'm talking King of the Retards. Like Texas-caliber retardation. George W. Bush levels, the sort of retardation that is embarrassing to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Starvation diets are not the right way to lose weight. Â No one is even talking about tapering off. It's speeding up. Â Yes, it's really unfortunate. The republicans want to spend money on tax breaks for the rich and the democrats want to spend money on subsidies for the poor and the only guy who says any different wants to throw the economy into Mt. Doom or whatever. Â I'm sorry, anybody that thinks Ron Paul's solution is the answer is a fucking retard of the highest caliber of retards. I'm talking King of the Retards. Like Texas-caliber retardation. George W. Bush levels, the sort of retardation that is embarrassing to watch. Â Gosh, Rob, things are going so great now though! Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Starvation diets are not the right way to lose weight. Â No one is even talking about tapering off. It's speeding up. Â Yes, it's really unfortunate. The republicans want to spend money on tax breaks for the rich and the democrats want to spend money on subsidies for the poor and the only guy who says any different wants to throw the economy into Mt. Doom or whatever. Â I'm sorry, anybody that thinks Ron Paul's solution is the answer is a fucking retard of the highest caliber of retards. I'm talking King of the Retards. Like Texas-caliber retardation. George W. Bush levels, the sort of retardation that is embarrassing to watch. Â Gosh, Rob, things are going so great now though! Â Ron Paul effectively wants to euthanize the patient, and people like Bill and Kevin stand behind him saying, "at least it's different!" Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil K Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Ron Paul effectively wants to euthanize the patient, and people like Bill and Kevin stand behind him saying, "at least it's different!" Â Â Â Â At least it might give Bill some more freakish, disturbing images to add to his collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 Â Ron Paul effectively wants to euthanize the patient, and people like Bill and Kevin stand behind him saying, "at least it's different!" Â Â Instead of telling me why my candidate is wrong....why dont you tell me who to vote for that will do something different than the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil K Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Â Ron Paul effectively wants to euthanize the patient, and people like Bill and Kevin stand behind him saying, "at least it's different!" Â Â Instead of telling me why my candidate is wrong....why dont you tell me who to vote for that will do something different than the status quo. Â Rick Santorum's your man then. He'll ban contraception, close down the public education system, and eliminate any science-based approach to environmental regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Â Ron Paul effectively wants to euthanize the patient, and people like Bill and Kevin stand behind him saying, "at least it's different!" Â Â Instead of telling me why my candidate is wrong....why dont you tell me who to vote for that will do something different than the status quo. Â LOTS of people will do different than the status quo. Do you know who Goodspaceguy is? Are you familiar with the various Socialist Party candidates? Are you familiar with the Prohibition Party? Pick any of them, they're all extremely different than the status quo. Â I didn't realize your main priority was that they are different. That must make things simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 But Doctor Paul is just so awesome. He's my favorite. Even more favoriter than my favoritest Transformer doll and my allowance. Well, sheesh, not more favorite than my allowance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 Â I didn't realize your main priority was that they are different. That must make things simple. Â If by different you mean no more occupations, not to shred the constitution, move away from fascism, bring all the troops home, have sound money backed up by gold and a complete audit of the Federal Reserve.....then yes. Â Anything else is continuing down the same path. Which is what Obama, Newt, Mitt and Rick will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Â If by different you mean no more occupations, not to shred the constitution, move away from fascism, bring all the troops home, have sound money backed up by gold and a complete audit of the Federal Reserve.....then yes. Â Anything else is continuing down the same path. Which is what Obama, Newt, Mitt and Rick will do. Â Please explain to me how anything other than money backed up by gold is exactly the same as Obama and Santorum? Â Basically, anything other than Ron Paul is exactly the same? Are you high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 Paul will bring ALL the troops home. Obama, Newt, Mitt and Rich will not. To me that is very different. Â And no I am not high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I only want chocolate cake. All other types of cake are identical! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 I only want chocolate cake. All other types of cake are identical! Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 They're all the same, kevin. Everything in the world is identical except for Ron Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Paul will bring ALL the troops home. Obama, Newt, Mitt and Rich will not. To me that is very different. Â And no I am not high. Â why do you keep ignoring there are other presidential candidates beside those you listed? Not only would these other candidates bring the troops home but they also wouldn't return us to the 19th century like Paul is proposing to do. Â If it's a matter of electability, Paul is no more immediately electable than the others you refuse to acknowledge. Or is it that you totally buy into the less tax/drown gov in a bathtub/states rights nonsense yet you couch your choice as an antiwar vote? Edited March 15, 2012 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Chocolate cake! Yummmy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.