The Energon Pub

He's gonna take the next election, hands down.

If he doesn't, I'm leaving.

Check out Ron Paul on The Colbert Report.

If you think otherwise... I'm down for a good debate.

I'd never give my vote to anyone that was anti-net neutrality.

Devastator wrote:I'd never give my vote to anyone that was anti-net neutrality.

Damn straight. And besides, i grew up in Texas, and therefore, i would never vote for anybody from there. However, i did like the Colbert Report interview, but still, his stance on this war isn't enough to get me to ever vote for him. Until we find out he's stealing money from the people, i guess he can still be a congressman.

Hey, it's nice to see ya around the boards Devestator!! I used to post at Transtopia quite frequently, but i haven't done any note worthy kitbashes or paintwork as of late, so it's been a while. Cheers Bro!!!

I'll have to hand it to Mr. Paul, being one of the few Republicans who don't fall into the "I AGREE" robotic yes-man mold that make up that party and isn't a total Bush apologist.

He had a lot of guts to say what he did in the Presidental debate of the GOP candidates in South Carolina, even when under pressure from Rudy Giulani to "revoke" or "take back" what he said.

Finally, a politician that doesn't back down and seems to possess a working, logical brain.

how does Comedy Central have the most unbiased news coverage on TV?

man this show & the daily show are brillant. unlike Fox's half-hour news hour which doesn't get that you really have to attack everyone equally & have perfect satire excution

Devastator wrote:I'd never give my vote to anyone that was anti-net neutrality.

Wait, which one is Pro-Net Neutrality and which one is Anti-Net Neutrality?

I know one is advocacy of making people pay extra so certain (If not all) sites run better. The other is that the internet should be free of restrictions. (Aside from legal restrictions)

Shadowman wrote:

Devastator wrote:I'd never give my vote to anyone that was anti-net neutrality.

Wait, which one is Pro-Net Neutrality and which one is Anti-Net Neutrality?

I know one is advocacy of making people pay extra so certain (If not all) sites run better. The other is that the internet should be free of restrictions. (Aside from legal restrictions)

I'm sure he meant anti some one who would pimp out the internet to the highest bidder, because therefore, the highest bidder could only let the highest paying sites to have more access than the one's who don't generate more money than god. Everyone should have their say on the net, and not just the one's with money. It's really the only free medium we have left(as Americans).

Flamemaster Galvatron wrote:I'll have to hand it to Mr. Paul, being one of the few Republicans who don't fall into the "I AGREE" robotic yes-man mold that make up that party and isn't a total Bush apologist.

One of the few? Umm, basically every single Republican front runner has broken from the party on huge, major issues. Ron Paul is still a Libertarian at heart. Giuliani is pro-abortion. McCain is pro-immigration. Romney... well, Romney is basically the machine you are referring to as he's amended nearly all of his positions which were originally contrary to the standard Republican party planks.

Honestly, if any party can claim a total lock step on the candidates it would be the DFL. Not a single candidate breaks from the traditional views of the party and every single candidate seems to think that the more they publically hate the president the more voters they're going to pick up.

Honestly, every single Democratic nominee is exactly the same in on every single issue. The only difference is the degree of extremism.

At any rate, I like Ron Paul. A lot. I'm a Libertarian myself but the unfortunate news is that the bases of both parties absolutely destroy the chance of offering a nominee that the nation as a whole finds palatable. Ron has no chance. I wish he did, but he doesn't. I'm pulling for Rudy in the long run.

lkavadas wrote:

Flamemaster Galvatron wrote:I'll have to hand it to Mr. Paul, being one of the few Republicans who don't fall into the "I AGREE" robotic yes-man mold that make up that party and isn't a total Bush apologist.

One of the few? Umm, basically every single Republican front runner has broken from the party on huge, major issues. Ron Paul is still a Libertarian at heart. Giuliani is pro-abortion. McCain is pro-immigration. Romney... well, Romney is basically the machine you are referring to as he's amended nearly all of his positions which were originally contrary to the standard Republican party planks.

Honestly, if any party can claim a total lock step on the candidates it would be the DFL. Not a single candidate breaks from the traditional views of the party and every single candidate seems to think that the more they publically hate the president the more voters they're going to pick up.

Honestly, every single Democratic nominee is exactly the same in on every single issue. The only difference is the degree of extremism.

At any rate, I like Ron Paul. A lot. I'm a Libertarian myself but the unfortunate news is that the bases of both parties absolutely destroy the chance of offering a nominee that the nation as a whole finds palatable. Ron has no chance. I wish he did, but he doesn't. I'm pulling for Rudy in the long run.

As a matter of fact, I do know about Guiliani's liberal views of pro choice and gay rights. One couldn't be a mayor of New York without having at least some modern day views (which, face it, will do more harm then good to him due to the bible belt's penchant for electing people who's views conicide with their religious beliefs and that he's too much of a "city slicker." for their tastes.) Besides, how far would he be willing to compromise those views that differ him from the archtype republican in order to win an election? My guess would be very willing to do so. Same goes for the other candidates in both parties due to the lack of integrity.

As far as McCain, while I respect the guy for being a POW and war veteran, he's a prime example of selling out integrity once there's an oppportunity to pander to the people who will make or break you.

The main context I was speaking of (which I should have elaborated upon which I apologize for not doing so) is the pre-concieved belief in the Republican party that fundamentalist muslims attacked us for our wealth and freedom when it's really for our support of Israel and the decades of U.S. foreign policy, not to mention invading a country on plausible reasons at best. What earned my respect was Ron Paul seemed like the only one of the candidates valiant enough to acknowledge this while the others just seemed to resent him for doing so.

Flamemaster Galvatron wrote:The main context I was speaking of (which I should have elaborated upon which I apologize for not doing so) is the pre-concieved belief in the Republican party that fundamentalist muslims attacked us for our wealth and freedom when it's really for our support of Israel and the decades of U.S. foreign policy, not to mention invading a country on plausible reasons at best. What earned my respect was Ron Paul seemed like the only one of the candidates valiant enough to acknowledge this while the others just seemed to resent him for doing so.

I completely agree. Though I don't believe that they actually believe what they're saying, and they're saying it to just satiate a portion of the base, I was pretty offended when the majority of candidates and Sean Hannity jumped all over Ron's case and attacked him for his [completely correct] implications.