I like how you latch onto one thing and try and make it look like I am inconsistent. I listed over a dozen issue votes, one does not mean anything alone. Obama did vote for the secure fence, and was wrong to do so, it's a nutty idea that sounds good and makes a few people happy while solving no problems and costing a ton. However, Obama has never sponsored a sanctity of life bill, did not vote against improving the GI Bill or funding for the VA, and so on.
YOU latched onto the issue, and you'd still be touting it as evidence of Ron Paul's insanity if I hadn't told you the Messiah voted for it, too.I like how you latch onto one thing and try and make it look like I am inconsistent.
You're the one who singled it out.I listed over a dozen issue votes, one does not mean anything alone.
You're the one who made it a demonstration of Ron Paul's wingnut status.
Now it's irrelevant...fancy that.
How do you know that it didn't solve any problems?Obama did vote for the secure fence, and was wrong to do so, it's a nutty idea that sounds good and makes a few people happy while solving no problems and costing a ton.
Do you know what the bill sought to accomplish?
Do you have any evidence that the bill has failed to accomplish its goals?
Why does that make him a wingnut?However, Obama has never sponsored a sanctity of life bill...
Why does that make him a wingnut?...did not vote against improving the GI Bill...
Why does that make him a wingnut?...or funding for the VA, and so on.
I totally hear you on that, it's almost rediculous especially when it deals with anything that goes against Obama.... it's always denied and the discussion is spent proving that something exists when the real discussion should be whether or not it is desired.All you want is more and more, and never accept what is written. I am not going to spend hours of time researching every tiny detail and documenting all them, you would not accept it any way and I got better things to do with my time.
You just say that because that's what the mouthpieces you see on the news say just that... if you spent more time researching the details for yourself then reliying on the 'experts' to spoon feed to you how to think, then you'd see that the constitution isn't 'kooky', the intent was to have very limited government... yet both the left and right are all gung ho about creating a huge megolithic federal government...Paul, and Libertarians are way out there politically. When viewed from a more mainstream position, you guys look nutty.
Listen, you might disagree that government should allow the people to retain the power through the cities and states, and the federal government deals with what the constitution tells it to deal with and nothing more... you might disagree with that, but that does not make it crazy to put individual rights protected above and beyond the federal governments attempt at creating a 'collective'... Look at China, that's what happens when you have a hugely powerful ruling class with a subservient lower class system.I listed plenty of reasons, and you want details on all of them, while never offering anything yourself. It's an easy game to play, and intellectually dishonest. Always ask for more, and then claim victory when the person gets tired of explaining and linking.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).