Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa?
- Thread starter Headliner
- Start date
Nothing happens if he wins Iowa.
If he wins Florida's primary on 28 January, all other candidates, including Mr. Obama, may come down with an acute care of the fantods.
If he wins Florida's primary on 28 January, all other candidates, including Mr. Obama, may come down with an acute care of the fantods.
Not a chance.
The media has already painted him as a racist. They'll beat that drum from now until November in a campaign against The One.
The media has already painted him as a racist. They'll beat that drum from now until November in a campaign against The One.
Why would you say that?
Because Mr. Obama carried the state in the 2008 General?
Because Mr. Obama carried the state in the 2008 General?
The post immediately before mine.
Dr. Paul is an interesting individual to be sure.
But there is one thing he isn't that is in his favor.
A standard issue Politician.
Which I believe is his entire attraction to a lot of people.
Myself? I'm just Hoping for Change because after these last several years, that's all I've got left in my checking account.
But there is one thing he isn't that is in his favor.
A standard issue Politician.
Which I believe is his entire attraction to a lot of people.
Myself? I'm just Hoping for Change because after these last several years, that's all I've got left in my checking account.
None of them can change anything if we keep voting the same arsewholes into the Congress.
I've been saying....
Four Four Years Now.
I've been saying....
Four Four Years Now.
The Wall Street Journal Op Ed
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577129132189244456.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577129132189244456.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Amen
If you don't want that, what do you need a government for?+Mr. Jazzy said:
You need both, but a majority vote from the people should be able to kick out the government. After all, a government ought to represent its people.
That's a fine line you're drawing there. (I know what you mean, I'm just here for fun and giggles the debate.)
A government's job is to govern (...yeah, bet you didn't see that coming). Governing means control. A government exists to control its people. This should happen in such a way that it is a service to the people, a means to an end. Not an end in itself.
A government is a representation of the general consensus on everything in a country. If it isn't, it's worthless.
A government's job is to govern (...yeah, bet you didn't see that coming). Governing means control. A government exists to control its people. This should happen in such a way that it is a service to the people, a means to an end. Not an end in itself.
A government is a representation of the general consensus on everything in a country. If it isn't, it's worthless.
Obviously not. As a representation of the people it should be completely transparent. (Except for matters of personal privacy.)+Mr. Jazzy said:
If the public doesn't know what it's doing anymore, the government has forgone its purpose.
No. That's just giving in. A smaller governments means that corruption (in one form or another) has less of an effect, it doesn't take it out of the equation.+Mr. Jazzy said:
A perfect government could be as big as the Soviet Union, it'd still be fulfilling the people's will.
