Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 30, 2012, 02:05 PM   #51
dukebound85
macrumors P6
 
dukebound85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 5045 feet above sea level
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Sorry, not for me. He's wrong on so many levels it can't be overstated.We are either one country, or 50 different countries. Which is it?
In between.

It is the United States of America afterall.

The division of responsibility falls between that of complete federal oversight, or none. Ron Paul merely argues that what the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the federal gov't, the states are responsible for.
dukebound85 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 02:12 PM   #52
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukebound85 View Post
In between.

It is the United States of America afterall.

The division of responsibility falls between that of complete federal oversight, or none. Ron Paul merely argues that what the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the federal gov't, the states are responsible for.
And divisional responsibility by state is not a bad thing although in recent times it has been viewed negatively. The diversity in the US is so great that this allows a more customizable set through discretion.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusianSky View Post
You and I are on the same page. I think Libertarian ideas actually align with many that consider themselves Republican or Democrat. They just don't realize it. Libertarian party is pretty young, relatively speaking.
I agree with that. There is no party that emphasizes civil rights more than the libertarian party. And at the same time, they concentrate on specific delegation of power of the WHO governs question.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 02:20 PM   #53
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukebound85 View Post
In between.

It is the United States of America afterall.

The division of responsibility falls between that of complete federal oversight, or none. Ron Paul merely argues that what the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the federal gov't, the states are responsible for.
No- Ron Paul advocates what is basically nothing more than chaos. The Constitution states very specifically many rights that states cannot take from anyone. Ron Paul does not agree with that.

But I can see this is futile. Not one person here on the Ron Paul side will discuss specifics. I'm out. Have fun with your unrealistic non-discussion.
leekohler is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 02:22 PM   #54
VenusianSky
macrumors 65816
 
VenusianSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
No- Ron Paul advocates what is basically nothing more than chaos. The Constitution states very specifically many rights that states cannot take from anyone. Ron Paul does not agree with that.
I don't know where you get your information from, but Ron Paul has publically shown to be an enormous supporter of the Federal Constitution.
__________________
"I know that I know nothing..."
-Socrates
VenusianSky is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 03:12 PM   #55
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
BS- the man is insane. You really think the founding fathers would be in favor of getting rid of the Civil Rights Act, letting people discriminate against anyone for any reason? That's what Ron Paul is for. If you don't believe me, here it is in black and white. There is very little here that is OK.e's also against the separation of church and state and favors Citizens United. Read through this and tell me that you truly believe it's OK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul
I think the Civil Rights Act is outdated and no longer relevant. Furthermore, I disagree with the government telling businesses who they can and can't serve.

The idea of protected classes is disturbing.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 03:41 PM   #56
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I think the Civil Rights Act is outdated and no longer relevant. Furthermore, I disagree with the government telling businesses who they can and can't serve.

The idea of protected classes is disturbing.
Tell that to the African Americans in states where the GOP tried to prevent them from voting. Tell that to all the gays who just want the same rights as everyone else. Tell that to the women who want to merely enforce the law regarding equal pay. Tell that to the hispanic American citizens in Arizona and elsewhere who might have to carry papers with them.

(edit) What is more disturbing is that people actually think it would be ok for a public establishment to discriminate.
mcrain is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 03:50 PM   #57
VenusianSky
macrumors 65816
 
VenusianSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Tell that to the African Americans in states where the GOP tried to prevent them from voting. Tell that to all the gays who just want the same rights as everyone else. Tell that to the women who want to merely enforce the law regarding equal pay. Tell that to the hispanic American citizens in Arizona and elsewhere who might have to carry papers with them.

(edit) What is more disturbing is that people actually think it would be ok for a public establishment to discriminate.
Libertarian ideas agree with everything you've said.

Ron Paul thinks that Civil Rights action could have been handled differently than how it was outlined in the Civil Rights Act. That is all.

As for relevance today...
People, as a majority, have changed since 1964.
__________________
"I know that I know nothing..."
-Socrates
VenusianSky is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 04:03 PM   #58
P-Worm
macrumors 68020
 
P-Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusianSky View Post
As for relevance today...
People, as a majority, have changed since 1964.
...Because of the Civil Right Act. You can't say "We don't need these laws because of how people think now" when it was the laws that got people to think that way in the first place.

P-Worm
P-Worm is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 04:05 PM   #59
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusianSky View Post
Libertarian ideas agree with everything you've said.

Ron Paul thinks that Civil Rights action could have been handled differently than how it was outlined in the Civil Rights Act. That is all.

As for relevance today...
People, as a majority, have changed since 1964.
Well spun, but it's still just spin. Ron Paul and libertarian ideas do have a place in politics, but they need to be pushed by someone who isn't a loon who hasn't changed with the times. Ron Paul had more baggage than Lindsey Lohan, and stood with a party that didn't agree with the things I said. He caucused with the party that was against the principals he claimed to support.
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 07:48 PM   #60
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
This is the problem IMO. People are more than willing to disregard Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters as being crazy, which I personally think is wrong.

If we don't have enough tolerance to give other views consideration without immediately dismissing them as crazy, what do we have?
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 08:02 PM   #61
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
If we don't have enough tolerance to give other views consideration without immediately dismissing them as crazy, what do we have?
I think a lot of the people who say he's crazy have looked at his views. They just realize that a lot of them won't work in a modern society, so they say he's crazy, and are right.
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 09:11 PM   #62
VenusianSky
macrumors 65816
 
VenusianSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-Worm View Post
...Because of the Civil Right Act. You can't say "We don't need these laws because of how people think now" when it was the laws that got people to think that way in the first place.

P-Worm
I'll try this again...

Quote from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusianSky View Post
"Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional infringement on liberty and by leading to quotas has in his view increased racial disharmony."
No where does it say that he opposes individual civil rights. It simply says that he opposed the written act and Ron, as he stated in interviews, feels that Civil Rights issues could have been addressed differently that would not have led to increased racial disharmony. Now times were different then, and I don't know how much of an increase of racial disharmony was caused by the government passing the Civil Rights Act as it was written, but Ron Paul lived during those times and study more about civil rights then myself, so I am trusting his words. From my judgement Ron Paul seems genuine, but who really knows, other than his wife. Is it possible that people just became more accepting of minorities over the years, or do you think that written piece of paper did that alone? We can never tell, but I like to think that people just became more accepting of minorities on their own.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
If we don't have enough tolerance to give other views consideration without immediately dismissing them as crazy, what do we have?
Well put. There was a period in time that is referred to as the age of reason.
__________________
"I know that I know nothing..."
-Socrates
VenusianSky is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 09:20 PM   #63
Ariii
macrumors 6502a
 
Ariii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Send a message via ICQ to Ariii Send a message via AIM to Ariii Send a message via MSN to Ariii Send a message via Yahoo to Ariii
I don't like or agree with Ron Paul, I think it would be dangerous if he came to rule America. But I'm surprised he hasn't became more popular. The Republican party has gained a scary amount of popularity. He has a lot of things in common with the Republican party, and a less conserverative take on social issues. Strangely enough, it seemed like there could've even been a good chance of him becoming President.
__________________
Indigo iBook Clamshell, MacOS 9; Lime iBook Clamshell, Panther;
MacOS 9 users: Use Classilla | MacOS 9 Lives
I'm on IRC at #macrumors on irc.krono.net
Tumblr
Ariii is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 09:30 PM   #64
Dmunjal
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Regardless of what you think of his social beliefs, we should agree that he has been the only politician to point out that this country will go bankrupt if we don't change our fiscal and monetary policies.

The two parties in collaboration with the Federal Reserve have destroyed the solvency of this country with their borrow and spend welfare and warfare policies.

On our current track, we will owe $20T in four years even with new taxes on the wealthy. That doesn't even include our unfunded liabilities of another $80T.

What good are all these points that are being brought up if our children and grandchildren have to live in a failed state?

We're missing the forest for the trees IMO. He is not a perfect man but we'd be stupid to ignore his message on this topic.
Dmunjal is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 09:53 PM   #65
VenusianSky
macrumors 65816
 
VenusianSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariii View Post
I don't like or agree with Ron Paul, I think it would be dangerous if he came to rule America.
Maybe you chose your words poorly, but no single person in America rules the country. That is what democratic system is about.
__________________
"I know that I know nothing..."
-Socrates
VenusianSky is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 09:59 PM   #66
Ariii
macrumors 6502a
 
Ariii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Send a message via ICQ to Ariii Send a message via AIM to Ariii Send a message via MSN to Ariii Send a message via Yahoo to Ariii
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusianSky View Post
Maybe you chose your words poorly, but no single person in America rules the country. That is what democratic system is about.
Oops .

That's not what I meant. I meant if he became President.
__________________
Indigo iBook Clamshell, MacOS 9; Lime iBook Clamshell, Panther;
MacOS 9 users: Use Classilla | MacOS 9 Lives
I'm on IRC at #macrumors on irc.krono.net
Tumblr
Ariii is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 10:54 PM   #67
Saladinos
macrumors 68000
 
Saladinos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anuba View Post
You can't just flick a switch NOW and go all-in with libertarianism when allocation of assets and resources are a result of a completely different dynamic that's been in place for centuries. What are you gonna do with those in the military industrial complex who became billionaires as government contractors, are you gonna confiscate their assets arguing that in Ron Paul's alternate universe those purchases would never have taken place? And give the money to people who in his universe would've been filthy rich by now if it hasn't been for that pesky government stealing from them? You'd have to hit the reset button first and let everyone start from scratch with an equal share, but that would be, you know, the most massive redistribution of wealth in human history.
It's so convenient, isn't it, to advocate a utopian ideology that hasn't been subjected to a real world test for aeons, if ever. All others have, always with some degree of failure, but libertarianism never failed (because it remains a pipe dream) and this is of course irrefutable evidence of its supremacy.
I hate people who use isms. Libertarianism, neo-conservatism, liberalism, communism, socialism, capitalism.

Just say what your values are. Isms dilute the whole thing by making it seem like you can't like a certain idea without subscribing to a whole packet of others.

The only ism I listen to is pragmatism. Every culture will have their own set of rules and values according to their circumstance.

In the US right now, the circumstance is that a tiny minority of people are allowed to become richer than anybody could ever really tangibly appreciate. Others can't afford food, shelter or medical care. More and more people are finding themselves closer and closer to that latter situation, while the few in the former set become richer and richer. That is not the spirit of the constitution.

The US is going off on a different path from other developed countries. There, ideology is dead. What matters is the centre - proposing solutions that fit the problem, not solutions which fit in to some preconceived idea or fantasy. Politics in the US needs to just grow up. Nobody cares about ideology. The way elections get tighter and tighter just emphasises that point - either people are radically diverging in their opinions, or they're converging and the difference in either sides favour is too small to swing it either way. Which do you think more likely?

Last edited by Saladinos; Nov 30, 2012 at 11:05 PM.
Saladinos is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 12:18 AM   #68
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkramer View Post
I think a lot of the people who say he's crazy have looked at his views. They just realize that a lot of them won't work in a modern society, so they say he's crazy, and are right.
Exactly. I too initially thought his ideas sounded good. Then I did some digging and realized just how scary a lot of those ideas would in reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saladinos View Post
I hate people who use isms. Libertarianism, neo-conservatism, liberalism, communism, socialism, capitalism.

Just say what your values are. Isms dilute the whole thing by making it seem like you can't like a certain idea without subscribing to a whole packet of others.

The only ism I listen to is pragmatism. Every culture will have their own set of rules and values according to their circumstance.

In the US right now, the circumstance is that a tiny minority of people are allowed to become richer than anybody could ever really tangibly appreciate. Others can't afford food, shelter or medical care. More and more people are finding themselves closer and closer to that latter situation, while the few in the former set become richer and richer. That is not the spirit of the constitution.

The US is going off on a different path from other developed countries. There, ideology is dead. What matters is the centre - proposing solutions that fit the problem, not solutions which fit in to some preconceived idea or fantasy. Politics in the US needs to just grow up. Nobody cares about ideology.
I could not have said it better. Once you examine Paul's ideals and relate them to the real world, they're an absolute nightmare. They're dog eat dog and just plain terrible.
leekohler is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 12:22 AM   #69
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkramer View Post
I think a lot of the people who say he's crazy have looked at his views. They just realize that a lot of them won't work in a modern society, so they say he's crazy, and are right.
It just amazes me how easily people say that as much as how easily people say Obama wasn't born in the US. I don't think most of the people calling him crazy have made one spec of effort to find out something other than what the media, usually liberally skewed (or republican but not libertarian skewed), tells them to believe.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saladinos View Post
The only ism I listen to is pragmatism.
Pragmatism and government do not always work well.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 12:59 AM   #70
VenusianSky
macrumors 65816
 
VenusianSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Edit: nevermind
__________________
"I know that I know nothing..."
-Socrates

Last edited by VenusianSky; Dec 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM. Reason: Irrelevant
VenusianSky is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 01:48 AM   #71
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
It just amazes me how easily people say that as much as how easily people say Obama wasn't born in the US. I don't think most of the people calling him crazy have made one spec of effort to find out something other than what the media, usually liberally skewed (or republican but not libertarian skewed), tells them to believe.
So are you saying he doesn't want to gut the federal government, and go back to the gold standard? Because those are two crazy things that he wants to do that would destroy our current society and way of life. I'll admit that some of his foreign policy ideas are decent, but they go too far with completely disengaging with the world, it would be better to be somewhere between his ideas and what we're currently doing. I used to like him, and I used to be a libertarian, even voted for the Libertarian party candidate in '08. But then I started thinking a bit more about what the end result of libertarian ideas would be and realized that while they sound good on the surface they wouldn't work.
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 01:50 AM   #72
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
It just amazes me how easily people say that as much as how easily people say Obama wasn't born in the US. I don't think most of the people calling him crazy have made one spec of effort to find out something other than what the media, usually liberally skewed (or republican but not libertarian skewed), tells them to believe.[COLOR="#808080"]
I earlier presented a lot of Paul's views very specifically. Not one of you Paul supporters have addressed any of those issues at all. You've just given vague responses as to your feelings.

I went and did research on Paul before forming my opinions on the man. NOT ONE OF YOU has responded to what I posted in any reasonable, specific manner, or even said which points you agree or disagree with.

Now, if you want to be taken seriously, answer each and every one of those points. Otherwise, you're living in dreamland, wishfully thinking for a perfect world in which Paul's ideals could only work.

And that's the problem, Paul takes the human equation out of everything he believes.

I'll give you this, in an absolutely perfect world, yes- Paul's ideals could work. But human beings are not robots, we have flaws, and that is the problem.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 07:41 AM   #73
Bug-Creator
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
Regardless of what you think of his social beliefs, we should agree that he has been the only politician to point out that this country will go bankrupt if we don't change our fiscal and monetary policies.
Marx&Engels also made bunch correct predictions/observertions back in their days. Doesn't mean that their solutions were workable.

And just like the "real existing sosialism/communism" (not to be misttaken with what Marx&Engels actually wrote) ended in the worst disaster in human history (100-200 milion deaths depending whose counting), we would see the world spiral into doom if anybody tried to implement Mr Paul's brain-farts in the developed world.
Bug-Creator is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 10:50 AM   #74
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Tell that to the African Americans in states where the GOP tried to prevent them from voting.
And how did they do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Tell that to all the gays who just want the same rights as everyone else.
Marriage licensing shouldn't be a function of government. Despite the institution of the civil rights act, gays still can't marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Tell that to the women who want to merely enforce the law regarding equal pay.
Civil rights act doesn't help that
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Tell that to the hispanic American citizens in Arizona and elsewhere who might have to carry papers with them.
Failure of other policies, not the success of the civil rights act. And frankly, if you're enforcing such a law, it's not unreasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
(edit) What is more disturbing is that people actually think it would be ok for a public establishment to discriminate.
Vote with your dollars. If a business practices in such a way, don't go there.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bug-
we would see the world spiral into doom if anybody tried to implement Mr Paul's brain-farts in the developed world.
What policies would cause such doom and why?
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 01:51 PM   #75
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkramer View Post
So are you saying he doesn't want to gut the federal government, and go back to the gold standard? Because those are two crazy things that he wants to do that would destroy our current society and way of life. I'll admit that some of his foreign policy ideas are decent, but they go too far with completely disengaging with the world, it would be better to be somewhere between his ideas and what we're currently doing. I used to like him, and I used to be a libertarian, even voted for the Libertarian party candidate in '08. But then I started thinking a bit more about what the end result of libertarian ideas would be and realized that while they sound good on the surface they wouldn't work.
I don't recall saying that. I do recall saying I agree with quite a few of his ideals although I still favor the administration and not everything he says works in today's world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
I am more than aware of Ron Paul's views and I have many views that are libertarian. However, some of the cuts he has proposed to the administration, while a great idea perhaps 200 years ago, are not practical in today's society. None the less, his insight is very important and many points he makes are very true and very valid.
Although I do like his notions of...
-Opposing the PATRIOT Act
-Opposition of federal torture of prisoners
-His criticism of Bush war policy
-His criticism of the assignation of Anwar al-Awlaki
-His opposition of REAL ID
-opposition of domestic espionage
-opposing eminent domain under most circumstances
-his outspoken support for ending the war on drugs
-Reducing federal spending (NOT gutting...we need a regulatory agency)
-His argument that emergency services need more development at the state level
-Cutting the defense budget
-Reducing federal travel
-eliminate the estate tax
-the federal reserve is driving inflation (not agreeing that eliminating it is a good idea tho)
-free exercise of religion
-his voting against banning flag burning on the basis of free speech
-support of whistleblower protection
-his refusal to violate habeas corpus
-his willingness to entertain the possibility of changing executive functions from the federal to the state level

I want to stress that I do not unequivocally support any one candidate, which includes Ron Paul. My point was and is that his insight is often disregarded outright and to me, that isn't very democratic. I remember in 2001 that almost everybody was on board for the PATRIOT Act except him, and they called him crazy. I remember him forecasting the outcomes of the wars and everyone called him crazy. I remember him saying the housing bubble was going to bust and they called him crazy. My point is that you do not have to agree with someone in whole to agree with some parts. Is there any political candidate or thought ideology you agree with in full?




Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
I earlier presented a lot of Paul's views very specifically. Not one of you Paul supporters have addressed any of those issues at all. You've just given vague responses as to your feelings.

I went and did research on Paul before forming my opinions on the man. NOT ONE OF YOU has responded to what I posted in any reasonable, specific manner, or even said which points you agree or disagree with.

Now, if you want to be taken seriously, answer each and every one of those points. Otherwise, you're living in dreamland, wishfully thinking for a perfect world in which Paul's ideals could only work.

And that's the problem, Paul takes the human equation out of everything he believes.

I'll give you this, in an absolutely perfect world, yes- Paul's ideals could work. But human beings are not robots, we have flaws, and that is the problem.
I never said you specifically (you are on a political for for that matter...) and I never said that everything he has argued makes sense. I never even said the points you raise are wrong. I do not agree with his views on gay marriage and catching child predators, for example. I see many of the issues he has observed in government and society to be real and valid, such as how the Fed may have harmed the economy. However, that does not mean I agree with his proposed solutions. Urbanization has made isolationism at the degree he advocates impossible for the 85% or so of Americans that live in a metropolitan area. And that is why I have said in this thread he brings a lot of insight. I never said he did/didn't bring the solution.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
China, others adverse to Bitcoin, Ron Paul takes it seriously macmesser Current Events 18 Mar 24, 2014 03:00 PM
Farewell iOS7 Smwdesigns Wasteland 3 Sep 1, 2013 01:09 PM
Vanilla Ice's little to do with Libertarians/Ron Paul thread [SPIN-OFF] Vanilla Ice Politics, Religion, Social Issues 62 Sep 20, 2012 07:11 PM
Any Libertarians / Ron Paul supporters here? VenusianSky Politics, Religion, Social Issues 107 Sep 19, 2012 11:53 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC