Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bsdaddict on March 15, 2007, 12:39:32 PM
-
Who is Ron Paul and why should you support his candidacy? He's an honest politician. I know, I know, that sounds like an oxymoron, but it's true. His "agenda" consists solely of honoring his oath of office, that being to support and defend the constitution.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v298215hbS8htft (Ron Paul interviewed on CSPAN)
If you're interested in learning more about the man and his message, watch this video.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Who is Ron Paul?
A third tier nobody who will fade back into the woodwork before the year ends.
-
As contrasted to a first tier nobody like Obama who will probably get the VP slot with the most famous top tier nobody, Billary, as Presidentte.
:)
-
Dr.Ron Paul is the only one who looks good to me so far.
-
He'll be a write-in for you then.
It$ no my$tery that money talk$ when it come$ to picking the eventual nominee$. In comparison to Billary for example, Paul doe$n't have a pot to pi$$ in.
-
Originally posted by Toad
He'll be a write-in for you then.
It$ no my$tery that money talk$ when it come$ to picking the eventual nominee$. In comparison to Billary for example, Paul doe$n't have a pot to pi$$ in.
didn't watch the video, didja? money's coming in, he's getting a HUGE amount of grassroot support.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
A third tier nobody who will fade back into the woodwork before the year ends.
I would have to side with this.
-
In January 2007, Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner stated that the 2008 U.S. presidential race will be "the most expensive election in American history." Toner estimated that the 2008 race will be a "$1 billion election," and that to be "taken seriously," a candidate will need to raise at least $100 million by the end of 2007.
Last I heard, Billary had about $14 million in her campaign chest at the end of her Senatorial campaign which she can use for the Presidential run. Her advisers have not disputed estimates that she will raise $100 million or more before the year is out.
How's Paul doing on the money front?
I haven't researched Paul very much but I'm certainly not opposed to a Constitutionalist. I just doubt that he will be seen by enough people as a viable alternative, primarily because he won't be a media darling and he won't have enough money to be noticed otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Last I heard, Billary had about $14 million in her campaign chest at the end of her Senatorial campaign which she can use for the Presidential run. Her advisers have not disputed estimates that she will raise $100 million or more before the year is out.
How's Paul doing on the money front?
I haven't researched Paul very much but I'm certainly not opposed to a Constitutionalist. I just doubt that he will be seen by enough people as a viable alternative, primarily because he won't be a media darling and he won't have enough money to be noticed otherwise.
I have no doubt Billary can outspend Ron Paul. In the video, he says that he wasn't sure about running either, but that the volume of grassroots support, especially via the internet, convinced him to run. He also mentions that in the last month he's raised $500,000 "with very little effort", which suprised him. It's no 14M, but it's a start...
Maybe it's just the idealist in me, but I really think '08 might be different. People are pissed off at "politicians". Ron Paul doesn't come off as one, in fact, he's got a reputation for being a straight shooter and that fact, spread via the internet, might be just what it takes to even the odds.
Watch the video, just listen to the man speak and tell me you don't think he'll be good for this county.
-
Hell, I did a bit of research on him the first time you mentioned him. I think ANY strict Constitutionalist would be good for the country. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hell, I did a bit of research on him the first time you mentioned him. I think ANY strict Constitutionalist would be good for the country. :)
:D
-
he is a great candidate... He would be good for America.
If there is no chance a democrat will get in I will vote for him.
lazs
-
Maybe he'll be the Republican.
-
I already voted for him once for Prez..hope I get an opportunity to do it again.
shamus
-
Yea but hes a republican. Both dems & reps have failed too many times to be worthy of my vote.
I do hope some no-name little guy wins tho, the current crop of so called front runners are all the lowest of bottom feeding pond scum.
-
He's a Republican that ran as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1988.
Also, Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for President just endorsed Paul for President.
This from Wiki as well:
Ron Paul joined the Libertarian Party in 1987 as a lifetime member, a status which he appears never to have renounced. Though only elected to Congress as a Republican, Paul remains on good terms with the Libertarian Party and has addressed its national convention as recently as 2004.
I'm not sure just how Republican he is. Like I said, he's sounding better and better.
This is one of his quotes I like:
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
Ron Paul
-
Ron Paul sounds like a porn name :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman
A third tier nobody who will fade back into the woodwork before the year ends.
I might have been wrong about this guy.
-
told ya... :P
-
Call me cynical, but the republican institution would not endorse Ron Paul. He's just not enough of a politician. They'd endorse a changling democrat first.
It would be like a mick mobster becoming a made man in the mafia. Aint going to happen.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Call me cynical, but the republican institution would not endorse Ron Paul. He's just not enough of a politician. They'd endorse a changling democrat first.
It would be like a mick mobster becoming a made man in the mafia. Aint going to happen.
at the very least he's shaking things up. I'm still drinking the kool-aid and think it *might* be possible. He's the only anti-war republican candidate. Seems like that'll be the make-or-break issue for him.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I might have been wrong about this guy.
:) :p :D
-
I think Ron Paul is Ru Paul's brother, right?
-
Ron Paul is an isolationist among other things.
Essentially he is a fringe populist attractive to conspiracy and NEW WORLD ORDER loons.
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
Essentially he is a fringe populist attractive to conspiracy and NEW WORLD ORDER loons.
That line says you either have no idea what he stands for or you are living in a different astral plane.
Of course, it could easily say both.
-
He doesn't stand a chance but I like the fact that he is in the republican party.
I wish more libertarians would join the republican party and change it from within... just as the commies all join the democrat party and change it from within.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
didn't watch the video, didja? money's coming in, he's getting a HUGE amount of grassroot support.
So did Howard Dean and look how far he got.
-
Here's Ron Paul on CNN, pretty much explaining why I would vote for him if given the opportunity. He's not some party hack, like every other candidate that has entered the ring so far. He is honest, doesn't spin to win and respects the range of the BOR unlike both democrats and republicans who pick and choose while they take the rest of our rights away.
And, as unpopular as it is, I agree that our foreign policy relative to the Middle East has been a long-running failure back to the 1950s, at least, and something that didn't improve with the end of the Cold War. Does that mean Al Queda was justified in 9/11 -- no. Nor does Paul agree with that. However, our response via the distracting sideshow in Iraq, our ignorace over tribalism, religion and culture relative to "deomcracy" in the region has made a bad situation far worse.
Given a choice between Paul and Fred Thompson, there would be no choice -- Paul would get my vote. Fred and I only agree, on the 2nd and virtually nothing else.
Give a choice between Hillary and Rudy, neither would get my vote even it meant a Hillary win and a new federal AWB the next day (as if Rudy would care). This broken excuse for a political system we have now has to end. I will no longer support the "lesser of two evils" at the federal level. I will at the state for the time being give the agressive attacks on the 2nd that are not experienced almost anywhere else.
Watch the CNN clip, it's short and to the point: CNN Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls)
Charon
-
Who is Keyser Soze?
Who is John Galt?
-
huckabee is worth looking into also...he has very constitutional ideas about the second.. I am in complete agreement with him.. he also has sensible ideas on illegal aliens..
lazs
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
Who is John Galt?
hands scottydawg a handrolled cigarette with a $ on it.
:cool:
-
Thanks for the link to the Paul interview. Listening to it now.
Other than hearing a few here mention his name, I don't know anything about him.
It'll be nice to learn about someone who very well may be worth learning about.
I also agree with whomever said accepting ineptitude at the Presidental level is unacceptable. Being one of 300 million, one can try to learn about the people and their policies.
The "beauty contest" of politics really hampers things. Saying stuff that will appeal to folks instead of saying truthfully here's what I think is best. If you disagree, don't vote for me.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Other than hearing a few here mention his name, I don't know anything about him.
It'll be nice to learn about someone who very well may be worth learning about.
here's what Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach has to say about him... (this was after the first debate...)
Muth's Truths
May 6, 2007
THE GOP'S RODNEY DANGERFIELD
The ten announced GOP presidential candidates gathered at the Reagan Library last Thursday to show off their stuff for the first time to a generally disinterested nation. Without dwelling on the relative merits of the field or how they handled themselves at what can only loosely be described as a "debate," I do want to talk about the one candidate who is deserving of far greater attention by Republicans, but who has, to this point, gotten the least respect.
Congressman Ron Paul.
The GOP debate was broadcast on MSNBC, and an online post-debate survey of over 50,000 people conducted on the network's website clearly showed Ron Paul came out ahead. Yet one post-debate columnist referred to the congressman simply as a "gadfly," and a Fox News pundit who published a wrap-up assessment this weekend didn't mention Paul at all. I'll return the favor by not mentioning the pundit's name, but he wrote about three of the other nine candidates using words such as "losers," "dull," "unattractive," "boring" and "bland."
So maybe Paul should be thankful for small favors.
But Ron Paul's candidacy deserves far greater attention and consideration by national Republicans who have clearly lost their way. GOP leaders in Washington who are still shell-shocked over the shellacking they took last November should stop scratching their heads and asking "What happened?" and start listening to Ron Paul. His campaign is all about the reasons so many limited-government conservatives stayed home or voted for a non-GOP option last fall.
For those of you who don't know much about Congressman Paul, here are a few facts: He's a doctor. He's run for president before; in 1988 as the nominee for the Libertarian Party. He's solidly pro-life and makes a Constitution-based argument for his position. He's also earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Washington because he won't vote for any bill which isn't authorized by the Constitution. As columnist Joe Sobran notes, "When the House votes for something 434 to 1, you can safely bet that Paul is the 1."
Indeed, the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.
Jefferson wrote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." Goldwater famously wrote, "I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible." Paul explains on his website that he "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Birds of a feather. Peas in a pod.
And for all the candidates trying to position themselves as the one, true heir to the Reagan mantle, John Fund of Political Diary reminds us that "Dr. Paul has been in and out of Congress since 1976, when he was one of only four GOP House members to endorse Ronald Reagan's challenge of President Gerald Ford."
This bears repeating: "One of only four GOP House members to endorse Ronald Reagan's challenge of President Gerald Ford." In other words and to borrow a phrase, Dr. Paul was a Reaganite long before being a Reaganite was cool.
This is a "gadfly"? This is a Republican who warrants no mention?
Consider Ron Paul's position on Iraq. He's unique in that he was against the war before he was against the war, unlike all the Democrats (save Kucinich) who were for the war before they were against it. But also unlike the Democrats, Ron Paul's opposition to the war is rooted in our nation's founding history, not political expedience or pacifism. In explaining his consistent anti-war position, Dr. Paul notes the non-interventionist policies of the Founding Fathers.
Wasn't it that early-American "gadfly" George Washington who warned our fledgling nation not to "entangle our peace and prosperity" in the affairs of foreign nations?
When asked during Thursday's debate if, as president, he would to phase out the IRS, Rep. Paul responded, "Immediately." But he added that "you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be," noting the IRS will be around as long as citizens think "government has to take care of us from cradle to grave." That might be the sign of a "gadfly" to liberals and Democrats (but I repeat myself repeat myself), but it is quintessentially conservative and what was once, long ago, quintessentially Republican.
When asked "yes" or "no" on the emotional issue of embryonic stem cell research funding, Paul remained consistent and constitutional, responding that "Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution." How Jeffersonian. How Goldwateresque.
When asked whether or not he trusted the mainstream media, Rep. Paul responded: "Some of them. But I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet."
On the notion of turning America into a "Papers, please" nation, Rep. Paul declared, "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about."
And showing he's not all wonk and no play, when asked if Bill Clinton being back in the White House would be a good thing for America, Paul deadpanned, "I voted to impeach him, so..." Laughter all around.
In announcing his presidential campaign earlier this year, Paul said, "I'm confident the Republican Party has gone in the wrong direction." That assessment is unassailable. It's also the reason why so many conservative Republicans are cutting up their GOP membership cards and re-registering as independents or with third parties. If national Republicans want to stop this bleeding of grassroots support, they'd better start giving the viewsand presidential candidacyof Ron Paul a lot more respect.
-
I like what I'm seeing from Paul so far; he needs more exposure. The more debates the better for him; he's the only one that comes off as a man of principle and his principle is the Constitution.
I think I'll even toss a few bucks his way.
I still think he's a long shot but it is refreshing to be thinking you want to vote FOR someone rather than the routine necessity of having to pick the lesser of two weasels.
-
I like what I'm seeing from Paul so far; he needs more exposure. The more debates the better for him; he's the only one that comes off as a man of principle and his principle is the Constitution.
The mainstream media is working to ignore him I believe CNN and FOX thought they had a "gotcha" moment, but he has handled their pointed attacks head on. The republicans, at least some leader of the Michigan party, are looking to have him excluded from future debates.
He's really not with the program, and the usual round of party hacks from Rush to Fox seem to be a bit perturbed that people are starting to pay attention to him since they are part of the program/problem themselves. Ron is bad for business. But, the time may be right, especially with the next great bipartisan Illegal Amnesty bill heading our way ASAP.
I may throw some money his way myself. Frankly, with a little organization we might be able to bypass the MSM on this one. If everone who attended a fourm with an "oclub" brough him up, it could bypass the spin that they are trying to swift boat him with.
Charon
-
I love reading Charon and Seagoon post's, they both write so well.
Ron Paul is looking better and better.
-
Ron Paul has positions that directly contradict themselves.
He also claims to be a strict constitutionalist while proposing stuff that would require amendments.
At a cursory glance he has some interesting and attractive positions but the entire package taken together points in a completely different direction.
I've read everything I have come across that he himself has said or written.
Some single issue stuff is good but, again, if you list his stance on all the issues it looks pretty goofy.
His rants about Congressional War Declarations are particularly misguided and show a lack of appreciation for what the Constitution is ultimately addressing.
-
Well, give me some examples of the contradictions. I am always willing to learn.
-
I think some people a afraid to loose their meal ticket.
-
He's the only candidate who doesn't look and sound like a smarmy politician to me. The rest of them in both parties make my skin crawl. These days, that might make a winning slogan.
"Vote for Paul; he doesn't make your skin crawl!"
He's consistent and isn't pandering to any group. He's intelligent, articulate, rational and speaks to people like an adult. I don't think he's going to appeal to the ignorant and simple-minded demographic of voter, though. There's just too many of them crawling around.
I worry about the special interests that are the puppetmasters of the nomination and election process. We've already seen that they can easily sway the ignorant voter - the single largest constituency - with distortions of his positions.
-
After his comments about 9/11, Ron Paul is done.. stick a fork in him done.
-
He's also not a neo-con. :aok
-
I think if Paul is allowed to debate again, they'll bring this recent Iraq statement up again.
He'll be ready to explain it and it will sound more cogent than anything Rudy has said so far.
He's done if they can force him out of the debates. If they leave him in, I believe the other 9 are going to lose ground.
Even though Rolex is probably right, I still feel that people know the truth when they hear it. They also have highly developed bullshirt detectors which works against the other nine. They can easily recognize a politician dancing around a question without answering it; that also works against the other nine.
Which of these do you think is bullshirt or an attempt to dance around an issue?
Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card.
I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force.
I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest.
Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.
The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.
l
The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam.
War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws.
-
I've been an admirer of Ron Paul for some time now. I have to, he's my 14th Congressional Representative, an area whre I live, up to last month.
My only concern with Mr. Paul is his age. He'll be 72 in August. Not an overwhelming concern mind you, but a concern none-the-less.
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
At a cursory glance he has some interesting and attractive positions but the entire package taken together points in a completely different direction.
Elaborate please.
Thanks.
-
His position is moot. His 9/11 comments were a candidate killer. period... he's done as a presidential candidate.
Anyone care to wager on it?
-
The republicans are probably moot next year if he isn't their candidate. The others have nothing to offer republicans who are part of the >70% of the country who have had enough of this administration. The country will always search for a new messiah after two terms of anyone. They are just more of the same. The democrats could run Bugs Bunny and win the White House next year against any of the other candidates.
Bugs would probably be a better president than anyone running now, democrat or republican, except Ron Paul.
-
I think you're right Rolex. From what I've read so far, the thirty-percenters are frothing at the mouth over Paul, but the independents see him as an alternative to Clinton or Obama.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
His 9/11 comments were a candidate killer. period... he's done as a presidential candidate.
Isn't it interesting? He was simply regurgitating the findings of the 9/11 report. Incredible that the truth could kill a nominee's run. He's got my vote still.
-
Bush has a neverending streak of slips and mispronounciations, sometimes nonsensical and/or erroneous even when you sort them out, as well as a history of corruption... he got elected and re-elected.
The other candidates were definitely further up the BS scale in the debates, a few on par with Paul.
Paul has a pretty clean record in voting, standing by his word and the Constitution, and rarely seems to fumble/sidestep/etc his responses to questions, apparently even when those are trolls like the 9/11 one... and this should disqualify him outright?
-
Originally posted by moot
... and this should disqualify him outright?
I didn't say it "should". I said it did. Whether it should or not is not the point I'm contending.
-
No, yes, and no, respectively.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I like what I'm seeing from Paul so far; he needs more exposure...
Yeah... If he exposes more to show how dumb he really is, he hasn't a snowball's chance with AlGore.... erm in heck.
:rofl
What a single digit IQ for a clueless rich guy.
-
too bad RP's foreign policy is outdated ... by over 200 YEARS!
Next thing he'll want to wear wigs and get wooden teeth :)
-
Lasz, Huckabee was my governor for ten years. I voted for him twice, but I won't vote for him again. He would support the second amendment, until it becomes inconvenient for him to do so.
My objections to him are largely personal. The man shook my hand and told me what a great job small rural schools such as mine were doing, and how much the efforts of teachers such as myself were appreciated by the people of the state.....and three years did everything he could to force consolidation on us.
He and his supporters spouted a lot of platitudes about efficiency and how the state couldn't afford the small rural schools anymore and how the superintendents of these schools were petty potentates more concerned about greasing their own pockets while being little concerned about the "education and welfare" of their district's children.
Well, he lied. The state state had hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus funds, some of which could have been used to address the needs of the small rural schools. The truth of the matter is he simply didn't want to spend it ON US. The larger districts in the state had been lusting after our tax base for decades, and the inefficiency argument was used by the Huckster and his supporters as the tool for shutting down the largest employer of people in many of the small delta towns, the schools.
The money was there. Meanwhile, some of the largest schools in the state which have been academically "distressed" for years are allowed to remain open.
Why did he do it? He needed a legacy to carry before the nation's voters in his bid for the Presidency. Our heads went on the chopping block to further his political ambitions.
So....I hope he falls flat on his face. The hail with him.
Regards, Shuckins
-
What will ron paul do to end out dependency on non domestic oil? Will he force the democrats to allow offshore drilling and open up alaskas vast oil fields?
Will he force the democrats to allow nuke plants to be built?
Will he force the democrats and EPA to loosen restrictions on building new refineries?
Of course not. He can't... He would be crucified and his approval rating would be down to 20% in a year.. the democrats would ramp up the media and their trolls and butcher him.
Sooo... he would still need the oil and... he would back out of all "interferance" maybe allow the jews to go it alone and perish...
meanwhile.. the democrats would get their way and gas would go up to $10 a gallon..
I just don't see how you can even talk about staying out of world affairs and isolationism until you have a stable oil supply that will meet your needs.
shuckins.. I had heard he was for vouchers... that would make him very much someone I would vote for. Have you any info that he has ever gone back on his very strong second amendment message? As you may know.. I am not a fan of public schools at all. I am not a marxist.
lazs
-
What will ron paul do to end out dependency on non domestic oil? Will he force the democrats to allow offshore drilling and open up alaskas vast oil fields?
That won't solve a thing. Those "vast" oil fields aren't vast. We are no longer a notable oil producing nation relative to our demand, and haven't been since the 1960s. !973 was the obvious tipping point.
Will he force the democrats to allow nuke plants to be built.
Who knows. I can't remember which party was controlled by the coal interests these days.
Will he force the democrats and EPA to loosen restrictions on building new refineries?
The oil industry has about as many refineries as it wants and needs. Environmental concerns might play a role here or there, but by and large overcapacity is not a free market goal of the industry, and that was addressed when they shut down about 150 refineries starting in 1981. Gas prices rapidly dropped for consumers in the years following, BTW due to increased efficiencies and a step back from the regulated market put in place after 1973.
I just don't see how you can even talk about staying out of world affairs and isolationism until you have a stable oil supply that will meet your needs.
That's the way he is being spun but that's not what he is saying. His refusal to stick to well rehersed, short, feel good superficial soundbytes can be an advantage to the spinmasters looking to twist his words, but I find him refreshing. Of course, they find it easy to play those not paying enough attention. They count on your solid R vote when it comes down to Rudi or Hillary.
BTW, in the global oil market we don't get our oil from the Middle East per se. It all goes in one big pool. They can effect that pool, but drastic measure tend to hurt them as much as us and impacts other countries as well. That's why the oil embargo of 1973 hasn't been repeated -- it was a tough lesson for BOTH sides.
Charon
-
IIRC, Charon, you do this oil industry analysis stuff as a profession, is that correct?
-
Here's what Paul has listed under "Issues" on his website. Nothing on gun control but I suspect I know what a Constitutional Libertarian would say.
Issues
Debt and Taxes
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. (more...)
American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. (more...)
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. (more...)
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: (more...)
Privacy and Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters. (more...)
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. (more...)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
-
Ya knooow, if somebody could convince Fred Thompson and Ron Paul to run "together" i betcha a $100 they would win.
personaly id go with a Thompson/Paul idear for el presidente
-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/18/but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron?page=full&comments=true
It's an analysis of Giuliani's misstep regarding Ron Paul. Paul being defended by Pat Buchanan of all people.
-
IIRC, Charon, you do this oil industry analysis stuff as a profession, is that correct?
Yeah. I took a year off to cover advanced imaging technologies, but found technology to be really neat but pretty boring. No drama :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/18/but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron?page=full&comments=true
It's an analysis of Giuliani's misstep regarding Ron Paul. Paul being defended by Pat Buchanan of all people.
Wow. Pat Buchanan actually made sense in that article.
-
Originally posted by Charon
That won't solve a thing. Those "vast" oil fields aren't vast.
Charon
Source please?
-
Well Bailey, you can start with this:
Oil. Estimates of ANWR oil potential, both old and new, depend upon limited data and numerous assumptions about geology and economics. The most recent government study of oil and natural gas prospects in ANWR, completed in 1998 by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2 found that there is an excellent chance (95%) that at least 11.6 billion barrels of oil are present on federal lands in the 1002 area. There also is a small chance (5%) that 31.5 billion barrels or more are present. USGS estimates there is an excellent chance (95%) that 4.3 billion barrels or more are technically recoverable (costs not considered); and there is a small chance (5%) that 11.8 billion barrels or more are technically recoverable. But the proportion that would be economically recoverable depends upon the price of oil. The USGS estimated that, at $24/ barrel (in 1996 dollars), there is a 95% chance that 2.0 billion barrels or more could be economically recovered and a 5% chance of 9.4 billion barrels or more. Roughly one-third more oil may be under adjacent state waters and Native lands. 3 However, these areas would be difficult to develop without access through Federal land.
Oil prices, geologic characteristics such as permeability and porosity, cash flow, and any transportation constraints, would be among the most important factors affecting the development rates and production levels that would be associated with given volumes of oil resources. The Energy Information Administration estimated that at a faster development rate, production would peak 15-20 years after the start of development, with maximum daily production rates of roughly 0.00015 (0.015%) of the resource. Production associated with the slower rate would peak about 25 years after the start of development at a daily rate equal to about 0.000105 (0.0105%) of the resource. Peak production associated with a technically recoverable resource of 5.0 billion barrels (bbls) at the faster development rate would be 750,000 bbls per day. U. S. petroleum consumption is about 19 million bbls per day .
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml
It the summary, basically, of a Congressional Research Report on the subject which I have read cover to cover.
After 20 years we might get an additional 1/20th or so of our domestic (motor fuels / oil demand in total is about 27MBD) demand from ANWR--in a best case scenario. This ASSUME that other domestic production that is less efficient and more costly to extract will not be shut down as the new fields are brought online. Not really all that safe of an assumption.
Here's a graph:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/charts/chart8.pdf
We are no longer a major oil producing nation and have not been able to adequately meet or domestic demand for about 40 years or so now. The OPEC embargo of 1973 was the first time that was clearly illustrated. Things have not improved since.
Now, you do see some comparisons here and there on the Net along the lines of: "equal to 30 years of Imports from Iraq or Saudi Arabia!!!" I haven't looked into those in detail, but since we don't directly get most of our oil from ether county as imports (only 17% total from the entire region) they could be true. Highly misleading to the uninformed and sure to get you riled up to support the ANWR goal, but technically true :)
Charon
-
That was a good article Pat Buchanan wrote, never would have imagined him supporting Ron Paul in such a way.
-
charon.. I bow to your superior experiance in oil.
I don't see how it changes what I or ron paul said tho... I think there is a lot of offshore oil and anwar oil and that we need to get it while developing new nuke plants.
Ron paul can not make that happen. He can't make us be independent and a destabalized middle east will not help us one bit.
I think he would throw the jews to the wolves. I don't think throwing our only friend in the region to the wolves is a great plan.
Other than that.. and even including all that.. I would vote for the guy if he had a snowball chance in hell. Most of the guys my age who are fed up with the politicians and the media would vote for him but....
He will be so villified by the liberals and their hollywood and media lackeys that he won't be able to catch his breath much less get a word in edgewise...
john stewart will make fun of him every show and the baldwins will threaten to move to france or hold their breath till they turn blue if you vote for paul.
He doesn't stand a chance... not one black person or union person or teacher or illegal will vote for him.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
charon.. I bow to your superior experiance in oil.
I don't see how it changes what I or ron paul said tho... I think there is a lot of offshore oil and anwar oil and that we need to get it while developing new nuke plants.
Ron paul can not make that happen. He can't make us be independent and a destabalized middle east will not help us one bit.
I think he would throw the jews to the wolves. I don't think throwing our only friend in the region to the wolves is a great plan.
Other than that.. and even including all that.. I would vote for the guy if he had a snowball chance in hell. Most of the guys my age who are fed up with the politicians and the media would vote for him but....
He will be so villified by the liberals and their hollywood and media lackeys that he won't be able to catch his breath much less get a word in edgewise...
john stewart will make fun of him every show and the baldwins will threaten to move to france or hold their breath till they turn blue if you vote for paul.
He doesn't stand a chance... not one black person or union person or teacher or illegal will vote for him.
lazs
jeez, with friends like you...
btw... the only people villifying him atm are the hardcore neocon/warmongers. even Rosie came out in his defense.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Well Bailey, you can start with this:
Charon
This doesn't say ANWR isn't vast. So you really have no evidence it isn't "vast", you just decided to say it wasn't. Also, we have several other oil fields at our disposal, are they not vast as well, simply because you say so?
-
Here's where we rank on oil reserves.(millions of barrels as of January 1, 2002)
The Winners
Saudi Arabia: 261,750
Canada: 180,000 (2003 data/oil sands included)
Iraq: 112,500
United Arab Emirates: 97,800
Kuwait: 96,500
Iran: 89,700
Venezuela: 77,685
The Rest
Russia: 48,573
Libya: 29,500
Mexico: 26,941
Nigeria: 24,000
China: 24,000
United States: 22,045
Qatar: 15,207
Norway: 9,947
Algeria: 9,200
Brazil: 8,465
Oman: 5,506
Kazakhstan: 5,417
Angola: 5,412
Indonesia: 5,000
ANWR would add 3 BBl to 12BBl to that figure. Neither amount get's us anywhere close to the top oil reserves in the world. Russia will still kick our bellybutton in a best case ANWR scenario.
Now, actually, in terms of sucking our reserves out of the ground as fast as we can we're doing pretty good by world standards, but we can still only meet about 1/3 of our demand. As that simple chart I posted shows, ANWR will not change that. It will not notably impact our dependence on foreign oil or the price of oil. It will not not significantly impact the price of a gallon of gasoline (especially when you add that total to the world production figure, since it will not just go as some "US surplus").
But, let's just look at the "VAST" field itself. Maximum best case, new technologies for extraction reserves = 12Billion Barrels. But perhaps only 3 billion barrels.
These fields are VAST.
Kuwait, Burgan Field = 66-72 billion
Saudi Arabia, Ghawar Field = 60-71 billion
ANWR is at best a reasonable sized field (at maximum projection possible), and hardly remarkable. There are perhaps a dozen fields that can match both ANWR and the Northern Slope combined (and those are the best we have by a good margin).
Wanna talk vast, Canada's western oil sands = WOW "1700 billion" that is still only a potential, but talk about VAST. We do have VAST shale oil, about 800 billion, but that is harder to extract than Canada's oil sands by a good margin.
As for the "other fields," US fields ANWR is by far the best it gets and that isn't all that impressive by international oil industry standards (but good for some profits, certainly). Not good for any kind of solution to our supply/demand problem though.
Charon
-
Well I guess if we ever did actually go to war over oil as some nutjobs contend, we'd invade Canada.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
didn't watch the video, didja? money's coming in, he's getting a HUGE amount of grassroot support.
Don't you remember, the elections are rigged. See 2000 Presidential election conspiracies!
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Well I guess if we ever did actually go to war over oil as some nutjobs contend, we'd invade Canada.
I'd support that.:D
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Well I guess if we ever did actually go to war over oil as some nutjobs contend, we'd invade Canada.
Wow.
-
For those who were surprised that Buchanan supported Paul, read Pat's book, Where The Right Went Wrong. You won't be able to put it down.
-
Pat Buchannon can make a lot of sense at times. He's very savvy. Too bad he goes nutjob when running for office.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
He would be crucified and his approval rating would be down to 20% in a year.. the democrats would ramp up the media and their trolls and butcher him.
that is the fate of any future POTUS that is not a media fan dem from here on out regardless of what they do
-
bs.. why not simply dispute what I say. If you can't even stand up to someone who would like to see him make it... how you gonna do against the michel moores and such when they start on the guy.
ron paul has the potential to cause a lot of missery in the US and the planet.
I know that a lot of misery will have to happen to get things set right but... how much can he explain away? the liberals will have a field day.
You don't see libertarians pretending to be democrats... there is no room in the tent for them. ron paul knows he has to pretend to be a republican if he has any chance at all.
I would love to see more libertarians and libertarian thinking in the republican party.. even tho I think the libertarians are egg head wimps.
Imagine the teachers when he calls for vouchers if he has the guts... imagine the churches when he calls for end to vice laws.. Imagine the whole democrat party when he calls for an end to gun control laws and union strangleholds on workplaces...
the libertarian party will always have the problem that there is something there for everyone to hate.
They are percieved to be "souless" they have no compassion is what it looks like and they are such eggheads that they can't make their case in any passionate way...
They can't weep openly and say "do it for the children" like the democrats and they can't work up a tear when the flag is raised like the republicans. They don't show the right amount of emotion when the suffering is paraded out.
They don't believe in god or karl marx and they don't feel guilty about having money.
They will be screwed for a long time to come...
The most they can ever do is to pretend to be republicans.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
Pat Buchannon can make a lot of sense at times. He's very savvy. Too bad he goes nutjob when running for office.
Pat shoulda been president..I hope Ron Paul gets elected.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/18/but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron?page=full&comments=true
It's an analysis of Giuliani's misstep regarding Ron Paul. Paul being defended by Pat Buchanan of all people.
Thanks for the link. Buchanan gets it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bs.. why not simply dispute what I say.
I'd be repeating myself, I hate that... If you want to be negative that's your deal, for me RP winning would be a dream come true.
ron paul has the potential to cause a lot of missery in the US and the planet.
I know that a lot of misery will have to happen to get things set right but... how much can he explain away? the liberals will have a field day.
RP has said that in order to effect radical change, we the people will have to examine what we consider the role of gov't to be. I'm already on his side, as many others already are, and hopefully enough people will be converted for him to win. He's really just gotta win the primary, that'll be his biggest challenge. After that he'll be up against Obama or Hillary and then it's the Libertarian/GOP/RP convert vote against the die hard Dems. The Lib vote alone swayed the last election, I feel pretty confident there'll be enough converts to put him over the top. we'll see...
You don't see libertarians pretending to be democrats... ron paul knows he has to pretend to be a republican if he has any chance at all.
noone's pretending to be anything. libertarians have their roots in the GOP, back when it was still the conservative party, before the neocons took over. RP is perfectly legit, he's no pretender. separate your conception of "party affiliation" and "political philosophy" and you might see things differently.
I would love to see more libertarians and libertarian thinking in the republican party.. even tho I think the libertarians are egg head wimps.
Imagine the teachers when he calls for vouchers if he has the guts... imagine the churches when he calls for end to vice laws.. Imagine the whole democrat party when he calls for an end to gun control laws and union strangleholds on workplaces...
the libertarian party will always have the problem that there is something there for everyone to hate.
They are percieved to be "souless" they have no compassion is what it looks like and they are such eggheads that they can't make their case in any passionate way...
They can't weep openly and say "do it for the children" like the democrats and they can't work up a tear when the flag is raised like the republicans. They don't show the right amount of emotion when the suffering is paraded out.
They don't believe in god or karl marx and they don't feel guilty about having money.
They will be screwed for a long time to come...
The most they can ever do is to pretend to be republicans.
lazs
nice rant, sounds like you've got it all figured out.
-
They can't weep openly and say "do it for the children" like the democrats and they can't work up a tear when the flag is raised like the republicans. They don't show the right amount of emotion when the suffering is paraded out.
Emotional Rulers are what got us into problems in the first place.
-
http://www.petitiononline.com/r0npau1/petition.html
By principle.
-
bs.. so now you are agreeing with me? ron paul will have to lay out his plans before the election... the democrats and some republicans will give us all the great computer models of all the suffering... weeping children and single moms on TV every night....
I believe that there will have to be some suffering to correct all the damage socialist programs have done in this country... I just don't think anyone can do much about em without being branded a monster at this point.
You say I have a "nice rant".. that I have it all "figured out".. maybe... or maybe I have just kept my eyes open for the last few decades or so and you haven't. It is all pretty obvious stuff.
That being said.. if he wins the republican nomination... a feat much akin to me winning the kalifornia super lotto without ever buying a ticket... If he does that...
and if he is running against a democrat... any democrat... I will most certainly vote for him. I will feel good about the vote but sad that it will be a wasted one...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bs.. so now you are agreeing with me?
I honestly don't know, lazs2. you confuse me. if you think that RP winning would be the best thing to happen for America in the last hundred years or so, then yes, I agree with you. I just choose not to get into all your negativity, it doesn't help anything. We all know RP has a tough road ahead of him, we know his opponents (on both sides) will try to smear him and will use emotional arguements to try to knock his positions. That's why I said "RP has said that in order to effect radical change, we the people will have to examine what we consider the role of gov't to be." if the majority feels OK with an imperialistic welfare state, then RP won't win. But if RP manages to change enough minds... Halleluja!
(PS - do me a favor please, I'd prefer "bsd" (from FreeBSD, a unix OS, I'm a computer geek not a druggie lol), or even "addict", if you must abbreviate. "bs" reminds me of "bull sh&^"))
-
bsd... (I just skimmed your sig and thought it was bsadddict.. I don't know crap about puters)..
And maybe that is the problem... it is the problem maybe with all libertarians.. they are eggheads.. they live in the academic.. They are percieved to be "souless" by both democrats and republicans.. they seem to be willing to watch suffering without intervention.
This is fine.. I know they mean without government intervention and I am all for that but they SEEM to lack charity. They seem lost in acadamia and not really living on the same planet as the rest of us. They SEEM to lack compassion on a personal level and... they have a very hard row to hoe with legalizing vice.
I just think that we are not ready for a libertarian. Even on this BB.. bring up legalizing drugs and you have half the people going into apoplexy... some of em are ones that agree with a lot of libertarian principals too.
Open borders? How do you think that will go over?
It is so easy to make any libertarian look like a heartless, hedonistic egghead who is not a man of action or compassion that it is silly... they all seem "detached".
That will come through.. just as it always has.
I hope I am wrong and the cat can change it's stripes but I doubt it... I think the more he is in the spotlight the more he will come off as a detached egghead who thinks (and maybe is) he is smarter than the rest of us.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bsd... (I just skimmed your sig and thought it was bsadddict.. I don't know crap about puters)..
And maybe that is the problem... it is the problem maybe with all libertarians.. they are eggheads.. they live in the academic.. They are percieved to be "souless" by both democrats and republicans.. they seem to be willing to watch suffering without intervention.
This is fine.. I know they mean without government intervention and I am all for that but they SEEM to lack charity. They seem lost in acadamia and not really living on the same planet as the rest of us. They SEEM to lack compassion on a personal level and... they have a very hard row to hoe with legalizing vice.
I just think that we are not ready for a libertarian. Even on this BB.. bring up legalizing drugs and you have half the people going into apoplexy... some of em are ones that agree with a lot of libertarian principals too.
Open borders? How do you think that will go over?
It is so easy to make any libertarian look like a heartless, hedonistic egghead who is not a man of action or compassion that it is silly... they all seem "detached".
That will come through.. just as it always has.
I hope I am wrong and the cat can change it's stripes but I doubt it... I think the more he is in the spotlight the more he will come off as a detached egghead who thinks (and maybe is) he is smarter than the rest of us.
lazs
libertarians aren't lacking in charity, we just recognize that charity under threat of harm (ex. taxes going to welfare) isn't charity at all, it is theft. As to the rest of your post, it's very possible that America isn't ready for RP. We'll see, I know I'll be doing my part trying to spread the message. Are you just going to continue with all the negative "RP can't win" stuff or what?
-
bsd, realistic assessment isn't negativity.
Lazs, From what I've seen, Paul gives some pretty down to earth reasoning anytime he's asked for it; in fact I think he manages to be articulate enough that the lack of mis-steps gets almost drone-ish (if anything), more than eggheadish.
I think it's the other candidates who BS and spin things more that come off more far-out and less credible from just that.. talking to people like they're stupid or can't digest unsugar-coated information.
That's just my impression. I do agree he will need a lot more camera time to convince enough voters that he's got the most sensible plan.
-
bsd... I did not say that libertarians were not charitable... I said that I understood that they do not want money extorted from them for socialist programs. Many, if not most. people percieve this to be uncharitable.
Most sensible people agree with libertarian principles until the details come out.
I can't wait to see what his answers will be when asked about welfare of the "war on drugs" or open borders.
lazs
-
I would vote for him over any other republican in the primaries and I would most certainly vote for him over any democrat in the election.
I am afraid that I will never have the opportunity to do either tho.
lazs
-
I can't wait to see what his answers will be when asked about welfare of the "war on drugs" or open borders.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21jx7_ron-paul-goes-on-the-offensive-in-a
I haven't watched it yet, but apparently he does in this clip.
-
Interesting clip, but the PrisonPlanet guys are bozos. The most useful questions came from people _other_ than the guy with the camera.
-
The Michigan Republican Chair withdrew his request to ban Paul from future debates.
It got Paul some electronic ink on CBS.
Paul also got some ink on Fox; some pundit pointed out that Paul and the other Libertarians had been absolutely right in their pre-war assessments of post-war Iraq and those bashing Paul's comment were all wrong on their pre-war assesments of the post-war period.
Paul may not win but he is beginning to gain the gravity necessary to get issues to the front of the debates instead of never talking about the really important stuff.
-
Yep Chairboy.. I don't know if that guy nearest the camera is one of them, but he sounds fanatic.
Lazs, I've thought about it and I disagree that Paul (if not libertarians) sounds too much like an egghead. Too much to win the election beauty pageant, maybe - but that's the same as with the IRS.
The analogy is that just as you couldn't get rid of the IRS overnight, you couldn't have an overnight flush of all the hollywoodish glamour of TV charisma the public has gotten used to. Just like the IRS and illegaly residing for a long time, its already being there is not a good reason for it to stay, because it is wrong.
Politicians should not be emotional-anything, they should just do their job. Holding your hand and reassuring you that what they propose is good should not happen, it's got nothing to do with politics. It is just a crutch. You don't need a crutch if your plan stands on its own.
As long as you satisfy your functions at your job, then you should keep it, right?
Paul seems to fill the criteria quite well, so perhaps if he paired with a virile doppleganger pres- or vice-pres, it would balance out what I do agree, though, is an effective handicap in the beauty pageant aspect of the election.
But valuing photogenics above function needs to go before Paul needs to change some personality trait unconsequential to his function as a politician.
-
moot... he sounded very much like a career politician on his answers to the drug thing... He dodged it and more or less said that he thought dying people should get to smoke pot (how brave huh?) and that maybe the feds should stay out of it and it should be a state thing... big whup... he may have to give real answers some time and then he is doomed.
He harps on reducing government and everyone but the die hard commies like that.... until their particular ox is gored and then ron becomes satan incarnate... Take away their welfare? how dare he!
I agree with him for the most part but that it not the point.. they point is that he can't even come close to close.
hell... all he talks about is the war... a relatively safe topic compared to the things people really care about...
Who wants to pay less taxes? what, you all do you say? what a shock.
Who wants to have their pet government program cut? what was that? none of you?
He can't win. It is good that he is getting as far as he is tho. It shows that somewhere down the line... we may be more open to his ideas...
It shows the other politicians that maybe they are so bad that they need to reel themselves in before ron paul becomes a viable alternative.
lazs
-
Key GOP Group Endorses Ron Paul
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 22, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.
"The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."
In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that:
Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:
· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.
His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:
· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.
"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
PS - what's that lazs, your 20th post on why RP can't win? :P
-
I was flying home from Jamaica yesterday so I was flipping through the HF freqs looking for some good whacko radio to listen to or maybe some good international music.
I found Alex Jones on 9.9800
In case you don't know who this clown is, he makes his money selling New World Order conspiracy.
His radio show is pretty funny unless you take that stuff seriously.
Anyway, in between ads for herbal remedies, survivalist gear and DVD's on how to turn your home into a NBC shelter (Nuclear,Biological, Chemical) we got treated to Ron Paul speeches and press conferences.
Good ole Libertarian Ron Paul is pretty popular with this crowd because he (apparently) believes this stuff too.
He spouted forth about the New World Order, North American Union, and various other conspiracy topics. He did try to keep it pretty low key. He has to know associating with this bunch is suicide for a presidential campaign.
I suspected all along Ron Paul's stances were driven by an agenda he didn't proclaim on his web pages. I was right. He is a New World Order conspiracy theorist.
On a side note, to point out how gullible these folks are, Alex Jones was peddling his new video on this show.
It is called Terror Storm. In the ad he says he proves that Western Governments are behind terror attacks on their own people. 9/11, England...all government jobs.
And how does he prove it?
Using recently declassified government documents of course.
It was hard to fly the plane after that.
-
RP just kicked bellybutton on CSPAN. He had the floor for half an hour, I'm sure it'll be on youtube tomorrow. In the meantime, I transcribed his closing and I'd like to share it with ya'll.
"Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a worldwide conflict for which we'll be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so supressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but out course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpations of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take; education, conventional political action or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
BUT LET IT NOT BE SAID WE DID NOTHING! Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity in a blind desire for saftey and security. Understanding the magnificant rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peaces comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time."
The rest of his speech puts that into context, but IMHO it stands on it's own. I'll post the youtube link when it's available.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Paul may not win but he is beginning to gain the gravity necessary to get issues to the front of the debates instead of never talking about the really important stuff.
I've been wondering for some time how we might grab the attention of our legislature by the proverbial balls and I heard a local guy on talk radio today suggest we put our taxes in escrow. No need to debate with our elected servants but we do need to let them hear our voice and nothing talks louder than money.
-
Lazs, that's true. Maybe it was for a good reason, he might have shown his true colors or only been sidetracked into a template answer while he juggled with other things on his mind. The only sure way to know if this is a habit of his, and if it's benign or not, is to keep a look out for more or less of it in the future.
In any case he is still a trend (however small at this point) for the better.
Gumbeau, is the NWO really that unreal, is Paul really worse of a politician and candidate than the alternatives because of it, and can you point out the crackpot opinions Paul himself has explicited as his own by word or action rather than what parts of certified crackpots' opinion he shares?
-
Here's another clip..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21x9m_ron-pauls-campaign-stop-in-austin-t
-
Originally posted by moot
Here's another clip..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21x9m_ron-pauls-campaign-stop-in-austin-t
:aok
-
LOL... he is against the WAR!!! how brave is that?
bsd... we all know he is against the war.. thanks for the clips tho.
I tell you what... you think he is on a roll and will just steamroll right on into the oval office on the backs of all the self sufficeint individualists and libertarians out there just waiting to give up the welfare socialist system and open the borders and make it legal to buy heroin at the grocery store for $10 a pound..
I say, like moot, that he is a good influence but.. that is it.
sooo... I never make bets.. it is dumb but... I will bet you.. whatever you want but say... a month or so of AH subscription... that ron paul will not be the republican running for pres in the election... forget win the election... he won't be the republican candidate.
For me this is a win win.. not a real bet... Obviously... he isn't going to make it and I will win that way but... say that gravity is suspended and he gets the republican nomination... That would be great too... I will vote for him.
As it is.. he is doing what libertarians do best... showing up on the strange splinter group stations and trying to not frighten the citizens with real libertarian principles...
At least he got in on the no war bandwagon early with libertarian principles.
lazs
-
How does he have things so well figured out and keep such a dim charisma? It would be too bad if there wasn't a good running mate to pair him with.. He isn't steamrolling anything with that little presence on his own, outside of debates.
-
Here's the link to his speech last night, for those who are interested...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048
I hear ya on the charisma issue, moot. My first thought after watching this speech was "poor delivery, awesome mesage". Not poor in the Bush stumbling over words sort of way, more like it was just unrehersed. It is a sobering realization that, while I can see past the "poor delivery", facts are 95% of my fellow americans won't. Doesn't mean I'll stop supporting him or evangelizing for him, 'cause IMHO we need him.
Lasz, since you brought up wagering I'll make you a bet. Seeing as how RP is the ONLY anti-war Republican, I'll wager 6 months of AH subscription that if RP isn't the GOP's candidate, the Dem will win.
-
I have no idea if the republican candidate will win or not. I do know that he will not be ron paul tho.
Like I said.. I don't make bets but.. this is not much of a bet. ron paul will go nowhere. Too bad.. he suffers the same problem of all libertarians.. Even if I lost the bet and he became an candidate... I would vote for him and glady admit that I was wrong. I can't lose such a bet.
The appear.. and mostly are... wimpy eggheads that seem souless and lack passion. they seem to live in the world of acadamia and to not really fit in with people. They seem oblivious to other peoples suffering..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no idea if the republican candidate will win or not. I do know that he will not be ron paul tho.
Like I said.. I don't make bets but.. this is not much of a bet. ron paul will go nowhere. Too bad.. he suffers the same problem of all libertarians.. Even if I lost the bet and he became an candidate... I would vote for him and glady admit that I was wrong. I can't lose such a bet.
The appear.. and mostly are... wimpy eggheads that seem souless and lack passion. they seem to live in the world of acadamia and to not really fit in with people. They seem oblivious to other peoples suffering..
lazs
you misunderstood me. My point was if you're right the Dem will win. This isn't a bet you can't lose, it's one you can't win. Of course this is all my opinion, so we'll just have to wait and see. I'm just saying that between now and election time RP needs as much support as possible if he's to stand a chance in the primary, and I don't understand how you can agree with RP in principal (as you've claimed) yet knock him (and his supporters) every chance you get.
-
here's the text of last nights speech. he may be a longshot, but I support him 1000%.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
May 22, 2007
In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)
For some, patriotism is “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.
I have never met a politician in Washington, or any American for that matter, who chose to be called “unpatriotic.” Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops wherever they may be.
What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals is sharp accusations that because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were “unpatriotic, un-American, evil doers deserving contempt.”
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
Peaceful non-violent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. achieved great political successes by practicing non-violence, yet they themselves suffered physically at the hands of the state.
But whether the resistance against government tyrants is non-violent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
True patriotism today has gotten a bad name—at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor, are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have been.
Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well—especially by conservative statists.
Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war once it’s started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic and all dissent must stop. Yet it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous, undeclared, no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security -- and for that matter may even damage our security -- is hardly a way to “patriotically” support the troops.
Who are the true patriots: those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of the patriot?
Randolph Bourne said that “war is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state.
This includes the role the federal government plays in our personal lives as well as in all our economic transactions. And certainly the neo-conservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide, through force, justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined, the economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibitive.
Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe. This is a bad trade-off in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism.
Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism—that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people, and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition becomes that the leaders be not criticized.
(continues next post...)
-
(continued...)
Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring “war” -- even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate, encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs. The long term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized.
It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus the war on drugs, against gun ownership, poverty, illiteracy, and terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements, are endless.
All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite: prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty. Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences, condemnation or ostracism, or even imprisonment that may result.
Non-violent protesters of the tax code are frequently imprisoned—whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding.
Resisters to the military draft, or even to selective service registration, are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.
Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the selective service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure. A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax.
A more sophisticated and less well known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve. Protestors against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money is outlawed, matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head.
Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, an immoral monetary system, or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots. If there’s a “war” going on, supporting the state’s efforts to win the war is expected at all costs. No dissent!
The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war, and to carelessly sacrifice liberties which they are told is necessary.
The last six years have been quite beneficial to the “health of the state,” which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty.
Even though every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. This has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now instead become the usurper of those liberties.
We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms.
We are continually being reminded that “9/11 has changed everything.” Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed—that is our policy of foreign interventionism—has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policeman and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration. We now live in a post 9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We’re expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.
Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed this declared effort to make us safe, and were willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed. The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on and a real danger of its spreading exists. There’s no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq , or in the war on terror or drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it’s impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we’re now engaged will last a long, long time.
The war mentality, and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy, allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and with this our respect for self reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there’s no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hairspray and searching old women in wheelchairs.
Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We’re worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It’s certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.
We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are co-conspirators with the American government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us. These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security. We may be the economic and military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism, is being lost.
The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course—both well-intentioned and malevolent. But it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice of liberty—even if it’s just now and then.
The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to reign in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution, will disappear.
(continued next post...)
-
(continued...)
The record since September 11, 2001, is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated.
Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had in fact been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long planned-for invasion of Iraq .
The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drum beat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan , our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government—hardly a good plan for America.
The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks the Patriot Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote—no Member had sufficient time to read or understand it—political fear of “not doing something,” even something harmful, drove Members of Congress to not question the contents and just vote for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair tradeoff—and the majority of Americans applauded.
The Patriot Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include: sneak and peak searches; a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism; allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause; easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps; easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the internet; and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
The attack on privacy has not relented over the past six years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the Executive Branch are used and abused.
This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the president and without the right of Habeas Corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA (National Security Agency). It also gives to the president the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.
Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.
Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world has been widely engaged in, though obviously extra-legal.
A growing concern in the post 9/11 environment is the federal government’s lists of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed, even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It’s called the Real ID card and it’s tied to our Social Security numbers and our state driver’s license. If Real ID is not stopped it will become a national driver’s license/ID for all America .
Some of the least noticed and least discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to Posse Comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007.
These changes pose a threat to the survival of our republic by giving the president the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore “public order.” The 1807 Act severely restricted the president in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the president to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act”. This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional republic.
Now, martial law can be declared not just for “insurrection” but also for “natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents” or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without Congressional approval or the governors’ approval and even send these state guard troops into other states. The American republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship and few seem to care.
These precedent setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not reversed. The beneficial results of our revolt against the king’s abuses are about to be eliminated and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders.
Sadly, those few who do object to this self evident trend away from personal liberty and empire building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.
Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not “supporting the troops”. The cliché “support the troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of “supporting the policy” no matter how flawed it may be. Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?
Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict, for which we’ll be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take—education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience, to bring about the necessary changes.
But let it not be said that we did nothing.
Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.
-
awesome RP video... well worth the watch. This man deserves our support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
-
I don't mean to repeat myself, but I think the best thing that could happen is for Paul to run with a president or vice-pres that's got punch. That is all he needs.. Some kind of balls out entrepreneur or magnate with a lot of character (not for the money but for the self-propellant Paul doesn't seem to have enough of), and in line with his political program, obviously.
-
Originally posted by moot
I don't mean to repeat myself, but I think the best thing that could happen is for Paul to run with a president or vice-pres that's got punch. That is all he needs.. Some kind of balls out entrepreneur or magnate with a lot of character (not for the money but for the self-propellant Paul doesn't seem to have enough of), and in line with his political program, obviously.
well, he'll have to have a running mate regardless, if he get's to that point... someone more charismatic would certainly help make RP's message sound more appealing. However, it won't be a factor in his biggest challenge, which IMHO will be the primary. I think if he get's a chance to be up agains Hillobama he's a lock. he's got the die-hard GOP votes, they sure as heck won't vote for the dem. He's got the Libertarian vote and probably most of the other third parties votes (the swing votes that contributed to the GOP's losses in 2006) Heck, he'll even get some Dem votes, 'cause they're not ALL hopeless. (RP's myspace page has some Dems commenting that they're going to switch in order to vote for RP, I'm sure there'll be more...) His principals and character make him a lock, if he makes it past the primary.
Think on this... In the the 1952 and 1968 presidential elections the voters tossed out the party presiding over unpopular foreign wars. So historically speaking, the GOP's almost guaranteed to lose. Run another Bush clone and the GOP's just asking for a defeat. RP could be our best chance at avoiding that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As contrasted to a first tier nobody like Obama who will probably get the VP slot with the most famous top tier nobody, Billary, as Presidentte.
:)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Sad but true...
:noid
-
Well.. he is against the war.. we get it.
He doesn't like the war on drugs or on firearms... Now, lets get specific. He doesn't like borders or the words "illegal immigration".
What would he do about it? The devil.. for him.. is in the details.
everyone says they want lower taxes. until you tell em what they got to give up... then it is just you, me and ron paul... and the rich kid lazer.
everyone wants less government in their lives but.. most, unfortunately... want one hell of a lot more government in everyone elses lives.
I am not sure that a republican can't win... so long as the demoncrats host osamabama or billary... I think anyone has a chance.
I like the mormon guy and the ak gov... I like fred thompson but... each has one tiny little personality or whatever quirk that the pundits say will doom them..
The thing that is saving ron paul right now it that the liberal media machine and dumbocrats don't think of him as any threat whatsoever.
If they ever do... watch out.. they will have him painted as a baby killing bigot of the highest order. And... he will be such an egghead libertarian that he won't be able to defend himself... passionless and juiceless...
lazs
-
So what everyone is saying is they would rather have a President who has a sweet sounding forked tongue, then have someone who speaks the truth. :huh
-
I am saying that yes... most people are very timid and have grown accustomed to security over freedom.. or.. the illusion of it.
I am saying that very few are willing to give up their perks in order to make things better.
I am saying that a large portion of the population loves to tell others what to do and feel justified in doing so. else... how would you explain things like seatbelt laws and helmet laws? public school social meddling?
lazs
-
I say let people do what they want, as long as I nor anyone else has to pay their medical bills for their stupidity.
-
Lazs, I'm not posting these updates and whatnot for your benefit. I'm trying to provide information for people who want to learn more about RP, your mind is ovbiously already made up so there's nothing here for you. Could you maybe start your own anti-RP thread and keep your negativity and insults there?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
So what everyone is saying is they would rather have a President who has a sweet sounding forked tongue, then have someone who speaks the truth. :huh
not only does RP speak the truth, he walks the walk. It's cliche for politicians to say one thing, yet their voting record somehow doesn't back up their campaign promises. RP isn't that sort of politician, he backs up his talk, even when he could benefit financially...
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
I'm looking, but I can't find a single additional congressperson who can claim that.
-
bsd, not to be nosey, but you both seem equally informative to me.. Couldn't you just ignore lazs? :) He is saying pretty much the same as I do as Ron Paul gets more and more exposure.
I am pretty enthused by someone like Paul just showing up out of the blue.. nonetheless I'd rather have an objective tally than not.
And it looks like some of the dirt diggers have already been called on.. I was looking at RP items in Google news, and found some antiblack and antisemitic racism accusations on some old pieces written by someone else working for a wrag (or something, I forgot what it was exactly) name after RP.
Pretty funny if that's the best they can sling at him.. It's about what you'd expect from characters like Guiliani or Hillary tho.
-
moot... like man made global warming... ron paul is way too important to hear both sides about.
eggheads have such thin skin... no wonder they never win.
lazs
-
that's a mature response, lazs. You got under my skin, so effing what. I was going to make a post and say how I overreacted and it was mostly due to the fact that I was stressing last night and got an hour of sleep tops, but F that. Now you're just trolling me... I'll ask you once more, politely... chill with the insults or get off my thread.
-
Now that that's out of the way..
Look at this:Dr. Paul had such a lock on his district that Democrats didn't even find a nominee in 2004. Last fall, Dr. Paul coasted to a 60 percent-to-40 percent win over Democrat Shane Sklar.
"We may have underestimated the appeal of somebody who simply says what he believes," said Democratic strategist Matt Angle.
article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/052507dnnatronpaul.380a1c8.html)
Pretty funny :lol Imagine that.. saying what you believe!
I guess one way to break the ice could be to pick fights like this. He's got a clean record and is supposed to have answers to everything (or at least better answers than the competition).. he's got nothing to lose:"He keeps getting re-elected with pretty big numbers, so he must be doing something right," said Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland, who said he sees little of Dr. Paul.
"He doesn't come to our [weekly] lunches very often. ... He's very quiet. Never interacts, never adds anything to the conversation," Mr. Conaway said. "His convictions are deeply held. He's a fellow that I respect. He's very intelligent.
BSD do you have links to something from the meeting Paul, the ex CIA Bin-Laden unit agent and Giuliani were supposed to have this thursday morning?
-
Originally posted by moot
BSD do you have links to something from the meeting Paul, the ex CIA Bin-Laden unit agent and Giuliani were supposed to have this thursday morning?
but of course...
video of press conference 5/24 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
there was a Q&A session afterwards that isn't included in that video. I'm trying to find it.
Here's another video I found, not related to the press conference... Confessions of Ron Paul junkie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8rsMhQUFkA)
-
that's a mature response, bsd You got under my skin, so effing what. I was going to make a post and say how I overreacted and it was mostly due to the fact that I was stressing last night and got an hour of sleep tops, but F that. Now you're just trolling me... so I am going to continue to be an ahole.
But... don't worry about my feelings.. unlike libertarians.. I am an idividualist and have thick skin... It is reality based.
What insults? I have not insulted you at all. I have pointed out some facts of life. Is bursting your bubble that big of a deal? are you that wound up about it.. I got news for ya... I have been dissapointed in politics for too many decades now... get used to it.
I did not know that this was a cheerleader post where you can't say anything unless you are a cheerleader for ron paul... I had no idea that I stumbled into an advertisement.
RPM did the same thing about kinky...he wanted to run a kinky friedman add... I guess I peed in his wheaties and he reacted as you are.
difference is that I thought kinky was evil and I think ron paul is a good thing.
He can't win but I will sucker and vote for him anyway in the primaries.. I will have no choice but to vote for him if he gets past that but they will be opening ice cream stores in hell before that happens.
lazs
-
Wow, sorry I missed the purse fight. MEOW!!
I just watched Ron Paul on Real Time. I was impressed, but he's got as much chance of winning as Dennis Kucinich. Both make too much sense. Have to admit it was good to hear some common sense coming from a Republican for a change.
-
rpm you are pretty much correct but I would go further...
He has even less chance of winning than kinky did.
lazs
-
Lazs, do you enjoy peeing in other people's wheaties?
And with that I'll stop arguing with you, this thread's already dangerously close to being hijacked... (my fault for loosing my cool...)
-
no... In fact..
when someone tells me that they are a devout athiest or that they believe in ghosts or bigfoot or aliens or whatever... I normaly just say "that's nice... interesting".
But if they go on and on about it... If it is around me and they try to push this alternate reality on me over and over... I might interject a little doubt into the situation.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
He has even less chance of winning than kinky did.
I'd have to agree.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'd have to agree.
If the election was held today I'd agree with you. But thankfully there's still some time left to try to spread his message and change some minds. Are you guys suggesting I simply give up? Sorry, can't do that. As slim as RP's chances are, IMHO he's the last, best chance we have at restoring the founding fathers vision. When I enlisted in the Navy that vision is what I was signing up to defend, with my life if need be. Until the results are in I consider it my duty to try to spread the word.
-
There may be time left to spread the word (and he's getting a lot of free publicity) but unfortunately it all boils down to money and he doesn't have any.
-
Ron Paul Underdog (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grgLHrlu_sY)
:D
-
The candidates and media are acting like the election is this year. Eighteen more months of hot air from politicians and pundits is like torture. What did we ever do to them to deserve this?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The candidates and media are acting like the election is this year. Eighteen more months of hot air from politicians and pundits is like torture. What did we ever do to them to deserve this?
the first primary is in less than 7 months.
-
Ron Paul issues Rudi some summer reading. Educating Rudy Press Conference. (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom)
-
bsd.. nooo... you should not give up and you should spred the word of your guy. It is not as to me as RPM..
RPM backed a loser that was also a socialist. I had good reason to give him a bad time and I did it on the basis of kinkies liberal socialist message and... the fact that he had no chance. I was very glad to see the guy get shot down in a big way.
ron pauls message is one I like... That does not change the fact that aside from a few cubicle dwelling libertarians and some individualists... no one will vote for him once he starts telling the average American just how much he is going to take away from them in goodies or how he wants to end the war on drugs or how he feels about the borders or... even abortion.
He will lose a big chunk every time he opens his mouth to answer a well thought out question.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bsd.. nooo... you should not give up and you should spred the word of your guy. It is not as to me as RPM..
RPM backed a loser that was also a socialist. I had good reason to give him a bad time and I did it on the basis of kinkies liberal socialist message and... the fact that he had no chance. I was very glad to see the guy get shot down in a big way.
ron pauls message is one I like...
that right there is a big part of why I reacted like I did to your earlier criticisms. From prior discussions I assumed you would like RP and would be on "our side" so to speak. There's plenty of people who disagree with Ron's message and actually think he would be a bad president, let them criticise and cast doubt. Coming from you I felt a little betrayed.
That does not change the fact that aside from a few cubicle dwelling libertarians and some individualists... no one will vote for him once he starts telling the average American just how much he is going to take away from them in goodies or how he wants to end the war on drugs or how he feels about the borders or... even abortion.
He will lose a big chunk every time he opens his mouth to answer a well thought out question.
I dunno. as to the WoD, there's a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum that see the futility and waste in that "war".
The loss of social welfare programs, I see that as a bigger potential stumbling block than his stance on the WoD.
His stance on abortion could be tricky, while he's personally very much pro-life (he's delivered over 4000 babies), on constitutional grounds he is against the fedgov being involved in any way in the matter. When he votes against federal funding of abortions he makes the pro-lifers happy, when he votes against a federal ban on abortions he makes the pro-choice crowd happy. he explains his stance in this article, Federalizing Social Policy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html). The challenge will be in getting people to understand his constitutional reasoning.
The border issue I'm personally on the fence about. National defense is a constitutionally authorized power of the fedgov, and securing our boarders does seem to be in line with that. The flip side is that in one way or another, we're all no more a few generations away from being immigrants and the "America the Melting Pot" analogy is part of our national character. This is a tough one for me...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bsd.. nooo... you should not give up and you should spred the word of your guy. It is not as to me as RPM..
RPM backed a loser that was also a socialist. I had good reason to give him a bad time and I did it on the basis of kinkies liberal socialist message and... the fact that he had no chance. I was very glad to see the guy get shot down in a big way.
ron pauls message is one I like... That does not change the fact that aside from a few cubicle dwelling libertarians and some individualists... no one will vote for him once he starts telling the average American just how much he is going to take away from them in goodies or how he wants to end the war on drugs or how he feels about the borders or... even abortion.
He will lose a big chunk every time he opens his mouth to answer a well thought out question.
lazs
Ron Paul should issue you a reading lesson about the war on drugs has totally failed, reduced our civil liberties and wasted trillions of dollars that could be spent on education / health care, or anything else.
Marijuana being the USAs #1 cash crop is an exclamation point on what a failure the WOD is, and how ineffective the .gov is 'fighting' this war. Just think, if MJ were legal there might be the type of chaos they have in Amsterdam... people laughing in public.
Marijuana production = $35.8 billion, which is more than Corn ($23.3 billion) + wheat ($7.5 billion) combined... the bush would call this 'mission accomplished' I suppose, while those with common sense see it as a giant on-going big gov failure.
Start by reading this (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:TO-P10FVmGEJ:www.richardminiter.com/pdf/articles/19930800-art-reason.pdf+asset+seizure+abuse&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us)
-
People accuse me of repeating myself but... xmarine and bsd act as tho they have never read anything I have ever wrote.
I am on your side.. I am not on disability nor do I work in a cube but I have the same goals of less government in my life. I think any adult should be able to buy a pound of heroin at the local grocery store for $10 if he wants... I don't give a crap about pot in the least... It was one of the few drugs I could easily ignore since it just makes you seem weak, pathetic and stupid.
I am however pragmatic... something you should also know from reading me.
He hasn't a prayer. We haven't torn down the ingrained taboos enough yet to simply tell the voters "your ingrained belief is as stupid as you are so we are going to turn everything upside down for your own good"
You can't change 50% or so of the peoples ideas about drugs or abortion or guns or whatever.
I am not fighting anyone. I am not a particularly bright guy but I bet I could get ron paul in an interview and make him say things (admit to his core beliefs) and lose him 50% of the people who might have voted for him in one interview.. He would come off like a whackjob just as all libertarians do when pushed.
Just as I would if I answered questions.
lazs
-
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336
In what might be considered a political shocker, presidential candidate Ron Paul’s donations - large and small - have nearly doubled since the South Carolina GOP debate.After the debate, Ron Paul (R-Tex) was declared badly damaged by a seemingly devastating Rudy Giuliani rebut of his controversial foreign policy remarks. The audience cheered Giuliani's remarks, and most commentators during and after the debate gave Giuliani the edge by a significant margin.Yet, observers familiar with the campaign said donations have been rolling into Ron Paul coffers, with an especially enthusiastic response right after the debate. The candidate has also received perhaps 100 donations of $2,300, the maximum allowed, according to these sources.
still small potato's compared to the frontrunners, but RP's message seems to be resonating with some folks...
-
Of course he will resonate with some folks!
There are a lot of people out there who feel that the individual is more important than any "society". We are not that numerous tho.
There are also a lot of people with the potential to throw away their petty ideas and live and let live but... to many news shows... too much public school and too much guilt and greed and petty class warfare have been part of their lives... they will fold when pushed... "you want me to give up what?"
They all envy and most love to tell other people what to do and... most want to get a piece of someone elses pie and not feel guilty about it... they want the government to take it from someone else and give it to them.
lazs
-
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-053107.html
Representatives from Sportsbook.com agree that the backing of Paul is has been significant enough to shorten odds to what might very well amount to the biggest slashing in online gambling history.
"Ron Paul is a serious contender whose grass roots campaign is growing dramatically," explains Payton O'Brien, Senior Editor of Gambling911.com, one of the world's leading political betting news sources. "No other single candidate for US President has received the type of interest generated here at Gambling911.com."
prolly doesn't mean much but I think this is cool nonetheless.
Ron Paul '08 or Bust!
-
I'm curious what his interview on the Daily Show will be like.
-
Originally posted by moot
I'm curious what his interview on the Daily Show will be like.
me too. he was Dennis Miller's radio show yesterday. Here's the audio from that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Q848P0h8
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The candidates and media are acting like the election is this year. Eighteen more months of hot air from politicians and pundits is like torture. What did we ever do to them to deserve this?
Super post, Rolex. :D
-
Thanks BSD.
Hap, people oughta be starting to see black cats deja-vu'ing by now...
-
I'm in.
The GOP needs a 3rd tier nobody with a base outside of the current administration. But more importantly, the country could really use a man of Paul's mission and caliber.
(passes the cool-aide)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm in.
The GOP needs a 3rd tier nobody with a base outside of the current administration. But more importantly, the country could really use a man of Paul's mission and caliber.
(passes the cool-aide)
-Sik
that's awesome, SikBoy! :D glad you're on our side.
I just have one thing to ask... (and this goes for everyone here who thinks RP in the White House would be a great thing for America) PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE WORD. Even if it's just during a dinner conversation, or while chatting with friends after church or at a ball game. Ron Paul needs help getting his name and message out there. WE ARE THE GRASSROOTS SUPPORT RON PAUL IS DEPENDING ON, the media doesn't want him to win and the establishment doesn't want him to win, it's up to us to spread the word and help wake the sheeple up.
-
Am listening to Ron Paul being interviewed by Dennis Miller on 5/20/07. You can download and listen by going to Miller's website. Begins about 45 mins and lasts for 10 mins.
I glanced at this thread and saw the thought expressed since he can't win, why vote for him?
Boy, that suggests that bad men have won the day, eh?
I would think that no one that I know from the tiny bit I know them here on the O'Club would think of themselves as the tools of bad men.
Here's the reason I say a comment like must vote for someone who can win shows why evil men may have won the day.
The criteria has become who can win instead of who is the best man.
Possibly, there's no way to tell who is a better person: Mr. X, Y, or Z.
Regardless, it would be very difficult anyway. Just because something is difficult it does not follow that it should not be attempted.
I'm not saying Paul is. I'm still digging around. I very much like his tone and his reasoning and truth telling about our beginning the Iraq war though.
-
I didn't say you have to vote for someone who will win.. I said that you have to vote to make sure that a democrat doesn't get in. Huge difference.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I didn't say you have to vote for someone who will win.. I said that you have to vote to make sure that a democrat doesn't get in. Huge difference.
lazs
That statement is a sad one and represents everything that is wrong with this country. Maybe one day you will understand, that it's not any specific party that makes a difference, It's the man whom makes the difference.
The party the man represents is irrelevant and nothing more than a means for propaganda and useless rhetoric. It should always be about the best man for the job. Nothing else matters.
-
Originally posted by crockett
It should always be about the best man for the job. Nothing else matters.
It should be, but do you truly believe that it is? The party has a good deal of control over the candidate; the Primaries ensure this. Like it or not I think Lazs has a pretty firm grip on the politcal realities in our two party system.
-Sik
-
If you vote for the liberal green guy when the election is close then you are playing into the hands of the republicans... If you vote for the libertarian when the election is close then you are playing into the hands of the democrats.
That is the reality... you are the tiny group that they like to play like a fiddle every election... I would venture to say that I have been through a few more elections than you have crockett.. your sound bites not withstanding.
I am doing something when I do my best to keep democrats out. You are doing nothing... everyone already knows what percent will vote for the independent.
It is planed for.. the only hope is for a strong independent to wipe out the opossition.
If you let billary or osamabama in to prove a point then it is you who are the problem.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you vote for the liberal green guy when the election is close then you are playing into the hands of the republicans... If you vote for the libertarian when the election is close then you are playing into the hands of the democrats.
That is the reality... you are the tiny group that they like to play like a fiddle every election... I would venture to say that I have been through a few more elections than you have crockett.. your sound bites not withstanding.
I am doing something when I do my best to keep democrats out. You are doing nothing... everyone already knows what percent will vote for the independent.
It is planed for.. the only hope is for a strong independent to wipe out the opossition.
If you let billary or osamabama in to prove a point then it is you who are the problem.
lazs
good thing RP's running as an R this time...
(this isn't directed at only you Lazs, but at the risk of sounding like a whiney little b*&7% again, can we please stay on topic?)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you vote for the liberal green guy when the election is close then you are playing into the hands of the republicans... If you vote for the libertarian when the election is close then you are playing into the hands of the democrats.
That is the reality... you are the tiny group that they like to play like a fiddle every election... I would venture to say that I have been through a few more elections than you have crockett.. your sound bites not withstanding.
I am doing something when I do my best to keep democrats out. You are doing nothing... everyone already knows what percent will vote for the independent.
It is planed for.. the only hope is for a strong independent to wipe out the opossition.
If you let billary or osamabama in to prove a point then it is you who are the problem.
lazs
Seriously are you so naive to think "only" your side is doing anything? So "only you" are doing anything by voting for Republicans.
You are a hypocrite even in this topic. First off you sit there and claim you will vote for "any" Republican just to keep a Democrat out. Then you claim voting for Biliary or Obama would be just "for proving a point".
I have nothing really against any party, I register as a independent because I don't support Republicans or Democrats. I support the guy whom I think will do the best for my county.
Your precious Republican party has gone so far off the trail from it's roots that it's pretty sicking they still call themselves Republicains. Your blind faith for the "name" of a party is what wrong with this county.
Sure no matter what party the man is part of he is going to be tied to their belief's to a point. However a good president can overcome that and do what best for the country in a whole.
Bush has done nothing to bring this country together, neither has the current crop of Republicans. They do nothing but try to divide this country and alienate it from the world.
It's too bad a guys like Ron Paul or Obama will probably never have a chance in our current political scam of a system. They would both be good for this country. Too bad our country was bought and sold a long time ago, because in this current political system the right guy for the job no longer stands a chance.
-
I don't think that Lazs is saying that only the GOP is doing anything, simply that he prefers the GOP to the Democrats. To that end, he chooses not to support a potential 3rd party candidate that will syphon votes away from his party of choice (whether he likes the 2 party system or not, he recognizes that the winner of this election will be either a democrat or a republican).
He's not saying that a vote for Hillary or Obama would be done just to prove a point, but rather that voting for Ron Paul on a Libertarian ticket (assuming he looses the GOP nomination), would be tantimount to helping Hillary or Obama win the election. (see the Y2K voters for Nader).
This is what we've got, and unless and until we change our electoral system we're stuck with it. I'd like to yield the floor to +Dead to explain why proportionate voting systems lead to sub-optimal outcomes, but I don't think he'll take the bait.
Ayhow, as BSD points out, Ron Paul is running as a Republican, so if you like the fellah, throw your support behind him in the primaries, and lets see how far we can push this thing. It's a good election for an outsider; as good as any in recent history. Both sides look to have contentious primaries, with no clear frontrunner. Hopefully the political bloodbath will rage on both sides all the way throught he Primaries.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Ayhow, as BSD points out, Ron Paul is running as a Republican, so if you like the fellah, throw your support behind him in the primaries, and lets see how far we can push this thing. It's a good election for an outsider; as good as any in recent history. Both sides look to have contentious primaries, with no clear frontrunner. Hopefully the political bloodbath will rage on both sides all the way throught he Primaries.
absolutely! For those love liberty, yet would never consider voting for a third party candidate because they're afraid of the Dem winning, there is absolutely zero downside to throwing your full support behind Ron Paul. If he loses the primary ya'll can still vote for the Republican in the general election.
Also, even though I've said it before I'll say it again... If RP wins the GOP nomination the GOP will be able to count on the libertarian/independant swing vote working in their favor, instead of working against them. That very well could be the deciding factor in '08, as it was in '06.
-
btw... I spent the last couple of days working on my myspace profile. It's all Ron Paul so I thought I'd share it here. check it out and lemme know what you think. http://www.myspace.com/38234790
-
Yep.. sick gets it.
bsd.. I realize that rp is running as a republican. As I have said....I will vote for him in the primaries. He will of course lose but.. A lot of votes for him might help change the direction of the republicans and slow their slide toward big government and socialism.
No matter what tho... any republican in the house of senate or white house is better than any demoncrat.. for governor.. maybe not so much.
When they get to vote on laws that affect the whole country... you can't allow democrats to be in power.. they will vote along party lines and party lines are socialist nanny state for them.
The reason rp is a republican is because libertarians have a lot more in common with republicans than with democrats. Show me a libertarian disguised as a democrat.
lazs
-
Congressman Ron Paul will be a guest on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" tonight at 11:00 pm ET.
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
The third GOP presidential debate will be held tomorrow night at 7:00 pm ET in New Hampshire. CNN will broadcast the debate with Wolf Blitzer as the moderator.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/3942/1090553509606839/1600/gse_multipart24038.jpg)
-
I went to a Ron Paul meetup in Dallas last night. I think the biggest problem Congressman Paul is going to have are his biggest supporters. The quicker he can start to move his base away from the fringes the better his chances. Last night we had people from the Green party to former neo-cons, to borderline anarchists. I believe I was the only one there with Experience on Capitol Hill, and the only Poli-sci degree in the room...
Oi, we've got a long way to go and less than a year to get there.
-Sik
-
I heard that SIKBOY - his biggest supports are his down fall.
Come On Fred Thompson
-
Yep.. panning out into the crowd of all those sensible pot heads is not gonna go over that well in the heartlands..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I went to a Ron Paul meetup in Dallas last night. I think the biggest problem Congressman Paul is going to have are his biggest supporters. The quicker he can start to move his base away from the fringes the better his chances. Last night we had people from the Green party to former neo-cons, to borderline anarchists. I believe I was the only one there with Experience on Capitol Hill, and the only Poli-sci degree in the room...
Oi, we've got a long way to go and less than a year to get there.
-Sik
The Concord meetup group is an interesting mix too... :) Not quite as fringe as you make the Dallas group sound, but the fringe-types are there. That's not really suprising though, it's pretty much the libertarians/independants who supported RP from the get go and are trying to "convert" the more traditional GOP-types... I would dare to say though, that his diverse support is a good thing. Those are people who will vote GOP who wouldn't necessarily do so otherwise, myself included. We DO have a long way to go though, I agree with you and have said as much. Getting his message out is what he needs help with, 'cause the MSM seems to love to ignore him. Something about Freedom must scare them...
Originally posted by lazs2
Yep.. panning out into the crowd of all those sensible pot heads is not gonna go over that well in the heartlands..
lazs
I was at the pre-debate rally yesterday at the St. Anslem campus in Manchester. The crowd of Ron Paul supporters was certainly not just a bunch of "sensible pot heads". The various camps looked very similar, sure there were more hippie/biker/blue collar/redneck looking types in the RP crowd than in the others, but for the most part you couldn't tell the difference in the way the different camps looked other than by the signs they were carrying and the slogans they were yelling. (and the fact that a few of the RP supporters were open-carrying... :) I LOVE NH!) There was almost as many RP supporters there as there were for all the other candidates combined, and we were LOUD! :D
After the rally we went to Murphy's Tap Room in downtown Manch (owned by a local libertarian, btw...) as a group to watch the debate. There was 200-300 people in there, it was crazy. RP showed up around 11, was great to finally meet him. I'll post some pics/vid when I get a chance (need to buy a data cable to get the pics off my phone...)
The only group I'd say "hurts" RP, IMHO, is the truthers. They're pretty agressive in trying to spread their opinions on 9-11 and have a way of really turning people off. As to the rest, isn't cross-party/platform suport a good thing? That's more voters who will vote agains Hillary...
-
Post-debate interview on Tucker Carlson....
"I hope you can come on more regular; if just to give us a tutorial on what it means to be free. Thank you Dr Paul" -Tucker Carlson
good stuff! :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mb7aiM9K9Q
-
The more interviews I see him do, the more I like him.
Keep posting Bsd.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
The more interviews I see him do, the more I like him.
Keep posting Bsd.
thanks Xargos, comments like yours make the flak worth it. I have no intention of stopping my RP updates, skuzzy would have to ban me to get me to stop... :)
-
very good (and not too long) old article by Dr. Paul on foreign aid I just came across. The last paragraph says it all...
Foreign aid is not only unconstitutional, but also exceedingly unwise. It creates the worst kind of entangling alliances that President Washington warned about. It doesn't buy us any real allies, but instead encourages false friendships, dependency, and a sense of entitlement among the recipients. It also causes resentment among nations that receive none, or less than they feel they deserve. Above all, however, it is simply unconscionable to tax American citizens and send their money overseas. We have enough problems of our own here at home, and those dollars should be returned to taxpayers or spent on legitimate constitutional activities.
Buying Friends With Foreign Aid (http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/14818/view?sort=1)
-
oh, and how silly of me to forget these...
RP's 6.5 minutes from last nights debate - http://youtube.com/watch?v=8_BjK1QqDOo
RP on the Daily Show 6/4/07 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-y5nbLrrnk
-
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." -- Ronald Reagan
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." -- U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan
While much has been made that Dr. Paul was one of only six Republicans to vote against the Iraqi war authorization, less well known is that he was one of only six incumbent Republican Congressmen to support Ronald Reagan over Ford in 1976. In fact, Dr. Paul led the Texas delegation for Reagan to the nominating convention.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/Troyg19/ron_paul_reagan_1.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/Troyg19/ron_paul_reagan_2.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/Troyg19/ron_paul_reagan_3.jpg)
-
Ron Paul - 5 Million Dollar Man? (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192)
"observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million."
still not as much as the frontrunners, but he's getting closer and closer... :D
-
holy crap, considering that the last report I'd seen was 700k, that's astonishing (or just a really old report).
That's good news and certainly a step in the right direction.
-Sik
-
it sure is, Sik...
by the way, earlier I promised some vid of the rally before and after the debate... here ya go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNn0B57cGgw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi3JnWjqO44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuWE2BJW9UE
These look like fringe-types to you? They look like red-blooded Americans to me...
-
Nevertheless there are more fringe flakes if only because of the relatively small number of Paul supporters. They don't need to be many to make a mark, as trolls and 'hardcore' game fans do. It's too bad they are as zealous as regular folks.. They aren't good news for Paul if they are the first impression people unfamiliar with Paul get, like that youtube vid 'Ron Paul vs. Digg.com'. Crackpot stuff.
The Daily Show interview was really uneventful. I wouldn't try and predict what Colbert will do, but I doubt his interview will be any better.
BSD, do you have a video of the straw poll CNN pulled from their live coverage of the debate? Was it an internet vote too, or something else?
-
Didn't bother reading this thread on the pansy. It just took about two seconds of hearing his "lets just be nice and use our words" BS to decide that fella's out.
He sounded like a woman for crying out loud.
-
:lol Those founding fathers and their ghey get-ups, foppish 'constitutional' nonsense! They ought to have had real manly politicos like today's teaching them proper flip-flopin and showboating.
Nevermind if a president's no good at his job... so long as he looks and sounds good doing it.
-
so far the polls have the mormon making the most headway.. He is the big winner in the debates helping his cause the most.
I will vote for the libertarian pretending to be a republican unless something unusual happens but.. I think that if the guy won the primaries he could win the whole thing against someone as bad as billary or osamabama.
That being said.. I will probly not have a good choice again and simply have to vote in the best way I can to help keep the democrat out.
I know it is crushing to get your hopes up and to fight so hard but.. rp doesn't have a chance. Just like kinky didn't have a chance and just like rpm invested so much into him.
difference of course is that rp would be good for the country and kinky would have been very very bad.... a very small difference when it comes to getting elected tho.
lazs
-
RP should see he's got nothing to lose, and deconstruct as much of the other candidates' BS politics on TV as he can, for everyone to see.
With some luck he'll have gained influence when it's all said and done. He'll be a bit old to run in 2012.
-
I urge everyone to read this excerpt from "The Life of Colonel David Crockett". It's not too long, might take 10 minutes to read, and it really puts things into perspective...
Not Yours To Give (http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/notyours.html)
and then read this account regarding Ron Paul and how, even though Dr. Paul and Mr. Reagan were good friends and Dr. Paul was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for President in 1976, Ron Paul opposed awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan:
It is Very Easy to be Generous with Taxpayer's Money (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/323)
-
Ron Paul on The Colbert Report 6-13-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUd7OW2TvN8
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Ron Paul on The Colbert Report 6-13-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUd7OW2TvN8
He's 100% right about our .govs use of "war on".. but he makes too much sense to ever get elected.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
He's 100% right about our .govs use of "war on".. but he makes too much sense to ever get elected.
Didn't bother reading this thread on the pansy. It just took about two seconds of hearing his "lets just be nice and use our words" BS to decide that fella's out. He sounded like a woman for crying out loud.
-
Good coverage from the MSM for a change...
An Also-Ran in the GOP Polls, Ron Paul a Huge Hit on the Web (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502428.html)
-
He was kind of funny on the Colbert Report with that hand raising episode.
-
Well I'm a diehard Independent because i have always been taught to do what you think is the right thing and not become some republican/Democrat
Zealot who blindly follows one partyline like some deranged cult member.
I vote not with my heart, i use what god has given all of us, its called the Brain.
And in choosing who i will vote for is done thru research of all the Canidates running, weither Rep/Dem/Independent makes no difference to me.
To blindly follow one partyline is not only Communistic but i feel Un-American, For now Ron Paul has peaked my Interest and i will support him.
BTW BSD Great Post :aok :aok
-
68zoom.. that is very noble of you... and.. I am glad you do such.. so long as you would have wasted your vote anyway.
if you would have voted for a democrat then I am thrilled that you have jumped on the ron paul wagon... very good news.
If you would have voted for a republican but now want to vote for ron paul out of some form of missguided "principle" .. then you are a sucker and a problem.
The game is not played that way. I didn't make up the rules but the rules are... the more votes your team can get and the more votes some loser siphons off from the other guy... the better your chances. but... one of the two of you will win and the two are very different with very different visions for America.
to vote your concience and expect that you will change things for the better is to not be paying attention to the game and to do a disservice to your fellows.
But.. like I said... if you woulda voted for another independent or for a democrat then...
Go RON PAUL and good for you for making a "difference" and having so much courage.
lazs
-
Lazs2 thanks for the reply, Like i have stated I will watch RP and see what happens along the way, as well as the others that are running and see where i stand come election day :)
-
68... I will vote for ron paul in the primaries if he is on the ballot and it won't let mcain get in.
I would for sure vote for him over any democrat.
lazs
-
CNN's Jack Cafferty on Ron Paul (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dblWqKh7De0)
been busy with RL crap and not a lot of time to post recently, just poppin' in to share this vid... more good coverage from the MSM. :)
-
On an interesting related note, Reagan was labeled "unelectable" just ahead of the 1980 election:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924192,00.html
-
I really hope Ron Paul wins. We need him to help point our country back into the direction our Founding Fathers intended. And if he does win I pray he has the ability to choose good quality cabinet members, because he won't be able to do it alone.
-
A good article on Giuliani:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/07/2007-10-07_no_matter_what_the_question_is_rudy_says.html
His answer to any question is the same, and this article calls him on it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
His answer to any question is the same, and this article calls him on it. [/B]
yup, nothing new, of course, but it's nice that the MSM is picking up on that fact... I can't wait for his 2nd ammendment record to become an issue, that'll really sink him.
Here's a new RP video for ya'll. Not by me, was posted on lewrockwell...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcAQ4X8Omg
-
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html
It's interesting to look at the rankings without considering party affiliation, IMHO...
#1 - Ron Paul (war critic + veteran) - $63,440 from active and retired military personnel Jan-Sep 2007
#2 - Barack Obama (war critic) - $53,968
#3 - John McCain (veteran) - $48,208
-
On Monday, Ron Paul introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/storage/astudmuffinenda/documents/AFA%20Act%20text.pdf)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html
What does it do? According to an alert put out by the American Freedom campaign, it would accomplish the following:
"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."
Dr. Paul's Speech to Congress introducing the bill can be found here (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/3760)
-
Heads up: GOP debate tonight (10-21-07) at 8pm on Faux News Channel. It's Faux, so Ron's sure to catch some heat. (or be ignored...)
Also, another great video. Ron discusses the Christian Just War Theory
Ron Paul - The Just War Theory (http://www.youtube.com/v/_hCKZmkF0VU)
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Didn't bother reading this thread on the pansy. It just took about two seconds of hearing his "lets just be nice and use our words" BS to decide that fella's out.
He sounded like a woman for crying out loud.
Worth saying again.
-
thanks for the valuable insight
-
Sorry, not trying to discourage you from your support of him, and I'm not trying to sharpshoot you in any way.
Your interest in your elected officials places you at least an echelon above most of the other Americans who don't vote; and of those who vote, probably half of those don't research the candidates to see whom they really would like to see in office.
So, it's a great thing that you've taken an interest in him.
I just think he's a total wuss ~ just a personal opinion ~ and can't ever imagine him as selecting him as our Commander in Chief (picture of him wearing a pink jacket and brandishing a riding whip just flashed through my head).
-
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Per Texasmom, we appear to be entering stage 2.
-
Texasmom has Ron Paul pegged. If he isn't a wimp he sure comes across as one. I think Lazs has a better chance at winning the presidency.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Per Texasmom, we appear to be entering stage 2.
I'm not ridiculing bsaddict at all. In fact, I went out of my way to say to him that he's doing better than most, since he's taken an interest in who our elected officials are. I wasn't patronizing him when I said that ~ I did mean it.
-
Umm... I was talking about Ron Paul, like you. You doing ok over there?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Umm... I was talking about Ron Paul, like you. You doing ok over there?
*smile* ohhh.... yes, in that respect you're correct. Yes, I was indeed making fun of Ron Paul. Except with him the correct pattern won't include any of the "fight, win" portions.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Sorry, not trying to discourage you from your support of him, and I'm not trying to sharpshoot you in any way.
Your interest in your elected officials places you at least an echelon above most of the other Americans who don't vote; and of those who vote, probably half of those don't research the candidates to see whom they really would like to see in office.
So, it's a great thing that you've taken an interest in him.
I just think he's a total wuss ~ just a personal opinion ~ and can't ever imagine him as selecting him as our Commander in Chief (picture of him wearing a pink jacket and brandishing a riding whip just flashed through my head).
fair enough...
just so you know, what you see as "wussiness" (sp?) I see as a constitutionally-based understanding of foreign policy. RP's position is that we DON'T pick fights. We DON'T invade other countries in order to effect a regime change, enforce UN regulations, or to "spread democracy" by force of arms. We DO defend ourselves, we DO go after those who attack us, and when diplomacy fails and force is needed we DO follow the Constitution by declaring war. He's all for using force when it's constitutionally justified, he just doesn't believe Iraq meets that requirement.
The way I see it is, what we've got now is a situation where due to our over-reaching foreign policy our resources are spread so thin that we don't have enough to satisfy the core responsibilities. Case in point, Afghanistan. We failed to get Bin Laden, were we completely dedicated to and focused on that task things may have turned out differently. Instead of focusing our resources on that task, Bush saw an opportunity in Iraq and took it, borrowing more money from China to fund the whole thing. To top it all off, now a confrontation with Iran is looming in which we'll be faced with even more $$$ borrowed and more lives spent. Can't say I like where all this is heading...
-
I think Paul is informed about and supportive of the main points in Washington's Farewell Address.
Too bad the rest of the pols are not.
-
i heard him speak... seems to be one of the last honest americans left.
-
Chuck Norris for President.
Chuck doesn't Whine, Cry or Snivel.
Nuff Said.
Mac
-
Thanks for the input, Mac.
Originally posted by Torque
i heard him speak... seems to be one of the last honest americans left.
RP's honesty is, IMHO, the quality that makes him stand out from the rest. That and his firm grasp on Constitutional principals. His actions (voting record) are in line with his rhetoric. He's not simply trying to appeal to conservative voters by talking the talk. I found it very telling that, in the debate the other day, the "I'm more conservative than you" line of questioning stopped when they decided it was time to give RP some attention. IMHO he puts them all to shame.
Originally posted by Toad
I think Paul is informed about and supportive of the main points in Washington's Farewell Address.
Too bad the rest of the pols are not.
can't agree with ya more, Toad. I firmly believe that, if they could, the Founding Fathers would endorse RP.
-
torque... if you look at his real party... libertarians... you will see that he is the last person you would support. libertarians are the anti socialist. You may agree with him on the war but I doubt that there is much else you would.
BS.. I honestly don't care enough about the whole torture thing to matter... I want to see him introduce bills to cut taxes and shrink government and restore constitutional rights.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Torque
i heard him speak... seems to be one of the last honest americans left.
Yeah, Torque, there's so few good Americans left.
Only Canadians are good and pure anymore. Last of the breed.
-
lols
-
I'm just cutting out the middle man this year and voting for either Forrest Gump or Satan himself. Since most candidates fall into either category.
-
Ron Paul was on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night, 30 Oct. pretty good performance, he was composed and confident. Got lobbed a couple softballs I think he could have answered differently, but all in all he got the message out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Kue1Podxs
-
I'm on a roll today! Here's a couple more videos worth watching...
Ron Paul and the US Military (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JHhV3v5GKc)
The Ones Who Change the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRd8pGBtcQg)
-
from the interesting indicator's department, Ron Paul's book sales are skyrocketing. (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=148058)
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s new book, "A foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" as of yesterday had sky rocketed on Amazon.com from No. 594 to No. 294. and made it to 22 on Amazon's Movers and Shakers list. The book looks like it may quickly become a best seller.
-
Ron Paul interview will air on 'Anderson Cooper 360' on CNN, tonight (2 Nov.) at 10 pm ET. Here's a preview...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/11/02/intv.ron.paul.cnn
-
That BS refutal by Giuliani's still presented as accurate?
-
Originally posted by moot
That BS refutal by Giuliani's still presented as accurate?
by whom? By Giuliani? Probably, he never took Ron up on his offer to give him a reading list... By the media? I think they're recognizing the concept of blowback, the friggin' 9/11 commission did, fer cryin' out loud...
-
Well I guess it might be just as likely that he was asked that again (as likely as it just being bleeds-leads polemic bait), this long afterwards, as an opportunity for him to put any doubts about it to bed (for anyone who watched that debate and didn't realize Giuliani's BS).. he didn't shoot it down as well as he could have.
-
I wouldn't choose Ron Paul to be the Republican candidate solely for his isolationist position. I don't think that's viable in the world today. I am pleased he isn't pulling a Ross Perot.
-
What isolationism? He says explicitly that he's only pulling out the troops. That he wants to do more commerce with the rest of the world... What's isolationist about that? Did I miss something?
In that Leno vid, his comment about the US not having anyone in the world to fear militarily is right. Who the **** is going to screw with the US? No one.
-
We would benefit greatly form some good old fashioned isolationism.
I'm for the Old Republic.
Boarders, Morals, Intelligence, Sacrifice, and Bombs as a last resort. But when munitions are called for, do it right.
-
Our borders have proven to be inconsequential, both to those only looking for work/welfare and those looking to blow us up.
-
Ron Paul on the cover of the Rocky Mountain Chronicle:
(http://www.rmchronicle.com/images/stories/Volume2/Issoe05/coverpict.jpg)
Here's the article. (http://www.rmchronicle.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1599)
Also on the main page (http://www.boulderweekly.com/) of the Boulder Weekly... article here (http://www.boulderweekly.com/?site_id=619&page_id=10556&id_sub=10556)
(http://www.boulderweekly.com/site_images/pageimage_619_10848_0_1.jpg)
-
The problem with Ron Paul is he doesn't know when to shut up or stop.
Sure less govt regulation is great, but it doesn't mean we need to get rid of everything the govt does.
I mean hell he wants to get rid of the Post Office and let it go commercial. What exactly will that accomplish? Does the US post office do a bad job? I don't think they do.
Do you really want some guy that's hired by some company to sift through your mail? At least with the govt in charge of it, their is accountability set in place if that happens.
Sure private business can do things better in many cases I will never argue against that. However Ron Paul just goes off the deep end because he doesn't know where to draw the line.
Look at health care in this country for a prime example.. Look how notoriously bad HMO services are by the majority and how expensive health care is in this country. It's pretty obvious that in countries where health care is provided by the govt, that more people get access to the health care. Not only that but it's cheaper.
If private industry can do everything better and can be "trusted" to do it with out jacking up the price for profits. Well then tell me why medicines in Canada would cost me as a US citizen half of what it costs here in the US.
Sure I'm' all for farming out certain things to private contractors with less govt involvement, but not everything. That's where Ron Paul loses my vote.
Btw with less govt regulation, do you honestly think pollution would get better? This list could go on and on and on.. There are reasons in many cases why heavy govt regulation was put in place. The reason is because a lot of people don't care about anything but money.
-
Originally posted by crockett
If private industry can do everything better and can be "trusted" to do it with out jacking up the price for profits. Well then tell me why medicines in Canada would cost me as a US citizen half of what it costs here in the US.
The Canadian govt has laws that control the pricing of drugs.
-
Originally posted by crockett
The problem with Ron Paul is he doesn't know when to shut up or stop.
Sure less govt regulation is great, but it doesn't mean we need to get rid of everything the govt does.
I mean hell he wants to get rid of the Post Office and let it go commercial. What exactly will that accomplish? Does the US post office do a bad job? I don't think they do.
Do you really want some guy that's hired by some company to sift through your mail? At least with the govt in charge of it, their is accountability set in place if that happens.
monopoly = bad, competition = good. Read Spooner vs. U.S. Postal System (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/STAMP3.htm) if you're interested in the post office issue.
Sure private business can do things better in many cases I will never argue against that. However Ron Paul just goes off the deep end because he doesn't know where to draw the line.
Look at health care in this country for a prime example..
for an example of what? how corporate protectionist policies can screw up healthcare?
Look how notoriously bad HMO services are by the majority and how expensive health care is in this country. It's pretty obvious that in countries where health care is provided by the govt, that more people get access to the health care. Not only that but it's cheaper.
If private industry can do everything better and can be "trusted" to do it with out jacking up the price for profits. Well then tell me why medicines in Canada would cost me as a US citizen half of what it costs here in the US.
Gee, how silly to think that a DOCTOR might have some ideas regarding how to "fix" healthcare in the US. He's covered this in detail, here's all the info regarding Ron Paul and the health care system you could want... http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=22
Sure I'm' all for farming out certain things to private contractors with less govt involvement, but not everything. That's where Ron Paul loses my vote.
Btw with less govt regulation, do you honestly think pollution would get better? This list could go on and on and on.. There are reasons in many cases why heavy govt regulation was put in place. The reason is because a lot of people don't care about anything but money.
Here's an interview (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/) of Ron Paul specifically discussing environmental issues and the Free Market.
-
Originally posted by john9001
The Canadian govt has laws that control the pricing of drugs.
Yes but see Ron Paul is against more govt control. Our govt wont pass the same kind of law here because "we the people" no longer run this govt. Lobbyists from the pharmaceutical companies have more power than any citizen in this country has.
Your post is prime example of why govt should be involved in that kind of stuff. Which is the problem with Ron Paul and his less govt involvement on everything theories.
There is no reason in the world as to why drugs should cost twice as much here in the US, as the exact same drug does in Canada. Our govt could also control the pricing of drugs but we don't. Why not?
The govt doesn't work for the people of this country it works for big business and special intrest. It's not a problem of too much govt control, it's a problem of too much control in the hands of lobbyists and the fact that most of our govt doesn't have term limits. So the longer a politician stays in power the more power and control he builds up.
Put term limits on all govt position and make lobbyists illegal and this country would very likely turn it's self around fairly quickly.
Money and power both corrupt. Add them together and it's a done deal.
-
Originally posted by crockett
The govt doesn't work for the people of this country it works for big business and special intrest.
agree with ya 100%! :aok
-
The problem is the goverment protects the companies.
If not then people could sue them for price gouging as well as remove the goverment limit and protections to these compaanies.
If ron wants to remove the protections then i see no problem with them removing the restrictions.
-
BS.. see what I mean? crock-it and other lefties will come unglued once they realize that less government means...well.. less government.
Who will tell us to wear our seatbelts or protect us from the neighbor who has a gun or stop people from saying the "n" word.. or make sure that the rich pay?
sure... less government sounds good to em till they realize it means... less government... less of a chance to tell people what to do.
crock-it is proving my point.
me.. hell.. you don't have to sell me... I can only think of one or two things the government should do... you want good meat? safe food? buy kosher and stay away from government seal of approval stuff.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
BS.. see what I mean? crock-it and other lefties will come unglued once they realize that less government means...well.. less government.
Who will tell us to wear our seatbelts or protect us from the neighbor who has a gun or stop people from saying the "n" word.. or make sure that the rich pay?
sure... less government sounds good to em till they realize it means... less government... less of a chance to tell people what to do.
crock-it is proving my point.
me.. hell.. you don't have to sell me... I can only think of one or two things the government should do... you want good meat? safe food? buy kosher and stay away from government seal of approval stuff.
lazs
Funny because you righties sure seem to love to tell the rest of us what is ok to watch on TV or say on the radio. Much less what women can do with their bodies.
Both sides love to try and tell others what to do.. It's just what they try to tell you is diffrent.
What is it, that the rich pay? If you are talking about taxes, well In most cases by percentage the wealthy in this country pay far less of a tax percentage than some guy making 30 or 40k a year.
Your average hard working American pays about 30% to 40% of his income in taxes. The wealthy tend to pay closer to 20% to 30%.
Only way taxes will ever be fair is if we went to a flat tax but that will never happen. Simply because big business knows they would then pay more taxes. I think Ron Paul babbles about doing this, but he would never get it passed.
If you remember George Bush and his first campaign, he also promised a flat tax.. He sure has seemed to go far with that now hasn't he?
When politicians claim they will give us a flat tax, it's nothing more than a song and a dance for the masses at election time. The real powers that be will never let a flat tax be put in place. They would then actually have to pay taxes.
-
Lazs, I don't think crockett is making that point for you. He was never ON Paul's bandwagon, therefor he hasn't/can't jump OFF it.
Crockett, Paul supports a flat income tax. 0% for everyone... :)
-
Amazing how people will discredit candidates other than theirs without any factual basis...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Lazs, I don't think crockett is making that point for you. He was never ON Paul's bandwagon, therefor he hasn't/can't jump OFF it.
Crockett, Paul supports a flat income tax. 0% for everyone... :)
Yes I know.. I'm sure he would get that passed too.. Hence the reason I brought up what Bush campaigned on during his first election. He promised a flat tax.
Where is it? It's never gonna happen which is the point I was making about RP's tax promise.
-
Originally posted by moot
Amazing how people will discredit candidates other than theirs without any factual basis...
If you are talking about me.. I don't have a candidate. Non of them speak to me.
As I've said before Ron Paul sounds good at the start then he just keeps talking and going crazy. If he knew where to draw the limits, then yea maybe I'd vote for him. However the more he talks the crazier he sounds.
Just like Ross Perot..
-
Go on, then. Why is RP 'crazy' in the current campaign's context?
-
Ron Paul owes me money.
-
Who the Hell is Pon Raul?
:huh
Mac
-
this Ghandi quote has been used here a couple of times...
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Seems this board reached step 3 today. :D
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Who the Hell is Pon Raul?
:huh
Mac
who the hell is Mac?
:huh
-
"Knock, Knock......."
-
Who's there...
PTSD!! :eek:
-
Originally posted by moot
Who's there...
PTSD!! :eek:
"Ron Paul......"
-
ron paul who?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by JB88
ron paul who?
:confused:
EXACTLY!!!!
:p
Mac
-
got another video to share with y'all...
From Glen Greenwald on the Ron Paul phenomenon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/):
Ron Paul: A New Hope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA)
-
Originally posted by crockett
If you are talking about me.. I don't have a candidate. Non of them speak to me.
As I've said before Ron Paul sounds good at the start then he just keeps talking and going crazy. If he knew where to draw the limits, then yea maybe I'd vote for him. However the more he talks the crazier he sounds.
Just like Ross Perot..
So do you intend to just vote for more of the same from either of the mainstream corruption-as-usual -perceived- lesser-of-two-evils candidates from either side or just not vote? Even if Ron Paul hasn't got the proverbial snowball's chance a vote for him is far better than the preceeding two options for me. Change has to start SOMEWHERE! It has to have a beginning. That's the only way I can see if change is to be effected through the ballot box vs. another means.
-
Right on, Irwink! someone else who (IMHO) "gets it". :D
Guess what, South Korea "gets it" too. One would think that, if our presence over there is sooo important, they'd want us to stay...
South Korea "gets" Ron Paul (http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=5866)
Not only do the Korean people south of the DMZ stand to gain from a USFK withdrawal, but so do their separated brethren to the north. As the recent summit between the heads of state of Seoul and Pyeongyang demonstrated, the Korean people are perfectly capable of working out their own differences by themselves. The presence of the military of the last remaining superpower, albeit one overtaxed and in decline, only complicates matters and delays the eventual reunification of the Korean peninsula.
-
I'd never trust a man with two first names. Like...Ricky Bobby...
:noid
Wab
-
Ron Paul just doesn't get it. Doesn't he realize that we need more US military bases in subsaharan africa.
Africom.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_re_af/america_s_africa_command_2
-
Not that endorsements are all that, but Ron Paul just picked one up.
Ron Paul Endorsed by Barry Goldwater, Jr. (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123555.html)
-
Originally posted by crockett
Sure less govt regulation is great, but it doesn't mean we need to get rid of everything the govt does.
He isnt getting rid of everything. Just the things that the government has no right to rub their noses into or that are just a ridiculous beaurocracy that serves only itself.
Originally posted by crockett
I mean hell he wants to get rid of the Post Office and let it go commercial. What exactly will that accomplish? Does the US post office do a bad job? I don't think they do.
FedEx beats the USPS hands down. FedEx is not funded by the taxes you pay. Hence, a non-gov entity can handle the mail without it draining the tax money. Letting the USPS become a commercial entity is a much better solution.
Originally posted by crockett
Do you really want some guy that's hired by some company to sift through your mail? At least with the govt in charge of it, their is accountability set in place if that happens.
As opposed to some guy hired by the gov to sift through your mail? You realize that practically every USPS employee comes from the same hiring pool as those in FedEx right? Govt? Accountability? hahahahah. Shows the USPS has never lost your mail. Trust me, you are an insect to them if you try to hold them accountable for losing a package. FedEx oth, has a lot to lose if they arent accountable for lost mail. Again, USPS doesnt need your money, FedEx does.
Originally posted by crockett
Sure private business can do things better in many cases I will never argue against that. However Ron Paul just goes off the deep end because he doesn't know where to draw the line.
I havent heard him say anything 'deep end'. I think the problem is too many people have grown accustomed to the gov. being a part of everything and its scary to think the world could be otherwise.
Originally posted by crockett
Look at health care in this country for a prime example.. Look how notoriously bad HMO services are by the majority and how expensive health care is in this country. It's pretty obvious that in countries where health care is provided by the govt, that more people get access to the health care. Not only that but it's cheaper.
Not really. Gov provided healthcare comes out of your taxes. You want gov. healthcare then be ready to lose a good portion of your paycheck through your entire lifetime. HMO services are bad because the government is involved in health services (see point below about lobbyists).
Originally posted by crockett
If private industry can do everything better and can be "trusted" to do it with out jacking up the price for profits. Well then tell me why medicines in Canada would cost me as a US citizen half of what it costs here in the US.
In a free market you would realize that if you cant make medicines CHEAPER and better than those from canada, you WONT be in bussiness very long. Free market means you can buy from Canada too!
Whereas in the US the medicine companies lobby constantly with the gov. so people in the US arent allowed access to foreign medicines because its bad for their bussiness. Its all about who lobbies the most to get priviledges. So tell me, what is preferable? that the gov. is denying you access to medicines because a US company lobbied for it so they can remain profitable (jacking up the prices of 'brand' medicines) -or- a US based company that has to compete with Canadian based medicine companies and you, the consumer, can choose to buy either.
Originally posted by crockett
Sure I'm' all for farming out certain things to private contractors with less govt involvement, but not everything. That's where Ron Paul loses my vote.
He didnt say hed get rid of everything. I'd suggest you watch the hour-long video of Ron Paul visiting the Google HQ .. he goes into detail on many things. Details not mentioned in debates or interviews he's had... heck the guy had a whole hour to talk.
Originally posted by crockett
Btw with less govt regulation, do you honestly think pollution would get better? This list could go on and on and on.. There are reasons in many cases why heavy govt regulation was put in place. The reason is because a lot of people don't care about anything but money. [/B]
Considering the US did not sign the Kyoto accord I dont think US gov. regulation on pollution has much credibility. However, private entities CAN regulate private companies because the government is still in charge of the judicial system. You can prove a company is polluting irresponsably to save some bucks? A private entity can investigate them and bring them to court on behalf of the affected.
Think about it.. look at all the stupid court cases over the years that made mega-corporations change. MacDonalds getting sued because a hot coffee burned a woman's tongue... or the wal-mart costumer that falls on the floor because the 'wet floor' sign was not visible to them, etc. Those are extreme examples but you get what I mean.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
His position is moot. His 9/11 comments were a candidate killer. period... he's done as a presidential candidate.
Anyone care to wager on it?
How much?
-
crok-it.. I believe that you are getting it... you are also seeing why I would want ron paul in and you would not... no socialist here... no lefty would ever want him in.
the reason that some democrats and lefties here want him is.. they seen he wants out of the war and he will let em smoke pot. farther than that.. they haven't looked.
you are just a little faster to realize that ron paul is the end of the great socialist commie American experiment if he gets in than most of your socialist friends..
have no fear tho... if ron paul get's anywhere near being a candidate.... his ideas will be front page and you will need smelling salts to revive the lefties who read it.
The libertarians here are also being a tad dishonest about him... saying that he only wants to get rid of "some" government programs and agencies.. the truth is that he has some he wants to get rid of right off the bat... but that he will get rid of every socialist program he can. he will work to that end.
I am in agreement on this with him but I don't see how being dishonest is gonna help.. It will come out anyway.
lazs
-
I'm sure that SOME dem/liberal RP supporters will be turned off by SOME of RPs platforms. Likewise, SOME dem/liberals yearn for a return to the constitutional principals that made this country great and are tired of POLITICS AS USUAL. It's not just RPs anti-WoD stance that attracts dems to RP, it's also habeus corpus, eminant domain, posse comitatus, warrantless wiretaps, rendidtions, waterboarding, freedom of speech, etc... The entire spectrum of civil liberties is big with them. Certainly, there's SOME hard-core socialists (some who might not even know it) among the dems who would gladly trade their freedoms for a monthly check, but there's also SOME principled voters who see past the polarizing nature of politics in America today and are tired of bought-and-paid-for politicians.
I'm not really all that concerned about Ron Paul losing supporters due to them learning more about him. What concerns me is the people who base their decisions on who sounds the best, or who has the snazziest commercials. Basically, the people who aren't paying attention and who's voting decision is based on what they hear from the MSM. There's 50 people who know about the latest Brittney news for every one who knows about Ron Pauls positions. That's what scares me.
-
I found his debate clash with Giulanni about the 9/11 to be a perfect example of how biased the media is and of just how low and desperate the other candidates are to gather support.
The whole debate RP was saying that the 911 attacks were influenced by many years of bad foreign policy and the guy holding the debate and Guilani and other candidates were doing their damn best to twist his words to saying that the attack was something the US 'deserved' because of their foreign policy. Even the idiot newsman interviewing him at the end went out of his way to warp what RP was saying.
All I see other candidates do is exploit tragedies and the current situation to make false statements on their positions on an issue (saying 'i was against the war' but they voted FOR it for example) and making contradicting promises to different audiences to gain votes. RP is the only candidate who'se actions in the past match his words today and does not change his position or flip-flop things for votes.
Too bad I cannot vote (not US citizen) , or i'd vote for him.
-
Originally posted by Tac
RP is the only candidate who'se actions in the past match his words today and does not change his position or flip-flop things for votes.
just wanted to repeat that... :)
(possibly Kuchinich (sp?) has been as steadfast in his principles as RP. gee, is it any surprise that he gets dissed just like RP does?)
-
Face it, some people aren't just stupid or not paying attention. They know the media's censoring Paul, and they don't mind it. They're in on it.. They don't mind the fraudulent BS like Giuliani's 911 slant and his fooling the crowd with that middle east blowback sleight of hand in that debate a few months back, so long as they have their favorite toilet paper to go home to. They don't mind not understanding what the flippin heck RP's on about because there's other politicians who look and sound "good enough".
They're as good as the corrupt politicians and bloated bureaucracy that RP wants to get rid of.
-
guys... get serious... how much do you think the lefties will want him when they weigh the effects of say... waterboarding compared to... oh.... getting rid of the board of education? or cutting funding to students? or cutting any give away program?
I mean.. seriously.. he is talking about some huge social changes. Not only that but he is a right to lifer.
When it comes right down to it... even tho they are beyond evil.. most of us do not feel our rights of free speech or whatever are infringed.. what people do feel is that the government is "not doing enough for us"
This is exactly 180 degrees from what his platform is.. he, like myself.. thinks the government is doing (pretending to do) WAY more than it was ever intended to do.
The sad fact is that most of us.. and lefties most of all... want the government to do more.. to be more intrusive into our lives... not less.
How is that gonna shake out in a national debate? Hell.. they are even afraid to talk about gun control or abortion...
I think ron paul picks the war because it is a relatively safe topic.. many that think it is a good thing don't really care that much.. those that think it is a bad one.. well... it really doesn't affect them that much anyway.
It is a great lie and media lie that people even care that much about it.
But.. talk about taxes or abortion or gun control or abolishing all these government services and then you will see some real heat.
ron paul is doing exactly the same as every other politician.. he is talking about the safe things in the debates.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
guys... get serious... how much do you think the lefties will want him when they weigh the effects of say... waterboarding compared to... oh.... getting rid of the board of education? or cutting funding to students? or cutting any give away program?
not all Dems are hard-core lefties. not all Reps are neo-cons.Not only that but he is a right to lifer.
only at the state level and in his own personal view. He wants the fedgov to stay out of it.what people do feel is that the government is "not doing enough for us"
not the people I know.he, like myself.. thinks the government is doing (pretending to do) WAY more than it was ever intended to do.
then stop trying to turn people against him.The sad fact is that most of us.. and lefties most of all... want the government to do more.. to be more intrusive into our lives... not less.
I don't think you speak for the majority. Hopefully I'm not wrong about that. If I am, then yeah, we're screwed.How is that gonna shake out in a national debate?
I believe it has been. RP's numbers have been growing as more people hear him. There's a spike in donations after every debate or television appearance.Hell.. they are even afraid to talk about gun control or abortion...
I'm sure Ron Paul would LOVE the opportunity to debate Hillary (or anyone, for that matter) on the 2nd. Abortion, he's talked about his stance repeatedly.I think ron paul picks the war because it is a relatively safe topic.. many that think it is a good thing don't really care that much.. those that think it is a bad one.. well... it really doesn't affect them that much anyway.
The concept that he would shy away from an "unsafe" topic is, IMO, laughable. Have you heard some of his speeches on the House floor or bothered to read any of the multitude of his writings?It is a great lie and media lie that people even care that much about it.
if you say so...But.. talk about taxes or abortion or gun control or abolishing all these government services and then you will see some real heat.
can't wait... :)ron paul is doing exactly the same as every other politician.. he is talking about the safe things in the debates.
You certainly have a unique take on RPs debate performances. The amount of heat he's taken up till this point and you say he's been playing it safe? I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
-
the man has written more books on economic than all of his collective counterparts have probably read.... and he still managed to deliver 4000 babies... that makes for a good balance.
he is open and honest when debating the core issues... uses the constitution to expose and then crush his opponents.
hope he can avoid the kennedy virus... a bullet.
-
From an outsiders point of view, I like RP.
I want him to run for PM here but the elections only 6 days away.
WoD was a waste of time and money when it started and it will continue to be until it's scrapped. Organised crime would all but disappear once the profit from illegal drugs dries up.
I also like his stance on the abortion. Don't be expecting the government to pay for it, and they'll not be telling you you can't have one. If the local authorities decide that they'd rather not have it in their backyard then that's an issue for them to deal with.
The war, well, I made comment back in the 1980's when I first began to really take notice of the growing situation in the Middle East that everyone should leave them well alone, eventually they will run out of people to shoot at and things will work themselves out. Hell even then the oil wasn't a good enough reason.
War is EXPENSIVE.
Our current King Johnny is walking around beating his chest and wiggling his impressive eyebrows over his "great economic surge" with reference to the US$. The truth of the matter is it is not that our dollar has gained, it's just that the enormous expense of some 30+ years of attempting to influence the politics in the Middle East and the latest instalment; the "War against Terrorism" has drained the US economy to it's limit.
Guys it looks like you've got an honest down to earth straight shooting politician. He's the kind the media hate, because he won't dance to any of their tunes and big business won't like him either because he won't be bought. Don't let him get away!
-
I'll start by restating something I said long ago: I think Ron Paul is the only Republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton.
A Giuliani vs. Clinton election is a nightmare. Both are frighteningly disingenuous creatures, and there would be no winner, since 300 million American people would be losers. Only Dr. Paul offers a clear difference to the two families that have ruled the nation in the last two decades. Adults under 30-years old only know of two families and a Clinton presidency would extend that to a quarter of a century of a bizarre, teeter-totter monarchy.
Four years ago, John Kerry was polling at less than 4% in the Democratic nomination media polls. That's lower than Ron Paul is polling now, yet he went on to win the nomination. I don't think it wise for anyone to discount Ron Paul before a single voter has cast a ballot.
I'm not convinced Giuliani will even be in the nomination race at convention time. He has too many skeletons that can rear up to bite him. Romney is no different than Clinton. They sound the same. Where is the choice Republicans can offer voters who, I'm convinced, are going to repudiate this administration next year? Who can disgruntled voters turn to? The Republican Party must either embrace Ron Paul, or accept defeat next year.
This may be the last gasp for Americans to seize the nation back before the minions outnumber the population. Every other candidate, except Ron Paul, panders to the minions. When I say minions, I mean government employees, contractors and employees of companies that sell to the government.
35 million Americans are paid directly from the local, state or the federal government as either employees or contractors. Add in the people who receive government benefits, grants and subsidies, subcontractors, employees of companies in the defense industry and retirees, and one half of all households in America are supported by the other half of America. Their income now exceeds income for private industry workers doing comparable work, and their benefits, job security and retirement are all higher than private industry. That was part of why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Ron Paul's message to rein in government expansion and spending is the only choice. All the other candidates bring nothing to the table except fiscal irresponsibility and policy disasters, both foreign and domestic.
-
If it's a Clinton v Paul race, Ron Paul wins in a landslide. I don't agree 100% with his agenda, but he has the least objectionable platform
and without a doubt he's the most believeable candidate.
He is an enigma, an honest politician.
-
bsd.. I am not trying to "turn people against him" as you say... I am just trying to ease your fall.
He isn't going to be in the race.
I will vote for him up until he becomes an independent or write in. then I will vote for the republican.
I see rolex's point but it is not quite true.. there is a HUGE difference between hillay and osamabama and any of the republicans. never have the democrats feilded a more far left group.
One difference will be who gets to appoint federal judges and the other will be what bills come before the next pres and what he signs..
Do you want hillary or osama appointing SC or federal judges? most of the bad stuff that affects us all on a daily basis is because billary appointed all those federal judges.
With a democrat pres... there will be a flood of bills sent to the pres to rubber stamp.
But back to ron paul.. no one that votes has every heard his speeches on the house floor... they hear the debates and they will read in print that he is some absent minded professor whack job with nutball ideas. "he wants to take away my what?"
If I am so wrong.. how does a socialist like hillary get so far along... just answer me that. If I am wrong about so many wanting more and more goodies and more and more dependent on the government...
Then how the hell did we get in this mess in the first place and how come ron paul is the only one to make it this far... and only then.. by being an exceptional man and not really being talked about much in the press yet.
I wish I was wrong but I am not... we are decadent and the younger generation is soft and stupid on public education and the tube.
lazs
-
First, I don't need you to ease my fall. I know this is a longshot. You say you're not trying to turn people against him, I'll have to take you on your word regarding that, but for sure you're not trying to convince people to vote for him either. Worried about how people might perceive Ron Paul by what they hear in the MSM? Then DO SOMETHING about it, tell people why YOU like Ron Paul, address the misconceptions the MSM likes to propagate. Why do you think I'm taking the time to update this thread, for my own benefit? No, I'm doing my best to try to educate and get past the BUT HE CAN'T WIN crap.
I know one thing for certain, if every Ron Paul supporter took your attitude then he'd definitely have no chance. None, zero, ziltch, nada. As it is, he's got a slim chance, IF enough people get past the MSM's disinformation campaign and understand where hes coming from. Are you with us or are you against us, Lazs?
-
seems appropriate...
ABC News: Ron Paul - FAR Exceeding Expectations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTWyxtaGbcQ) (could've done without the completely erroneous comment at the end, but whatcha gon do?)
-
bsd.. I think that my telling people why I like ron paul is probly the worst thing that I could do for him..
freedom from government and taxes is not what most in America want.
lazs
-
so there's nothing else to admire about him other than his libertarian stances on those two topics?
It's alright to tailor your pitch to your audience, he CAN be the right candidate a wide variety of people if they're even remotely sick and tired of politics as usual. Sure, hardcore lefties/socialists who believe that gov't is there to take care of them from cradle to grave will be the toughest sells, but even some of them will appreciate his stance on civil liberties, his respect for the rule of law (the constitution) or even his integrity.
One thing worth mentioning, he has REALLY toned down the rhetoric regarding welfare. He know's thats an issue. (He hasn't changed his stance, welfare is still theft and if we weren't being taxed so damn much people would feel a whole lot more charitable, but he has clarified his priorities.) Lately he's been saying (I'm paraphrasing...) that changing foreign policy will save enough money to more than take care of those who have become dependent on the gov't. He'll work to phase out the bad/unconstitutional dept's, if possible, and not leave anybody out in the cold. Perfect example of compassionate conservatism if you ask me...
-
I see... so you are advocating deception? no thanks.
I don't want to convince people to vote for him based on the war.. I don't give a crap about the war except that I actually think he has his head up his butt at this point about it.
I want people to vote for him because they think the government is too big and that welfare is evil.
What you are advocating me doing is nothing better than what supporters of the other candidates do.
Nothing would make me happier that to see ron paul win with an honest campaign. If the ideas he has that are not just like the republicans are too radical to talk about... Well.. what's the point?
lazs
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
(could've done without the completely erroneous comment at the end, but whatcha gon do?)
Yeah, with that look on her face "w00hh! I sneaked that in, did you catch that?? I'm so clever!"
Politics can really bring out the stupidest in people.
-
There's no intent to deceive there. Example:
My mom was a tough "sell". She was stuck on the abortion issue. I more or less convinced her that that 1) there were larger issues at stake (mainly the economy and foreign policy) and 2) Ron Paul's stance, leaving it up to the states, was actually better, as it takes probably the #1 most divicive issue out of federal politics and allows for local victories in the fight to protect life.
She was very happy with his desire to reverse Roe v. Wade and immediately recognized that handling it on a state level is a much more winnable battle.
I didn't lie to her one bit, I simply explained mine and RPs stance. Her principles weren't compromised in the least, Ron Paul gets one more vote and America is that much closer to being saved.
(Edit: actually, now that I'm thinking about it, i didn't so much convince her. We got into the issue and she still had reservations. She wasn't "sold" until she heard that he wanted to repeal Roe v. Wade.)
-
Lazs, who cares, so long as the right guy gets in...
-
I'm in! I'd have been a republican if the neocons hadn't made conservatism mean trying to force your religious/moral beliefs on others.
GO RP!
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
She wasn't "sold" until she heard that he wanted to repeal Roe v. Wade.)
Lucky for you huh?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Lucky for you huh?
from where do you think she heard it? ;)
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
from where do you think she heard it? ;)
Lucky for you she wasn't pro-choice is what I meant.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Lucky for you she wasn't pro-choice is what I meant.
ahh, I see... In that case the argument still stands, the issue is better handled at the local level. The states rights argument doesn't take a side in the matter, it simply argues that it's a divicive (which is why the politicians love it) social issue that's better handled at the state level.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
ahh, I see... In that case the argument still stands, the issue is better handled at the local level. The states rights argument doesn't take a side in the matter, it simply argues that it's a divicive (which is why the politicians love it) social issue that's better handled at the state level.
I agree completely but advocating state rights is synonmous with waving a confederate flag to some including Al Sharpton and his cronies. How foolish to grant so much power to so few. It will bit them on the ass, just a matter of time.
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
I'm in! I'd have been a republican if the neocons hadn't made conservatism mean trying to force your religious/moral beliefs on others.
GO RP!
Thanks, you just made my day! Now go talk to people about him... :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I agree completely but advocating state rights is synonmous with waving a confederate flag to some including Al Sharpton and his cronies. How foolish to grant so much power to so few. It will bit them on the ass, just a matter of time.
there's some who will never "see the light". Thank goodness we don't have to convince (yes, it might take some convincing...) everybody. A suprisingly small percentage of people actually "elect" the president, I'm guessing 30% of eligible voters actually vote, so you just need half of them... 15% of the people voting one way determines who wins. Theoretically, of course, 'cause the electoral college can do whatever the hell it pleases, but that's another issue...
-
pretty positive piece here from PBS...
PBS on Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srHT9H7cb0I)
-
moot.. the end justifies the means?
the point is that all we have is the means.
Let's get real.. he is not going to get in. It is not going to happen.. what may happen tho is that his views will attract a large portion of the voting public to look at him in the primaries.. he may get close enough that he will get noticed and his views will be a wake up call for the republicans.
I don't want that wakeup call dilluted by a bunch of rah rah liars. I don't want the message to be simply an anti war one. I want it to be one of individualism and smaller government and tax overhaul.. I want it to be that we are sick of more and more government in our lives.
Otherwise.. his loss will be meaningless.. the "end justifies the means" people will screw us yet again.
lazs
-
Ron Paul is now at five percent (http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php) nationally (average of all polls, even Fox).
-
I just hope Ron Paul has the good sense to not strike out on his own when he fails to win the Republican nomination.
-
In honor of Trevor Lyman's incredible November 5th organized fundraiser, $4.38 million raised for Dr. Paul in 24 hours, the most successful one-day online political donation in history -- I've coordinated with Trevor and made a new video to promote his next effort --- the Ron Paul Tea Party '07 on December 16th. My "Ron Paul: A New Hope" video just passed 760,000 views and is one of the most successful political viral videos ever. If we translate the same viral momentum for this new Tea Party video, we should be able to have the most successful one-day fundraising event in our nation's history.
Ron Paul: Tea Party '07
The ONLY way you get the media's attention is with money. They didn't even talk about Paul until he had the ~$5 million donation day.
I think it's time to rub their noses in it. I plan to contribute on Dec. 16th, my brother will as well.
Hey, it's deductible! and if he were to win, he'd try to abolish the IRS anyway! It's win-win!
-
Lazs, that's true. I agree he still has only a very long shot (he's still at just 5%), but I don't think he's guaranteed to lose.
While I do agree that a lot of voters only superficialy understand what RP's aiming for, I don't think that RP's been fooling anyone, nor do I think that there's such a disconnect between what he's presenting now and what he'll eventualy argue.
I think it's all on the same path. I think it's the the same as with the government downsizing policies: he won't do it overnight, he won't get everyone to go cold turkey instantly, but the intent is nevertheless the same.
I think people may or may not understand RP's policies, or why they are a good thing. Some will inevitably never understand one or both of these until the policies are actualy happening, maybe some will never get the rationale behind it all.
What matters is that RP doesn't fish flop, and makes sure he presents his ideas in such a way that's not counterproductive, like saying something that's different enough from what people are used to that they instinctively assume it's a screwball idea.
RP hasn't fish flopped yet, and my point is that what seems to you (if I read you right) to be deception seems to be a palatable introduction to the right way of doing things.
And like I said it's inevitable that some people will just not get it in time for voting day.
-
nothing would make me happier than if everyone who wanted to vote for ron paul did so because they understood his ideas and approved and that was enough people to get him elected.
I would be almost as happy if everyone who voted for him in the primaries understood what he stood for and voted for him and... even tho he lost... it was a substanitial enough amount of informed voters that the republicans.... and even.. the democrats could not ignore the import of so many wanting a change to a more libertarian/individualist government.
for him to just get a lot of primary votes from people who think he is just the anti war candidate is worthless.
Am I making myself clear? It is sometimes difficult to get across the idea that the end does not justify the means when the people who you are trying to talk to are so invested in the "end".
lazs
-
I've got a good reply, but I'm too sleepy to express it clearly.. I'll come back and type it out later.
-
Ron Paul Facts (Chuck Norris Style!)
1. Ron Paul invented Chuck Norris.
2. Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.
3. Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.
4. Ron Paul has no alarm clock, but instead wakes every morning to the call of freedom.
5. Ron Paul lost his virginity to Susan B. Anthony.
6. Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.
7. Jesus wears a wrist band that says "What Would Ron Paul Do?"
8. Ron Paul doesn't sleep. He deliberates.
9. I just saved a bunch of money by switching to Ron Paul.
10. If you pull Ron Paul's finger, a band will march by playing Yankee Doodle Dandy.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Ron Paul Facts (Chuck Norris Style!)
1. Ron Paul invented Chuck Norris.
2. Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.
3. Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.
4. Ron Paul has no alarm clock, but instead wakes every morning to the call of freedom.
5. Ron Paul lost his virginity to Susan B. Anthony.
6. Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.
7. Jesus wears a wrist band that says "What Would Ron Paul Do?"
8. Ron Paul doesn't sleep. He deliberates.
9. I just saved a bunch of money by switching to Ron Paul.
10. If you pull Ron Paul's finger, a band will march by playing Yankee Doodle Dandy.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:aok
-
I'm so sorry, but Ron Paul & Chuck Norris don't even belong in the same sentence! Horrible! Except maybe to say that Ron Paul could be... maybe... CN's towel boy!
-
Chuck Norris supports Huckabee.
-
coming soon to a sky near you...
(http://ronpaulblimp.com/images/blimps/bostonAir1.jpg)
more at http://ronpaulblimp.com
-
Jumble up the letters in the name "Ron Paul" and spell a word or sentence..
Ron Pual = PoRn u al
I just need another "l".
-
that's mighty creative of you, Mac.
-
Ron Paul wants to return the dollar to the gold standard.
= He is a lunatic
-
Voting for a candidate who advocates:
+ withdrawal from WTO, IMF, NAFTA and the UN
+ abolition of the Fed and return to a hard gold standard
+ public tax subsidies to home schoolers
+ elimination of all foreign aid programs
+ personal freedom and freedom from governmental interference while at the same time sponsoring a bill that would remove federal court jurisdiction from plaintiffs who seek vindication of certain constitutional rights he personally disagrees with,
is moronic.
-
The ONLY way you get the media's attention is with money. They didn't even talk about Paul until he had the ~$5 million donation day.
Interesting observation.
Charon
-
Not to be out done by Chuck Norris' announcement to support Mike Huckabee....
Ron Paul announces that he has the full support of.....
(http://www.nndb.com/people/909/000024837/simmons.jpg)
Richard Simmons.
-
First off, that's a lie, Mac. Secondly, so what if he did? Are you saying that gay guys aren't allowed endorse candidates, or that Ron Paul shouldn't accept their support?
-
is that like who is Mike Jones who.... Mike Jones
-
I think that our socialist friend hortlund will explain why the liberals... once they realize what ron paul is about will come unglued..
"Voting for a candidate who advocates:
+ withdrawal from WTO, IMF, NAFTA and the UN
+ abolition of the Fed and return to a hard gold standard
+ public tax subsidies to home schoolers
+ elimination of all foreign aid programs
+ personal freedom and freedom from governmental interference while at the same time sponsoring a bill that would remove federal court jurisdiction from plaintiffs who seek vindication of certain constitutional rights he personally disagrees with,
is moronic."
Now.. all those things sound real real real good to me but... hortlund and his ilk would go into apoplexy.
lazs
-
Voting for a candidate who advocates:
+ withdrawal from WTO, IMF, NAFTA and the UN
+ abolition of the Fed and return to a hard gold standard
+ public tax subsidies to home schoolers
+ elimination of all foreign aid programs
+ personal freedom and freedom from governmental interference while at the same time sponsoring a bill that would remove federal court jurisdiction from plaintiffs who seek vindication of certain constitutional rights he personally disagrees with,
is genius.
^ see what I did there?
-
I just noticed Hortlund is Swedish. In that case, don't you still have a king or something?
-
Ron Paul interviewed by Mike Church (http://www.mikechurch.com/joomla/daily-show/ron-paul-visits-the-red-white-and-dude-nation.html)
(linked article is Mike Church's summary of the interview and a link to the mp3.)
After the interview Mike Church almost endorsed Ron. While they disagree on the war, he said Ron is intellectually honest about his opposition unlike the democrats, and he praised his view of the Constitution and limited government. Great stuff.
A caller said after the interview (30minutes) he is switching from Huckabee to Paul.
-
I don't give a damn about what a foreigner thinks about a American candidate, especially one from a socialist country. Get your own house in order and mind your own business.
-
does he still lead in military personnel contributions... crack me up.
the man is too honest to come power... but he does expose the false flag frauds and their hidden agenda.
irony... ron paul and chavez have somewhat the same ideas.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think that our socialist friend hortlund will explain why the liberals... once they realize what ron paul is about will come unglued..
Sure, I can explain it. Trying to return the dollar to the gold standard is about as possible as abandoning money alltogether and return to some barter-system. It would kill the US economy, but hey, knock yourselves out, I prefer the Euro anyway.
But I wouldnt expect you to understand any of it. You are, after all, a complete retard.
Think about this one for a sec. LOL who am I kidding. You cant. But, ok, for the rest of you, think about this one for a sec.
+ personal freedom and freedom from governmental interference while at the same time sponsoring a bill that would remove federal court jurisdiction from plaintiffs who seek vindication of certain constitutional rights he personally disagrees with.
Now, surely you arent all as retarded as lasz, so...what happens when the federal courts dont have jurisdiction to step in when someone disagrees with a constitutional right, and a local court has agreed with him? Can you think of any consequences for...say...segregation, same-sex-relationships, abortion, gun rights, and all the other individual freedoms guaranteed in the constitution?
-
Wasn't it MSNBC that took down their republican primary poll site because they "didn't want it to serve as a platform for beating the ron paul drum" ?
-
I'm not retarded.
I remember the gold standard very well. What was wrong with it and why is the current system better?
Creeping federalization of all matters is the issue. Gun rights and racial/gender equality are addressed in the constitution, so there is federal court jurisdiction to guarantee those rights. The other issues are reserved for the states, and that is explicit in the constitution. That is Ron Paul's position and the basic premise of the states that united to be called the United States of America.
Driving decisions down is heralded in all businesses, but it doesn't apply to governing?
-
thanks rolex.. saved me the trouble.. I don't think our subject of the king understands our constitution as well as he thinks he does.
hortlund.. are you saying that under a libertarian government we would have less freedom and opportunity than under a socialist one? I really think that you are.
I hope that you are not saying that the UN and all the world court are a good thing for America too.
regardless of what you may think of my reasoning... I am smart enough to have your little socialist liberal persona pegged.
lazs
-
found this: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
he's attempting to discredit RP to a liberal audience by disecting his voting record, but I think it may have to opposite affect on some.
-
I will vote for Ron Paul .....
-
:D
the primary will be his toughest battle, IMO. make sure you're good to go for that.
what changed your opinion on RP, if ya don't mind my asking?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
:D
the primary will be his toughest battle, IMO. make sure you're good to go for that.
what changed your opinion on RP, if ya don't mind my asking?
Research of his voting record and his standards .....
also that he is not talking like a fart in a WhirlWind ....or running lip service .
-
The primary will be the only battle. If he doesn't drop out before that.
lazs
-
(Businessweek) Ron Paul on the Evil Fed, the IRS, and Saving the Buck (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_50/b4062021769214.htm)
Who are your economic advisers?
I don't have any. I read Austrian economics, which I've been doing for 30 years. So my advisers have been [von] Mises and Hayek and Sennholz.
If you don't know what Austrian economics is, here's a good reference: Austrian economics vs. Bernanke's Economics (http://www.mises.org/story/2781)
-
Here's (http://www.cfr.org/bios/13303/ron_paul.html) a great rundown of RP's positions, from the CFR, of all places...
On Iran:
In a speech before the House in April 2007, Paul (R-TX) criticized what he sees as neoconservative efforts to drum up support for military action against Iran. Paul said that although the country “is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain.” The Texas congressman warned that a war against Iran would be disastrous and dismissed the justifications for military action against Iran as “propaganda,” saying that “Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA.” Instead, Paul advocates a policy of non-interventionism.
-
Ronald Reagan & Ron Paul Then and Now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y46xgPUokrg)
Dr. Paul's comments at the end are (typically for RP) prescient, considering the revelations regarding Iran in the last couple of days.
-
Couple more Ron (Reagan) and Ron (Paul) vids worthy of sharing...
Defenders of the Republic (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VIyISfbVHeQ) (1 min)
Defenders of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRcXfDt3ByI) (6 min) (this one includes the Reagan speech that I quote in my sig...)
Common Sense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBVHJY-RNSA) (7 min) (highlights speeches by GWB, RR and RP)
-
Still soon to come...
RP's "I have a Dream.." .
RP's "Ask not what you can do for your Country...."
RP's "Checkers."
RP's "Mein Kampf."
RP's "Gettysburg Address."
RP's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death."
RP's "Preamble."
RP's "Declaration of Independence."
RP writes some good stuff.
:aok
Mac
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Here's (http://www.cfr.org/bios/13303/ron_paul.html) a great rundown of RP's positions, from the CFR, of all places...
On Iran:
yep... ron paul is one of the last few honest enough to mention the coup of '53 when discussing iran.
irony tho... iran was instrumental in helping crush the taliban in afghanistan ... only to be slapped in the face with the axis of evil propaganda afterwards.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fQcm4ZVylzE
below the smoke screen of deceit the neo-con's hidden agenda for iran is the same as it was for iraq... to stop the oil from inking the euro.
with dubai bailing out citibank... china financing the war... and venezuela and iran going to the euro for oil sales... ron paul is right that the empire in denial has no clothes.
they probably want to devalue and decimate the usd and then say... 'hey....checkout this amero and the nau!'.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LhglwvE50cg
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Ron Paul wants to return the dollar to the gold standard.
= He is a lunatic
by the way, Dr. Paul does not want to go back on the gold standard. He just wants gold backed money to be able to compete, by eliminating legal tender laws or by making gold legal tender.
-
Press Release: Ron Paul: Romney’s Faith Should Not be an Issue
December 6, 2007 12:19 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In light of Governor Romney’s anticipated “religion speech,” fellow Republican candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.
Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.
The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.”
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
coming soon to a sky near you...
(http://ronpaulblimp.com/images/blimps/bostonAir1.jpg)
more at http://ronpaulblimp.com
it's aliiiiiive!
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2186/2110139707_4838b76f80.jpg)
(pics from the inaugural launch here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21836324@N02/sets/72157603458016531/) .
-
Ron Paul and Internet Politics (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html) to air tonight, Dec. 14th, at 8:30pm on PBS.
-
Dr. Paul to be on Glenn Beck for the full hour tomorrow (12/18) at 7pm.
-
Ron Paul interviewed on Morning Joe 12/18 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alxjl4IjZ9k)
surprisingly good interview... explains why the polls are off and which 20th century wars he would have supported.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Dr. Paul to be on Glenn Beck for the full hour tomorrow (12/18) at 7pm.
just a reminder... Glenn's not a "supporter", so this could get interesting...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
just a reminder... Glenn's not a "supporter", so this could get interesting...
It wasn't that interesting until near the end when Beck came up with some off the wall "death threats against me from Ron Paul supporters" garbage. Dr. Paul seemed a little taken aback by the whole thing. Typical sensationalist tabloid journalism crap in my mind and a waste of that portion of the show. I don't have much use for Glenn Beck anyway.
-
Originally posted by Irwink!
It wasn't that interesting until near the end when Beck came up with some off the wall "death threats against me from Ron Paul supporters" garbage. Dr. Paul seemed a little taken aback by the whole thing. Typical sensationalist tabloid journalism crap in my mind and a waste of that portion of the show. I don't have much use for Glenn Beck anyway.
yeah, not sure what to make of that death threat thing. Beck went on and on about how this was going to be RP's chance to really explain his positions, which he said "needed more than 30 seconds". Thing is, Beck was bouncing from topic to topic so much that he really didn't stay on any one long enough to cover it at depth. Beck seemed to have a hard time asking a straightforward question. It wasn't a bad interview, just didn't make good use of the allotted hour...
Something hit me though, while watching this. I got hooked on Ron Paul thru his writings and impassioned speeches on the floor of the Congress, and the fact that his voting record backs up the principals he espouses. It wasn't his superb interview performance ability that won me over.
-
Glen Beck is a horrible interviewer. Here is a typical question from him:
"Let me tell you my opinion on a certain subject. Because I have to tell you this has been bugging me for a long time, and as my viewers know, and as I have written in my book, it is very important to many, many people in this country. I talk to people all the time that have similar concerns about this subject, and I just can not understand how more people are not up in arms about this. When people tell you that they have the opposite opinion on this subject, how do you respond to them, are what are you plans to do something about it? Because it seems to me, and people tell me this all of the time on my radio program, that this subject is very important to them and they want something to be done about it. What is your opinion and where do you stand on this issue?"
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Glen Beck could ask about twice as many questions in the same amount of time if he didn't spend so much time kissing is own arse and pushing his radio program and new book.
-
FOX news talks about Ron Paul being a legit candidate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eYXscpNpZk)
-
Ron Paul responds to Cavuto regarding questionable donations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY)
-
Unflappable, I like. Cavuto looked kinda silly in that, he really seemed to want to focus on christmas ads and getting RP to cave.
-
(http://www.alterati.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/lolrons.jpg)
:rofl
Mac
-
:lol
-
Positive article on Ron Paul and the revolution at CBN (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/289814.aspx), including a good video where Pat comments on Dr. Paul. Almost sounds like he regrets his earlier endorsement of Ghouliani...
-
Tucker on Ron Paul 12/20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vza4p71X6g8) he watches RP's xmas ad and gushes on about him...
-
New Ron Paul TV Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmY-fW3gdc)
-
I like the ad...
I sure hope the media doesn't get started on him... let's just say he isn't going to get the union/oprah/nea/brady bunch/aclu/endorsement.
Man.. would that shake things up if this guy got in. Nothing about the guys positions really bothers me... He is wrong on some wars stuff but it is complex enough for wiggle room..
Thing is tho.. being ok with me means that he will most assuredly not be ok with democrats and liberals and socialists. They are just too stupid to see it past the pot haze.
One can hope that they will stay stupid but..
lazs
-
sure would, Lazs. it's feeling more and more possible every day from where I stand.
on another note... Here's a Christmas song from a RP supporter.
It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Freedom! (To Be Sung to the Traditional Christmas Tune)
It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Freedom!
Everywhere you go;
As you drive along North 210,
You'll see Ron Paul signs again
Held by happy smiling folks you'd like to know!
It's beginning to look a lot like Freedom,
Let's be done with war!
Then the prettiest sight you'll see is the promise of Liberty
In our land once more.
Freedom from government meddling and theft
Is the wish of real women and men;
To be left alone to live life on our own
Would be like starting fresh once again!
Moms and Dads, Imagine a land restored for our children again!
It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Freedom!
Ev'rywhere you go;
There's a crowd by the Liberty Bell, one in The Mall as well,
Though the media seems not to know!
It's beginning to look a lot like Freedom;
Soon the votes will start,
And the thing that will make them ring is the freedom that you feel
Living in your heart.
Copyright (c)2007 by Dann McCreary (aka creator)
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.
-
I'll be voting for RP.
P.S. Nice Don Hertzfeld Avatar.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
I'll be voting for RP.
P.S. Nice Don Hertzfeld Avatar.
w00t! and thanks :) (and thanks again to Soda for converting it for me and making it small enough to use as an avatar)
-
Fox Business News asks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cml7JLfGxkY), is congress is spending our money wisely? and guest Peter Schiff plugs Ron Paul. In fact, most of them seemed supportive...
USA Daily: Ron Paul will win by a landslide (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=207908)
at the rate Ron Paul's support has been growing, is it still inconceivable that he might pull this off? What happens if he wins, or even comes in second, in Iowa and/or NH? Still impossible?
-
I hope he doesn't get whacked by some disgruntled neocon :noid
-
i hope he takes it. i really do.
good cat.
-
The nomination isn't won in Iowa or NH, but Dr. Paul could very well increase his momentum while the others fade.
Remember that Ron Paul's "polling numbers" are double what John Kerry was polling at this time four years ago. He could very likely pull this off over the long haul of primaries and the convention, in spite of the media continually calling him a "long shot," while candidates polling less than him are called "contenders."
The heck with the media, let's see what the voters have to say in January and February.
-
word.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The heck with the media, let's see what the voters have to say in January and February.
We're soooo close now the anticipation is killing me! Finally, votes. Not some hokey, unscientific poll numbers or, but votes. Here's hoping Ron Paul's support continues to grow and his supporters spam the ballot boxes!
-
Ron Paul Rising (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ)
He's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya! :aok
-
I'll believe it when I see it... :)
-
yeah, I know. me too, I'm just getting excited that actual, honest-to-god votes are a couple weeks away. (unless there's any funny business with the voting machines, of course...) It'll come down to how many turn out for the primaries. Paul's supporters are fired up and just about every one of them will make sure to vote, come hell or high water. Can you say that for the others?
A message to all Paul supporters reading this: If you're in a closed primary state, make sure to register Republican before the deadline. Vote in the primary. If you feel comfortable doing so, help spread the word by talking to people about Ron Paul. Make sure to let them know that they NEED to vote for Paul in their state's primary, after registering Republican before the deadline if it's a closed primary state.
-
He hasn't risen high enough for Hillary to smite him yet, but shhheeee willl
(http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m214/cpwalla/Hillary.jpg)
-
Dr. Paul was on Meet the Press this morning (12/23). Very, very good half hour interview. This page (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/16645) has the 4-part interview posted. Tim Russert does his best to trip RP up, but Ron handles him like a pro.
-
They ripped the music off Star Wars or something... Looks like a good interview, not much fluff at all.
Thanks BSD.
edit- That guy's really on a mission.. The same sort of biased and disingenuous insinuation as Giuliani's crowd pleaser reply to Paul's blowback comment way back in that debate.
The guy's not even playing fair.. He's more interested in having the last word over RP than finding out the truth about RP's intentions. Quoting (or misquoting) from campaign soundbites that are 10 years old... is someone looking for closet skeletons or what? :lol
You know you're dealing with a scumbag when he's more intent on discussing hypothetical dirty laundry than actualy debating issues...
-
Geez, that picture is disturbing.
-
It's impressive how he just argues things out transparently without paying much attention to the troll baits, when the guy in front of him is trying to twist and spin things Paul says out of their intended meaning.
Equally impressive is the two or three flat out misquotes on national TV from the anchor. Truth took a back seat to shock and awe when they planned that show...
-
You're welcome, moot! It mosdef is impressive how RP handles himself. That's one of the things that's winning people over. He just doesn't come across as a politician. He's more of a statesman, and people want that.
Edit: I think he scored a lot of southern votes with his comments on the Civil War.
-
I think Paul needs to focus his message. I watched MTP this morning and while I understood what he was saying and where he was coming from, I think others that no nothing of his platform would not have gotten the real message.
He needs to find a way to explain in just a few words that the scary things that Russert threw out (ie: end of Medicare or public schools) are really just about getting back to a Constitutional government. The fact that he thinks the FEDS have no business in doing such things DOES NOT mean that the STATES cannot devise their own programs. In fact, it means the STATES should control any such programs.
He needs to get these ideas out clearly and quickly.
Overall, I don't think he presented well on MTP. Yah, those people that already know/understand his politics got it but those who know nothing about him probably thought he was way out there.
Understand that I support his positions and his candidacy; I just don't think he took excellent advantage of his bully pulpit time on MTP.
-
I thought so too. A particularily well written email might find its way to his attention.. :)
-
John McLaughlin named him Most Carismatic Person of 2007 on his show today. Paul is starting to get some mainstream attention. I'll be interested in watching his results in the first few primaries.
-
I hate to even let myself think that there is a possiblity that Americans (or any people) would ever accept and embrace the constitution and individual freedom.
The dissapointment when they reject it like a monster in the closet is just too much.
I know that when they see him taking away... realize that he wants to take away their own personal socialistic program they will call for having him burned at the stake.
lazs
-
Americans aren't ready for Ron Paul. If Hillary wins this election we'll all likely feel a more tangilble impact from loss of our liberty. That might make us ready for Ron Paul or someone like him in 2012. If the Mayan calendar don't get us that is. ;)
-
He has mainstream attention. Just not by the media. That's why they have to call it 'grass roots'. That's when the people are for someone and yet the media refuse to be unbiased enough to show it.
The uncertainty is how well will he be able to get his message out without their support. So far he's been doing really well as the people who don't have the power to broadcast via television are doing it with signs and websites.
Thank god for the internet because otherwise how'd we get any information on candidates that we actually agree with who aren't popular with the media?
I wish they'd take the hint from their failed Iraq movies and their failed mass consumer force fed views on 'war for oil' and get back to entertainment or unbiased news.
Originally posted by rpm
John McLaughlin named him Most Carismatic Person of 2007 on his show today. Paul is starting to get some mainstream attention. I'll be interested in watching his results in the first few primaries.
-
I'd be interested to see if he runs as independent in general election, does he pull more votes from Dems or Gop
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I'd be interested to see if he runs as independent in general election, does he pull more votes from Dems or Gop
If he truly cares about liberty as much as he claims, he won't go that route. The majority of votes he'd pull would be from the party of which he is currently running. 1992 all over again.
-
Or 2000 all over again.
-
I hope he keeps his word and does not run as an independent (read, shill for hillary).
I think that if he gets a large... very very large percent of the republican nomination and... a lot of "independents and democrats" switch to republican to vote in the primaries...
I think that will be an extremely good thing. it will be almost as good as winning and it will send a real message.
The politicians from now on will have to have more of a libertarian/individualist/constitutional/freedom/antiscocialism message in the future in order to get votes.
win or lose.. he just might change things.. and for the better.
oops.. there I go.. setting myself up for dissapointment again.. you would think I would know better by now.
lazs
-
Yah but if Dems vote for him in the promaries, they prolly still gonna vote for the shrew in the general, and Gop gets a candidate the base has serious issues with, thus, President Shrew
-
If ron paul made it to the election... even if he lost.. it would still be worth it.. if he came close it would scare the living crap out of the liberal socialists.
It would change the republican party back to what it once was or even better. Less government and lower taxes would mean something maybe.
lazs
-
how about some of this?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/index.html
NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.
Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee received invites, leaving Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California on the sidelines.
"There very well might be some bias," Benton said. "Ron brings up some topics that aren't very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq ... that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate. Based on metrics, I don't see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul."
"not enough space" was their excuse.
-
He's polling higher than Thompson, this is a disgrace.
-
The Ron-ulans are gonna be mad:rolleyes:
-
bj229r - Some candidates are less equal than others?
-
He has too many 'loon' qualities, as does too many of his fans---he is the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich
-
Originally posted by moot
bj229r - Some candidates are less equal than others?
Absolutely ~ all by personal opinion, of course. Hence: the reason you each select one candidate as your choice over the others (that's where the voting part comes in).
-
Originally posted by bj229r
He has too many 'loon' qualities, as does too many of his fans---he is the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich
Well said.
-
The Constitution can be scary to those who have forgotten what it is, as Tango & BJ229R's post help illustrate.
-
What are those "loon qualities?"
-
he is the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich
Actually, he is more the Republican equivalent of Barry Goldwater. Undoubtedly disconcerting for any "modern" republican that might think George Bush follows traditional Republican values or is remotely conservative.
Charon
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Absolutely ~ all by personal opinion, of course. Hence: the reason you each select one candidate as your choice over the others (that's where the voting part comes in).
In that case you're saying something like Fox News is impartial enough to decide for people who they should have the choice to vote for, or in this case who they see and hear debate with the rest of the candidates, as well as take it upon themselves to hamper the campaign of the candidates they think are less equal.
There's nothing impartial about Fox News, and the only reason you support their choice is because it favors your opinion. Your sense of impartiality's what's sub-standard here..
-
Wouldn't it be great if Ron makes a strong showing on Jan 3.
The more i look at the other candidates the more i really start asking myself questions. Why in the hell would people vote for such two face politicians that are looking to boost their ego and have ultimate power...
BTW loonies that you are talking about make up 90% of the country.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The Constitution can be scary to those who have forgotten what it is, as Tango & BJ229R's post help illustrate.
The Constitution allows any loon that wants to run to be able to. Just doesn't mean he has a snowballs chance is all. I don't believe in wasting votes. We saw what happened with that in '92.
A wasted vote would possibly bring about another 8 years of a Clinton in the White House and that is FAR worse.
-
Originally posted by FX1
Wouldn't it be great if Ron makes a strong showing on Jan 3.
The more i look at the other candidates the more i really start asking myself questions. Why in the hell would people vote for such two face politicians that are looking to boost their ego and have ultimate power...
BTW loonies that you are talking about make up 90% of the country.
Sure would be great! I can't wait, we've got Iowa tomorrow and NH on the 8th, so we'll soon get a real indication as to how large this Ron Paul Revolution is... I Want My Country Back!
Let's Take America Back! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tZArWe8o_hI) (Check this out, click the "more" link for the lyrics. They're great!)
-
Originally posted by Tango
The Constitution allows any loon that wants to run to be able to. Just doesn't mean he has a snowballs chance is all. I don't believe in wasting votes. We saw what happened with that in '92.
A wasted vote would possibly bring about another 8 years of a Clinton in the White House and that is FAR worse.
He got more donations in the 4th quarter than any of the GOP "frontrunners", I'd say he's got more than a snowball's chance... He's also likely outraised Hillary and Obama in Q4 primary contributions.
Based on what the Hillary, Obama and Paul campaigns have revealed, there's a very high probability that Ron Paul significantly outraised both Hillary and Obama in Q4 in primary contributions.
Here's what we know:
- Paul raised at least $19.5 million in Q4, all for the primary (from his press release)
- Hillary raised "over $100 million in 2007" which "does not include an additional $10 million transferred from her senate account" (from her website)
- Hillary had raised $80.3 million as of Q3, not including the senate transfer (see FEC report)
- Hillary has reported in past quarters that about 20% of her total was dedicated for the general election (5 of 27 mil in Q3, 6 of 27 mil in Q2 - see CNN article)
So, if Hillary raised over $19.7 million in Q4 (100 - 80.3), it's likely that only 80% of that, or $15.8 million, is for the primary.
Obama's campaign merely said "Obama will have the financial resources" so it's likely he has raised less than Hillary.
Bottom line: Paul appears to have outraised Hillary by $3.7 million! So who's the most electable Republican now?
-
Originally posted by Tango
The Constitution allows any loon that wants to run to be able to. Just doesn't mean he has a snowballs chance is all. I don't believe in wasting votes. We saw what happened with that in '92.
A wasted vote would possibly bring about another 8 years of a Clinton in the White House and that is FAR worse.
Clinton wouldn't win against Paul.
-
Originally posted by moot
Clinton wouldn't win against Paul.
I doubt it would be Paul running against Hillary. What I'm nervous about is when he doesn't get the Republican nomination and runs as an independant or Libertarian.
It would be a Ross Perot fiasco all over again.
-
Originally posted by Tango
I doubt it would be Paul running against Hillary. What I'm nervous about is when he doesn't get the Republican nomination and runs as an independant or Libertarian.
It would be a Ross Perot fiasco all over again.
Yeah, yeah... It was all Perot's fault, just like it was all Nader's fault. To hell with principles when there's an election to win!
-
Thousands switch from Dem to Repub (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22454560)
hrmmm, I wonder why that could be... ;)
-
Originally posted by Tango
I doubt it would be Paul running against Hillary. What I'm nervous about is when he doesn't get the Republican nomination and runs as an independant or Libertarian.
It would be a Ross Perot fiasco all over again.
Blame the crappy politician majority who can't even earn enough people's trust for some independent not to be the deciding factor come voting day... And RP said he wouldn't go independent. Considering his track record of keeping his word, he's more likely to stick to that semi-promise ("99% likely") than just about any other politician has been and will be to keep their word on what they "promise" 100%.
-
Dr. Paul was just on CNN with Wolfie, pretty good interview. I'll update in a bit with a youtube link...
Also, he'll be on Larry King tonight...
EDIT: Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO9grvgeW6Q) that youtube link I promised...
-
Encouraging post (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018155.html) regarding donor:voter ratios at lewrockwell.com.
There has been some speculation out there that counting the number of donors to a campaign can determine and multiplying it by a given voter-to-donor ratio, the number of votes can be determined. According to Jim Babka (http://positiveliberty.com/2008/01/ron-paul-in-iowa-dollars-cents-challenge-wisdom-of-pollsters.html), Paul would need a voter:donor ratio of 22:1 to 28:1 in order to capture 1/3rd of the caucus vote and win (22:1 at 80,000 GOP caucus-goers, and 28:1 with 100,000 GOP caucus-goers). Although voter:donor ratios are hard to come by, I looked at the number of donors prior to the 2004 Democratic Iowa caucus and the number of votes that candidate received (via OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp)).
In the '04 Iowa Democratic Caucus, the candidate with the worst (lowest) voter:donor ratio was Dennis Kucinich, with 49 Iowa donors prior to the vote -- which yielded him 1588 votes and a voter:donor ratio of 32:1. If Ron Paul even achieved this low ratio (with his ~1,200 Iowa donors), he would win hands down.
-
Very favorable article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/02/opinion/main3666726.shtml) on cbsnews.com.
Actually, if the candidates were judged by the quality of their young supporters, I would now be voting for Ron Paul. Beyond just being polite, the Paul volunteers have an incredible passion for the technical mechanics of the American constitution and body of laws. As I spend time with them, I start to think: I wouldn't want a repairman working on my car who didn't know how it was put together, so why not the same with people who work on my government?
-
Paul Rivals Clinton, Raising Almost $20 Million for Campaign
By Kristin Jensen
Jan. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidate Ron Paul raised almost $20 million for his campaign in the last three months, potentially outpacing every one of his Republican rivals and putting his fundraising in league with Hillary Clinton's.
Bloomberg Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aCilYJ9OUudI&refer=home)
I still would like an answer to my question of what is "loony" about Dr. Paul.
-
(http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/ron-paul-babies.jpg)
-
rolex.. I told you guys that once the liberals and the press seen past the free pot that they would brand paul as a nutjob.
People everywhere are afraid of individual freedom and responsibility.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rolex.. I told you guys that once the liberals and the press seen past the free pot that they would brand paul as a nutjob.
People everywhere are afraid of individual freedom and responsibility.
lazs
and that's the X factor, the unknown as we gear up for actual votes. Are the sheep waking up or are they not? Online and monetary support for the Paul campaign seems strong, but will that translate into votes? Are we (Paul supporters) just a vocal minority, or is there a rEVOLution happening here? All viable questions, we'll start getting some answers tonight.
-
well sure... there will be a few turncoats with a mouth full of crow jumping on the doc's bandwagon... but the devoted trotsky neocons and their faux propaganda press will fight the good doctor tooth and nail if he gets an opportunity to thwart their dreams of global socialism.
so... the doc wants to dismantle the saudi american empire and withdraw from the wto, imf, nafta, nau and no more subsidies for big oil and israel.
i don't think the potheads will be the ones foaming.
-
and thats whats got my attention and vote. he's not pandering to anyone but the constitution
-
Here's the Larry King interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s08RJ2_o_MM) I mentioned yesterday that they ended up deciding not to air. :noid Starts off a little slow but Dr. Paul doesn't take long to get going. good stuff...
-
Doesn't load for me, it's stuck at the 8-ball circle animation.
-
torque.. he also wants to dismantle the IRS and the welfare system and free health care and social security and the public schools and any of a number of left wing socialist programs that you love... once you and the pot heads see past the pot and the war.....
yes bsd... I admit it.. I am usually an optimist of the highest order...especially when it comes to my fellow man but for this one thing... I think that most people.. the largest percentage are afraid of freedom and personal responsibility and that they love nothing more than to try to run other peoples lives.
Other than that... people are good and noble as a whole. but.. that is why ron paul will do so poorly.. freedom only sounds good.. the word has a nice ring to it.. it looks good through the pot haze but... once people stop to think about what the word means.. what it really means... well.. they don't want any part of that crap!
They want the "freedom" to tell others what to do and to get others to pay for what they want to do. That is "freedom" to most these days I am afraid.
I would love to be proved wrong some day... nothing would make me happier.
lazs
-
Originally posted by moot
Doesn't load for me, it's stuck at the 8-ball circle animation.
link edited, should work now, sry...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
torque.. he also wants to dismantle the IRS and the welfare system and free health care and social security and the public schools and any of a number of left wing socialist programs that you love... once you and the pot heads see past the pot and the war.....
yes bsd... I admit it.. I am usually an optimist of the highest order...especially when it comes to my fellow man but for this one thing... I think that most people.. the largest percentage are afraid of freedom and personal responsibility and that they love nothing more than to try to run other peoples lives.
Other than that... people are good and noble as a whole. but.. that is why ron paul will do so poorly.. freedom only sounds good.. the word has a nice ring to it.. it looks good through the pot haze but... once people stop to think about what the word means.. what it really means... well.. they don't want any part of that crap!
They want the "freedom" to tell others what to do and to get others to pay for what they want to do. That is "freedom" to most these days I am afraid.
I would love to be proved wrong some day... nothing would make me happier.
lazs
I could not have said it any better. And I agree the only reason Paul has such a buzz going is his opposition to the war and our engagement around the world. Sad, but the truth.
-
i love how you keep talking about people seeing through the potsmoke haze. i've dealt with pot being illegal my whole life, yeah it'd be great if it were legal but me, I don't really care. it being illegal isn't stopping me.
ron's voting record and small government beliefs are why I want to vote for him (plus fair tax, withdrawal from crappy trade agreements, and get this -omg! i want him to fight the socailist state!-). i think you'd be fairly surprised at how many people in all kinds of different careers in so many different places won't fit your stereotype of a pot smoker that enjoy a smoke. so either get more creative in your mocking or just stop saying it, its gotten quite stale
-
The people who are truly "throwing their vote away" are the Republicans and Independents who vote for someone else. Ron Paul is the only Republican who can defeat whomever the Democrats nominate. Anyone else gets beaten (badly) in the general election.
When Hillary Clinton is taking the oath of office on the steps of the US Capitol next year, don't blame Ron Paul if you "wasted your vote" on someone else. You put her there, not Ron Paul.
-
Originally posted by moot
In that case you're saying something like Fox News is impartial enough to decide for people who they should have the choice to vote for, or in this case who they see and hear debate with the rest of the candidates, as well as take it upon themselves to hamper the campaign of the candidates they think are less equal.
There's nothing impartial about Fox News, and the only reason you support their choice is because it favors your opinion. Your sense of impartiality's what's sub-standard here..
Not at all. It's not the responsibility of Fox News (or any of the other TV channels, for that matter) to decide who's worthy of my research.
It's my own responsibility to get out there & search for who I think it top tier, and who isn't.
Anything less is blame-shifting, responsibility-dodging crap.
Fox isn't casting your vote; you are. If any of y'all don't like what you see: whatever, just get out there & keep searching and stop waiting for others to spoonfeed you what you think is correct.
-
Where is YOUR Ron Paul now?
:cry
-
Originally posted by AWMac
(http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/ron-paul-babies.jpg)
Just what I thought.
Mac
-
Looks like he'll get around 10%. That's a good start. I'll bet NH improves on that quite a bit. Besides, look who Iowa wants to nominate. Huckabee ain't gonna last much past NH, IMO...
-
He was lucky to start with 9%.
He'll never see 10%.
I see the excuses happening now... "Oh he'll do better in NH...err VA...err FL......
Wait.... hear that?
It's Rosie O'Donnel and she's singin...
:D
Mac
-
I doubt Paul is gonna do much, coming in at 5th place.
-
Far better horses were turned into glue for 5th place.
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The people who are truly "throwing their vote away" are the Republicans and Independents who vote for someone else. Ron Paul is the only Republican who can defeat whomever the Democrats nominate. Anyone else gets beaten (badly) in the general election.
When Hillary Clinton is taking the oath of office on the steps of the US Capitol next year, don't blame Ron Paul if you "wasted your vote" on someone else. You put her there, not Ron Paul.
On things domestic, I don't think I've seen anything I particularly dislike about Paul (though eliminating welfare is a pipe dream...as conservative as I am, even I see that SOME of these programs have to stay in some form) Although...he finds the border fence..."offensive"??
It's when we leave the borders that I have a problem with him--
North Korea invades South Korea? <"Not my problem">
China invades Taiwan? ...............<"Not my problem">
He wants to remove every soldier from every overseas base and bring them home...That would be pissing away our trump card as the most powerful nation on Earth, and we CANT get along without the rest of the Earth, unless we can figure out how to replace all that oil we get from Saudi Arabia, (which would be under Iraqi rule but for us) and Congress won't let us drill anywhere here....and just bcause we try to be nice to Islamic murdering nutbergers doesn't mean they will reciprocate. If we remove our influence from the rest of the Earth, a vacuum will be created that will be filled by folks who will hate our guts whether we all live here in the 50 states or not. What is his view about the Pakistan situation? Ignore it and let it play out? There is more than a small chance that Alqueda sympathizers could get hold of their nukes, and for that, I'm damn glad we got people in the area who can deal with that
-
I'm not making excuses, Mac. I'm just saying that 10% in Iowa isn't the end of the campaign, and isn't a disappointing start at all.
We did win in the sense that this proves RP is a viable candidate. He'll come out of this in a virtual tie for third, seems tough to exclude him from the debates at that point...
-
I don't think Iowa nor New Hampshire is very representative of the GOP base, and are given too much importance by the media
-
In 1992, Bill Clinton only got 3% in the Iowa caucuses, and the standing VP in 1988 (GHW Bush) only got about half the votes of Bob Dole, and just a little more than Pat Robertson did. As I said before, Iowa decides
very little.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
When Hillary Clinton is taking the oath of office on the steps of the US Capitol next year, don't blame Ron Paul if you "wasted your vote" on someone else. You put her there, not Ron Paul.
Clinton has no chance against Obama. Even Scarlett Johannson has now given her support to Obama.
In comparison, Hillary has the support of Barbara Streisand. nough said!!
See:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20169235,00.html
SIG 220
-
Maybe yes, and maybe no.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
On things domestic, I don't think I've seen anything I particularly dislike about Paul (though eliminating welfare is a pipe dream...as conservative as I am, even I see that SOME of these programs have to stay in some form) Although...he finds the border fence..."offensive"??
It's when we leave the borders that I have a problem with him--
North Korea invades South Korea? <"Not my problem">
China invades Taiwan? ...............<"Not my problem">
He wants to remove every soldier from every overseas base and bring them home...That would be pissing away our trump card as the most powerful nation on Earth, and we CANT get along without the rest of the Earth, unless we can figure out how to replace all that oil we get from Saudi Arabia, (which would be under Iraqi rule but for us) and Congress won't let us drill anywhere here....and just bcause we try to be nice to Islamic murdering nutbergers doesn't mean they will reciprocate. If we remove our influence from the rest of the Earth, a vacuum will be created that will be filled by folks who will hate our guts whether we all live here in the 50 states or not. What is his view about the Pakistan situation? Ignore it and let it play out? There is more than a small chance that Alqueda sympathizers could get hold of their nukes, and for that, I'm damn glad we got people in the area who can deal with that
Minding our own borders' is our biggest problem-It's playing hell with our Medical infrastructure and Social programs. The SEATO Nations' can start to help each other more. They are closer, anyway.
The Middle East??? Yeah, we have people there. No, we can't do much outside of Iraq or Afghanistan without a massive troop redeployment that will involve force levels' much higher than anything we have now. Plus that, you can ask or take a poll of our overseas' BBS members and find out that the U.S. has ****canned it's credibility anyway. If Al-Queda get's it's hands on a Nuclear Weapon, chances are we will find out about it when the Emergency broadcast system breaks' into our favorite programming to announce whichever City in the world just got vaporized. 50,000+ troops in Iraq will be watching it on TV. Large conventional armies' are not the way to fight terrorism; That's primarily an Intel war.
As far as Oil? Might as well get someone in office who's serious about an alternative energy source, Not just some crappy bill to make CAFE standards more stringent. Hell, How much Oil money finances terrorism, anyway? How many IED's were actually financed, at their root, by oil dollars?
One thing I might add in RP wanting to pull out of the ME: He's no lap dog of the large oil companies. At this point, at least, he doesn't LOOK like a bought man.
I agree with you on trying to eliminate Welfare, though. I don't see how he could do it without a helluva big bag of problems.
-
Have you guys' ever wondered, If the Iowa Caucaus actually means' as much as what it once did? Times have changed quite a bit since Ike/Dewey.
-
Look at it this way, RP got 10%, that's better than he's supposedly doing nationally, and about 90% better in the iowa caucus than the predictions I was reading. He even did better than the Republicrat self awarded hero of 9/11. Sweet vindication.
It's no surprise really that the bible thumper won in iowa. Is there anybody between the ages of 20 and 55 even living in that state? I didn't think RP would do as well as he did, but even the mainstream media concedes that he will do better in the Live Free or Die state.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Where is YOUR Ron Paul now?
:cry
shoo troll shoo!
-
Look at it this way, RP got 10%, that's better than he's supposedly doing nationally, and about 90% better in the iowa caucus than the predictions I was reading. He even did better than the Republicrat self awarded hero of 9/11. Sweet vindication.
Absolutely. That's really a great result and I'm happy he made double digits.
Charon
-
Especially when you consider his stance on government subsidies being spoken to the corn subsidy addicts in Iowa. Amazing, actually.
-
and the fact that Iowa's an evangelical/Bush stronghold... Like I said, 10% ain't bad, we outperformed the polls (by 40%) and exceeded expectations. On to NH!!!
-
frode.. you think ron paul can invent an alternative energy source?
He did about as well as I would expect given the fad nature and short attention span of Americans as a whole. I expect that he will do less and less well as it goes on.
Shame really but what ya gonna do? we got guys on this board who think that they aren't being taxed enough.. that we don't have enough government in our lives and that the best way to run anything is to have congress do it...
We got so called conservatives and constitutionalists who are giving up and just sitting home hoping the democrats don't take too many of their guns away. or.. more likely that they will be special somehow and get to keep a couple.
lazs
-
I'd be shocked if he didn't outperform Iowa in NH. Just about all the other contenders' campaigns are broke, or nearly so, especially Huckabee. Paul's got plenty of money in the bank to fund the campaign past super-tuesday...
I'm assuming he'll pick up steam, starting with NH. If not, then yeah, I'll start getting worried...
-
I am going out on a limb here but I think paul will pick up a few percentage points in NH or.. stay flat.
you shoulda bought the henry rifle.. the democrats might let you keep an old cowboy rifle... for a few years anyway.
lazs
-
we'll see, only a few days till NH.
That is a nice rifle. I'm still happy with the decision to put of purchasing one till next year though. If/when the time comes to stock up asap, it'll be high on my list...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
frode.. you think ron paul can invent an alternative energy source?
He did about as well as I would expect given the fad nature and short attention span of Americans as a whole. I expect that he will do less and less well as it goes on.
Shame really but what ya gonna do? we got guys on this board who think that they aren't being taxed enough.. that we don't have enough government in our lives and that the best way to run anything is to have congress do it...
We got so called conservatives and constitutionalists who are giving up and just sitting home hoping the democrats don't take too many of their guns away. or.. more likely that they will be special somehow and get to keep a couple.
lazs
Actually, Lasz, we've already got alternative's out there. I would just hope that RP would make them politically feasible, by keeping the oil lobbies at bay so that an alternative could get it's infrastructure up and running.
I believe anymore, that the only reason the Iowa caucus' is so important, is that it's the first. There are other, larger, more populous states( That will swing the electoral college) that will really be the telling factor.
-
soooo.. you believe that there are alternatives out there that are feasable and that it is simply the oil companies stopping them from being sold to us that is the problem?
You don't really think that government can "force" alternatives without costing each and every one of us a bundle?
How would anyone "keep the oil companies at bay" in such a manner that we would all get a viable and cheap power source that is better and cheaper than oil?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
soooo.. you believe that there are alternatives out there that are feasable and that it is simply the oil companies stopping them from being sold to us that is the problem?
You don't really think that government can "force" alternatives without costing each and every one of us a bundle?
How would anyone "keep the oil companies at bay" in such a manner that we would all get a viable and cheap power source that is better and cheaper than oil?
lazs
Ethanol, Hydrogen, electric...Are all alternatives' that are being developed currently. However, lobbyist's for oil companies' work to preserve America's dependance on petroleum. Currently, the alternatives' aren't cheap...But then again, we aren't seriously trying to develop them, either. It will take a lot more investment to fully get these alternatives' to work. At the moment, the alternatives' only get enough funding to pay lip service to the requests' for them. The alternatives' won't be cheap, at first...But Oil sure as hell isn't gonna get cheaper, It's getting much more expensive. Pretty soon, the alternatives' will be cheaper, not because It came down to oil's level, but because Petroleum will have elevated itself above the alternative.
Oil company lobbyist's have a lot of sway in Washington...Like alot of other big business. We need politicians' that answer to the will of the people, not the will of the board of trustees'.
-
frode... that makes no sense. the oil companies aren't stopping anyone from research.
please define "investment" in terms that I can understand. like..who needs to "invest" and how much?
Is this like we need to invest in preventing "global climate change"?
lazs
-
the oil companies are working on alternative fuels, they don't want to be left out.
-
CNN on Paul's 10% (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2EB9vk_QO2o)
-
bsaddict, you make my self-assigned task of keeping up with the good doc much easier!
:aok
-
glad to help... :D
-
bsaddict thanks.. I went to a Realtors lunch in yesterday and the speaker endorsed Dr Paul. I was amazed and after talking to some of my counter parts it looks like the word is out...
-
Dr. Paul was interviewed by Bill Moyers on PBS tonight... linky (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html)
and if you missed their earlier story on RP, it was just named NOW's #1 Show of 2007 (http://www.pbs.org/now/)
-
He did better with Moyers than he did with Russert. Still needs to declutter and polish his message though.
But I still, I have a transition program, just like I said about taking care of Social Security recipients, or money. You can - introduce competition. There's a lot of ways we can work our way out of it. Yeah, but that is basically it. So, you can everyone of those "nos" into a "yes." Yes. I'm for freedom. Yes, I am for sound money. Yes, I'm for free markets. And, yes, I'm for sensible foreign policy. I sure am for bringing the troops home, because I am against American empire. I'm for defending the country and having a strong national defense.
This is where he needs to work. Get a simple, specific pitch going in these areas and get the message out. I think he's going to have to use some $$$ on TV time like Perot did. He and his message need exposure.
-
It matters not. I will vote for him in the primaries even if I have to write him in but...
He isn't going to be running against hillary. I won't write him in when the real election happens.
Not that it matters.. I am in kalifornia so my vote is wasted.
lazs
-
I don't believe he'll be in the race in November.
However, the more exposure his ideas get, the more money he raises, the better he does in the various primary states the greater the chance that his ideas on liberty and freedom will force a bit of change in the US political wasteland.
We need someone putting the Constitution in front of the sheeple.
-
absolutely agree.. the more attention he gets the more the rest of the wet finger in the wind types will at least pretend to have his principles.
It was said of klinton that the best thing about him was his lack of spine.. that he formed his opinions based on poll numbers.
I think most politicians are this way and that a really good showing by paul will make them pay lip service to freedom.
lazs
-
I hope Paul can generate a bit more than lip service. If his campaign pushes the pendulum back towards liberty even a quarter inch that's better than if he hadn't run at all.
-
we've got a tough fight ahead of us, to be sure... definately need to pick up some ground in the next few primaries in order to keep this thing alive. Good point on his ideas spreading, Toad. That would be a great consilation prize, getting the GOP to remember the constitution. Cool to hear about your realtors lunch too, FX1. Spread the word!
here's a clip where Ron Paul's being interviewed back in '88, during his run on the Libertarian ticket. The more things change, the more SOME stay the same... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdClmbCIqmo)
-
A small sign of hope and salute to the NH GOP for taking a principled stand. They dropped out as a partner in the Fox forum because of the exclusion of Paul and Hunter.
Link (http://www.nhgop.org/home/2008/1/5/nh-republican-party-withdraws-as-fox-forum-partner.html)
-
rumor is the campaign has purchased an hour block of TV time during (or sometime around, not quite sure...) the debate.
-
Looks like he got the Repubs attention. Tonites debate featured most of his opponents wrapping themselves in the Constitution at the beginning.
I don't think he came off well in this one either though. He needs to slow down, speak in complete sentences and drive his point home.
He's got the right ideas but sadly I don't think he's the right guy to get them noticed and accepted.
-
I really like Ron, but he is not a good speaker. But I trust him more then any of the others.
-
true, he's not the strongest public speaker. Eloquent writer, not the best speaker...
That said... here's an interesting article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/fox-news-snub-of-paul-co_b_80138.html), which includes a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8fr3bauSyM) to Ron Paul's appearance at the 2008 Liberty Forum, the morning before the Faux debate. He also held a Town Hall later yesterday afternoon, just before the debate. Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxldrCsVByA) Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VQcpmfT0f4)
-
almost forgot... Ron Paul's on Leno tonight.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
almost forgot... Ron Paul's on Leno tonight.
Thanks for that, think I still get NBC. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Thanks for that, think I still get NBC. ;)
You're welcome! :)
Leno was awesome, btw... will post the youtube asap...
-
RON PAUL Tonight Show 01-07-08
part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QzPnx4bsChc) (0:54) -- part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yYlUD0cnU5g) (6:08) -- part 3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=79IoHFaFTNc) (6:16)
-
Fox excluding Paul from the debate has provided him with priceless publicity and exposure :) A chance for the other networks to stick it to Fox and bring Paul and his views along for the ride.
The Leno interview is solid. The economic and fiscal discussions in front of that audience are really cool.
Charon
-
Maybe this is Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
If it is........I have to say I am truely dissapointed.:mad:
-
Originally posted by uberhun
Maybe this is Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
If it is........I have to say I am truely dissapointed.:mad:
I am not surprised one bit. Was going to post about this earlier but the site was being real laggy.
-
That's the pimple-faced kid who was on Tucker Carlson? I read he's about to learn first-hand about the legal consequences of slander by Thomas DiLorenzo.
-
Maybe this is Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.h...15-4532a7da84ca
If it is........I have to say I am truely dissapointed.
Apparently a lot of that has previously been debunked. It is also really short on fire for all the smoke. Here is one of many critical responses to the attack piece.
I have known Ron Paul for most of my political life, ever since meeting him in Atlanta at a Libertarian Party convention in 1987. My club, the UF College Libertarians, brought him to speak at the University of Fla. in the 1988 campaign and we have held two successful fundraisers in Palm Beach for his Congressional runs. He was later Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus, of which I was the Executive Director for two years. I know several of his staff, both former and current. In my whole course of interaction with Ron Paul and his staff over 20 some years, there has never, ever been anything remotely resembling the sentiments Kirchick intimates here. The charge of a "bigoted past" is entirely hollow. Ron has many supporters and friends who happen to be Jewish, black or gay; I doubt they would rally to him like they do were this fabrication true. As Paul says, the true solution to racism is individualism. The fact that some indulgent ghostwriter adopted a very unfortunate tone is regrettable; that ghostwriter was rightfully discharged. If anything, a lack of closer oversight is the only legitimate accusation that can be made here. He may have also been wrongly advised to simply ignore the controversy instead of publicly repudiating it; Lord knows there were occasions when something regrettable was published under my name that I didn't write and did little to nothing to publicly correct (coincidentally, one had to do with Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell). Such an oversight is a very minor foible in the person of a man who has toiled so long and so hard for the cause of individual liberty and someone who takes a brave and vital stance against the status quo with his message of free markets, civil liberties and peace.
Charon
-
Originally posted by uberhun
Maybe this is Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
If it is........I have to say I am truely dissapointed.:mad:
Kirchik's just trying to out Paul, so that a candidate that's closely tied with the GOP's current views' and direction will have a better chance. Don't worry, It happens' in the DNC camp too.
Paul's greatest thing going for him is that He seems ready at any minute to chop the ties' to the party, and do his job as to the wishes of the people.
-
sorry for the lack of updates... to break the ice again, here's an endorsement...
Legendary Singer-Songwriter Arlo Guthrie Endorses Ron Paul for President (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080129/20080129006217.html?.v=1)
-
And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a
study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm
singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a
situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both studmuffingots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.
With feeling. So we'll wait for it to come around on the guitar, here and
sing it when it does. Here it comes.
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
That was horrible. If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
I've been singing this song now for twenty five minutes. I could sing it
for another twenty five minutes. I'm not proud... or tired.
So we'll wait till it comes around again, and this time with four part
harmony and feeling.
We're just waitin' for it to come around is what we're doing.
All right now.
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Excepting Alice
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Da da da da da da da dum
At Alice's Restaurant
-------------------------------------------
Ah the memories....is this Ron Pauls last laugh?
If so, I give Ron credit for a lil style....
:D
Mac
-
RP is far from having a "last laugh". Staying in the race till the end, which is doable considering his frugality with his donations, is part of his strategy. I keep hearing "brokered convention" being thrown around, to be honest I'm not exactly clear on why that's a good thing, but it sounds like it is. For Paul, at least...
Regarding Guthries' endorsement, Paul didn't ask for it. Arlo, of his own volition, wanted to let American people know where he stands... I love this guy. Dr. Paul is the only candidate I know of who would have signed the Constitution of The United States had he been there. I'm with him, because he seems to be the only candidate who actually believes it has as much relevance today as it did a couple of hundred years ago. I look forward to the day when we can work out the differences we have with the same revolutionary vision and enthusiasm that is our American legacy.
I didn't see this endorsement coming, but can anyone fault his sentiment?
edit: and regarding last laughs, tonight might be Rudy's....
-
Just because arlo guthrie endorses ron paul does not make paul a commie.
I won't hold it against him.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Just because arlo guthrie endorses ron paul does not make paul a commie.
I won't hold it against him.
lazs
Dammm Lazs talk about Leaps and Bounds... Did I say anything about being a Commie? Oh I get it you were just being Liberally sarcastic.
Heh...funny. In the same sense it doesn't make Alro a reformed independant either.... rather just another burn out.
Ohhh ~Touche~
Mac
-
that's exactly why I posted that particular endorsement. I would have assumed he'd support a dem. To read WHY he supports Paul (in a nutshell, The Constitution) was almost a shock to me, not because of why, but because I wouldn't have assumed that was important to him.
in other news... Pastor Chuck Baldwin has written another good letter, in which he asks Why are Ron Paul's supporters so angry? (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin425.htm)
...if anyone has a right to be angry, it is Ron Paul supporters. But perhaps the greater question is, Why are not all of us angry? No, I do not mean in a cruel or unkind way, but where is our outrage for what the ruling elite are doing to our country?
We should all be angry at the way politicians lie to us, deceive us, and manipulate us. We should all be angry at the way both major parties have completely ignored and trampled constitutional government.
Are we so gullible that we cannot see when a politician says one thing to one group of people and a totally opposite thing to another group of people? Are we so naïve that we cannot tell when a politician changes his beliefs simply in order to garner votes?
Come on folks, let's get real: do you really expect John McCain to abandon his efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? Do you really expect Mitt Romney to be a champion for the unborn? Do you really expect Mike Huckabee to suddenly be the champion for limited government spending? Do you really expect Rudy Giuliani to keep his pants zipped?
it makes absolutely no sense that Christian pastors would embrace the sudden pro-life candidacy of Mitt Romney and reject the proven, twenty-year pro-life record of Ron Paul. It makes no sense that evangelical Christians would embrace the pro-illegal amnesty, pro-McCain/Feingold, pro-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-gun control John McCain and reject the proven, twenty-year no-amnesty, pro-freedom, anti-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-Second Amendment record of Ron Paul. It makes absolutely no sense that Christians would fall for Mr. Big Government himself, Mike Huckabee, and reject the champion of limited government, Ron Paul.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
edit: and regarding last laughs, tonight might be Rudy's....
Giuliani to End White House Bid, Endorse McCain (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4213234&page=1)
nice... that's four down! http://youtube.com/watch?v=hMenB9Ywh2Q
-
by the way, if any RP supporters are seeing these primaries roll by and getting discouraged by the 4-14% showings, read this email I received from the campaign yesterday...
Message from Ron
January 28, 2008
When I started this campaign more than a year ago, I was a somewhat reluctant candidate. I knew our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity was the right one for our country, but frankly, I didn't know how many people today would have ears to hear it.
Well, did I learn a lesson! Millions of Americans understand what ails our country, and what is needed to fix it. So, with you at my side, I am in this effort to win. Not only by building the ideas of liberty, but by getting the nomination. Our opponents would call that nuts -- you know, the advocates of more inflation, more spending, more taxes, more war. But let me explain why they are, as usual, all wet.
For one thing, for the first time since 1952, we are headed towards a brokered convention. Instead of a coronation of one of the establishment candidates, the delegates, influenced by the people, will decide. And I am afraid that this will take place in a time of heightened economic crisis. That means even more Americans will be ready to hear our message. But it also means I am really going to need your help.
One would never know this from the mainstream media, but we've only had a few primaries and caucuses, and even after the extremely important date of February 5th, we will still have more than half to go. And the Republican nominee will not be decided by the popular vote among the "leading candidates" in a few states also handpicked by the media. The nominee will be decided by the delegates. So let me tell you a little about our "under-the-radar" strategy to get those delegates.
On "Super Tuesday," February 5th, there will be 22 primaries and caucuses. I have a hunch that we're going to do very well. But, of course, the media and the rest of the establishment refuse to recognize that. It's the attitude of the small child who covers his eyes to make something scary go away. But we are not going away.
While the media focus on the couple of states they claim are important, we're competing everywhere. And the reason that we're able to do that is because of your grassroots support. You all are an asset that no other campaign has: donors, and activists who want no special deals from the government, just the Constitution.
We're competing very strongly in all the caucus states, and in all other states where delegates are up for grabs. And we're going to keep picking up delegates. Our strategy's already working.
And we're committed to winning states. I have little doubt that if we can double our efforts in this coming week, we're going to grab many delegates from other candidates. Then we'll start getting ready for the biggest moment of all - the convention in September.
The path to the convention is twisty, however. When we were in Iowa, we got 10% of the vote. But no delegates were awarded that night. That's because voters didn't directly choose national convention delegates; they selected the county and state delegates who will make that decision. And if another candidate like Mike Huckabee is no longer in the race at the time of the state convention in June, his delegates are free to support whomever they want. If we work extra hard, we can convert them into delegates for our campaign!
A similar thing happened in Nevada. We won 14% of the straw poll vote that the media reported on, but what they didn't tell you was that we may have gotten up to a third of Nevada's delegates to their county conventions! I always laughed when I heard some people say Nevada didn't matter. Nevada chooses more delegates to the national convention than South Carolina.
So, while the media will focus on the results from Florida, and probably take down the campaign of my friend Rudy in the process, those results are less important to you and me. Let them fight in Florida while we bring our message to Americans in other areas, like the economically hard-hit state of Maine.
We want to win as many delegates to the Republican National Convention as possible, even if other campaigns don't see some areas of the country as "important. But in this work, I need your help. Help me get many, many delegates to this historic convention, by these three methods.
1. Donate. Your generous contributions are essential if we're going to keep going until September. We need, frankly $5 million by February 5 to run more TV and radio ads in the Super Tuesday states. Your help means everything: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
2. Canvass. You can help us identify those who support our message in your precinct. You can help us to convert others, too. After all, your neighbors pay attention to you. I am going to visit as much of the country as I can, but I need you as my partner in your area: https://voters.ronpaul2008.com.
3. ASK others to sign-up on our website. I meet so many people on the campaign trail who don't even receive my letters! I've told my campaign to make communication with you, the engine of all this, much better. But if people don't sign up for my e-mails, that won't happen. If you could just get one extra person to sign-up, that would be great. More would be tremendous.
Help me by forwarding this e-mail to every other Ron Paul supporter you know, and urging them to join our efforts! https://www.ronpaul2008.com/join.
We've come so far, but now the fun is really starting! I have a feeling the mainstream media will move from ignoring us to attacking us. But that will be a sign of our success. Join me as we continue this great movement into year two, and to a hot convention in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. We can do it!
Sincerely,
Ron
-
he has no delegates.. how again will he win the nomination?
I will vote for him in the primaries.. it will be a futile thing but.. I will.
nazis and commies and libertarians and pot heads.. It makes no difference to me.. they support him cause they have no clue as to what he really stands for. they would got fetal if they did (save the libertarians).
everyone likes to think and say freedom and individual rights and small government.. not many really understand or even want the reality of it.
lazs
-
LOL Paul = Loser
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL Paul = Loser
If only your strong character and willpower didn't prevent you from throwing your own mighty hat into the ring...
-
Higher taxes or Ron Paul. It's your choice.
Only Ron Paul Would Cut Spending (http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF)
-
Oh.. I agree that only paul will cut spending.. he has no chance tho soooooo..
we look at who remains and is viable and we take the least distasteful of that group..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh.. I agree that only paul will cut spending.. he has no chance tho soooooo..
I'm not giving up yet, until someone else actually gets sworn in the fight is still on, if for nothing else than to pave the road for the Ron Paul Republicans who will be running in the future.
we look at who remains and is viable and we take the least distasteful of that group..
we've had this discussion. I'm done with voting for the lesser of two evils, that's how we got in this mess in the first place. It's Paul or bust for me...
-
Imho you Americans should not give up your vote on Ron Paul because he "has no chance anyway". Vote for him and make an statement for upcoming years.
-
if paul were president the only way he could cut spending would be to veto the spending bills, and congress could override the veto with enough votes.
this country needs line item veto and term limits.
-
Ya, I never really got that kind of thinking.
Originally posted by Maniac
Imho you Americans should not give up your vote on Ron Paul because he "has no chance anyway". Vote for him and make an statement for upcoming years.
-
so what are you gonna do? write in ron paul even if he says not to?
It is better than not voting at all but not much. It doesn't help billary or osamabama any more than not voting at all but it helps them way better than not using your vote on the republican.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so what are you gonna do? write in ron paul even if he says not to?
I'll vote for him regardless of what ticket he's on, and if he's not on anyone's ticket I'll either write him in, vote Libertarian, or not bother voting.
It is better than not voting at all but not much. It doesn't help billary or osamabama any more than not voting at all but it helps them way better than not using your vote on the republican.
helping or hurting hillobama isn't on my agenda. sure, Hillary scares me, but not necessarily any more than McCain does. They're all big-government hacks who are willing to trample the Constitution to further their agendas. I can't support that, never will.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL Paul = Loser
LOL, this coming from an individual who sucked on his govt's tit for some time off... :rofl
-
The Illuminati did it.
:noid
-
Ron Paul discussed on MSNBC's Chris Matthews 1-31-08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olfc33td05w)
-
"Well there you go, there's a powerhouse candidate for you"
There's a bandwagon argument for ya... And what does she call the highest fundraising of all gop candidates?
What a bunch of crap.. The right stance on issues is which ever most people agree with.
-
News shocker: Ron Paul was biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/news-shocker-ro.html)
-
Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul: A Comparison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmsP95Bl9pM)
powerful stuff...
-
Originally posted by moot
"Well there you go, there's a powerhouse candidate for you"
There's a bandwagon argument for ya...
don't think she was jumping on the bandwagon, that comment was dripping with sarcasm... They'll be changing their tunes after Hillary gets elected.
-
The American Conservative magazine endorses Ron Paul (http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/feature.html)
He is the one candidate who sees how the realities of world power have shifted since the 1990s, the one who recognizes that the time of unilateral American hegemony is over—and can’t be maintained even if it was in our interest to do so. He alone understands that the ever expanding federal government is a far greater threat to American liberty than some tinpot dictator in the Caucasus.
On another note, I'm noticing a trend of conservatives who agree with Paul on most issues, but not on foreign policy.
To them: (from this thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1958341/posts#comment?q=1)): if fear of the Islamo-terrorists forces Republicans to vote for a nanny state, pro-abortion, pro-illegal alien, anti-gun right candidate...then they’ve won the war...
what is a foreign victory if we have no more country to be proud of.
-
I think Ron Paul has some damned good theory going on. He might even get us into a position to save ourselves.
If McCain does not make the general election I will write in Ron Paul.
-
I'm writing him in, too. If Ann Coulter is going to endorse Hillary Clinton, then you know that both parties' have the same agenda-We need someone like Paul to break the chain.
-
SECTION 7-13-360. Place on ballot for write-in names.
The ballots shall also contain a place for voters to write in the name of any other person for whom they wish to vote except on ballots for the election of the President and Vice President.
I won't be able to write-in Ron Paul in my state. Even though I think he's the only one worth voting for.
-
What's that out of?
-
Originally posted by moot
What's that out of?
http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t07c013.htm
-
So it's specific to SC.. That sucks.
-
couple of things... There's a debate (bi-partizan) on MTV tonight. Also, there's a primary going on in Maine today. Currently Dr. Paul is in 2nd place... :) http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=ME
-
How many delegates does the second place guy get again?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How many delegates does the second place guy get again?
lazs
that's a good question, because Maine is another one of those weird caucus states. All Mitt "won" yesterday was a straw poll. There was a vote for delegates that took place yesterday as well, that's where the real meat is but those results won't be released for months.
Did you catch the MTV thing? Was pretty good, they all had a chance to speak, one at a time and without the moderator cutting anyone off. Paul did surprisingly well, and Hillary got SLAMMED! I'll post some youtubes when I can...
-
That is good.. I really hope that paul can take a huge portion of the mush head no nothing young vote away from the democrats.
What they see on mtv is all there is.. that and what their worthless teachers union teachers tell em. Would be a great laugh if paul got most of the "youth vote" especially since he is the opposite of what they think he is....
Well.. to be fair.. the young are really the opposite of what they themselves think they are.
lazs
-
Christian Business Daily endorses Ron Paul (http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/article.php?articleID=12389)
-
Gen. Douglass MacArthur said "“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
from http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/YearEndPresidential.2.4.asp:
Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000.
Our troops want peace, too, it seems...
-
on a lighter note, y'all will get a kick out of this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthdr96EDnE
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Our troops want peace, too, it seems...
depends how you define "peace", Poland was at peace after they surrendered to Germany.
-
an occupied country is not at peace.
-
Huckabee ain't giving up. I don't blame him but it will force us to choose between McCain and Clinton. Oh well, the struggle between Hillary and Bill for power should prove to be amusing.
-
you may have to choose between Huckabee and Obama.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you may have to choose between Huckabee and Obama.
No problem. I like Mike.
-
Obama says he is going to change the country and then change the world.
i know someone that did that, his name was Adolf.
-
IMHO Huckabee isn't as distasteful as the other two, but he's no Ron Paul. Between Huck, Romney and McCain, Huckabee is the most conservative, but that's not saying all that much... I do get the sense that his motivations are more or less pure, which I don't get from McCain or Romney.
If I were to pick a "lesser evil" at this point, it'd be the Huckster (now that Thompson has dropped out...) But I don't vote for lesser evils, principles mean something to me, so that's a moot point...
-
Originally posted by john9001
Obama says he is going to change the country and then change the world.
i know someone that did that, his name was Adolf.
And another one was named JFK.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And another one was named JFK.
And what's the difference?
Wilson, FDR and Kennedy where our worse Presidents.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
And what's the difference?
Wilson, FDR and Kennedy where our worse Presidents.
Whats the difference between Hitler and JFK? LOL
If only there had been a "no child left behind"-policy when you were in school. Then maybe...just maybe those pesky grammar errors wouldnt haunt you now.
-
You need to check your own before you criticize mine.
I don't give a damn about what a Swed thinks about our candidates anyway.
P.S. were...lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
depends how you define "peace", Poland was at peace after they surrendered to Germany.
Anybody care to point out what's wrong with this statement?
-
<<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our troops want peace, too, it seems>>
=================================================
Originally posted by john9001
depends how you define "peace", Poland was at peace after they surrendered to Germany.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by sauve
Anybody care to point out what's wrong with this statement
============================================
don't quote me out of context.
-
No, that's not it. Nobody knows?
By the way, are you seriously expecting people to quote multiple posts so that they can be sure that they don't mislead any readers who can't be bothered to read the thread?
-
OK, the original post said that the troops were giving money to obama because obama said he would bring peace by getting out of Iraq, my obscure comment meant that getting out of Iraq will not bring peace, not to Iraq anyway.
sorry for the confusion, it was late.
-
It's all immaterial to what is incorrect about that sentence. I might as well tell you, but I was hoping that somebody else would point it out. Poland never surrendered to Germany.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Poland never surrendered to Germany.
heh, didn't catch that... I still stand by my counter, however...
In other news, over half a million American citizens voted for Ron Paul today. (EDIT: errrr, yesterday...) RP winning the GOP nomination is looking more and more far-fetched, but for Ron Paul to even get the number of votes that he has is somewhat encouraging, if you take a longer term view. Here's to the Ron Paul Republican movement! Restore the Constitution! Huzzah!
-
Originally posted by john9001
<<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our troops want peace, too, it seems>>
don't quote me out of context.
I would agree to the point that it is time to start bringing them home.
not all at once. but over the corse of the next several years.
I supported the war and still do.
But now they've done their job and done it well.
Its time to start handing Iraq back over to the Iraqis and letting them stand on their own two feet with us helping them along like a parent would help a toddler.
gradually letting them go more and more.
-
Did Ron Paul win many states tonight???
SIG 220
-
unfortunately, no. it's actually possible he could pull off his first win, however. Reports from Alaska (I know, I know...) indicate massive support for him up there. For some reason that state's results have been slow to report... :noid I don't think They(tm) were cool with reporting a RP win on Super Tuesday, so they'll wait till tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Did Ron Paul win many states tonight???
SIG 220
No but it doesnt matter.
the movement is on.
Gotta crawl before you can walk
bestt hing that may happen to the movement is he didnt win any states.
Hillary or Obama will win. And mark my words. The democrates ARE winning the Whitehouse like it or not.
That too may be a blessing in disguise.
Let one of them screw things up even more and even more people will be disgusted with both parties and it will grow even more.
Eventually an independant is going to get in
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No but it doesnt matter.
the movement is on.
Gotta crawl before you can walk
bestt hing that may happen to the movement is he didnt win any states.
Hillary or Obama will win. And mark my words. The democrates ARE winning the Whitehouse like it or not.
That too may be a blessing in disguise.
Let one of them screw things up even more and even more people will be disgusted with both parties and it will grow even more.
Eventually an independant is going to get in
It may be his GOP affiliation that hurts' him, if that's the case. Maybe the time is right for a third-party try. Who knows...I'm still voting for him in Nov.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
the movement is on.
hear hear. I'd be satisfied if, as a consolation prize in lieu of RP in the whitehouse, his candidacy reawakens the GOP to the need to stick by Constitutional principles. The slate of Ron Paul Republicans now running has me feeling less pessimistic about our future...
http://terbocongress.org/
http://lindagoldthorpe.com/Home.html
http://www.tedbrown.org/
http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/
http://www.mcduffieforcongress.com/
http://santoroforcongress.org/
http://www.votejasonthompson.us/
http://www.conscienceofaconservative.com/
http://www.schansbergforcongress.com/index.html
http://www.joinsanders.com/
http://www.joearminioforcongress.org/home.html
http://www.richardmatthews.org/
http://www.panasuk08.com/
http://localpolitics.meetup.com/142/
http://peterjames08.com/
http://www.starkmanforcongress.com/
http://www.baileyforuscongress.com/
http://hargadonforuscongress.com/htd...ticle.php?id=1
http://jayroberts2008.com/
http://www.bryangreene08.com/index.html
http://www.peterbearseforcongress.com/
http://www.murraysabrin.com/default.asp
http://www.senatorcarraro.com/index.php
http://www.davidrgrate2008.us/
http://www.johnwallaceforcongress.com/
http://www.gobrinkman.com/
http://www.mikesmitley.net/
http://www.reformcongress.com/
http://www.daveryon.com/
http://www.diamondforcongress.com/Home.htm
http://www.tomlingenfelter.com/
http://kevingeorgeforcongress.org/home.htm
http://www.jostforcongress.com/
http://www.mckinleyforcongress.com/
http://www.forward-usa.org/
http://hessforgovernor.com/
http://www.jimforsythe.com/
By the way... It ain't over till it's over. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lfQMJtilOGg) (watch to the end)
-
bsdaddict...
Son yer slinky is broke. It doesn't move anymore.
Silly Puddy can only copy so much.
Yer Hula doesn't Hoop.
The last fish in yer aquirium is belly up.
Sir, This is a Dead Parrot.
Ron Paul has as much of a chance of winning this race as much as Fema did during Katrina.
Your like the last NE Patriot Fan believing for a miracle.
So do us all a favor and blow out yer candle Marilyn.
Give us all a break.
Mac
-
Show me a candidate that sticks to the Constitution more than Paul and I'll jump ship. Till then, he's my guy. Is there no room for sticking up for principles in American politics?
EDIT: also, a brokered convention is looking more and more likely. That's worked out in the past...
EDIT #2: btw, the Constitution ain't broke.
-
John Hancock...
Don't worry.. either the sharks will get ya before you hit the bottom....or the cold, cold water will kill you.
Welcome to Reality. HaaaaR
Mac
-
(http://www.kumah.org/blog/Dead_Parrot.jpg)
This Parrot is No More!
-
hear hear. I'd be satisfied if, as a consolation prize in lieu of RP in the whitehouse, his candidacy reawakens the GOP to the need to stick by Constitutional principles.
Ron Paul did all of this for a tax write off.
Prove me wrong.
:p
Evil Politicians...shameless bastages.
-
Mac didn't you rag on Frenchy's immigration a while back? Something about him weaseling his way into residency?
-
I voted for paul yesterday.. knew it was pretty much a protest vote.
I do hope that after he wins no state delegates that only democrats will write him in. doubt it tho.. socialists do have solidarity and... there is no such thing as "too liberal" a democrat.
Not like republicans that get all pissy and have a hissy fit if their guy is not "conservative" enough.. a democrat would never allow a republican to win no matter what.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I voted for paul yesterday.. knew it was pretty much a protest vote.
yeah, but it felt good, didn't it? :)
-
Awesome post by a GOP leader, the guy who coined the phrase compassionate conservative, Doug Wead. Illustrates exactly why I feel voting for Paul isn't a wasted vote...
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/
The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election
February 6, 2008 by dougwead
Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.
Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.
He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.
But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along he way.
Barry Goldwater lighted a similar fire with his Conscience of a Conservative. Its truth and arguments were so obvious and so honest that one laughed aloud while reading it. But Goldwater, himself, was doomed to political defeat. And Ron Paul had no chance to win this election either. One could see that when he first opened his mouth.
And yet, the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan. And when those heady days happen a small but hearty band of pioneers, who first had the nerve to join him and start shouting from the street, “They aren’t wearing any clothes,” will be able to say that they could see what the country missed. They were there when history was made.
John McCain and his poorly chosen words, of staying in Iraq a hundred years, have almost guaranteed that he will be the answer to the trivia question, who was the Republican candidate who lost to the ticket that claimed the first woman and black for the presidency? Another question may very well be, “What other candidate ran that year and launched the movement that has dominated national politics for the last generation?”
And the answer will be Ron Paul.
-
Fun thread over at Hannity's forum... (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=519941)
-
Originally posted by moot
Mac didn't you rag on Frenchy's immigration a while back? Something about him weaseling his way into residency?
I ragged on someone who complained that the immigration policy doesn't work and it takes too long. Not weaseling in but doing the immigration correctly...the same way my wifey had to.
Mac
-
And you'd rather have McCain who'll allow (for no good reason nor benefit) a pretty sizable population of freeloaders to skip that same line you ragged about respecting?
-
Ron Paul National Delegate Count Now 42 or More (http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/02/ron-paul-nation.html)
While much of the focus in yesterday’s Super Tuesday contests focused on preference poll numbers, Ron Paul caucus-goers were focused on securing delegates to the national convention. With dedicated supporters and an organization focused purely on securing delegates, the campaign has secured more delegates to the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul than caucus straw polls might otherwise suggest.
According to campaign projections, a minimum of 24 delegates were won in yesterday’s contests. When added to projected delegates coming from strong showings in Iowa (4), Nevada (8), Louisiana (3) and Maine (3), that brings the total delegate count to 42 delegates or more.
Approx. half the states have voted so far, so, assuming his support stays steady, RP could potentially double his current delegate count. 42 (84) is not a lot, I know, especially considering that it takes around 1100 to secure the GOP nomination. But at this point it's questionable as to whether any candidate will be able to gather the required 1100ish delegates, which means the GOP's heading for a brokered convention, where even 84 delegates can have an impact...
-
bsd.. yes.. it "felt good" mainly cause it was not important and it felt like sending a message.
It would not feel good to waste my vote on him in the general election since the stakes are so much higher.. it would be immoral to me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bsd.. yes.. it "felt good" mainly cause it was not important and it felt like sending a message.
that's what I'm saying... (except for the "not important" part. If we don't vote our principles how's the GOP going to know what we really want?) Voting "for" somebody based (as opposed to voting "against" the Dem) feels good. We don't get a chance vote our principles all that often, unfortunately...
It would not feel good to waste my vote on him in the general election since the stakes are so much higher.. it would be immoral to me.
You're entitled to feel that way. I used to be where you are, I just got fed up with being lied to.
-
Congressman Paul Cosponsors "Combat Veterans Debt Elimination Act" (http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=5238)
If a service member dies in combat and has received Montgomery GI benefits, his or her surviving family members are required to repay those loans.
So far the VA has attempted to recover over $56,000 from the families of 22 deceased service members, with the bulk of the money owed in the form of college loans.
“This practice is an outrage and adds insult to injury to our fallen war heroes. They have given their lives in service to their country and they deserve better than this,” stated Congressman Paul.
-
I missed it, but Dr. Paul apparently gave a rousing speech at CPAC earlier this afternoon. Word is it'll be replayed on CSPAN tonight, if anyone's interested...
-
here's part one of the CPAC speech... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oaD9oM4xQo
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlUc8ip5hc
part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaZsAeMKFo
-
February's Newsmax (http://w3.newsmax.com/a/feb08/?promo_code=291F-1) looks good, even though it's not positive regarding this election. Looks like they'll be covering the impact his candidacy could have on the GOP as a whole...
Republican candidate Ron Paul won't be elected president in November, but his campaign is sparking an incredible movement of libertarian conservatives in the Republican Party.
Newsmax explores the question: Will Paul's campaign, like Barry Goldwater's a half century before, change the GOP?
Paul has become the first successful campaign of the Internet age — as his “open source" online network has raised tens of millions — outstripping the other Republican candidates and even Hillary Clinton's latest tallies.
Adding to the Web magic is the fact that the Texas congressman has been arguing old conservative themes: small government, limited taxation, and reduced intervention abroad.
It's a libertarian message that resonates with millions of Americans.
I'll be picking up a copy...
-
BSD.. and I used to feel like you do until I seen what the results of such thinking got us...
We can run to socialism by letting democrats take the day or be dragged into it.
At this point we can only hold onto as much of our personal liberty as possible.. as little government as we can. voting for paul is voting for billary or osamabama.. see if I am not right.
I am not a martyr.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
BSD.. and I used to feel like you do until I seen what the results of such thinking got us...
when was that, lazs?
-
I missed this yesterday... Bob Barr introduces Ron Paul at CPAC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l8AIuJJRZo)
-
well.. I can't think of one libertarian governor or pres or congressman that I have voted for that ever got in.. nor do I think anyone recalls their names at this point.
lazs
-
Ron Paul On Lou Dobbs About NAU Super Highway Feb.19.2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uWScCy5oj8) - Very interesting exchange starting around 3:20
Ron Paul on CNN American Morning 2/20/08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uWScCy5oj8) - talks about Cuba, staying in the race (yes, he's still in it...), and the future of the movement.
-
Libertarian Party sends condolences to the Republican National Committee (http://www.lp.org/media/article_564.shtml)
Washington, D.C. - Following a solid McCain victory in the Super Tuesday primaries, the Libertarian Party has sent Republican headquarters a funeral wreath marking the death of limited-government values within the Republican Party. The wreath was hand-delivered to the D.C. offices of the Republican National Committee. "We simply felt the need to express our heartfelt sympathy for the Republican Party as they undergo this tough time within their party," says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis, who delivered the wreath.
"Given that it has become readily apparent that Senator McCain will soon be the presidential nominee for the Republican Party," reads a card that accompanied the wreath addressed to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, "we, the staff of the Libertarian National Committee, send our condolences to you upon the death of small-government principles within the GOP."
The note continues:
Libertarians encourage competition within both the free-market and politics. Unfortunately, with the rise of John McCain and the big-spending practices of the Bush administration, the two-party system has emerged as representing only one philosophy - big-government liberalism.
With your loss, the Libertarian Party will continue to move forward to represent those American patriots who still believe in smaller government, lower taxes and more individual freedom.
"McCain's Super Tuesday win marks the death of limited government values within the Republican Party, which had struggled with its principles throughout the Bush administration," says Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "It is a day of mourning for the few remaining small-government Republicans."
:D
-
On another note... In return the Libertarian Party was given a case of PreparationH in hopes that Ron Paul will simply go away.
:D
Mac
-
I sure hope you can keep that sense of humor when hillary wins. Thanks for the bump though... :)
Ron Paul - For the People, by the People (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlx-Tzy670)
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I sure hope you can keep that sense of humor when hillary wins. Thanks for the bump though... :)
I take it you don't watch much of the News lately.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
I take it you don't watch much of the News lately.
hillary, obama... same difference...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
hillary, obama... same difference...
and yer point?
~Touche~
Mac
-
Originally posted by AWMac
and yer point?
~Touche~
Mac
'
my point is that either of them is gonna cream McCain. Keep laughing though, funny man.
-
:rofl