|
|
|
|
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 3/1/2007 10:09:32 PM | He has great ideas on many things, and, as I stated, I think he rocks.
However, in the state we are in right now, with the war, and all that is taking place, Libertarian policy doesn't do well in times of war.
It would be nice to see some of his ideas come to fruition, though. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 3/2/2007 6:02:04 AM | | I find it amusing that the only way for somebody to be loyal to the constitution acccording to smjle is to completely ignore your first amendmant rights. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 3/25/2007 7:42:31 PM | The corporate media must hate the internet because they cannot control the information people get from the internet.
^
Very true...this is why we get so many internet fear mongering stories .....the media wants to lure people into pressuring for government control of the internet , there by cutting off their only source of free and independant information. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 3/25/2007 7:47:25 PM | A very common reply is ‘conspiracy theory’; anyone that discovers facts and truths that the primary media hides are called conspiracy nuts.
Yeah , I believe that in this case , fact is often stranger than fiction and some will only believe what they want to believe...it's too disturbing to them.
I wouldn't necessarily call it a "conspiracy".....I would call it real politics ....as apposed to the carnival like charade we see played out under the guise of "democracy"
I like the saying: democracy is in reality only manufactured consent | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 80 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 3/26/2007 6:13:55 AM | The following are snips (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods63.html) by Thomas E. Woods, Jr a writer and senior fellow in American history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute
No one quite knows what to do about Congressman Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president.
He refuses to play by the rules. He’s a bigger supporter of the free market than anyone in Congress, but he’s also the most consistent opponent of war. (That the conjunction of these positions – which amount to classical liberalism in a nutshell – should actually seem surprising or odd goes to show how perverse our political system has become.)
Other than Dennis Kucinich, he is the only authentic antiwar candidate in either party. He has won so many awards from the National Taxpayers Union that he’s probably lost count. CNET rated him the best out of all 435 congressmen in the House of Representatives on issues relating to the Internet. There is no more reliable civil libertarian in Congress than Ron Paul.
His conduct, moreover, is beyond reproach. Lobbyists don’t even bother going to his office. If their scheme doesn’t fall among the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution, they know perfectly well that there is no chance Ron Paul will support it.
Dr. Paul, an Ob/Gyn who has delivered 4,000 babies in his career, utterly defies the view of the world shared by right-wing blogs and talk radio, in which America is divided into "liberals" who oppose the Iraq war and conservatives who support it
At the same time, some on the left are giving Paul a respectful hearing, sensing that this is no ordinary politician. A writer for The Nation argued that "this Constitution-wielding contender, who voted against authorizing Bush to invade and occupy Iraq and has steadily opposed that war since its launch four years ago, would certainly make the GOP debates worth watching – and perhaps applauding."
A writer for the Keene Free Press, who admits he doesn’t "normally give Republicans much of a hearing," found himself in for a "pleasant surprise" at one of Paul’s New Hampshire speeches. "His speech, like his candidacy, is refreshing. Paul seems to be genuinely authentic. He doesn't have the feel of a politician. His arguments are substantive, and his demeanor warm."
For my part, I hope Paul decides to run. In a weak field, Paul is a true champion. America is at a critical crossroads. Our liberties have been trampled. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in shambles. Our reputation has been tarnished internationally by decades of provocative foreign policy. Paul is the only candidate thus far who seems interested in reversing that trend. And for that, if he runs, he has my vote.
An antiwar Republican who is also much sounder on other issues than they are – this is not exactly welcome news to neoconservatives.***the strategy thus far has been to ignore him to the extent possible. That approach cannot work in the long run, since for one thing the enthusiasm for Dr. Paul all over the Internet cannot be contained forever. For another, people are going to become curious about him when they watch, or hear reports about, the first Republican primary debate on May 3. They’ll see a bunch of establishment hacks uttering platitudes devised for them by handlers and focus groups, and they’ll see Ron Paul, who unlike his opponents is not only intelligent enough to write his own speeches, but who will also raise questions the other candidates would prefer not to discuss. He can pummel every single one of them on their lousy records on taxes, the Constitution, and war. Ron Paul is about to spoil the party. This will be like no other Republican primary debate in many, many years.
Now that will get him noticed.
Think of how much less interesting, indeed how downright intolerable, this election cycle would be without Ron Paul: a bunch of hacks and drones, not one of whom would make a single substantial change to Washington, D.C., if elected. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani may as well drop the pretense and just run on the same ticket, for heaven’s sake. And since they’re part of the same racket, they both despise Ron Paul much more than they dislike each other – another excellent endorsement of Dr. Paul, of course. | |
|
| |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 3/26/2007 9:31:58 AM | , utterly defies the view of the world shared by right-wing blogs and talk radio, in which America is divided into "liberals" who oppose the Iraq war and conservatives who support it
It is pathetic that people fall for this ploy.
IMO ...a true conservative , as would a true liberal , should stongly oppose the war .....it's certainly not a "patriotic war".... it's quite the opposite , not to mention , it's a massive crime against humanity.
Think of how much less interesting, indeed how downright intolerable, this election cycle would be without Ron Paul: a bunch of hacks and drones, not one of whom would make a single substantial change to Washington, D.C., if elected. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani may as well drop the pretense and just run on the same ticket, for heaven’s sake. And since they’re part of the same racket, they both despise Ron Paul much more than they dislike each other – another excellent endorsement of Dr. Paul, of course.
Good point , ....I think many find politics alot like choosing whether to vote for tweedle dee or tweedle dum. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/11/2007 7:38:30 PM |
Video: GOP presidential candidate would 'reinstate Constitution' David Edwards and Ron Brynaert
Published: Wednesday March 21, 2007
Print This Email This
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a 2008 presidential hopeful, has a "dream."
The longshot contender, who ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian Party banner and has vocally protested the war in Iraq, believes that a Paul presidency would "reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic."
"The competition isn't all that great to claim that title here in Washington," Paul said on Fox News Channel regarding his claim to be "the leading advocate for freedom in Washington today."
Paul was featured on Fox News Live's "Because You Asked" segment, which is based on viewer's letters and emails. The letter, which, according to Fox's Bill Hemmer, was one of "hundreds" received by the network, called for "fair and balanced" coverage of Paul's campaign.
Viewer Shaun Deimler wrote Fox: "Fair and Balanced? Since Dr. Ron Paul announced his campaign for the Presidency in 2008, not one word on the news. Where are the so called fair and balanced newscasts on Fox? Not a peep."
So Fox brought on "the man himself" for an interview.
"I wanna be President because I have this dream, I'd like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic," said Paul. "And I think the Republican party and all of Washington have lost their way."
Hemmer asked Paul why "sub" or "minor" candidates bothered running if they don't have a chance to win and have problems getting their message out, partially due to their problems at attracting wider media coverage.
"Well, there's something different today," Paul said, "and that's the Internet."
Paul said the Internet was where he was doing "quite well," although he believes that it's not fair that smaller candidates don't get the major network coverage that they're "entitled" to.
"You hear only one message," Paul complained, "and the message seems to be the same whether it's Republican or Democrat."
Hemmer sympathized with Paul's difficulties in receiving media exposure, and then ended the segment, which ran for less than three minutes in total.
| |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/11/2007 9:27:57 PM | as long as the American voter keeps getting DUPED into voting either for the Dem or Reps (whether for national or local elections) very little of substance will ever change!!!
both the Dems and Reps will field their respective "company" man/woman, to carry the banner..............both parties are inherently corrupt and most of the politicians are controlled by lobbyists.
if we really wanna make a "STATEMENT" come election day, then we must vote for an "outsider"!..................if R. Paul may be such a person then he warrants further study! | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/11/2007 10:00:00 PM | I have a theory which I think pretty much illustrates the actual reality of "democracy" :
If "democracy" was legit ... (as commonly perceived) ...and there was an actual transfer of power dependant on elections.....the stock markets would go totally crazy in and around election time.....since there would be very real and volatile uncertainty , since logically (if democracy were real) ... there would be two often opposing ideologies with quite different financial policies about to be decided on......
To further the proof ....you can see, from time to time, the real volitility of the markets to events that are genuinely a surprise and uncontrollable ...but... should have been singnificantly less important , than the electing of one political party or the other..that is...if there were an actual difference in the parties. | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 86 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/12/2007 1:12:01 PM | It is almost impossible for a candidate to get elected to high office without the support of the media. The international bankers that own the Federal Reserve and who can make billions with a stroke of a pin or a few key strokes on computer have bought up the media. They finance and support candidates that will do their bidding. Also, with control of the media, they control how most Americans think and vote.
They do not want Ron Paul because he is a threat to their control of the United States money and, in turn, their control of the government. Therefore, for the most part, they ignore Ron Paul. When they do have him on they attack him.
I guess some of you saw Ron Paul on Bill Maher's show last week. Of all the things Maher could have talked about, he chose to ask Ron Paul why he said that the Civil War should have never been fought. Now, I give much credit to Ron Paul for defending his position on this very well, but still, just the idea of not fighting the civil war probably sounded very nutty and foreign, (and possibly offensive to blacks) and to most others who didn't know the "Back story" or haven't done the research that Dr. Paul has on the civil war. For those who didn't see it, Ron basically said that the war was essentially over states' rights, and that the UK and all other countries did away with slavery without a war, and why did we have to fight one to do away with it. This was a very good point. But then a black comedian panelist said immediately: "I am still glad they fought it." and laughed off Ron's position as crazy.
But you see what I mean? Bill Maher, chose to try and make Ron look as if he was "out there". He even used the phrase "out there" describing some of Ron's positions and past statements (without going into detail about any but the civil war thing). | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/12/2007 8:41:50 PM | ^
The international bankers that own the Federal Reserve and who can make billions with a stroke of a pin or a few key strokes on computer have bought up the media. They finance and support candidates that will do their bidding. Also, with control of the media, they control how most Americans think and vote.
.........if this is indeed the case (i would tend to believe it as well), then it is the FULL patriotic duty of EVERY voting american who cares about his/her country to vote for (virtually) anybody else on the ballot other than those who are propped up by big business/media moguls...........at first, it matters little who else you vote for so long as these power brokers begin to realize that their grip on the political system is about break open! | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 88 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/12/2007 9:05:35 PM | ...it is the FULL patriotic duty of EVERY voting american who cares about his/her country to vote for (virtually) anybody else on the ballot other than those who are propped up by big business/media moguls...
If only there was some way. First it is almost impossible to get most people to even believe the Federal Reserve is a private cartel. How could that be because, they know the president appoints the members. Of course they don't know that the president appoints members from a list provided by the cartel. Second most people only want the bottom line; i.e., tell me in thirty seconds. Of course that is contrary to their belief system so, without seeing the evidence, they automatically reject it. It would take hundreds of hours for them to view and read enough evidence to convince them otherwise which, of course, they are not going to do. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/13/2007 3:08:09 AM | I am supporting Congressman Paul 100%, because I understand what's at stake. I know about the concentration of media ownership, and how it affects coverage of political races--including at the local level. I have been actively involved in state and local politics for about 15 years, and I have seen exactly how the political establishment operates.
The dwindling numbers of Americans who do get involved are stunned by the secrecy, dishonesty, and unabashed abuse of public power. It is not just the abuse of eminent domain power or the wrongful imprisonment of some people. The problem is not limited to the IRS, FBI, BATF, or any single federal agency. The problem is that we have allowed our public officials--elected or otherwise--to abuse that power that has been entrusted to them, and that we have not stood by our neighbors when their rights were being violated.
At one California high school, an entire locker room full of girls were strip searched and body cavity searched by a Sheriff's department looking for a missing $20 bill. The bill turned up later, but these girls' rights were unquestionably violated. Hundreds of Americans have been killed in botched drug raids--thousands have had their homes torn apart in search of drugs that weren't even present during the raid. Some have been imprisoned despite never having used or sold drugs.
I'm tired of seeing government ruining people's lives, and I cannot bare to see this great country of ours being destroyed from within. Ron Paul is doing everything he can to reach the American people with his message of a return to constitutionally limited government, and I will do everything I can to further that message.
This is all that I can do. If I could fight harder, I would. If there were another avenue to reach the people, I would step forward immediately.
Over a million Americans have laid down their lives in defense of this country because they believed in an idea. We are in real danger of losing the very freedom that has made this country worth fighting for. Who among us would stand by and do nothing as our nation now spiraled out of control, deeper into debt, corruption, and tyranny.
www.ronpaul2008.com | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 90 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/14/2007 4:57:57 PM |
I am supporting Congressman Paul 100%, because I understand what's at stake. I know about the concentration of media ownership, and how it affects coverage of political races--including at the local level. I have been actively involved in state and local politics for about 15 years, and I have seen exactly how the political establishment operates.
Maxxoccupancy, you obviously have a good understanding of how things are. Unfortunately, there are only a few percentage of people like you.
I know Ron Paul does very well on the internet. However, people on the internet that are interested in politics are smarter, wiser, and far more informed than the general public.
If I get a chance, I will vote for Ron Paul. Otherwise, I will not waste my time voting. It would be pointless. Whether it's Hillary, Rudy, or any of the media favorites, it doesn't matter. They are all the same. They may talk a different talk, but they vote alike.
Currently Ron Paul is running at about 2 percent in public polls. With such low numbers the media is content to ignore him. If he should gain substantial support they will attack him and that is very effective with the average American that is going to vote for someone the media tell them to.
Furthermore, the Republican Party would far rather have Hillary elected than Ron Paul. Therefore, they will not support him and will prevent him from gaining delegates.
I support Ron Paul but I believe his changes are less than one percent. In my opinion Ron Paul is our only hope, but it is almost hopeless. America is already a police state, the Constitution is worthless because it cannot enforce itself, and most people care little for freedom because the natural state is a dictatorship and based on my observations, I expect the United States will soon be a dictatorship and we will probable be ruled by the international bankers that own the Federal Reserve and thereby control our money. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/15/2007 4:07:52 PM | ^
Furthermore, the Republican Party would far rather have Hillary elected than Ron Paul. Therefore, they will not support him and will prevent him from gaining delegates.
......which leads one to ask:
1. if R paul is that much at odds with the republican line of thought then why is he bothering to run as a republican?
2. what makes R paul think that he will have any GOP support if he is not seen as a "company" man by his party? | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 11:45:16 AM | I don't see how you could vote for anyone but Ron Paul or Nobody.
Republican = Big expensive intrusive warfare state.
Democrat = Big expensive intrusive welfare state.
Saying that the constitution is a living document is like saying the laws against theft and immorality are living, alterable documents. The constitution was based on what RP believes. He studies the advantages of freedom over statism. Something we should all do more of. Whether he can win or not, should not be the question.
He is by far the best person for the job. He symbolizes (and votes) much in the way the founding fathers would have back when America was free and respectable. He stands against war and internal state aggression and the nanny (big babysitter) state.
To say that he wouldn't be good while the country is at war doesn't make sense. The country wouldn't be at war if he was president. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 12:08:18 PM | "Whether he can win or not, should not be the question."
It shouldn't be.......but it is the question. Reality must play a role. And the reality is that whoever is President must work WITH Congress to get anything done and Paul has alienated himself from virtually everyone in Congress. His unwillingness to compromise on anything has left him on an island in terms of support....and that from his own party. How much respect can you have for the hero of the little man and strict constitutionalists who is so devoted to his libertarian values that he ran as a Republican.
So the Republicans don't like him....the Dems don't consider him a threat....who exactly would be willing to help him get his agenda through Congress even if he were miraculously elected? The basis of effective government in a republic is the ability and willingness to compromise and cooperate. Paul has shown no evidence of being able to do either. The President does not govern in a vacuum.
It's nice to be idealistic and stay true to your ideology but at some point shouldn't reality step in? He's so old and so unwilling to compromise....and as stated has practically made himself persona non grata in Congress with his "Dr. No" behavior.
Don't come back at me with "he believes this or he'll do that"....I want one of you to explain to me how he'll get anything done.
"If I get a chance, I will vote for Ron Paul"
If you get a chance? You can't even say with conviction that you'll even vote but you expect us to buy your candidate that you claim to feel so strongly about?
"if R paul is that much at odds with the republican line of thought then why is he bothering to run as a republican?"
Campaign $$$ brother.
"what makes R paul think that he will have any GOP support if he is not seen as a "company" man by his party?"
Senility....who knows....maybe he's more practical than I thought and knew he'd have NO chance to win as a libertarian and thought the chances would go up to very slim if he ran as a Republican.
| |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 12:32:41 PM | I'm going to have to disagree, Cavalier. If RP couldn't get anything done due to his uncompromising dedication to freedom, it would be a huge victory.
The whole problem has been gov't action. GWB has been a very active president. Does that make you happy? So, either things would get better or nothing would get worse. Yeah!!!
Second, if all the political parasites saw that RP was getting legs, they'd use it to gain themselves power, just like the welfare state has attracted Obama and Clinton. The message of freedom and self-determination being important would be heard and the trend would grow.
How, just how, could you go to the booth and put an X beside Clinton, Obama or the next Bush? You'd have to bring a bucket.
PS: I'm from Canada, we're not all welfare statists (communists), but I admit most of us vote for a cradle to grave babysitting service. It's coming your way. Keep voting for someone who is popular within the system and you'll get what we have. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 12:51:29 PM | "GWB has been a very active president"
For most of his terms, GWB had a Republican Congress to rubber stamp his activity. Paul would not even have that advantage.
It is easy, when on the outside looking in, to call Paul's likely ineffectiveness a victory simply because he refused to compromise. You have no stake in the outcome other than what you perceive to be an idealistic victory. We have to live here. And I have no interest in watching Paul grind the US government to a halt because he refuses to compromise.
"just like the welfare state has attracted Obama and Clinton."
Come on....show a little depth of understanding. the above phrase couldv'e come out of the Republican handbook. I am fully versed in Obama's views and am active in his campaign. If you've studied him on your own without the help of right wing rhetoric, you'll see he's not your standard Democrat. Heavy media coverage does not automatically imply corruption or conspiracy or that he's the "media darling".......he might actually that rarest of species....the politician who means what he says.
In terms of politcal parties...we have what we have.....if the horrors of the Iraq War and this adminstration's rape of the Constitution didn't give rise to a viable third party, nothing will. So we're left with the GOP and the Dems. So you can study the candidates responsibly and vote according to your conscience....or you can waste a vote on some third party(or in Paul's case third rate)candidate who has no chance to win. You may feel like a rebel or a revolutionary by backing Paul.......but you aren't accomplishing anything.
Dramatic, dire predictions aside.......the US is a long way from the type of gov't. Canada has. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 12:57:50 PM | Not with "Welfare State" Obama it isn't.
Freedom is not right wing, it is no wing. Grinding the gov't to a halt should be on everyone's "to do" list. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 1:09:21 PM | OK I see....you don't want to debate....just want to spit out what you heard someone else say about Obama(a untrue assertion mind you) and dream of revolution. Halting gov't is a great idea for the hundreds of thousands of gov't employees, patients at the VA, elderly who get gov't assistance, the guys from the DOT that fix the streets and highways, the folks waiting on their social security checks, our military doesn't need to get paid or resupplied(wherever they are). Right...who needs government?
You're living in a dream world. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 3:27:40 PM | Grinding the gov't to a halt should be on everyone's "to do" list
really? what EXACTLY is the plan to grind it to a halt? I checked Mr. Pauls web site and while i saw generalities, I didnt see specifics. are we shutting down the FCC? air traffic control? coast guard? what
and as to the 'welfare state' what EXACTLY does that mean? be specific, please. what programs? welfare itself is now limited to five years lifetime maximum and in most states, it amounts to $400 month for mother and child. | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 99 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 7:52:33 PM | Furthermore, the Republican Party would far rather have Hillary elected than Ron Paul. Therefore, they will not support him and will prevent him from gaining delegates.
......which leads one to ask:
1. if R paul is that much at odds with the republican line of thought then why is he bothering to run as a republican?
2. what makes R paul think that he will have any GOP support if he is not seen as a "company" man by his party?
So typical. You cannot understand the difference between those in control of the political parties and the people. If Ron Paul wins the nomination the Republican Party will support Hillary or whatever Democrat wins the nomination. That is a given. They and the Democrat leaders don't want anyone upsetting their little party. However, almost all Republicans would vote for Ron Paul. I'm sorry that you cannot grasp that simple concept; i.e., the difference between the leadership of the Republican party and most ordinary Republicans. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 4/16/2007 10:03:19 PM | ^
However, almost all Republicans would vote for Ron Paul. I'm sorry that you cannot grasp that simple concept; i.e., the difference between the leadership of the Republican party and most ordinary Republicans.
.........what you've described here (at least concerning the Reps) is a political schizophrenia between leaders and constituents whose expectations of one another is largely built upon a FARCE!..........in colloquial terms, what you said is akin to saying: "well, i've been married for 30 years and i love my wife dearly BUT if i had to do it over again i'd have married someone else!"
If Ron Paul wins the nomination
.......since, according to you, RP won't get but 2% of the Rep vote, then this is basically a moot point!
You cannot understand the difference between those in control of the political parties and the people.
....well since you understand this so well then how do you get a guy [who will only get 2% of the Rep vote] to generate the kind of momentum needed to even come up as a blip on the political radar screen!
------------------------------------
lets get real here, if this man's political inclinations cannot be reconciled to that of his chosen party [who has apparently excised him already for reasons you pointed out] then what the hell possess him running as a Rep!.......so he could say the same thing you iterated!!!....that "almost all Reps would vote for him?.......even though he'll get just 2% of their vote!...........hmmmm, makes sense to me! | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
