Thread: What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

To tell the truth I prefer Obama at this point. I mean, he just looks so healthy. When I look at him, I dont feel like I'm about to witness televized cardiac arrest. He's still got colored hair and dark, healthy skin.

Yes, Obama would make a fine president.

two words: CFR puppet.

Watching FAUX news stock plummet in real time might be as fun as watching Ron Paul earn his millions in real time was...

Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show over the next few days as the above image continually drops...

Ron Paul Supporters Claim Hand in News Corp 'Rout'



PWNED!

Ron Paul on Jay Leno (Jan. 7 2008) - Part 1 of 2
Ron Paul on Jay Leno (Jan. 7 2008) - Part 2 of 2
Ron Paul On CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer 1-6-08

well, I cant say I really understand the trend of the news. but I can say that Ron Paul is the breath of fresh air that this country needs. Less government, more thought in to the economy, we need to take care of home.

Needless to say, I'm disappointed to see the results of New Hampshire but I kind of expected as much. Underhanded evil elements pulling out all the stops, as usual. And, just look at how FAUX's news stock magically went back up. I wonder why it went back up despite such open boycotting and ridicule... Evil likes to pretend to have all the cards, but hope is something they can never take away. Only pretend to steal. Always Remember: Don't ever GIVE it to them.... and they never win.


RON PAUL WAR ROOM

RON PAUL VOTE FRAUD NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT SUTTON PT1; PT2; PT3; PT4; PT5

The problem is 'The need to believe' or 'Hope'
Architect: "Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion... the source of your greatest strength".

HOPE...A BOOST OF CONFIDENCE

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

When I look at him (Obama), I dont feel like I'm about to witness televized cardiac arrest. He's still got colored hair and dark, healthy skin..

wtf?

you rock Solskye for keeping us updated.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

wtf?

Yea, that is a very strange comment.

I'm not sure what to think about Ron Paul. it seems like he's just being slandered by some people, but then again there was a lot of weird rascist stuff said by the newsletter supposedly put out by him. He denies that he knew about it or agreed with it. That sseems irresponsible at best.

a lot of weird rascist stuff said by the newsletter supposedly put out by him. He denies that he knew about it or agreed with it. That sseems irresponsible at best.

From what I understand the document was put together by a group of writers in his name - he has accepted responsibilty for not reviewing the content before releasing it:

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

(quote taken from here)

Now what REALLY pisses me off:

"After a careful investigation, I have decided against seeking a recount in New Hampshire. I am confident that not asking for a recount is the right decision."

Pussy. He sits there and talks about "revolution" and challenging the current ways of government, and he wont challenge the obvious butt-f**king he's getting. I dunno, I'm startin' to think he may end up being converted back into a typical politician. Will be interesting to see if they get him to "play ball" with everyone else.

Well they all have some problems in their past. He trusted people not to put crap under his name and it was a mistake. Personally I think its better than the ones going around who did crack and stuff. Everyone knows Ron Paul isn't a racist though. Its easy enough to look back on youtube for videos 20 years ago where hes saying the same stuff he is today, and no one has ever seen him make any sort of racist comment.

I'm pretty busy these days and as such can't make the time to post updates of clips and what not, anymore. If someone could take up the reigns in my absence so when I do have the time I can check without having to research myself, that would be nice. Thanks.

I was hoping for him to win one of the early primaries. It looks as if we'll have to wait until Feb 6 to find out just how much support he has. The answer could either be uplifting or profoundly upsetting.

We should not forget that this is a two-party campaign, though, and the constitution-advocate on the Democratic side, Kucinich, has had, so far, even less turnout than Ron Paul. Ideally, both candidates would run against each other, in a debate over the role of government in people's lives, using the constitution as an agreed-upon foundation for argument. I'm not so optimistic (even though I try my best).

My question is this: if the race came down to the two candidates most disagreeable to us (as unlikely as that may seem), what would be the best thing to do? Vote and hope, or abandon voting altogether because, after all, no choice is the same as no vote. Either way, the influence we have over the role of government (for the next 4 years, at least) would be negligible.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

My question is this: if the race came down to the two candidates most disagreeable to us (as unlikely as that may seem), what would be the best thing to do? Vote and hope, or abandon voting altogether because, after all, no choice is the same as no vote. Either way, the influence we have over the role of government (for the next 4 years, at least) would be negligible.

I usually vote libertarian, not because I think they are going to win, but just to get their percentage up a little bit to make them more legitimate. I did vote against Bush the second time, and I'm still kind of mad I even bothered and messed up my perfect record of not voting Republicrat. But I'd do the same against Romney or Huckabee no matter what democrat was running. I think. Maybe not; I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Clinton. I still have to figure out if I really like Ron Paul or not, if he did actually run.

You're right; it doesn't matter.

It's unfortunate Paul seems not to have gotten the attention he deserves. Shame on the media for effectively making him all but invisible.

I've voted in six presidential elections so far, and so far have only voted Democrat. I never thought I would vote Republican, but I might actually have voted for Paul, depending on who ran against him. Most of all, I wanted him to win the Republican side because then I could have probably accepted whomever won the presidency.

Its actually kind of disgusting what the media is doing. I was watching fox during the nevada caucus(I live in nevada). They went and they listed how everyone was doing, and put all their pictures up and they said Romney was in first, Mccain was in second and huckblee was in third. Then at the bottom of the screen it showed how everyone was doing, Ron Paul was in second place. They flat out ignored him and then lied about second and third place.

It's rather disgusting to see how much the mainstream media still treats these things as "debates" when really it's a mass-marketed side-show created in order to not have to cover Iraq and the depressing truths of a collapsing economy. What's especially surprising to me is how many of you here have no qualms about the electoral system and the way it's portrayed and still manage to have faith in the legitamacy of America's democratic process...I'm not saying you shouldn't, I just would've thought that there would be more skeptical people. People who think that what America really needs is a way to begin accepting the inevitable collapse of its various socio-political structures and how the country should begin living with this - for me, the primaries are the same tired game of promises and personality contests.

Whats scary is all the reports of election fruad, and pollsters being kicked out of election places, voting machines that refuse to accept ballots, companies printing large number of extra ballots and not telling anyone what they are doing with them. Machines which are known to be very hackable, and are being run by people who spent time in jail for drug smuggling. Known cases of people 'accidently' reporting the wrong numbers in elections.

I mean compared to that, the fact that the media lies and and puts out clearly biases reports, isn't as bad.

Why the hell have we had perfectly reliable ATM's for decades that people trust with their money, and we can't make a friggin voting machine that counts accurately? It makes no sense. They could have a printout that was counted seperately by a whole different group people as a double-check even; and if they didn't match, they would know something was wrong. Just the fact that they don't make these machines is suspicous to me.

Well everyone says they are made to be manipulated, no one actually trusts them. They are even banned in some states.

If, however, the voting system cannot respond to the true wishes of the people, whether it is rigged or the people are being successfully manipulated(which seems much more likely), the question still remains: what to do?

Protests and civil disobedience seem like the obvious answer, but I can't tell if the public would even be receptive to such action, or whether they would consider it 'rocking the boat.' Would protests and civil disobedience in response to a telecom amnesty bill be greeted with support by the public, or would they be greeted with support for measures to limit the extent to which protests and civil disobedience can be carried out?

People protest this kind of stuff all the time. Its just not covered much by the news and so people ignore it.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Protests and civil disobedience seem like the obvious answer, but I can't tell if the public would even be receptive to such action, or whether they would consider it 'rocking the boat.' Would protests and civil disobedience in response to a telecom amnesty bill be greeted with support by the public, or would they be greeted with support for measures to limit the extent to which protests and civil disobedience can be carried out?

Unfortunately, probably the latter.

I am behind Dr. Paul 200%.

The other candidates just don't seem to focus on the real issues and instead promote a fantasy life of national health care and quick fixes. They just don't see all the liberties that are being ripped away by our government every time some law or bill gets passed.

This isn't about Ron Paul; this is about the American people, and all the rights they (used to) have. We need Dr. Paul in the White House!

And another one down...
And another one down...
And another one bites the dust