Ron Paul

[Mr. Green]

Check this guy out!

If you are like me then you hate politics pationately because there is never anybody out there worth voting for. You get to choose a republican puppet, or a democrat puppet. This guy is the real deal though. He's not a puppet and you can tell simply by looking at what he says.

Most politicians are career politicians who are afraid to appose things simply because it can hinder their chances to get elected. Ron Paul just calls things as they are and goes strictly by the constitution, and he NEVER flip flops because he makes the right decisions in the first place.

OFFICIAL Ron Paul website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Cool Ron Paul video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TpPeK4JdTuA

This is a chance for the people to have a president who isn't corporate sponsored and therefore corporate owned.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Why even bother running at this point. It's either going to be Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani

 

[bunk]

I'm registered dem so I don't really have any say but if I could, I'd vote for Paul. He does seem like a pretty well rounded person. Unfortunately, he's too well rounded and well...human. He'd never get the nom.

 

[Mr. Green]

That's what I thought too, man. You have no idea how pessimistic I was, but Paul has a HUGE internet following.

There was this ABC poll that let people that were members of the website vote on who they thought won the GOP debate. Ron Paul wasn't even an option to vote on. ABC was instantly assaulted with e-mails and phone calls pertaining to this problem. So ABC News decided to re-do the poll with Dr. Paul as an option. Dr. Paul had a gigantic lead. ABC News tried saying this was because of hackers or something but the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has a lot of people on his side.

Members of ABC News' website posted in regard to the article trying to take away from Dr. Paul's internet following by questioning the evidence of and actual merit of the article. Posts that were totally benevolent were deleted and this is happening as you read this.

Check it out: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comments?type=story&id=3147940

There are eleven replies to the topic as I post this yet last night there were over 400 replies. Clear censorship on ABC's part.

How many millions of Americans didn't vote in 2004 simply because they had no choice? Those millions are starting to see that Ron Paul is the real deal, and those millions can take this election in a landslide.

Have hope man.

 

[Mr. Green]

Uh...

Right...

So um, anyway... How about that Ron Paul?

 

[Demon Within]

Why even bother running at this point. It's either going to be Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani

Except theres also that Romney guy but who is he except the GoP's only hope of winning in 2008.

 

[bunk]

^^Too bad he's got the personality of cardboard.

 

[Manic]

He's against birthright citizenship. That's... ridiculous. I get that he doesn't want pregnant immigrants sneaking into the country illegally, giving birth to American citizens, and being allowed to stay here because their children are US-born citizens. But getting rid of citizenship by birth?

Or am I misunderstanding his stance on the issue?

 

[Demon Within]

^^Too bad he's got the personality of cardboard.

Excuse him for not being cool enough to use a fake southern black accent

 

[Mr. Green]

He's against birthright citizenship. That's... ridiculous. I get that he doesn't want pregnant immigrants sneaking into the country illegally, giving birth to American citizens, and being allowed to stay here because their children are US-born citizens. But getting rid of citizenship by birth?

Or am I misunderstanding his stance on the issue?

Who is?

 

[Mr. Green]

Okay, I see...

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:

1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

This is his six point plan to stop illegal immigrants.

 

[SuperFerret]

So, if we're fed up with phoney, attention grabbing politicians who use propaganda and cheesy ads to promote themselves, we should watch this video and be swayed to vote for him?

 

[Mr. Green]

You should watch the youtube video on the first page of his official site. It has him debating in the GOP debate and see what he is all about. He wants to pull us out of Iraq, he wants to fight a national ID, he wants to protect our individual liberties.

What? You're going to vote for a democrat instead? The democrats dropped folded like a deck of cards when pressured to pass the patriot act because they're all career politicians who are affraid to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done.

I actually remember the democrats in congress and the senate saying, "Well, we don't really disagree with the patriot act we just think it should be changed a little." There were like, two changes made that really didn't do anything to change what the Pat Act was about and they just let it pass. What a joke.

Democrat, Republican, they're all puppets. But this guy isn't. Ron Paul doesn't want to fight for mult-billion dollar corporations, he doesn't want to fight to increase the power of government, he just wants to give us what has been stolen from us: our freedom.

 

[Movies205]

Since no one has given a decent reply in this thread, I might as well throw my hat into the ring...

Ron Paul is the latest figureheard of the internet revolution just like Howard Dean was last election. The problem with Ron Paul is a couple of things, first and foremost is his foreign policy. The idea that if we just pull out of Iraq, nothing bad's going happen. We can not just pull out of Iraq, it simply undoable now, you leave a country in shambles then pull out that's pretty much a whole country that hates you and will breed terrorism. As well as the country falling into a civil war killing thousands.

Next is he simply doesn't seem to play the game. He's far too radical and points too many fingers. Politcs are Politics, it's the way it is because your dealing with a lot of people all with some say in the government, and you need to assuage them on to your cause, I Don't think Ron Paul is going be able to do that.

I like how he's tough on immigration but I was watching an interview with Giulliani.

No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

The interviewer was trying to grill him that he was overly lenient on illegal immigrants in New York and now he's become tough. And he brought up a great point, there was something like 400,000 illegal immigrants in the city with only the possibility of getting rid of 2000 illegals a year, he had to make a choice... WHich was have a ton of illegals poor, starving, not getting education, and spreading diesease or accept them into the city for the safty and benefit of hte rest of the city, and he took the latter and according to him he took one of the most dangerous cities in the US and made it one of the safest. So that question is a tough one, I must say...

Secondly the YouTube video is ******ed, it's just some music to still video, you want know the integrity of a canidate, wait for the smear jobs to come out and the one that can smeared the least, is respectable. Ron Paul not bad, however he doesn't seem to be presidential material.

 

[Mr. Green]

The idea that if we just pull out of Iraq, nothing bad's going happen. We can not just pull out of Iraq, it simply undoable now, you leave a country in shambles then pull out that's pretty much a whole country that hates you and will breed terrorism. As well as the country falling into a civil war killing thousands.

Oh, really? Funny, that didn't happen at all when we pulled out of Vietnam. In fact, most people were pretty damn happy about that situation. This is an undeclared war that will need draftees eventually if we stay there, and it only benefits the rich. Just like Vietnam, just like the Spanish-American War, just like almost EVERY war. People are simply pretending that Iraq is some kind of danger to us.

Secondly the YouTube video is ******ed, it's just some music to still video, you want know the integrity of a canidate, wait for the smear jobs to come out and the one that can smeared the least, is respectable. Ron Paul not bad, however he doesn't seem to be presidential material.

Ron Paul has done everything right. He never flip-flopped, he voted against the "war" in Iraq, against the Patriot Act... Do you really think Giulliani is "smear-proof"?

I'm not trying to change your mind because I know it's damn near impossible to change somebody's political view and it simply becomes an argument for the sake of argument thing, and I don't want that. I'm just explaining my view point. I'm not being drafted into a war so some corporate ****s can line their pockets that much more.

 

[sinewave]

yeah, he's one of the more tolerable republicans in the race, but i can't in good conscience vote for a republican in '08. i'd much rather vote for someone like bill richardson who's way more qualified than 90% of the candidates on either side of the aisle.

 

[Movies205]

Oh, really? Funny, that didn't happen at all when we pulled out of Vietnam. In fact, most people were pretty damn happy about that situation. This is an undeclared war that will need draftees eventually if we stay there, and it only benefits the rich. Just like Vietnam, just like the Spanish-American War, just like almost EVERY war. People are simply pretending that Iraq is some kind of danger to us.

Different situation, the reason we were in Vietnam was to stop the threat of communism since we percieved a communism the same, thus that if we didn't stop it, it spread everywhere. When we pulled out of Vietnam thousands did die, you realize this right? Oh... I get it, since you don't see it on TV, and since you don't hear about it, it's okay. Secondly, you realize that the reason we fought in Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism, under the percieve notion due to lack of communication during the cold war, we percieved all communism the same. And after Afganistan, Laos, Cambodia, and another country went communist... Well it was bad JuJu... When we pulled out thousands died but they got what they wanted. If we were to pull out of Iraq, again thousands would die in the civil war that ensued, and then the terrorists would fund the new government tons of money so that they could have a base of operations, it would become in fact a hot bed for terrorism.

Ron Paul has done everything right. He never flip-flopped, he voted against the "war" in Iraq, against the Patriot Act... Do you really think Giulliani is "smear-proof"?

There's a big difference between voting against something and being the president. And no one is "smear-proof", we're all only humans. However, we need a president who's percieved as strong and won't be bullied around. I'm sorry... That's the facts of life, look at the Cuban Missile crisis. Krushnev thought Kennedy was weak after Kennedy called off air support during the Bay Pigs so Krushnev thought he could get away with sneaking Missiles in Cuba.

I'm not trying to change your mind because I know it's damn near impossible to change somebody's political view and it simply becomes an argument for the sake of argument thing, and I don't want that. I'm just explaining my view point. I'm not being drafted into a war so some corporate ****s can line their pockets that much more.

We're having a discussion, if someone says something that I didn't know that'll change my opinion, I will admit it. However, I don't think Ron Paul can play the game, which is VERY important. Nor do I want another President Bush, who's only strength is, he's a war monger... I like Giulliani since he sees down to earth, smart, and capable of doing what needs to be done.

 

[Mr. Green]

Man, Ron Paul rocked the **** out of that GOP debate last night. I think it's hillarious that Fox News discredits Ron Paul's support. At the debate in SC (my brother and dad went there) you could see the crowds of supporters. Romney had the biggest crowd with the fancy signs, matching shirts, etc and Dr. Paul had the second largest crowd. And hey, it turns out that the text message poll held by Fox News turns in the same results: Romney in first with 29% and Ron Paul in close second with 25% of the votes.

Fox News however discredits this as not accurate and claims that there must have been some kind of internet scheme to do this, although they have no evidence.

But back to the GOP debate... Ron Paul did what no career politician EVER does: he told a truth that nobody wants to hear. There are terrorist attacks on the United States because America ****s with everybody! We bomb the **** out of countries! The CIA even defines this as "blowback". It exists. It's real. You disagree? Take it up with the ****ing CIA!

Tom Tancredo stated that terrorist attacks would be made on America despite our foreign policy because, to some extent, it's part of their religion. By the way, that is a ridiculously ignorant statement. Islam is not a savage, evil religion. In fact, it is quite peaceful.

Giuliani stated after the debate that terrorists attack us because we have freedom of religion and freedom for women. That is also quite ridiculous when you take into account all of the other countries with freedom of religion and freedom for women who do NOT get attacked by terrorists.

The truth of the matter is that American foreign policy makes other countries ****ing hate us. In Europe AND in the Middle East. As Dr. Paul says, if you ignore the fact that blowback occurs, you ignore this at your own risk. What IF China invaded us the way we did Iraq? Would there be no blowback against China? Just something to think about.

I am immensly proud of Dr. Paul for saying the things nobody else has the balls to say and am even more proud that he did not back down. It's about damn time there was a politician like that.

 

[Mr. Green]

Different situation, the reason we were in Vietnam was to stop the threat of communism since we percieved a communism the same, thus that if we didn't stop it, it spread everywhere.

You see, it's NOT different. Replace "communist" with "terrorist" and it's EXACTLY the same. It's simply propaganda to make us affraid, pushing us into war. And guess what? We DID leave. And guess what else? It DIDN'T spread everywhere. Hmm... Who would have thought?

When we pulled out of Vietnam thousands did die, you realize this right? Oh... I get it, since you don't see it on TV, and since you don't hear about it, it's okay.

Thousands of innocent Vietnamese died because of the United States. Do YOU realize this? Because that WAS on TV, and it wasn't alright. And how many American soldiers were killed? And how many more were traumatized for life? Disabled for life? And for what? The "Domino theory"? Please.

And no one is "smear-proof", we're all only humans.

Feel free to "smear" Ron Paul the next time you get some dirt on him.

 

[Mr. Green]

yeah, he's one of the more tolerable republicans in the race, but i can't in good conscience vote for a republican in '08. i'd much rather vote for someone like bill richardson who's way more qualified than 90% of the candidates on either side of the aisle.

I don't know much about him, but I am worried that people will think that just because they vote Dem that the troops will be pulled out of Iraq.

I will bet my right arm that neither Obama or Clinton will pull the troops out of Iraq. The Democrats in Congress and the Senate didn't do anything to fight the Patriot Act and they won't do anything to stop the war.

But keep in mind that Paul has several years experience on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is more knowledgable than most of the other candidates as far as knowing what is actually going on there.

 

[Sandman138]

He appeals to the libertarian in me. I'm still not sure, but I'd like to vote for him. He seems to actually be a Republican rather than a Neo-Con or a hawk.

 

[Movies205]

You see, it's NOT different. Replace "communist" with "terrorist" and it's EXACTLY the same. It's simply propaganda to make us affraid, pushing us into war. And guess what? We DID leave. And guess what else? It DIDN'T spread everywhere. Hmm... Who would have thought?

It's not about Terrorism spreading though, it's about not allowing them a nation to actively be part of, considering that stability in the region is key since most likely the next world war will happen because of a regional conflict in the middle east.

Thousands of innocent Vietnamese died because of the United States. Do YOU realize this? Because that WAS on TV, and it wasn't alright. And how many American soldiers were killed? And how many more were traumatized for life? Disabled for life? And for what? The "Domino theory"? Please.

Um... I'm not justifying the Vietnam war... Your not addressing what I said... We pull out of Iraq, it becomes a haven for terrorists. Perhaps I'm wrong, however it makes logical sense. If we were to pull out, a civil war would ensure, one group would have to win, and no matter who wins, they'd need some type of fincial backing, wowzers it'd probably be terrorist group like Al Quida, or some other group.

Feel free to "smear" Ron Paul the next time you get some dirt on him.

This is a political discussion, whether my opinion is changed, you don't care, and I don't care if your opinion is changed. I'm simply discussing to see if perhaps there's fault in my argument or if there's information I do not know about. So far, I have to say... I think my argument is pretty sound as to why I wouldn't want Ron Paul as president. Though I like some of his ideas, pulling out of Iraq is a bad idea and he wouldn't play ball on the hill, so even if it was a good idea, he'd never get anything accomplished for hte same reason George Bush is garbage, is he can't work with Congress.

 

[Memphis Slim]

RuPaul is running for President??

 

[Mr. Green]

It's not about Terrorism spreading though, it's about not allowing them a nation to actively be part of, considering that stability in the region is key since most likely the next world war will happen because of a regional conflict in the middle east.

American troops were not deployed into the Middle East to stop terrorists. People say that we can't leave because there would be chaos, but what is there now? CHAOS! Do you honestly believe that the people of Iraq actually want us there? We have screwed there country up for the past decade now. It's time to pull the plug.

And guess what? 70% of the US wants us out. It's not the government's job to decide what is best for it's people and the people of other countries. It's the government's job to obey the people.

And if Gerorge Bush was so passionate about the situation in the Middle East, why no declare war through Congress? If you're going to have a war, DECLARE war and then go in there and WIN the damn thing! Otherwise, you just end up with wars that never end! That only benefits the rich. It sure as hell doesn't benefit the poor guys who are actually out there fighting and risking there lives right now. The taxpayers aren't exactly happy with it either come to think of it. And hey, how is our national debt doing right now? And damn, the people in the middle east and all over the world aren't very happy with the war either.

So let's get the hell out!

 

[Mr. Green]

Since Tuesday night, the Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis actually called the GOP to have Ron Paul ejected out of any future debates. Since he has done this, I think it is accurate to say that he has reaped the blowback!

Saul Anuzis said originally:

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with
the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a
distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the
base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC
state leadership meeting.

"Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of
whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful."

Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack."

After being inundadted with call, e-mails and a petition, Saul
said:

"-After consulting with my fellow RNC members, I believe there isn’t
anything to be gained by advancing a petition aimed solely at
removing Congressman Paul from the debates. The primary is and will
continue to work itself out.

"NO one, at NO time, ever implied or said we should censure, restrict
or deny any candidate the right to Free Speech. Specifically, Ron
Paul, who is a sitting Congressman, will always have the same right
as any other American and/or anyone in America has to express
themselves. However, there is no constitutional right to participate
in a party run debate or forum.

"Although my initial response and what prompted me to action were the
Congressman’s comments blaming America for 9-11, this discussion
should really have NOTHING to do with the positions individual
candidates take. We obviously have a difference of opinion on many
issues…and I expressed my personal outrage and let that get in the
way of the bigger question."

After many cries of 'BS!', one from myself, Saul has most recently
said this:

"Ron Paul's supporters have asked me to make a "correction". I
replayed the tape and what he actually said versus what many
(including myself) perceived he said is different. Here is an
excerpt from their letter:

Open Letter to Mr. Saul Anuzis
Posted by Daniel McAdams at May 18, 2007 09:19 PM

Mr. Anuzis:

You wrote on the blog of the Michigan Republican Party today as your
explanation for giving up your campaign to have Dr. Ron Paul silenced
from future Republican debates:

"... my initial response and what prompted me to action were the
Congressman’s comments blaming America for 9-11..."

...I would advise you to edit your above statement on the Michigan
Republican Party website to remove the slanderous suggestion that Ron
Paul blames America for 9/11.

OK...correction:

On the post election session with Sean Hannity Ron Paul expanded on
his position and said "America didn't do anything but policies over
many years...".

I and many others "perceived" his statement during the debate to be
blaming "America"...what he was saying is American "policies" over
the years created and/or contributed to this situation.

I will make a correction on my orginal blog as well.

I stand corrected."

Nice try, Saul.