Ron Paul...

Um... we have.

to death.

where have you been?

RB112589 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Um... we have.

to death.

where have you been?

Not spending every second of every day reading every single thread that someone has created, but I appreciate you concern for my where abouts...ass!

Instead of calling me names, how's about you actually start the conversation and not just throw a topic and tell other people to discuss it?

Ron Paul is the man.

ron paul has no chance of winning the presidency....

just thought i would throw that out there...

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/

Nader's a fan.

:thumbup:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

RB112589 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ron paul has no chance of winning the presidency....

just thought i would throw that out there...

He might not, but I still think, my opinion, that he's the right man for the job.

fair enough...

just know he is wasting everybody's time, and all of the money that everyone has given him...

maybe in 100 years when americans have hopefully evolved enough as a whole to be receptive to his ideas, then, and only then, will someone like him have a chance in hell of not only getting a republican nomination, but winning a general election...

This is exactly why he is NOT wasting everyone's time and money. If you believe his ideas are that of decent potential 100 years from now, how is it a waste of time to continue to study those ideas, their strengths and weaknesses now? Paul's campaign has raised what, 5 or 6 million dollars so far? 6 million dollars to spread ideas against wasting trillions on killing people overseas? I'll take it. We'll spend that much TODAY in Iraq. You may not like everything he's about, but to continually harp on him being un-electable despite the fact that he WILL BE the most "liberal" (in the classical sense of the word) contender come 2012 certainly doesn't do your own cause any good. It's kryptonite, really. I don't know if it's more of a dig on the American electorate or Paul himself, but if you ever want any chance of ending the wars, the killing, and the spending overseas to better take care of theh people of this country, your best bet is actually a Republican in 2012. You'll have two choices, a Chicken-Hawk Neo-Con Republican that will surely continue to over-extend the United States overseas causing complete collapse, and / or will re-galvanize the anti-war left who MAY be able to force some change, OR, you could support the only presidential contender in our lifetime to publicly state that he would pull us out of every country overseas, and as Commander In Chief will actually have the power to do so. BUT... It'll never happen, right? Of course it won't, if you want to believe that and constantly perpetuate it. As the econonmy gets worse, and more people realize that Ron Paul was spot on in his predictions about the dot-com and housing bubbles (and hopefully is WAY OFF about his ideas on the collapse of the dollar), I believe only more and more people will start to listen to him and support him. If you haven't already, google or youtube "Ron Paul was right" or "Peter Schiff was right" for proof that these guys from the Austrian School know EXACTLY what they're talking about when it comes to the economy which will only become a bigger and bigger issue for voters.

Ron Paul's campaign is serious about winning the Republican nomination, and if he garners enough support between now and the primaries, he will be in a very good position, and one that is very dangerous to the Republican Party. His support is growing by leaps and bounds, he is being recognized as a top-tier candidate, currently in 3rd place. If he continues at this pace, he may either be the first or second place contender, or if not, popular enough to hold the Republicans hostage by threatening a 3rd party run as a Libertarian. This would guarantee an Obama victory-- he already has far more support that would vote for him Libertarian than Nader had in 2000, and Nader with his merely 1-2% support WAS a major factor in Bush getting elected in 2000. So much so that our boy Ed probably stopped the public support of Ralph for that every reason. Ron knows that this IS his last Rodeo-- President or not, and he's all in-- If you think he owes anything to the Republican Party, he doesn't. If you think that he thinks the Republican Party is even slightly better than the Democractic Party, HE' DOESN'T. They're certainly not different enough that he will bow-out of the race on someone else's behalf, or even support anyone who isn't almost exactly like him. He holds a tremendous amount of power at this point, and will hold even more come November 2012 and it's all from true popular support.

As the neo-cons continue to spout the same bullshit over and over again, effectively stealing votes from each other, Ron Paul can definitely sneak in and steal some primaries. And of course, there's always the possibility of a true idealogical revolution going "viral" in today's world. After all, "No army can stop an idea whose time has come." In the end, there are only 2 choices: Ron Paul 2012, or Obama/Bush/Clone 2012.

Gimmie, you don't have to support this guy and throw his bumper stickers all over your car. But I cannot understand how a principled liberal like yourself sees it fit to continually keep saying that he is unelectable, seeing as how it really is THE WORST thing you can say. I can't tell you how many people I know who love this guy but think he is "unelectable" and that is the only thing keeping them from stepping into the booth and voting his way. It's really pretty sad, I mean, this constant barrage against Paul's "electability" is pretty much Fox News' mantra at this point. You and I both know that you don't have very much in common with them.

I could vote for him on his foreign policy alone.

Just have a hard time with him domestically. He would let corporations run amok and they were/are a huge reason we are in this mess.

MookiesLaw wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

This is exactly why he is NOT wasting everyone's time and money. If you believe his ideas are that of decent potential 100 years from now, how is it a waste of time to continue to study those ideas, their strengths and weaknesses now? Paul's campaign has raised what, 5 or 6 million dollars so far? 6 million dollars to spread ideas against wasting trillions on killing people overseas? I'll take it. We'll spend that much TODAY in Iraq. You may not like everything he's about, but to continually harp on him being un-electable despite the fact that he WILL BE the most "liberal" (in the classical sense of the word) contender come 2012 certainly doesn't do your own cause any good. It's kryptonite, really. I don't know if it's more of a dig on the American electorate or Paul himself, but if you ever want any chance of ending the wars, the killing, and the spending overseas to better take care of theh people of this country, your best bet is actually a Republican in 2012. You'll have two choices, a Chicken-Hawk Neo-Con Republican that will surely continue to over-extend the United States overseas causing complete collapse, and / or will re-galvanize the anti-war left who MAY be able to force some change, OR, you could support the only presidential contender in our lifetime to publicly state that he would pull us out of every country overseas, and as Commander In Chief will actually have the power to do so. BUT... It'll never happen, right? Of course it won't, if you want to believe that and constantly perpetuate it. As the econonmy gets worse, and more people realize that Ron Paul was spot on in his predictions about the dot-com and housing bubbles (and hopefully is WAY OFF about his ideas on the collapse of the dollar), I believe only more and more people will start to listen to him and support him. If you haven't already, google or youtube "Ron Paul was right" or "Peter Schiff was right" for proof that these guys from the Austrian School know EXACTLY what they're talking about when it comes to the economy which will only become a bigger and bigger issue for voters.

Ron Paul's campaign is serious about winning the Republican nomination, and if he garners enough support between now and the primaries, he will be in a very good position, and one that is very dangerous to the Republican Party. His support is growing by leaps and bounds, he is being recognized as a top-tier candidate, currently in 3rd place. If he continues at this pace, he may either be the first or second place contender, or if not, popular enough to hold the Republicans hostage by threatening a 3rd party run as a Libertarian. This would guarantee an Obama victory-- he already has far more support that would vote for him Libertarian than Nader had in 2000, and Nader with his merely 1-2% support WAS a major factor in Bush getting elected in 2000. So much so that our boy Ed probably stopped the public support of Ralph for that every reason. Ron knows that this IS his last Rodeo-- President or not, and he's all in-- If you think he owes anything to the Republican Party, he doesn't. If you think that he thinks the Republican Party is even slightly better than the Democractic Party, HE' DOESN'T. They're certainly not different enough that he will bow-out of the race on someone else's behalf, or even support anyone who isn't almost exactly like him. He holds a tremendous amount of power at this point, and will hold even more come November 2012 and it's all from true popular support.

As the neo-cons continue to spout the same bullshit over and over again, effectively stealing votes from each other, Ron Paul can definitely sneak in and steal some primaries. And of course, there's always the possibility of a true idealogical revolution going "viral" in today's world. After all, "No army can stop an idea whose time has come." In the end, there are only 2 choices: Ron Paul 2012, or Obama/Bush/Clone 2012.

Gimmie, you don't have to support this guy and throw his bumper stickers all over your car. But I cannot understand how a principled liberal like yourself sees it fit to continually keep saying that he is unelectable, seeing as how it really is THE WORST thing you can say. I can't tell you how many people I know who love this guy but think he is "unelectable" and that is the only thing keeping them from stepping into the booth and voting his way. It's really pretty sad, I mean, this constant barrage against Paul's "electability" is pretty much Fox News' mantra at this point. You and I both know that you don't have very much in common with them.

Thanks!