Have you heard about Ron Paul?

[t3rmin]

See this YouTube video of Ron Paul talking about the racism smear with Wolf Blitzer on CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrCXJyWACw

[oseaghdha]

IF only he wasn't a crazy, lying, blimp driving nazi.

I'm trying to be nice, but its not working out.

[tsears]

I watched the Youtube video, and I am personally satisfied. RP seems like a reasonable enough guy.

But unfortuneately for him and for any unfairly smeared candidate, these things work. Remember the hit piece on McCain in the first Dubya campaign? I forget the exact details, but essentially it questioned McCain's military credibility or something. It was complete BS, but it worked!!!

[t3rmin]

Originally posted by tsears
I watched the Youtube video, and I am personally satisfied. RP seems like a reasonable enough guy.

But unfortuneately for him and for any unfairly smeared candidate, these things work. Remember the hit piece on McCain in the first Dubya campaign? I forget the exact details, but essentially it questioned McCain's military credibility or something. It was complete BS, but it worked!!!

Kudos to you, sir. You sound like a reasonable guy yourself. ;-)

Yeah they're trying to get more mileage out of it this time around. But it's come up and gone away before. I think it will go away again, eventually.

Character assassinations against Ron Paul are just so beyond the pale they don't stick forever. Sooner or later they'll have to actually face the issues.

[Winterhawk]

Ron Paul won hands down in New Hampshire. This video uploaded to you tube proved the fraud. Figures on Ron Paul and McCain were switched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6qAGigGYY

[JWSanders]

I wondered how long it would be before that started up. I figured it would at least be for something a little less absurd.

That's obviously an error on their webpage. I watched the results from 3 different sources (one being the AP) as they came in and they were all very much equal from all the precints as they rolled in.

You cannot use only one source to verify anything and expect it to be correct all of the time. Period. Especially not a cheesy webpage on some newspaper site.

The only thing that proves is that some people are desperate to believe anything.

Anyone who didn't expect McCain to carry NH hasn't paid attention to history....

[t3rmin]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a certain amount of monkey business with the vote. However, not to that degree. We lost.

NH just wasn't the bastion of liberty-mindedness and reason like we thought. Or maybe America isn't ready. One thing we do know is we've only heard from 3 of 50 states, so it's not over.

[t3rmin]

Proof Ron Paul is a racist!

Look, he's trying to push her out of that wheelchair!

[oseaghdha]

If its on YOUTUBE, it must be true!

[Winterhawk]

Huckabee, just got accepted into the Council of Foreign Relations. (the CFR is the strong arm for the Billderbergs)

Obama, is with the Tri-Lateral Commission(TFC is the think tank for Billderbergs)

Hillary, was invited to the Billderberg conference in Canada in 2006. (Billderbergs are the masters who decide who will run which country on our planet)

Our Planet is being split into 4 sections

European Union

American Union

Asian Union

African Union

THESE ARE GLOBALISTS AT WORK AND THEY WILL KILL TO GET THINGS DONE THE WAY THEY DECIDE.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes;read=32268

Ron Paul is against the Globalists

[t3rmin]

Ron Paul is against the concept of globalism. He believes in protecting our national sovereignty and respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

It's important to note he is NOT a conspiracy theorist, though! Some of his supporters have some interesting theories (as do supporters of other candidates), but Ron Paul is very down-to-Earth.

Just sayin'... ;-)

[prometheus578]

"What about the supporters for the other candidates?"

None of the recent administrations nor most of the current wannabees seem to want to close the borders.
I wonder who their supporters are?
(That's why Paul is a racist)
None of the other candidates want to stop our massive foreign aid to Israel, amongst other places.
I wonder who their supporters are?
(That's why Paul is a Nazi)
I could continue... but I'm hungry and would rather make a sandwich.
To sum it up...
One must look at the candidates, research what their policies are, who their "friends" are,
what their position has been in the past, and think...
"If I ran the govt., (the way I think it should be run), which of those candidates would
support my policies and which of them will I have to round up and execute?"

This one has a special place in my heart...

[mro]

This one has a special place in my heart...

Beyond SCARY...
Could you imagine waking up in the morning next to that? (XXX)
(XXX = freeked out smiley )

and which of them will I have to round up and execute?"

Two groups are 99 percent responsible for 99 percent of the waste, mismanagement and out right fraud that effects us all.
Lawyers and Politicians.
And Politicians just happen to be mostly lawyers and if you have bothered to read the fine print on anything a bank provides from a credit card, savings account or a loan...it was written by a lawyer. Lobbyists are used as an excuse by politicians why they can not get this or that law or why this or that law was passed. Guess what...they be lawyers too. “Frivolous law suites” that wind up cost citizens meg-bucks are brought to you by lawyers, prosecuted by lawyers, defended by lawyers and judged by lawyers. Insurance companies...run by lawyers.

The wealthiest of the world are lawyers or got that way with the help of lawyers.
BUT, they produce nothing tangible for the average citizen except added cost to everything from the shoes you wear to the food on your table. Lawyers get theirs by taking from others, not by producing anything you can use.

I’m sure many can point to a lawyer they have needed for some reason and think that that one was a good guy. An insurance lawyer defending me for an accident one time made the mistake of asking me why I seemed “unhappy” with the proceedings. I told her because the lawyers for the plaintiff only care is to try to get as much money as they can, you on the other hand only care how much you can keep him from and then there’s the judge (another lawyer) to referee the “law” and not one of you really cares about right or wrong or justice. The plaintiff should go to jail for fraud, their lawyers should be put in the next cell as accomplices and the judge in the next cell for allowing this. Not sure what should happen to you.

This single group of people badly need to be reigned in with very tight controls and monitored by NON lawyers and a very strict ethics code as well as NO secret negotiations for anything that might have the slightest impact upon the public. All judges should be NON lawyers with a strong commonsense for justice, not the law. There is currently no separation of powers in the US. It is dominated by lawyers.

mro
that be my view on politics, imigration, the enviroment, and why ole sparkey be retired

[Bud Manley]

Re: Republican debate

Originally posted by planedick
FOX, and CBS has decided they don't have enough room for all the candidates in the debate, so they just removed Ron Paul and Hunter. Talk about media control....... I think we all should send them an e-mail saying how outraged we are that they pull the political strings and rig the elections. Just a few more feet of stage space????? Sounds like bull***t to me.

I just watched all 18 episodes from the N.H. and South Carolina Rethuglican debates and your right!! Ron Paul was excluded from the events. Clearly those slick corporate fat cats at Fox switched Ron Paul with a complete idiot in a Ron Paul style suit and haircut.
He did a wonderful job of representing the hopes and dreams of conspiracy theorists everywhere. No longer will they have to suffer alone, surrounded by all there loved ones sheltered in their parents basements while seeking solace from internet porn and D&D manuals
I really like the way he went off on all the other candidates calling them War Mongerers because our Navy ships didn't destroy some Iranian speedboats. I also thought it was pretty cool that he can discern the difference between a real threat to a Navy ship since "There were 5 speedboats, A U.S. Navy ship would handle that instantly." and something really really scary. He's got a point there. They might has well have been RUBBER RAFTS.
Clearly The U.S. has been treating the world like a playground. We need to leave Israel and the rest of the democracies of the free world alone to defend themselves and take the beating of the red headed step-child they so desperately deserve.

Ron Pauls answer to the issues in the Middle East. Fu@k em!!

[planedick]

Canadian view

CLARITY OF THOUGHT--FROM OUR NORTHERN NEIGHBOR

Subject: DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN - A CANADIAN'S VIEW

Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy!
Theo Caldwell, National Post (Canada)

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.
This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised. American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president.
This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential paucity evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes the vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are. Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings, dueling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from America's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals.
To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb on the Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review of the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from each party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.
For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of New York City, turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was thought to be an ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the third-highest rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000 convictions. Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts, founded a venture capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder value, and he then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics. While much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist minister, he was also a governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas </ B>is hardly a "cradle of presidents," it has launched at least one previous chief executive to national office. John McCain's legislative and military career spans five decades, with half that time having been spent in the Congress. Even Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed his once-promising campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility, has more experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic candidates.
With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary Clinton boasts the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees. In that time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment of note, and she is best known lately for requesting $1-million from Congress for a museum to commemorate Woodstock.
Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the Senate, having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as Clinton has correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of Pakistan and fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, Obama has shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to hike the nuclear football.
John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as tragedy and farce simultaneously.
Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy. Discard your notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider solely the experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious issue that you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats' experience, rather than that of any of the Republicans?
Now consider the state of debate in each party. While the Republicans compare tax proposals and the best way to prosecute the War on Terror, Democrats are divining the patterns and meaning of the glitter and dried macaroni glued to the page of one of their leading candidate's kindergarten projects.
Does this decision not become unsettlingly simple?