Be careful there Che..these truths make us "delusional" lolthis makes no sense. Paul says what he says because he's from a unique district? are you saying any other politician in a unique district acts the same??
Yes Paul is a politician, but he's the unique one. Name another politician that has not changed his tune one bit since the 1980s. That's 30 years. Add to that one that has predicted the 2008 collapse? Add to that one that does not talk to lobbyists. Add to that one that wants to stop the unfair drug war. Add to that one that wants to stop the illegal wars abroad. Add to that one that wants to protect the civil liberties of all citizens. Add to that one that wants to audit the Fed.
not a single one.
Idaho 18.1%
Michigan 11.6%
Illinois 9.3%
Wisconsin 11.2%
Maryland 9.5%
Missouri 12.2%
In short, the media is covering the winners.
plenty of love from the media for Dr. Paul's amazing deed in Berkley
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...l-speaks-ucla/
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/234884.html
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_20331753...e=most_emailed
http://www.examiner.com/community-ac...ndance-at-ucla
http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-berkley-republican-476/
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...cal&id=8609883
Ronald Reagan, the golden calf of the GOP, called it "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants." At the University of California, Berkley this week, though, students showed up in droves to support a Republican: Ron Paul.
Anti-war protests during the Vietnam era and mass gatherings during the Free Love movement made UC Berkley not just an unofficial hub of the hippie counterculture but also an opponent of the right-wing establishment during the 1960s and ‘70s. Only a few decades down the road, however, students enrolled at the same college that then-Governor Ronald Reagan dispatched the National Guard to are showing their support for a Republican Party presidential candidate.
Although the GOP has changed since the days of the Gipper — to a degree, at least — to say that the Republican Party would one day spawn a candidate so well condoned by Berkley students would have baffled the ins ution years earlier. Like his Republican Party rivals, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is indeed campaigning for the right. With college students at one of the most notoriously liberal schools of learning in the US, though, there’s a lot right about their candidate of choice.
http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-berkley-republican-476/
The same as in they get away with making statements that go against the grain? Of course. Exactly like Paul? No, but thats your strawman not my argumetn.this makes no sense. Paul says what he says because he's from a unique district? are you saying any other politician in a unique district acts the same??
LOL @ not changed his tune since the 80s.Yes Paul is a politician, but he's the unique one. Name another politician that has not changed his tune one bit since the 1980s. That's 30 years. Add to that one that has predicted the 2008 collapse? Add to that one that does not talk to lobbyists. Add to that one that wants to stop the unfair drug war. Add to that one that wants to stop the illegal wars abroad. Add to that one that wants to protect the civil liberties of all citizens. Add to that one that wants to audit the Fed.
not a single one.
Ron Paul on climate change as recently as 2008 openly acknowledged that science pointed to humanity playing a significant role in the process.
Ron Paul, on Fox News (one of the media channels that ignores him) saying Global Warming is a hoax. (7:00 minute mark).
So, here you have Ron Paul completely flip flopping on an issue in a direct effort to pander to GOP viewers of Fox News. In other words, he's being a politician in the exact way you claim he never does. Ron Paul will act just like every other politician if he feels he needs to do that.
If you need more proof of that, look no further than earmarks. You absolutely do not get to stand up for something out of one side of your mouth and then say something completely out of the other. Here is a plain as day opportunity for Ron Paul to show that he's more substance than talk and actually put his money where his mouth is and he doesn't. WHY? Because it would cost him his seat. He puts the political choice of getting reelected above his principles just like any other politician. You guys making him out to some sort of saint above that are simply completely wrong.
As for the rest of the issues, if you think Paul is the only one standing against those then you're simply wrong again.
Its cool that you guys support Paul. I don't have a problem with that. Its your unrealistic view of his support, potential influence, and "uniqueness" that I feel is wrong.
You see, its one thing to speak out on things and go against the mainstream when it realistically doesn't cost you votes at home in your district. He's never going to lose an election at home by saying about the Fed, wars abroad, or anything else you guys love him for. However, the moment he took a principled stand against ear marks and refused to take them for his district those who lost out would be the first to bring about a primary challenge. He would be out of his seat in the next election. Of that there is NO doubt.
Ron Paul on immigration certainly hasn't been consistent either.
So you don't have another candidate that has been anti-drugwar, anti-war, anti-Fed, pro-liberty, anti-lobby and predicted the 2008 financial collapse?
ok, thanks.
wrong again, he hasnt changed his tune. From his website, he's still singing the same tuneLOL @ not changed his tune since the 80s.
So, here you have Ron Paul completely flip flopping on an issue in a direct effort to pander to GOP viewers of Fox News. In other words, he's being a politician in the exact way you claim he never does. Ron Paul will act just like every other politician if he feels he needs to do that.
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.
Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.
It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.
The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Cons ution, but our natural resources as well.
We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.
Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”
After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:
“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009
“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009Failure again. Try to reason: Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his cons uents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his cons uents should get their share.If you need more proof of that, look no further than earmarks. You absolutely do not get to stand up for something out of one side of your mouth and then say something completely out of the other.
again which candidate is running against war, against drug war, agains NDAA, pro audit the FED? which one??As for the rest of the issues, if you think Paul is the only one standing against those then you're simply wrong again.
thanksIts cool that you guys support Paul. I don't have a problem with that. Its your unrealistic view of his support, potential influence, and "uniqueness" that I feel is wrong.
I guess it's also cool some guys support Barack the warmonger Obama. Who is currently serving Bush term #3 and is Wall Street's and the banker's #1 guy
You think I support Obama?
who do you support?
Honestly? None of them. I've made my complete distaste for nearly everything Obama has done incredibly clear over the past couple of years. If you haven't noticed then I don't know what to tell you but it has definitely been no secret.
I do wonder sometimes if being burned so bad by him has made me cynical to a that I've overreacted. I suppose someone could come around and pleasantly surprise me and turn out to be an actual leader but I'm not holding my breath and given the education level and outlook of this country I don't see that happening. In any event, I definitely do not believe that to be Ron Paul because I do not think he is the man you make him out to be but judging by poll numbers that is an irrelevant discussion since he has no real chance of becoming president.
I don't like defending Manny, but this is correct.
Now I know I'm wrong. .
LOL...
I get under your nerves, even when I try to be nice.... ...
So it seems you voted for Obama last time around? I give a 90% chance you'll be doing the same or not voting at all in November.
it's not happening because it is April and the table has been set for an Obamney presidency. There is almost no chance of anybody else coming up.I do wonder sometimes if being burned so bad by him has made me cynical to a that I've overreacted. I suppose someone could come around and pleasantly surprise me and turn out to be an actual leader but I'm not holding my breath and given the education level and outlook of this country I don't see that happening.
So I take it you are either pro-war, pro-drugwar, pro-Fed, pro-NDAA, pro-spending or all of the above?In any event, I definitely do not believe that to be Ron Paul because I do not think he is the man you make him out to be but judging by poll numbers that is an irrelevant discussion since he has no real chance of becoming president.
Over 90% of the people at Ron Paul rallies won't actually vote for Paul.
Hey, I give it a 90% chance that will either be sunny and dry tomorrow or rainy and wet!!!!!!!
Maybe you could try not pairing two completely different things and actually make a point.
it's not happening because it is April and the table has been set for an Obamney presidency. There is almost no chance of anybody else coming up.
So I take it you are either pro-war, pro-drugwar, pro-Fed, pro-NDAA, pro-spending or all of the above?
I try to have an honest discussion with you and this is the bull you come up with? SMH, this is the exact I'm talking about.
Che is from the "Apples, Parachutes, and Cray Supercomputers" school of catagorical syllogism.
In all seriousness though. I cannot be convinced that Obama is a good President. He's a damn war monger and he did it illegally. Lives have been lost. Others can spare me the bs of the "innocent casualties from war are inevitable" because the wars should not have started to begin with. You see the video I posted of the children in Lybia with arms and legs and jaws blown up.
It is unbeliveable to me they gave this fraud the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not to mention the terrible NDAA and others Bills this fraud signed that took American rights away. And his damn cowardliness when ever coming to battle against the Republicans.
him! He was "supposed" to change things, instead he's having more war than that pos Bush.
Say what you want about Edwards, but Edwards did warn that you had to fight these Republican bas s, that you couldn't compromise or nice them to death. Obama openly disagreed, and look what's happened. Simply pathetic.
I support RP because he is the most trusted, the most honest, and most importantly... ANTI corrupt system. At some point in our lives or our children's lives the Dem and Repub system needs to come down. I might as well back that movement now instead of being part of the problem of supporting that very corrupt system.
RP may not win right now, but the bigger picture is the movement. And you better believe there is a movement.
But to vote against a bill that you are filling with pork...
Nobody wants your endorsement. That should tell you something. You should be so proud that people take what you say and immediately consider it nonsense. it may be jumping to conclusions but with you its most likely to be correct.
yeah, you really came in here to have an honest discussion:
that sounds like a great, phylosophical, honest discussion all rightPeople can convince themselves of anything, I suppose.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
